Other nations have the right to not have the USA impose arbitrary barriers to free trade. If US citizens don't like their own laws they can elect a new government.
The fact of the matter is, even IE4 has better support for CSS standards than Netscape 6.
OK, I'm going to call your bluff on this one. Give me an example of some valid CSS code that works in IE4 but not in NN6. CSS support in NN6 makes IE's look like a joke.
Your comments and Asa's are not incompatible. The WaSP doesn't want to review every nightly or even milestone build of Mozilla for standards compliance.
IE5 is the best released browser according to them, not because it's the best but because it's released. They have declined to review Netscape betas. Entirely reasonable from their POV.
No doubt NN6 will attract some adverse comments form the WaSP but don't doubt it'll knock IE off the top spot.
Of course the correct response to this is: Its Free Software - don't whine - patch! If Netscape management is more worried about shipping than fixing some bugs then fork for god's sake!
You have things back to front. The code has already forked to allow Netscape to ship a version 6.0 browser. What the article was complaining about was that the Netscape fork is cooling down to a code freeze, and locking in some known bugs. They're just a bit paranoid about introducing a regression at this stage.
I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing
Indeed. Let the Netscape folks ship their NN6 browser and we can all complain that it's almost as bad at supporting web standards as IE 5. 6 months down the line they can fold the Mozilla updates back in.
Where can I get -credible- data to prove that Apache can outperform IIS?
Go to the SPEC web site. Then search for the SPECweb99 results Dell submitted.
Apparently, they are using Redhat's Tux server, not Apache. I don't know whether they are related but the combination kicks IIS's ass. You can't get much more definitive than the manufacturer's own tests using the recognised industry benchmark.
This page on Dell's site might also be of interest.
It's almost a complete rewrite and a beta. There comes a point in the life cycle of most large pieces of software where you have to bite the bullet and re-engineer chunks of it. It's almost always a bit painful.
Doesn't work with the JavaServer Pages I'm developing. Neither does it work with NatWest banks website (http://www.natwest.co.uk). Sheesh.
And your point is what? You can't write portable code and neither can NatWest? You need to look a bit deeper and see who is at fault. It might be Netscape: if so log a bug report. On the other hand there are a lot of crappy web sites 'designed for IE'. You need to work out which before you go shooting your mouth off.
SDMI is audiophiles only. for people with a 5000$ stereo, that do not listen to mpeg radio, not to tv, not in the car, not to minidiscs, not to mp3 anyway. and of course not to vinyl.
All the serious hi-fi nutters I know reckon that CD quality isn't good enough, and that transitor amplifiers are insufficiently linear. It's got to be vinyl and valves!
What an interesting phrase. Note how scientists are encouraged/enabled to share ideas/data/information. Note how the hoi polloi are not.
I see. So how many petabytes spare capacity have you got? This is serious data here. All we are talking about is a community of people using the Internet to do their job.
So, some Universities have got together and are planning on using it for research, as was originally intended. What's the problem with that? They'll publish when they're ready, else the funding will dry up.
car boot sale
Where you open the boot of your car and sell stuff from it instead of putting it on a table.
I believe you call them trunks over there. If you sold stuff from your trunks over here you would probably get arrested for indecent exposure (unless you were elephants).
the different branches for different users deal is transparent to applications
That's not the case. It's like a config file on Unix: if you have the discipline to sort out what needs to be in/etc and what needs to be in ~/.appconfig it all works fine.
KEY_CURRENT_USER is equivalent to ~, in the virtual file system analogy.
There was a case where a compiler vendor got it wrong, and the result was you had to be in the Local Administrators group to change the compiler options.
They refused to accept a bug report on this: "why would anyone other than an administrator need a compiler anyway?"
Most readers for sight-impared people don't broadcast themselves as NN or IE, and therefore would be unable to use this site. Which is practically the same as not providing ramps to get into a brick and mortar store.
IANAL but I think the latter would be legal unless they were employed there. There is no general law requiring people to act in a non-discriminatory way.
If you want massively parallel systems then I would honestly think that something like processtree would be a good solution since you can rent a phenomenal block of cpu time.
A lot of these problems, like climate modelling can be worked on by partioning the problem into cells. You just need to fix up at the edges, on each iteration though. Independent systems but joined together, particularly with a low latency interconnect fit this sort of problem space well.
Obviously, there are some problems, where the dependencies between the data sets are nil, where commodity Intel/Athlon/Alpha Linux boxes are ideal. Still more where the are cost-efficient;)
Supercomputing facilities are best equipped with a mixture of these. For some jobs a steamroller is better than a Porsche. When you've got a specific requirement, and lots of money is involved, off the shelf components are not always the best bet.
they surely lack the memory bandwidth that makes traditional mainframes and supercomputers so powerful.
Yes, but these aren't Beowulf clusters. Quadrix hardware is not some cheap and cheerful solution like switched Gigabit Ethernet;)
There are better things to spend my taxes on (like hospitals and schools) than taking MS to a horribly long and complex court battle. Why can't we do that instead?
Microsoft are not being taken to court: they are being investigated by the Commission. Like most other regulatory bodies, they act on their own authority. It's like when the health inspector tells you to clean up your kitchen: you can appeal the decision to a court but that's your call.
Also, we are talking serious money if M$ get fined here. More than enough to pay a few lawyers; even discounting the indirect benefits: even schools and hospitals have to get their software from somewhere.
The EU commission have been quite busy recently: taking on British Telecom, over the local loop monopoly, not to mention the entire automobile industry. They are even going after Nintendo over the cost of Pokemon.
