I mean, if you open FDISK (the old DOS partitioning tool) it recognises all HPFS partitions as NTFS ones.
I would imagine that FDISK is just looking at the "partition type" (0x07 for "HPFS/NTFS" ones, 0x82 for Linux swap and 0x83 for Linux partitions), rather than figuring out what the disk has actually been formatted with.
I haven't used FDISK in YEARS... pardon any inaccuracies.
Then how do we prevent people from bringing in USB printers from home and connecting them locally?
Remove them from the plugdev group (or whatever group the HAL daemon requires users to be in), and do like domatic suggests and write some *very* restrictive udev rules.
And you still haven't described how to block installing Lockjaw/Gnometris/KSirtet "just for me".
Mount/home and/tmp (and other world-writeable directories) with noexec. BAM, 99% of users won't be able to *run* installers that weren't installed by an administrator.:)
you sound like one of them guys that would run a 15' crt at 1280X1024 just because the card supported that.
Having text that is so small its unreadable isnt BETTER.
I run my 21" CRTs @ 1856x1392. The text is not unreadable. If you find yourself working on a system where the text *is* unreadable, your system has no idea what the DPI of the display device actually is. (This is why Windows has the "on screen ruler" and X11 lets you enter the physical dimensions of your display devices into your xorg.conf.) [However, I *REALLY* wish that Windows allowed one to set the DPI on a per-CRTC basis. (to use the Xorg terminology)]
I have other things to do with my time...like for instance raise a family?
Heh. Just *how* long have you spent sniping at me and other members of this forum? Your credulity has worn thin.
So your line of logic is that if I don't care about your opinion...
Negatory. My line of logic is this: "The only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. If you don't care to figure out why people's tastes differ from yours on this matter (and -by extension- why their opinions differ from yours), then you're wasting everyone's time when you bring up such issues." Don't you have a family to raise and job to do?
There was no need for any of this. They should have left the option in place.
No. You are wrong. There is a need for AwesomeBar. You are -evidently- not its target audience, so you are incapable of understanding that need. Moreover, the FF devs have better things to do than to maintain code that doesn't improve their browser. When compared to FF2, FF3 is faster, uses system resources more effectively, and is more standards compliant. 3.1 is gonna have HTML5 support (among other nifty features). All in all, I like the direction that FF development is taking. If you dislike FF3 so much, ask (or pay) one of your childless programmer cow-orkers to backport security and compatibility fixes to whatever revision of FF you like the best. [Or just use it straight out of the box, noone will know.]...You seem to assume every user is interested in FF development.
I don't. You seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions. Go back to the graph that I linked you to. Click on the "Help" link in the top right. You get the story behind the statistics. No mailing lists required.:)
If you investigated how the stats were calculated, you'd understand just exactly how accurate they are.
In fact 3.0 betas included options in about:config that meant these extensions weren't necessary. So how is it that they were released on day 1?
The dev of the oldbar extension probably read the mailing lists where the FF devs gave the Extension devs the heads-up that AwesomeBar was going to be the default, and the about:config option to switch back to the previous behaviour was gonna be removed. There's no conspiracy here, just clued-in developers.
I don't care if you agree with me.
Then you don't care if anyone listens to your arguments. See, the only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. Productive conversations cannot be built around arguments about matters of taste.
Look, a lot of cruft has built up in this argument. Are you interested in a productive conversation? If you are, let's start over. State your argument as clearly as you can. State all of the primary points of your argument as clearly as you can. Present as much evidence as you can to support each point. Let's keep the conversation in this thread. If neither person's opinion can be swayed, or either person's argument hinges on matters of taste, then we shall terminate the conversation and go our separate ways.
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Some of you resourceful nerds out there probably have such a setup, but I will offer two things preemptively to respond to that:
If some of us *have* such a setup, but you consider the presence of such a setup irrelevant due to its low market penetration and lack of connection to Facebook, why'd you make the challenge in the first place?
Notice that on 06/17/2008 there were 2,215 downloads.
Oldbar and hideunvisited *were* available on the day that Firefox 3.0 shipped.
You are an idiot.
I respectfully request that you retract this statement.
I'm pointing out that some really bad decisions and horrendous attitudes are turning one incredible browser into a troublesome piece of shit.
