07.26
I would like to present the latest example of what a massive clusterfuck desktop Linux is:
*drumroll please*
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/23/1631232/GNOME-and-KDE-Devs-Wrangle-Over-System-Settings-Name
Lets ignore the fact that it’s such a ridiculously minor thing and that only petulant children would waste more than 30 seconds coming up with some form of compromise. The true issue here is why on Gods green earth would you ever even conceive of having a system where you can have two items called ‘System Settings’ which are entirely unrelated existing on one system at the one time with who knows what sort of conflicts and problems? At what point did anyone think this could possibly be a good idea? Anyone who was even briefly acquainted with the term ‘Usability’ would facepalm at the slightest suggestion of this. But over to the Slashdot crowd:
The real problem is themselves, for not providing a menu system that allows for any other environment to be simultaneously installed.
So the real problem is that it’s not possible to duplicate absolutely everything. We should have two independent DE’s running at the same time, that’s the key! Reading the comments the first time around (and I am certainly not doing that again) nobody mentioned that hey, perhaps it’s a bad idea to have two separate system settings menus at the same time. Of course not. Technical solutions only, not human.
I can see how we got to this point. It’s like two teams building a tunnel who agree to meet in the middle and start at opposite ends, but who completely fail to communicate and miss by a country mile. But, of course, choice. So let me recap on a point I am sure I made a long time ago:
Multiple Standards Are Bad! The only time you should have two competing standards is if they have different use cases (xls vs doc) or one is being deprecated in favour of another (ipv4 vs ipv6). Having two standards for the same thing is universally recognized by just about everyone as a bad thing. Here’s a quick, and by no means exhaustive, list:
- Multiple phone/laptop chargers and connectors.
- Differing power plugs and voltages.
- Almost any form of ‘proprietary’ connector.
- Attempts by companies to ‘fork’ a standard, see MS Java and ‘IE only’ browser extensions.
- Fluctuations in .doc which makes importing old files annoying.
- The reason hibernate and sleep work so badly in Linux is due to a lack of standards.
- Ad nauseum…
Choice in Implementations of Standards Are Good! I remember the dark days of IE before Firefox ruined Microsoft’s day. Having no choice in browsers lead to having one terrible browser. And while many people and enterprises are still stuck with IE6 thanks to standards proliferation I can enjoy the benefits of Firefox, Chrome and IE all battling it out to be the best browser they can be. I don’t have to use IE for IE sites or Chrome for Chrome sites because they all conform to the same standard (more or less).
I can also connect to any of these sites due to them all supporting HTTP. I don’t need a separate browser for MS’s own version of HTTP (fortunately) because there isn’t one and the only point of someone making another, competing, standard for it is if the aim was to replace it. The entire reason for the creation and promotion of ODF is to give consumers choice in their office application. Multiple standards do not provide choice, they limit it.
I seem to be drifting off topic here. But let me just make one fun point:
The only distinction between the myriad of supposed ‘user friendly’ distro’s is standards proliferation.
- Multiple package formats, as opposed to multiple implementations of package managers. Check.
- Cosmetic differences in filesystem layouts that cause issues. Check.
- Variations in API’s for handling. Check.
- Multiple ways of doing system notifications and widgets. Check.
- Multiple system config file storage and editing methods. Check.
- Etc.
Once you settle on a set of standards then the concept of a system repository becomes meaningless as you will have a system just like every other (successful) consumer OS ever made where software is not tied to a particular version of a particular distro. If there was a standard for binary-blob-or-otherwise drivers then you wouldn’t have this ridiculous ‘Distro X supports your hardware better’ situation. In fact once you take away the ‘incompatible for largely the sake of being incompatible’ then the only difference real between distro’s is the splash screen and maybe wallpaper they choose for whatever DE they are using.
But back to the original point. The very fact that you require large chunks of KDE to run certain apps under Gnome* (and vice vera) due to the utter failure to come up with a standard API (that both can separately implement) is the actual problem here (and as a result people are denied choice in DE’s). It has nothing to do with namespace collisions or any of that crap.
* Last time I tried to run Ubuntu none of the help in the games I downloaded would work as it required KDE’s help system.
Linux: the ClusterF**k OS. I’m sure that before long, Adam will be here, once again embarassing his parents by peeing on his feet in public… yet again.
In case no one figured it out, there is a reason the two biggies–Microsoft and Apple–settled on one environment. The reason is that multiple environements require multiple solutions to the same simple problems. Creators of programs have to take all the variables in to mind when creating their programs, and by and large, none of these silly Linux environments follow the same patterns.
Seriously, the best thing that can happen to Linux is for it to either die a quiet well-deserved death, or for a bunch of people to get off their collective asses and pick one, and only one, environment to run things in. It is beyond stupid that a KDE user has to decide how GNOME programs will be displayed–and Vice versa. (never mind that Linux and freetards have long grown past beyond stupid for anything, see Adam’s fight to prove that calculus was the big math language used for 3d games and such despite being shown again and again that trigonometry was the the big dick of maths).
Oh… and once more for the sake of decorum: Adam, please do NOT pee on your foot in public again… it disgraces your parents and makes you look like the freetarded lunk-head you pretend to be. (never mind you been caught out using Windows instead of Linux and don’t know calculus from trig).
The author of this article must be 14 years old. He sounds like hes never worked on an open source project in his life, much less anything like gnome or KDE. Basically what hes saying is that the linux community should become even more fragmented.
