There's no reason Firefox couldn't have one process per tab, and most Webkit/KHTML implementations currently use one process per browser window (like Firefox).
I don't know anything about Webkit, but Firefox on Windows spawns only one process regardless of the number of browser windows or tabs.
You might be thinking of IE, which does have an option to start a new process for every browser window.
We're all gonna die tomorrow when we get turned to strangelets by the LHC. I've withdrawn all my savings and will be blowing the lot on hookers and cocaine tonight.
So, you've already gotten to the point of just skipping the blackjack?
AnyDVD is pretty much the Windows solution to CSS.
Using it, every disc appears to not be encrypted, so programs that only work on non-CSS DVDs (Nero Recode, boring file copy software, etc.) work just fine.
We kicked ext3 out of our server room in favour of ReiserFS because we had constant problems with ext3 on several servers. Not data loss (we had with neither), but rebooting our servers (especially the development server) almost always required a fsck at boot and it always had to repair the FS. This meant several hours of down-time just because of a reboot (e.g. because we moved the server to a new UPS) which became unacceptable.
The ext3 filesystem has settings that make it force an fsck on boot after N mounts or M days. This is likely what you were running into.
You can use tune2fs to disable these checks completely if you want, but it's not advised. Unless your filesystem is very, very large or you have very, very slow disk drives, this check should never take "several hours". On the other hand, if it was finding errors, then perhaps you should be looking at what might have been causing those errors (usually hardware issues, although it could be software related).
I think most of the spam targeted at a message ID comes from crawling USENET.
On my server, I see lots of e-mail with a "rcpt to:" that matches the regex "(mpg\.)?[a-f0-9]+\@news\.domain\.com". This is the format that inn uses to create message IDs.
And, of course, check every server for cron jobs...like the one that just exits if the last login time of "joeuser" was within the past day/week/month/whatever, but otherwise does very nasty stuff as root.
Seriously, as others have said, treat them like you would want to be treated, and you won't have any problems, and might be able to continue to find people that want to work for your company.
WSUS is a service that runs on the Win2K3 machine and notifies you of all updates available that fit broad categories (e.g., "Windows XP", "SQL Server", "Exchange Server"), and you then choose which updates are approved for install on which machines (based on whatever arbitrary criteria you set).
Then, you configure all your machines to get updates from the WSUS server instead of Windows Update. This includes the machine running WSUS, so there is no way that "genuine advantage" sneaks in.
First, FIOS isn't the only fiber-to-the-home...it's just the best known.
Second, it's probably not a good idea to think in terms of population for this, as households are a better count, and there are about 100 million households in the US.
Third, the latest figures I can find show that FIOS TV has 1.4 million subscribers. That's 1.4% of households. Since not all FIOS Internet subscribers can even get FIOS TV, if it was only available to 2% of all households, then FIOS can be considered the most successful ISP ever, and close to the most successful product ever.
Also note that the referenced article says that AT&T U-verse has 549K subscribers. Although it is not completely fiber to the home, the upstream speeds still don't have limits like DOCSIS, and can be just as fast as downstream.
Until DOCSIS 3, cable never really will be competitive for upstream speeds, and even then fiber to the home will beat it.
Business FIOS is $99/month for 15/2 with 5 static IPs. So, that's the same price you are paying, but for faster fulltime speeds. And, you can't pay for faster on cable even if you want to. With current speeds of 50/20 for less than $400/month, it's got to be the best price/performance out there.
This lets you control exactly what does and does not get installed, and WGA isn't even available through WSUS (although Office Genuine Advantage is). If you have more than two computers running Windows 2000 or later, WSUS is a big help for saving bandwidth and assuring you get patched up-to-date quickly.
Unfortunately, it requires Windows 2003 Server to run, but it is completely free (as in beer).
I don't know if the TV is a super-profitable part of that. It's the only one that really requires some work on their part (STB distribution, dealing with incredibly varying TV setups, DVR problems, etc.), has constantly increasing costs (bandwidth costs are going down, but TV programming costs are going up), and is generally heavily regulated.
But, I'm sure the phone part is nearly all profit, and with fewer people relying on their ISP to provide them e-mail, etc., that's got to be pretty much a cash cow.
While Slashdotters are often more interested in FiOS internet service, it's cable television services which call the shots. To offer cable in a locality, Verizon must first obtain a license from the city or town.
This is only for TV service. I had FIOS internet for nearly two years before my county approved Verizon as a cable TV provider.
