<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Rannsaich mo Inntinn &#187; FLOSS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/category/floss/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog</link>
	<description>Accessibly Technical</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:00:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>My Last Whine about Google Chrome</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/136</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/136#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fail. sucks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK Google. Game&#8217;s up. I tried. Then I tried some more, and after that a bit more, but now it&#8217;s over. The purpose of a web browser is to make life easier, not to waste my time making me try to love it. Chrome does not make my life easier. So I will not be [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK Google.</p>
<p>Game&#8217;s up.</p>
<p>I tried. Then I tried some more, and after that a bit more, but now it&#8217;s over.</p>
<p>The purpose of a web browser is to make life <em>easier</em>, not to waste <em>my</em> time making me try to love it.</p>
<p><strong>Chrome does not make my life easier.</strong></p>
<p>So I will not be using it for a while.</p>
<h3>A History: Timmy and Chrome</h3>
<p>First, Windows wouldn&#8217;t work, and I couldn&#8217;t use it. I was getting really excited though&#8211;there was the <a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.google.com');">comic</a> (which came out of the BLUE!). Then the Ubuntu Forums <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=908653" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/ubuntuforums.org');">thread</a>. Then my friend&#8217;s one and only blog <a href="http://revolutiondude.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/review-google-chrome/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/revolutiondude.wordpress.com');">post,</a> a positive (but well-supported) review. Never mind the general internet buzz surrounding it&#8211;that&#8217;s a given.</p>
<p>Then <a href="http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=88">Windows was restored</a>, and I actually tried the thing. I kinda <a href="http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=106">hosed it</a>, but I was trying to be optimistic. It was new, it was unextended, heck&#8211;it was still in Beta! So even while while completely slamming it, all I could think of was, &#8220;Don&#8217;t worry&#8211;it&#8217;ll improve.&#8221; And I was sure that it would&#8230;eventually.</p>
<h3>A few months later&#8230;</h3>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-chrome-beta.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/googleblog.blogspot.com');">It&#8217;s out of Beta</a>.</li>
<li><a href="http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/dev.chromium.org');">Extensions</a> <a href="http://www.googlechromeboard.com/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.googlechromeboard.com');">are</a> <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10110247-2.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/news.cnet.com');">almost</a> here.</li>
<li>It has users. From the Google Blog:</li>
</ul>
<p>In just 100 days, we have reached more than 10 million active users around the world (on all seven continents, no less) and released 14 updates to the product</p>
<ul>
<li>It&#8217;s still terrible. Yes that&#8217;s my opinion.<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+chrome+sucks" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.google.com');"> But</a> it&#8217;s <a href="http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-things-google-chrome-needs-now-that-its-out-of-beta/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.makeuseof.com');">other</a> <a href="http://acidmartin.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/google-chrome-sucks-big-time/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/acidmartin.wordpress.com');">people</a>&#8216;<a href="http://boogadget.com/4-reasons-why-google-chrome-sucks" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/boogadget.com');">s</a> <a href="http://ronsrants.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/google-chrome-sucks/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/ronsrants.wordpress.com');">too</a>.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>So I think the time has come to stop coddling Chrome, and instead make it play with the big boys. You know where I stand on Chrome vs. Firefox. Comparing it with IE is trickier&#8211;one&#8217;s an awesome presentation of a terrible idea, the other&#8217;s a terrible presentation of an awesome idea. Opera and Safari users are too ingrained into their browser choice to <em>care</em> (ditto for Flock) and Epiphany, Konqueror, Kazehakaze, Dillo, et al. are *nix-only. Has Chrome gotten a <em>victory</em> in that? No.</p>
