I've had to re-write too much stuff because a java built in function relied on native libraries, which did not act the same (regular expression handling in 1.4 and earlier, is a good example - go betweeen HPUX, Linux and Windows, and there can be serious issues). A lot of the UI stuff doesn't work well between versions either.
It's gotten better, but on a similar note, anything I've used from.NET in VS 2003 and earlier, and quite a bit of later stuff, works just fine on Windows, Linux and FreeBSD.
Each has their flaws in cross platform use -.NET's issues tend to arise when using newer APIs, and Java tend to have small gotchas, which in most cases are rare, scattered throughout the code.
that or a disc, with weapons mounted on extensions that can be popped out to fire (or, if self propelled, don't need to be initially fired at the opponents ship)
The idea seems to be - if the ads aren't too annoying, they are less likely to be blocked, and ad makes will be encouraged to make those less annoying adds.
Or more simply: Google is hoping that ad blockers will get rid of the more annoying ads that encourage people to get ad blockers. The idea is that everyone has a different point of "too much". I suspect google thinks that ad execs will end up targeting a middle ground. Probably little/no animation, no sound, and no more nudity/blood/violence than would be appropriate ofr the normal customers of the target site.
The most easily annoyed 25% are probably not going to be considered - nothing will satisfy them anyway. Most people, however, don't mind non-intrusive ads.
Yep. I've never had a choice but to use IE on my windows machines. Nope, never. That firefox installer I have on a usb key, with the '.exe'? Yeah, that certainly couldn't be for windows...
Preventing MS from telling OEMs that they can't install other browsers is reasonable - MS shouldn't be able to tell them that, but to make it so that MS has put the effort to, what amounts to, advertise for their competators... Why not make Apple do that on their machines? Why not make dell offer the option of non-dell motherboards? Why not make home builders offer the services of alternative plumbing and electrical installation companies, rather than just use their own?
One step in the right direction, but the second took them too far.
Both are good places to start. You can end at the other.
Although, Foxit has added the Ass - err, Ask toolbar, which sucks. Fortunately you can not agree to the toolbar's terms, and it won't install (but Foxit will still install)
It doesn't specify that the IP based service has to start in home. As far as I can tell, it could be a standard RJ11/single-twisted pair to the base station where it then gets routed via IP.
ME was a kludge relesae, with 2000 being the proper release for that goal (merging the Windows 9x GUI with the NT kernel).
... What??? ME was still a DOS kernel, not an NT Kernel. It was the last of the DOS based Windows. XP was the proper merging of 9x and NT, although some basic stuff was available in 2k, that worked for most things. 2k's GUI wasn't that much improved over NT4, a little streamlined, but nothing major.
And you can argue that Vista was a kludge release (trying to implement UAC and a better security model, but selling the OS to the masses with Live integration and Aero interface), with 7 being the proper release of Vista's goals.
Sound premise. Jury is still out on 7 (though it doesn't seem so bad so far)
You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases, right? Since the year 2000, there have been 5 non-server releases (ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7), and it's almost 2010, it is planned to be 6 at 2012.
That's one every other year.
Apple does the same thing, many software vendors do the same thing.
The catch is, eventually one will be right, and explain things that are out of the scope of Einstein's theories or more accurately explain in-scope things.
Or do you believe we are at the pinnacle of the field, and can achieve no more?
There's a limit as to how wrong the model can be, add to that, as people say, more energetic collisions happen all the time in the atmosphere - there really is nothing to worry about.
You have more to worry about H1N1 evolving to have a two-month contagious but asymptomatic initial period, and then causing illness with ebola-like fatality rates.
He's way to pushy and intolerant of differing ideals. Linus used what Stallman started, but Linus is more of the 'get it done with the right tools' type, than the intolerant idealism type. Linus' proper use of the tools, IMO is a much better method.
Nonetheless, it's not a *horrible* concept, it was just a little too loose (as I've seen it described).
I think, as an option, and if the user was within a certain group (such as sudoers/wheel/whatever - changeable by the admin, and users who have administrative access), and only signed packages were affected (no change there), I wouldn't see an issue. At that point, it's basically saying "don't require a password for sudo when installing a package trusted by trusted authority 'xyz'".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'd argue Java is also only in theory.
I've had to re-write too much stuff because a java built in function relied on native libraries, which did not act the same (regular expression handling in 1.4 and earlier, is a good example - go betweeen HPUX, Linux and Windows, and there can be serious issues). A lot of the UI stuff doesn't work well between versions either.
It's gotten better, but on a similar note, anything I've used from .NET in VS 2003 and earlier, and quite a bit of later stuff, works just fine on Windows, Linux and FreeBSD.
Each has their flaws in cross platform use - .NET's issues tend to arise when using newer APIs, and Java tend to have small gotchas, which in most cases are rare, scattered throughout the code.
