Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers. That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from "Some guy at a bar". Oh, I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand. Isn't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized? Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive. The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.
There is no "official" open source organization. It's a concept.
My method of achieving those ends is "FireFox for browsing unknown, untrusted content, and IE (usually via IE Tab) only for trusted sites". It's really not some huge ordeal, and I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware. I can not say the same about most of the people in my office.
Would it bother you if I told you that I haven't gotten a virus in about 5-6 years and I don't do all that stuff? It just seems a little overkill. I would usually say that if ClickOnce seems scary to you, you should be deathly afraid of Flash... but incidentally you are.
Using Firefox that doesn't support.NET is a way of making yourself less of an opportunity. A hypothetical.NET browser exploit wouldn't work on you unless you had this functionality added.
I don't think it plays into the browser security model, though. You'd be correct if the plugin actually integrated.NET into Firefox... instead, it just provides a means to execute the permission dialogue launcher for ClickOnce. Any exploitation code connected to this is happening outside of Firefox and within the.NET ecosystem.
Mind you, it wasn't pointed at your Firefox browser, so it may not work at all, unless your Firefox behaves enough like IE (the true target).
The true target is the most popular exploitable target. If firefox ever surpasses IE in popularity. it's going to be in the same boat as IE has been historically. It will be targeted. If the Firefox team didn't take the Windows security model seriously, this would be an issue. Thankfully, they do.
Yes, a secure.NET platform is far preferable to an insecure one. Yet even more preferable is not having one at all, unless you require it. Adding this when it is not required, nor even requested, is not justified.
In terms of security threats, this is way below the average user having a regular flash implementation... if Microsoft decides that ClickOnce is a feature of the Windows platform and Firefox is a legitimate default browser, this behavior is as-designed. A work-around has been issued for those who are skittish about it.
You downloaded and installed the framework. My expectation would be anything that uses the framework would work without having to do anything else. Seems nice to me.
Oh crap, it's the seedy counterculture of people who expect technology to work for them and not vice versa. That's pretty subversive around these parts.
I very deliberately set up my FireFox to NOT use Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, etc... and not have any content type plugins. I browse the web with that and with NoScript installed, and ONLY allow trusted sites to run JavaScript on my browser. IF I run into a site that needs more (YouTube for videos, other sites where I HAVE TO have Flash and really need to use the site, etc...), THEN I fire up IE Tab or a copy of IE for it. The idea being that I will control who executes what on my browser as much as it is possible.
Ah, so you basically represent a level of paranoia that encroaches on functionality and usability. Since you represent about a hundredth of a percent of users, I recommend you manually scrape the extension out of the system and keep the tin-foil hat tightly so that the government doesn't read your thoughts while you're doing it... and watch out for chemtrails, too.
In the security world, browser breaches happen because the attackers successfully make assumptions about the target machine.
Browser security has more to do with proper sandboxing than obscurity. It's all about memory management and privilege level. The Windows platform has better anti-exploit code in that respect than any other platform, anyway.
ClickOnce applications are probably more securely sandboxed than firefox in general.
B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath. I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason. Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5% of all the things one would use a browser to do.
Firefox is drastically more secure on Windows than Linux or Mac because it plays well with the Window security model. Just because the application looks and acts non-native doesn't mean it's not decently native.
This argument is simply retarded. The MOST non-native browser I can think of, Safari, is also the most insecure browser you can run on the Windows platform. A lack of integration is not what secures browsers.
Another example: Chrome is (probably more) secure on Windows specifically because it is catered to the NT 5+ kernel's security model.
Non-integration != Security
Furthermore, the EULA definition and the *intent* are irrelevant. You have to separate Microsoft the supported platform ecosystem and Microsoft the imaginary monster dreamed up by Stallman. The company operates like a hundred tiny companies, I guarantee you the.NET team was doing this to improve usability for people using the growing Firefox browser. The IE team more likely than not had no hand in this.
This is made especially annoying by the fact that many Firefox users use it precisely because it doesn't support things like.Net.
Basically, this is the anti-compatibility mindset. I would wager more users would like this functionality without knowing what it is than would specifically like to see their browser non-integrated with their platform for what I will assume is spiritual reasons.
