Considering the code for Netscape 5 was released on March 31, 1998, I do not think it's just him. It's me too.
Not only has this been under development for well over three years, but it still has many shortcomings. The most obvious is that it's ridiculously slow. I have a PII-233 running Linux and Mozilla is hardly usable on it. I have a PIII-450 running Win2k and it is much better, but still really slow.
It does have some nice new features, but it also lacks a lot. It seems like it will never have the polish of IE. I am not saying this to start a flamewar by the way... One of the many subtle things I like about IE is being able to type just the domain portion of a url, pressing CRTL+ENTER and having IE fill the "http://www." and the ".com"... it only works for.com's, but that's what I visit the most. Another is the ability to do practically anything in IE with the keyboard alone -- including giving particular frames focus, switching to the location bar without having to tab through all the links on a page.
Now that I think about it, the mouse dependency may be one of my biggest personal annoyances with Mozilla. If that improves and the speed gets to the point where I can't type an address faster than Mozilla can display my typing (on the Linux box) then I may start to appreciate it.
That would mean I would not be using the GIMP at work on Win2k. That would hurt me (since I don't have Photoshop) and piss me off at the GIMP to the point where I wouldn't use it on a free OS either as a matter of principle -- much like many open source fans won't use commercial "equivalents" to open source programs on principle.
Microsoft doesn't even tell you that you can't run Word on Linux. They just don't make it easy or provide support if you pull it off.
I have used it and several clones. It sucks. I have never been able to download one file with it. Maybe I am just too impatient for it... even searching takes forever.
Do you have to get shot to know it hurts?
I hate email. Most of it is garbage. It used to be fun and useful, but companies like this ruined it.
I get spammed all the time and they tell me that I opted-in. Like brandyn, I feel that if I give a company permission to email me that permission applies to that company only. I don't have time to read every privacy policy for every company. Even when I do they are so full of cruft that I get nothing from it. Some mention sharing information "only with affiliated companies." I hate that. They should be required to let me opt-in for that too.
When a company has a policy like that, you have to read the privacy policy for all the affiliates too and it becomes a never-ending chain. I really have no idea how to combat it. Discontinuing my use of email is not a very realistic solution, but without legal intervention I feel pretty powerless.
Tell you what... I will run for congress and propose harsh anti-spam laws if all Slashdotters will vote for me. Imagine that... a useful politician. I will fight for crypto rights, fixing the USPTO and other things I don't recall at 2:46AM too:-).
If I had known he would endager my life I would not have been in the car with him. I'm not stupid. The two wrecks were with two different drivers... geez
I can understand why some people are fearful of this technology. Those who don't like it just because it could prevent them from driving irresponsibly can kiss my ass.
Those like you -- that actually have a resonable point -- deserve to be heard. Being a computer person, I realize the fears, but I think it could be implemented safely.
As for skirting the constitution, I think it should prevent your car from exceeding the speed limit at all without first requesting a police escort for your emergency -- if you cannot speed, you cannot be guilty, therefore there is no constitutional crisis. People are simply safer.
I would have been better, yes. Dumbass. Think about it.
But like I said, the wreck probably would not have happened at all had my friend been driving the speed limit. The speed limit was less than 70 on that road anyway.
Did you even think about that post before you wrote it?
<sarcasm>Oh no! Someone is going to prevent me from being able to commit a crime.</sarcasm>
Boo-hoo.
Not EVERYONE speeds. I don't, so you're wrong already. Comparing this to the DCMA is absurd. How in the hell are these related. I hate the DCMA, but I am all for something that will keep me safer from people like you who obviously feel that they should be allowed to drive in any manner they like. And I suppose that if you get caught and have to pay a fine thereby lowering my taxes, I should be indifferent or even grateful. You are an asshole. Plain and simple. You are inconsiderate and selfish -- at least on this issue.
If the sign says "Speed Limit 70", the speed limit is 70, not 75.
If the sign says "Night Speed Limit 65", the speed limit is 65, not 70.
People like you seem to feel that the speed limit is whatever you decide it should be.
I will gladly pay higher taxes to make up for the losses in ticket revenue if it will keep me and other responsible drivers safe. Anyone who hurts me or my friends/family as a result of their selfish driving will have hell to pay -- one way or another.
Speed limits exist for a reason. I have never been in a wreck when I was driving, but as a passenger I have been ejected from a car and another time my friend tried to avoid an animal in the road, overcorrected and sent us into a guardrail at 80mph. I can speak first hand of the pain caused by wrecks that would not have happened had my friends been driving the speed limit.
