any little buggy things like this can be changes with the about:config settings. Some things are like this cause on differnt platforms some have different expectations. just do some googleing or type stuff into about:config (for example "middle") and then google the keys and you can get behavior exactly like you want.
This kernel is so ancient that any possible performance gains are outweighed by the new kernels performance, bug fixes, and improved driver support. Plus why would someone want to toss away their freedom by using a non-free compiler? Also, does the Intel compiler work with AMD processors?
There is so much against this that it is useless, until Intel open sources, can work with up to date kernels, and can work on all x86 and x86_64 compatible hardware (im not sure if this is a problem) then im not interested.
But the open-source products are so good, firefox is faster, more compatible etc, than the Microsoft offering. And free and designed with similar workflows, that if you these users hardly know they ever switched. Instead they will go "wow, why did my computer get so much faster?". And unlike some apple users, these people will definetely be grateful if you save the the gazillions of dollars that they might have spent on office, and this same thing is starting to happen with the desktop itsself.
Microsoft trys to push really ahrd that their way of doing things in sohow unique and special, and that users wont be able to use anything else, but this is simply not true. The switching cost, when programs can open the same files, is miniscule compared with the switching cost for "power users".
Linux progress is based on the number of developers, not the number of users.
sure it need users, but stupid users that need the type of help some windows users need do not necessarily help the platform, although they might make it more profitable for support companies which *might* lead to some more developers. but it also could lead to stupid resistance to change that would hold the platform back.
Having more users might make drivers a little better, and definetely put pressure on companies to have decenet drivers, and hopefully the GPL will hold and these drivers will be GPL too. (this is based on how true to open-source principals distributors, and users/developers, are)
I dont think big market share is at all enccicary for Linux, but it is for Microsoft, so it can snowball into a disaster for Microsoft, which i think they see coming.
The other possible outcome is that they'll say that he had permission to configure access, but when that privilege was renounced, that he should have removed remote access... in which case, I question how they would ever expect to let anyone go if they would have to go through such trouble each and every time?
Thats called an ex-post facto law. He cant be guilty of the statute if he had the authority to set up the system before, there has to be a specific law stating that when his duty ends he must relinquish, and under what pretenses.
Normal people simply don't do this, and this is NOT the commonly accepted practice of most individuals. What they did was exploit ambiguities, and create them to their advantage. The OEMs and Microsoft participated in this, and they are are liable. How much damages precipitated is hard to show, but cetainly people who dont know much about computers (normal, reasonable, people) were mislead, and Microsoft and the OEMs knew quite well that this was/would be the case.
The people that bought them did not know what hardware requirements were neccicary run run vista, in other words they were just like most people, who dont have an acute understand of computer parts. The Vista Capable program was created for this very reason. By marketing a OS with performance-demanding features, and then subsequently marketing low-powered computers that were known to not be capable of running the features that had been heavily touted, they were performing false advertising. The fact that people could have become aware is irrelevent, if the average person could believe the sticker, if the average person would not now that these computers were not capable of what they were advertised, than it is false advertising.
This means that it has to be shown (now on a case by case basis) that the plaintiffs actually paid more than they otherwise would for the deceptively marketed computers.
No, they only have to show that the false advertising caused real damages or any sort, that were not of bad faith. If the purchasers expected Aero, and had bought the computer on that basis, that actual damages occurred. It doesn't matter if the computers were sold for only $50, if the reasonable purchaser believed they could run vista with the computer they were buying, and they believed running vista meant running Aero, and Microsoft or other defendants caused this miscommunication, then the defendants are liable.
well they did create a system that is almost entirely differnt from all the other systems, it uses a non-standard c-lib (not gnu libc nor uclibc), no access to the filesystem by applications, and the whole system has to be done with google's custom java api on their proprietary SDK.
This is certainly better than Verizon's stance, and Apple on he iPhone, some of the wierd things they did may have merit, and they did open up alot of code, but this does not mean the system is entirely open.