<p>So hopefully Google, geniuses that they are, will make a totallyawesomepieceofsweetness for Chrome 2, and the Browser Wars will turn into a pair of great, open source browsers taking potshots at an overly competitive old guy, with the browser equivalents of the Green Party flitting about in between (Opera, etc.)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, &#8220;hopefully&#8221; is nowhere near the same as &#8220;currently&#8221; <img src='http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  So I&#8217;ll catchya later Chrome.</p>
<p>Much later.<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
digg_url = 'http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=136';
</script><br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript"></script> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/136/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chrome, Chrome, Chrome&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/106</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/106#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web browser]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been making an honest effort to use Google Chrome. Really, I have. It seems like such a better idea&#8211;one process per tab, faster Javascript, easy interface, incognito mode, integrated search from address bar&#8211;it&#8217;s positively beautiful on paper. Put I just can&#8217;t accept it as a &#8216;serious&#8217; browser. To help you understand this, let me [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/button.js?t=3"></script></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been making an honest effort to use Google Chrome.</p>
<p>Really, I have.</p>
<p>It seems like such a better idea&#8211;one process per tab, faster Javascript, easy interface, incognito mode, integrated search from address bar&#8211;it&#8217;s positively beautiful on paper.</p>
<p>Put I just can&#8217;t accept it as a &#8216;serious&#8217; browser.</p>
<p>To help you understand this, let me walk you through a typical weekend Firefox session:</p>
<blockquote><p>Open Firefox, all the tabs I was looking at last time are up. Finish reading/digesting them, and close them as I finish. Check my mail, Twitter and Facebook, writing when necessary. Check the stats for this blog, as well as my ad performance. Read everything new on Google Reader, and if I want to read some more, do a bit of Stumbling. If a new term comes up in Reader or SU, look it up on Wikipedia. Write a post for this blog or my other one, if I have the time, and maybe check the Programming section of the Ubuntu Forums&#8211;either I learn something or I can help someone out. If I still want something to do, then I open up either my C or wxPython tutorial, and start learning.</p></blockquote>
<p>Now let&#8217;s consider Chrome:</p>
<ul>
<li>Open up the tabs from last time: Check.</li>
<li>GMail/Twitter/Facebook: Check.</li>
<li>Blog info: Check.</li>
<li>Reader: Check.</li>
<li>StumbleUpon: Fail.</li>
<li>Wikipedia: Fail (this will be explained.)</li>
<li>Blogging: Check.</li>
<li>Ubuntu Forums: Check.</li>
<li>Programming tutorials: Err&#8230;I program in Ubuntu, and use Chrome in Windows, so Fail.</li>
</ul>
<p>Besides StumbleUpon (and Wikipedia(?)), everything looks fine. So what&#8217;s the problem?</p>
<p><strong>Ease of use.</strong></p>
<p><em>But Timmy, Chrome is ridiculously easy to use&#8211;Google has long been famed for its superior design, interface and usability!</em></p>
<p>So I present my humble list of <strong>Five Usability Fails on Google Chrome</strong>:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>The Omnibar.</strong> I think Google&#8217;s trying to one-up Firefox 3&#8242;s Awesome Bar with this. I think they failed. FF does a superior job of searching ALL parts of a URL and putting the MOST relevant one on top. I have mastered the &lt;Down&gt;&lt;Enter&gt; hand flick. Chrome tries, but it seems to weigh the first part of the URL a LOT more. Take this blog&#8211;I access it frequently, and in Firefox always used &#8220;Ran&#8230;&#8221; to do so (it found Rannsaich mo Inntinn) Even though I acces it a lot in Chrome, Google puts Rand McNally (rand.com) as the first result. <em>I haven&#8217;t even been there!</em> This is just Google outsmarting itself.</li>
<li><strong>The search box</strong>. Chrome doesn&#8217;t have one. Fail.</li>
<li><strong>Number two cheated</strong>. If I want to search Google in Firefox, I hit &lt;Ctrl&gt;&lt;K&gt;. If my cursor is in the location bar, I hit &lt;Tab&gt;. If I want to search Wikipedia, Ninjawords, or BibleGateway, I use &lt;Ctrl&gt;&lt;Arrow Keys&gt;. This is exceedingly easy and <em>fast</em>. What&#8217;s more, if I&#8217;m Feeling Lucky (say I want the Wikipedia page on Agile Programming), I just type &#8220;wiki agile programming&#8221; into the <em>location</em> bar, hit enter, and <em>BAM!</em> there it is. This has about a 97% success rate. Good enough for me. Chrome, on the other hand, only lets you use ONE search engine, and you can NEVER feel lucky. What&#8217;s more, to access &#8216;real&#8217; webpages (see #1) you have to scroll through the search entries in the drop-down list.</li>
