Date: 29 Mar 2006 15:55:06 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: [Saab_c900] saab tool page updated
On 29 Mar 2006 14:58:37 GMT, sweller <swellernospamch.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > Dave Hinz wrote: > >> That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so >> you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who >> can't be bothered to test his site properly, go for it. The fact is, >> you have to go out of your way to make something not work in browsers >> other than IE. > I don't use IE, never said I did; now who's being deliberately dim? What does that have to do with badly written webpages? My point stands regardless of what's on your desktop. Bad web developers are the problem, not how a standards-compliant browser renders them. >> OK, great. I use Opera when I'm testing encryption settings on >> webservers. Not real fond of it otherwise, for reasons I'm not going to >> bother to go into because of course you'll tell me I've got that wrong >> too somehow. > I'd actually be interested why as you're not the only person who's said > they don't get on with it. I always liked it and have paid for it from > version 5. I paid a while ago too, maybe 2 years ago or so, because I was using it for those encryption tests and I figured I should thank them with money. But it just never turned into a daily-driver for me, so to speak. >> > As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous >> > "Firefox or Death!" approach. >> >> You're using quote marks there, which implies that it's a quote. >> That's why they're called quote marks, you see. I never made such a >> statement, so kindly refrain from trying to be my spokesman. Thanks. > > It's a quote but not necessarilly yours. Riiiiight. So word games then. Loverly. >> This has nothing to do with your "idealogical purity" theory, it's >> simply a matter of functionality. I can get to everything I need to >> with firefox, and I see no reason to inflict IE and it's inherent >> security problems, usability problems, and so on, upon myself. I just >> don't need it for everyday web browsing. If you can't get something to >> work with firefox, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Or maybe we >> just go to entirely different sites, who knows. > Firefox is a good alternative and makes migrating from IE very easy and > unthreatening for the average user but I always found it clunky looking > and just, well, crappy. It's one of those subjective things. That and > back to the original point of it balking on more websites than was > helpful. (shrug) I just don't see enough differentiating factors with Opera to bother switching to it. >> > Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - >> >> 5 years ago that was sortof true, if you were a user-level person who >> doesn't 'grok' Unix. These days, systems like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and >> others, make the install process painless, and the suite of tools is >> complete. > The installation process isn't the problem. It took *two* *weeks* and > several builds to get Unreal Tournament running on Suse; Mandrake (as > was) was just as awkward for installing third party stuff - I started > wanting to commit penguicide after that. Sounds like two problems. First, you're quite possibly using the wrong tool for the job. If you want to play Unreal Tournament, why not keep a windows install around for gaming? The mandrake installation issues, well, sounds like a training issue. > It's very good for specific jobs but as an average user after an average > users desktop OS it was a PITA. Which was a shame as it really appealed > to me. (shrug) Doesn't matter to me. There are at least two popular window managers to choose from, perhaps if you cared you could try whichever one you didn't. (Note: if you're now about to explain that technically, gnome and KDE aren't 'window managers' but are instead something subtly different that acts like, but technically isn't a 'window manager', save yourself some time and don't bother.) >> The '86 c900 is leaking oil. They all do that. That's how you know >> it's got oil in the engine. > Mine doesn't ... No, honestly. You'd better check to make sure there's oil in there. Seriously. At the very least the valve cover gasket should be leaking.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
