Because it reinforces the party line, and is a commonly-held belief around these parts. IE being integrated into the kernel is one of those things that everyone knows, although no-one I've asked has ever been able to provide any proof.
It's possible to share code without making an application part of the operating system. They're called DLLs.
Yes, and the one under discussion currently is called mshtml.dll. IE/Windows Explorer is essentially just a wrapper around that. You can use either interchangeably, the only real difference is the set of default buttons, views, menu options, etc. For example, you can open Windows Explorer, type "slashdot.org" in the address bar, hit enter, and surf slashdot. Or you can open up IE, type C:\ in the address bar, hit enter, and browse your C drive. If you do one after the other, you can use the back and forward buttons to navigate between the two.
It really isn't that different (for the user at least) to the way that Konqi works; there's nothing really special about it. One big difference is that a lot of third party apps use mshtml.dll to render HTML, as it's a standard system component (but then, that's the entire point of standard components).
M$ is a good name for a company that sues public schools for copying a text editor.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. I imagine that you'd be joining in the general condemnation of a GPL violation, but it's copyright law that gives the GPL its teeth. No copyright law, no way to force people to keep the source open.
Now, kiss my ass.
Ooh, I'm offended. What are you, 12? Do your parents know you use that sort of language?
It's also why Open Office can suck down any M$ DOC.
Well that's not been my experience, but then it's not been my experience for Word, either, so I guess at least in that sense it's feature-complete.
Taking it a step further, I can use Wine, Crossover Office or Parallels to run any Windoze application on any free computer.
No you can't. There's a list of applications that won't run under any of those things as long as both our arms. They're worthwhile projects and the people involved are doing some excellent work, but don't overstate things, they still have a long way to go.
It's equally obvious that Microsoft is unable to understand this.
Well now, either you didn't read TFA, or your mind is so closed that you refuse to believe anything the guy says. Either way, there's not a lot of point debating this particular issue, so I'll just say that the advantages to MS of making it easier to run popular open source software on Windows should be obvious, and leave it at that.
Now, what was your point?
Well, my point was really "Who gives a shit why they're working on getting things interoperating better with Windows, as long as they do? The better interop is, the fewer reasons there are not to deploy Linux. The fewer reasons there are not to deploy Linux, the more deployments there will be. The more deployments there are, the easier it is to increase the number of deployments, the fewer deployments of Windows there will be, and the easier it will be to replace existing Windows deployments with Linux ones."
Of course, I mistook you for someone who cared about increasing adoption of Linux and reducing our dependence on MS's software, rather than just someone who wanted to hurl insults and bitch about things.
Make no mistake. Calling names is one of the most effective ways to push your agenda forward while crippling your enemy.
That's true, but you have to pick your names carefully. Calling open source "communist" is good, as it not only has a grain of truth in it (in that it is indeed a communal effort), it still sets up the right kind of negative imagery in the heads of those you want to affect.
Calling Microsoft "M$" is not good. So it associates Microsoft with money. So what? Name one company that isn't out to make money. The average consumer won't care, because to them, Windows is free with their computer (and usually so is either Works or Office). Software costs money - everything does - but most of theirs won't be being spent directly on MS software. Business people won't care, because they're in the business to make money, and it costs money to do business. Linux might be cheaper, and believe me we use Red Hat extensively where I work, but we buy it. It genuinely doesn't save us much compared to comparable Windows Server licences.
Do you really think those communist, cancer and open sores comments were off the cuff?
Actually, I've only ever seen "open sores" used by ordinary people, often in response to the same tired old BSOD and M$ comments.
You have power divided by speed, giving dimensions of ([E]/[T])/([L]/[T]) ([E] = energy, [T] = time, [L] = length).
Reducing this, we end up with [E]/[L]. However, the dimensions of the Newton are ([M][L])/([T][T]), as the units are kgms^-2. (From F=ma, F is in N, m is in kg, a is in ms^-2)
Personally, I'd rather the bookmarks were sorted in alphabetical order. Hopefully moving to an SQLLite backend will enable users to set up their own ordering preferences as they see fit.