I mean, FIOS is fast and all from what the numbers say, but I don't look forward to being a Verizon customer.
Yes, it's painful to navigate their phone tree to get anything done. I wanted to increase the speed (i.e., pay them more money), and it took nearly two days of tranfers to get to the right person to talk to.
On the other hand, it took less than 3 days to get that higher speed enabled, and I have had so few problems with the service itself (almost no downtime, no speed limits, etc.) that it's worth the occasional hassle.
One other thing I like about Verizon FIOS is that the price they quote is what you pay. I'm on a $139.99/month plan (15/15 with 5 static IPs) and that is exactly what my bill is each month. No tax, no franchise fee, no "network access fee", etc. Of course, the cell phone side of Verizon can't do their bills like this because "it's a goverment-imposed rule" (not).
Does anyone know what AT&T is doing that requires this size of box?
My whole neighborhood has Verizon FIOS (internet, TV, and phone) installed, and the only indication are 18" square boxes that are buried so deep you can only see the top and can drive a lawnmower over them.
So, the answer is, if you have ever used this Windows machine to connect to the public Internet, you have no idea if there is malware running on your Windows install.
People like you who think "hey, I'm smart enough not to catch anything" have many of the machines that relentlessly connect to my mail server to let me know that I should be helping someone with their "US$10,000,000 millions dollars".
Each microsoft update makes the system slower and more unwieldy.
Although it's possible that when Something.DLL is replaced with a new version that fixes a bug, it also always slows down the system, that's pretty unlikely. The default settings do take up more disk space, though, but you can fix that by backing up all the uninstall directories to removable media and then deleting them. If you decide you need to do an uninstall of a particular update, you just restore the backup for that update.
Ah, well good thing i have disabled any auto updates then.
I suppose you also run without anti-virus because you "don't use IE, don't visit any questionable websites, etc."
Remember, there are only two kinds of unpatched Windows installs: pwned and about to be pwned...which do you have, and how do you know?
"Hide Unvisited" does mess with the results, but only by doing what it says.;->
I think part of it is just use, which lets the algorithms work their magic. I have another install that is newer, and I get some matches for page titles there, but only about 1 in 5 of the results is that way, with matches tending to be from URLs.
Unless there is some other behavior/appearance of the AB that I'm just not seeing as objectionable (that other people are), I really think it's possible to tame it. Some of the features it offers are good, but not in what should be a URL edit/display control. A modification to the default search box so that it can optionally only search the history, bookmarks (and maybe even the text of locally cached pages) would provide what the AB does without overloading the URL entry box as much.
This has nothing really to do with SSL, but rather with certificate management.
I suggest you read up a bit on SSL and learn what pretty much everybody here is talking about: that the cert doesn't have to be associated in any way with the server at the other end except that the server must have the private key, and only some system of trust establishes that the server really is the right one for that cert.
It does seem, though, that Firefox associates the exact URL of the connection with the cert presented in its database. This is not the case with many certificate-management systems, where trusting a cert implicitly trusts it regardless of who presents it.
I never used Firefox before version 3, and the out-of-the-box "Awesome Bar" was almost bad enough to make me junk version 3 for similar reasons to previous versions (e.g., if I don't like using it, I really don't care if it is more secure).
But, now that I've tamed the "Awesome Bar", I really want to know: what is it that people are having trouble doing to make it the way they want it to be?
For me, the AB:
only typeahead/matches on the URL
only typeahead/matches at the beginning (i.e., I type "www." and one of my top matches is "www.newegg.com", but if I type "newegg", I get no matches)
for matches, displays only the favicon and URL
for the URL itself diplays the favicon, the optional security information, and the URL
Again, I've never used Firefox 1.x or 2.x, but I think this behavior is close to what those did...and even if there are minor differences, those should be fixable, too.
I do agree that it wasn't as easy as it should be to do this, as I had to add an extenstion (Hide Unvisited), change userChrome.css, and change some about:config settings.
This is also the same reason why MS can't simply push IE7 to everyone.
Huh? Microsoft did push IE7 to everyone.
Except for the very few people who know that there is a way to permanently decline updates (which requires you to examine the updates and pick which ones you want, which most people don't—and shouldn't—do), it was installed automatically by Windows Update. For most people, it's better to tell them "let Windows Update keep your machine up to date" instead of explaining to them how to decide what is and isn't important.
Also, although it is now considered an "Update Rollup", when first released into Windows Update, it was listed as either a "Critical" or "Security" update, which made it appear more important to install than it really was.