This wont solve anything. The KDE devs are immature cunts though.
@faggot haha… was it the IE was the only browser before mozilla comment?
I was going to do a rant here, but will just leave this quote from John Cleese:
To know how good you are at something requires the same skills as it does to be good at that thing, which means that if youre absolutely hopeless at something you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you are absolutely hopeless at it. This is a profound discovery…. that most people that have no idea what they are doing, have absolutely no idea that they have no idea what they are doing.
@Simon
Nice quote. I have known quite a few people who believe they know everything there is to know about some subject (such as programming) — or at least think they are very good. It’s always fun to see what they come up with so I can be in awe at the crap they think is “teh awesome.”
In case no one figured it out, there is a reason the two biggies–Microsoft and Apple–settled on one environment.
I am interested to see how Microsoft will deal with this in Windows 8, as they are going to still have the traditional interface paradigm which exists now along with a newer one. Will they continue to have these two separate types or will they kill one off (most presumably, the older one)?
Will they continue to have these two separate types or will they kill one off (most presumably, the older one)?
Just like they have transitioned from Program Manager to the taskbar, I don’t see any biggie there.
I wish to speak out on Linux’ behalf here. It’s perfectly reasonable to follow as many different standards for the same thing as you want. There’s no reason not to try out every paradigm under the sun. Pick several competing desktops, a multitude of comms protocols for say VoIP, even more than one cohabiting file system.
This is actually a Very Good Thing…
…in the academic world. The whole point, in the academic world, is to swap bits in and out until you’ve come up with a world beating OS for toasters, or maybe for supercomputers. Linux performs this function admirably, as you would expect from a PhD student in a dorm cribbing of the ultimate academic OS, Minix.
The problem comes when Linux comes up against the real world. The real world does not behave like this (as the post makes clear). And yet all the developers still seem to believe they are academics (which they aren’t). It’s a doomed endeavour.
That Gnome/KDE thin, btw? It will never get cleared up. It’s too late. Last time I rolled my own with configure make make install, at least 50% of desktop apps seemed to require random shared libraries from both. At this point they are so horribly (and cretinously) intertwined that there is no hope of cleaning the ecosystem out of the underlying bindweed.
Roll on SettingsKit! (no I just made it up, don’t know of any project)
But seriously, I think the names should be shared, but if they’re shared the executables have to have pre/suffixes (kdesettings, gtksettings) cause next we’ll have the “you named the executable the same as us” syndrome which *will* be a problem!
Though at first glance your rant seems reasonable, there is a reason for this to be discussed that result in something better for everyone.
From the tread:
Having one menu item named “System Settings” which is KDE specific while running under Gnome and make the Gnome Settings named “System Preferences” makes it confusing for Gnome Users. And there is a simple way to fix the entire mess:
Just install two .desktop files. One looks
like this:
Name=System Settings
OnlyShowIn=KDE
The other looks like this:
Name=KDE System Settings
NotShowIn=KDE
+++
Back to your rant. doc vs odf. Microsoft “.doc” has never been any official standard. The first official standard that ever existed for documents was “.odf”. So I can agree with you, why make two standards i.e. .docx after an official standard already exists? Microsoft had already made the document formats “.doc”, “.rtf”, “.wks” and we had a load of other document formats as well; that was why odf was made as a common standard, yet as a response Microsoft came up with yet another standard “.docx”.
Microsoft will of course claim it is another use case for it as a binary xml format is better for computers and result in smaller files. But you as a usability expert must agree this is not relevant for non technical end users?
So usability has always had a back seat. Now, see the above again. Why should there be multiple alternative desktop environments? First of all, because the environments might be proprietary and you would likely get sued to make it different if you tried to completely copy the desktop from OS X or Windows. How you are expected to interact with the mouse in an environment might get you sued for copyright violation. So we encourage usability issues with our very own copyright and patent system.
I think we need to share name spaces, and in this case, you can’t claim trademark for a phrase such as “system settings”. The answer above is the correct one. The name should be “System Settings” for the current system. If you introduce another “system setting” in a non-native environment you need to show that this interface is for something specific, such as “KDE system settings” as mentioned. All other options would cause usability problem.
Inside Gnome KDE’s “System Settings” should likely be called “KDE Applications Settings” as KDE is not the current environment, and the settings thus are for the multiple applications. We should expect this to be a temporary problem. Later we should hopefully get an application GUI abstraction layer which is environment agnostic.
BTW. you have noticed it mentioned that desktop interface is language dependent? In for instance Hebrew they write from right to left instead as of in English from left to right. In China they write downwards and not left.Placing the menu bar always on the left side, and left indenting the items is not considered user friendly. We need to accept the world need more than one desktop interface. There are indeed use cases for many desktop environments, not just for people of different nationalities but for blind people and so on as well. To have a system that can easily switch desktop according to your need is a huge benefit for a lot of people! Now – as soon as we get that common API for all the environments to use…
Back to your rant. doc vs odf. Microsoft “.doc” has never been any official standard. The first official standard that ever existed for documents was “.odf”. So I can agree with you, why make two standards i.e. .docx after an official standard already exists? Microsoft had already made the document formats “.doc”, “.rtf”, “.wks” and we had a load of other document formats as well; that was why odf was made as a common standard, yet as a response Microsoft came up with yet another standard “.docx”.
