Sure, content is king, but surfers want to experience attractive websites. I understand the importance of lean pages, but I think that Nielsen overemphasizes this too much--this design need will become less important as bandwidth increases.
I asked this question here:"How are usability and aesthetics related, if at all? "
I'm disappointed the question wasn't answered. It would have been interesting to hear what he thought. I do think that usability and aesthetics are strongly related, that the aesthetics of a site are part of the usability of a site. What users really want are good experiences from a site, and content, loading time, organisation and visual appeal are part of the whole.
. All your libraries are on the C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM directory. Everyone has their own copy of the Registry that points to where things are located. If you want to install a piece of software, in most cases you have to install it locally, or at least all the DLL files are local. Hence, if you have 1,000 people on the network using MS Word, you end up with 1,000 identical copies of MS Word instaled! If you want to upgrade software for all those users, you have to do it 1,000 times.
This is absolute rubbish. How did this post get moderated up so high?
"Those who do not understand Windows are condemned to criticize it, poorly"
The reasons for shutting Balch down are related to the fact that the number of people using the facility has steadily decreased, to the point where the university is (nearly?) losing money just by keeping the doors open.
You've repeated what I've just said.
Of course ResNet exists (anywhere) to help attract students to the dorms. That does not change the fact that it is an expensive and difficult service to deploy and maintain properly. Charging a fee for those who wish to use that service, in order to recover initial and ongoing costs, is totally reasonable.
Yes, of course. But since we've established that the university provides Resnet for its own benefit and not out of any kindness or generosity, it's perfectly reasonable for students to demand a certain level of service. (and I seriously doubt that the university isn't making a profit from the Resnet fee alone, without taking into consideration the other benefits that it brings them).
General slowness. When one window is rendering, all the other mozilla windows seem to lock up. e.g. www.nytimes.com seems particularly slow for me, and as it's rendering, this/. window can't be accessed. The entire UI is extremely sluggish as well. And this/. text box seems to tremble whenever I change the/. formatting option.
Yes, I've just downloaded and tried M14 for Linux (I'm running rh6.1), and it has done nothing but crash, run slowly, and render pages incorrectly. Somehow I seem to recall that M13 worked better.
Do you know how much it costs to run fiber between buildings on a large campus, then wire several thousand rooms, and have to provide constant support for what you've deployed? Answer: it isn't cheap, either in equipment or personnel costs.
Have you considered that Resnet exists so that students will come to study at Cornell university, and continue to stay in the dorms while they're there, generating revenue for the university? Do you know that one of the most popular questions asked by prospective university students is "Do you have high speed internet access in the dorm rooms"?
As a former Cornell student, I can say for a fact that Resnet is one of the few reasons to stay in a pricey, overcrowded dorm - and as offcampus high speed access becomes more readily available, more and more people are moving off campus.
If you want to use ResNet, you have to pay for it, just like you have to pay to get on meal plan or to use the Cornell Fitness Centers.
This is another bad example. The meal plan is a very profit making enterprise: it costs something like $10 to eat a meal at the dining hall. And there's even been talk of shutting down the Balch dining hall because it isn't making enough money.
proliferation of Napster and similar programs, plus other bandwidth stealing applications such as Spinner, Real Player, WinAmp (when used to receive Shoutcast Stations) and Instant Messenger programs such as AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Instant Messenger, and ICQ.
Wow, this sounds like they want to ban/restrict/whatever all the services that make the network worthwhile for a student in a first place. No surprise here: network applications take up bandwidth, and these add up - the administrator wishes they would just all go away so that he can reload his Slashdot pages quickly. But guess what the solution is? The solution is to stop whining and provide the bandwidth.
Because students pay good money for the use of the network, they stay in dorms just so that they can use the network, and it contributes greatly to their quality of life: they can get their music, they can talk to their friends and family, they can be merry and happy, but the bandwidth Barons would hoard the bandwidth.
Is there good free software to go along with the "opencore"?. i.e. Verilog simulators, Xilinx/Altera style digital design software,etc.? These software packages are quite expensive, and without good free software equivalents to go along with the free cpu designs, the whole thing is pretty much pointless for the hobbyist.
Yes, you can do everything you can described. But that wasn't what I was refering to. What you can't do is to pick some songs at the spur of the moment easily.
