The numerous memory leaks present in stock Win95 should have killed the machine ages ago. Since no service packs could have been installed in the past 3 years, all of the old problems should still exist here.
The problem with developing OpenSource projects like this is that the vast majority (if not all) of the people interested in contributing are coders. Artists, psychologists and other non-coders whose input is invaluable in commercial GUI endeavors are left out of the loop. As a result, the "look" of most OSS applications ends up being done by the same coders that built it. Though it's not impossible to find coders that are decent graphics people, they're still relatively rare.
The graphics people that *do* end up contributing to projects do so only after-the-fact. It's difficult to bring a good usability/GUI person into a project and have them provide input throughout the course of a project.
It's not something most coders really think about, but non-programmers are just as valuable as programmers are when it comes to designing software.
Gnu/Y2K page could be better formatted
on
GNU News
·
· Score: 1
Your comment would have had a lot more weight if you had successfully resisted the sophomoric urge to turn it into a First Comment post.
If the Linux port of Netscape lacks such a feature, that sounds like poor design on Netscape/Mozilla's part. Why don't you e-mail them?
As I recall, the HTML font sizes were meant to be relative to the "base" font size. If your Netscape instead hard codes these hints to actual point sizes, that's a browser problem and should probably be corrected.
I guess I've just never had the need to adjust my font sizes in Netscape for Linux. It seems rather silly that they left that feature out...
You know, most browsers have a method for adjusting the font it uses. The "size=1" is just a hint for the browser. The actual point size can be adjusted:
Are there panels of technical advisors that clue lawmakers in on things before the lawmakers blindly make decisions like this on little, typically inaccurate, information?
It seems to me that we shouldn't HAVE to bombard our legislature with corrections or educational letters in order for them to know the "real" story. If the sole source of information these people have is the mass media, we are in some serious trouble.
And what about CNN? How in the world can they get off by broadcasting misleading information like this? Don't THEY have some sort of technical staff reviewing these stories before they're released? I think it's time we have a few respectable news organizations step up and admit that most of the rest of the mass media is exaggarating the problem.
There's little Intel can do to guarantee that BIOS companies and OS companies (Microsoft) will treat the CPU ID as "sensitive" data only to be given with the user's permission.
Think about it though, guys. The only way details like this can be sent over the web is if an applet requests your permission to retrieve it. It's the same thing with software serial numbers (like the Microsoft web registration stuff). The only way it can be sent without your permission is if the software is re-written specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft doing that. In addition, re-enabling it (and requesting a reboot, deceptively so that you won't know it's re-enabled) is, again, a deception that must be deliberately written into the software. Have you any idea as to the PR nightmare that would cause once it's discovered (and it will be discovered very fast, especially in light of all the press this has gotten)? If you're worried, write them a letter and tell them your concerns. This isn't Intel's problem.
Take a look at the last thread. Count the number of AC posts that have lowered themselves to using personal attacks, name-calling, foul language and generally abusive text. Then count the number of non-AC posts guilty of the same.
Do you honestly think you're helping "your side" of the issue by posting this drivel?
Now before you start frothing at the mouth, let me say that I am also against banning AC posts. There are uses for it and the amount of crap should be (and is, to an extent) filtered by the moderators. Like it or not, SHE HAS A POINT.
There is a tendency for people to "hide" behind the veil of anonymity for the sole purpose of allowing them to vent, flame, and generally be an abusive nuisance on slashdot without anybody finding out who they are. Her point is that if we required all posts to post from an account (even if that account is JUST as anonymous as the extremely-easy-to-use AC route), the poster would be ACCOUNTABLE. You could look and see that poster XYZ is an annoying twit and could then ignore them. This also makes the idea of using "killfiles" or ignore lists worthy of serious attention.
Now I'm not saying I totally agree with her, but it just doesn't seem like you're understanding what it is she's trying to say.
Lay off the coffee and pills and try to write some constructive comments.
It doesn't take a large percentage of people to abuse something in order to make it go away... While I'm not a big proponent of banning AC posts, she does have some valid points.
When I read "Anonymous Coward" I don't think of it like "A coward who is posting anonymously". I've gotten to the point where "Anonymous Coward" is just a name, a label, and I don't think "coward" when I see it. It's the same way with actors' names, like, say, Mel Gibson. I don't break it up and say "Mel". Mel? What an uncommon name. Most people don't think that. The name is the whole phrase and most people, once they get past the novelty, never break it apart again.