Why should Microsoft have to adopt some standard from a group who can’t even make a competitor to Microsoft Office? Microsoft has much more experience with productivity suites, and therefore the methods of saving that information, than any other. OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are now two separate things, so we have another example of fragmentation just because Oracle bought Sun because Sun didn’t have a practical business model other than giving everything away for free — free makes money, right? Plus, if you want to use ODF in Microsoft Office, go right ahead, as it is supported by Office.
M$ and CRApple didn’t settle on one environment. Winders and fagOS are two very different operating systems with very different apis. GNU/Linux takes this to its comclusion by allowing an infinite series of different environments all taylored to the user’s preferences.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. He means that there aren’t multiple interfaces that you can choose from for Windows, nor are there numerous interfaces for Mac OS X that all are completely different from one another. There are not multiple interface types that a developer would need to target in order to make sure their application works on the same operating system, but with the possibility of another layout.
As for Linux distros, they are all Linux underneath, am I right? Yet there are dozens of different desktop interfaces, meaning an application would have to support each individual interface instead of only having to use one.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn
“Microsoft will of course claim it is another use case for it as a binary xml format is better for computers and result in smaller files. But you as a usability expert must agree this is not relevant for non technical end users? “
I was always under the impression that the reason binary won out over zipped xml (what docx is iirc) is because the overheads required to process it are greater than for straight up binary. Now that it doesn’t matter so much making it ‘better’ is more important than making it ‘quick’.
.doc *is* a standard, like it or not. Sure it gets updated but it’s generally pretty interoperable and there is only one supported version available at any one time – see HTML for an example of this. Now .doc has been deprecated in favour of docx and all is according to the good practices I have pointed out.
ODF is *attempting* to replace docx (which is replacing doc), wks is dead long ago, rtf has a different use case. Multiple standards, sure, but everyone involves wants to be *the* standard – nobody actually wants the two to co-exist in harmony as the Linux crowd do with their standards.
“So usability has always had a back seat. Now, see the above again. Why should there be multiple alternative desktop environments? First of all, because the environments might be proprietary and you would likely get sued to make it different if you tried to completely copy the desktop from OS X or Windows. How you are expected to interact with the mouse in an environment might get you sued for copyright violation. So we encourage usability issues with our very own copyright and patent system.”
Which is complete bollocks. Nobody has ever even slightly mentioned suing other DE’s – even Apple who definitely have a case. This is the first time I have ever seen anyone ever use this as a reason for standards proliferation. It misses the point too – multiple DE’s are perfectly fine provided they share API’s that programs can use for things like alerts + notices, help, inter-app communications, file management, sound, graphics etc.
The current situation is no different from having to have Word, OO.org and Works all installed at once because you have files in all three formats. It’s a bad situation and this should be recognised and discussed so it can have a chance of being addressed, rather than just blindly declared ‘choice’.
Ian said: 2011/07/27 18:35
Why should Microsoft have to adopt some standard from a group who can’t even make a competitor to Microsoft Office? Microsoft has much more experience with productivity suites, and therefore the methods of saving that information, than any other. OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are now two separate things, so we have another example of fragmentation just because Oracle bought Sun because Sun didn’t have a practical business model other than giving everything away for free — free makes money, right? Plus, if you want to use ODF in Microsoft Office, go right ahead, as it is supported by Office.
Here you go:
OpenOffice.org was started in 2001 by Sun Microsystems in an attempt to take its proprietary StarOffice to the open-sourced level. It’s called OpenOffice.org so as to not clash with a copyrighted name in Europe. StarOffice nearly died because of OpenOffice.org.
Now, we have developers of OpenOffice.org who realized that now that Oracle has full control of Sun Microsystems, they can start dumping on OpenOffice.org until it becomes proprietary. These guys left Oracle and started The Document Foundation, and in turn, LibreOffice.
But honestly, these days I don’t care at all about if the software is libre. I care if it’s gratis so I don’t have to pay anything. But I consider software freedom [libre] a puny *freedom* compared to other freedoms in the world, including but not limited to, human rights, freedom of women (equality) and freedom of speech.
Speaking of office suites, I heard of IBM Lotus Symphony and I’d give it a try even if it’s proprietary, because if it’s usable, I’ll use it. I consider usability the first thing to look for in software.
Thank you for considering this and have a great day.
- reactosguy
Oh so M$ doesn’t have to follow other people’s standards because shit, they’re M$ and M$ can do whatever they want. I get it.
STFHU Adam King, stop acting like a shift and give it a rest.
Choice in Implementations of Standards Are Good! I remember the dark days of IE before Firefox ruined Microsoft’s day. Having no choice in browsers lead to having one terrible browser. And while many people and enterprises are still stuck with IE6 thanks to standards proliferation I can enjoy the benefits of Firefox, Chrome and IE all battling it out to be the best browser they can be. I don’t have to use IE for IE sites or Chrome for Chrome sites because they all conform to the same standard (more or less).
^This ^_^
AMEN!!!!
I’m sick to death of the cosmetic changes of things just because some developers either
1) didn’t research to see if something was already being done similaraly that they could use or
2) have that NIH disease where they wanna do it their way they like their way better.
(/etc/sysconfig vs /etc/default)
(/etc/init.d vs /etc/rc.d)
(/etc/httpd vs /etc/apache2)
…
rpm vs rpm5 vs dpkg vs xz vs ebuild …
The entire reason for the creation and promotion of ODF is to give consumers choice in their office application
Thought it was about harming MS.