You're not making your point. All you've done in this thread is rail endlessly about how much the AwesomeBar sucks and how it's the death of Firefox. *I* *don't* *agree* *with* *you*. If you have other examples, you need to start bringing them out. This one example is very weak, as it's based on matters of taste.
I am also aware that this is no excuse for taking away or adversely modifying existing behaviour. I certainly couldn't get away with that sort of shit where I work.
Do you pay the Firefox team for their work? Do you have a contract with them for delivery of a browser with a Firefox 2.x styled location bar? If you do, then you have a valid complaint. If not, then they're free to do whatever their steering committee has found to be best for the browser.
...to make it sane again...
Again, your definition of sane behaviour differs from mine.
Extensions are for extending existing behaviour. They shouldn't be needed to give you back what you had 2 versions ago.
*snort* The current existing behaviour is AwesomeBar. Oldbar et. al. extend that behaviour to make it function like the classic location bar. It sounds like the extension system is working as intended.
You can still get caught out.
Agreed. I have yet to get "caught out", though.
If I did that you'd rail against me...
You don't seem to know anything about me. How have you come to this conclusion?
I see in your links that you've already practically done so.
Wat? I authored none of the documents that I have linked to in this thread. Half of the links that I have posted were not for your consumption. The other half pointed you to FF 1.0 and a warning from the devs about using old browsers. Care to explain how you've come to your conclusion?
Yeah stop being a smug patronising dismissive asshole...
Just make sure you do it every time you create a profile...
How often do you create a profile, boss? (Also, why are you creating profiles so often that this creates a problem? [Also, why are you running everyday things as a root user?])
I don't want to know after the fact that FF has upgraded itself and what's there....I want to be... given a damn choice
When I configure Firefox to ask me before upgrading, or never upgrade, it does just that. I have never seen Firefox "forget" this setting. (I've also been using Firefox from the 1.0 days.)
Pragmatically speaking the two are worlds apart. When's the last time that your simulated quartz RTC generated erroneous results 'cause a simulated incoming phone call wobbled the simulated voltage on the simulated trace two layers down in the PCB that the RTC was simulated to be sitting on top of?
It's details like this -and their explanation in the patent application- that make hardware worthy of patenting.
Try doing that usefully when the copyright has expired / would have expired, then we'll talk. By then, the hardware used to run the software used to read the modified data will be such ancient history it will be hard to even determine what it was named. Had you the source code, you have to admit it would likely be easier to derive from.
This makes no sense. US copyright terms can be longer than 90 years. I very much doubt that a binary would be any hard to run or reverse engineer than a source file. (Hell, if you have the binary, and have knowledge about the processor that it was designed to work on, you may be *closer* to a working program than if you just have the source code. You no longer have to write a compiler for whatever crazy language the source code was written it. "All" that's left in the task is to write a CPU and OS emulator.)
Are you using Session Manager or something similar to restore a large session?
If you're not, -and are running Firefox on an otherwise unloaded machine- I can't understand how you're getting the numbers that you're getting. I have an Athlon XP 2800+ machine w/ 2GB DDR1 @ 400Mhz, and a single 320GB WD SATA1 drive. With a cold disk cache, Firefox starts up and loads my homepage (ipv6.google.com) in under ten seconds, under both Windows Server 2K3 and Gentoo Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
mod parent up. ding ding ding.
Also, sorry if the point of your comment *WHOOSHED* over my head. (I've been kinda thick-headed today.)
I mean, if you open FDISK (the old DOS partitioning tool) it recognises all HPFS partitions as NTFS ones.
I would imagine that FDISK is just looking at the "partition type" (0x07 for "HPFS/NTFS" ones, 0x82 for Linux swap and 0x83 for Linux partitions), rather than figuring out what the disk has actually been formatted with.
I haven't used FDISK in YEARS... pardon any inaccuracies.
Then how do we prevent people from bringing in USB printers from home and connecting them locally?
Remove them from the plugdev group (or whatever group the HAL daemon requires users to be in), and do like domatic suggests and write some *very* restrictive udev rules.
And you still haven't described how to block installing Lockjaw/Gnometris/KSirtet "just for me".
Mysidia covers this (among other things) in this comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1154635&cid=27129011
Mount /home and /tmp (and other world-writeable directories) with noexec. BAM, 99% of users won't be able to *run* installers that weren't installed by an administrator. :)
^^^^ THIS!