If AC's are really that self-conscious about the name they're given, perhaps they should create an account? It really is a pretty quick process, and they don't have to give ANY information out that they don't want to...
I agree 100% that evil companies can put privacy-invading functions in their software that mines our PC's for confidential information.
Since you don't seem to be subscribed to BugTraq (where software and network issues like this are discussed frequently), let me just say that people are CONSTANTLY trying to break things with operating systems and software. If some experienced network administrators see some traffic that looks odd, they will investigate it and report their findings. Any attempt by a software company to do what you're describing WILL BE DISCOVERED eventually. In light of Microsoft's history and the publicized nature of this and other privacy-related issues, do you really think they're going to risk it?
I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful of the things we install. I just think that we need to contact the software/OS vendors and hear how they're planning on implementing the CPU ID stuff before we freak out.
OK let's assume that 90% of the computer owners decide to scrap their equipment for a PIII (or equiv) or better in the next 10 years.
So, now all these processors have these ID's built into them.
What about those that have their ID's permanently disabled? Do you expect that Intel and the other vendors are going to go against the public's wishes and remove the permanent disable ability?
What about that other 10%? Do you think that they're going to be all-but-ignored by ISP's and software developers?
Consider one more thing: the hardware may make the ID available, but it's the SOFTWARE that actually uses it. If you don't want your ID going out over the Internet, configure your software so that it doesn't send it! Don't buy software from companies that mandate one of these ID's (which just seems silly considering the volume of customers they'd be losing).
These CPU ID's DO have some very valid and useful uses that don't have anything to do with your privacy. You need to be worrying about the software that uses these ID's, not the hardware.
That doesn't rule anything out. You'd think that the instruction to disable/enable the id would be a kernel mode instruction, but we don't know.
Somehow I don't think it will be THAT hard to find out.
Also, that doesn't prevent windows itself from doing it.
So write Microsoft and make sure that they put in some sort of verification before allowing the CPU's ID state to be changed. This is an OS problem, not an Intel problem.
Windoze/Office 2000, both have an online registration, during the install doze2000 re-enables the id. Office also has an online registration. Both register your cpu id number with microsoft.
What if you've permanently disabled the CPU's ID mechanism since then? Does that mean you can't run the program anymore? There are so many things you're not considering.
Now on te subject of the disable, i'm pretty sure intel could easily design the chip so the id can be *permanetly* disabled. But we'll never know...
Why would we never know? I wonder how many people with PIII's will "permanently disable" their CPU ID and then proceed to use every conceivable trick and instruction in an effort to get it enabled again. I'd wager quite a few. At some point you've just got to concede that it can't be turned on again with software.
I say stick with linux, how long do you think it will be before we have "Disable CPU ID" as an option in the kernel config.
"stick with linux"? Since when did this become a Linux vs. _____ debate? I doubt we'll ever see a "Disable CPU ID" option in the kernel. It will probably end up being a user-land util requiring root privileges.
No one is willing to shell that much out for CDs, I think that is obvious. People *do* shell out that much money, but only because they have no choice.
That's the definition of 'willing', isn't it? Maybe few people *want* to pay that much for a CD, but they're willing to. If they were *un*willing to, they'd have to be *forced* to buy the CD's, which they're obviously not. They're making the conscious choice to buy the CD, so they're willing.
If half the people that regularly buy CD's were to suddenly decide CD's were too expensive and stopped buying them, I bet the price would come down. Initially, when CD's came out, the pricing was purposely set ~1.5x cassette tapes. If CD's were priced equally, the cassette market would nearly instantly dry up. They're making the consumers pay for the extra CD quality. Things simply haven't changed.
It's the same thing with DVD's. They're probably cheaper to produce in quantity than VHS, but I doubt they'll ever drop in price to equal the cost of a VHS tape.
There IS a demand for CD's and DVD's at the prices they're at, which means things aren't going to be changing any time soon. This is high school economics, folks.
If MP3's or other alternative music distribution channels end up succeeding, it's quite likely that that will take a chunk of the CD market, which will mean lower CD prices.
I agree that rebooting the computer is not likely to raise any concern for the user. But consider that applications must talk to the *OS* to get these things done. If the OS were designed in such a way as to request verification from the user before performing such a risky thing, there's nothing to worry about.
Why must there be a way to re-enable it in the software? You have no idea how the hardware implements this particular CPU instruction (though I'll admit neither do I). It's trivial to build the CPU so that a permanent-disable command can be sent that can't be undone by any other instruction.