<li><strong>Chrome.</strong> As in, the decoration around the browser, not the browser. I feel like Firefox provides a lot of power with its UI&#8211;navigation, bookmarks, tabs, extra third-party toolbars, menus, etc. If I feel cramped for screen space, guess what? I hit &lt;F11&gt; and it all goes bye-bye. Chrome is stuck in this middle ground of having less power than FF&#8217;s complete chrome, and less screen space than FF&#8217;s fullscreen. Why can&#8217;t Chrome have a fullscreen too? I have no idea. Feature request!!!</li>
<li><strong>Tab layout.</strong> Call this minor, but it really bugs me. I have grown fully accustomed to new tabs being opened at the far right. Maybe it&#8217;s just the way my brain works, but I&#8217;d much rather see things chronologically instead of topically. I&#8217;m probably crazy, but the fact that Chrome opens links in adjacent tabs drives me cuckoo. They could at least make it optional&#8230;.</li>
</ol>
<p>I know that I could learn to live with a lot of these, but why? Firefox works fine for me, and I see no reason to change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/106/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Open Letter to Hob&#8211;I mean, Microsoft</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/88</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/88#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ubuntu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open-source]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=88</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Microsoft, First of all, I&#8217;d really like to thank you. MS Office is, in my opinion, the best office suite on the market. Windows has made many contributions to home computing&#8211;first and foremost instilling the concept that computers are for everyone&#8211;not just socially deprived nerds. Though Windows remains a fairly effective way of getting [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><script type="text/javascript">
digg_url = 'http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=88';
</script><br />
<script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript"></script><br />
Dear Microsoft,</p>
<p>First of all, I&#8217;d really like to thank you. MS Office is, in my opinion, the best office suite on the market. Windows has made many contributions to home computing&#8211;first and foremost instilling the concept that computers are for everyone&#8211;not just socially deprived nerds. Though Windows remains a fairly effective way of getting things done, I decided to switch to GNU/Linux this summer for reasons of my own. I really like the view from there. That said, I&#8217;d like to ask after some basic features implemented in Windows that are standard (as free, open-source software no less) in GNU/Linux.</p>
<p>*Updating. Updating Windows is a painful process&#8211;the OS itself tends to pop up unexpectedly, chew up needed bandwidth, and restart at inopportune moments. What&#8217;s more, individual pieces of software must all be updated individually. This is, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. It can&#8217;t be difficult to integrate ONE, all-inclusive, non-intrusive updating utility. Yes, it might be an extra step for application developers. No, I do not sympathize with them. Please do this.</p>
<p>*Workspaces. Workspaces aren&#8217;t a very big deal&#8230;but they&#8217;re darn handy. Yes, I know I can download them for Windows from your &#8220;PowerToys&#8221; section, but there is no good reason they&#8217;re not included on a vanilla install. And I can&#8217;t really think of a reason it doesn&#8217;t include transition effects when you move between them.</p>
<p>*Themes. I believe there are 3 legal themes for Microsoft Windows XP. This has got to stop. Yes, I like blue. No, I don&#8217;t like it <em>that</em> much.</p>
<p>*Sensible administration privileges. I really like the concept GNU/Linux has which is that programs run on the lowest permission level they can. This is instrumental in stopping spyware. I feel unsafe when I&#8217;m logged in as a Windows administrator. Is that the attitude you want?</p>
<p>*Filesystem. Ext* (especially Ext3) is better than NTFS. No defragmenting, more reliable, please switch. There is no shame in this.</p>
<p>*Open document formats. Both releasing <em>all</em> of your own document formats, and adapting MS Office to include Open Document files. Natively.</p>
<p>*System resources: Why is it that my Ubuntu installation runs faster than a friend&#8217;s Vista installation&#8230;with <strong>8 times</strong> the RAM, and ~double the processor? And functionality is debatably the same, to boot.</p>