How else do you offer subtle and clever backend technology to non-technical users? Microsoft is accepting Firefox into the Windows software ecosystem. If you're afraid of this, it's time to hop on over to Chrome, so you can go through the joys of being non-native all over again.
You installed the.NET service pack, right? We all know these updates are not "automatic".. you just update without reading what it does. On my system it calls these things "Recommended" or "Optional".
Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically.NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.
It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility. Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed, also?
From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.
From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of.NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)
The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed.NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.
Since most of you are using a supported platform, your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform. Thus, it is Microsoft's territory, in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE. Of course, Firefox's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself, but that's unimportant.
The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows. The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems, then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed.NET application starter is just awkward.
It's interesting that they focus so much on this Turbo-Feature while completely ignoring some of the most critical differences between Opera and Chrome/Safari or Firefox even. I don't know about you guys, but I run a ridiculously slow machine. I literally surf the web with a Powerbook G3. This means that I am hyper-sensitive to how well a browser uses RAM and threading.
If you don't quite get what Opera's strengths are, try it on a slow computer. Then open up like 30 tabs. You'll understand why Opera is so awesome very quickly. You would need a godly amount of RAM and cpu power to do a similar thing with Safari or Chrome and Firefox is generally just sluggish no matter how you look at it. Running Opera Turbo basically gives you a full-blown cell-phone style browser on your desktop. Some people like to throw the entirety of their system resources at their browser, but for those who would rather their browser be a lightweight application running in the background, Opera is a very good alternative.
I am dead serious-- there is NOTHING faster than this browser for general browsing on a slow computer. I have tested the hell out of this. The only notable exceptions are Gmail and Facebook, which are so disgustingly javascript happy that I keep Safari 4 around just for them.
As far as I can tell, there's no reason to run Firefox on any system, unless you run your browser like IE6 with toolbars and extensions galore.
Safari and Opera are implementing this too. However article itself is too "Firefox hyped". Opera started playing with long before Firefox, AFAIR.
I know. I was pretty pissed when I took the Opera Video build over to Daily Motion and it refused to work for me. When they throw some wonky new half-cooked standard at me, I get pretty ticked. When they try to make me run Firefox, it becomes personal.
Maybe I misread, but it seems to me that they're claiming this is somehow standards-based. This is a working draft that's basically implemented in a single browser... and it's not even complete. It's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this "standard" when it's a complete paper tiger. This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.
This is not "standards" behavior. This is calling random firefox features "standards" while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft. This particular instance, where DailyMotion is concerned, is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature. This is not what I have in mind when I think of an open web.
This is really not impressive. The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec. It's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder, another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up, developed, and optimized by any web organization that doesn't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being "standards-compliant". It's amazing how they've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.
If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually "Complete", use IE 8 and weep.
It amazing that nvidia, id, unreal, and others are able to handle it?
With id and epic, they have ported highly portable platform agnostic engines and the linux versions are NOT supported because of the inconsistency. We're talking about supported software, here.
Nvidia is in a whole different boat because they do hardware. They do very well in the unix workstation market because of it.
Once more, we're talking about supported consumer desktop software.
This has been asked before, but... where's the Linux version? And will we need a liquid cooled Phenom x4 processor to render the Adobe video in full screen?
Quick answer: the linux community is full of inconsistent and unstable API's with no standard way to package or distribute software. There's no right way to release proprietary software on linux. (Predicted freetard response: MAYBE THEY SHOULD OPEN SOURCE IT)
Anyway, it's not only the hardest and most expensive platform to release/maintain for, it's also the least popular. It's an utter waste of time considering everything works fine on the web side of things. When you're using Linux, the only stable and consistent API on which to build and release solutions of this magnitude is the web. Thanks, Adobe and Mozilla. Welcome to protected commercial content.
Lightweight IDE - it may only be a 3MB installer, but it downloads a lot more to install on the fly and it can chew up plenty of resources for any non-trivial code bases. It often stalls out updating Intellisense on a project of any appreciable size. Part of the reason it's a smaller install is all the help and docs are online which makes doing work without an active internet connection a PIA (i.e. laptop on an airplane).
If you want to install the documentation, you can. It takes up a bit more space, but it's there if you're after it. Perhaps he should have mentioned that they have the best freely available documentation, also.
best compiler - Nope. Not even close. Intel compiler is generally 10-20% faster code than MSVC++.
