That's exactly correct -- Adblocking is a problem only if you are trying to sell ThinkGeek t-shirts or goatporn to Linux nerds.
But for the vast majority of sites have a bread-n-butter business model that isn't really affected by ad-blockers. Even Slashdot supports itself by selling HP servers and Novell stuff to IT types that are just checking the tech headlines.
The only thing that might make me think adblockers are not a tiny minority of users is the fact that Firefox was promoting ABP on their homepage.
They certainly can try, but ultimately there is no way a webmaster can "detect" if his advert was displayed properly, short of looking over the end-user's shoulder.
In the USA it's perfectly legal under copyright law for browsers to alter the display to remove ads. If webmaster wants to replace his homepage with a TOS contract, that's another story.
(Also it is hilarious that you "think" something is a "fact" based on one site who detected one ad-block method, and decided to be an asshat about it. Typical nerd spazoid reaction, I guess.)
Point being, most webmasters know adblocking is just a fact of life and they've learned to live with it. If Taco tried to stop adblockers from accessing Slashdot, most people would end up having a nice laugh at his expense.
Sadly, nobody really gives a shit about Linux binary compatibility.
- The users are all hairy free-software hippies
- Hordes of basement-dwelllers have nothing better to do but to recompile the same software over and over again. (QA optional)
- The business model for Linux distros requires breaking everything every six months, so that businesses pay you to stop breaking things.
- Distros also love the customer lock-in aspects. Aforementioned gnu/hippies don't notice because St. Stallman says it's impossible to lock-in with open source.
Upshot is: expect linux binary compatibility never. It won't happen.
I think the issue was that the 286 didn't have "Virtual 8086" mode, which meant it couldn't multitask DOS programs, except through a hack that involved the keyboard controller somehow.
It was. However the GP is correct that IBM tried to protect their server market by neutering OS/2 through tying it to the 286. They also made the API gratuitously incompatible with Windows for some reason.
Nevertheless, if OS/2 had been a popular and successful operating system, Microsoft probably would have killed Windows after the 2.x line.
The mechanism is generally a tracking cookie set via Javascript.
For web users as a whole, the number that block cookies/scripts is pretty minuscule. However, I think one could make the argument that Linux is more underreported because nerds love their ad-blockers.
I love how many Slashdotters [mistakenly] think anything non technical 'should be easy'.
No, I'm not trying to dismiss the amount of work involved, only make the point that launching a niche interest internet portal at say Hulu would be considerably cheaper than starting up a new cable channel.
IMO these sorts of niche channels will be the first to go under an internet video regime.
They only have a couple hours a day of original programming, the rest of the time is endless reruns and infomercials. It should be very easy to package together advertising-supported cooking or golf shows on the internet in a much higher quality format than cable.
The only technical advantage Cable has here is the convenience of dialing up channel 123 and watching some golf. As soon as web video portals appear for these niche interests, that advantage disappears.
Can you tell us which documented "legacy APIs" aren't supported in Vista?
Because it seems that a well-written Win95 program will still run perfectly. Its the stuff that depended on undocumented APIs or bug-compatibility that has the problem.
Just for the record, both IBM OS/2 and Windows NT had VMs for backwards-compatibility. In fact Vistas still ships with the old school NTVDM, and Windows 7 probably will too.
I know that Mac users kinda missed the entire 1990s technology-wise, so this is worth posting.;)
> If the menu system worked for millions of people why would you yank it out?
If the menuing system really worked, Microsoft wouldn't have come up with goofy features such as hiding unused options.
Rather, they were stuck with exactly what they created in 1993 because nobody wanted to rewrite training material. When they replaced it, the replacement had to be really good.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly correct -- Adblocking is a problem only if you are trying to sell ThinkGeek t-shirts or goatporn to Linux nerds.
But for the vast majority of sites have a bread-n-butter business model that isn't really affected by ad-blockers. Even Slashdot supports itself by selling HP servers and Novell stuff to IT types that are just checking the tech headlines.
The only thing that might make me think adblockers are not a tiny minority of users is the fact that Firefox was promoting ABP on their homepage.
They certainly can try, but ultimately there is no way a webmaster can "detect" if his advert was displayed properly, short of looking over the end-user's shoulder.
In the USA it's perfectly legal under copyright law for browsers to alter the display to remove ads. If webmaster wants to replace his homepage with a TOS contract, that's another story.
(Also it is hilarious that you "think" something is a "fact" based on one site who detected one ad-block method, and decided to be an asshat about it. Typical nerd spazoid reaction, I guess.)