For example, the phones are locked, and it is impossible to get root on the released phones. (AFAIK) This greatly hampers users abilities to tinker with the phone, and what they are doing may be disallowed if it was under gpl3. The platform is designed for google to stay in change, and give the phone producers and cell networks control, but it is not designed to give end users control, only for them to write the software to make it a successful platform for google.
If you want a more standard (for better or for worse) Linux mobile platform you may want openmoko.
im not arguing, but X11 says nothing about decorations, borders, and doesn't even mandate a re-parenting window manager (although flash broke ICCCAP compliance by assuming that all X11 window managers are re-parenting)
not to say that it is necessary, but it is a very flexible system, and mandates little (if anything) in terms of appearance.
chrome is the best thing out there, and the only thing that has actually been done. of couse it kinda defeats the point when you are sending everything back to the mothership The Google, but if you use srware iron (a recompiled version with all the privacy stuff taken out) you a bit better off. (of course this is still sans inportant features non-existing in chromium like cookie permissions, script permissions, etc, that exist much better in firefox.)
First microsoft is saying that their own OS is not secure and that using the OS user sandbox is not secure, which it may be for Windows but isnt for other OS's
Second, Microsoft is saying that they have to put this in the kernel which is to everybodies disadvantage. from a security standpoint 1)It makes bugs in the application kernel bugs, 2)it makes it where you cant turn it off, and go to say a more secure browser 3)it means more kernel bloat. Then from a user standpoint it just means more incompatibilities between Microsoft's browser and a complete losing of choice.
Microsoft can go ahead and say its user model is broken, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work in other operating systems. Chromium is a quite decent model, and its only weakness is 1)it offers no protection from cookies, and actively gives information to The Google, 2) it cant work with plugins, for the same reason firefox cant control the permission of Flash cookies, chromium cant control plugins either, its the way they are designed. hopefully the element and HTML5 element are adopted and it becomes possible again to browse without ugly plugins.
thats wrong, rpm and deb are not executables and all require a root password to install and do anything at all. They are just compressed packages of files.
all you need is a desktop file, and that can automatically then download a program, install to autostart with login and your golden., now since ubuntu does not set gksu to lock the screen you just ahve to snoop the sudo password and then you have root, baby, root. Its so stupid how non +x files will run
they dont have to think that CPUs will loose margins to want to go into GPUs, it could be just because there is a profit to be made by doing what they are doing, or maybe that they dont even intend to make a profit off their graphics, they just want to kick NVIDIA by reducing their volumes.
it wouldnt have to be treated specially, it would just have to be done the normal way, by having gnome/kde as the intrepreter to the shell/.desktop script.
you miss the point, it doesnt need the execute bit, nor does it need to have execute as the default,.desktop files are this special type of file that while really being a interpreted language in of itsself is not classed as such.
When a program opens rather than executes (as a interpreter) a file it should never allow that file to execute any code, if it fails this it is effect an intrepreter,.desktop files should be fixed to not run arbitrary commands (hard), should have forced ownership by root (stupid), or should be classed as what they are, scripts intrepreted by the DE.
btw apples whole package system works like this, OSX does this exact thing by design with its.app folders, of course they do need execute bits set to the best of my knowledge, and that is one of the reasons they need an image format.
why would people install unlicenced office? Openoffice is basically the same thing, but not only are there no licences, but also LGPL. Have less Microsoft breathing down your neck. Its so compatible with Microsoft's format that Microsoft had to create another lock-in format just to try to slow them down.
Also that type of piracy you talk about is differn't, its standard software that already has illegal versions in the wild, its differnt that a piece of software that is customized for that company, is bought not by workstation but as a full licence (perhaps), and it is minir sofware, only licenced to a few firms. But yeah, it could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
run reader 5.5, it was the only remotely decent release, and everything works with it.
I use linux and use evince, and it works excelland and is not a hog.
any little buggy things like this can be changes with the about:config settings. Some things are like this cause on differnt platforms some have different expectations. just do some googleing or type stuff into about:config (for example "middle") and then google the keys and you can get behavior exactly like you want.
And the new flash is really good.
It has a nice crisp closed captioning.
This kernel is so ancient that any possible performance gains are outweighed by the new kernels performance, bug fixes, and improved driver support. Plus why would someone want to toss away their freedom by using a non-free compiler? Also, does the Intel compiler work with AMD processors?
There is so much against this that it is useless, until Intel open sources, can work with up to date kernels, and can work on all x86 and x86_64 compatible hardware (im not sure if this is a problem) then im not interested.
But the open-source products are so good, firefox is faster, more compatible etc, than the Microsoft offering. And free and designed with similar workflows, that if you these users hardly know they ever switched. Instead they will go "wow, why did my computer get so much faster?". And unlike some apple users, these people will definetely be grateful if you save the the gazillions of dollars that they might have spent on office, and this same thing is starting to happen with the desktop itsself.
Microsoft trys to push really ahrd that their way of doing things in sohow unique and special, and that users wont be able to use anything else, but this is simply not true. The switching cost, when programs can open the same files, is miniscule compared with the switching cost for "power users".
not really.
Linux progress is based on the number of developers, not the number of users.
sure it need users, but stupid users that need the type of help some windows users need do not necessarily help the platform, although they might make it more profitable for support companies which *might* lead to some more developers. but it also could lead to stupid resistance to change that would hold the platform back.
Having more users might make drivers a little better, and definetely put pressure on companies to have decenet drivers, and hopefully the GPL will hold and these drivers will be GPL too. (this is based on how true to open-source principals distributors, and users/developers, are)
I dont think big market share is at all enccicary for Linux, but it is for Microsoft, so it can snowball into a disaster for Microsoft, which i think they see coming.
The other possible outcome is that they'll say that he had permission to configure access, but when that privilege was renounced, that he should have removed remote access... in which case, I question how they would ever expect to let anyone go if they would have to go through such trouble each and every time?
Thats called an ex-post facto law. He cant be guilty of the statute if he had the authority to set up the system before, there has to be a specific law stating that when his duty ends he must relinquish, and under what pretenses.
Normal people simply don't do this, and this is NOT the commonly accepted practice of most individuals. What they did was exploit ambiguities, and create them to their advantage. The OEMs and Microsoft participated in this, and they are are liable. How much damages precipitated is hard to show, but cetainly people who dont know much about computers (normal, reasonable, people) were mislead, and Microsoft and the OEMs knew quite well that this was/would be the case.
The people that bought them did not know what hardware requirements were neccicary run run vista, in other words they were just like most people, who dont have an acute understand of computer parts. The Vista Capable program was created for this very reason. By marketing a OS with performance-demanding features, and then subsequently marketing low-powered computers that were known to not be capable of running the features that had been heavily touted, they were performing false advertising. The fact that people could have become aware is irrelevent, if the average person could believe the sticker, if the average person would not now that these computers were not capable of what they were advertised, than it is false advertising.
This means that it has to be shown (now on a case by case basis) that the plaintiffs actually paid more than they otherwise would for the deceptively marketed computers.
No, they only have to show that the false advertising caused real damages or any sort, that were not of bad faith. If the purchasers expected Aero, and had bought the computer on that basis, that actual damages occurred. It doesn't matter if the computers were sold for only $50, if the reasonable purchaser believed they could run vista with the computer they were buying, and they believed running vista meant running Aero, and Microsoft or other defendants caused this miscommunication, then the defendants are liable.
ie "vista-incapable"
well they did create a system that is almost entirely differnt from all the other systems, it uses a non-standard c-lib (not gnu libc nor uclibc), no access to the filesystem by applications, and the whole system has to be done with google's custom java api on their proprietary SDK.
This is certainly better than Verizon's stance, and Apple on he iPhone, some of the wierd things they did may have merit, and they did open up alot of code, but this does not mean the system is entirely open.