<p>*Internet rendering: I <em>know</em> you can convince IE to pass the Acid3. It&#8217;s OK to shamelessly copy &amp; paste Firefox/Chrome&#8217;s source code, that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s there for.</p>
<p>Please take these suggestions (and I&#8217;m sure there are more that I have yet to think of) into consideration. For the good of your product. For the good of your company. For the good of your millions of users. Please.</p>
<p>With warm regards,</p>
<p>Timmy Macdonald</p>
<p><script src="http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.js" type="text/javascript"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/88/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Handy tip #1: [Aptitude]</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/56</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/56#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Handy Tips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ubuntu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aptitude]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=56</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First of all, I&#8217;m sorry I haven&#8217;t posted for a while&#8211;school went &#8216;banoonoos&#8217; (as Joss Whedon would say), and any remaining time went to FSM. Second of all, I&#8217;m contemplating starting a new &#8216;syle&#8217; of post&#8211;handy tips. They&#8217;re meant to be concise bits of usefulness. Yes, yes, yes, this one isn&#8217;t very concise, but I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, I&#8217;m sorry I haven&#8217;t posted for a while&#8211;school went &#8216;banoonoos&#8217; (as Joss Whedon would say), and any remaining time went to <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.freesoftwaremagazine.com');">FSM</a>.</p>
<p>Second of all, I&#8217;m contemplating starting a new &#8216;syle&#8217; of post&#8211;handy tips. They&#8217;re meant to be concise bits of usefulness. Yes, yes, yes, this one isn&#8217;t very concise, but I consider it an extenuating circumstance <img src='http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  They should have two parts&#8211;the [Background:], for&#8230;um&#8230;background information, and then another part which is the real tip.</p>
<p>That was way too long-winded. Sorry.</p>
<p>At any rate, here&#8217;s the real post:</p>
<p><strong>[Background:]</strong></p>
<p>A lot of people use the command line to install packages. Add/Remove is incomplete, Synaptic is slow, and the command-line is awesome.</p>
<p>I find myself using Apitude a lot more than apt-get, for the plain and simple reason that it&#8217;s a lot easier to make up commands. sudo aptitude install thunderbird works, sudo apt-get thunderbird doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>I always kind of got frustrated by the fact that after thinking for a while, I would need to type in &#8216;Y&#8217; to confirm that I wanted to use disk space. (I suppose I can see the rationale for that feature, but it <em>is</em> annoying<strong>)</strong></p>
<p><strong>[Meat:]</strong></p>
<p>To make Aptitude <em>not</em> ask you if you&#8217;re OK with the disk space it&#8217;s going to use, and the dependencies that have to be installed, use the following command:</p>
<pre>sudo aptitude -y install yourprogramname</pre>
<p>Where <em>yourprogramname</em> is the name of the program you want to install.</p>
<pre></pre>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/56/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Word Procesors continued: OpenOffice.org Write vs. MS Word vs. Google Docs vs. Zoho Writer vs. Abiword</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/33</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/33#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fights (x vs. y)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abiword]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google docs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MS Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Openoffice.org]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Word processor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Write]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoho]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=33</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OpenOffice.org Write, MS Word and Google Docs are all covered in depth in my previous post. So remember that Google Docs was good for quick, portable, multiple-computer stuff, OpenOffice.org was good if you were a fan of either the F or the LOS in FLOSS, and MS Word was the best, assuming you had the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OpenOffice.org Write, MS Word and Google Docs are all covered in depth in my <a href="http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=3">previous post</a>. So remember that Google Docs was good for quick, portable, multiple-computer stuff, OpenOffice.org was good if you were a fan of either the F or the LOS in FLOSS, and MS Word was the best, assuming you had the money and operating system.</p>
