Bits are bits...I agree that you should always use what works for the task at hand. If you're focused on Python, it's probably because of what you're doing now.
Mozilla is not limited to being a UI or part of an IDE...or a web browser. The ability to hook it up for your own uses is what makes it valuable.
If your tasks change, you might see value in using Mozilla. I've not found it to be bloated, but it's not built to be a single-function widget...so I don't need to see it work like one. Stripping out the parts that aren't needed -- and that will happen -- will make it a bit peppier. The only question is what parts aren't needed? It's limited to the task at hand.
I didn't mean to imply they were. This one was fairly experienced -- but not a tech -- so I was a bit surprised about thier dead-pan answer. In fact, I'll be quite happy to take any spare Mac hardware -- PPC+ -- you might have!
Sorry, but Chrome is a poor excuse for native UI widgets. Even if you can match the look - not always possible - the behavior is usually pretty shoddy.
I don't get that you're "sorry".
Instead I hear "Bitch, bitch, bitch". Do you have access to the source or not? What complaints do you have now? Are you doing anything to change things, or is it all complaints?
A slightly more educated Mac user might have commented on how the Mozilla widgets look like 'Winblows', and there was no way in hell that he was going to touch any Mozilla-based application until it started to look and act like a Mac app.
And, if they were a little more informed they'd know they'd know about chrome!
Maybe I'm a little nuts. When I mention this to others, they don't seem to get it. I'll let you decide...
I'm not surprised that Komodo uses parts of Mozilla this way. It's an obvious and practical job that Mozilla is well suited for.
In the next six months, I would be stunned if more programs don't use parts of Mozilla in exactly the way that Komodo does -- both in public and for private projects -- from custom document archiving, information kiosks, and no doubt in the 'Internet Appliances' we're seeing more and more of.
I don't expect that most of these new programs will be anything like web browsers. Mozilla -- as the mother of all monster widget sets -- is well suited to to be part of just about any program.
Mozilla has the ability to turn into a pervasive toolkit, as pervasive as Perl but even more visible to the user.
I pointed this out to a Mac user once, and they responded flatly "Well, I like IE".
Not getting the point, I said "Well, you could use IE as your browser, but parts of Mozilla will show up in more programs...it's the basis of many other programs."
Mac user: Blink. Blink. Silence.
On a different note, the only thing that concerns me with Mozilla are security problems with XML, though I'd expect XML engines to have problems once people push it a bit more. The security problems that I'm not aware of, similar to the ability to get postscript printers to do odd things -- like serve up web pages.
Where can I find the web sit for the company quantum corp?
Where can I find stock quotes for quantum corp?
Where can I find a search engine specializing in academia?
How do I search a PDF (Acrobat) document?
Could you please direct me to the internet search engine 37.com?
Re:Linux High Availability project
on
Linux Failover?
·
· Score: 2
This tactic works...and a version of it has been used in commercial minicomputer systems for a while. I haven't been to the linux high-availabilty site yet, but they probably got the idea from existing commercial products.
I worked on an HP-mini, and it used a similar setup. Basically, the two *identical* minis shared a SCSI bus with redundent media. The backup mini would ping the other one over the SCSI bus, and if it didn't get a response it would take the IP of the first one. Worked damn well.
The only drawback is that the backup isn't doing anything but issuing a ping, mirroring the system RAM in machine 1, and waiting. The upside is that short of a missle strike, you had very high reliablity. Most failures didn't even cause a pause.
I don't see any problem with using the same method with more systems, though a cluster starts to look attractive after a while.
That's why you register with one of the flag of convience countries. You know those little Carribean nations that do little but serve as banking havens and such (the Caymans jump to mind).
Or, even better, with a country that is about to change governments!
Re:In related news: Andover are doing their bit to
on
Red Hat Helps Fund EFF
·
· Score: 2
I thought it was a joke...isn't it? UUD has been a feature in newsreaders for many years. Pan _does_ look interesting, and has some special features for handling binaries. I'll probably give it a try now that I'm reminded of it again.
If the RIAA really is suing SuperPimp can someone confirm it and post the news here?
A laptop with a charged-up flywheel in it might exhibit some interesting gyroscopic effects... you could pick it up, but wouldn't be able to turn it upside down?
Hell, put little feet on it, have it purr, and you'll have a replacement for a cat!
StarOffice...after using it for a while, I'm forced to agree with you.
Having it closed-source does make dealing with it a pain at times. There are stupid bugs, such as when you sync to a Palm Pilot, it screws up the Palm's address book. The beta of 5.2 supposedly fixes this and a few other problems. Yet, adding support for other PDAs or any other feature is at the discression of Sun -- not the users.
Still, what they ship is quite nice. That it would be better if the source were available and truely open is not even a question.
StarOffice Tip: To load an app without that "Desktop", use something like this for each app;
Why should anyone stop doing what their doing? If it works use it, if it's more fun stick with it!
I agree. That's the advice I give to others who think they have to keep upgrading/buying software as if they were adding fuel to a car.
...yet, then again, I gave away a box of OS/2 software -- including 3 boxed versions and a dozen+ commercial apps -- to someone at the begining of the year. I hadn't used it for a couple years and had moved exclusively to Linux.
But then again, I've got a small group of abandoned SPARC Station 1 and 2s here also...go figure!
As a former OS/2 user, I come here to bury OS/2 not praise it. Praise is useful to the living, not the dead, and then only when deserved.
IBM's announcemnt a few weeks ago about a "transition" from OS/2 to other operating systems just made official what has been a fact for a few years. OS/2 hasn't been IBM's focus, a smarter multi-OS whatever the customer wants approach is what they've obviously used.
Oddly enough...after another look at the same announcement today shows that IBM has changed the text...making it sound even positive...as if OS/2 isn't really going away.
Don't believe a bit of the soft-padded inclusion of OS/2 -- there's no practical reason to use it.
The Register got it right when they talked about the original announcement.
As a former OS/2 user, I have to ask that others not waste time on Amiga-style wishes to revive any part of OS/2. The WPS was sweet, but unfortunately the GUI as a whole was unstable. Sure, it was better then what the other guys offered but that's faint praise.
Since then, the tools and operating systems have improved. Any OS that has fallen behind won't be able to keep up without borrowing from the leaders. I'm even doubtful that closed operating systems can keep ahead of open ones -- even Apple seems to have realized that.
While it would be great to take a look at the code from OS/2 -- and maybe even incorporate a few parts -- it's not realistic. Most of the parts have been superceeded by better, open, programs.
Even the potentially good stuff such as the WPS GUI and the b-tree support in HPFS is co-owned with Microsoft -- so there's no chance that we'll ever see it.
Besides, with KDE/Gnome and the file system changes that coming along, there's very little to pick from the carcas if it were available.
Microsoft is playing a fast, loose game with the concept of a "trade secret" in a way that completely violates the spirit of the law.
EXACTLY! To emphasise this:
Microsoft has a licence that says other people/companies who recieve these "Trade Secrets" are required to treat the secrets as if they were thier own confidential and private property.
Microsoft then tosses these same all-important "Trade Secrets" about as if they were releasing a press release.
So, if Microsoft can't be responsible for protecting it's own "Trade Secrets" with the care they insist upon...why should anyone else?
Hmmm...I agree it looks like something is going on -- maybe even your theory of it. At this point, I'm just not sure.
Microsoft can't be as stupid as they seem to be...so what's the real deal? If it's an attempt to confuse people, they're suceeding. They have Washington D.C.'s Mayor Marion Barry's level of arrogance -- something that is not easy to pull off and wins no wars.
Nothing they've done has completely passed the sniff test...and the abuse of Kerbos seems too bold and reckless. Why mangle it to make it propriatory, when the standard isn't thiers?
They must think they can change the "standard" regaurdless of what others do, and then it becomes thier own. It's just thievery, and amazing that they feel entitled to call thier mangling a "Trade Secret". Please!
Most cable modems have QOS/traffic shaping built-in, so I don't think this will do much for you. It might help with ping rates, but not bandwidth. (Stomp all over me if I'm wrong!)
This one can't be blamed on VBS -- JavaScript was used for this exploit. Since Hotmail requires JavaScript, this means that all users -- not just those with Windows -- could have been victimized by this exploit.
This one could impact other web-email sites.
ObBias: Email shouldn't be in HTML, let alone have embeded scipts...strip it all folks!
Slashdot Mirror
It turns out that people who don't have a good education tend to fuck a lot.