For example, the phones are locked, and it is impossible to get root on the released phones. (AFAIK) This greatly hampers users abilities to tinker with the phone, and what they are doing may be disallowed if it was under gpl3. The platform is designed for google to stay in change, and give the phone producers and cell networks control, but it is not designed to give end users control, only for them to write the software to make it a successful platform for google.
If you want a more standard (for better or for worse) Linux mobile platform you may want openmoko.
im not arguing, but X11 says nothing about decorations, borders, and doesn't even mandate a re-parenting window manager (although flash broke ICCCAP compliance by assuming that all X11 window managers are re-parenting)
not to say that it is necessary, but it is a very flexible system, and mandates little (if anything) in terms of appearance.
chrome is the best thing out there, and the only thing that has actually been done. of couse it kinda defeats the point when you are sending everything back to the mothership The Google, but if you use srware iron (a recompiled version with all the privacy stuff taken out) you a bit better off. (of course this is still sans inportant features non-existing in chromium like cookie permissions, script permissions, etc, that exist much better in firefox.)
First microsoft is saying that their own OS is not secure and that using the OS user sandbox is not secure, which it may be for Windows but isnt for other OS's
Second, Microsoft is saying that they have to put this in the kernel which is to everybodies disadvantage. from a security standpoint 1)It makes bugs in the application kernel bugs, 2)it makes it where you cant turn it off, and go to say a more secure browser 3)it means more kernel bloat. Then from a user standpoint it just means more incompatibilities between Microsoft's browser and a complete losing of choice.
Microsoft can go ahead and say its user model is broken, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work in other operating systems. Chromium is a quite decent model, and its only weakness is 1)it offers no protection from cookies, and actively gives information to The Google, 2) it cant work with plugins, for the same reason firefox cant control the permission of Flash cookies, chromium cant control plugins either, its the way they are designed. hopefully the element and HTML5 element are adopted and it becomes possible again to browse without ugly plugins.
DCC SEND HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
thats wrong, rpm and deb are not executables and all require a root password to install and do anything at all. They are just compressed packages of files.
sh files require +x
all you need is a desktop file, and that can automatically then download a program, install to autostart with login and your golden., now since ubuntu does not set gksu to lock the screen you just ahve to snoop the sudo password and then you have root, baby, root. Its so stupid how non +x files will run
they dont have to think that CPUs will loose margins to want to go into GPUs, it could be just because there is a profit to be made by doing what they are doing, or maybe that they dont even intend to make a profit off their graphics, they just want to kick NVIDIA by reducing their volumes.
they have to be ON THE BOX and agreed to before you buy the software.
for some people simply the remote access of their data is just as important
having a CoW filesystem would help with this alot, although i admit this is a stupid problem those .desktop people got us into.
it wouldnt have to be treated specially, it would just have to be done the normal way, by having gnome/kde as the intrepreter to the shell/.desktop script.
same, you read all the RTFA comments, and therefore have read the article.
you miss the point, it doesnt need the execute bit, nor does it need to have execute as the default, .desktop files are this special type of file that while really being a interpreted language in of itsself is not classed as such.
When a program opens rather than executes (as a interpreter) a file it should never allow that file to execute any code, if it fails this it is effect an intrepreter, .desktop files should be fixed to not run arbitrary commands (hard), should have forced ownership by root (stupid), or should be classed as what they are, scripts intrepreted by the DE.
btw apples whole package system works like this, OSX does this exact thing by design with its .app folders, of course they do need execute bits set to the best of my knowledge, and that is one of the reasons they need an image format.
why would people install unlicenced office? Openoffice is basically the same thing, but not only are there no licences, but also LGPL. Have less Microsoft breathing down your neck. Its so compatible with Microsoft's format that Microsoft had to create another lock-in format just to try to slow them down.
Also that type of piracy you talk about is differn't, its standard software that already has illegal versions in the wild, its differnt that a piece of software that is customized for that company, is bought not by workstation but as a full licence (perhaps), and it is minir sofware, only licenced to a few firms. But yeah, it could happen.