Do we really want to bring for-pay commercial compilers into this debate? Do we want to compare the Intel Compiler to like the Green Hills Compiler or something? I thought the root of the issue was that he was looking for a lightweight free IDE? MSVC++ generates the fastest code of any freely available compiler- and you can even use that compiler for free in a professional setting.
Who is a "frothy-mouthed free software type"? Someone who uses it? Someone who releases software under a free license? Someone who advocates the use of free software? Someone who advocates that all software should be free?
I would say it's the sort of person who attacks anyone who points out its countless shortcomings- not as a philosophy but as more implementation specific things. It's the sort of person who says that Ubuntu 9.04 is JUST AS GOOD as Mac OS X or Windows 7, completely ignoring any problems or usability pitfalls that might be present and attempting to silence anyone who says otherwise. They're the type of person who believe that anything that is "free" is always better than something proprietary, no matter how shoddy, inconsistent, and unusable it might be and pushes that belief on others. Or the type of person who mentally blocks out all the time they spend or spent on forums and IRC figuring out how to get the most basic things working in linux but then tell other people that it's all "just works". They're the people who say that monolithic kernels are better than microkernels only because Linux was never capable of implementing one. They consider things like X and gdb "advanced". It's the self-congratulating attitude that rewards mediocrity and keeps the quality bar low in the F/OSS world.
Zealots, basically. I consider myself software agnostic. I hold all software to the same standard and have no sympathy for free software failures, since they push it as a complete product. I have strong views on end user product quality.
Would you please go back to 4chan, and troll there? Or brush up your character and behavior for a world a bit more real and non-anonymous? Protip: Using a word that ends in "-tards", makes you look like an idiot. But it still pales in comparison to combining it with the word "free".
I think it's very good description for frothy-mouthed free software types. Would it be better if I called you guys louts or imbeciles or something? I am a very sensitive soul, so I just want to make sure that I am being as clear and accurate as possible and not stepping on anyones' toes.
So take free information and stick it into something that will try to claim copyright on it and any presentation thereof. That is convoluted. At least you can look at the pie charts yourself, just don't show them to anyone else.
I was just inferring that Wolfram should crawl the data, not hold it.
So I would I have to attribute Wolfram if I published any charts garnered from Alpha? Holy crap that's so unbelievably unjust. You freetards are insane.
Let's get some of this data into Wolfram Alpha. Then we query things and get simple charts and graphs that will scare the living hell out of the average tax payer. "Annual cost of tank treads"... "total corporate welfare"...
Remember how DOS was just a glorified bootloader? So this is where the PC revolution took us? 20 years and we're full circle back to running single applications in something like real mode? Well, I guess people are still using UNIX so there's clearly no depth to the retardedly regressive prospects of the modern computer user.
Here's an eletric blender... you can use it to beat antelope to death.
The ODF alliance is in compliance with the law and not hurting anyone. Microsoft is violating antitrust law and undermining the free market to the detriment of consumers. You're trying to make out the former as in the wrong somehow? That's just sad.
The ODF Alliance is a corporate political action group trying to usurp market share for an inferior product using political pressure. Even the report in TFA suggests that Microsoft didn't fail to implement the standard, it was merely whining about their lack of attention to detail towards OpenOffice's quirky and improper implementation of their own standard, calling it "real-world interoperability".
The real problem is that an industry group is trying to use litigation to force an inferior standard on governments, pressuring them to convert documents to an inferior, incomplete, and inconsistent format that is tied to an inferior product using political action alone. As long as Microsoft is offering a higher quality and more complete standard, they are in the moral right. Maybe people can start using ODF when Sun finishes it. Right now, it seems like nothing more than a paper tiger that requires OpenOffice quirks to do anything properly.
Last I checked, when restrictions were lifted against the justice department to go after anti-trust violators, they went after google instead of Microsoft this time. It's a brave new world. Microsoft's implementing an open standard better than anyone else to expose the weakness of a standard is just not legally anti-competitive behavior, I believe it will actually strengthen the standard in the long run. I would say that Sun creating a vague standard and liberally interpreting it to make sure it's tied to their product then forcing it on the government using litigation is the essence of anti-competitive. It's called a government-granted monopoly--it only wouldn't be if ODF was a complete and rock-solid open standard. But it isn't.