You can presort them, pre-create a playlist, randomize them, or whatever, but you can't pick and choose based on what you want at the moment.
I've thought about messing with it, but I'm happy using a "misc" directory, playing random songs, and skipping the ones I don't like
Now wouldn't having a file manager be easier, so that you can pick what you do want to hear at the moment?
mpg123 -z Queen*
What I meant is to pick some Queen songs out of a directory full of Queen songs. Tab completion doesn't really help much here.
First of all, no self respecting unix user throws a bunch of random files (especially with no filename similarity) in a random directory
Structured doesn't always work. Structure cramps you. Try this: I have a bunch of mp3 files, and I want to pick some of them (depending on my pleasure and mood) and put them into a playlist. This can't be done efficiently through the command line. (n.b. mp3 player playlist picker == specialized file manager)
You can use tab completion, but this is slower (suppose you want to pick some Queen songs from a list of Queen songs, and the filenames all start with "Queen"). But what's even worse is that it's jarring and not conducive to mood base browsing - I can't click and pick a file on impulse.
This is why you will never eliminate the command line. Ever.
Nobody's trying to eliminate the command line. What we're saying is: a file manager is often extremely useful and efficient.
Doing stuff to files through the command line takes a hell lot of typing. Suppose I want to copy some disparate files (whose names don't fit nicely into some regular expression) from 1 folder to another. How will I do this without a file manager? Type out the name of every single file? Type ls and then copy and paste the names of the files onto the command line? A fle manager makes much more sense in this case and in many other cases.
In the limited case where a GPL'd product is being sold, in exchange for money, and the buyer is not told up front that the product has no warranty, the GPL is in the same boat as other EULAs. That is the one case we've both agreed this is a conflict. It's not a concern because anyone commercially selling should know to say "no warranty" up front to avoid the implied warranty. For example, the FSF's order page says, "All items are provided ``as is'', with no warranty of any kind." The issues you raised earlier aren't a cause for concern because this only affects the warranty sections of the GPL, and only with regard to a commercial vendor.
Yes, so to repeat, the GPL is not a purely right granting document as you have been arguing previously. Since there is a give and take, it is a contract, which requires agreement to be binding. In an earlier post, you stated that the GPL does not require agreement because it is purely right giving, but it seems that you do not think that this is the case now - so the GPL is subject to the issues which I raised earlier (I won't bother repeating them here, please review the previous posts in this thread if you desire). Conclusion, GPL == shrink wrap license.
That is, the GPL may be implying that copyright holders have more authority than they do, but unless the GPL uses that to restrict your rights, your point is moot.
If I bought the software and desire it to modify it for my own use, the GPL claims that modification requires compliance with all the requirements of the GPL - including giving up my right to a warranty.
The only reason you have implied warranty rights for goods is that they are given to you by the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC does not apply if you get something for free (as in beer), because no sale occurs.
Cost has nothing to do with free software in the GNU sense. And your rights transcend the UCC; as I understand it, in some states, you can sue the manufacturer of a product for negligence.
any implied warranty could only exist between you and the person who sold you the software, not between you and the copyright holder
And what if the person selling you the software were the copyright holder?
Indeed, the GPL would be in the same position as any other EULA
That was not your position earlier. Your position was that the GPL was different from other shrink wrap licenses, and did not require agreement because it was a pure granting of rights. If you think now that this is not the case, all the issues I raised earlier become cause for convern.
Yes, but if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights.
The GPL seems to claim that you have no rights to modification at all without the rights granted by the GPL.
Also, fair use does not grant you the unlimited right to modify copyrighted works for your own use.
either claim anything from the software maker given that you don't have any agreement, their is no link between you and the author(s)
What if the author of the software is the person selling you the software? So if you agree to the GPL, you have no warranty, but if you don't agree, you have warranty and protection against negligence by default? The GPL is in no different position from other shrink wrap licenses in this case.
Implied warranties only exist because of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, that only applies if you purchase a copy of the software. If you obtain software from someone at no cost, you have no reason to expect a warranty.
I don't think cost has much to do with it. If a doctor or lawyer provides free services to you, but then proceeds to act negligently, that could be cause for losing his license.
