From these events, it is obvious that the new administration either does not know about or does not care about the passion this community has for free ideals.
The majority doesn't give a shit. The other 3 people who care won't be able to do a thing about it. That's the way it is.
No, I entirely agree with that (I don't know what kind of anti-ms zealot thought my post was flame bait, but whatever), but I do think a browser should be included by *someone* in the distribution chain, whether it's Microsoft or an OEM below them.
If MS does it, then they can just have a simple dialog that asks "Hey you, do you want IE, Firefox or Opera?" just like they did with Windows N Edition for WMP and WinAMP. But the OP seemed to imply we want to send users to a friggin' FTP to download their browser, or that MS has to write a package manager just because the need of distributing a browser arised. The solution is much simpler than that.
And yes, if it's an OEM that ends up putting the browser on there, then I certainly hope they aren't gonna start working under secret contract to bundle IE.
Yeah, because getting your gramma to open wget guess the address of FF 3.0 then download it is definitely what we want for 2009 to become the year of the Linux desktop.
License probably says no one way or another, so I'm going to assume it's illegal. Whether it has a "good" use or not is irrelevant. The way I saw YOUR post, you were calling bullshit on his, implying that cracking WGA and having a seemingly genuine copy as a result was impossible. I never implied his attitude was correct or not, in fact I didn't even notice any arrogance in his post.
Why was this clown rated informative? He's not gonna tell you how to crack WGA because it's illegal. There are however various ways to do it, and it's known by the non-clueless IT crowd.
If you want more details than that, you're going to have to do a bit more research yourself.
You wouldn't be able to do anything if it wasn't from the author. He's not restricting you, either, just sharing the product of HIS work. Once you understand that, you'll know why most people don't care about your freedom that never existed in the first place.
I have before. But there's something about actually executing the moves in a first person shooter. Don't take me wrong, there's definitely nothing more realistic (other than real-life) than D&D, but doing it in a multiplayer environment against other humans using tactics not within earshot could be amazing. People would actually care and not blindly rush.
You have a very interesting concept there. I'd love to play that type of game assuming it's not too extreme. Maybe your character could get knocked out for several days?
You're always using an API for storage. Whether it's reading a text file, or writing to the registry, there's something you won't handle at one point or the other.
No, actually it's because they don't really care about people not using IE or not willing to read the small guide to get it to work on Firefox. Integrity checks and failproof Resume/Pause is hardly provided on browsers, it depends on the webserver, and it's flaky as best.
Let's see here. You mention how the downloader somehow contributes to my paycheck, which obviously only happens if I work for MS. Therefore, you're implying MS is sending employees to randomly defend it in Slashdot comments, and that they're getting paid for it. You may want to see a professional about those kind of conspiracy theories too.
The only reason why I defend the downloader is because people who've never used it and don't even know what it does keep talking crap. Nothing more, nothing less.
Honestly, it IS you just "h8n". The first reply you input in this "thread" was non-sense. "I NEED A GUIDE? LOL WTF". At that point you hadn't even noticed that it was a 4 step guide and didn't even care.
Then you continued on an ignorant path and decided to whine about the downloader you knew nothing about - Your second bad move. Dismissing the whole fact that the downloader is actually freaking useful, you just went on insult MS (and of course using the "Linux is better card", because that's what you're REALLY trying to prove)
Then you actually wised up, and counted the amounts of clicks it takes, but you made the stupid mistakes of counting stuff that isn't even related to the download. 99.999999% of the IT crowd already has a Live Account in working order. Most of them will also already have the ActiveX control required if they ever slightly cared about a MS beta before. For the vast majority of them, it's gonna be a 3-click experience.
I'd consider your points carefully if you weren't purposely crafting them using MS hate missiles and Linux ass-kissing bombs.
The next time you want to make a point, consider proving your point first (using FACTS, not guesses) and THEN start hating on shit you'll actually have understood.
Honestly, nobody cares. This isn't a public Linux distribution they want everyone to access, it's a beta for people who actually know what they're doing and most likely have went through other Windows betas and have submitted tons of feedback before. For them that's 3 clicks. You can either keep crying about that, or you can just suck it up and download the beta. You don't seem like someone who even wanted it in the first place, anyway.
You must be lost. It takes 3 clicks on MSDN. By the way, you still haven't touched the fact that FTM provides specific features and those features are the reason it's used in the first place. But sure, just blindly hate Microsoft because they have a decent downloading tool. That's cool these days.
It doesn't. You can find the handful of links thrown around in just about every comment about this specific issue.
That being said, if you really want to know, it's because the downloader provides integrity checks, failproof Resume/Pause, bandwidth limiting (if you don't want to hog your line), and other stuff.
You need a guide to use it on unsupported browsers because it involves bypassing the ActiveX control to run FTM manually. Or you can just run IE and get it working in 2 clicks.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, the freetards are so annoying sometimes I couldn't tell if you were kidding or if you were one.
GNU has nothing to do with the issue here.
From these events, it is obvious that the new administration either does not know about or does not care about the passion this community has for free ideals.
The majority doesn't give a shit. The other 3 people who care won't be able to do a thing about it. That's the way it is.
