"And just why shouldn't it run fine on a 486/50? NS3 did."
Because that isn't the niche that they're aiming for, and you have to code differently to run on lower-end platforms. If you've written firmware code and then compared it to Mozilla and other high-end code, you'd understand. There are a bunch of things that you can add to make the code MUCH more easily extendable and managable, but those items have their processing and memory costs. The overhead costs involved with that type of coding becomes extremely minimal with today's (and the last 4 year's computers), and it makes development MUCH faster.
Back when NS3 was released (tries to think back), I think that 486's would have been the upper-end machines. Now Pentium III 900 MHZ's are the upper end machines, and it runs nice and fast on my Pentium II 233 at home (which I bought 4 years ago). Take a look at Mozilla Classic code in bonsai if you have the time. You'll quickly see why they decided to throw it all out, it was from a different era, where programming decisions were different.
As for "bloat", the only "bloat" that is arguably by design in mozilla is XPFE (that unique user-interface). If you want to run on a lower-end computer, try Gaelon and Kmellon, and all of the other projects that take the rendering engine and slap a native UI on it. For the rest of the population, the XPFE adds so much flexability to the User Interface (enough to make Mozilla a full development platform!) that it is well worth it. There is still a lot of unintentional (read: buggy) bloat in Mozilla, and a lot of that has to do with the caching code running improperly. If we get that under control, we could probably take another 4 or 5 Megs off the footprint. But you have to realize that rendering features cost memory.
Most of the people who complain about Mozilla being "bloaty" really don't WANT a full featured, "has EVERYTHING" kind of browser that Mozilla is designed to be. (And I'm talking about Java/Javascript/XHTML/CSS2/3 features, not the stupid troll about "We don't want a mail reader/irc client/composer" when everyone who has been paying any attention realizes that you don't have to download those things if you don't want them!). That's fine for them, they can go and get a stripped down browser somewhere else. But that's NOT what Mozilla is designed to be, and it shouldn't have to apologize for not fitting into lynx's size and CPU use footprint.
486's are fine for being a firewall locked into a closet or for doing basic text editing/word processing with TeX. In fact, I bought a 486 laptop (that looks like it could be dropped from a 20 story building and still survive) to do just that (for $40 NZ). But as a desktop computer to do web surfing these days? Give me a break! I think the average 486 is 6 or 7 years old now. If you're THAT behind the curve, there's not much that application developers can do to work with you, except to say "Insist on using an old computer? Then you should use old software."
The original contents of this comment were clear copyright violation. They were cut & pasted from this site. This text has been removed at the request of the copyright holder.
*THIS* is what the article (and external mozilla contributors) are complaining about. Because of the PDT being so ultra-conservative, there are at least *40* (if not much more) fixes that have gone into the trunk (Mozilla), that haven't been allowed into the branch (Netscape 6).
For some reason, the milestone versions have ALWAYS sucked more then the
nightly builds when they were released. The Nightly builds are always much better.
Right before PR3 shipped, a "Netscape" branch was created. You needed nsbeta3++ permission from the PDT to check into the branch before PR3 came out. After PR3, you needed an attached patch, a Review and a Super Review to get from [rtm need info] to [rtm+]. At that point, if the PDT approved the bug getting fixed, it moved it to [rtm++], and you were allowed to check it into the branch. If the PDT didn't want the change, it marked it rtm-, and that meant that it wouldn't be allowed into the branch. In the whole process, the patch was usually checked into the trunk right before it was moved to RTM+.
So if it gets rtm-'ed, it will NOT be in Netscape 6.
To get code into Mozilla, you need a module owner code review, and a "Super" review, done by a senior engineer. That's what r= and sr= means in bugzilla.
When people are in a hurry, sometimes the module owner will allow someone else to do a r=, as long as it is a senior programmer. So what he's saying is that they have a r=x, a sr=y, and the PDT STILL smacked it down with a rtm-, saying "Too risky" or "Not stop ship".