IE also wasn’t a terrible browser. IE6 was out of date, but in its heyday, it was the best one.
IE also wasn’t a terrible browser. IE6 was out of date, but in its heyday, it was the best one.
I remember downloading Firefox v1 on my dad’s old Dell laptop.
But hey, using IE6 nowadays is like walking into a store while it’s being robbed.
Oh so M$ doesn’t have to follow other people’s standards because shit, they’re M$ and M$ can do whatever they want. I get it.
No, that’s not it at all. Microsoft has most of the market share when it comes to office productivity software — and its that way because it is one of the best. When a company clearly knows what they are doing they should be the ones to make the standard, or be a large contributor to it, not some random group of people who — as I have already said — can’t make an office productivity suite worth the bandwidth required to download it.
“IE also wasn’t a terrible browser. IE6 was out of date, but in its heyday, it was the best one.”
True, there is a lot of revisionist history about Netscape, which truly did suck. However, once MS won the war they basically stopped work on IE until it pretty much imploded under the pop-ups, pop-unders and drive-by spyware that made it virtually impossible to use. It took over 5 years to go from IE6 to IE7, by which point everyone who knew anything had already jumped ship. And if it wasn’t for FF no doubt IE7 would have been even later.
Netscape, which truly did suck
I never knew that
Winbreds argue that M$ has majority share because they’re the best while also arguing that it’s “good enough tech” that always win. So which ones is it stupid winbreds, were M$ the best or just good enough? Because if they were good enough they shouldn’t be the ones to dictate standards. People endowed with better mental faculties should be given that job while M$ gets them coffee.
It’s possible to be the best (of a bad bunch, in the case of the original Office suites) and “good enough tech.” Once again, Adam, you are betraying your utter ignorance of Maths. “Good enough” is at the bottom of the spectrum, “best” is relative to at least two others, and “the best possible” is at the top of the spectrum. There is a continuum between “Good enough” and “The best possible.”
I like your Logic, though. “If they were good enough they shouldn’t be the ones to dictate standards.” Yup, that truly is the Linux Desktop Creed:
“We dictate standards, because we are not good enough.”
“Choice in Implementations of Standards Are Good! I remember the dark days of IE before Firefox ruined Microsoft’s day. Having no choice in browsers lead to having one terrible browser. And while many people and enterprises are still stuck with IE6 thanks to standards proliferation I can enjoy the benefits of Firefox, Chrome and IE all battling it out to be the best browser they can be. I don’t have to use IE for IE sites or Chrome for Chrome sites because they all conform to the same standard (more or less).”
Unfortunately I can see Webkit becoming the new IE6 on mobile phones, since most mobile phone browsers are based on Webkit.
Netscape, which truly did suck
I never knew that
For your information:
http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-ancient-past/
Thank you very much bookreader.
This is the earliest reference of terabytes I’ve known.
Unfortunately I can see Webkit becoming the new IE6 on mobile phones, since most mobile phone browsers are based on Webkit.
I think that is more the fault of the maintainer of the mobile operating system for just not updating the WebKit engine, is it not? WebKit is still being developed and such, whereas IE6 remained IE6. It was only until recently that IE Mobile had an IE8 equivalent, but now Windows Phone will be getting IE9.
The reason the mobile version of IE always seemed to be behind one version was because they were two different things, but IE Mobile 9 will be the same code base as the desktop version.
It’s too bad Windows XP users don’t get IE9.
That said, I use Firefox 
WebKit is based on the lesser-known KHTML, which is the engine used by the lesser-used Konqueror. In fact, Apple only allows iPhone browsers based on WebKit—and I believe they have to be inferior to Safari!
Speaking of Windows Phone 7, there are news reports online saying that Nokia lost $500M just for adopting the system.
I knew the Microsoft-Nokia deal was going to fall.
@Ian,
it not the fault of the maintainer … sorry I should have explained myself. Developers are targeting Webkit and developing for Webkit, much like they did IE6 for mostly the same reasons … using -webkit CSS extensions to do things like rounded corners etc.
Speaking of Windows Phone 7, there are news reports online saying that Nokia lost $500M just for adopting the system. I knew the Microsoft-Nokia deal was going to fall.
I haven’t seen any of that, but I am betting it is just FUD. It can’t possibly have to do anything with the fact that Nokia doesn’t have any real smart phones yet, right? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that most of their phones are powered by the crappy Symbian OS.
The tech news wanted Android to be adopted by Nokia, and it didn’t happen because Nokia couldn’t have differentiated themselves because there are so many Android OEM’s right now. Even if Android was adopted by Nokia, they wouldn’t have had a phone out powered by Android yet because they would need to do testing and the like just as with Windows Phone.
@Luke Robbins
Ah, I get you
I don’t do much in the way of web design, but when I was doing stuff like border-radius I noticed only IE9 (and maybe Firefox) supported just plain border-radius… Then again, at least the other browsers supported it period, unlike some *cough* IE8 *cough*
I think, once you’re into border/radius, you are now beyond what the client side of a browser-server system is designed to do (and with HTML5, it will no doubt get worse).
The thing is predicated upon a stateless protocol and a descriptive (mark-up) language. I’d actually rather see Java applets make a comeback than extend this hideous farrago of nonsense into realms it was never designed to reach.