> "I suppose it is inevitable that officials would think of something like this, but I never > thought people would accept it!"
This is the kind of attitude tht really pisses me off. "Oh no! Speeding is my Gog-given right!!! You can't take it away!"
Someone mentioned the need to speed in some emergencies. I agree. There are definitely times that extra speed is in order. I think cars should also have a device that will let you disable the governer, and will request a police escort for you. That way you could still get somewhere more quickly and you would hopefully be a little safer while en route. And if you were just speeding because you didn't want to bothered by a speed limit, then that cop would know when you reached you destination and there was no emergency. Then you should be given a fucking huge ticket. One that would actually teach you a lesson.
All this deferred adjudication and taking defensive driving over and over is stupid. I releases people from their responsibilities. Cars can kill quite easily. Careless, irresponsible mother-fuckers should not be allowed to drive.
The way things are now, there might as well be driver's license vending machines with cameras inside. You just stick in a $20 and out pops a license. Anyone who feels my opinions are too strong, go for a drive in Houston or Austin one day.
While I find it impressive that the hardware runs Linux, NineNine is right. Internet Connection Sharing in Windows 2000 is easy. As easy as many may think IP Masq is, it is way easier than that too. Plus Windows 98SE and Me can do the same thing(though I haven't used it in those OSes, so I can't comment on how easy or reliable it is).
I saw it on a national TV news show (don't recall which) a few months back. I don't really understand why the hell anyone would want one, but...
As for the laptop, I don't remember hearing about that, but what good is a disposable computer? First of all how fast can it be? Secondly, you obviously wouldn't be storing anything important there. So is it just a clunky, throw-away calculator? And finally, isn't all this ridiculously wasteful? I'm American and I'm sure I am far more wasteful already than a lot of people, but *damn*.
There is a big difference -- these are not hidden. They are there to install and test the server and if you don't change them before you actually start using the server, then you are the stupid one. In this case, Borland is stupid.
At this point, I'm no longer worried about Netscape's problems for something as essential as CSS. The most common problem I have experienced with NS 4.x and CSS is that sometimes it will display the contents of external CSS files rather than using it to style the page -- that's with the type attribute being properly set.
It works most of the time and that's good enough. If users don't like it when they see the problem, they can get a better browser. I'm sorry. Netscape 4.x is pathetic and Mozilla/NS 6 is still striving to be as good as IE 4. As a web designer, I feel like my hands are tied. Do I live in 1995, or do Netscape users just have to put up with the quirks associated with CSS? I'm tired of living in the past... they can deal with it.
The fact is NS with CSS works most of the time and that is good enough. If someone disagrees then they can go download and use IE or shut up. If IE isn't available on your platform, then good luck with Mozilla or any of the alternative browsers available. NS just isn't the best anymore and apparently never will be. Maybe Netscape 6 will kick ass if Mozilla has *another* three years to work on it, but IE will probably be to 7 by that time(without skipping a version number!).
Netscape is like a bad ex-girldfriend. Used to love her. Now hate her guts. Can't get a restraining order against her.
...winding down. Netscape gets my blood pressure up. One time, on a business trip, I found myself in a similar rant with some co-workers at a restaurant and then thought, "wait a minute... I'm in Mountain View". Actually Palo Alto, but close enough.
To my knowledge, it was not GPL'ed. The following snippet was taken from an earlier posting that claims the license agreement was:
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it"
I said I am not a lawyer, so take it easy. I could just as easily slam you for your spelling. From all I know, if they gave free license to do anything you want to with the software, someone can assign the rights to the FSF. That would seem to fall under the "whatever you want with it" section in the original agreement to me.
If I was misinformed about the license, then my ideas may be completely invalid. Just trying to add to the discussion...
If the rights have to be signed over to the FSF for the license to be enforcable, why doesn't someone who has already downloaded it sign them over before Mattel stops them too. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds ok to me. Anybody?
Ordinary Joe, huh? That is the kind of intellectually stimulating reply I would expect from an ordinary AC such as yourself. I am a web developer. I write cross-browser pages. I know from experience(and a lot of it) that IE is generally much easier to write for.
That is on top of all the stuff I said before about end-user usability. As far as standards, I like the efforts being made with Mozilla, but as it stands now IE is better overall.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the code for Netscape 5 was released on March 31, 1998, I do not think it's just him. It's me too.
.com's, but that's what I visit the most. Another is the ability to do practically anything in IE with the keyboard alone -- including giving particular frames focus, switching to the location bar without having to tab through all the links on a page.