Learning to write udev rules will be helpful.
you sound like one of them guys that would run a 15' crt at 1280X1024 just because the card supported that.
Having text that is so small its unreadable isnt BETTER.
I run my 21" CRTs @ 1856x1392. The text is not unreadable. If you find yourself working on a system where the text *is* unreadable, your system has no idea what the DPI of the display device actually is. (This is why Windows has the "on screen ruler" and X11 lets you enter the physical dimensions of your display devices into your xorg.conf.) [However, I *REALLY* wish that Windows allowed one to set the DPI on a per-CRTC basis. (to use the Xorg terminology)]
I'd use Tor more if it wasn't so freaking slow.
Help out. Run an exit node! :)
Ah, an offer to start this all again. No thanks.
Very well.
I have other things to do with my time...like for instance raise a family?
Heh. Just *how* long have you spent sniping at me and other members of this forum? Your credulity has worn thin.
So your line of logic is that if I don't care about your opinion...
Negatory. My line of logic is this: "The only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. If you don't care to figure out why people's tastes differ from yours on this matter (and -by extension- why their opinions differ from yours), then you're wasting everyone's time when you bring up such issues." Don't you have a family to raise and job to do?
There was no need for any of this. They should have left the option in place.
No. You are wrong. There is a need for AwesomeBar. You are -evidently- not its target audience, so you are incapable of understanding that need. Moreover, the FF devs have better things to do than to maintain code that doesn't improve their browser. When compared to FF2, FF3 is faster, uses system resources more effectively, and is more standards compliant. 3.1 is gonna have HTML5 support (among other nifty features). All in all, I like the direction that FF development is taking. If you dislike FF3 so much, ask (or pay) one of your childless programmer cow-orkers to backport security and compatibility fixes to whatever revision of FF you like the best. [Or just use it straight out of the box, noone will know.] ...You seem to assume every user is interested in FF development.
I don't. You seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions. Go back to the graph that I linked you to. Click on the "Help" link in the top right. You get the story behind the statistics. No mailing lists required. :)
Anyway, adieu. May we never meet again.
1) I have no idea how accurate those stats are.
If you investigated how the stats were calculated, you'd understand just exactly how accurate they are.
In fact 3.0 betas included options in about:config that meant these extensions weren't necessary. So how is it that they were released on day 1?
The dev of the oldbar extension probably read the mailing lists where the FF devs gave the Extension devs the heads-up that AwesomeBar was going to be the default, and the about:config option to switch back to the previous behaviour was gonna be removed. There's no conspiracy here, just clued-in developers.
I don't care if you agree with me.
Then you don't care if anyone listens to your arguments. See, the only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. Productive conversations cannot be built around arguments about matters of taste.
Look, a lot of cruft has built up in this argument. Are you interested in a productive conversation? If you are, let's start over. State your argument as clearly as you can. State all of the primary points of your argument as clearly as you can. Present as much evidence as you can to support each point. Let's keep the conversation in this thread. If neither person's opinion can be swayed, or either person's argument hinges on matters of taste, then we shall terminate the conversation and go our separate ways.
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Some of you resourceful nerds out there probably have such a setup, but I will offer two things preemptively to respond to that:
If some of us *have* such a setup, but you consider the presence of such a setup irrelevant due to its low market penetration and lack of connection to Facebook, why'd you make the challenge in the first place?
Yeah because those extensions just instantly came out when the browser did.
From wikipedia:
Mozilla Firefox 3 was released on June 17, 2008
Wikipedia's source:
https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2008/06/17/firefox-3-available-today-at-1700-utc-10am-pdt/
Let's look at the oldbar download and usage statistics:
Zoom out all the way on this graph:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/7637
Mouse over the extreme left of the graph. Notice the date displayed: 06/17/2008. Notice that there were 97 downloads that day.
Do the same for hideunvisited:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/7429
Notice that on 06/17/2008 there were 2,215 downloads.
Oldbar and hideunvisited *were* available on the day that Firefox 3.0 shipped.
You are an idiot.
I respectfully request that you retract this statement.
I'm pointing out that some really bad decisions and horrendous attitudes are turning one incredible browser into a troublesome piece of shit.