Personally I blame the retards at Google for pushing it this far. I mean come on, CSS doesn’t even have a single line comment. You can’t even do something like this:
#header {
.logo {
stuff-here: thingy;
}
}
I mean what the hell. And whoever decided that padding gets added on to the defined width of an element should be punched in the cock.
I used border-radius for a menu that chases you while scrolling, and then I opted for a fixed menu without JavaScript. Which I realized, was why fixed menus were transparent.
The fixed menu was said to work in Internet Explorer 6 better than Firefox because of a bug in the IE version that it takes advantage of.
Yea I do a lot of LongPHPCodez(TM) and when I do it’s usually connecting to MySQL.
Oh yeah and you need -moz- if you want border-radius to support Firefox.
@Ian
TBH to IE8 they basically decided to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML and nothing more … however progressive enhancement techniques to work well with IE6-8.
@Dr Loser … I have to disagree, HTML 5.0 and CSS 3.0 actually mean that I separate document and presentation better than XHTML. Without properties like border radius, I am forced to start putting more tags in to and matching backgrounds.
It’s funny how Microsoft declares IE8 as their best browser yet and they forgot to implement CSS3 and SVG support.
I think SVG is really great because you can scale the images to any dimensions you desire with no loss of quality.
So what Microsoft will be improving in the next release which is unsupported by XP—hardware acceleration, SVG support, CSS3 support et cetera—will be unavailable in XP. Hardware acceleration is easy to explain, but otherwise, c’mon Microsoft.
I haven’t seen any of that, but I am betting it is just FUD.
I’m wondering if you took offense to the comment. Well here you go:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/07/22/analyst-nokia-microsoft-collaboration-unlikely-to-be-successful/
@Kerberos
You have to admit, CSS is awesome. Imagine what you can’t do in CSS. You can actually make words uppercase, take the bold out of h1, make cool sidebars (and fixed menus that stay there while you scroll!) et cetera.
-reactosguy
Sorry this should be: I haven’t seen any of that, but I am betting it is just FUD.
Why does WordPress filter span tags?
Surely they would say IE9 is their best browser.
I think you forgot about 2009 when IE8 was released and Microsoft was saying it was the best browser to use. Obviously time passed IE8.
@ReactOS Guy,
When IE8 was released, it was actually the first browser to actually fully implement CSS 2.1 properly.
SVG is something I have never needed to use and I am unlikely to ever use in the foreseeable future … the CSS 3 features while nice, you don’t really need them … HTML 5.0 video and audio can be replaced by flash in IE6-8 with a few lines of Javascript.
IE8 is good enough as a browser IMO, it isn’t particularly good when compared to the latest and greatest … but it does fine for most people and renders sites as you would expect.
“IE8 is good enough as a browser IMO, it isn’t particularly good when compared to the latest and greatest … but it does fine for most people and renders sites as you would expect.”
What the hell are you saying? It’s not fine for most people. They just don’t know that the web has completely moved on. IE8 is an absolutely shitty browser.
When IE8 was released, it was actually the first browser to actually fully implement CSS 2.1 properly.
SVG is something I have never needed to use and I am unlikely to ever use in the foreseeable future
If you’re one of those guys who reads Wikipedia frequently then you should think again.
the CSS 3 features while nice, you don’t really need them
Yeah they’re cool and all. I just fixed my fixed menu (even works in IE6!) so that it has rounded borders, but then I realized that it filled up the horizontal space!
HTML 5.0 video and audio can be replaced by flash in IE6-8 with a few lines of Javascript.
Also
Did you know? Browsers support different formats of HTML5 video?
IE8 is good enough as a browser IMO, it isn’t particularly good when compared to the latest and greatest … but it does fine for most people and renders sites as you would expect.
I think there are so many better things on Windows XP. IMHO everything surpassed IE8. It’s good enough for most people but not for all.
Have a nice day.
-reactosguy
Hahaha Thomas B why do you use LaunchPad when there’s Sourceforge?
Problem with most of CSS3 (and HTML5) is that if you are doing anything commercially then you will need to use some form of legacy fallback as the installed base of CSS3 compliant browsers is too low. Realistically you still have to support IE6 as enough people use it to warrant you not excluding a decent selection of your potential client base. Same with HTML 5 video. Sure you can use it, but then have to have the inevitable Flash fallbacks which mean you might as well just use Flash. I understand the reasons but if it means spending time you could be using on other paid work then it makes no sense.
IE8 in this regard is great – it pretty much conforms to the (albeit outdated) spec, which means at least you don’t have to keep multiple browser rendering models in your head when developing. Sure it’s not bells and whistles but at least it doesn’t screw up the most basic things like margins and padding.
As great as HTML5 video is, I don’t think it’s great.
Look at the browsers supporting different piles of shit in the penultimate comment I made before. Flash is consistent and works on many browsers. HTML5? Different codecs take over different browsers. Not good. That’s what the article said was bad: multiple standards doing the same thing.
> It’s funny how Microsoft declares IE8 as their best browser yet
They don’t. IE9 is current “best browser yet”
> I think SVG is really great because you can scale the images to any dimensions you desire with no loss of quality.
Oh, you mean markup for vector images? Like VML – proposed W3C standard, created by Macromedia, Autodesk and others (what could these guys know about vector graphics) released a year before SVG
Oh, you mean markup for vector images? Like VML – proposed W3C standard, created by Macromedia, Autodesk and others (what could these guys know about vector graphics) released a year before SVG
Hey, shut it
You are making it hard for them to rewrite history if you are telling everyone what really happened. Lol.