Calling that "cool shit" is just plain clueless. The current recommendation for HTML is the XHTML one. 'Classic' HTML is dying.
It's the joy of XML, that it can be easily and unambiguously parsed. It is not an option. It's out there now. If you believe me look at the W3C home page source.
This would also get rid of the problem they have with dozens of versions existing.
I have real trouble with the concept that giving different version numbers to different versions is a problem. Why would we want to go down the MS/IE road where there are dozens of versions but they all report as the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Other nations have the right to not have the USA impose arbitrary barriers to free trade. If US citizens don't like their own laws they can elect a new government.
(And of course this has only strengthened the Castro regime. Without a strong external enemy, the cubans would focus on domestic issues)
Not to mention trampling over the rights of any other nation to trade freely with whom they wish.
OK, I'm going to call your bluff on this one. Give me an example of some valid CSS code that works in IE4 but not in NN6. CSS support in NN6 makes IE's look like a joke.
IE5 is the best released browser according to them, not because it's the best but because it's released. They have declined to review Netscape betas. Entirely reasonable from their POV.
No doubt NN6 will attract some adverse comments form the WaSP but don't doubt it'll knock IE off the top spot.
You have things back to front. The code has already forked to allow Netscape to ship a version 6.0 browser. What the article was complaining about was that the Netscape fork is cooling down to a code freeze, and locking in some known bugs. They're just a bit paranoid about introducing a regression at this stage.
I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing
Indeed. Let the Netscape folks ship their NN6 browser and we can all complain that it's almost as bad at supporting web standards as IE 5. 6 months down the line they can fold the Mozilla updates back in.
Clearly Echelon does its decrypts with a Bistromathematic supercomputer.
Go to the SPEC web site. Then search for the SPECweb99 results Dell submitted.
Apparently, they are using Redhat's Tux server, not Apache. I don't know whether they are related but the combination kicks IIS's ass. You can't get much more definitive than the manufacturer's own tests using the recognised industry benchmark.
This page on Dell's site might also be of interest.
It's almost a complete rewrite and a beta. There comes a point in the life cycle of most large pieces of software where you have to bite the bullet and re-engineer chunks of it. It's almost always a bit painful.
'Man about to bite dog' is not news.
And your point is what? You can't write portable code and neither can NatWest? You need to look a bit deeper and see who is at fault. It might be Netscape: if so log a bug report. On the other hand there are a lot of crappy web sites 'designed for IE'. You need to work out which before you go shooting your mouth off.
All the serious hi-fi nutters I know reckon that CD quality isn't good enough, and that transitor amplifiers are insufficiently linear. It's got to be vinyl and valves!
I see. So how many petabytes spare capacity have you got? This is serious data here. All we are talking about is a community of people using the Internet to do their job.
So, some Universities have got together and are planning on using it for research, as was originally intended. What's the problem with that? They'll publish when they're ready, else the funding will dry up.
Don't worry. In some jurisdictions, "I didn't sign that" won't be an admissable defence. It's called non-repudiation, and is state law in some places.
I believe you call them trunks over there. If you sold stuff from your trunks over here you would probably get arrested for indecent exposure (unless you were elephants).
That's trivial in the sense of "bigger" then, is it?
That's not the case. It's like a config file on Unix: if you have the discipline to sort out what needs to be in /etc and what needs to be in ~/.appconfig it all works fine.
KEY_CURRENT_USER is equivalent to ~, in the virtual file system analogy.
There was a case where a compiler vendor got it wrong, and the result was you had to be in the Local Administrators group to change the compiler options.
They refused to accept a bug report on this: "why would anyone other than an administrator need a compiler anyway?"
The 70,000 number is from Judge Jackson's findings of fact.
Tesco are improving their service then. Last time I heard, they weren't even supporting Netscape.
IANAL but I think the latter would be legal unless they were employed there. There is no general law requiring people to act in a non-discriminatory way.
A lot of these problems, like climate modelling can be worked on by partioning the problem into cells. You just need to fix up at the edges, on each iteration though. Independent systems but joined together, particularly with a low latency interconnect fit this sort of problem space well.
Obviously, there are some problems, where the dependencies between the data sets are nil, where commodity Intel/Athlon/Alpha Linux boxes are ideal. Still more where the are cost-efficient ;)
Supercomputing facilities are best equipped with a mixture of these. For some jobs a steamroller is better than a Porsche. When you've got a specific requirement, and lots of money is involved, off the shelf components are not always the best bet.
they surely lack the memory bandwidth that makes traditional mainframes and supercomputers so powerful.
Yes, but these aren't Beowulf clusters. Quadrix hardware is not some cheap and cheerful solution like switched Gigabit Ethernet ;)
Microsoft are not being taken to court: they are being investigated by the Commission. Like most other regulatory bodies, they act on their own authority. It's like when the health inspector tells you to clean up your kitchen: you can appeal the decision to a court but that's your call.
Also, we are talking serious money if M$ get fined here. More than enough to pay a few lawyers; even discounting the indirect benefits: even schools and hospitals have to get their software from somewhere.
Monopolies - gotta catch 'em all.
Calling that "cool shit" is just plain clueless. The current recommendation for HTML is the XHTML one. 'Classic' HTML is dying.
It's the joy of XML, that it can be easily and unambiguously parsed. It is not an option. It's out there now. If you believe me look at the W3C home page source.
I have real trouble with the concept that giving different version numbers to different versions is a problem. Why would we want to go down the MS/IE road where there are dozens of versions but they all report as the same?
The best way for Mozilla to gain mindshare is to get decent reviews on day one. It's too late now to deliver a half-hearted effort like IE.