Interoperability is a two-way street; you can not only help others interoperate with you, you can improve your interoperability with them. Either way, everyone's job gets that little bit easier, more stuff just works first time and keeps on working - everyone's a winner.
Look at it this way - the better two things interoperate with one another, the easier it is to replace one with the other.
Oh, and do you have any idea how immature using "M$" makes you look? Resorting to petty name calling does nothing to improve your argument.
And given that he doesn't have admin access to the machine he's using, nothing happens, unless he gets caught doing it, in which case he'll most likely be disciplined (and possibly court martialled).
I work in the private sector, and do a lot of work for various (UK) government departments and related organisations. We have a secure development room for working on particularly sensitive projects. All of the machines are locked down tight. Ordinary users do not have access to the CD drive or the USB ports. If you want to listen to music, you use an iPod or similar (although for a while, they were going to be banned too, due to the voice recording facility most such items have).
I refuse to believe that my company (which is by no means the most stringent in this regard) is more secure than any critical DoD system.
Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system a few unlucky people will be left sitting on a vast pile of gold upon the smoking remains of a planet.
While I understand the point that you're trying to make, surely the survivors are the *lucky* ones...
You'd do better without the histrionics and hyperbole. It's not slavery just because you personally think that you would find it boring and unfulfilling.
Another strange caveat was that the installation did not ask me to make a regular user account. After the installation completed and I rebooted, I had to login as root and manually make the regular user account.
And yet when that happens in the Windows XP install, we (rightly) slam it as a really, really bad idea...
Part of the job of being a parent is to protect your child from the thigns you view as being a threat to them. If you believe that violence and porn are a threat, then yes, you should be monitoring them in any situation in which they may be exposed to them.
If that means that you have to spend an hour or two a day sitting with them while they use the internet, or watch TV, or whatever, then so be it. You could also try explaining to them what it is you don't want them to be looking at, and why. Children tend to respond better to reasoning than edicts. You don't even have to watch their every move like a hawk - just make sure that they're somewhere you have easy access to. Move the PC out of their bedroom and into a communal area, with the screen easily visible.
If you wish to control the sort of content that your kids have access to, then that's your job. Broadcasting regulations (eg no violence, nudity or bad language before 9pm) help, because they're enforceable. The only 100% effective way to enforce that on the Internet is to draw up a whitelist of permissible sites and block the rest; anything else will inevitably allow undesirable content through. Of course, the whitelist similarly cannot be perfect, so you *will* lose access to perfectly innocent sites.
Except when parents can go out and buy filtering software already.
But filtering software is not the answer! It cannot possibly block all sites you would want to be blocked, and most likely will block sites you would not want to be blocked. It teaches the child nothing about personal responsibility or moral values, and if anything encourages them to go behind your back and hide things from you.
It also gives them a pretty poor role model for how to bring up their own kids, should they have any in the future.
If you want your kids to grow up with a particular value set, you have to teach it to them, not simply attempt to block anything that might teach them a different one.
There's a world of difference between leaving your children in the care of a responsible third party for a valid reason (eg educate them, have an evening out for a change, ensure they're cared for while you're unavoidably detained elsewhere, etc), and abdicating (a part of) your day to day responsibilities for no reason other than convenience or laziness on your part.
If you don't want your kids looking at violence or porn, sit with them. Explain to them *why* you don't want them viewing that sort of stuff. Don't just foist the job off to some third party and make them try (and most likely fail) to block it upstream. It's that shirking of parental responsibility that's just plain wrong.
Can't install filtering software? How about sitting down with your kids and keeping an eye on what they're doing instead? Move the PC out to a communal area - the front room or dining room, somewhere you can see it from. Hell, you could even end up taking an actual interest in what they're doing, discussing things with them and perhaps even taking a part in their education (dangerous, I know). You never know, they might even learn a few limits of their own.
God forbid that parents should have to take some personal responsibility for what their children are exposed to. I know parenting isn't easy, but this trend of shoving responsibility and effort off to third parties is sickening.
Text ads or other non-flashing, non-animated ads. Anything that's designed to grab my attention from out of the corner of my eye (or worse, to leap out in front of the content) is very likely to annoy me; anything that annoys me gets blocked. If it means that the website is eventually no longer available to me, well, that sucks, but I think I'll live.
I can already get Doom 3 running at ~70 fps with pretty high graphics settings - are they seriousyl trying to tell me that by adding a second video card and twaeking a little I could get 700 fps?
A lot of people forget that less then 10 years ago you couldn't instant get in contact with anyone you wanted via a cell phone.
That may be the case in your country, but in the UK the first mobile phones were on the market in the late 80s. They were large, bulky, offered poor quality calls and were so expensive that only a few could afford them, but they did exist.
If you mean that it's only in the last decade that the majority of people had a mobile, then you may have a point.
Fair enough. I have a little rule of thumb though - if it *can* be done, someone *will* do it. Never mind why, never mind that it's more effort than it's worth, someone somewhere will do it eventually.
For what it's worth, I posted to news groups with no thought for who might be reading it in the future; fortunately, I don't recall posting anything that anyone could care less about. Sure, I posted to uk.people.gothic, and maybe someone won't employ me because of it, because they hate goths. Well, they'd get all the evidence they need to refuse me a job from my interview in that case...
Slashdot Mirror
Because it reinforces the party line, and is a commonly-held belief around these parts. IE being integrated into the kernel is one of those things that everyone knows, although no-one I've asked has ever been able to provide any proof.
It's possible to share code without making an application part of the operating system. They're called DLLs.
Yes, and the one under discussion currently is called mshtml.dll. IE/Windows Explorer is essentially just a wrapper around that. You can use either interchangeably, the only real difference is the set of default buttons, views, menu options, etc. For example, you can open Windows Explorer, type "slashdot.org" in the address bar, hit enter, and surf slashdot. Or you can open up IE, type C:\ in the address bar, hit enter, and browse your C drive. If you do one after the other, you can use the back and forward buttons to navigate between the two.
It really isn't that different (for the user at least) to the way that Konqi works; there's nothing really special about it. One big difference is that a lot of third party apps use mshtml.dll to render HTML, as it's a standard system component (but then, that's the entire point of standard components).
M$ is a good name for a company that sues public schools for copying a text editor.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. I imagine that you'd be joining in the general condemnation of a GPL violation, but it's copyright law that gives the GPL its teeth. No copyright law, no way to force people to keep the source open.
Now, kiss my ass.
Ooh, I'm offended. What are you, 12? Do your parents know you use that sort of language?
It's also why Open Office can suck down any M$ DOC.
Well that's not been my experience, but then it's not been my experience for Word, either, so I guess at least in that sense it's feature-complete.
Taking it a step further, I can use Wine, Crossover Office or Parallels to run any Windoze application on any free computer.
No you can't. There's a list of applications that won't run under any of those things as long as both our arms. They're worthwhile projects and the people involved are doing some excellent work, but don't overstate things, they still have a long way to go.
It's equally obvious that Microsoft is unable to understand this.
Well now, either you didn't read TFA, or your mind is so closed that you refuse to believe anything the guy says. Either way, there's not a lot of point debating this particular issue, so I'll just say that the advantages to MS of making it easier to run popular open source software on Windows should be obvious, and leave it at that.
Now, what was your point?
Well, my point was really "Who gives a shit why they're working on getting things interoperating better with Windows, as long as they do? The better interop is, the fewer reasons there are not to deploy Linux. The fewer reasons there are not to deploy Linux, the more deployments there will be. The more deployments there are, the easier it is to increase the number of deployments, the fewer deployments of Windows there will be, and the easier it will be to replace existing Windows deployments with Linux ones."