They don’t. IE9 is current “best browser yet”
Hahaha, I said in 2009. LOL actually read before you post.
Oh, you mean markup for vector images? Like VML – proposed W3C standard, created by Macromedia, Autodesk and others (what could these guys know about vector graphics) released a year before SVG
VML is dead. It’s supported in IE9 but IE9 supports SVG now.
> Hahaha, I said in 2009. LOL actually read before you post.
You’ve added that later and nothing in the comment I’ve quoted suggests it.
> VML is dead. It’s supported in IE9 but IE9 supports SVG now.
So? SVG is pretty much dead as well (where did you last time see it in REAL use?). Or should I say “not born”? Choose your poison: either “Microsoft doesn’t support vector image format even though it’s so-o-o-o-o-o cool” or “Microsoft doesn’t support killer feature every other browser has long implemented and which is used on pretty much every web site in the wild”.
First off learn to quote in bold or italic.
You’ve added that later and nothing in the comment I’ve quoted suggests it.
The point still stands, later or not.
So? SVG is pretty much dead as well (where did you last time see it in REAL use?).
[citation needed]
And by SVG you mean VML.
Or should I say “not born”?
(The above quote may contain original research.)
Choose your poison: either “1. Microsoft doesn’t support vector image format even though it’s so-o-o-o-o-o cool” or “2. Microsoft doesn’t support killer feature every other browser has long implemented and which is used on pretty much every web site in the wild”.
What I said before.
IE9 supports SVG now.
> First off learn to quote in bold or italic.
No.
So? SVG is pretty much dead as well (where did you last time see it in REAL use?).
As was said above, Wikipedia uses it for over half the images on their website.
As was said above, Wikipedia uses it for over half the images on their website.
It can also be argued that Wikipedia gets like 400m visitors every month or two.
Although Wikipedia has their SVGs in PNG as well because they know IE users will visit the site. Hopefully IE9 will change this.
Speaking of vector images I know a format which can’t be used on the WWW: Adobe Illustrator.
@Thomas B.
The thing is that they shouldn’t have to care that the Web has moved on.
@ReactOSguy …
I never actually spotted that Wikipedia was SVG … however that is the point really … normal users should never have to care for this.
Also I know quite a lot about HTML 5.0 video since this week … Flash for everything else and mp4 for iOS devices … I am not wasting tons of room on our servers re-encoding the source to WebM and Ogg.
Reactosguy sucks African gorilla cock
The thing is that they shouldn’t have to care that the Web has moved on.
AverageUserStereotypes(TM)
I never actually spotted that Wikipedia was SVG … however that is the point really … normal users should never have to care for this.
Here you go!
Also I know quite a lot about HTML 5.0 video since this week … Flash for everything else and mp4 for iOS devices … I am not wasting tons of room on our servers re-encoding the source to WebM and Ogg.
I’d love to say that HTML5 video is a mess. Different browsers support different codecs. I hate it. The fact that you have to re-encode into several different codecs just to support all browsers is lamentable. I think every browser should co-operate to make a format that’s made of muscles (H.264) and doesn’t cost them anything (Ogg).
Reactosguy sucks African gorilla cock
^_^
@Luke Robbins
So you’re saying that the web doesn’t shouldn’t need to develop and get better?
Wow, *the web shouldn’t need
Honestly, what are the two of you arguing about? Here are the facts.
Almost everybody uses IE8 or Chrome or Safari at home. There are no riots on the streets.
A very large proportion of people use IE6 or Firefox at work. There are no riots in the cafeterias.
Almost everybody uses Flash, whether they care about it or not.
Almost everybody uses whatever crap version of CSS is thrown at them.
I don’t really see a problem here. You can Ogg or SVG or VML all you like — but nobody is going to notice.
Here’s a quick proof test. Ask your neighbour (doesn’t have to be a neighbour: could be a random wino down the street) whether his/her Web experience has become appreciably better over the last, say, five years.
Because, you know what?
It hasn’t.
There are better things out there than browsers, but in the mean time, you are stuck with browsers.
Go live with it.
I never actually spotted that Wikipedia was SVG
Well, that’s because they are converted into PNG’s, but if you click on the image itself, there is usually an SVG to download/view.
Ask your neighbour (doesn’t have to be a neighbour: could be a random wino down the street) whether his/her Web experience has become appreciably better over the last, say, five years.
That too… The only time the “Internet” (as in web pages) have gotten appreciably better is during the first browser wars, with the addition of images and JavaScript. I don’t pay too much attention to how JavaScript has/is evolving, but from what I can remember there isn’t really anything new from a feature standpoint of JavaScript, just more additions to make it easier for developers to do what they want to do — if that makes sense. Sure, there was AJAX which was probably a pretty big deal, but nothing major has really happened since, has it?
audio and video may be done now without the help of a plugin (Flash), but like the user is going to really notice too much of a difference (maybe other than the interface of the video they are watching, but they won’t think much of that).
DrLoser actually has some good points. Nobody cares if you use Firefox, SVG, HTML5 video, et cetera.
I still hate HTML5 video.
The Internet’s come a long way since 2001, most people don’t realize IE6 was released in August 2001 about 10 years ago when websites were more like a newspaper or book running on Geocities or AngelFire.