<p>But there&#8217;s still more word processors&#8211;Abiword and Zoho Writer. Observations:</p>
<ul>
<li>Abiword is the fastest of the three &#8216;desktop&#8217; entries. Even more so if you&#8217;re already running GNOME (with its GTK+ libraries)</li>
<li>Abiword has an interface that looks remarkably like Word 2003.</li>
<li>Abiword doesn&#8217;t excessive amounts of auto-formatting&#8211;which I like, since frequently Word/Write and I don&#8217;t see eye-to-eye on how things should be.</li>
<li>Zoho has a slight edge over Google Docs in features&#8211;but loses a <em>lot</em> in speed. Typing lag, anyone?</li>
<li>Abiword feels more &#8216;polished&#8217; than Write. Don&#8217;t ask me <em>how</em>, but it just does.</li>
<li>Abiword doesn&#8217;t seem to have outline numbering. Which is a <em>shame</em>.</li>
<li>Abiword doesn&#8217;t support built-in drawing.</li>
<li>Write does.</li>
<li>Write actually does a much better job of imbedded pictures than Word.</li>
</ul>
<p>Summary:</p>
<p>If you have the money (and proprietary immunity), Word remains king.</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t have the money, or have a thing about open-source, then:</p>
<p>Use Abiword for general stuff. It does normal things faster and better than Write.</p>
<p>Use Write if you <em>need</em> the extra features it provides. You probably don&#8217;t, but it&#8217;s there.</p>
<p>As far as the online ones go, use Google Docs for online stuff. Zoho has a few more features, but it&#8217;s probably not worth it unless you&#8217;re some kind of extreme online power-user. And I can assure you that you&#8217;re not.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see any benefit to using the offline versions of Google Docs/Zoho over the other three. Unless you knew you were going to have Internet at the beginning and end of your document-writing session, and knew that you wouldn&#8217;t in the middle. Or something. Go figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/33/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IDE Fight: Geany (ooh) vs. gedit (What!?) (Don&#8217;t worry&#8211;it&#8217;s close)</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/15</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/15#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fights (x vs. y)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gedit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDLE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Python]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my Python pursuits,I’ve used three IDEs to write the code. Geany, IDLE, and gedit (aka ‘Text Editor’ in Ubuntu) (OK, OK! I know gedit’s actually a text editor! But I’m using it as an IDE! Calm down!) I’m kind of developing a love for the bullet form of review, since it keeps things concise. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my <a href="http://tmac.andrewmin.com/programming.html" target="_blank">Python pursuits</a>,I’ve used three IDEs to write the code. Geany, IDLE, and gedit (aka ‘Text Editor’ in Ubuntu) (OK, OK! I <em>know</em> gedit’s actually a text editor! But I’m using it <em>as</em> an IDE! Calm down!)</p>
<p>I’m kind of developing a love for the bullet form of review, since it keeps things concise. Also note that this is not very technical, it’s just what Timmy-the-end-user likes and dislikes.</p>
<ul>
<li>I used IDLE for about five minutes. I didn’t like it. Don’t ask why, it’s the same feeling I had when I tried KDE. The gut-reaction, pseudo-phobia, I-can’t-deal-with-this moment. I’m sure it’s great, I just don’t like it. Case closed.</li>
<li>Geany is definitely…<em>bigger</em> than gedit, and it’s written with an eye to programming, not text editing. As such:</li>
<li>Geany: When you open a new document, it has a nifty GPL license already put in.</li>
<li>Geany: It has the all-powerful ‘Execute’ button, which is definitely faster than executing it with the Terminal.</li>
<li>Geany: I’m not quite sure how sound the ‘Execute’ button is, it seemed a bit buggy to me, but that may just be a hallucination.</li>
<li>Geany: When you type an if/while/for/etc., it’ll automatically indent. Which is kind of cool.</li>
<li>Geany: Speaking about those, it has the ability to ‘fold’ ifs/whiles/comments/fors. So you can just minimize them into one line to save screen real estate. Which is also kind of cool.</li>
<li>Geany: There’s variable auto-completion. So if you have variable user_input, just type in user, and a menu will show up asking if you want to autocomplete. It’s actually really intuitive.</li>
<li>Geany: Wikipedia calls it ‘cross-platform’. So it runs on every major OS except for Macs.</li>
<li>Both: They both have syntax highlighting.</li>
<li>Both: They both have tabs.</li>
<li>gedit: gedit’s lighter/faster/smaller.</li>