All of the problems that we're having management wise with Netscape 6 are due to their crappy PDT. This does not really affect Mozilla, and most of the bugs listed in that article (in fact, I think ALL of them), have been fixed in Mozilla.
Michael: Your bias is disgusting. Mozilla will easily be a better browser than IE. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Netscape 6.
The first question I'm asking everyone who says that Mozilla is "slow" is "What platform are you running on, what is the speed of your processor, and how much memory do you have?"
*First, look at Mozilla: everyone knows that a browser is really one of those tools which are very important in today's desktop environment. But instead of planning and developing a fast, stable, usable one, Mozilla just implements funny, but useless things like a terminal emulator. Don't get me wrong: everybody should do whatever he wants to, but sometimes I think it would be better if we had a browser at first and then think about which nice applets could enhance it.*
XMLterm is NOT developed by the core mozilla developers. It is a project given to mozilla by OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTORS, which uses mozilla's rendering engine.
Believe me, the majority of mozilla developers are NOT free to work on whatever they please. Right now, they can only work on bugs that are marked nsbeta3+, they cannot add any new features, and although a lot of annoying bugs are fixed in various developer's trees, they aren't allowed to check those bug fixes into the main tree because of "risk". Every OUNCE of energy is being focused towards shipping.
Just because YOU don't want a full-featured browser such as mozilla, doesn't mean that EVERYONE doesn't want a full-featured browser. You would probably like gaelon much better, so go use it.
(If you don't believe me, go back and read some of his earlier posts. He
trolls via arrogance).
Why did you switch to QT-2.2 BETA?
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
I think a lot of these new bugs crept in there
because you slipped a whole bunch of new
features, and more annoyingly, a new BETA version
of QT into something that was getting ready for
release. Why did kde have to upgrade to a beta
version of qt this late into the cycle?
Did the new beta REALLY fix that many critical bugs?
There is a LOT of stuff that you can do in debug code to AUTOMATICALLY DETECT bugs. Things like running two separate algorithms on the same data and seeing if you get the same results, automatically verifying that every pointer is valid, etc. Doing these things makes the program run SLOWER, MUCH slower, but it is worth it because it automatically detects bugs, and that is your FOCUS in debug builds. They're not just doing printf's in the debug code.
If you think that "It's debug code!" is just an excuse, then I don't think you've worked on a project that made full utilization of debug code.
1) Napster doesn't charge fees for distribution of mp3's. 2) There are NO gpl'ed programs that are allowed to be distributed in binary only format without source being available. There ARE mp3's that are legal to distribute.
Things have changed between 1998 and now. (one significant change is that they now have a Breakfast show instead of BBC World in the morning, and the first show is not "Maggie's Garden Show".)
There seems to be a trend of Christchurch becoming a new center of technology in the Austrialiasia sector, some companies have been bought by international outsiders and then left alone to continue their efficient development models. Lots of large companies (Compaq, Trimble Navigation, Pulse-Data, The Holliday Group, etc) have their heavy-duty development houses here.
Because of the scale of the country, many new technologies are trialed here first, and then implimented otherwhere once proven successful. The government is being put under enough pressure to change immigration procedures for information technology people.
"When I say, "Try to get away claiming to be" I am (among other things) implying that they are not."
"I know very well what Wiccans are and are not. I am further aware of what Satanism is and is not. I know perfectly well the large divide between the two."
I guess I should have quoted your second line to show why I thought your original post was flamebait:
"Not many, but enough to make me think that the original post was neither mistaken nor ignorant."
That line made it sound like you DIDN'T understand the HUGE difference between Wiccans and Satan Worshippers. In fact, only someone completely ignorant of paganism could think that Satanists were Wiccan. Therefore, a person who thinks that a Satanist IS Wiccan is by all means, mistaken and ignorant, and NEEDS to be corrected.
BTW, how can a true satanist try to pass him or herself off as a member of another religion? And if you're not going to be a "true" member of a truely controversial (and destructive) religion such as Satanism (and reap all of the rebellious aspects of it), then what's the point of being a Satanist in the first place?
