Once IE is utterly the uncontested king, and there are no other browsers to compete, you can bet it will not remain free.
It's already not free - it's tied to Windows. IE is used as a method to tie users into Windows and to force upgrades to the latest versions of Windows by discontinuing support of IE for previous OSes. Yeah, there's the Mac and the UNIX versions of IE, but they're not really the same product and they don't really work as well. (Sorta - comments about Mac IE's supperior standards compliance are basically irrelevent.)
Face it - when the web becomes unreadable without Internet Explorer, where do you go? You basically have to move to Windows. (Oops, Mac IE won't work with MacOS 10.4 because we went out of our way to find some way to make it rely on MacOS 9! UNIX IE discontinued due to lack of demand. You get the idea.) All the web-development stuff I do (except with a company that still uses a custom Netscape 4) has discontinued any Netscape support. Since Netscape 6.1 no longer supports the <SELECT> tag I've completely stopped supporting it.
It should be noted that "not supporting" in this case means that if it works under IE 5, it goes - if it doesn't, it's worked on until it does. Doesn't work in NS6? Tough. And a lot of other websites are moving that way too. Now while you're still allowed to try and view the content with NS4, it probably won't work. It may work in Moz and NS6, but I dunno, and I don't test it. In fact, Moz and NS6 are explicitly not supported in the application described above where NS4 is supported since although it'll work with NS4 and IE, it won't with Moz/NS6.
This is why IE will always be free - it's become Windows. And Windows is most decidely not free, so IE isn't really free after all, is it? It's just a method to tie you into MS platforms - when you can only experience the web via IE 7.0 running on Windows 2005, there's no reason to up the cost of IE - MS just increases the price of Windows.
ActiveX used as a plugin architecture is just as secure as Netscape's plugin architecture was. What you're thinking about is ActiveX being used in the Java Applet sense.
ActiveX controls run as the user on the system - there's no "sandbox" and the only security is that it'll only run digitally signed controls. And on the default permissions, it'll ask you first. That's it.
As a plugin framework, ActiveX - well, works. I personally do not enjoy trying to write ActiveX controls, but I've never really tried to other than a simple one that didn't work. It seems to work about as well as the Netscape plugin API for simple plugins. It's just as secure - both involve running native code as the user - and it's actually much easier to install new plugins with.
MS's entire browser technology is much more extensible than Netscape's ever will be, and ActiveX controls as plugins are one part of that. ActiveX controls as downloaded content are a security nightmare, but as plugins, it's just as secure as any Netscape plugin.
Ah - my cheap-ass local cable monopoly doesn't carry Cartoon Network (actually, the new merged version does, but since the old local monopoly didn't, the new one doesn't either - ah, choices).
And I read every reply, although I don't admit to it:)
Since the screen says that the Advanced eBook Processor is Copyright (whenever) by Dmitri Sklyarov, the FBI decided that he was the person responsible for "trafficking" the illegal circumvention device.
Look it up in the complaint - it's far too late in the life of this story for me to bother quoting the actual bit but the next time this story is rehashed and someone says he was arrested for speaking at Defcon, I'll find the relavent quotes.
Hmm... I came too late for a root level post to be seen and this place seems the best place to attach a non-thread specific post that might actually A) be seen and B) be answered, but...
Since I couldn't find any answers to either or the questions (and I did look in both stories), I have to ask two things:
Why is the test... uh, site... called "Banjo?" Doesn't seem to go with the Futurama motif - oh wait, that's just slashcode:) - seriously, though, why Banjo?
Who's the cartoon character saying Banjo over the Slashdot logo? For a bit, I thought it was Batman but looking closer I don't think so anymore...
Why not set up your router to pass everything on the DHCP port (53?) to a firewall and block returns from incorrect MAC addresses? Actually, I guess this might not work if you have hubs between computers and nothing really "smart" until it hits the gateway. Although it should be possible to set up a network monitor that sends out DHCP requests every hour and alerts the admins if it's getting a response from an illegal MAC - automate it further and shut down that user, assuming every wall drop is separate.