If you want people to stop having babies, give them condoms and TVs. Everything else is secondary.
Mozilla is not limited to being a UI or part of an IDE...or a web browser. The ability to hook it up for your own uses is what makes it valuable.
If your tasks change, you might see value in using Mozilla. I've not found it to be bloated, but it's not built to be a single-function widget...so I don't need to see it work like one. Stripping out the parts that aren't needed -- and that will happen -- will make it a bit peppier. The only question is what parts aren't needed? It's limited to the task at hand.
Play nice. Not all Mac users are newbies.
I didn't mean to imply they were. This one was fairly experienced -- but not a tech -- so I was a bit surprised about thier dead-pan answer. In fact, I'll be quite happy to take any spare Mac hardware -- PPC+ -- you might have!
Sorry, but Chrome is a poor excuse for native UI widgets. Even if you can match the look - not always possible - the behavior is usually pretty shoddy.
I don't get that you're "sorry".
Instead I hear "Bitch, bitch, bitch". Do you have access to the source or not? What complaints do you have now? Are you doing anything to change things, or is it all complaints?
A slightly more educated Mac user might have commented on how the Mozilla widgets look like 'Winblows', and there was no way in hell that he was going to touch any Mozilla-based application until it started to look and act like a Mac app.
And, if they were a little more informed they'd know they'd know about chrome!
I'm not surprised that Komodo uses parts of Mozilla this way. It's an obvious and practical job that Mozilla is well suited for.
In the next six months, I would be stunned if more programs don't use parts of Mozilla in exactly the way that Komodo does -- both in public and for private projects -- from custom document archiving, information kiosks, and no doubt in the 'Internet Appliances' we're seeing more and more of.
I don't expect that most of these new programs will be anything like web browsers. Mozilla -- as the mother of all monster widget sets -- is well suited to to be part of just about any program.
Mozilla has the ability to turn into a pervasive toolkit, as pervasive as Perl but even more visible to the user.
I pointed this out to a Mac user once, and they responded flatly "Well, I like IE".
Not getting the point, I said "Well, you could use IE as your browser, but parts of Mozilla will show up in more programs...it's the basis of many other programs."
Mac user: Blink. Blink. Silence.
On a different note, the only thing that concerns me with Mozilla are security problems with XML, though I'd expect XML engines to have problems once people push it a bit more. The security problems that I'm not aware of, similar to the ability to get postscript printers to do odd things -- like serve up web pages.
Where can I find stock quotes for quantum corp?
Where can I find a search engine specializing in academia?
How do I search a PDF (Acrobat) document?
Could you please direct me to the internet search engine 37.com?
I worked on an HP-mini, and it used a similar setup. Basically, the two *identical* minis shared a SCSI bus with redundent media. The backup mini would ping the other one over the SCSI bus, and if it didn't get a response it would take the IP of the first one. Worked damn well.
The only drawback is that the backup isn't doing anything but issuing a ping, mirroring the system RAM in machine 1, and waiting. The upside is that short of a missle strike, you had very high reliablity. Most failures didn't even cause a pause.
I don't see any problem with using the same method with more systems, though a cluster starts to look attractive after a while.
"McSoilent Green ... is McPeople!"
That's why you register with one of the flag of convience countries. You know those little Carribean nations that do little but serve as banking havens and such (the Caymans jump to mind).
Or, even better, with a country that is about to change governments!
If the RIAA really is suing SuperPimp can someone confirm it and post the news here?
I'd really like some confirmation on this...
The problem with Mach is that it tends to make everything so slooow whereas the pristine BSD kernel is quite fast.
In a short while, CPU speed won't matter -- IO will. It's already the main bottleneck. Another 18 months...another doubling...and who'll even notice?
A laptop with a charged-up flywheel in it might exhibit some interesting gyroscopic effects... you could pick it up, but wouldn't be able to turn it upside down?
Hell, put little feet on it, have it purr, and you'll have a replacement for a cat!
StarOffice...after using it for a while, I'm forced to agree with you.
Having it closed-source does make dealing with it a pain at times. There are stupid bugs, such as when you sync to a Palm Pilot, it screws up the Palm's address book. The beta of 5.2 supposedly fixes this and a few other problems. Yet, adding support for other PDAs or any other feature is at the discression of Sun -- not the users.
