Re: In response to...
21 posts • joined 1 Apr 2011
You obviously don't have a Norwegian bank account. Java is required to log into internet banking websites in Norway. This means that a ten year old PC running XP is more secure than five year old Macbook running Leopard.
"If big smart corporations such as Google have such large problems with a relatively trivial security matter because its programmers can't sufficiently visualize the security model so as to avoid it, then it begs the serious question as to what else can't programmers conceptually visualize with their software which may leave it with fundamental flaws."
Except that the problem is not just with Google programmers. Each phase of the process from global design specs, functional design, technical design, build and test should act as a review of the previous phase of the project. A functional designer should notice flaws in the assumptions of the architects, a tester finds problems with the build, whilst the programmer then discovers that fault lies not with their code but the technical design. In the meantime, the technical designer might already have realised that there is an ambiguity in the functional design and altered the technical specs. So it goes on and on.
You would have thought that such a process would have eliminated such a glaring flaw. Unless of course everyone working on the project thought it was a fantastic feature instead of a rather dumb idea.*
Perhaps the problem is that companies like Google employ too many "Wunderkinder" who are very good at design, programming, testing etc, from a technical point of view, but have insufficient experience and understanding of "the real world" to notice a stupid idea when it bites them on the bum.
*cf New Look Google.
If Apple are serious about increasing market share, then a similar app for Android, Bada or Windows Phone would make more sense.
"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods, your enemy has won. . "
Apple's big enemy used to be Microsoft. Now Apple are bigger than Microsoft, Apple are doing exactly the same as Microsoft used to do. If you can't beat the opposition in a straight fight and you can't buy them, then sue your competitors into the ground.
To quote from Webwereld.nl
"Android 3.x maakt geen inbreuk
De inbreuk geldt dus alleen voor Samsung's smartphones die Android 2.3 draaien. Android 3.x, dat op de tablet draait, maakt geen inbreuk."
Which translates approximately as:
Android 3.x does not infringe (the Apple patent)
The (patent) infringement is only relevent for Samsung's smartphones that run Android 2.3. Android 3.0, as used by the Galaxy Tab does not infringe the patent.
It is actually quite a good result for Samsung. The Galaxy Tab running Android 3.0 does not have the offending photo viewing interface, only the phones running Android 2.3. The problem with the phones can be fixed by a software update.
The lawyer for Samsung (Bas Berghuis van Woortman) made the point that most consumer electronics are shipped just-in-time to distribution centres in the Netherlands. So the number of the offending phones shipped to the Netherlands is quite small and hence applying the software updates to the phones already in the Netherlands will not take long. The planned launch date should not be affected.
The important point of the ruling is that all the other 'look and feel' claims by Apple, (supported by the doctored photos) have been thrown out by court, for both the Galaxy Tab and the phones.
Given that Apple are obsessed with the idea that their competitors in the smartphone and tablet markets just slavishly copy anything new that they do, can we now expect Samsung, HTC and Nokia to announce the resignation of their respective CEOs ?
I've taken the same decision to avoid Apple products a while ago, when I noticed that they had become the new Microsoft.
In principle avoiding giving any more of our hard earned cash to Apple seems simple. Just don't buy an iPhone, Macbook or Apple TV. However even if you buy the "Acme Internet Access Tray Model 2" you cannot guarantee that you won't still be giving money to Apple.
Apple has a huge patent portfolio relating to mobile and computing devices. Chances are that almost any wireless or touchscreen mobile device manufacturer will be paying a few cents (somewhere along the line), on each unit sold to their customers, to our friends at Apple (or MS or Google-Motorola for that matter). Hence our desire to never give Mr Jobs and his friends some of our money ever again, is a dream that is unlikely to be fullfilled.
If that is what you want, you will have to accept that you must stop buying all internet enabled devices until you can be certain exactly who gets a slice of the purchase price.
How about Apple suing Samsung for the details of customers who have already bought the GPad?
Samsung, like Apple has cohorts of lawyers, but individual consumers would much more easily be scared into submission on receiving an unpleasant letter from Apple.
That would appear to be the logical next step, given Apple's behaviour so far.
...that they forgot to bundle a spell checker with Win 7.