As any real net admin by now can tell, I've never run a network involving connections to other networks; don't really understand the DHCP protocol; and have no real idea what I'm talking about. But I'm fairly certain that there's a solution to that problem to be found.
Besides, it's very nice to have a network set up for DHCP since then when clubs try and run LAN parties, all the club netadmins have to do is set up a DHCP server running on the LAN party LAN and then all the incoming people who know just about enough to cart their computers over and not much more can just plug into the network and go without worrying about network settings. This solves the problem of trying to give out IPs and watching as the people go back to their dorms with the LAN IP and can't get back online.
This is extremely helpful when various dorms are on different subnets and will try and route packets to a non-accessible gateway if left to static settings.
Actually, I agree that this is just "we're the best" masturbation, but not for the reasons you mentioned:
If anyone had bothered to read the article, they'd see that this was a major victory for... X-Windows. Maybe. Basically, they've moved all the applications onto a central server which happens to be running Linux. The rest of the clients are running some sort of "thin client," and pull the information off the core server. Wowee, KDE instead of CDE. Most of the actual applications, though, are proprietary - WordPerfect, Inprise, and other commercial applications, some of them running on another server running a commerical OS.
So for the actual work, OSS loses yet again and the useful applications are all being written by companies. What a victory for Linux and the Open Source Army! In reality, it's a win for ASP-type services.
...arrested for something as simple as speaking at a convention.
If you're going to argue the case, at least get the facts straight - there was a criminal complaint against him before he came to the US (it's dated July 10th), and he was only arrested once the FBI found out that he was in Las Vegas (on July 17th).
He was arrested specifically because the copyright to the Advanced eBook Processor was assigned to him - leading the FBI to believe that he is the one responsible for it. He was also arrested because the software could be purchased in the United States and was purchased in the United States. This doesn't make the DMCA any more fair, but at least realize that he wasn't arrested for speech, but for trafficking in an illegal copyright-circumvention device.
Re:Mozilla ... Netscape ... what't the difference?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
IE's HTML parser is crap, if the HTML is fscked it guesses what it should look like. it shouldn't do that
Uh, yes it should - it's always a pain when a third-party site doesn't display, and you can't fix it. Although it would be nice to have a mode that did strict testing for your own pages - oh wait, they do. Just add the appropriate DOCTYPE.
try loading a page that is not reachable, not only does the IE window loading the page hang but ALL IE windows are completely locked up
What the hell are you smoking? Are you using IE for Win 3.1? IE 5.0 doesn't do that on any computer I've used, 98SE or 2K. And IE6.0beta on XP most certainly doesn't do it. Granted, if one window crashes the browser, all the windows for that process are lost, but at least with IE you can run multiple processes - which you can't do with Mozilla.
IE is integrated into windows, there is a Mac version but it was developed independent from the windows version. what does this tell us: IE is not at all portable
Uh, so? Very fex applications are really portable, and Mozilla isn't an exception - most of the parsing code is portable, but when you're dealing with GUI code, and not using Mozilla's hideous chrome hack and actually (gasp!) using the native GUI then it'll generally require rewritting large portions of code.
mozilla is WAY more flexible than IE will ever be. a few examples: you can modify the GUI or even build completely different applications based on mozilla in XUL, Mozilla can be easily embedded, and not just through an activeX component, it can e.g. even be embedded in a java app.
This is actually two points, so I'll tackle the first one - uh, first.
You can modify the GUI in IE too - in a sensible way - you can customize the rebars and add buttons and the like. With your mouse. Without restarting IE. Right click on any toolbar and choose "customize." You can't do that in Mozilla, and changing stuff is a damned pain, involving JavaScript and XUL. And if you think changing the "look" is important - you're wrong. Having a consistant look should be of highest importance, but Mozilla decided to go their own path.
And come November when I'm running XP, Mozilla will look really strange in the Luna-scape. