The information page for Red Hat Desktop mentions that it is "attractive for use in small and medium business environments". Two sentences later, it states, "Red Hat Desktop supports single CPU systems".
So no small or medium business environments have dual-CPU workstations? It seems odd that Redhat wouldn't try to cater to that potential environment.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
And of course, this isn't to be confused with the Fedora desktop, which is meant for end-users, and isn't supported by Redhat. Argh. I wish Redhat would officially support home users, but I guess that's not where the potential money is.
Additionally, the app now also features a cool track melding feature not mentioned in the heading. This makes it a lot easy to make seamless listening possible for tracks that are supposed to proceed without pausing, So now I can finally listen to classical tracks the way they are supposed to sound. Seamless and lossless. Cool.
If you're talking about the "Join Tracks" feature, this is not new to iTunes 4.5, it has been around for quite some time. If you're talking about a new feature for gapless output, then I'll be a very, very happy user.
Actually, that's my only real gripe with iTunes & my iPod: lack of gapless playback. iTunes has a crossfader, which, if you set it to 0 seconds, does a pretty good job of playing tracks as they should sound on a CD, but it's not perfect, and no such solution exists for the iPod. I know it's an often-requested feature for the iPod, I just hope we see it sometime this year.
Very odd, my copy of Firefox didn't lock up at all. It's even funnier when I try visiting that page with Firefox in Linux; clicking on any of those embedded videos takes me to Microsoft's WMP download page.:)
Since it is running on IIS they have to use.asp and probably some custom software.
The back-end language & web server shouldn't matter. You should still be able to generate a standards-compliant page that looks great in modern browsers. Instead, their front page has 366 errors on it.
Now, I'm not one of those people who insists every page has to validate, but this is just sloppy. MSDN, not just Channel 9, reeks of it, too. I suppose one could argue that you can't blame them, as they are Microsoft, so of course they're going to code to their browser, but I don't buy that argument.
Thank you for the link! I completely forgot to mention that in for my first post.
David Cross's "Shut Up You Fucking Baby" has an amazing bit about Ashcroft, and talks about him losing the election, annointing himself with oil when he takes office, etc. His bit about Lady Justice is amazing, as well.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to sound snide or rude. That said, there are several things on the page that don't display properly in browsers other than WinIE, like Opera & Firefox, such as the top bar of the poll on the right. Fix that, and maybe I'll consider going back. Until then, not worth my time.
This is of course being spear-headed by John Ashcroft, a very conservative christian. The very same John Ashcroft who spent $8000 of taxpayer money to cover up the bare breast of the statue of Lady Justice.
He once gave a speech at Bob Jones university, that contained such amazing lines as "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."
If he's offended by the bare breast of a statue, just imagine what he thinks of porn. That this man holds public office frightens me very, very much.
this hack really does show the power of IE...ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.
I call BS on that. Even features which IE did implement, it couldn't get right. For example, IE's implementation of getElementById is extremely flawed. It also doesn't support lots of things, like the CSS Width property, properly. (IE treats width as min-width, and doesn't provide real width support.)
This isn't a testament to IE's scalability, hackability, or another ability you might come up with. It's just another reason why it's a piss-poor browser. We need additional code to make IE properly understand standards; that's atrocious.
Also, if you want to see how IE stacks up against a browser like Firefox, I have made a quick comparison between the two. Its a little old now, and it was using Firebird 0.7 (not Firefox), but it's still a valid comparison. IE 6 chokes horribly on CSS, plain & simple.
The article states "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known"
However, in the cases I cited, people were absolutely exploiting those bugs in the wild before Microsoft released a patch for them. While the articles I linked don't explicitly state "this is already being exploited", the fact of the matter is that exploits did happen before Microsoft finally put out a patch. A friend of mine was hit with the domain-spoofing bug while surfing pr0n, seriously.
Essentially, the idea is that if you're not developing for an open platform, you're a sharecropper. Your entire existance as a developer is predicated on the fact that you're working for someone else's platform that they own and control. If they decide that they like your product's functionality, they can either buy you out, or simply integrate it into the platform, most likely putting you out of business.
Apple has does this in the past, with Watson & Sherlock, and Microsoft has done this many, many times. Netscape, Winamp, and now Norton & McAfee. Microsoft has a pattern of simply offering a product as an additional download, then tying it into the next version of the OS with no real way to remove it.
What this means for Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and the dozens of other AV people is not exactly clear yet. But it's a good possibility that many of their employees will be touching up their resumes once this Service Pack gets released. Unless, of course, they sue MS. Either way, I see this as a major strain on their business relationships with Microsoft.
Essentially, the blocker tag system works by tricking readers that all the possible RFID tags are present at a given time. Because RFID readers can communicate with only one tag at a time, when multiple tags reply to a single query, the reader detects a collision.