Both the mechanism involved and an objective method for determining whether or not it's disabled will certainly be used in the near future. If Intel were really trying to deceive us by secretly keeping the ID turned on, they would have some SERIOUS PR problems when it was discovered. It's not in their best interests to lie, and besides, what would they gain?
I'm not sure, but I think they can only be DISABLED by the software. To re-enable it, you must reboot, which would not be a "quiet" act on the part of the OS.
I believe it's been stated above and in the article that there will be a method to permanently disable the feature, so if for whatever twisted reason Microsoft decided to be deceptive enough to trick you into rebooting just to get the ID re-enabled, you can have it forced off forever.
They may be using UNICODE characters not present in some of the more primitive fonts, but they are adhering to the HTML spec.
Either upgrade your fonts/system to support the latest (ISO standard!) character sets and/or continue your e-mail writing campaign. If they discover that a great portion of their target audience isn't capable of seeing the special characters they're using, perhaps they'll re-evalulate their use of such characters.
I thought he was right-on. He did say "At least not in the US", and he was correct. SuSE is mainly a European popularity, which I think he adequately addressed.
Don't be so quick to jump down somebody's throat and start calling them names. Re-read their post to see if maybe you missed or misunderstood something.
To continue on with what he was saying, RedHat is the most popular distribution, which is why you tend to more hear things (both good and bad) about RedHat than you do about lesser-known distributions such as SuSE. That's the point he was trying to make.
And take a pill..
I think it's actually rather interesting
on
Is Pluto a Planet?
·
· Score: 1
"News for Nerds" doesn't necessarily mean "News for Linux Geeks". Some of us have other nerdy hobbies. Declassifying Pluto as a planet is quite a big change in the classical definition of our solar system, just like the naming of some of those "Unnamed" elements a few years ago affected the Chemistry crowd.
If you don't want to read this sort of thing, don't read it, and for God's sake, DON'T COMMENT ON IT.
Slashdot Mirror
The numerous memory leaks present in stock Win95 should have killed the machine ages ago. Since no service packs could have been installed in the past 3 years, all of the old problems should still exist here.
I don't buy it.
The problem with developing OpenSource projects like this is that the vast majority (if not all) of the people interested in contributing are coders. Artists, psychologists and other non-coders whose input is invaluable in commercial GUI endeavors are left out of the loop. As a result, the "look" of most OSS applications ends up being done by the same coders that built it. Though it's not impossible to find coders that are decent graphics people, they're still relatively rare.
The graphics people that *do* end up contributing to projects do so only after-the-fact. It's difficult to bring a good usability/GUI person into a project and have them provide input throughout the course of a project.
It's not something most coders really think about, but non-programmers are just as valuable as programmers are when it comes to designing software.
Your comment would have had a lot more weight if you had successfully resisted the sophomoric urge to turn it into a First Comment post.
Yes, Windows is used by me while I'm at work.
If the Linux port of Netscape lacks such a feature, that sounds like poor design on Netscape/Mozilla's part. Why don't you e-mail them?
As I recall, the HTML font sizes were meant to be relative to the "base" font size. If your Netscape instead hard codes these hints to actual point sizes, that's a browser problem and should probably be corrected.
I guess I've just never had the need to adjust my font sizes in Netscape for Linux. It seems rather silly that they left that feature out...
Eventually I'll have everything wired up to my web page... One day...
Are there panels of technical advisors that clue lawmakers in on things before the lawmakers blindly make decisions like this on little, typically inaccurate, information?
It seems to me that we shouldn't HAVE to bombard our legislature with corrections or educational letters in order for them to know the "real" story. If the sole source of information these people have is the mass media, we are in some serious trouble.
And what about CNN? How in the world can they get off by broadcasting misleading information like this? Don't THEY have some sort of technical staff reviewing these stories before they're released? I think it's time we have a few respectable news organizations step up and admit that most of the rest of the mass media is exaggarating the problem.
There's little Intel can do to guarantee that BIOS companies and OS companies (Microsoft) will treat the CPU ID as "sensitive" data only to be given with the user's permission.
Think about it though, guys. The only way details like this can be sent over the web is if an applet requests your permission to retrieve it. It's the same thing with software serial numbers (like the Microsoft web registration stuff). The only way it can be sent without your permission is if the software is re-written specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft doing that. In addition, re-enabling it (and requesting a reboot, deceptively so that you won't know it's re-enabled) is, again, a deception that must be deliberately written into the software. Have you any idea as to the PR nightmare that would cause once it's discovered (and it will be discovered very fast, especially in light of all the press this has gotten)? If you're worried, write them a letter and tell them your concerns. This isn't Intel's problem.
