Re:Still waiting for BT to sort out ADSL
on
VDSL Demoed
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately all this means I will have to abandon my current ISP, Demon Internet, who seems to have fantastic international bandwidth, fixed IPs, SMTP mail delivery, etc. Ideal for a tech like me. Cable will probably put me behind some poxy firewall I don't want to "protect me from hackers" and give me a dynamic IP. In actuality the firewall will be to prevent me from setting up a web server, etc.
That's exactly the same situation with NTL. I'm currently with Demon too (for the same reasons:) but with NTL's catv modem service (why the hell is it called a modem anyway?) they want you to switch to their crappy ISP (dynamic ip, pop3, probably firewalled to hell).. arrghh!!
Anyone here work for Telewest to open up a few holes in the firewall pointing to my fixed IP?
Which fixed IP address? Your Demon one? Hmm, aren't you abandoning Demon to go to TeleWest??:)
However, X/Open recommends specific dates, ie. 0-68 means 19xx, and 69-99 means 20xx.
That wouldn't be much use would it?:) Surely you mean the other way around otherwise there's a large hole between 1969 and 2068 - give us back our 99 years!!!
This was one of the bestthings about the long-lost mac floppies. Physical ejection was under program control, giving a chance to unmount (which to varying degrees at different times, macos did).
Somewhere along the way I saw a pc with similar drives, but it seems to have been lost along the way . ..
No apologies for the constant Sun comparisons but this is the case with (at least) old Sparc stations (/usr/bin/eject). Combine this with automounting and as far as the user is concerned there is no mounting/unmounting (even though in reality you can still mount/umount a device mounted in this way)
So what if it tries to mount an audio cd? Surely it should be smart enough to figure that it has no data track, and leave the contents empty?
Isn't this what the volume management on SunOS does?
Or do what jo-schmo expects (from experience with Win9x & MacOS) and fake a directory of track names. Maybe even fake them as raw audio files. It would make ripping a lot easier...;)
Fine. All I'm arguing is that things shouldn't be automounted unless that's what the users want. (SunOS - man automountd)
Most people are not webdevelopers so they use a browser that works for them.
But that's just the point - it doesn't work on some rudimentary web sites, but there are some that are deliberately engineered to handle its quirks.
Non webdevelopers don't care about the mime output of cgi scripts. nor do they care about javascript.
Yes they do when the site doesn't work because of the crappy implementation of those two facilities.
"Why trust MS to implement standards properly.." Netscape hasn't done any better
I think it has - I'm not saying Netscape 4 is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than IE.
(excluding mozilla which will take another few months to appear). The 4.x version of their browser can hardly be called standards compliant. But standards are only relevant to web developers not to users. Users expect their favorite webpages to just work they don't care how they work.
But that's just the point - their 'favourite' web pages won't work because of the half-assed way IE handles frames, JS etc......
This is something MS used to their advantage when developing IE. While netscape was fooling around with the 4.x generation of their browser, IE created IE which from a users point of view is faster, more stable and prettier.
Can anyone say 'Style over content'? What it looks like doesn't matter in the slightest. Whether it handles simple web standards is more important.
And my pessimistic guess is that they will use the same thing again to outcompete mozilla. Nobody outside the webdevelopers community cares about standards.
They do when things don't work!!! Without standards you'll just end up with a proprietary MS-web - sure MS users can view it, but with the proliferation of set-top-boxes et. al that don't use IE, MS will be forced to comply to the standards...
MS is compliant enough for most users.
I agree. But claiming it is superior is another matter altogether!
And that's a Good Thing??? OS integration is bad, bad, bad
Netscape's look hasn't changed since the dawn of time..er.. a couple years ago.
If it ain't broke.....
Bitch & moan all you like, but it just shows how you'll use & love any piece of crap as long as its not Microsoft.
Erm, that's not my reasoning at all. Netscape just handles standards better - No matter what the IE docs tell you. As a web developer in my previous job we had no end of hassles getting a new web site to work even remotely well in IE. The JavaScript, frames, MIMR type handling etc just didn't work! (BTW, I didn't design it:)
You'll love this: I even use IE on my Macs...why? It looks cooler.
Even if it does pervert all web standards known to man!!!
God forbid someone express their own opinion that goes against the Party Line..
As I've already said, Netscape is simply better than IE, regardless of what it looks like - this is completely independent of any Anti-MS feelings.
If we want to be taken seriously out there in the world, ya gotta learn how to get along with other people.
I couldn't agree more. This is a lesson that IE fanatics would do well to heed - just because a HTML-impaired page looks good on their browser doesn't make it a standard!!!
Oh, and definately get rid of MOUNT thing. That seems totally unecessary to me.
Mounting drives before using them, and unmounting after use is very logical and there are good reasons for it.
Buffering data and collecing writes together increases performance, and that wouldn't be possible is you could just eject the damn thing anytime you pleased!
It may seem unnecessary with read-only media such as CD-ROMs but what would you rather? That the OS tries to automatically mount any CD that you put in the drive? What if it's a music CD? Surely YOU should be able to tell the computer what you want rather than having it try to second-guess you all the time like a certain other OS that shall remain nameless!