<li>gedit: gedit has <em>plugins</em> (read: Stinkin’ <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/gedit_powerful_underrated_text_editor_everybody" target="_blank" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/www.freesoftwaremagazine.com');">AWESOME</a>!!. So with plugins (easily addable from Edit=&gt;Preferences|Plugins), some of the highlights are that you can:</li>
<li>gedit: Have a Python interpreter chilling in the bottom of your screen. Which is HANDY.</li>
<li>gedit: Mass indent/unindent (Nice if you add or remove an extra level of control flow)</li>
<li>gedit: On the lame side, you need to have a Terminal running to execute your entire program. Though you should be executing less often with the interpreter.</li>
<li>gedit: Since we’re on the lame side: It only runs in ‘Unix-like systems’. Sorry, Windows people! (I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some kind of workaround, though that’s outside of the scope of this post)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusions:</h2>
<p>Don’t use IDLE (haha, just kidding. But I really don’t have anything else to say about it).</p>
<p>Use Geany if you want to feel like the editor knows what you’re thinking (variable autocompletion, auto-indenting), or if you execute your program like crazy.</p>
<p>Use gedit (which I personally prefer) if you want speed, an interpreter, or handy tools (aka plugins).</p>
<p>Really though? They’re both great, I’ve used them both, and the easiest way of knowing is to code in both of them and make an executive decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/15/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OpenOffice Writer vs. MS Word vs. Google Docs</title>
		<link>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/3</link>
		<comments>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/3#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Timmy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fights (x vs. y)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FLOSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google docs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ms word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSOffice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Openoffice.org]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is just the tip of the iceberg. But so far, what I’ve noticed: * OpenOffice doesn’t have the same kind of quality as stuff like Firefox, Pidgin–heck: Ubuntu, gedit, the GIMP, etc. I guess it’s a pretty big project. * OpenOffice is slower than Word. This is true, I read about it somewhere, where [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="entry-body">
<div>
<div class="item-body">
<div>
<p>This is just the tip of the iceberg.</p>
<p>But so far, what I’ve noticed:</p>
<p>* OpenOffice doesn’t have the same kind of quality as stuff like Firefox, Pidgin–heck: Ubuntu, gedit, the GIMP, etc. I guess it’s a pretty big project.<br />
* OpenOffice is slower than Word. This is true, I read about it somewhere, where they clocked it.<br />
* OpenOffice really doesn’t have any killer features that Word doesn’t…except being open-source and having plugins.<br />
* OpenOffice has much more intuitive auto-formatting, and much more intuitive menus.<br />
* I’m used to Word, so the intuitive menus, while more intuitive, were also foreign.<br />
* Google Docs lacks a LOT of the features OO and Word have. Duh.<br />
* Word can’t deal with odt format. Which is sort of annoying, and would take Microsoft about half an hour to make happen. [Expletive deleted]<br />
* Google Docs (being webbased) is GREAT for that quicky school paper that you do half of in study hall and half at home. Otherwise it’s:</p>
<p>1. Open processor-heavy program (OO or Word)<br />
2. Type<br />
3. Save<br />
4. Open browser<br />
5. Go to email<br />
6. Log in<br />
7. Compose Mail<br />
8. Attach document<br />
9. Send<br />
10. Close browser<br />
11. Close OO/Word</p>
<p>As opposed to:</p>
<p>1. Open browser<br />
2. Go to Google Docs<br />
3. Type<br />
4. Save<br />
5. Close</p>
<p>* Don’t forget to run Google Docs in full-screen mode. Do you really need your addres bar/tabs?<br />
* Word is expensive. Google docs is ‘FS’ (Free Software). OpenOffice is FOSS (Free Open-Source Software).<br />
* OpenOffice has great community support<br />
* Google Docs has the Google Help Center (complete with videos)<br />
* Word has the Office Assistant (that annoying paper-clip fellow)</p>
<p>Conclusions:</p>
<p>Use Word if you have money and want a feature-rich environment. (The only part you care about in FOSS is the last S)</p>
<p>Use OpenOffice if you don’t have money, or if you’re a big FOSS supporter</p>
<p>Use Google Docs for something quick, easy and portable.</p>
<p>Don’t use Google Docs if you don’t have Internet (duh…)</p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tmac.andrewmin.com/blog/archives/3/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