Of course, I mistook you for someone who cared about increasing adoption of Linux and reducing our dependence on MS's software, rather than just someone who wanted to hurl insults and bitch about things.
Make no mistake. Calling names is one of the most effective ways to push your agenda forward while crippling your enemy.
That's true, but you have to pick your names carefully. Calling open source "communist" is good, as it not only has a grain of truth in it (in that it is indeed a communal effort), it still sets up the right kind of negative imagery in the heads of those you want to affect.
Calling Microsoft "M$" is not good. So it associates Microsoft with money. So what? Name one company that isn't out to make money. The average consumer won't care, because to them, Windows is free with their computer (and usually so is either Works or Office). Software costs money - everything does - but most of theirs won't be being spent directly on MS software. Business people won't care, because they're in the business to make money, and it costs money to do business. Linux might be cheaper, and believe me we use Red Hat extensively where I work, but we buy it. It genuinely doesn't save us much compared to comparable Windows Server licences.
Do you really think those communist, cancer and open sores comments were off the cuff?
Actually, I've only ever seen "open sores" used by ordinary people, often in response to the same tired old BSOD and M$ comments.
You have power divided by speed, giving dimensions of ([E]/[T])/([L]/[T]) ([E] = energy, [T] = time, [L] = length).
:)
Reducing this, we end up with [E]/[L]. However, the dimensions of the Newton are ([M][L])/([T][T]), as the units are kgms^-2. (From F=ma, F is in N, m is in kg, a is in ms^-2)
In other words, your equation is wrong
Personally, I'd rather the bookmarks were sorted in alphabetical order. Hopefully moving to an SQLLite backend will enable users to set up their own ordering preferences as they see fit.
Interoperability is a two-way street; you can not only help others interoperate with you, you can improve your interoperability with them. Either way, everyone's job gets that little bit easier, more stuff just works first time and keeps on working - everyone's a winner.
Look at it this way - the better two things interoperate with one another, the easier it is to replace one with the other.
Oh, and do you have any idea how immature using "M$" makes you look? Resorting to petty name calling does nothing to improve your argument.
And given that he doesn't have admin access to the machine he's using, nothing happens, unless he gets caught doing it, in which case he'll most likely be disciplined (and possibly court martialled).
I work in the private sector, and do a lot of work for various (UK) government departments and related organisations. We have a secure development room for working on particularly sensitive projects. All of the machines are locked down tight. Ordinary users do not have access to the CD drive or the USB ports. If you want to listen to music, you use an iPod or similar (although for a while, they were going to be banned too, due to the voice recording facility most such items have).
I refuse to believe that my company (which is by no means the most stringent in this regard) is more secure than any critical DoD system.
Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system a few unlucky people will be left sitting on a vast pile of gold upon the smoking remains of a planet .
While I understand the point that you're trying to make, surely the survivors are the *lucky* ones...
It's not work, but slavery.
You'd do better without the histrionics and hyperbole. It's not slavery just because you personally think that you would find it boring and unfulfilling.
you could install Vista, or you could buy a 360 and then a Mac for real work.
The 360 is going to cost more than Vista on its own, so in purely monetary terms, your alternative really isn't that good an idea.
Another strange caveat was that the installation did not ask me to make a regular user account. After the installation completed and I rebooted, I had to login as root and manually make the regular user account.
And yet when that happens in the Windows XP install, we (rightly) slam it as a really, really bad idea...
Do we have to stoop to this to make our point?
Slashdot: Where if MS or SCO does it, it's FUD, but if we do it, it's insightful commentary.
because most admins get so irritated at having to type sudo before every command that they'll just sudo into a shell and be done with it
So configure sudo to prevent them from doing so.
Part of the job of being a parent is to protect your child from the thigns you view as being a threat to them. If you believe that violence and porn are a threat, then yes, you should be monitoring them in any situation in which they may be exposed to them.