The point of standards is interoperability. MS is legally required, due to their monopoly influence, to make a valid attempt at interoperability. Hiding behind the standard doesn't make their actions any more legal or ethical.
Hiding behind the lack of a standard doesn't make the ODF Alliance correct.
You're being obtuse or you don't know enough about software coding to know what a "reference implementation" is. A published standard tells you how to write to the standard. A reference implementation is an open source implementation of that standard that can be used when there is doubt about how the standard is to be implemented.
OpenOffice is a reference implementation? Are you sure? It has far too much legacy cruft to fit that bill... if their reference implementation is a massive pile of unix garbage hacked up from a 90's office suite, they've got bigger problems on their hands than Microsoft interoperability. OpenOffice.org is not the reference implementation of ODF in the same way going on a forum or IRC channel does not constitute documentation.
Is it, however, reasonable to assume the way OpenOffice, KOffice, Symphony, Google Docs, and Sun's ODF plug-in implement it is the most interoperable way?
The standard is actually pretty open-ended, so the various implementations are not really consistent. Microsoft's implementation of the spreadsheet, for instance, is fairly on track with the way Symphony implemented it.
I don't believe this is true. They both broke compatibility and screwed up parts of the implementation making it not quite conforming.
I don't think the other parties really want to take on Microsoft in terms of conformance with ODF 1.1:
Who cares what Sun wants? This is about having useful interoperability among office suites so we can have some real competition and choice going forward. No one company should be able to hold up progress. MS needs to be stopped from playing these games and hurting the industry in the process.
I would argue that parties like Sun and Google are maintaining a hacked and inconsistent basis under the mask of standards. If they want to play the standards games, they should write standards that are both complete and that they are able and willing to adhere to.
Sun matters because OpenOffice is a Sun product and OASIS is basically Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers. That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from "Some guy at a bar". Oh, I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand. Isn't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized? Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive. The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.
There is no "official" open source organization. It's a concept.
My method of achieving those ends is "FireFox for browsing unknown, untrusted content, and IE (usually via IE Tab) only for trusted sites". It's really not some huge ordeal, and I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware. I can not say the same about most of the people in my office.
Would it bother you if I told you that I haven't gotten a virus in about 5-6 years and I don't do all that stuff? It just seems a little overkill. I would usually say that if ClickOnce seems scary to you, you should be deathly afraid of Flash... but incidentally you are.
They're out there. You watch the skies, hombre.
Using Firefox that doesn't support .NET is a way of making yourself less of an opportunity. A hypothetical .NET browser exploit wouldn't work on you unless you had this functionality added.
I don't think it plays into the browser security model, though. You'd be correct if the plugin actually integrated .NET into Firefox... instead, it just provides a means to execute the permission dialogue launcher for ClickOnce. Any exploitation code connected to this is happening outside of Firefox and within the .NET ecosystem.
Mind you, it wasn't pointed at your Firefox browser, so it may not work at all, unless your Firefox behaves enough like IE (the true target).
The true target is the most popular exploitable target. If firefox ever surpasses IE in popularity. it's going to be in the same boat as IE has been historically. It will be targeted. If the Firefox team didn't take the Windows security model seriously, this would be an issue. Thankfully, they do.
Yes, a secure .NET platform is far preferable to an insecure one. Yet even more preferable is not having one at all, unless you require it. Adding this when it is not required, nor even requested, is not justified.
In terms of security threats, this is way below the average user having a regular flash implementation... if Microsoft decides that ClickOnce is a feature of the Windows platform and Firefox is a legitimate default browser, this behavior is as-designed. A work-around has been issued for those who are skittish about it.
You downloaded and installed the framework. My expectation would be anything that uses the framework would work without having to do anything else. Seems nice to me.
Oh crap, it's the seedy counterculture of people who expect technology to work for them and not vice versa. That's pretty subversive around these parts.
I very deliberately set up my FireFox to NOT use Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, etc... and not have any content type plugins. I browse the web with that and with NoScript installed, and ONLY allow trusted sites to run JavaScript on my browser. IF I run into a site that needs more (YouTube for videos, other sites where I HAVE TO have Flash and really need to use the site, etc...), THEN I fire up IE Tab or a copy of IE for it. The idea being that I will control who executes what on my browser as much as it is possible.