"I have encountered Satanists who try to get away with claiming to be Wiccan instead of being honest about their beliefs."
Somehow, I really doubt this, since Wiccan's (and other pagans) don't believe in the existance of Satan. They see Satan as a Christian creation.
(That's without even going into other wiccan beliefs, like the 7 fold rule, and karma, that make it clear that if you practice evil, evil will come back to haunt you.)
Spoken by someone who uses her account to troll all the time.:P ("Lita Juarez" is supposed to sound like "leet Warez").
You have to admit, that (original) post did look like a troll. It was full of strong opinions that weren't backed up by any facts, and then that "I can drive safely while using a cell phone" hook was thrown in at the end.
"In my experience, it really isn't that hard to get listed on MAPS. My previous employer decided to harvest Usenet one time to gather addresses of people that might be interested in our service. A couple of months later, MAPS listed us after one person spent some time harassing us to remove his and other's addresses (which we did, promptly, when asked)."
Hmm. "harvest Usenet one time to gather addresses of people who MIGHT be interested in our services." Translation: You grabbed e-mail addresses from newsgroups and then sent people at those addresses an UNSOLICTED advertisement. That sounds like SPAM to me. You may have been one of the few companies that act on good faith and actually opt-out people who ask for it, but you were still spamming people. These days, maintaining an opt-out list (or more accurately, CLAIMING that you maintain an opt-out list) isn't any excuse to spam. Most people won't dare to respond and ask to be opted out, because that marks their e-mail address as ACTIVE and makes it much more likely that they will receive much more spam.
So what really happened here was: 1) You spammed a bunch of people. 2) Someone got really pissed off about it (actually, most of the people probably got pissed at your company, but didn't respond because they didn't want their e-mail address to be marked as "active"). 3) That person reported you to MAPS and gave them evidence of your spam. 4) MAPS RBL'ed you for being a spammer. (Not just RELAYING spam, but actually being the source of it.)
"When he finally submitted his "evidence," MAPS listed us right away, without even so much as asking us if his take on things was accurate (which it was not in certain key areas). We were notified, but not until after the listing was made. The damage was already done."
What wasn't accurate about it? They didn't notify you because this wasn't a spammer sending mail through your open relay without your knowledge, this was you KNOWINGLY spamming people!
Once you stopped spamming people (an opt-in list means that your e-mail is no longer unsolicted), MAPS stopped blacklisting you because you stopped spamming people.
1) The old mp3's are hidden. 2) ILOVEYOU are appended to the end of the existing mp3's, OR it replaces the mp3. Now if it's appended to the end of an mp3, I don't see how it would run as vbscript. If it replaces an mp3, then when you try to download an mp3, you'll notice that the mp3 is a BIT small for a normal mp3.
Either way, I think you'd notice before infection.
...they DIDN'T have the intelligence to use a *different* path for their "special" version of wineserver.
Evidence of this:
1) I installed canvas and started to run it. 2) 10 minutes later (after doing other things) I realized that canvas hadn't done anything.. 3) I look in ps's output and notice that an instance of wineserver has zombie'd itself. 4) I kill the programs and try steps 2 and 3 several more times. 5) I go to/usr/local/bin and rename wineserver (the version that I built from the cvs pull last night) to newwineserver 6) copy the version of wineserver that came with canvas to/usr/local/bin. 7) Started canvas again and THIS time, it worked perfectly.
Problem: Now I need to swap wineserver every time I want to switch between canvas and any other program that I run using wine.:-(
Next time, please have an option where I can explictly STATE a path for wineserver, if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
"And just why shouldn't it run fine on a 486/50? NS3 did."
Because that isn't the niche that they're aiming for, and you have to code differently to run on lower-end platforms. If you've written firmware code and then compared it to Mozilla and other high-end code, you'd understand. There are a bunch of things that you can add to make the code MUCH more easily extendable and managable, but those items have their processing and memory costs. The overhead costs involved with that type of coding becomes extremely minimal with today's (and the last 4 year's computers), and it makes development MUCH faster.