If that means that you have to spend an hour or two a day sitting with them while they use the internet, or watch TV, or whatever, then so be it. You could also try explaining to them what it is you don't want them to be looking at, and why. Children tend to respond better to reasoning than edicts. You don't even have to watch their every move like a hawk - just make sure that they're somewhere you have easy access to. Move the PC out of their bedroom and into a communal area, with the screen easily visible.
If you wish to control the sort of content that your kids have access to, then that's your job. Broadcasting regulations (eg no violence, nudity or bad language before 9pm) help, because they're enforceable. The only 100% effective way to enforce that on the Internet is to draw up a whitelist of permissible sites and block the rest; anything else will inevitably allow undesirable content through. Of course, the whitelist similarly cannot be perfect, so you *will* lose access to perfectly innocent sites.
Except when parents can go out and buy filtering software already.
But filtering software is not the answer! It cannot possibly block all sites you would want to be blocked, and most likely will block sites you would not want to be blocked. It teaches the child nothing about personal responsibility or moral values, and if anything encourages them to go behind your back and hide things from you.
It also gives them a pretty poor role model for how to bring up their own kids, should they have any in the future.
If you want your kids to grow up with a particular value set, you have to teach it to them, not simply attempt to block anything that might teach them a different one.
There's always one wisearse, isn't there?
There's a world of difference between leaving your children in the care of a responsible third party for a valid reason (eg educate them, have an evening out for a change, ensure they're cared for while you're unavoidably detained elsewhere, etc), and abdicating (a part of) your day to day responsibilities for no reason other than convenience or laziness on your part.
If you don't want your kids looking at violence or porn, sit with them. Explain to them *why* you don't want them viewing that sort of stuff. Don't just foist the job off to some third party and make them try (and most likely fail) to block it upstream. It's that shirking of parental responsibility that's just plain wrong.
Cry me a fucking river.
Can't install filtering software? How about sitting down with your kids and keeping an eye on what they're doing instead? Move the PC out to a communal area - the front room or dining room, somewhere you can see it from. Hell, you could even end up taking an actual interest in what they're doing, discussing things with them and perhaps even taking a part in their education (dangerous, I know). You never know, they might even learn a few limits of their own.
God forbid that parents should have to take some personal responsibility for what their children are exposed to. I know parenting isn't easy, but this trend of shoving responsibility and effort off to third parties is sickening.
Text ads or other non-flashing, non-animated ads. Anything that's designed to grab my attention from out of the corner of my eye (or worse, to leap out in front of the content) is very likely to annoy me; anything that annoys me gets blocked. If it means that the website is eventually no longer available to me, well, that sucks, but I think I'll live.
I can already get Doom 3 running at ~70 fps with pretty high graphics settings - are they seriousyl trying to tell me that by adding a second video card and twaeking a little I could get 700 fps?
I'll believe it when I see it (which I won't).
A lot of people forget that less then 10 years ago you couldn't instant get in contact with anyone you wanted via a cell phone.
That may be the case in your country, but in the UK the first mobile phones were on the market in the late 80s. They were large, bulky, offered poor quality calls and were so expensive that only a few could afford them, but they did exist.
If you mean that it's only in the last decade that the majority of people had a mobile, then you may have a point.
Because a significant percentage wouldn't want to be even if they had the chance.
(Oh, and the small matter of there being far too much manual labour that current robotics tech simply isn't up to - ie almost all of it)
Fair enough. I have a little rule of thumb though - if it *can* be done, someone *will* do it. Never mind why, never mind that it's more effort than it's worth, someone somewhere will do it eventually.
For what it's worth, I posted to news groups with no thought for who might be reading it in the future; fortunately, I don't recall posting anything that anyone could care less about. Sure, I posted to uk.people.gothic, and maybe someone won't employ me because of it, because they hate goths. Well, they'd get all the evidence they need to refuse me a job from my interview in that case...
People really should not submit articles if they have no clue what they're talking about.
People really should not approve articles if they have no clue what they're talking about.
instead of the experienced users who will know how to change it.
We will? Do you mean that it'll be hidden away inside about:config somewhere?