There are many reasons to use vertical centering that have nothing to do with a GUI. Some of them as simple as, "wouldn't that menu look nicer if it was in the middle instead of glomming to the top?" Would it have killed the CSS designers to at least have the same features as table-based layout? Especially since it's supposed to supersede table-based layouts?
The 0.0000001% of the people viewing my page in Lynx will just have to cope. Call me a jerk if you want, but I already test in IE, Firefox and Safari... I'm sure as hell not going to test in Lynx.
I'd be more inclined to follow the standards if the standards didn't suck. For instance, CSS is incapable of doing simple math. (Why can't I make a measure 5em+10 pixels? Seems obvious to me, especially since em isn't a constant, but CSS won't do it.) Why is it so difficult to center something vertically? With tables, it was trivial, but with CSS it's significantly harder. (I haven't found a way of doing it with less than 2 divs.) Why do CSS measures typically go by *screen* measures and not *page* measures? When I say I want a div 10 pixels from the bottom, I don't mean the bottom of the screen, I mean the bottom of the entire page, idiots.
Anyway, CSS is just frustrating as hell to use. IMO, it's not significantly better than doing layout using tables. Especially since WYSIWYG editors will show you the table layout in progress, but usually choke on CSS layouts.
The validator makes idiotic suggestions. For instance, missing alt tags... you can have a BLANK alt tag, but you can't just leave it out altogether. I ignore stuff like that. (Other than bloating the file unnecessarily, I don't see the point of adding an alt tag just to keep it blank.)
Every game for Xbox 360 (and, I believe, every upcoming game) has a downloadable demo on Live. Microsoft's solved this problem, as far as I'm concerned.
For the conspiracy minded, there are a lot of negative stories floating around forums about the PS3, and Microsoft has been known to astroturf before... something to think about.
Prove it. I keep hearing this claim on Slashdot, and I've never heard ANY proof of it.
Fine, performing a "contextual menu operation" to an image in Safari, whether you do it with control-click or right-click, brings up the save to desktop item. Happy?
But every time discussion of Linspire comes up on Slashdot, the community rallies against it as if they're committing some kind of mortal sin by making Linux easy-to-use. It sickens me.
If you move your windoze computer around between networks (without powering down), you're gonna need that command line to run ipconfig. I haven't found any reliable GUI way to tell windows to release/renew DHCP lease. Reboot, I guess.
Open the Network connection. In Windows 2000: Click "Release" then click "Renew." In Windows XP: Click "Repair" (which releases, renews, then clears the DNS cache.)
I won't bother with Windows ME, 98, since they don't have the IPCONFIG command, so it's obvious you're not using an older version.
Are you trolling, or have you seriously never found these easy-to-use GUI options?
While I understand your point, your example is a pretty crappy one... since drag&drop from browsers (and most other apps) works just fine in Windows also. (Even in IE.) Given, most Windows users I know wouldn't ever figure that out because they run their browser "maximized."
To be a real Mac snob, you have to point out how Apple's had well-supported drag&drop since version 7.0 and Windows applications didn't really support it until around 2000ish.
Oh, and just to add insult to injury in my flamebaity post, right-clicking an image in Safari gives you a "Save Image to the Desktop" item which works exactly how you'd expect... so her not finding it might point to a reading deficiency, might wanna check that out.
Seriously, what real developments have Mac OS X and Windows seen in the past 5 years? They're too shackled to the idea of a consumer-friendly OS to incorporate the best and latest.
Why do you assume that the "best and latest" are hostile to consumers? Or are you just trying to phrase the question in such a way that Linux has the advantage no matter what counter-argument people come up with, since Linux is so developer-oriented?
Windows is a wash, unless you want to include Windows Server 2003 in the equation. But OS X has added:
Expose, an easy and intuitive way of switching windows and applications, or moving everything out of the way to see the desktop. Also one of those things that once you're used to, you can't live without... I go to Windows XP, move my mouse to the corner, and nothing happens.
System-wide spell-checker that works in every Cocoa app, which is probably about 50% of OS X apps right now and more each week. (If only Firefox would add support for it, I'd have good reason to switch from Safari.)
RSS support integrated into the OS/default browser.
Video conferencing integrated into the OS/default IM program.
For programmers, there's that whole new media effects layer thing, which I'm not that familiar with, but from what I hear it makes Photoshop-like applications almost trivial to write. Core Image I think?
I'm sure there's a ton more that more dedicated users than me can point out.
What stops a Linux software company from licensing MP3 or the DVD decoder? Nothing. Why haven't any Linux companies done it? Well, one has-- Linspire. Just a few days ago there was an article about how "non-Linux" Linspire is because, God forbid, they're trying to make Linux easy-to-use!