Back when NS3 was released (tries to think back), I think that 486's would have been the upper-end machines. Now Pentium III 900 MHZ's are the upper end machines, and it runs nice and fast on my Pentium II 233 at home (which I bought 4 years ago). Take a look at Mozilla Classic code in bonsai if you have the time. You'll quickly see why they decided to throw it all out, it was from a different era, where programming decisions were different.
As for "bloat", the only "bloat" that is arguably by design in mozilla is XPFE (that unique user-interface). If you want to run on a lower-end computer, try Gaelon and Kmellon, and all of the other projects that take the rendering engine and slap a native UI on it. For the rest of the population, the XPFE adds so much flexability to the User Interface (enough to make Mozilla a full development platform!) that it is well worth it. There is still a lot of unintentional (read: buggy) bloat in Mozilla, and a lot of that has to do with the caching code running improperly. If we get that under control, we could probably take another 4 or 5 Megs off the footprint. But you have to realize that rendering features cost memory.
Most of the people who complain about Mozilla being "bloaty" really don't WANT a full featured, "has EVERYTHING" kind of browser that Mozilla is designed to be. (And I'm talking about Java/Javascript/XHTML/CSS2/3 features, not the stupid troll about "We don't want a mail reader/irc client/composer" when everyone who has been paying any attention realizes that you don't have to download those things if you don't want them!). That's fine for them, they can go and get a stripped down browser somewhere else. But that's NOT what Mozilla is designed to be, and it shouldn't have to apologize for not fitting into lynx's size and CPU use footprint.
486's are fine for being a firewall locked into a closet or for doing basic text editing/word processing with TeX. In fact, I bought a 486 laptop (that looks like it could be dropped from a 20 story building and still survive) to do just that (for $40 NZ). But as a desktop computer to do web surfing these days? Give me a break! I think the average 486 is 6 or 7 years old now. If you're THAT behind the curve, there's not much that application developers can do to work with you, except to say "Insist on using an old computer? Then you should use old software."
The original contents of this comment were clear copyright violation. They were cut & pasted from this site. This text has been removed at the request of the copyright holder.
It's called "SmartUpdate", and works with XPI's.
That has been available for a long time.
*THIS* is what the article (and external mozilla contributors) are complaining about. Because of the PDT being so ultra-conservative, there are at least *40* (if not much more) fixes that have gone into the trunk (Mozilla), that haven't been allowed into the branch (Netscape 6).
For some reason, the milestone versions have ALWAYS sucked more then the
nightly builds when they were released. The Nightly builds are always much better.
Netscape does NOT have a "shop" button.
Repeat:
NETSCAPE 6.0 DOES *NOT* HAVE A SHOP BUTTON!!!
And btw: All of the netscape developers hated the "shop" button as well, and
there are regular barbs made at it.
Right before PR3 shipped, a "Netscape" branch was created. You needed nsbeta3++ permission from the PDT to check into the branch before PR3 came out. After PR3, you needed an attached patch, a Review and a Super Review to get from [rtm need info] to [rtm+]. At that point, if the PDT approved the bug getting fixed, it moved it to [rtm++], and you were allowed to check it into the branch. If the PDT didn't want the change, it marked it rtm-, and that meant that it wouldn't be allowed into the branch. In the whole process, the patch was usually checked into the trunk right before it was moved to RTM+.
So if it gets rtm-'ed, it will NOT be in Netscape 6.
You obviously misunderstood his point.
To get code into Mozilla, you need a module owner code review, and a "Super" review, done by a senior engineer. That's what r= and sr= means in bugzilla.
When people are in a hurry, sometimes the module owner will allow someone else to do a r=, as long as it is a senior programmer. So what he's saying is that they have a r=x, a sr=y, and the PDT STILL smacked it down with a rtm-, saying "Too risky" or "Not stop ship".