You're not making your point. All you've done in this thread is rail endlessly about how much the AwesomeBar sucks and how it's the death of Firefox. *I* *don't* *agree* *with* *you*. If you have other examples, you need to start bringing them out. This one example is very weak, as it's based on matters of taste.
I am also aware that this is no excuse for taking away or adversely modifying existing behaviour. I certainly couldn't get away with that sort of shit where I work.
Do you pay the Firefox team for their work? Do you have a contract with them for delivery of a browser with a Firefox 2.x styled location bar? If you do, then you have a valid complaint. If not, then they're free to do whatever their steering committee has found to be best for the browser.
...to make it sane again...
Again, your definition of sane behaviour differs from mine.
Extensions are for extending existing behaviour. They shouldn't be needed to give you back what you had 2 versions ago.
*snort* The current existing behaviour is AwesomeBar. Oldbar et. al. extend that behaviour to make it function like the classic location bar. It sounds like the extension system is working as intended.
You can still get caught out.
Agreed. I have yet to get "caught out", though.
If I did that you'd rail against me...
You don't seem to know anything about me. How have you come to this conclusion?
I see in your links that you've already practically done so.
Wat?
I authored none of the documents that I have linked to in this thread. Half of the links that I have posted were not for your consumption. The other half pointed you to FF 1.0 and a warning from the devs about using old browsers. Care to explain how you've come to your conclusion?
Yeah stop being a smug patronising dismissive asshole...
You first, sir.
...why are you wasting my time with this nonsense.
From my previous post:
These links are more for the benefit of those who might come across this thread via google.
Just make sure you do it every time you create a profile...
How often do you create a profile, boss? (Also, why are you creating profiles so often that this creates a problem? [Also, why are you running everyday things as a root user?])
I don't want to know after the fact that FF has upgraded itself and what's there. ...I want to be ... given a damn choice
When I configure Firefox to ask me before upgrading, or never upgrade, it does just that. I have never seen Firefox "forget" this setting. (I've also been using Firefox from the 1.0 days.)
You are aware of the Samba Plugfests?
When is linux going to catch up with Win95?
Last I heard, it had caught up in 1995. :)
Mathematically speaking the two are identical.
Pragmatically speaking the two are worlds apart.
When's the last time that your simulated quartz RTC generated erroneous results 'cause a simulated incoming phone call wobbled the simulated voltage on the simulated trace two layers down in the PCB that the RTC was simulated to be sitting on top of?
It's details like this -and their explanation in the patent application- that make hardware worthy of patenting.
Try doing that usefully when the copyright has expired / would have expired, then we'll talk. By then, the hardware used to run the software used to read the modified data will be such ancient history it will be hard to even determine what it was named. Had you the source code, you have to admit it would likely be easier to derive from.
This makes no sense. US copyright terms can be longer than 90 years. I very much doubt that a binary would be any hard to run or reverse engineer than a source file. (Hell, if you have the binary, and have knowledge about the processor that it was designed to work on, you may be *closer* to a working program than if you just have the source code. You no longer have to write a compiler for whatever crazy language the source code was written it. "All" that's left in the task is to write a CPU and OS emulator.)
I challenge you to benefit from a 20-year-old binary anything.
I take it that you've heard of neither IDA nor OllyDbg? :)
FFS. Are those *all* twitter sockpuppets?
Also, thanks for the U3->ISO9660 info!
Do you have any packet dumps from this WMP experiment?
Not on Windows XP or earlier, it doesn't!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Disk_Format&oldid=269059905#Native_OS_support
WinXP (or Server 2k3) has *no* idea WTF to do with a UDF formatted USB flash drive, either.
And a friend of mine, he's been getting outrageous speeds, faster than cable and faster than DSL, through radio signals...
Cite?
Gentoo Linux, represent!
x86 unstable in da house!
Are you using Session Manager or something similar to restore a large session?
If you're not, -and are running Firefox on an otherwise unloaded machine- I can't understand how you're getting the numbers that you're getting. I have an Athlon XP 2800+ machine w/ 2GB DDR1 @ 400Mhz, and a single 320GB WD SATA1 drive. With a cold disk cache, Firefox starts up and loads my homepage (ipv6.google.com) in under ten seconds, under both Windows Server 2K3 and Gentoo Linux.