Ah, so you basically represent a level of paranoia that encroaches on functionality and usability. Since you represent about a hundredth of a percent of users, I recommend you manually scrape the extension out of the system and keep the tin-foil hat tightly so that the government doesn't read your thoughts while you're doing it... and watch out for chemtrails, too.
In the security world, browser breaches happen because the attackers successfully make assumptions about the target machine.
Browser security has more to do with proper sandboxing than obscurity. It's all about memory management and privilege level. The Windows platform has better anti-exploit code in that respect than any other platform, anyway.
ClickOnce applications are probably more securely sandboxed than firefox in general.
B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath. I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason. Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5% of all the things one would use a browser to do.
Firefox is drastically more secure on Windows than Linux or Mac because it plays well with the Window security model. Just because the application looks and acts non-native doesn't mean it's not decently native.
This argument is simply retarded. The MOST non-native browser I can think of, Safari, is also the most insecure browser you can run on the Windows platform. A lack of integration is not what secures browsers.
Another example: Chrome is (probably more) secure on Windows specifically because it is catered to the NT 5+ kernel's security model.
Non-integration != Security
Furthermore, the EULA definition and the *intent* are irrelevant. You have to separate Microsoft the supported platform ecosystem and Microsoft the imaginary monster dreamed up by Stallman. The company operates like a hundred tiny companies, I guarantee you the .NET team was doing this to improve usability for people using the growing Firefox browser. The IE team more likely than not had no hand in this.
This is made especially annoying by the fact that many Firefox users use it precisely because it doesn't support things like .Net.
Basically, this is the anti-compatibility mindset. I would wager more users would like this functionality without knowing what it is than would specifically like to see their browser non-integrated with their platform for what I will assume is spiritual reasons.
How else do you offer subtle and clever backend technology to non-technical users? Microsoft is accepting Firefox into the Windows software ecosystem. If you're afraid of this, it's time to hop on over to Chrome, so you can go through the joys of being non-native all over again.
You installed the .NET service pack, right? We all know these updates are not "automatic".. you just update without reading what it does. On my system it calls these things "Recommended" or "Optional".
Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.
It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility. Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed, also?
From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.
From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)
The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.
Since most of you are using a supported platform, your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform. Thus, it is Microsoft's territory, in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE. Of course, Firefox's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself, but that's unimportant.
The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows. The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems, then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed .NET application starter is just awkward.
It's interesting that they focus so much on this Turbo-Feature while completely ignoring some of the most critical differences between Opera and Chrome/Safari or Firefox even. I don't know about you guys, but I run a ridiculously slow machine. I literally surf the web with a Powerbook G3. This means that I am hyper-sensitive to how well a browser uses RAM and threading.
If you don't quite get what Opera's strengths are, try it on a slow computer. Then open up like 30 tabs. You'll understand why Opera is so awesome very quickly. You would need a godly amount of RAM and cpu power to do a similar thing with Safari or Chrome and Firefox is generally just sluggish no matter how you look at it. Running Opera Turbo basically gives you a full-blown cell-phone style browser on your desktop. Some people like to throw the entirety of their system resources at their browser, but for those who would rather their browser be a lightweight application running in the background, Opera is a very good alternative.
I am dead serious-- there is NOTHING faster than this browser for general browsing on a slow computer. I have tested the hell out of this. The only notable exceptions are Gmail and Facebook, which are so disgustingly javascript happy that I keep Safari 4 around just for them.
As far as I can tell, there's no reason to run Firefox on any system, unless you run your browser like IE6 with toolbars and extensions galore.
Safari and Opera are implementing this too. However article itself is too "Firefox hyped". Opera started playing with long before Firefox, AFAIR.
I know. I was pretty pissed when I took the Opera Video build over to Daily Motion and it refused to work for me. When they throw some wonky new half-cooked standard at me, I get pretty ticked. When they try to make me run Firefox, it becomes personal.
Maybe I misread, but it seems to me that they're claiming this is somehow standards-based. This is a working draft that's basically implemented in a single browser... and it's not even complete. It's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this "standard" when it's a complete paper tiger. This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.
This is not "standards" behavior. This is calling random firefox features "standards" while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft. This particular instance, where DailyMotion is concerned, is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature. This is not what I have in mind when I think of an open web.