I’m a HTML5, CSS 3, SVG WebApp Developer and it can be frustrating having different standards or standards not totally implemented, so I can appreciate a lot of the points in this article about multipule standards creating work and knowledge that’s a waste of time.
In production, I have to use -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius, border-radius, khtml-border-radius…etc to perform the same function, thankfully the CSS 3 border-radius attribute is now supported in the latest versions of Firefox, IE9 and Chrome ~10.
I agree that Linux needs to get all of the people rounded together and then vote on standard specifications by majority vote. Having metacity vs qt’s Interface, and customizing WINE’s appearance is redundant, Users want to focus on Installing Apps, Using the Internet, Playing Games, and having productive apps like Netbeans, Notepad++/Geany, Word…etc and have all their devices communicate and play nice. I love how my contacts are global on my DROID and Gmail, and that I can now get Google+ instead of facbook to have a single network that syncs and works together.
It’s true SVG isn’t in common use, however I’m beginning to use it in my Cloud Engine for Icons…etc I mean what’s better creating 5 versions of an icon in PNG or using SVG? 32×32, 48×48, 64×64, 128×128…et cetera.
Next-Generation WebApps simple can require users to have JavaScript Enabled and force them to use a CSS3 compliant browser or download a Installer that installs a Mozilla Prism version of the WebApp on their computer.
I agree HTML 5 video is messed up, and the reason is that MP3 is a proprietary format. The license to support the MP3 Codec in a Application is $10,000, a hefty price for free projects. MP3 is supported in IE9 under HTML5, however It sucks because the only fallback for content display is to use Flash, or re-encode the Video / Audio Content before or while streaming in a Cache similarly to how Wikipedia ReEncodes SVG Images to PNG for users without SVG support.
Oh and about IE9, what were they thinking putting the tabs on the right? Someone must have came in to work and done that on a hangover!
I look forward to the death of IE7, IE8, Firefox 3 and the arrival of Firefox 7, IE10, and Chrome 11 – standards make my job and life much easier – get with it Linux and deal with it!
Oh and about IE9, what were they thinking putting the tabs on the right? Someone must have came in to work and done that on a hangover!
Well, you can put the tabs on the bottom row, if you want
But then it makes the view port smaller.
“View port” size DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE. Everyone has 1920×1080+ resolutions now. Unity fails because of this, IE 9 fails because of this, etc. I can not stand Unity at all. I’m sticking with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS as long as I can because Unity and GNOME 3 are so incredibly unintuitive.
ElectricPrism:
I agree that Linux needs to get all of the people rounded together and then vote on standard specifications by majority vote.
That’s what everyone wants, but it won’t happen until the YearOfTheLinuxDesktop(tm)
Everyone has 1920×1080+ resolutions now.
I have 1600×900. (1650×1050 for my ol’ run-down laptop I just fixed.)
I can not stand Unity at all. I’m sticking with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS as long as I can because Unity and GNOME 3 are so incredibly unintuitive.
Unity looks very shitty.
That said, I’d rather use Debian as my first Linux distro.
Just use windows damnit. Stop pretending your e-penis is twelve feet long by using linux and start using an operating system that actually does something for a change. You’ll feel a lot better when your time isn’t being spent installing and reinstalling lunix shit.
I have 1600×900.
My desktop is the same, but I have a netbook which has a resolution of 1024×600.
So yeah, saying everyone has a resolution of 1920×1080 is a bit of a stretch…
And hello fake Jerkface.
Just use windows damnit. Stop pretending your e-penis is twelve feet long by using linux and start using an operating system that actually does something for a change. You’ll feel a lot better when your time isn’t being spent installing and reinstalling lunix shit.
I was also planning on getting a Mac…
@ (fake?) Jerkface:
My pirated Windows 7 is barely functional anymore and there’s no way I’m using Vista.
Also 1920×1080 was a bit of an exaggeration, but everyone has moved or is moving up to higher resolutions from 1024×768. Vertical space isn’t THAT big of a deal anymore, at least not for 24 extra pixels for a separate tabbar.
You pirate Windows 7 and you complain it’s broken? Kirkos probably slapped a few viruses in there just to watch you squirm. Go get a legit copy before I make another piracy post all about you.
Haha what a troll.
I’ll dub you ‘Derpface’.
FUL
It most certainly IS a big deal!
I use Chrome for viewing Flash content and it’s hyper oversized separate tabbar and address bar annoy me to no end.
IE9 is smooth and really goes out of your way, I love it.
IE9 is sexy. I mean, foxy.
*violence ensues*
http://66.147.244.50/~tomontec/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IE9-DirectWrite.png
^That
Stupid img tag filtering
Didn’t MS once say that having a combined address and search bar is less secure?
Didn’t MS once say that having a combined address and search bar is less secure?
I don’t remember that… Maybe you’re thinking of privacy. Because when you are in InPrivate Mode (aka porn mode) the whatever they call it locationy-searchy-box will ask whether you want to enable search suggestions. Which is kind of pointless, because if you are going to hit enter the search engine will receive the search terms anyways.
I’d like to see Ubuntu / Gnome:
1) Combine the 3 Network Tools in Gnome into one
2) Provide another PPA Software Repo for Stable Software Only or some type of asterisk (*) so users don’t download the latest bugged nightly.
3) Change the irritating Login Safari Sound.