In any case, cost has really nothing to the with the GPL or the issue at hand. What this means is that the GPL is trying to take away your right to a warranty, and thus requires agreement - which puts it in the same position as other shrink wrap licenses.
i.e. If you did not agree to the GPL beforehand, but then bought a piece of software and found the GPL inside, the GPL would be in the same position as if it were a MS Eula, because the GPL is not a pure right granting document as you argued it was earlier - it requires prior agreement, and thus faces the same criticisms faced by shrink wrap licenses.
Can you provide an example of circumstances in which modification of software for your own use would not be compliant with the GPL?
Modification of the software for my own use should be outside the scope of the GPL, just as usage is outside the scope of the GPL. However the GPL is worded in such a way that it claims that I have no right to modify the code besides what the GPL grants me.
1. The GPL disclaims warranties. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that I have some rights to redress if the software fails to function as specified (e.g. due to negligence on part of the author), and the GPL is trying to take away this right.
2. The GPL covers modifications: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." and "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
However, I would think that I have a fair use right to modify the software for my own use, but the GPL claims that pure modifications falls under the scope of the GPL and requires compliance with the GPL.
So the GPL is trying to take away rights that I would normally have.
if the conditions only restrict the additional granted rights, the grant of rights with conditions is equivalent to a more narrow grant of rights without conditions.
So what would the 'more narrow grant of rights without conditions' be in the case of GPL? I would like to have that.
My point really was, what happens if you comply with the GPL, but then the copyright owner decides to sue you for violating his copyright?
The GPL isn't just a grant of rights. It's a grant of rights upon condition. There has to be an agreement between the copyright owner and the user, where the copyright owner agrees to give the user these rights, and in return the user agrees to comply with the conditions.
If as you argue, that there really never was such an agreement - all the copyright owner can do is sue for copyright violation, then it follows that even if the user distributes the software in compliance with the GPL, the copyright owner can still sue the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, content is king, but surfers want to experience attractive websites. I understand the importance of lean pages, but I think that Nielsen overemphasizes this too much--this design need will become less important as bandwidth increases.
:"How are usability and aesthetics related, if at all? "
I asked this question here
I'm disappointed the question wasn't answered. It would have been interesting to hear what he thought. I do think that usability and aesthetics are strongly related, that the aesthetics of a site are part of the usability of a site. What users really want are good experiences from a site, and content, loading time, organisation and visual appeal are part of the whole.
. All your libraries are on the C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM directory. Everyone has their own copy of the Registry that points to where things are located. If you want to install a piece of software, in most cases you have to install it locally, or at least all the DLL files are local. Hence, if you have 1,000 people on the network using MS Word, you end up with 1,000 identical copies of MS Word instaled! If you want to upgrade software for all those users, you have to do it 1,000 times.
This is absolute rubbish. How did this post get moderated up so high?
"Those who do not understand Windows are condemned to criticize it, poorly"
"IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988"
If I had a space ship, I don't think I'll just crash it into Jupiter. There's got to be a better way.
The reasons for shutting Balch down are related to the fact that the number of people using the facility has steadily decreased, to the point where the university is (nearly?) losing money just by keeping the doors open.
You've repeated what I've just said.
Of course ResNet exists (anywhere) to help attract students to the dorms. That does not change the fact that it is an expensive and difficult service to deploy and maintain properly. Charging a fee for those who wish to use that service, in order to recover initial and ongoing costs, is totally reasonable.
Yes, of course. But since we've established that the university provides Resnet for its own benefit and not out of any kindness or generosity, it's perfectly reasonable for students to demand a certain level of service. (and I seriously doubt that the university isn't making a profit from the Resnet fee alone, without taking into consideration the other benefits that it brings them).
(I posted this list of sites earlier as an AC):
/. window can't be accessed. The entire UI is extremely sluggish as well. And this /. text box seems to tremble whenever I change the /. formatting option.
Problems rendering:
www.wired.com
www.zdnet.com
General slowness. When one window is rendering, all the other mozilla windows seem to lock up. e.g. www.nytimes.com seems particularly slow for me, and as it's rendering, this
Yes, I've just downloaded and tried M14 for Linux (I'm running rh6.1), and it has done nothing but crash, run slowly, and render pages incorrectly. Somehow I seem to recall that M13 worked better.
Do you know how much it costs to run fiber between buildings on a large campus, then wire several thousand rooms, and have to provide constant support for what you've deployed? Answer: it isn't cheap, either in equipment or personnel costs.