I agree with you, Linux isn't going to gain major marketshare until (in the words of Steve Jobs circa 1984) it's "insanely great." It has to be better than Windows in every way before people will even start to look at it, and that's regardless of how much it costs.
The problem is that every time you post about a shortcoming in Linux, the Linux users always reply, "but Windows has the same problem!" Basically, they're saying that they don't want Linux to be better than Windows. That attitude has to go before it'll even be a contender.
Ok, look, there's a shortcoming in Linux. Here are two ways to look at it:
1) "Oh, you're right, I see how that's confusing for new Linux users. We should really start some kind of project to standard config file locations and formats, or maybe help distro makers create better GUI configuration utilities so file editing isn't needed."
2) "Windows is bad too!!!! Linux doesn't NEED to improve because Windows is bad! Nyah!"
What kind of response does the parent reply resemble?
Which one of these responses will lead to Linux being better than Windows, and which one will lead to mediocrity?
Then maybe the problem is that Linux needs to get rid of all the crappy distros that give it a bad name, huh?
The problem with criticizing Linux at all is that the stock response is just "oh well, you used a bad distribution-- you need to find a better one." Here's a contrived example:
A: I just installed Linux, but it can't set my monitor to higher than 1024x768.
B: You must have a crappy distro, then. Try RedHat instead.
A: Ok, I installed RedHat, and now my monitor is fine, but my wireless network card stopped working!
B: RedHat sucks at wireless networking, try switching to Ubuntu.
A: So I tried Ubuntu, and now my monitor works and now my wireless networking card works, but my sound card only plays one sound at a time, and my printer is printing out gibberish!
B: Well, Ubuntu will do that sometimes. Try SUSE.
See the problem? Why doesn't the Linux community just get *everything* working in only a couple different distributions and save everyone else the trouble?
Personally, I think there should be three distributions: GNOME, KDE, and one for power-users to tinker around with. It doesn't make sense to have five distributions that use the GNOME "window environment" and all happen to look and behave alike because they all use GNOME. Why have 5?
Also equivalent applications. Sure, you might have an equivalent for Word and Excel, maybe one for Project and Photoshop even... but what about that pharmacy data system? If there's no Linux version, that local hospital will have to run at least some Windows computers. What about that off-the-shelf fast food POS system? Same deal. What about that software that helps the shipping company effectively load containers?
At a hospital, you can't get by with Linux unless you're willing to spend the time to rewrite the pharmacy software, the lab software, the patient data software, etc. Most other businesses are the same way.
Either Linux is going to have to run Windows apps "natively," or Linux coders have a lot of work in front of them.
Good. Take that attitude to NVidia and ATI. Tell them to stop making it so fucking hard to use their video hardware on your favorite operating system, and they can keep you as a customer.
Why should they? Linux has made it near-impossible for *any* proprietary drivers to exist whatsoever. I agree with the grandparent, the Linux community should get down on their knees and thank NVidia and ATI that they have any drivers at all.
I have a better idea: Why doesn't the Linux community meet the hardware makers halfway and stabilize the ABI, at least for each major versions, so that poor NVidia and ATI don't have to constantly twiddle with their installers/glue code just to work at all?
Think about it economically: Because Linux's interfaces change so often and Windows/OS X ones do not, you've created a situation where it's ATI/NVidia supporting drivers for Linux (3% of the market) is more difficult than the other 97% of the market combined. Again, the Linux community is damned lucky that ATI/NVidia's accountants haven't put a stop to the whole thing.
First of all, you brought up Red Dwarf which is a perfect example of how to do sci-fi comedy. The sci-fi elements were cheesy as hell (like a shape-shifting emotion-sucking genetically-engineered lifeform that turns into a beachball to travel around), but that's what made them work.
Other good examples: Sleeper, the Woody Allen take on those 1984-style dystopias. Galaxy Quest, I hate Tim Allen, but this movie's pretty damned funny. The Back to the Future movies were successful by anybody's standards. Hell, even the Disney movie Lilo and Stitch was funny, and science fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
The police ruled it accidental. Apparently he fell down an elevator shaft... onto some bullets.
There are many reasons to use vertical centering that have nothing to do with a GUI. Some of them as simple as, "wouldn't that menu look nicer if it was in the middle instead of glomming to the top?" Would it have killed the CSS designers to at least have the same features as table-based layout? Especially since it's supposed to supersede table-based layouts?
The 0.0000001% of the people viewing my page in Lynx will just have to cope. Call me a jerk if you want, but I already test in IE, Firefox and Safari... I'm sure as hell not going to test in Lynx.