It doesn't implement half the features you would expect: eg. CGI programs generating multipart MIME output is handled fine by Netscape, but IE fails miserably.
Similarly the JavaScript handling is abysmal, document.domain doesn't work at all and plenty of simple JS is screwed up completely.
Why trust MS to implement standards properly and not just the ones they want to - to try and warp the market yet again?
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the same situation with NTL. I'm currently with Demon too (for the same reasons :) but with NTL's catv modem service (why the hell is it called a modem anyway?) they want you to switch to their crappy ISP (dynamic ip, pop3, probably firewalled to hell).. arrghh!!
Anyone here work for Telewest to open up a few holes in the firewall pointing to my fixed IP?
Which fixed IP address? Your Demon one? Hmm, aren't you abandoning Demon to go to TeleWest?? :)
That wouldn't be much use would it? :)
Surely you mean the other way around otherwise there's a large hole between 1969 and 2068 - give us back our 99 years!!!
No it isn't! Where would it be grabbing the screen from? It is an independent X display.
Somewhere along the way I saw a pc with similar drives, but it seems to have been lost along the way . . .
No apologies for the constant Sun comparisons but this is the case with (at least) old Sparc stations (/usr/bin/eject). Combine this with automounting and as far as the user is concerned there is no mounting/unmounting (even though in reality you can still mount/umount a device mounted in this way)
Isn't this what the volume management on SunOS does?
Or do what jo-schmo expects (from experience with Win9x & MacOS) and fake a directory of track names. Maybe even fake them as raw audio files. It would make ripping a lot easier...;)
Fine. All I'm arguing is that things shouldn't be automounted unless that's what the users want. (SunOS - man automountd)
Autorun however, you can leave right out.
Damn straight.
But that's just the point - it doesn't work on some rudimentary web sites, but there are some that are deliberately engineered to handle its quirks.
Non webdevelopers don't care about the mime output of cgi scripts. nor do they care about javascript.
Yes they do when the site doesn't work because of the crappy implementation of those two facilities.
"Why trust MS to implement standards properly .."
Netscape hasn't done any better
I think it has - I'm not saying Netscape 4 is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than IE.
(excluding mozilla which will take another few months to appear). The 4.x version of their browser can hardly be called standards compliant. But standards are only relevant to web developers not to users. Users expect their favorite webpages to just work they don't care how they work.
But that's just the point - their 'favourite' web pages won't work because of the half-assed way IE handles frames, JS etc......
This is something MS used to their advantage when developing IE. While netscape was fooling around with the 4.x generation of their browser, IE created IE which from a users point of view is faster, more stable and prettier.
Can anyone say 'Style over content'?
What it looks like doesn't matter in the slightest. Whether it handles simple web standards is more important.
And my pessimistic guess is that they will use the same thing again to outcompete mozilla. Nobody outside the webdevelopers community cares about standards.
They do when things don't work!!! Without standards you'll just end up with a proprietary MS-web - sure MS users can view it, but with the proliferation of set-top-boxes et. al that don't use IE, MS will be forced to comply to the standards...
MS is compliant enough for most users.
I agree. But claiming it is superior is another matter altogether!
And that's a Good Thing???
OS integration is bad, bad, bad
Netscape's look hasn't changed since the dawn of time..er.. a couple years ago.
If it ain't broke.....
Bitch & moan all you like, but it just shows how you'll use & love any piece of crap as long as its not Microsoft.
Erm, that's not my reasoning at all. Netscape just handles standards better - No matter what the IE docs tell you. As a web developer in my previous job we had no end of hassles getting a new web site to work even remotely well in IE. The JavaScript, frames, MIMR type handling etc just didn't work! (BTW, I didn't design it :)
You'll love this: I even use IE on my Macs...why? It looks cooler.
Even if it does pervert all web standards known to man!!!
God forbid someone express their own opinion that goes against the Party Line..
As I've already said, Netscape is simply better than IE, regardless of what it looks like - this is completely independent of any Anti-MS feelings.
If we want to be taken seriously out there in the world, ya gotta learn how to get along with other people.
I couldn't agree more. This is a lesson that IE fanatics would do well to heed - just because a HTML-impaired page looks good on their browser doesn't make it a standard!!!
Mounting drives before using them, and unmounting after use is very logical and there are good reasons for it.
Buffering data and collecing writes together increases performance, and that wouldn't be possible is you could just eject the damn thing anytime you pleased!
It may seem unnecessary with read-only media such as CD-ROMs but what would you rather? That the OS tries to automatically mount any CD that you put in the drive? What if it's a music CD? Surely YOU should be able to tell the computer what you want rather than having it try to second-guess you all the time like a certain other OS that shall remain nameless!
It doesn't implement half the features you would expect: eg. CGI programs generating multipart MIME output is handled fine by Netscape, but IE fails miserably.
Similarly the JavaScript handling is abysmal, document.domain doesn't work at all and plenty of simple JS is screwed up completely.
Why trust MS to implement standards properly and not just the ones they want to - to try and warp the market yet again?