When that happens, the reader tries to communicate with each tag individually, asking each for its next bit, which identifies the portion of a binary tree the tag resides on. However, when queried in the presence of a blocker tag, the blocker tag also responds, but with a "0" and a "1" bit, confusing the reader and preventing it from getting valid responses.
So couldn't you just always have a blocker tag with you at all times? Say you build one of these into your watch, for instance. Wouldn't that make a store's entire RFID system useless for the items you're carrying?
Also, blocker tags in bags don't do anything to protect your privacy once you take the item out of the bag; so if the RFID tag is on clothing, it would still be active while you're wearing it, but not while you're walking out of the store with it. Something about that definitely doesn't seem right.
I can't wait to play this demo on my Linux box tonight. I'm thrilled to see that Assault mode is back in UT2004. I adored it in the original UT, and noticed that I didn't touch UT2003 nearly as much because of the fact that it wasn't there. Bombing run is fun, but Assault is much, much better.
Here's to hoping there is some level in UT2004 that provides as much fun as "Overlord" did in the original UT!
I haven't been able to even get to Neowin, it's been slashdotted since before this story even made it to "The Mysterious Future" here on/., but think about what this means if this is actually true. The potential vulnerabilities. All the trade secrets Microsoft put in there. Hell, IE 5 was released with Windows 2000, so if this is full source, it means IE 5 and the trident engine are in there as well.
If this is true, today may be the day that everything changes.
What I dont like is that the scroll bars are screwed up on Firefox if you load anything other than the default theme (Under OSX anyway).
Several of the bindings for Firefox changed between the 0.7 and 0.8 versions, so older themes that have not yet been updated for Firefox 0.8 will have problems; one of those problems manifests itself by making your scrollbars disappear. Once the themes are fixed, this problem won't exist (it's not specific to OSX).
Also, as for Firefox vs. Safari, I have a Powerbook, but I prefer Firefox on it. While it handles tabs similar to Safari, I can't browse anymore without find-as-you-type, a feature that only Moz/Firefox has (to the best of my knowledge). My only complaint about it is that NSITheme isn't fully implemented on OSX, so you don't get native-looking widgets (unlike on WinXP).
That would be a nice feature to have...but I believe that this is a Microsoft proprietary extension to the JavaScript DOM, not a standard. Which is not to say that the Mozilla team is incapable of reproducing it, just that they may have some qualms about it.
It's already implemented. Mozilla has Rich-Text controls; They have dubbed it Midas.
It's been in Mozilla since around 1.2 or 1.3. Of course though, their implementation is standards-based, while IE's is not. Just like XML document loading, and various other features of the DOM, you have to code for standards, and then again for IE to work.
If you have a text area whose ID attribute is called "edit", you can easily start to use Midas by doing something like:
if (!document.all && document.getElementById) { document.getElementById("edit").contentDocument.designMode="on"; }
phones with fancy features (cameras, games, etc.) are starting to dominate.
Well great then! I think this is fantastic. Think about all of the places that cameras aren't allowed, for example movie theaters. Now think about how many jackasses who leave their phone on and have it ring during the movie.
This will have the benefit of making phones more and more difficult to bring into public places, since cameras aren't allowed in those places. In my opinion, all the better. I hate cell phones, I dislike even having one (I only do because of work), and I'm all for any "features" that cause a backlash against them.
Cell phones are now already banned from strip clubs, certain concert venues are pushing against them, etc. This is a great thing in my opinion.
Re:No, it could be very easy.
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy.
Well, if it's anything like Microsoft's previous attempts at dominating a market, it may prove atrociously easy for them. As another article on The Economist (linked here just a day or two ago) stated, Microsoft can easily leverage their Windows marketshare to take over the Search market.
As the article said, all they really have to do is offer a new service as a free add-on to Windows, then simply build that service into the next version of Windows, citing it's popularity and need to be a core part of the OS. They did it with IE, and they can certainly do it with searching as well. Tie their engine to their OS, and why would the masses go out to the web to search anymore? They could just do it from the desktop.
Clearly you've never tried any advanced CSS in it. Check out advanced CSS tests in IE vs Firebird. That link shows you how Firebird renders CSS pages vs IE 5.5 and 6.0. It's no contest.
On top of that, check the link I provided in my original post, IE has severe JavaScript problems (a very bad implementation of getElementById). The engine IS buggy, plain & simple; it renders what's out there because people code for it, not because it's the best.
Slashdot Mirror
The information page for Red Hat Desktop mentions that it is "attractive for use in small and medium business environments". Two sentences later, it states, "Red Hat Desktop supports single CPU systems".