I'd be more inclined to follow the standards if the standards didn't suck. For instance, CSS is incapable of doing simple math. (Why can't I make a measure 5em+10 pixels? Seems obvious to me, especially since em isn't a constant, but CSS won't do it.) Why is it so difficult to center something vertically? With tables, it was trivial, but with CSS it's significantly harder. (I haven't found a way of doing it with less than 2 divs.) Why do CSS measures typically go by *screen* measures and not *page* measures? When I say I want a div 10 pixels from the bottom, I don't mean the bottom of the screen, I mean the bottom of the entire page, idiots.
Anyway, CSS is just frustrating as hell to use. IMO, it's not significantly better than doing layout using tables. Especially since WYSIWYG editors will show you the table layout in progress, but usually choke on CSS layouts.
The validator makes idiotic suggestions. For instance, missing alt tags... you can have a BLANK alt tag, but you can't just leave it out altogether. I ignore stuff like that. (Other than bloating the file unnecessarily, I don't see the point of adding an alt tag just to keep it blank.)
But where do you draw the line? WW2 is ok, so what about Korea? Vietnam? Iraq in the early 90s? Iraq now?
This question is the same one that came up when the recent 9/11 movie was released. How soon is too soon?
(I'm presuming that older wars you have no issue with; the Civil War has been featured in more than a few games.)
The game is Windows-only, or I'd have tried it and been able to give a more educated position.
Every game for Xbox 360 (and, I believe, every upcoming game) has a downloadable demo on Live. Microsoft's solved this problem, as far as I'm concerned.
For the conspiracy minded, there are a lot of negative stories floating around forums about the PS3, and Microsoft has been known to astroturf before... something to think about.
Prove it. I keep hearing this claim on Slashdot, and I've never heard ANY proof of it.
While some opine that this trojan might have good intentions, remarkably few things infect the text files this trojan also deletes.
I've attempted to read that sentence about a dozen times, and I have no clue what the writer's trying to say.
Fine, performing a "contextual menu operation" to an image in Safari, whether you do it with control-click or right-click, brings up the save to desktop item. Happy?
Like Linspire?
But every time discussion of Linspire comes up on Slashdot, the community rallies against it as if they're committing some kind of mortal sin by making Linux easy-to-use. It sickens me.
If you move your windoze computer around between networks (without powering down), you're gonna need that command line to run ipconfig. I haven't found any reliable GUI way to tell windows to release/renew DHCP lease. Reboot, I guess.
Open the Network connection. In Windows 2000: Click "Release" then click "Renew." In Windows XP: Click "Repair" (which releases, renews, then clears the DNS cache.)
I won't bother with Windows ME, 98, since they don't have the IPCONFIG command, so it's obvious you're not using an older version.
Are you trolling, or have you seriously never found these easy-to-use GUI options?
While I understand your point, your example is a pretty crappy one... since drag&drop from browsers (and most other apps) works just fine in Windows also. (Even in IE.) Given, most Windows users I know wouldn't ever figure that out because they run their browser "maximized."
To be a real Mac snob, you have to point out how Apple's had well-supported drag&drop since version 7.0 and Windows applications didn't really support it until around 2000ish.
Oh, and just to add insult to injury in my flamebaity post, right-clicking an image in Safari gives you a "Save Image to the Desktop" item which works exactly how you'd expect... so her not finding it might point to a reading deficiency, might wanna check that out.
Seriously, what real developments have Mac OS X and Windows seen in the past 5 years? They're too shackled to the idea of a consumer-friendly OS to incorporate the best and latest.
Why do you assume that the "best and latest" are hostile to consumers? Or are you just trying to phrase the question in such a way that Linux has the advantage no matter what counter-argument people come up with, since Linux is so developer-oriented?
Windows is a wash, unless you want to include Windows Server 2003 in the equation. But OS X has added:
Expose, an easy and intuitive way of switching windows and applications, or moving everything out of the way to see the desktop. Also one of those things that once you're used to, you can't live without... I go to Windows XP, move my mouse to the corner, and nothing happens.
System-wide spell-checker that works in every Cocoa app, which is probably about 50% of OS X apps right now and more each week. (If only Firefox would add support for it, I'd have good reason to switch from Safari.)
RSS support integrated into the OS/default browser.
Video conferencing integrated into the OS/default IM program.
For programmers, there's that whole new media effects layer thing, which I'm not that familiar with, but from what I hear it makes Photoshop-like applications almost trivial to write. Core Image I think?
I'm sure there's a ton more that more dedicated users than me can point out.
What stops a Linux software company from licensing MP3 or the DVD decoder? Nothing. Why haven't any Linux companies done it? Well, one has-- Linspire. Just a few days ago there was an article about how "non-Linux" Linspire is because, God forbid, they're trying to make Linux easy-to-use!