Take a look at the last thread. Count the number of AC posts that have lowered themselves to using personal attacks, name-calling, foul language and generally abusive text. Then count the number of non-AC posts guilty of the same.
Do you honestly think you're helping "your side" of the issue by posting this drivel?
Now before you start frothing at the mouth, let me say that I am also against banning AC posts. There are uses for it and the amount of crap should be (and is, to an extent) filtered by the moderators. Like it or not, SHE HAS A POINT.
There is a tendency for people to "hide" behind the veil of anonymity for the sole purpose of allowing them to vent, flame, and generally be an abusive nuisance on slashdot without anybody finding out who they are. Her point is that if we required all posts to post from an account (even if that account is JUST as anonymous as the extremely-easy-to-use AC route), the poster would be ACCOUNTABLE. You could look and see that poster XYZ is an annoying twit and could then ignore them. This also makes the idea of using "killfiles" or ignore lists worthy of serious attention.
Now I'm not saying I totally agree with her, but it just doesn't seem like you're understanding what it is she's trying to say.
Lay off the coffee and pills and try to write some constructive comments.
It doesn't take a large percentage of people to abuse something in order to make it go away... While I'm not a big proponent of banning AC posts, she does have some valid points.
You may or may not notice that posts are being moderated... Not quickly, but they're being moderated.
You should find a lot of good AC posts have scores now.
When I read "Anonymous Coward" I don't think of it like "A coward who is posting anonymously". I've gotten to the point where "Anonymous Coward" is just a name, a label, and I don't think "coward" when I see it. It's the same way with actors' names, like, say, Mel Gibson. I don't break it up and say "Mel". Mel? What an uncommon name. Most people don't think that. The name is the whole phrase and most people, once they get past the novelty, never break it apart again.
If AC's are really that self-conscious about the name they're given, perhaps they should create an account? It really is a pretty quick process, and they don't have to give ANY information out that they don't want to...
I agree 100% that evil companies can put privacy-invading functions in their software that mines our PC's for confidential information.
Since you don't seem to be subscribed to BugTraq (where software and network issues like this are discussed frequently), let me just say that people are CONSTANTLY trying to break things with operating systems and software. If some experienced network administrators see some traffic that looks odd, they will investigate it and report their findings. Any attempt by a software company to do what you're describing WILL BE DISCOVERED eventually. In light of Microsoft's history and the publicized nature of this and other privacy-related issues, do you really think they're going to risk it?
I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful of the things we install. I just think that we need to contact the software/OS vendors and hear how they're planning on implementing the CPU ID stuff before we freak out.
True - and I shouldn't jump to conclusions. But this remains somewhat suspicisous. I always disable everything I cannot fully control.
This is probably a good policy.
You can try e-mailing Netscape too and ask them about the suspicious traffic. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain it to you.
OK let's assume that 90% of the computer owners decide to scrap their equipment for a PIII (or equiv) or better in the next 10 years.
So, now all these processors have these ID's built into them.
What about those that have their ID's permanently disabled? Do you expect that Intel and the other vendors are going to go against the public's wishes and remove the permanent disable ability?
What about that other 10%? Do you think that they're going to be all-but-ignored by ISP's and software developers?
Consider one more thing: the hardware may make the ID available, but it's the SOFTWARE that actually uses it. If you don't want your ID going out over the Internet, configure your software so that it doesn't send it! Don't buy software from companies that mandate one of these ID's (which just seems silly considering the volume of customers they'd be losing).
These CPU ID's DO have some very valid and useful uses that don't have anything to do with your privacy. You need to be worrying about the software that uses these ID's, not the hardware.
That doesn't rule anything out. You'd think that the instruction to disable/enable the id would be a kernel mode instruction, but we don't know.
Somehow I don't think it will be THAT hard to find out.
Also, that doesn't prevent windows itself from doing it.
So write Microsoft and make sure that they put in some sort of verification before allowing the CPU's ID state to be changed. This is an OS problem, not an Intel problem.
Windoze/Office 2000, both have an online registration, during the install doze2000 re-enables the id. Office also has an online registration. Both register your cpu id number with microsoft.
What if you've permanently disabled the CPU's ID mechanism since then? Does that mean you can't run the program anymore? There are so many things you're not considering.