Good thing this wasn't the Dragon Ball Z movie, they'd laud DRM as the savior of humanity.
that or a disc, with weapons mounted on extensions that can be popped out to fire (or, if self propelled, don't need to be initially fired at the opponents ship)
Don't worry, you aren't the intended target.
The idea seems to be - if the ads aren't too annoying, they are less likely to be blocked, and ad makes will be encouraged to make those less annoying adds.
Or more simply: Google is hoping that ad blockers will get rid of the more annoying ads that encourage people to get ad blockers. The idea is that everyone has a different point of "too much". I suspect google thinks that ad execs will end up targeting a middle ground. Probably little/no animation, no sound, and no more nudity/blood/violence than would be appropriate ofr the normal customers of the target site.
The most easily annoyed 25% are probably not going to be considered - nothing will satisfy them anyway. Most people, however, don't mind non-intrusive ads.
Alternatively, wouldn't they also be considered a monopoly in the portable audio player market?
Yep. I've never had a choice but to use IE on my windows machines. Nope, never. That firefox installer I have on a usb key, with the '.exe'? Yeah, that certainly couldn't be for windows...
Preventing MS from telling OEMs that they can't install other browsers is reasonable - MS shouldn't be able to tell them that, but to make it so that MS has put the effort to, what amounts to, advertise for their competators... Why not make Apple do that on their machines? Why not make dell offer the option of non-dell motherboards? Why not make home builders offer the services of alternative plumbing and electrical installation companies, rather than just use their own?
One step in the right direction, but the second took them too far.
or Here
Both are good places to start. You can end at the other.
Although, Foxit has added the Ass - err, Ask toolbar, which sucks. Fortunately you can not agree to the toolbar's terms, and it won't install (but Foxit will still install)
using existing tools can also reduce bugs - if a tool has been around long enough.
Are you sure this isn't an in-house fudge-up of Javascript?
I thought the crunch in the middle would be nice - a moment of respite from the torture.
Seems true enough these days.
Although I'd rather counter their logic with:
I don't want my girlfriend to know I'm buying her a nice set of ear rings for Christmas. I guess I shouldn't be doing it then...
It's funny, I read this yesterday on CNN... And for some reason, not long after I got home, NBC got blocked on my TV.
Strange.
Probably? This post seems rather defensive of it, to me. I bet it's NoYob.
It doesn't specify that the IP based service has to start in home. As far as I can tell, it could be a standard RJ11/single-twisted pair to the base station where it then gets routed via IP.
A home user wouldn't notice the difference.
because the current system certainly doesn't require energy to run or battery backups at the switching stations...
so, is that why
$ touch ~/privates /home/some-other-user/privates
works, but
$ touch
gives me a rights error!?
ME was still a DOS kernel, not an NT Kernel. It was the last of the DOS based Windows. XP was the proper merging of 9x and NT, although some basic stuff was available in 2k, that worked for most things. 2k's GUI wasn't that much improved over NT4, a little streamlined, but nothing major.
Sound premise. Jury is still out on 7 (though it doesn't seem so bad so far)
You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases, right? Since the year 2000, there have been 5 non-server releases (ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7), and it's almost 2010, it is planned to be 6 at 2012.
That's one every other year.
Apple does the same thing, many software vendors do the same thing.
It's possible he or she read it from the Firehose long before it was posted.
Or became a subscriber. Take your pick.
Behold, science.
The catch is, eventually one will be right, and explain things that are out of the scope of Einstein's theories or more accurately explain in-scope things.
Or do you believe we are at the pinnacle of the field, and can achieve no more?
Annoying slashdotters?
Is this site *BEGGING* to get hacked?
There's a limit as to how wrong the model can be, add to that, as people say, more energetic collisions happen all the time in the atmosphere - there really is nothing to worry about.
You have more to worry about H1N1 evolving to have a two-month contagious but asymptomatic initial period, and then causing illness with ebola-like fatality rates.
What part of my comment suggested a Windows 95 security mentality? The last line summed it up:
Are you cognitively incompetent, or just a troll?
He's way to pushy and intolerant of differing ideals. Linus used what Stallman started, but Linus is more of the 'get it done with the right tools' type, than the intolerant idealism type. Linus' proper use of the tools, IMO is a much better method.
I'm not even sure how that's applicable...
Should I just self-wooosh?
Nonetheless, it's not a *horrible* concept, it was just a little too loose (as I've seen it described).
I think, as an option, and if the user was within a certain group (such as sudoers/wheel/whatever - changeable by the admin, and users who have administrative access), and only signed packages were affected (no change there), I wouldn't see an issue. At that point, it's basically saying "don't require a password for sudo when installing a package trusted by trusted authority 'xyz'".