So no small or medium business environments have dual-CPU workstations? It seems odd that Redhat wouldn't try to cater to that potential environment.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
And of course, this isn't to be confused with the Fedora desktop, which is meant for end-users, and isn't supported by Redhat. Argh. I wish Redhat would officially support home users, but I guess that's not where the potential money is.
You didn't fully read my original post. I stated this fact, but then also said:
"but it's not perfect, and no such solution exists for the iPod."
Additionally, the app now also features a cool track melding feature not mentioned in the heading. This makes it a lot easy to make seamless listening possible for tracks that are supposed to proceed without pausing, So now I can finally listen to classical tracks the way they are supposed to sound. Seamless and lossless. Cool.
If you're talking about the "Join Tracks" feature, this is not new to iTunes 4.5, it has been around for quite some time. If you're talking about a new feature for gapless output, then I'll be a very, very happy user.
Actually, that's my only real gripe with iTunes & my iPod: lack of gapless playback. iTunes has a crossfader, which, if you set it to 0 seconds, does a pretty good job of playing tracks as they should sound on a CD, but it's not perfect, and no such solution exists for the iPod. I know it's an often-requested feature for the iPod, I just hope we see it sometime this year.
You're absolutely right, but please note that I never said anything about slashdot having well-formed HTML :)
Very odd, my copy of Firefox didn't lock up at all. It's even funnier when I try visiting that page with Firefox in Linux; clicking on any of those embedded videos takes me to Microsoft's WMP download page. :)
Since it is running on IIS they have to use .asp and probably some custom software.
The back-end language & web server shouldn't matter. You should still be able to generate a standards-compliant page that looks great in modern browsers. Instead, their front page has 366 errors on it.
Now, I'm not one of those people who insists every page has to validate, but this is just sloppy. MSDN, not just Channel 9, reeks of it, too. I suppose one could argue that you can't blame them, as they are Microsoft, so of course they're going to code to their browser, but I don't buy that argument.
Welcome to my friend's list. If I could mod & post in the same article, I'd be throwing a +1 your way.
Thank you for the link! I completely forgot to mention that in for my first post.
David Cross's "Shut Up You Fucking Baby" has an amazing bit about Ashcroft, and talks about him losing the election, annointing himself with oil when he takes office, etc. His bit about Lady Justice is amazing, as well.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to sound snide or rude. That said, there are several things on the page that don't display properly in browsers other than WinIE, like Opera & Firefox, such as the top bar of the poll on the right. Fix that, and maybe I'll consider going back. Until then, not worth my time.
This is of course being spear-headed by John Ashcroft, a very conservative christian. The very same John Ashcroft who spent $8000 of taxpayer money to cover up the bare breast of the statue of Lady Justice.
He once gave a speech at Bob Jones university, that contained such amazing lines as "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."
If he's offended by the bare breast of a statue, just imagine what he thinks of porn. That this man holds public office frightens me very, very much.
this hack really does show the power of IE...ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.
I call BS on that. Even features which IE did implement, it couldn't get right. For example, IE's implementation of getElementById is extremely flawed. It also doesn't support lots of things, like the CSS Width property, properly. (IE treats width as min-width, and doesn't provide real width support.)
This isn't a testament to IE's scalability, hackability, or another ability you might come up with. It's just another reason why it's a piss-poor browser. We need additional code to make IE properly understand standards; that's atrocious.
Also, if you want to see how IE stacks up against a browser like Firefox, I have made a quick comparison between the two. Its a little old now, and it was using Firebird 0.7 (not Firefox), but it's still a valid comparison. IE 6 chokes horribly on CSS, plain & simple.
Guess what a search for XFree87 gives you as its top result? This slashdot article, talking about Xouvert (an XFree Fork)!
Honestly, this seems more like incompetence than censorship.
The article states "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known"
However, in the cases I cited, people were absolutely exploiting those bugs in the wild before Microsoft released a patch for them. While the articles I linked don't explicitly state "this is already being exploited", the fact of the matter is that exploits did happen before Microsoft finally put out a patch. A friend of mine was hit with the domain-spoofing bug while surfing pr0n, seriously.
I think he might be wrong.
This goes back to Tim Bray's Sharecropper Analogy.
Essentially, the idea is that if you're not developing for an open platform, you're a sharecropper. Your entire existance as a developer is predicated on the fact that you're working for someone else's platform that they own and control. If they decide that they like your product's functionality, they can either buy you out, or simply integrate it into the platform, most likely putting you out of business.
Apple has does this in the past, with Watson & Sherlock, and Microsoft has done this many, many times. Netscape, Winamp, and now Norton & McAfee. Microsoft has a pattern of simply offering a product as an additional download, then tying it into the next version of the OS with no real way to remove it.
