A good example of "MDI" vs "Not an MDI" would be: Opera vs Firefox. Look into it. Don't think of an MDI as taking up more space, think of it as taking up less space, and all becomes clear:)
Look at the list in the article. What do (nearly, at least. I havent used all of these recently)all these programs have in common? The people who actually use software to do things have spoken: MDIs are good.
another post in this thread goes into more detail.
I've seen this "MDIs don't work with multiple desktops" and "MDIs don't work with multiple monitors" throughout this thread. Could you elaborate on these statements? I use multiple monitors, and don't use multiple desktops because of the exact problems MDIs solve.
With an MDI, one application does not take up the whole screen. I actually find it much easier to display multiple windows when each one is contained. Rather than having thousands of micro-windows hiding either themselves or peices of other windows, I have one window which I can easily position in such a way that I can see more at once. Why would I want to ignore another application I've opened?
Sometimes there is a specific application I don't want to see at the moment. I will either collapse it or minimize it. It is much more often that there is one application I have open but don't want to use than it is I have a bunch of things open at once that are so unrelated I don't want to look at them all at the same time. If you're not using it, why is it open?
As for "if the window manager changes...", that's circular reasoning. "I am not using MDI because" : "OSS does not use MDI because the OSS graphical environment OSS people use does not have any support for MDI applications"
Though admittedly, I have never used a window manager which I was completely satisfied with. GWM is what I've liked the most, because I have no one to blame but myself:)
If you can reccomend something which will completely change my view of the world, go ahead, I'd love a good wm. I've tried quite a few and hated them all.
But really this is my point: Most WMs are not good at providing enough application-specific logic, so why should we rely on the wm for that kind of thing? If they actually managed windows well, sure, great, but if they don't, shouldnt the applications work to pick up the slack?
I don't remember a time that I did not have a computer. A "first computer" is not special anymore. This is a good thing. Do you remember your first pair of shoes? Your first book?
Of course, I remember my first modem (1kbps! woo!), but hopefully the next generation won't have fond memories of that, either.
Do you remember your first implant?
Do you remember the first time you entered the global superconciousness?
It implies that the moderator doesnt understand the sort order they are using. There are many moderation options for stupid posts (some of which have been employed on this very thread!), but "redundant" is not one of them.
I actually do remember (mildly) the Mario show. It was one of those things that I was aware of, but was never home at the exact time it was on- it was always a treat those two or three times I actually got to see it.
I also vaguely recall a show where a kid with a zapper.. did somethingorother. Nintendo pretty much ruled the world at one point, I guess.
There is a sharp contrast between "drug-induced giggling wank" and "absurdism". They are unrelated concepts. Just because you smoke too much before giggling and wanking to dada doesnt mean that "the absurd" is about your own personal giggling and wanking.
I found this a few days ago on google video and assumed it was some animation student's perverted joke. I really had never heard of this show at all, but it was so obviously a drug-induced giggling wank. But it was actually real? It was intended as a children's show? wtf?
I disagree. I believe that anyone who uses GPL'd code I write for their device should provide an "allow untrusted code" button. Requiring a digital signature is a secure and good thing to do. Disallowing a consumer to say "okay, but my own signature is okay too."(allowing a suitable number of secure hoops being jumped through) is a bad thing to do.
This isn't about requiring you to give out your private keys, this is about allowing the device to accept a different public key from the one originally shipped. I think this is where the confusion lies.
Other arguments about 'this is not the place to fight this battle' are valid and correct. I disagree, partially, but they are valid, and as the option exists to simply stay with GPLv2, nothing wrong with them.
Saying "you can't use any means, be they based in anything including (but not limited to) software, hardware, physics, or the law, to restrict the ability of others to create copies of the GPLd item they have recieved, or the ability to modify the GPLd item in order for it to operate in any manner different from its original purpose." Is fine by me, and the purpose of the GPL. Saying "you can't modify this program in such a way that it attempts to put restrictions on another program" is entirely contrary to the GPL, and in that GPLv3 is bad.
so: Saying you can _always_ legally "circumvent" a GPLd program is good, but saying you can't even try to make something which can then have reason to be circumvented is bad. So long as no means (be they yada, yada, or yada..) are employed to attempt to make circumvention/through modification of the program/ difficult. (okay to make it difficult to circumvent an unmodified program, not okay to make it difficult to take out the ALLOW_PIRACY=FALSE).
And that is why saying "you need to allow people to use their own keys" is a good thing. If you deny people the right to modify the software they have recieved, it is no longer GPL.
This is really surprising, considering God of War was nothing but one continuous barely-interactive cutscene. (all the gameplay of a slide projector, woo-hoo!)