Not only has this been under development for well over three years, but it still has many shortcomings. The most obvious is that it's ridiculously slow. I have a PII-233 running Linux and Mozilla is hardly usable on it. I have a PIII-450 running Win2k and it is much better, but still really slow.
It does have some nice new features, but it also lacks a lot. It seems like it will never have the polish of IE. I am not saying this to start a flamewar by the way... One of the many subtle things I like about IE is being able to type just the domain portion of a url, pressing CRTL+ENTER and having IE fill the "http://www." and the ".com"... it only works for
Now that I think about it, the mouse dependency may be one of my biggest personal annoyances with Mozilla. If that improves and the speed gets to the point where I can't type an address faster than Mozilla can display my typing (on the Linux box) then I may start to appreciate it.
For now it is too little, way, way, way too late.
That would mean I would not be using the GIMP at work on Win2k. That would hurt me (since I don't have Photoshop) and piss me off at the GIMP to the point where I wouldn't use it on a free OS either as a matter of principle -- much like many open source fans won't use commercial "equivalents" to open source programs on principle.
Microsoft doesn't even tell you that you can't run Word on Linux. They just don't make it easy or provide support if you pull it off.
I have used it and several clones. It sucks. I have never been able to download one file with it. Maybe I am just too impatient for it... even searching takes forever. Do you have to get shot to know it hurts?
1. They call MPEG the Moving Pictures Expert Group. Isn't it Motion Pictures Expert Group?
2. Was MP3 really created in 1987?! Why didn't I know about it?
3. MP3's are encoded, not ripped. Audio tracks a ripped and then they are encoded into MP3's.
These all seem minor, but it makes me wonder if the court adequately understands the situation.
I hate email. Most of it is garbage. It used to be fun and useful, but companies like this ruined it.
:-).
I get spammed all the time and they tell me that I opted-in. Like brandyn, I feel that if I give a company permission to email me that permission applies to that company only. I don't have time to read every privacy policy for every company. Even when I do they are so full of cruft that I get nothing from it. Some mention sharing information "only with affiliated companies." I hate that. They should be required to let me opt-in for that too.
When a company has a policy like that, you have to read the privacy policy for all the affiliates too and it becomes a never-ending chain. I really have no idea how to combat it. Discontinuing my use of email is not a very realistic solution, but without legal intervention I feel pretty powerless.
Tell you what... I will run for congress and propose harsh anti-spam laws if all Slashdotters will vote for me. Imagine that... a useful politician. I will fight for crypto rights, fixing the USPTO and other things I don't recall at 2:46AM too
If you find out what to do, let me know.
Last time I used Slackware it had a BSD init. Can't help with ports though...
That is a pitiful argument.
If I had known he would endager my life I would not have been in the car with him. I'm not stupid. The two wrecks were with two different drivers... geez
I can understand why some people are fearful of this technology. Those who don't like it just because it could prevent them from driving irresponsibly can kiss my ass.
Those like you -- that actually have a resonable point -- deserve to be heard. Being a computer person, I realize the fears, but I think it could be implemented safely.
As for skirting the constitution, I think it should prevent your car from exceeding the speed limit at all without first requesting a police escort for your emergency -- if you cannot speed, you cannot be guilty, therefore there is no constitutional crisis. People are simply safer.
I would have been better, yes. Dumbass. Think about it.
But like I said, the wreck probably would not have happened at all had my friend been driving the speed limit. The speed limit was less than 70 on that road anyway.
Did you even think about that post before you wrote it?
<sarcasm>Oh no! Someone is going to prevent me from being able to commit a crime.</sarcasm>
Boo-hoo.
Not EVERYONE speeds. I don't, so you're wrong already. Comparing this to the DCMA is absurd. How in the hell are these related. I hate the DCMA, but I am all for something that will keep me safer from people like you who obviously feel that they should be allowed to drive in any manner they like. And I suppose that if you get caught and have to pay a fine thereby lowering my taxes, I should be indifferent or even grateful. You are an asshole. Plain and simple. You are inconsiderate and selfish -- at least on this issue.
If the sign says "Speed Limit 70", the speed limit is 70, not 75.
If the sign says "Night Speed Limit 65", the speed limit is 65, not 70.
People like you seem to feel that the speed limit is whatever you decide it should be.
I will gladly pay higher taxes to make up for the losses in ticket revenue if it will keep me and other responsible drivers safe. Anyone who hurts me or my friends/family as a result of their selfish driving will have hell to pay -- one way or another.
> "I suppose it is inevitable that officials would think of something like this, but I never
> thought people would accept it!"