What this means for Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and the dozens of other AV people is not exactly clear yet. But it's a good possibility that many of their employees will be touching up their resumes once this Service Pack gets released. Unless, of course, they sue MS. Either way, I see this as a major strain on their business relationships with Microsoft.
Essentially, the blocker tag system works by tricking readers that all the possible RFID tags are present at a given time. Because RFID readers can communicate with only one tag at a time, when multiple tags reply to a single query, the reader detects a collision.
When that happens, the reader tries to communicate with each tag individually, asking each for its next bit, which identifies the portion of a binary tree the tag resides on. However, when queried in the presence of a blocker tag, the blocker tag also responds, but with a "0" and a "1" bit, confusing the reader and preventing it from getting valid responses.
So couldn't you just always have a blocker tag with you at all times? Say you build one of these into your watch, for instance. Wouldn't that make a store's entire RFID system useless for the items you're carrying?
Also, blocker tags in bags don't do anything to protect your privacy once you take the item out of the bag; so if the RFID tag is on clothing, it would still be active while you're wearing it, but not while you're walking out of the store with it. Something about that definitely doesn't seem right.
I can't wait to play this demo on my Linux box tonight. I'm thrilled to see that Assault mode is back in UT2004. I adored it in the original UT, and noticed that I didn't touch UT2003 nearly as much because of the fact that it wasn't there. Bombing run is fun, but Assault is much, much better.
Here's to hoping there is some level in UT2004 that provides as much fun as "Overlord" did in the original UT!
I haven't been able to even get to Neowin, it's been slashdotted since before this story even made it to "The Mysterious Future" here on /., but think about what this means if this is actually true. The potential vulnerabilities. All the trade secrets Microsoft put in there. Hell, IE 5 was released with Windows 2000, so if this is full source, it means IE 5 and the trident engine are in there as well.
If this is true, today may be the day that everything changes.
Firefox & Firebird both support Midas as well; they use the same Gecko engine as Mozilla (Seamonkey/The App Suite).
What I dont like is that the scroll bars are screwed up on Firefox if you load anything other than the default theme (Under OSX anyway).
Several of the bindings for Firefox changed between the 0.7 and 0.8 versions, so older themes that have not yet been updated for Firefox 0.8 will have problems; one of those problems manifests itself by making your scrollbars disappear. Once the themes are fixed, this problem won't exist (it's not specific to OSX).
Also, as for Firefox vs. Safari, I have a Powerbook, but I prefer Firefox on it. While it handles tabs similar to Safari, I can't browse anymore without find-as-you-type, a feature that only Moz/Firefox has (to the best of my knowledge). My only complaint about it is that NSITheme isn't fully implemented on OSX, so you don't get native-looking widgets (unlike on WinXP).
It's already implemented. Mozilla has Rich-Text controls; They have dubbed it Midas.
It's been in Mozilla since around 1.2 or 1.3. Of course though, their implementation is standards-based, while IE's is not. Just like XML document loading, and various other features of the DOM, you have to code for standards, and then again for IE to work.
If you have a text area whose ID attribute is called "edit", you can easily start to use Midas by doing something like:
You can also view a Midas Demo.
phones with fancy features (cameras, games, etc.) are starting to dominate.
Well great then! I think this is fantastic. Think about all of the places that cameras aren't allowed, for example movie theaters. Now think about how many jackasses who leave their phone on and have it ring during the movie.
This will have the benefit of making phones more and more difficult to bring into public places, since cameras aren't allowed in those places. In my opinion, all the better. I hate cell phones, I dislike even having one (I only do because of work), and I'm all for any "features" that cause a backlash against them.
Cell phones are now already banned from strip clubs, certain concert venues are pushing against them, etc. This is a great thing in my opinion.
Here is the article I mentioned in my parent post, along with the matching Slashdot article.
Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy.
Well, if it's anything like Microsoft's previous attempts at dominating a market, it may prove atrociously easy for them. As another article on The Economist (linked here just a day or two ago) stated, Microsoft can easily leverage their Windows marketshare to take over the Search market.
As the article said, all they really have to do is offer a new service as a free add-on to Windows, then simply build that service into the next version of Windows, citing it's popularity and need to be a core part of the OS. They did it with IE, and they can certainly do it with searching as well. Tie their engine to their OS, and why would the masses go out to the web to search anymore? They could just do it from the desktop.
Buggy? Horseshit. The IE engine works smoothly
Clearly you've never tried any advanced CSS in it. Check out advanced CSS tests in IE vs Firebird. That link shows you how Firebird renders CSS pages vs IE 5.5 and 6.0. It's no contest.
On top of that, check the link I provided in my original post, IE has severe JavaScript problems (a very bad implementation of getElementById). The engine IS buggy, plain & simple; it renders what's out there because people code for it, not because it's the best.