This is not a troll. Have you played God of War? At what point did you think you were playing a "game" instead of sitting through a cutscene? I am not talking about cinematics, I am not talking about scripted events, I am talking about the game itself. The "game" was a cutscene.
"The _default_ is to not allow conversion." and "The _default_ is not to allow conversion."
have completely seperate meanings. One says what the default/is/, the other says only what the default/isn't/.
'more correct' might be: "The _default_ is to disallow conversion."
but here it is clear that "not allow" is being used as another way of saying "disallow" (for something as all-or-nothing as "allow", these are synonyms. [synophrases? whatever])
I don't know how "proving damages" works. do you need to prove the total amount lost, or the net amount lost? If the MPAA gave 30 copies of a movie which those people would otherwise have each had to pay $5 to see (and which, given the content, it would have been in their best interest to go see), that's $150 feasibly "lost". But if the publicity of that loss causes 31 more people to see the movie, who otherwise would not have seen it, that's $5/gained/.
But then, it wasnt their actions which caused the net-gain, it was someone else reporting on their actions. Hard to argue for that, since it's doubtful the MPAA would go to lengths to show off their crime.
"Never On" is much better than "Not Always On". Spyware doesnt detect when you go offline and decide "I guess this isn't a target.. I'll uninstall myself.", so the only way that argument would be valid would be for incomming connections (not that it's valid, since five seconds is "long enough" to get infected)
as an unrelated note, Firefox did not launch a wmf file soon after that wmf vulnerability news became widespread. Instead, it just gave a "do you want to save this file?" dialog. Aren't I lucky that WMF isn't one of the formats that firefox defaults to launching automatically without any configuration options to disable it? Firefox is a safe browser because wmv, which firefox/does/ launch automatically and has no way to disable to automatic launching of (1.5), can never and will never have any vulnerabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
A good example of "MDI" vs "Not an MDI" would be: Opera vs Firefox. Look into it. Don't think of an MDI as taking up more space, think of it as taking up less space, and all becomes clear :)
Look at the list in the article. What do (nearly, at least. I havent used all of these recently)all these programs have in common?
The people who actually use software to do things have spoken: MDIs are good.
another post in this thread goes into more detail.
I've seen this "MDIs don't work with multiple desktops" and "MDIs don't work with multiple monitors" throughout this thread. Could you elaborate on these statements?
:)
I use multiple monitors, and don't use multiple desktops because of the exact problems MDIs solve.
With an MDI, one application does not take up the whole screen. I actually find it much easier to display multiple windows when each one is contained. Rather than having thousands of micro-windows hiding either themselves or peices of other windows, I have one window which I can easily position in such a way that I can see more at once. Why would I want to ignore another application I've opened?
Sometimes there is a specific application I don't want to see at the moment. I will either collapse it or minimize it. It is much more often that there is one application I have open but don't want to use than it is I have a bunch of things open at once that are so unrelated I don't want to look at them all at the same time. If you're not using it, why is it open?
As for "if the window manager changes...", that's circular reasoning. "I am not using MDI because" : "OSS does not use MDI because the OSS graphical environment OSS people use does not have any support for MDI applications"
Though admittedly, I have never used a window manager which I was completely satisfied with. GWM is what I've liked the most, because I have no one to blame but myself
If you can reccomend something which will completely change my view of the world, go ahead, I'd love a good wm. I've tried quite a few and hated them all.
But really this is my point: Most WMs are not good at providing enough application-specific logic, so why should we rely on the wm for that kind of thing? If they actually managed windows well, sure, great, but if they don't, shouldnt the applications work to pick up the slack?
Please, for the love of god, Learn the concept of an MDI.
I have not seen a single OSS (GUI) application which uses this basic interface concept.
I'm sure this is a religious issue, but I've not actually seen the arguments against MDIs.
Virus != Worm
Those who questioned the validity of this claim could not be reached for comment.
I don't remember a time that I did not have a computer. A "first computer" is not special anymore. This is a good thing.
Do you remember your first pair of shoes? Your first book?
Of course, I remember my first modem (1kbps! woo!), but hopefully the next generation won't have fond memories of that, either.
Do you remember your first implant?
Do you remember the first time you entered the global superconciousness?
It implies that the moderator doesnt understand the sort order they are using. There are many moderation options for stupid posts (some of which have been employed on this very thread!), but "redundant" is not one of them.
A first post is modded redundant. Moderators sure are smart.
"Captain N" sounds familiar. The one episode I saw part of, something was going on with madusa. I did not recognize the game at all.
see for yourself:
8 546733953&q=cartoon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=172901233
I actually do remember (mildly) the Mario show. It was one of those things that I was aware of, but was never home at the exact time it was on- it was always a treat those two or three times I actually got to see it.
I also vaguely recall a show where a kid with a zapper.. did somethingorother.