I agree with you, Linux isn't going to gain major marketshare until (in the words of Steve Jobs circa 1984) it's "insanely great." It has to be better than Windows in every way before people will even start to look at it, and that's regardless of how much it costs.
The problem is that every time you post about a shortcoming in Linux, the Linux users always reply, "but Windows has the same problem!" Basically, they're saying that they don't want Linux to be better than Windows. That attitude has to go before it'll even be a contender.
Ok, look, there's a shortcoming in Linux. Here are two ways to look at it:
1) "Oh, you're right, I see how that's confusing for new Linux users. We should really start some kind of project to standard config file locations and formats, or maybe help distro makers create better GUI configuration utilities so file editing isn't needed."
2) "Windows is bad too!!!! Linux doesn't NEED to improve because Windows is bad! Nyah!"
What kind of response does the parent reply resemble?
Which one of these responses will lead to Linux being better than Windows, and which one will lead to mediocrity?
Then maybe the problem is that Linux needs to get rid of all the crappy distros that give it a bad name, huh?
The problem with criticizing Linux at all is that the stock response is just "oh well, you used a bad distribution-- you need to find a better one." Here's a contrived example:
A: I just installed Linux, but it can't set my monitor to higher than 1024x768.
B: You must have a crappy distro, then. Try RedHat instead.
A: Ok, I installed RedHat, and now my monitor is fine, but my wireless network card stopped working!
B: RedHat sucks at wireless networking, try switching to Ubuntu.
A: So I tried Ubuntu, and now my monitor works and now my wireless networking card works, but my sound card only plays one sound at a time, and my printer is printing out gibberish!
B: Well, Ubuntu will do that sometimes. Try SUSE.
See the problem? Why doesn't the Linux community just get *everything* working in only a couple different distributions and save everyone else the trouble?
Personally, I think there should be three distributions: GNOME, KDE, and one for power-users to tinker around with. It doesn't make sense to have five distributions that use the GNOME "window environment" and all happen to look and behave alike because they all use GNOME. Why have 5?
Also equivalent applications. Sure, you might have an equivalent for Word and Excel, maybe one for Project and Photoshop even... but what about that pharmacy data system? If there's no Linux version, that local hospital will have to run at least some Windows computers. What about that off-the-shelf fast food POS system? Same deal. What about that software that helps the shipping company effectively load containers?
At a hospital, you can't get by with Linux unless you're willing to spend the time to rewrite the pharmacy software, the lab software, the patient data software, etc. Most other businesses are the same way.
Either Linux is going to have to run Windows apps "natively," or Linux coders have a lot of work in front of them.
Good. Take that attitude to NVidia and ATI. Tell them to stop making it so fucking hard to use their video hardware on your favorite operating system, and they can keep you as a customer.
Why should they? Linux has made it near-impossible for *any* proprietary drivers to exist whatsoever. I agree with the grandparent, the Linux community should get down on their knees and thank NVidia and ATI that they have any drivers at all.
I have a better idea: Why doesn't the Linux community meet the hardware makers halfway and stabilize the ABI, at least for each major versions, so that poor NVidia and ATI don't have to constantly twiddle with their installers/glue code just to work at all?
Think about it economically: Because Linux's interfaces change so often and Windows/OS X ones do not, you've created a situation where it's ATI/NVidia supporting drivers for Linux (3% of the market) is more difficult than the other 97% of the market combined. Again, the Linux community is damned lucky that ATI/NVidia's accountants haven't put a stop to the whole thing.
If they added an option for every single thing people "might not agree with", the preferences dialog would be a 8 MB download on its own.
Sorry to reply to myself.
Take a look at Wikipedia's list of comedy science fiction movies and notice all the good ones in there.
First of all, you brought up Red Dwarf which is a perfect example of how to do sci-fi comedy. The sci-fi elements were cheesy as hell (like a shape-shifting emotion-sucking genetically-engineered lifeform that turns into a beachball to travel around), but that's what made them work.
Other good examples: Sleeper, the Woody Allen take on those 1984-style dystopias. Galaxy Quest, I hate Tim Allen, but this movie's pretty damned funny. The Back to the Future movies were successful by anybody's standards. Hell, even the Disney movie Lilo and Stitch was funny, and science fiction.
And yes, I think Spaceballs is hilarious. Sue me.
monitors calibrated to correct for the field in the northern hemisphere will have the colors slightly skewed if you move them south of the equator.
Oh MY GOD!!! I thought there was nothing to worry about but now my COLORS ARE SLIGHTLY SKEWED on my 2000-year-old monitor! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
They also suggest a disturbing severe shortage of women, and a high increase in the consumption of 'hardtack.'