If the site uses a self-signed cert and hasn't changed since your last visit, you get no warning in Firefox 3.
Although you are generally accurate, it's still a bit off.
The actual behavior of Firefox is that you are never warned about any trusted root certificate (which is what a self-signed cert that you have trusted becomes) unless it has expired.
So, strictly speaking, you might not get a warning even if the site uses a self-signed cert and that cert has changed since the last time you visited it.
The HDV camcorders record low grade Mpeg4 in the same bandwidth that a DV SDTV camcorder uses.
Perhaps you meant to say "MPEG-4", which would still be wrong.
HDV is MPEG-2 at up to 25Mbps...I'd hardly call that "low grade". Although it might not do for fast motion, for a movie or TV production it's more than good enough. As a matter of fact, many TV shows use it, especially when portability is important.
My attitude is that you don't need some lame-ass rule about X number of comments per Y lines of code, but you need somebody who is proficient in the language but not familiar with the code to be able to spend less than a few minutes per function trying to understand the code.
I assumed that "coding" and "code review" would deal with those issues. The coding standards should require that the person doing the code review ("Fred") be able to understand the code as written, and if Fred has to ask Joe and Bob too many questions about it, it doesn't pass review and must be fixed, even if the fix is only to add comments.
Then, if you are using a documentation-producing comment system, hopefully that part would also be done.
How do you measure whether you're on schedule to deliver the deliverable on time?
Simple. The "deliverable" is "Module Foo". The metrics to measure are:
Module Foo: coding complete
Module Foo: code review complete
Module Foo: unit testing complete
Module Foo: integration testing complete
When you defined any deliverable, you allocated resources (people and days) to each of the steps in creating the deliverable, based on the requirements. This is how you know what answer to give when the client asks "how long will it take and how much will it cost to add the 'Foo' capability to the project?"
Foo coding: Joe & Bob, 10 days
Foo code review: Fred (with Joe & Bob), 3 days
Foo unit testing: Mary & Bill, 3 days (concurrent with code review)
Foo integration testing; Mary, John & Max, 5 days
Although there are various ways of interpreting "on schedule", at least this lets you know that about 3 weeks from start, you should be damn near done with "Foo".
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason Firefox couldn't have one process per tab, and most Webkit/KHTML implementations currently use one process per browser window (like Firefox).
I don't know anything about Webkit, but Firefox on Windows spawns only one process regardless of the number of browser windows or tabs.
You might be thinking of IE, which does have an option to start a new process for every browser window.
We're all gonna die tomorrow when we get turned to strangelets by the LHC. I've withdrawn all my savings and will be blowing the lot on hookers and cocaine tonight.
So, you've already gotten to the point of just skipping the blackjack?
AnyDVD is pretty much the Windows solution to CSS.
Using it, every disc appears to not be encrypted, so programs that only work on non-CSS DVDs (Nero Recode, boring file copy software, etc.) work just fine.
We kicked ext3 out of our server room in favour of ReiserFS because we had constant problems with ext3 on several servers. Not data loss (we had with neither), but rebooting our servers (especially the development server) almost always required a fsck at boot and it always had to repair the FS. This meant several hours of down-time just because of a reboot (e.g. because we moved the server to a new UPS) which became unacceptable.
The ext3 filesystem has settings that make it force an fsck on boot after N mounts or M days. This is likely what you were running into.
You can use tune2fs to disable these checks completely if you want, but it's not advised. Unless your filesystem is very, very large or you have very, very slow disk drives, this check should never take "several hours". On the other hand, if it was finding errors, then perhaps you should be looking at what might have been causing those errors (usually hardware issues, although it could be software related).
I think most of the spam targeted at a message ID comes from crawling USENET.
On my server, I see lots of e-mail with a "rcpt to:" that matches the regex "(mpg\.)?[a-f0-9]+\@news\.domain\.com". This is the format that inn uses to create message IDs.
And, of course, check every server for cron jobs...like the one that just exits if the last login time of "joeuser" was within the past day/week/month/whatever, but otherwise does very nasty stuff as root.
Seriously, as others have said, treat them like you would want to be treated, and you won't have any problems, and might be able to continue to find people that want to work for your company.
Using WSUS.
WSUS is a service that runs on the Win2K3 machine and notifies you of all updates available that fit broad categories (e.g., "Windows XP", "SQL Server", "Exchange Server"), and you then choose which updates are approved for install on which machines (based on whatever arbitrary criteria you set).