Nintendo pretty much ruled the world at one point, I guess.
There is a sharp contrast between "drug-induced giggling wank" and "absurdism". They are unrelated concepts. Just because you smoke too much before giggling and wanking to dada doesnt mean that "the absurd" is about your own personal giggling and wanking.
I found this a few days ago on google video and assumed it was some animation student's perverted joke. I really had never heard of this show at all, but it was so obviously a drug-induced giggling wank.
But it was actually real? It was intended as a children's show? wtf?
Now I just need a laptop and a steady $60!
I disagree.
/through modification of the program/ difficult. (okay to make it difficult to circumvent an unmodified program, not okay to make it difficult to take out the ALLOW_PIRACY=FALSE).
I believe that anyone who uses GPL'd code I write for their device should provide an "allow untrusted code" button.
Requiring a digital signature is a secure and good thing to do. Disallowing a consumer to say "okay, but my own signature is okay too."(allowing a suitable number of secure hoops being jumped through) is a bad thing to do.
This isn't about requiring you to give out your private keys, this is about allowing the device to accept a different public key from the one originally shipped. I think this is where the confusion lies.
Other arguments about 'this is not the place to fight this battle' are valid and correct. I disagree, partially, but they are valid, and as the option exists to simply stay with GPLv2, nothing wrong with them.
Saying "you can't use any means, be they based in anything including (but not limited to) software, hardware, physics, or the law, to restrict the ability of others to create copies of the GPLd item they have recieved, or the ability to modify the GPLd item in order for it to operate in any manner different from its original purpose." Is fine by me, and the purpose of the GPL.
Saying "you can't modify this program in such a way that it attempts to put restrictions on another program" is entirely contrary to the GPL, and in that GPLv3 is bad.
so: Saying you can _always_ legally "circumvent" a GPLd program is good, but saying you can't even try to make something which can then have reason to be circumvented is bad. So long as no means (be they yada, yada, or yada..) are employed to attempt to make circumvention
And that is why saying "you need to allow people to use their own keys" is a good thing. If you deny people the right to modify the software they have recieved, it is no longer GPL.
Duh.
"computers can still be usefull without an internet connection to the outside world."
Hahahahahahahaaha!
This is really surprising, considering God of War was nothing but one continuous barely-interactive cutscene. (all the gameplay of a slide projector, woo-hoo!)
This is not a troll. Have you played God of War? At what point did you think you were playing a "game" instead of sitting through a cutscene?
I am not talking about cinematics, I am not talking about scripted events, I am talking about the game itself. The "game" was a cutscene.
that's Entropic Cascade Failure, n00b! [not to be confused with "Resonance Cascade", of course]
Quantum Mirror == Instancing :)
I wonder how many lines of my post you read before deciding the rest of it couldnt possibly have brought up that issue.
/did/ bring up that issue. It offered an argument both in support of that mindset, and one against it.
:)
Unfortunatly for your post, the rest of my post
"Off-Topic" is a classification, not a rating. What's with this "off-topic -1" crap?
"The _default_ is to not allow conversion."
/is/, the other says only what the default /isn't/.
and
"The _default_ is not to allow conversion."
have completely seperate meanings. One says what the default
'more correct' might be:
"The _default_ is to disallow conversion."
but here it is clear that "not allow" is being used as another way of saying "disallow" (for something as all-or-nothing as "allow", these are synonyms. [synophrases? whatever])
Seekers of conclusions, turn ye back.
/gained/.
I don't know how "proving damages" works. do you need to prove the total amount lost, or the net amount lost? If the MPAA gave 30 copies of a movie which those people would otherwise have each had to pay $5 to see (and which, given the content, it would have been in their best interest to go see), that's $150 feasibly "lost".
But if the publicity of that loss causes 31 more people to see the movie, who otherwise would not have seen it, that's $5
But then, it wasnt their actions which caused the net-gain, it was someone else reporting on their actions. Hard to argue for that, since it's doubtful the MPAA would go to lengths to show off their crime.
difficult to defend yourself when a single, neutral, purely fact-based position is considered ultra liberal.
"Never On" is much better than "Not Always On".
/does/ launch automatically and has no way to disable to automatic launching of (1.5), can never and will never have any vulnerabilities.
Spyware doesnt detect when you go offline and decide "I guess this isn't a target.. I'll uninstall myself.", so the only way that argument would be valid would be for incomming connections (not that it's valid, since five seconds is "long enough" to get infected)
as an unrelated note, Firefox did not launch a wmf file soon after that wmf vulnerability news became widespread. Instead, it just gave a "do you want to save this file?" dialog. Aren't I lucky that WMF isn't one of the formats that firefox defaults to launching automatically without any configuration options to disable it?
Firefox is a safe browser because wmv, which firefox