All of the problems that we're having management wise with Netscape 6 are due to their crappy PDT. This does not really affect Mozilla, and most of the bugs listed in that article (in fact, I think ALL of them), have been fixed in Mozilla.
Michael: Your bias is disgusting. Mozilla will easily be a better browser than IE. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Netscape 6.
Well, that's great. Except then they shouldn't put
"E-mail your CV to foo@sample.com in either PDF or Word format" in their Situations Vacant ad.
I found faxing resumes worked a lot better.
The first question I'm asking everyone who says that Mozilla is "slow" is "What platform are you running on, what is the speed of your processor, and how much memory do you have?"
*First, look at Mozilla: everyone knows that a browser is really one of those tools which are very important in today's desktop environment. But instead of planning and developing a fast, stable, usable one, Mozilla just implements funny, but useless things like a terminal emulator. Don't get me wrong: everybody should do whatever he wants to, but sometimes I think it would be better if we had a browser at first and then think about which nice applets could enhance it.*
XMLterm is NOT developed by the core mozilla developers. It is a project given to mozilla by OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTORS, which uses mozilla's rendering engine.
Believe me, the majority of mozilla developers are NOT free to work on whatever they please. Right now, they can only work on bugs that are marked nsbeta3+, they cannot add any new features, and although a lot of annoying bugs are fixed in various developer's trees, they aren't allowed to check those bug fixes into the main tree because of "risk". Every OUNCE of energy is being focused towards shipping.
Just because YOU don't want a full-featured browser such as mozilla, doesn't mean that EVERYONE doesn't want a full-featured browser. You would probably like gaelon much better, so go use it.
Emerson Willowick: Troll.
(If you don't believe me, go back and read some of his earlier posts. He
trolls via arrogance).
I think a lot of these new bugs crept in there
because you slipped a whole bunch of new
features, and more annoyingly, a new BETA version
of QT into something that was getting ready for
release. Why did kde have to upgrade to a beta
version of qt this late into the cycle?
Did the new beta REALLY fix that many critical bugs?
(No further comment needed.)
There is a LOT of stuff that you can do in debug code to AUTOMATICALLY DETECT bugs. Things like running two separate algorithms on the same data and seeing if you get the same results, automatically verifying that every pointer is valid, etc. Doing these things makes the program run SLOWER, MUCH slower, but it is worth it because it automatically detects bugs, and that is your FOCUS in debug builds. They're not just doing printf's in the debug code.
If you think that "It's debug code!" is just an excuse, then I don't think you've worked on a project that made full utilization of debug code.
Too bad, the analogy fails, because
1) Napster doesn't charge fees for distribution of mp3's.
2) There are NO gpl'ed programs that are allowed to be distributed in binary only format without source being available. There ARE mp3's that are legal to distribute.
Please list the bugzilla number. Doing that will add traffic to that bug, which means that someone will probably fix it. (maybe me).
Things have changed between 1998 and now. (one significant change is that they now have a Breakfast show instead of BBC World in the morning, and the first show is not "Maggie's Garden Show".)
:P
There seems to be a trend of Christchurch becoming a new center of technology in the Austrialiasia sector, some companies have been bought by international outsiders and then left alone to continue their efficient development models. Lots of large companies (Compaq, Trimble Navigation, Pulse-Data, The Holliday Group, etc) have their heavy-duty development houses here.
Because of the scale of the country, many new technologies are trialed here first, and then implimented otherwhere once proven successful. The government is being put under enough pressure to change immigration procedures for information technology people.
Don't count New Zealand out just yet.
"When I say, "Try to get away claiming to be" I am (among other things) implying that they are not."
"I know very well what Wiccans are and are not. I am further aware of what Satanism is and is not. I know perfectly well the large divide between the two."
I guess I should have quoted your second line to show why I thought your original post was flamebait:
"Not many, but enough to make me think that the original post was neither mistaken nor ignorant."
That line made it sound like you DIDN'T understand the HUGE difference between Wiccans and Satan Worshippers. In fact, only someone completely ignorant of paganism could think that Satanists were Wiccan. Therefore, a person who thinks that a Satanist IS Wiccan is by all means, mistaken and ignorant, and NEEDS to be corrected.