Still, what they ship is quite nice. That it would be better if the source were available and truely open is not even a question.
StarOffice Tip: To load an app without that "Desktop", use something like this for each app;
/home/USER_NAME/Office51/bin/soffice private:factory/swriter%f
The first one is for the spreadsheet, the second for the word processor. More tips at the FAQ page;
http://www.wernerroth.de/en/staro ffice/faq/faq.html
Why should anyone stop doing what their doing? If it works use it, if it's more fun stick with it!
I agree. That's the advice I give to others who think they have to keep upgrading/buying software as if they were adding fuel to a car.
...yet, then again, I gave away a box of OS/2 software -- including 3 boxed versions and a dozen+ commercial apps -- to someone at the begining of the year. I hadn't used it for a couple years and had moved exclusively to Linux.
But then again, I've got a small group of abandoned SPARC Station 1 and 2s here also...go figure!
As a former OS/2 user, I come here to bury OS/2 not praise it. Praise is useful to the living, not the dead, and then only when deserved.
IBM's announcemnt a few weeks ago about a "transition" from OS/2 to other operating systems just made official what has been a fact for a few years. OS/2 hasn't been IBM's focus, a smarter multi-OS whatever the customer wants approach is what they've obviously used.
Oddly enough...after another look at the same announcement today shows that IBM has changed the text...making it sound even positive...as if OS/2 isn't really going away.
Don't believe a bit of the soft-padded inclusion of OS/2 -- there's no practical reason to use it.
The Register got it right when they talked about the original announcement.
As a former OS/2 user, I have to ask that others not waste time on Amiga-style wishes to revive any part of OS/2. The WPS was sweet, but unfortunately the GUI as a whole was unstable. Sure, it was better then what the other guys offered but that's faint praise.
Since then, the tools and operating systems have improved. Any OS that has fallen behind won't be able to keep up without borrowing from the leaders. I'm even doubtful that closed operating systems can keep ahead of open ones -- even Apple seems to have realized that.
While it would be great to take a look at the code from OS/2 -- and maybe even incorporate a few parts -- it's not realistic. Most of the parts have been superceeded by better, open, programs.
Even the potentially good stuff such as the WPS GUI and the b-tree support in HPFS is co-owned with Microsoft -- so there's no chance that we'll ever see it.
Besides, with KDE/Gnome and the file system changes that coming along, there's very little to pick from the carcas if it were available.
Noone wants to write buggy code...
Well, mister know-it-all...how do you go about getting really obnoxious amounts of money out of the customer?
Damn! That article is a hell of a rant...and on target. I'd give you an extra point if I was a moderator, but I'm not...
Microsoft is playing a fast, loose game with the concept of a "trade secret" in a way that completely violates the spirit of the law.
EXACTLY! To emphasise this:
Microsoft can't be as stupid as they seem to be...so what's the real deal? If it's an attempt to confuse people, they're suceeding. They have Washington D.C.'s Mayor Marion Barry's level of arrogance -- something that is not easy to pull off and wins no wars.
Nothing they've done has completely passed the sniff test...and the abuse of Kerbos seems too bold and reckless. Why mangle it to make it propriatory, when the standard isn't thiers?
They must think they can change the "standard" regaurdless of what others do, and then it becomes thier own. It's just thievery, and amazing that they feel entitled to call thier mangling a "Trade Secret". Please!
Ticket to the moon...7,500,000 shares
You'll go where I want Today T-shirt...1/2 share
Pressurized space suit...7,500 shares
Solid rocket boosters...450,000 shares
Code that calculates yards instead of meters...free
A live HDTV video feed...priceless
Most cable modems have QOS/traffic shaping built-in, so I don't think this will do much for you. It might help with ping rates, but not bandwidth. (Stomp all over me if I'm wrong!)
HTML and RTF allow us to format email far more effectively than plain text ever will. Shouldn't we just make them more secure?
You use RTF for email? HTML -- if stripped down to the most basic tags -- I can understand, but why RTF?
This one can't be blamed on VBS -- JavaScript was used for this exploit. Since Hotmail requires JavaScript, this means that all users -- not just those with Windows -- could have been victimized by this exploit.
This one could impact other web-email sites.
ObBias: Email shouldn't be in HTML, let alone have embeded scipts...strip it all folks!