No, I entirely agree with that (I don't know what kind of anti-ms zealot thought my post was flame bait, but whatever), but I do think a browser should be included by *someone* in the distribution chain, whether it's Microsoft or an OEM below them.
If MS does it, then they can just have a simple dialog that asks "Hey you, do you want IE, Firefox or Opera?" just like they did with Windows N Edition for WMP and WinAMP. But the OP seemed to imply we want to send users to a friggin' FTP to download their browser, or that MS has to write a package manager just because the need of distributing a browser arised. The solution is much simpler than that.
And yes, if it's an OEM that ends up putting the browser on there, then I certainly hope they aren't gonna start working under secret contract to bundle IE.
You're a funny one you.
Yeah, because getting your gramma to open wget guess the address of FF 3.0 then download it is definitely what we want for 2009 to become the year of the Linux desktop.
Okay, smartass. Most (read: the ones people usually care about) distributions of Linux come with a browser. There. Fixed it for you.
License probably says no one way or another, so I'm going to assume it's illegal. Whether it has a "good" use or not is irrelevant. The way I saw YOUR post, you were calling bullshit on his, implying that cracking WGA and having a seemingly genuine copy as a result was impossible. I never implied his attitude was correct or not, in fact I didn't even notice any arrogance in his post.
Why was this clown rated informative? He's not gonna tell you how to crack WGA because it's illegal. There are however various ways to do it, and it's known by the non-clueless IT crowd.
If you want more details than that, you're going to have to do a bit more research yourself.
You wouldn't be able to do anything if it wasn't from the author. He's not restricting you, either, just sharing the product of HIS work. Once you understand that, you'll know why most people don't care about your freedom that never existed in the first place.
I have before. But there's something about actually executing the moves in a first person shooter. Don't take me wrong, there's definitely nothing more realistic (other than real-life) than D&D, but doing it in a multiplayer environment against other humans using tactics not within earshot could be amazing. People would actually care and not blindly rush.
You have a very interesting concept there. I'd love to play that type of game assuming it's not too extreme. Maybe your character could get knocked out for several days?
You're always using an API for storage. Whether it's reading a text file, or writing to the registry, there's something you won't handle at one point or the other.
No, actually it's because they don't really care about people not using IE or not willing to read the small guide to get it to work on Firefox. Integrity checks and failproof Resume/Pause is hardly provided on browsers, it depends on the webserver, and it's flaky as best.
You mean "Why broken APIs is a bad idea." It'd be perfectly fine if the APIs were fixed.
Great. Now copy paste that, and use it as the opening argument and I'll actually respond maturely next time. And FYI, I agree.
Let's see here. You mention how the downloader somehow contributes to my paycheck, which obviously only happens if I work for MS. Therefore, you're implying MS is sending employees to randomly defend it in Slashdot comments, and that they're getting paid for it. You may want to see a professional about those kind of conspiracy theories too.
The only reason why I defend the downloader is because people who've never used it and don't even know what it does keep talking crap. Nothing more, nothing less.
The downloader has nothing to do with my job. Another quick MS bash though, keep the child play going.
I don't think they care about people who don't even have access to a Windows box.
Guessing that somebody who doesn't use Windows enough to even have a dual-boot probably doesn't care about the beta isn't entrapment, it's logic.
Honestly, it IS you just "h8n". The first reply you input in this "thread" was non-sense. "I NEED A GUIDE? LOL WTF". At that point you hadn't even noticed that it was a 4 step guide and didn't even care.
Then you continued on an ignorant path and decided to whine about the downloader you knew nothing about - Your second bad move. Dismissing the whole fact that the downloader is actually freaking useful, you just went on insult MS (and of course using the "Linux is better card", because that's what you're REALLY trying to prove)
Then you actually wised up, and counted the amounts of clicks it takes, but you made the stupid mistakes of counting stuff that isn't even related to the download. 99.999999% of the IT crowd already has a Live Account in working order. Most of them will also already have the ActiveX control required if they ever slightly cared about a MS beta before. For the vast majority of them, it's gonna be a 3-click experience.
I'd consider your points carefully if you weren't purposely crafting them using MS hate missiles and Linux ass-kissing bombs.
The next time you want to make a point, consider proving your point first (using FACTS, not guesses) and THEN start hating on shit you'll actually have understood.
That's all.
Honestly, nobody cares. This isn't a public Linux distribution they want everyone to access, it's a beta for people who actually know what they're doing and most likely have went through other Windows betas and have submitted tons of feedback before. For them that's 3 clicks. You can either keep crying about that, or you can just suck it up and download the beta. You don't seem like someone who even wanted it in the first place, anyway.
You must be lost. It takes 3 clicks on MSDN. By the way, you still haven't touched the fact that FTM provides specific features and those features are the reason it's used in the first place. But sure, just blindly hate Microsoft because they have a decent downloading tool. That's cool these days.
It doesn't. You can find the handful of links thrown around in just about every comment about this specific issue.
That being said, if you really want to know, it's because the downloader provides integrity checks, failproof Resume/Pause, bandwidth limiting (if you don't want to hog your line), and other stuff.
And by the way, it's not a big guide either. It has like 3 real steps.
You need a guide to use it on unsupported browsers because it involves bypassing the ActiveX control to run FTM manually. Or you can just run IE and get it working in 2 clicks.