Then, you configure all your machines to get updates from the WSUS server instead of Windows Update. This includes the machine running WSUS, so there is no way that "genuine advantage" sneaks in.
First, FIOS isn't the only fiber-to-the-home...it's just the best known.
Second, it's probably not a good idea to think in terms of population for this, as households are a better count, and there are about 100 million households in the US.
Third, the latest figures I can find show that FIOS TV has 1.4 million subscribers. That's 1.4% of households. Since not all FIOS Internet subscribers can even get FIOS TV, if it was only available to 2% of all households, then FIOS can be considered the most successful ISP ever, and close to the most successful product ever.
Also note that the referenced article says that AT&T U-verse has 549K subscribers. Although it is not completely fiber to the home, the upstream speeds still don't have limits like DOCSIS, and can be just as fast as downstream.
Until DOCSIS 3, cable never really will be competitive for upstream speeds, and even then fiber to the home will beat it.
Business FIOS is $99/month for 15/2 with 5 static IPs. So, that's the same price you are paying, but for faster fulltime speeds. And, you can't pay for faster on cable even if you want to. With current speeds of 50/20 for less than $400/month, it's got to be the best price/performance out there.
You can always run your own WSUS server.
This lets you control exactly what does and does not get installed, and WGA isn't even available through WSUS (although Office Genuine Advantage is). If you have more than two computers running Windows 2000 or later, WSUS is a big help for saving bandwidth and assuring you get patched up-to-date quickly.
Unfortunately, it requires Windows 2003 Server to run, but it is completely free (as in beer).
I don't know if the TV is a super-profitable part of that. It's the only one that really requires some work on their part (STB distribution, dealing with incredibly varying TV setups, DVR problems, etc.), has constantly increasing costs (bandwidth costs are going down, but TV programming costs are going up), and is generally heavily regulated.
But, I'm sure the phone part is nearly all profit, and with fewer people relying on their ISP to provide them e-mail, etc., that's got to be pretty much a cash cow.
While Slashdotters are often more interested in FiOS internet service, it's cable television services which call the shots. To offer cable in a locality, Verizon must first obtain a license from the city or town.
This is only for TV service. I had FIOS internet for nearly two years before my county approved Verizon as a cable TV provider.
I mean, FIOS is fast and all from what the numbers say, but I don't look forward to being a Verizon customer.
Yes, it's painful to navigate their phone tree to get anything done. I wanted to increase the speed (i.e., pay them more money), and it took nearly two days of tranfers to get to the right person to talk to.
On the other hand, it took less than 3 days to get that higher speed enabled, and I have had so few problems with the service itself (almost no downtime, no speed limits, etc.) that it's worth the occasional hassle.
One other thing I like about Verizon FIOS is that the price they quote is what you pay. I'm on a $139.99/month plan (15/15 with 5 static IPs) and that is exactly what my bill is each month. No tax, no franchise fee, no "network access fee", etc. Of course, the cell phone side of Verizon can't do their bills like this because "it's a goverment-imposed rule" (not).
Does anyone know what AT&T is doing that requires this size of box?
My whole neighborhood has Verizon FIOS (internet, TV, and phone) installed, and the only indication are 18" square boxes that are buried so deep you can only see the top and can drive a lawnmower over them.
So, the answer is, if you have ever used this Windows machine to connect to the public Internet, you have no idea if there is malware running on your Windows install.
People like you who think "hey, I'm smart enough not to catch anything" have many of the machines that relentlessly connect to my mail server to let me know that I should be helping someone with their "US$10,000,000 millions dollars".
Each microsoft update makes the system slower and more unwieldy.
Although it's possible that when Something.DLL is replaced with a new version that fixes a bug, it also always slows down the system, that's pretty unlikely. The default settings do take up more disk space, though, but you can fix that by backing up all the uninstall directories to removable media and then deleting them. If you decide you need to do an uninstall of a particular update, you just restore the backup for that update.
Ah, well good thing i have disabled any auto updates then.
I suppose you also run without anti-virus because you "don't use IE, don't visit any questionable websites, etc."
Remember, there are only two kinds of unpatched Windows installs: pwned and about to be pwned...which do you have, and how do you know?
I use 3.0.1 now, and the 3.0 release (no betas).
"Hide Unvisited" does mess with the results, but only by doing what it says. ;->
I think part of it is just use, which lets the algorithms work their magic. I have another install that is newer, and I get some matches for page titles there, but only about 1 in 5 of the results is that way, with matches tending to be from URLs.
