Well, the only (literal) meaning of "know" that doesn't fit what everyone else on this thread was thinking it meant is:
(3) archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
So we should rephrase
"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they know [X]. Odds are they only think they know really know [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."
With something along the lines of
"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they have had sex with [X]. Odds are they only think they have had sex with really have had sex with [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."
I'll be upfront in admitting that I loathe C++ just as much the next guy (I can't seem to get away from Lispy languages), but isn't this being a teeny bit ridiculous?
EDIT: This comment literally says "usually if you think you know something, you don't." So I guess I shouldn't apply for a job using language FooBar, since by this guy's rule I probably don't actually know FooBar.
Then the "non-technical" user who complains about this can go fuck themselves, since the Windows machine they're supposed to be switching from does the same thing.
At first it sounds like I'm trolling, but please think this issue through. What crowd is Ubuntu trying to pander to? Are there really people out there "technical" enough to bother caring about a hard drive's size, but not technical enough to figure out that 1000 != 1024?
If you want something that the end user will really care about, ship Ubuntu with a default theme that doesn't look horrible, or include useful codecs and plugins in the default install. "Oh, but those are easy to obtain", you say? So then is it really that much more difficult to spend 5 seconds explaining that it's 1024, not 1000? Not that I care enough to create some stupid "UBUNTU + FLASH LOL" distro, since I use Arch or one of the BSDs, but it just seems stupid that they'd make a silly, superficial change like this and expect a pat on the back.
I've always felt that if you're a programmer and you're hiding from the so-called "mathy" parts of you're doing, whether it's universal things like algorithms or specific things like machine learning, instead of being given a cute title like "developer" and forming a false dichotomy between that and the idea of a "computer scientist", you should be given the title of "sloppy".
Admittedly, you might be able to get by mindlessly plugging in values into someone else's function without ever having to bat an eye. But when something breaks, you're going to be absolutely screwed.
"Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied mathematics; the poorer mathematicians had better remain pure mathematicians."
Maybe there's a way to do it that I missed, but it would be helpful if when I select a color from the palette, I could see the Hex/RGB value for the color and set it from that as well. That way when I want to set two elements to the same color, I wouldn't have to wait and change it in the config file (which defeats the whole purpose of this application).
I agree 100%. I think it usually comes down to confidence: if you're not confident in your ability, it's all too tempting to try to learn "just a little bit more" and never take the plunge enough to practice. On the other end of the spectrum are the audacious "rock star developer" wannabes.
Skillful programming requires a weird mix of both attitudes.
If I'm trying to order food from them, and their entire business model depends on me buying food from them, yet they're making it hard for me to find what food I can buy from them, they are either idiots or sloppy people who hire idiots to design their website. Either way, they're worthless.
If they can't be bothered to run the PDF through a program to translate it to HTML, and then post a link to the PDF version, I don't want to do business with them.
If their menu is so fancy that it can't be easily translated into HTML, they're missing the point entirely.
What I think is important to keep in mind is that reading good open-source code is what helps. I'd make sure a piece of code was written by a fair number of smart people and used by others before I started copying their idioms and emulating their style.
Common sense would dictate that Flash/PDF's/.doc's/JavaScript is/are only necessary in a small number of cases, when there is no other way to provide that content. When you use it, you're making an assumption about what the user is willing and able to process on their end. If you do that enough, it becomes just as annoying as someone distributing a C file for everyone to use that relies on windows.h
What's worse still is that it took the iPhone not supporting Flash for everyone to realize that Flash actually isn't needed for most things.