I for one...
Now where's the shot gun in case he refuses?
10 posts • joined 15 Oct 2007
Are you mad! Just because something already 'just 'works' doesn't mean it should be adopted. If we took that attitude we would never progress with anything. Just look at the state of play with the OS market, most Joes buy M$ because it 'just works' for them, but look how far we have been kept back technologically as a result. Not only has the lack of competition stifled the advancement of OSs but it has locked the processor market into using a poor architecture too - just to preserve backwards compatibility, we could have made many inroads with a solid RISC architecture had healthy competition been around. How many other places must we be held back before we dump this junk?
my experience of using a lappy with broadcom air-force-one card is:
* pre-gutsy I couldn't get wireless to work, but with gutsy it was able to recognise that I needed a proprietry driver and helped me install it.
* An upgrade to hardy broke it and plain ethernet too, so I reverted to gutsy.
* Intrepid behaves like gutsy, so I've been using that.
Hopefully Jaunty will continue to work, if not Intrepid is still nicer than windows.
"... how exactly are they going to download a new browser to use?"
There could be some sort of software repository for things like that, so when you install windows you are asked which software you would like, then it goes to the repository and downloads and installs it for you.
You could then extend this to have a package manager to avoid going to the net at all to install (free) software, then you would know that everything you install is safe. Advanced users would be able to access this package manager at the command line with something like "apt-get install firefox" if they wanted to install another browser or anything else in the repository.
while they're at it they could implement some sort of permissions system so that you're not a root user by default then have some sort of passwording system to overide it.
mines the one with the copy of Ubuntu in the pocket.
If you have a critical system, you simply cannot afford to use windows - In fact, I would go so far as to say you really need a custom OS - It doesn't have to be built from scratch as there are plenty of good kernels available, but it should be lightweight and it should be designed to do the task at hand, not general purpose.
Misses the point of the acid 3 test - most people know that it is about encouraging semantic markup which is rendered the same regardless of platform - each browser rendering the same way if correct semantic markup is used. If all browsers render the code the same way we would certainly use semantic code.
So why use semantic markup - machines can read it, and so can screen-readers that interpret it for blind users. This leads me on to my main point about why chrome misses the point of acid 3 - it all very well to render according to standards but what is the point of a browser that advocates standards but cannot be used with a screen-reader!!
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=92 sums up why it cannot be used by blind people.
Gosh, people really do need to get a grip (so to speak) - it's a human body, and in this context it most certainly isn't pornographic, so what's the problem?? And don't get me started on those bloody US neo-conservative prudes that believe the world is only 6000 years old...
Come on guys - imagine you went blind and couldn't access anything with your screen reader (which does a remarkable job of making a computer accessible) just because some lasy webmaster couldn't be bother to code the web-site according to a standard. It's not difficult to learn (x)html & css, and if a business is paying a professional, it's not too much trouble to structure a document properly
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019