Now on te subject of the disable, i'm pretty sure intel could easily design the chip so the id can be *permanetly* disabled. But we'll never know...
Why would we never know? I wonder how many people with PIII's will "permanently disable" their CPU ID and then proceed to use every conceivable trick and instruction in an effort to get it enabled again. I'd wager quite a few. At some point you've just got to concede that it can't be turned on again with software.
I say stick with linux, how long do you think it will be before we have "Disable CPU ID" as an option in the kernel config.
"stick with linux"? Since when did this become a Linux vs. _____ debate? I doubt we'll ever see a "Disable CPU ID" option in the kernel. It will probably end up being a user-land util requiring root privileges.
No one is willing to shell that much out for CDs, I think that is obvious. People *do* shell out that much money, but only because they have no choice.
That's the definition of 'willing', isn't it? Maybe few people *want* to pay that much for a CD, but they're willing to. If they were *un*willing to, they'd have to be *forced* to buy the CD's, which they're obviously not. They're making the conscious choice to buy the CD, so they're willing.
If half the people that regularly buy CD's were to suddenly decide CD's were too expensive and stopped buying them, I bet the price would come down. Initially, when CD's came out, the pricing was purposely set ~1.5x cassette tapes. If CD's were priced equally, the cassette market would nearly instantly dry up. They're making the consumers pay for the extra CD quality. Things simply haven't changed.
It's the same thing with DVD's. They're probably cheaper to produce in quantity than VHS, but I doubt they'll ever drop in price to equal the cost of a VHS tape.
There IS a demand for CD's and DVD's at the prices they're at, which means things aren't going to be changing any time soon. This is high school economics, folks.
If MP3's or other alternative music distribution channels end up succeeding, it's quite likely that that will take a chunk of the CD market, which will mean lower CD prices.
I agree that rebooting the computer is not likely to raise any concern for the user. But consider that applications must talk to the *OS* to get these things done. If the OS were designed in such a way as to request verification from the user before performing such a risky thing, there's nothing to worry about.
Why must there be a way to re-enable it in the software? You have no idea how the hardware implements this particular CPU instruction (though I'll admit neither do I). It's trivial to build the CPU so that a permanent-disable command can be sent that can't be undone by any other instruction.
Why in the world would your ISP/favorite web site require you to use the exact same computer to connect to the Internet?
Why in the world would your ISP/favorite web site require you to use a PIII just to connect to the Internet?
Why would you blame Intel for your ISP's stupid policies (requiring you to use the same Intel PIII PC to connect to the Internet)?
Come on, guys, stop freaking out over this and put some reasoning behind your frightened arguments.
Both the mechanism involved and an objective method for determining whether or not it's disabled will certainly be used in the near future. If Intel were really trying to deceive us by secretly keeping the ID turned on, they would have some SERIOUS PR problems when it was discovered. It's not in their best interests to lie, and besides, what would they gain?
I'm not sure, but I think they can only be DISABLED by the software. To re-enable it, you must reboot, which would not be a "quiet" act on the part of the OS.
I believe it's been stated above and in the article that there will be a method to permanently disable the feature, so if for whatever twisted reason Microsoft decided to be deceptive enough to trick you into rebooting just to get the ID re-enabled, you can have it forced off forever.
I think he knew that. Hence the ";)".
Stop being one of those flaming, unthinking AC's.
They may be using UNICODE characters not present in some of the more primitive fonts, but they are adhering to the HTML spec.
Either upgrade your fonts/system to support the latest (ISO standard!) character sets and/or continue your e-mail writing campaign. If they discover that a great portion of their target audience isn't capable of seeing the special characters they're using, perhaps they'll re-evalulate their use of such characters.
I thought he was right-on. He did say "At least not in the US", and he was correct. SuSE is mainly a European popularity, which I think he adequately addressed.
Don't be so quick to jump down somebody's throat and start calling them names. Re-read their post to see if maybe you missed or misunderstood something.
To continue on with what he was saying, RedHat is the most popular distribution, which is why you tend to more hear things (both good and bad) about RedHat than you do about lesser-known distributions such as SuSE. That's the point he was trying to make.
And take a pill..
"News for Nerds" doesn't necessarily mean "News for Linux Geeks". Some of us have other nerdy hobbies. Declassifying Pluto as a planet is quite a big change in the classical definition of our solar system, just like the naming of some of those "Unnamed" elements a few years ago affected the Chemistry crowd.
If you don't want to read this sort of thing, don't read it, and for God's sake, DON'T COMMENT ON IT.