Unless there is some other behavior/appearance of the AB that I'm just not seeing as objectionable (that other people are), I really think it's possible to tame it. Some of the features it offers are good, but not in what should be a URL edit/display control. A modification to the default search box so that it can optionally only search the history, bookmarks (and maybe even the text of locally cached pages) would provide what the AB does without overloading the URL entry box as much.
This has nothing really to do with SSL, but rather with certificate management.
I suggest you read up a bit on SSL and learn what pretty much everybody here is talking about: that the cert doesn't have to be associated in any way with the server at the other end except that the server must have the private key, and only some system of trust establishes that the server really is the right one for that cert.
It does seem, though, that Firefox associates the exact URL of the connection with the cert presented in its database. This is not the case with many certificate-management systems, where trusting a cert implicitly trusts it regardless of who presents it.
I never used Firefox before version 3, and the out-of-the-box "Awesome Bar" was almost bad enough to make me junk version 3 for similar reasons to previous versions (e.g., if I don't like using it, I really don't care if it is more secure).
But, now that I've tamed the "Awesome Bar", I really want to know: what is it that people are having trouble doing to make it the way they want it to be?
For me, the AB:
Again, I've never used Firefox 1.x or 2.x, but I think this behavior is close to what those did...and even if there are minor differences, those should be fixable, too.
I do agree that it wasn't as easy as it should be to do this, as I had to add an extenstion (Hide Unvisited), change userChrome.css, and change some about:config settings.
Corporations will use some sort of managed upgrade procedure anyway, as users do not have permissions to install updates.
This is absolutely not true as far as Firefox is concerned.
You can install it into "My Documents" (or any directory in your profile) and it will work just fine (at least on Windows XP).
This is also the same reason why MS can't simply push IE7 to everyone.
Huh? Microsoft did push IE7 to everyone.
Except for the very few people who know that there is a way to permanently decline updates (which requires you to examine the updates and pick which ones you want, which most people don't—and shouldn't—do), it was installed automatically by Windows Update. For most people, it's better to tell them "let Windows Update keep your machine up to date" instead of explaining to them how to decide what is and isn't important.
Also, although it is now considered an "Update Rollup", when first released into Windows Update, it was listed as either a "Critical" or "Security" update, which made it appear more important to install than it really was.
If the site uses a self-signed cert and hasn't changed since your last visit, you get no warning in Firefox 3.
Although you are generally accurate, it's still a bit off.
The actual behavior of Firefox is that you are never warned about any trusted root certificate (which is what a self-signed cert that you have trusted becomes) unless it has expired.
So, if you go to https://www.example.com/ and accept their self-signed certificate, then if you go to https://another.example.com/ and it uses the same certificate as the first, you get no message. And, if you go to https://not-really-paypal.com/ and it happens to use the same cert as https://www.example.com/ you get no warning.
So, strictly speaking, you might not get a warning even if the site uses a self-signed cert and that cert has changed since the last time you visited it.
The HDV camcorders record low grade Mpeg4 in the same bandwidth that a DV SDTV camcorder uses.
Perhaps you meant to say "MPEG-4", which would still be wrong.
HDV is MPEG-2 at up to 25Mbps...I'd hardly call that "low grade". Although it might not do for fast motion, for a movie or TV production it's more than good enough. As a matter of fact, many TV shows use it, especially when portability is important.
That's funny, but somewhat true.
My attitude is that you don't need some lame-ass rule about X number of comments per Y lines of code, but you need somebody who is proficient in the language but not familiar with the code to be able to spend less than a few minutes per function trying to understand the code.
I assumed that "coding" and "code review" would deal with those issues. The coding standards should require that the person doing the code review ("Fred") be able to understand the code as written, and if Fred has to ask Joe and Bob too many questions about it, it doesn't pass review and must be fixed, even if the fix is only to add comments.
Then, if you are using a documentation-producing comment system, hopefully that part would also be done.
How do you measure whether you're on schedule to deliver the deliverable on time?
Simple. The "deliverable" is "Module Foo". The metrics to measure are:
When you defined any deliverable, you allocated resources (people and days) to each of the steps in creating the deliverable, based on the requirements. This is how you know what answer to give when the client asks "how long will it take and how much will it cost to add the 'Foo' capability to the project?"
Although there are various ways of interpreting "on schedule", at least this lets you know that about 3 weeks from start, you should be damn near done with "Foo".