4) Remove Workspaces. If people want to use Compiz for a 3D Cube that’s fine, but multiple monitors really is the way to go for programmers needing more screen real estate. The realistic reason I could see a person use multiple workspaces would be to quick-switch to hide their porn from boss or parents.
5) I want Search in my Start Applet so I can load an app quickly (KDE did it but their Kicker is awful! Single-Click? What were they thinking)
6) Only someone in the kernel could fix the filesystem mess using acronyms instead of full words, I imagine lowercase programming and abbreviations are popular because a large portion of english speaking programmers are from india who speak english for work or as a second.
/etc/ should be /Config
/bin/ should be /Apps/
/mnt/ should be /Devices/
/home/ could be /Profiles/ or /Users/
/proc/ should be /Processes or /Cache
/sbin/ should be /SecureApps/ or /System/Apps
/sys/ should be /system
/srv/ should be /Server/
/root/ should be /Home/Root
The only other way of separating would be if you divided the filesystem into a “User”, “Secure / Admin”, and “Systems” partitions each of which stores information according to the group.
POSIX Permissions are great, but a 1980s Unix folder naming structure? I’m disappointed with Linus Torvalds for not having a more influential role in bringing things outside the kernel together.
@ElectricPrism
1) It’s called NetworkManager Applet
2) You obviously have no idea what PPAs are for (not stable software, by the way). This post should make it comprehensible for you: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/the-evolution-of-the-personal-package-archive-system/. Even if that wasn’t the case, people who make the software can make PPAs for their stable releases.
3) k
4) Just because you don’t use multiple virtual workspaces doesn’t mean others don’t. I use them all the time.
5) Unity has search.
6) posix
@ Thomas B
1) NetworkManager Applet is a good start, but leaves a lot to be desired. When you want to edit a network connection you click “Edit Connections” and a) there’s no way to distinguish which wired and wireless settings are bound to which hardware profiles. In order to do that you b) need to open [ System > Administration > Network Tools ] where you get to see which devices are available but not what settings are present. In order to edit Proxy information you need to then open [ System > Preferences > Proxy Preferences ].
Why should I or the other 7 billion people on the planet have to use 4 different places to edit a single device.
2) “You obviously have no idea what PPAs are for (not stable software, by the way). ”
Actually, this is exactly why I brought up the matter. PPA is for unstable software and some mechanism distinguishing between Alpha / Beta / Stable software needs to be in place.
You loose credibility writing arrogant self-assuming statements such as “You obviously have no idea…” …et cetera. Lets debate here in logical ways and keep it above the belt.
4) I think the feature of Work Spaces is fine as you’re right – some people do use them. For desktop users I do think that the feature is easily confusing and the average or even above average computer user will loose windows across work spaces.
I know when I install Fedora, Ubuntu or another Gnome centric distro the first thing I do is set only one Workspace, install DockBarX and either the condensed start menu or a custom one with search like the SLED Menu, in KDE Lancelot…etc.
5) Unity’s cool and all just like Gnome 3 is cool, but it’s still way lame that they both fail to run in a Virtual Machine for demoing before install.
–
On a side note, I look forward to the replacement or rewrite of X.Org which I hope to further standardize instead of fragment the DEs
KDE or Gnome? When facing the choice, 99% of computer users don’t hesitate: they don’t give a fuck about either.
Dear Linux desktop: will you die already, please. You suck beyond words.
@ElectricPrism
Have you tried installing any guest additions?
I’ve been hating Linux since you were being a winy little bitchface who complained that nobody read his blog about “OpenSolarisLinux.” If anyone is a troll it’s you. Go back to your African gorilla and suck him off some more. If you’re lucky he won’t force you to take it up the ass.
Why should there be a 1-to-1 mapping of POSIX stuff to something else? Windows has the most logical system with data split into three parts: system, programs, user data. As for POSIX compatibility there’s no reason it can’t be emulated, which even Mac OS does to an extent despite inheriting the file structure.
@Thomas B
“So you’re saying that the web doesn’t shouldn’t need to develop and get better?”
No that not what I am saying … I am just saying that if good software works well the user shouldn’t need to know or care … I am really into progressive enhancement …
Windows is actually POSIX compliant … POSIX 1 … to get it to 2 you need to either install Cygwin or Windows Services for Unix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX
The more advanced POSIX specifications such as command line utilities to check disk space “df” & “du” along with the environment constant “POSIXLY_CORRECT”, and “POSIX_ME_HARDER” seem like they could use a revision on the POSIX draft to v3.0 or even a new specification that’s logically laid out would be great.
I guess It’s the File Permissions in a POSIX system that I’m attracted to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_permissions
“I guess It’s the File Permissions in a POSIX system that I’m attracted to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_permissions”
Why? Do you mean the standard unix permissions (old, outdated crap)?
Nearly every UNIX based system is moving away from that (in the sense they are adding proper ACLs, which VMS (Windows NT’s daddy) already had a long time ago).
The Internet’s come a long way since 2001, most people don’t realize IE6 was released in August 2001 about 10 years ago when websites were more like a newspaper or book running on Geocities or AngelFire.
That’s bullshit. Most sites today aren’t much different than the ones in 2001.
I for one don’t notice much difference between todays Amazon.com, Google.com .. to the 2001 version of them.
The only difference I see is some flashy ajax effects, like instant search.. but that’s cosmetics.
I don’t think Google is a very fair comparison… They tend not to overdo their designs. Except for recently when they added that eyesore to the top of every page — yay.