This is really not impressive. The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec. It's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder, another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up, developed, and optimized by any web organization that doesn't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being "standards-compliant". It's amazing how they've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.
If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually "Complete", use IE 8 and weep.
It amazing that nvidia, id, unreal, and others are able to handle it?
With id and epic, they have ported highly portable platform agnostic engines and the linux versions are NOT supported because of the inconsistency. We're talking about supported software, here.
Nvidia is in a whole different boat because they do hardware. They do very well in the unix workstation market because of it.
Once more, we're talking about supported consumer desktop software.
This has been asked before, but... where's the Linux version? And will we need a liquid cooled Phenom x4 processor to render the Adobe video in full screen?
Quick answer: the linux community is full of inconsistent and unstable API's with no standard way to package or distribute software. There's no right way to release proprietary software on linux. (Predicted freetard response: MAYBE THEY SHOULD OPEN SOURCE IT)
Anyway, it's not only the hardest and most expensive platform to release/maintain for, it's also the least popular. It's an utter waste of time considering everything works fine on the web side of things. When you're using Linux, the only stable and consistent API on which to build and release solutions of this magnitude is the web. Thanks, Adobe and Mozilla. Welcome to protected commercial content.
I do all my development on IA-64! Donkey.
I don't remember the original comment being something like "HEY GUYS I NEED TO FIND A GOOD COMMERCIAL COMPILER TO USE FOR MY ACADEMIC CLUSTER."
Honkey.
MSVC++ code runs pretty damn slow on my UltraSPARC running OpenBSD.
Yeah, but you do all your development on an x86 machine. Ass.
Lightweight IDE - it may only be a 3MB installer, but it downloads a lot more to install on the fly and it can chew up plenty of resources for any non-trivial code bases. It often stalls out updating Intellisense on a project of any appreciable size. Part of the reason it's a smaller install is all the help and docs are online which makes doing work without an active internet connection a PIA (i.e. laptop on an airplane).
If you want to install the documentation, you can. It takes up a bit more space, but it's there if you're after it. Perhaps he should have mentioned that they have the best freely available documentation, also.
best compiler - Nope. Not even close. Intel compiler is generally 10-20% faster code than MSVC++.
Do we really want to bring for-pay commercial compilers into this debate? Do we want to compare the Intel Compiler to like the Green Hills Compiler or something? I thought the root of the issue was that he was looking for a lightweight free IDE? MSVC++ generates the fastest code of any freely available compiler- and you can even use that compiler for free in a professional setting.
Who is a "frothy-mouthed free software type"? Someone who uses it? Someone who releases software under a free license? Someone who advocates the use of free software? Someone who advocates that all software should be free?
I would say it's the sort of person who attacks anyone who points out its countless shortcomings- not as a philosophy but as more implementation specific things. It's the sort of person who says that Ubuntu 9.04 is JUST AS GOOD as Mac OS X or Windows 7, completely ignoring any problems or usability pitfalls that might be present and attempting to silence anyone who says otherwise. They're the type of person who believe that anything that is "free" is always better than something proprietary, no matter how shoddy, inconsistent, and unusable it might be and pushes that belief on others. Or the type of person who mentally blocks out all the time they spend or spent on forums and IRC figuring out how to get the most basic things working in linux but then tell other people that it's all "just works". They're the people who say that monolithic kernels are better than microkernels only because Linux was never capable of implementing one. They consider things like X and gdb "advanced". It's the self-congratulating attitude that rewards mediocrity and keeps the quality bar low in the F/OSS world.
Zealots, basically. I consider myself software agnostic. I hold all software to the same standard and have no sympathy for free software failures, since they push it as a complete product. I have strong views on end user product quality.
More clear?
Would you please go back to 4chan, and troll there? Or brush up your character and behavior for a world a bit more real and non-anonymous?
Protip: Using a word that ends in "-tards", makes you look like an idiot. But it still pales in comparison to combining it with the word "free".
I think it's very good description for frothy-mouthed free software types. Would it be better if I called you guys louts or imbeciles or something? I am a very sensitive soul, so I just want to make sure that I am being as clear and accurate as possible and not stepping on anyones' toes.
So take free information and stick it into something that will try to claim copyright on it and any presentation thereof. That is convoluted. At least you can look at the pie charts yourself, just don't show them to anyone else.