Have you considered that Resnet exists so that students will come to study at Cornell university, and continue to stay in the dorms while they're there, generating revenue for the university? Do you know that one of the most popular questions asked by prospective university students is "Do you have high speed internet access in the dorm rooms"?
As a former Cornell student, I can say for a fact that Resnet is one of the few reasons to stay in a pricey, overcrowded dorm - and as offcampus high speed access becomes more readily available, more and more people are moving off campus.
If you want to use ResNet, you have to pay for it, just like you have to pay to get on meal plan or to use the Cornell Fitness Centers.
This is another bad example. The meal plan is a very profit making enterprise: it costs something like $10 to eat a meal at the dining hall. And there's even been talk of shutting down the Balch dining hall because it isn't making enough money.
proliferation of Napster and similar programs, plus other bandwidth stealing applications such as Spinner, Real Player, WinAmp (when used to receive Shoutcast Stations) and Instant Messenger programs such as AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Instant Messenger, and ICQ.
Wow, this sounds like they want to ban/restrict/whatever all the services that make the network worthwhile for a student in a first place. No surprise here: network applications take up bandwidth, and these add up - the administrator wishes they would just all go away so that he can reload his Slashdot pages quickly. But guess what the solution is? The solution is to stop whining and provide the bandwidth.
Because students pay good money for the use of the network, they stay in dorms just so that they can use the network, and it contributes greatly to their quality of life: they can get their music, they can talk to their friends and family, they can be merry and happy, but the bandwidth Barons would hoard the bandwidth.
I believe I speak for everyone when I say: UGH
Is there good free software to go along with the "opencore"?. i.e. Verilog simulators, Xilinx/Altera style digital design software,etc.? These software packages are quite expensive, and without good free software equivalents to go along with the free cpu designs, the whole thing is pretty much pointless for the hobbyist.
I only wish that someone had patented HTTP, GPLed it, and then refused to let Amazon play, effectively kicking them out of the sandbox.
You do realize that this is completely against the letter and the spirit of the GPL, do you?
How are usability and aesthetics related, if at all?
Yes, you can do everything you can described. But that wasn't what I was refering to. What you can't do is to pick some songs at the spur of the moment easily.
You can presort them, pre-create a playlist, randomize them, or whatever, but you can't pick and choose based on what you want at the moment.
I've thought about messing with it, but I'm happy using a "misc" directory, playing random songs, and skipping the ones I don't like
Now wouldn't having a file manager be easier, so that you can pick what you do want to hear at the moment?
mpg123 -z Queen*
What I meant is to pick some Queen songs out of a directory full of Queen songs. Tab completion doesn't really help much here.
Oh, I see. Humor. Haha. Funny.
Patenting the process of breathing, perhaps, but patenting the air itself? Why, that's absurd!
Yes, it's absurd. And that's the point he's trying to make.
First of all, no self respecting unix user throws a bunch of random files (especially with no filename similarity) in a random directory
Structured doesn't always work. Structure cramps you. Try this: I have a bunch of mp3 files, and I want to pick some of them (depending on my pleasure and mood) and put them into a playlist. This can't be done efficiently through the command line. (n.b. mp3 player playlist picker == specialized file manager)
You can use tab completion, but this is slower (suppose you want to pick some Queen songs from a list of Queen songs, and the filenames all start with "Queen"). But what's even worse is that it's jarring and not conducive to mood base browsing - I can't click and pick a file on impulse.
This is why you will never eliminate the command line. Ever.
Nobody's trying to eliminate the command line. What we're saying is: a file manager is often extremely useful and efficient.
Doing stuff to files through the command line takes a hell lot of typing. Suppose I want to copy some disparate files (whose names don't fit nicely into some regular expression) from 1 folder to another. How will I do this without a file manager? Type out the name of every single file? Type ls and then copy and paste the names of the files onto the command line? A fle manager makes much more sense in this case and in many other cases.
In the limited case where a GPL'd product is being sold, in exchange for money, and the buyer is not told up front that the product has no warranty, the GPL is in the same boat as other EULAs. That is the one case we've both agreed this is a conflict. It's not a concern because anyone commercially selling should know to say "no warranty" up front to avoid the implied warranty. For example, the FSF's order page says, "All items are provided ``as is'', with no warranty of any kind." The issues you raised earlier aren't a cause for concern because this only affects the warranty sections of the GPL, and only with regard to a commercial vendor.