This is the kind of attitude tht really pisses me off. "Oh no! Speeding is my Gog-given right!!! You can't take it away!"
Someone mentioned the need to speed in some emergencies. I agree. There are definitely times that extra speed is in order. I think cars should also have a device that will let you disable the governer, and will request a police escort for you. That way you could still get somewhere more quickly and you would hopefully be a little safer while en route. And if you were just speeding because you didn't want to bothered by a speed limit, then that cop would know when you reached you destination and there was no emergency. Then you should be given a fucking huge ticket. One that would actually teach you a lesson.
All this deferred adjudication and taking defensive driving over and over is stupid. I releases people from their responsibilities. Cars can kill quite easily. Careless, irresponsible mother-fuckers should not be allowed to drive.
The way things are now, there might as well be driver's license vending machines with cameras inside. You just stick in a $20 and out pops a license. Anyone who feels my opinions are too strong, go for a drive in Houston or Austin one day.
While I find it impressive that the hardware runs Linux, NineNine is right. Internet Connection Sharing in Windows 2000 is easy. As easy as many may think IP Masq is, it is way easier than that too. Plus Windows 98SE and Me can do the same thing(though I haven't used it in those OSes, so I can't comment on how easy or reliable it is).
Do that with Windows...
I saw it on a national TV news show (don't recall which) a few months back. I don't really understand why the hell anyone would want one, but...
As for the laptop, I don't remember hearing about that, but what good is a disposable computer? First of all how fast can it be? Secondly, you obviously wouldn't be storing anything important there. So is it just a clunky, throw-away calculator? And finally, isn't all this ridiculously wasteful? I'm American and I'm sure I am far more wasteful already than a lot of people, but *damn*.
I can't say I'm glad to hear of something like this, but at the same time it does strengthen our argument that open source *is* more secure.
Spin that.
There is a big difference -- these are not hidden. They are there to install and test the server and if you don't change them before you actually start using the server, then you are the stupid one. In this case, Borland is stupid.
At this point, I'm no longer worried about Netscape's problems for something as essential as CSS. The most common problem I have experienced with NS 4.x and CSS is that sometimes it will display the contents of external CSS files rather than using it to style the page -- that's with the type attribute being properly set.
It works most of the time and that's good enough. If users don't like it when they see the problem, they can get a better browser. I'm sorry. Netscape 4.x is pathetic and Mozilla/NS 6 is still striving to be as good as IE 4. As a web designer, I feel like my hands are tied. Do I live in 1995, or do Netscape users just have to put up with the quirks associated with CSS? I'm tired of living in the past... they can deal with it.
The fact is NS with CSS works most of the time and that is good enough. If someone disagrees then they can go download and use IE or shut up. If IE isn't available on your platform, then good luck with Mozilla or any of the alternative browsers available. NS just isn't the best anymore and apparently never will be. Maybe Netscape 6 will kick ass if Mozilla has *another* three years to work on it, but IE will probably be to 7 by that time(without skipping a version number!).
Netscape is like a bad ex-girldfriend. Used to love her. Now hate her guts. Can't get a restraining order against her.
...winding down. Netscape gets my blood pressure up. One time, on a business trip, I found myself in a similar rant with some co-workers at a restaurant and then thought, "wait a minute... I'm in Mountain View". Actually Palo Alto, but close enough.
I never met a plugin I didn't hate.
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it"
I said I am not a lawyer, so take it easy. I could just as easily slam you for your spelling. From all I know, if they gave free license to do anything you want to with the software, someone can assign the rights to the FSF. That would seem to fall under the "whatever you want with it" section in the original agreement to me.
If I was misinformed about the license, then my ideas may be completely invalid. Just trying to add to the discussion...
If the rights have to be signed over to the FSF for the license to be enforcable, why doesn't someone who has already downloaded it sign them over before Mattel stops them too. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds ok to me. Anybody?
I got into college using that as the topic of my essay.
Exactly. Getting Netscape to properly layout tables can sometimes be impossible. Trying to do complex tables with percentage width td's, for example.
The whole pixel thing is stupid, but you are right...it uses pixel groups.
So who came up with BLINK and LAYER?
Ordinary Joe, huh? That is the kind of intellectually stimulating reply I would expect from an ordinary AC such as yourself. I am a web developer. I write cross-browser pages. I know from experience(and a lot of it) that IE is generally much easier to write for.
That is on top of all the stuff I said before about end-user usability. As far as standards, I like the efforts being made with Mozilla, but as it stands now IE is better overall.