I was just inferring that Wolfram should crawl the data, not hold it.
So I would I have to attribute Wolfram if I published any charts garnered from Alpha? Holy crap that's so unbelievably unjust. You freetards are insane.
Let's get some of this data into Wolfram Alpha. Then we query things and get simple charts and graphs that will scare the living hell out of the average tax payer. "Annual cost of tank treads"... "total corporate welfare"...
Remember how DOS was just a glorified bootloader? So this is where the PC revolution took us? 20 years and we're full circle back to running single applications in something like real mode? Well, I guess people are still using UNIX so there's clearly no depth to the retardedly regressive prospects of the modern computer user.
Here's an eletric blender... you can use it to beat antelope to death.
I hope they cover sitting around on the Ubuntu forums and IRC to get basic problems solved, because that's what Ubuntu is all about.
Do they cover how to fix its obnoxious slow flash issue right off the bat? I hope so!
The ODF alliance is in compliance with the law and not hurting anyone. Microsoft is violating antitrust law and undermining the free market to the detriment of consumers. You're trying to make out the former as in the wrong somehow? That's just sad.
The ODF Alliance is a corporate political action group trying to usurp market share for an inferior product using political pressure. Even the report in TFA suggests that Microsoft didn't fail to implement the standard, it was merely whining about their lack of attention to detail towards OpenOffice's quirky and improper implementation of their own standard, calling it "real-world interoperability".
The real problem is that an industry group is trying to use litigation to force an inferior standard on governments, pressuring them to convert documents to an inferior, incomplete, and inconsistent format that is tied to an inferior product using political action alone. As long as Microsoft is offering a higher quality and more complete standard, they are in the moral right. Maybe people can start using ODF when Sun finishes it. Right now, it seems like nothing more than a paper tiger that requires OpenOffice quirks to do anything properly.
Last I checked, when restrictions were lifted against the justice department to go after anti-trust violators, they went after google instead of Microsoft this time. It's a brave new world. Microsoft's implementing an open standard better than anyone else to expose the weakness of a standard is just not legally anti-competitive behavior, I believe it will actually strengthen the standard in the long run. I would say that Sun creating a vague standard and liberally interpreting it to make sure it's tied to their product then forcing it on the government using litigation is the essence of anti-competitive. It's called a government-granted monopoly--it only wouldn't be if ODF was a complete and rock-solid open standard. But it isn't.
The point of standards is interoperability. MS is legally required, due to their monopoly influence, to make a valid attempt at interoperability. Hiding behind the standard doesn't make their actions any more legal or ethical.
Hiding behind the lack of a standard doesn't make the ODF Alliance correct.
You're being obtuse or you don't know enough about software coding to know what a "reference implementation" is. A published standard tells you how to write to the standard. A reference implementation is an open source implementation of that standard that can be used when there is doubt about how the standard is to be implemented.
OpenOffice is a reference implementation? Are you sure? It has far too much legacy cruft to fit that bill... if their reference implementation is a massive pile of unix garbage hacked up from a 90's office suite, they've got bigger problems on their hands than Microsoft interoperability. OpenOffice.org is not the reference implementation of ODF in the same way going on a forum or IRC channel does not constitute documentation.
Is it, however, reasonable to assume the way OpenOffice, KOffice, Symphony, Google Docs, and Sun's ODF plug-in implement it is the most interoperable way?
The standard is actually pretty open-ended, so the various implementations are not really consistent. Microsoft's implementation of the spreadsheet, for instance, is fairly on track with the way Symphony implemented it.
I don't believe this is true. They both broke compatibility and screwed up parts of the implementation making it not quite conforming.
I don't think the other parties really want to take on Microsoft in terms of conformance with ODF 1.1:
http://adjb.net/post/Notes-on-Document-Conformance-and-Portability-4.aspx
Who cares what Sun wants? This is about having useful interoperability among office suites so we can have some real competition and choice going forward. No one company should be able to hold up progress. MS needs to be stopped from playing these games and hurting the industry in the process.
I would argue that parties like Sun and Google are maintaining a hacked and inconsistent basis under the mask of standards. If they want to play the standards games, they should write standards that are both complete and that they are able and willing to adhere to.
Sun matters because OpenOffice is a Sun product and OASIS is basically Sun.