I'm on my way out.
If you don't fortify Marmite then vegans and vegetarians in particular (or anyone with an inability to absorb vitamin B12 such as the elderly) could suffer problems because of a lack of vitamin B12. The effects of a deficiancy of B12, if not treated include permanent damage to your nervous system.
Vitamin B12 has low levels of toxicity even when taken in high doses.
...but until Marmite is approved by the relevant Danish ministry.......
......it is "banned" from sale in Denmark.
You are better off being a sheep sh•gging expat in Denmark, than a Marmite eating expat in Denmark, as bestiality has already been approved by the Danish authorities, as have sheep.
I'm on my way out.....
If Apple really took such threats seriously then they should have included a trojan blocker when MacOSX first was released. Whilst a trojan blocker in Snow Leopard is a step in the right direction, it still leaves plenty of Leopard users (including PPC mac owners for who there is no post-Leopard upgrade path) entirely unprotected.
Not to mention those using even older versions of MacOSX. It looks like none of the current MacOSX AV software supports Panther, which means Panther users are even less well protected than XP users.
Even now, after the appearance of the 'proof of concept' MACdefender, Apple do not appear to be taking the threat of trojans and malware seriously. Apple should, at the very, least be educating its customers about security rather than insisting its Apple store "geniuses" spread FUD about the issue.
I don't think the Skype UI designers vomitted all over the desktop, they let it pass normally through their digestive tracts and excreted it. Skype 5 for mac isn't a pavement pizza, it's a steaming pile of poo.
Fortunately there is a much better version available. For some reason the improved version has been called Skype 2.8 for mac instead of Skype 6 for mac. I never have understood the world of product marketing.
"Anyway, what was minimize for in the first place? What was ever the point of minimizing window A to get to window B? Why not just switch to / click on window B straight away? Can someone enlighten me?"
Well, by clicking on B it gets focus, partially obscuring windows C and D, that you are also referring to and completely covering window E, in which you are actually doing something. So clicking on B and giving it focus disturbs the flow of work. Just minimising window A would have solved the problem in one click.
"It's a little ironic really: Remember the standard GUI for the original eeePC 701 or Acer netbooks? They were slated as not being windows enough. No though they're starting to look prescient - All they needed was an 'App Store'!"
http://wiki.eeeuser.com/#full_desktop_advanced_mode - a very popular tweak at the time. It turned the crippled version of Xandros, that the EeePC shipped with, into a usable tool.
That is before Ubuntu based Eee-distros with the Gnome 2.x desktop became all the rage.
...I'd have bought a fondleslab.
Another vote for Xfce.
Opera don't have to try and compete with Gmail, in the same way they don't have to compete with Firefox. Opera Software seem to have carved out a small niche in the technology ecosystem and have an enthusiastic following. Even if you don't use Opera browser on your desktop, there is still a space in the market for an ad free, simple webmail service that supports IMAP. As for the storage capacity, 1GB is certainly enough for most people. Especially if they choose to augment this with the 2GB offered by a MyOpera blog.
However these are just details and perhaps the main reason to avoid Gmail (and a slew of other 'free' services) is that as a user of Gmail you are not the customer but the product. The true customers of Gmail are the companies that pay for the adverts. The product that Google is selling is you and me, our demographic and personal data that we give them for free.
If you are happy being a product of one of the most powerful technology companies in the world then carry on using Gmail.If not, then Operamail is another good option in the marketplace.
"Canonical seem to have been infected with the same rabid management madness that is generally abroad these days - take a good service that is known, understood and loved and change it out of all recognition for no other reason than because you can. Then you sneer at your customers that complain, post mocking remarks about those who point out the shortcomings and refuse point blank to address anyone's objections with anything other than condescending patronage."
Google instant preview - You can't turn this 'feature' off (needs Adblock plus to kill it)
Tabbed interface in Thunderbird 3 - you can't revert to the 2.xx non-tabbed UI if you don't like a tabbed email client.
The truly awful new UI in Skype 5 for mac - you can't turn it off, and there's no classic mode (thankfully v2.8 still works).
As you point out, now Canonical have added themselves to the list of companies eager to shoot themselves in the foot with 'bold new UX paradigms'.