BTW, how can a true satanist try to pass him or herself off as a member of another religion? And if you're not going to be a "true" member of a truely controversial (and destructive) religion such as Satanism (and reap all of the rebellious aspects of it), then what's the point of being a Satanist in the first place?
"I have encountered Satanists who try to get away with claiming to be Wiccan instead of being honest about their beliefs."
Somehow, I really doubt this, since Wiccan's (and other pagans) don't believe in the existance of Satan. They see Satan as a Christian creation.
(That's without even going into other wiccan beliefs, like the 7 fold rule, and karma, that make it clear that if you practice evil, evil will come back to haunt you.)
Spoken by someone who uses her account to troll all the time. :P ("Lita Juarez" is supposed to
sound like "leet Warez").
You have to admit, that (original) post did look like a troll. It was full of strong opinions that weren't backed up by any facts, and then that "I can drive safely while using a cell phone" hook was thrown in at the end.
"In my experience, it really isn't that hard to get listed on MAPS. My previous employer decided to harvest Usenet one time to gather addresses of people that might be interested in our service. A couple of months later, MAPS listed us after one person spent some time harassing us to remove his and other's addresses (which we did, promptly, when asked)."
Hmm. "harvest Usenet one time to gather addresses of people who MIGHT be interested
in our services." Translation: You grabbed e-mail addresses from newsgroups and then
sent people at those addresses an UNSOLICTED advertisement. That sounds like SPAM
to me. You may have been one of the few companies that act on good faith and actually
opt-out people who ask for it, but you were still spamming people. These days, maintaining
an
opt-out list (or more accurately, CLAIMING that you maintain an opt-out list) isn't
any excuse
to spam. Most people won't dare to respond and ask to be opted out, because
that marks their e-mail address as ACTIVE and makes it much more likely that they will receive much more spam.
So what really happened here was:
1) You spammed a bunch of people.
2) Someone got really pissed off about it (actually, most of the people probably got pissed
at your company, but didn't respond because they didn't want their e-mail address to
be marked as "active").
3) That person reported you to MAPS and gave them evidence of your spam.
4) MAPS RBL'ed you for being a spammer. (Not just RELAYING spam, but actually being
the source of it.)
"When he finally submitted his "evidence," MAPS listed us right away, without even so much as asking us if his take on things was accurate (which it was not in certain key areas). We were notified, but not until after the listing was made. The damage was already done."
What wasn't accurate about it? They didn't notify you because this wasn't a spammer sending mail through your open relay without your knowledge, this was you KNOWINGLY spamming people!
Once you stopped spamming people (an opt-in list means that your e-mail is no longer unsolicted), MAPS stopped blacklisting you because you stopped spamming people.
1) The old mp3's are hidden.
2) ILOVEYOU are appended to the end of the existing mp3's, OR it replaces the mp3.
Now if it's appended to the end of an mp3, I don't
see how it would run as vbscript.
If it replaces an mp3, then when you try to download an mp3, you'll notice that the mp3 is a BIT small for a normal mp3.
Either way, I think you'd notice before infection.
...they DIDN'T have the intelligence to use a *different* path for their "special" version of wineserver.
/usr/local/bin and rename wineserver (the version that I built from the cvs pull last night) to newwineserver /usr/local/bin.
:-(
Evidence of this:
1) I installed canvas and started to run it.
2) 10 minutes later (after doing other things) I realized that canvas hadn't done anything..
3) I look in ps's output and notice that an instance of wineserver has zombie'd itself.
4) I kill the programs and try steps 2 and 3 several more times.
5) I go to
6) copy the version of wineserver that came with canvas to
7) Started canvas again and THIS time, it worked perfectly.
Problem: Now I need to swap wineserver every time I want to switch between canvas and any other program that I run using wine.
Next time, please have an option where I can explictly STATE a path for wineserver, if necessary.