Slashdot Mirror

• Web Browser: Firefox+w3m
• • I suggested w3m as well because you can change the user agent to mobile Safari and then set the external web browser short cut to "mpv -ytdl --vo=opengl --ao=alsa" (install mpv) and it will play the mobile formats (mp4, etc.) that youtube-dl supports, even in TTY environment.
• Email Client: Thunderbird
• • But you need to include Enigmail and Lightning by default
• Terminal: xfce4-terminal + tmux
• IDE: Geany
• File manager: Thunar
• • Thunar is very light and fast, but also has lots of ways to customize. I have no idea why anyone likes Nautilus or Nemo; if logging in and using 1GB+ of RAM at start is okay with you, score one for GNOME or Unity; Pantheon is pretty bad about it too.
• Basic Text Editor: Gedit
• IRC/Messaging Client: Hexchat, irssi
• PDF Reader: Evince
• Office Suite: LibreOffice
• Calendar: gxul-ext-lightning
• Video Player: mpv+youtube-dl
• • mpv is much better than mplayer or VLC and is very easy to use. To open a URL, you just type "mpv https://..../" and youtube-dl will usually do the rest for you, including streaming sites like Twitch. The support list is here: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-.... You will get the most bang per buck this way.
• Music Player: Clementine
• Photo Viewer: Viewnior, Shotwell
• Screen recording: gtk-recordmydesktop

If software isn't available as a .deb, but as source code or .rpm, please don't make a snap for it. Snaps feel too much like "closing" open source software and dangerously close to having Ubuntu creating its own version of Windows exe's; actually, that's exactly what it is.

Actually, why can't this be done by the browser? Browsers could easily have an option, whereby any time you access a new site or domain, that tries to set a cookie or use the local browser storage, you get warned.

A better law could simply require sites to have an info page listing what is being tracked? Maybe a standard http://..../privacy/ or http://..../cookies/ section? Could make the advertisers uncomfortable :)

Actually, why can't this be done by the browser? Browsers could easily have an option, whereby any time you access a new site or domain, that tries to set a cookie or use the local browser storage, you get warned.

A better law could simply require sites to have an info page listing what is being tracked? Maybe a standard http://..../privacy/ or http://..../cookies/ section? Could make the advertisers uncomfortable :)

It looks like by your discussion every computer on the Internet might be considered a server. When one launches any web browser the first thing it likely does is send out a request for the download of a home page. The act of sending an http://..../ string into the Internet void is acting as the origin of data, thus some might consider this as behaving as a server. ISPs need to tighten up what it means to be operating a "server" on a residential account. This might get pretty complicated as much of what residential customers do involves serving data to the net. Those TOS documents might become incredibly long and would not be complete. One discussion I read believes that something as common as "hosting" a Slingbox is hosting a server.

How are they going to know what I'm downloading via https://..../ websites and magnet: links? I'm pretty sure bittorrent won't display any of their popups.

They're also running in to the problem that altering the content delivered to the browser is creating a derivative work of someone elses content, potentially violating their copyright.

From what I am understanding of the article its there to stop:

http://www.example..../ [redirect to] https://..../

Which could be grounds for a Man In The Middle Attack. It does not say anything about forcing people to use HTTPS, just that it will be done automatically instead of using a redirect. So it'll make sites which force HTTPS safer, but it won't force twitter to push https if you haven't asked for it.

There is a better explanation here. Basically after the header is received the browser will convert any http: requests to https:, therefore bypassing any redirect. Whether this will force you to use https depends on whether Twitter will set this header on their https sites only or on both http and https. Even if they do set it only on the https site it will force you to use https if you visit the https URL even once.

From what I am understanding of the article its there to stop:

http://www.example..../
[redirect to]
https://..../

Which could be grounds for a Man In The Middle Attack. It does not say anything about forcing people to use HTTPS, just that it will be done automatically instead of using a redirect. So it'll make sites which force HTTPS safer, but it won't force twitter to push https if you haven't asked for it.

half way thru your call

a soft 3rd part voice interrupts your conversation "this is Ads by Google: for free unlimited hosting please see http://..../"

Why put the GPL in that box then? Why not put a simple concise message in there stating that "There are no restrictions on the use of this software, only on the distribution. For restrictions on distribution please see the GPL at http://..../". Then you're making it clear to the person that they aren't restricted in any way from just using the program. A short little message like that sure would be an eye opener to most people who are used to seeing license agreements that are thousands of words long.

http://..../ grabs a text, small? text file and maybe some pictures. It's even names after what is does, grab text files from somewhere else. Video, audio, flash and other multimedia realy need some new type of link system so I know that lynx isn't going to be happy from the start. Embeding everthing-under-the-sun aproch also limits choices to all but the great people that have enough knowlage to monkey with firefox internaly and is anti-competitive because of this fact. Personaly I'd like to see hyper-multimedia-tranfer-proto:// inplemented in an at least semi-standard way instead of replaceing my browser with a huge flash player (which I'm not about to try and make work for amd64, I already have to have two copies of enough things), or worse yet, an activex who-knows-what. I'm not saying that there isn't a place to put new and intovative media in the public, but convoluting a well working standard to do so just isn't the way.

In a recent survay, Jack Danials beats a Gramernatzi, at 3 to 2 odds.

There's something strange about one of his FAQ answers. It's the one that goes:

"Where can I find some hot Goat Sex in Ubuntu?"

A: "Just go to http://..../"

*shrug* he's a very open-minded individual, I guess.

And they should. Why release something half-@$$ed that works in some browsers and not others? It means they'll make their page in Frontpage and then change things until it works in other browsers- it's a hack job.

Please- Planned means nothing. It means it might be months out when it makes no sense. I can understand Google Toolbar coming out late for Firefix (it's a whole new program), but this is HTML that should display in all browsers.

And a large part of patents is (supposed to be) fairness to all parties. I shouldn't have to go find a Windows machine with IE to hog for a few hours and transfer all my documents over to paste into their Web form. It's something I should be able to do right away. If I can't do it, nobody should be able to (in this case). Otherwise it gives some people *cough* M$ *cough* an advantage on Patents.

Though I'm not a fan of that guy's letter. He touts lists of acronyms like CSS, XHTML, IE, OSX, etc that the developers would know but the _managers_ won't. A simple:

"Internet Explorer, while being used by the majority of Web users, is not used by all Web users. This is in favour of countless browsers (some of which are listed below) which offer considerable advantages to non-Windows users (Mac, Linux) as well as Windows users who are looking for superior alternates to Microsoft's Web browser. Statistics on the number of users utilizing each browser are available at http://..../ Please do not underestimate the 10% of hundreds of millions of US and foreign Web users who choose to utilize alternate technologies. It is unfair to provide an advantage to Windows/Internet Explorer users over others, when it is entirely unnecessary. All Web browsers support standards, such as those set by w3c (http://www.w3c.org/ which your developers should build their Web site to conform to rather than utilize proprietary methods exclusive to IE.

Simple, to the point, doesn't tout acronyms and explains most of them when it does. References a statistic, and really emphasizes the number of people affected and how common they are.

-M