Point being, most webmasters know adblocking is just a fact of life and they've learned to live with it. If Taco tried to stop adblockers from accessing Slashdot, most people would end up having a nice laugh at his expense.
Webmasters have neither the technical or legal ability to force people to display their advertising or block them from the site.
So who cares what they "demand" or "say"? Your argument here is entirely hypothetical.
Scottie was at the transporter controls, after he boarded the ship.
Which is kinda odd, because Chekov was already established as a transporter expert. But I suppose tradition demanded Scottie be at the controls.
Files provide their own icons on every Macintosh vintage, so I don't see how that helps you avoid malicious executables.
Funny that you read "basement-dweller" and automatically assumed the comment referred to yourself.
Sadly, nobody really gives a shit about Linux binary compatibility.
- The users are all hairy free-software hippies
- Hordes of basement-dwelllers have nothing better to do but to recompile the same software over and over again. (QA optional)
- The business model for Linux distros requires breaking everything every six months, so that businesses pay you to stop breaking things.
- Distros also love the customer lock-in aspects. Aforementioned gnu/hippies don't notice because St. Stallman says it's impossible to lock-in with open source.
Upshot is: expect linux binary compatibility never. It won't happen.
I think the issue was that the 286 didn't have "Virtual 8086" mode, which meant it couldn't multitask DOS programs, except through a hack that involved the keyboard controller somehow.
Netscape (any remember them?) did a lot of direct evangelism to major sites too, which is a major reason Firefox had few compatibility issues.
However porting a major Win32 app is a whole different enchilada than twilding around a website.
IIRC, Warp had a 'home edition' that was really cheap, but did not support ethernet networking.
I'm certain the full version was $299.
It was. However the GP is correct that IBM tried to protect their server market by neutering OS/2 through tying it to the 286. They also made the API gratuitously incompatible with Windows for some reason.
Nevertheless, if OS/2 had been a popular and successful operating system, Microsoft probably would have killed Windows after the 2.x line.
The mechanism is generally a tracking cookie set via Javascript.
For web users as a whole, the number that block cookies/scripts is pretty minuscule. However, I think one could make the argument that Linux is more underreported because nerds love their ad-blockers.
I love how many Slashdotters [mistakenly] think anything non technical 'should be easy'.
No, I'm not trying to dismiss the amount of work involved, only make the point that launching a niche interest internet portal at say Hulu would be considerably cheaper than starting up a new cable channel.
> Food Network, Golf Channel
IMO these sorts of niche channels will be the first to go under an internet video regime.
They only have a couple hours a day of original programming, the rest of the time is endless reruns and infomercials. It should be very easy to package together advertising-supported cooking or golf shows on the internet in a much higher quality format than cable.
The only technical advantage Cable has here is the convenience of dialing up channel 123 and watching some golf. As soon as web video portals appear for these niche interests, that advantage disappears.
No, in stone age unix terms, it's more like X11 redirection.
Reply to self:
Notably the popular program Internet Explorer 6.0.
Can you tell us which documented "legacy APIs" aren't supported in Vista?
Because it seems that a well-written Win95 program will still run perfectly. Its the stuff that depended on undocumented APIs or bug-compatibility that has the problem.
Just for the record, both IBM OS/2 and Windows NT had VMs for backwards-compatibility. In fact Vistas still ships with the old school NTVDM, and Windows 7 probably will too.
I know that Mac users kinda missed the entire 1990s technology-wise, so this is worth posting. ;)
Beyond me. You might try asking over at AtariAge.
Except the feature he's talking about worked fine in Word 4.0 running on a Fat Macintosh.
Ditto to the grandparents complaint. The rearranged section options had me stumped for a long time.
> If the menu system worked for millions of people why would you yank it out?
If the menuing system really worked, Microsoft wouldn't have come up with goofy features such as hiding unused options.
Rather, they were stuck with exactly what they created in 1993 because nobody wanted to rewrite training material. When they replaced it, the replacement had to be really good.
I'm not sure if I understand your post.
But on modern TVs it's better to toss the RF modulator and instead use a RCA to F-Jack adapter to connect to the antenna jack on Channel 3.
(eg. http://www.gigaweb.com/products/view/17206/rca-female-to-f-male-adapter.html)
"Disc" only came into use as the Compact Disc,
Death to disco!
(The non-standard spelling is probably just so they can maintain the trademark.)
And no, sending email via an SMTP server is not "software as a service".
Maybe not, but IMAP certainly is.
You're right. I tested it with JPEG attributes, but there's no way to add tags to most filetypes.
This oughta 'just work' with NTFS streams though.