Yes, so to repeat, the GPL is not a purely right granting document as you have been arguing previously. Since there is a give and take, it is a contract, which requires agreement to be binding. In an earlier post, you stated that the GPL does not require agreement because it is purely right giving, but it seems that you do not think that this is the case now - so the GPL is subject to the issues which I raised earlier (I won't bother repeating them here, please review the previous posts in this thread if you desire). Conclusion, GPL == shrink wrap license.
That is, the GPL may be implying that copyright holders have more authority than they do, but unless the GPL uses that to restrict your rights, your point is moot.
If I bought the software and desire it to modify it for my own use, the GPL claims that modification requires compliance with all the requirements of the GPL - including giving up my right to a warranty.
The only reason you have implied warranty rights for goods is that they are given to you by the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC does not apply if you get something for free (as in beer), because no sale occurs.
Cost has nothing to do with free software in the GNU sense. And your rights transcend the UCC; as I understand it, in some states, you can sue the manufacturer of a product for negligence.
any implied warranty could only exist between you and the person who sold you the software, not between you and the copyright holder
And what if the person selling you the software were the copyright holder?
Indeed, the GPL would be in the same position as any other EULA
That was not your position earlier. Your position was that the GPL was different from other shrink wrap licenses, and did not require agreement because it was a pure granting of rights. If you think now that this is not the case, all the issues I raised earlier become cause for convern.
Yes, but if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights.
The GPL seems to claim that you have no rights to modification at all without the rights granted by the GPL.
Also, fair use does not grant you the unlimited right to modify copyrighted works for your own use.
Does it not?
Please see my reply here as well.
either claim anything from the software maker given that you don't have any agreement, their is no link between you and the author(s)
What if the author of the software is the person selling you the software? So if you agree to the GPL, you have no warranty, but if you don't agree, you have warranty and protection against negligence by default? The GPL is in no different position from other shrink wrap licenses in this case.
Implied warranties only exist because of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, that only applies if you purchase a copy of the software. If you obtain software from someone at no cost, you have no reason to expect a warranty.
I don't think cost has much to do with it. If a doctor or lawyer provides free services to you, but then proceeds to act negligently, that could be cause for losing his license.
In any case, cost has really nothing to the with the GPL or the issue at hand. What this means is that the GPL is trying to take away your right to a warranty, and thus requires agreement - which puts it in the same position as other shrink wrap licenses.
i.e. If you did not agree to the GPL beforehand, but then bought a piece of software and found the GPL inside, the GPL would be in the same position as if it were a MS Eula, because the GPL is not a pure right granting document as you argued it was earlier - it requires prior agreement, and thus faces the same criticisms faced by shrink wrap licenses.
Can you provide an example of circumstances in which modification of software for your own use would not be compliant with the GPL?
Modification of the software for my own use should be outside the scope of the GPL, just as usage is outside the scope of the GPL. However the GPL is worded in such a way that it claims that I have no right to modify the code besides what the GPL grants me.
They may just be hedging their bets. If Linux were (heaven forbid) to really take off, they would have MS Office for Linux ready.
Yes, I see your point.
However:
1. The GPL disclaims warranties. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that I have some rights to redress if the software fails to function as specified (e.g. due to negligence on part of the author), and the GPL is trying to take away this right.
2. The GPL covers modifications: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." and "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
However, I would think that I have a fair use right to modify the software for my own use, but the GPL claims that pure modifications falls under the scope of the GPL and requires compliance with the GPL.
So the GPL is trying to take away rights that I would normally have.
if the conditions only restrict the additional granted rights, the grant of rights with conditions is equivalent to a more narrow grant of rights without conditions.
So what would the 'more narrow grant of rights without conditions' be in the case of GPL? I would like to have that.
My point really was, what happens if you comply with the GPL, but then the copyright owner decides to sue you for violating his copyright?
The GPL isn't just a grant of rights. It's a grant of rights upon condition. There has to be an agreement between the copyright owner and the user, where the copyright owner agrees to give the user these rights, and in return the user agrees to comply with the conditions.
If as you argue, that there really never was such an agreement - all the copyright owner can do is sue for copyright violation, then it follows that even if the user distributes the software in compliance with the GPL, the copyright owner can still sue the user.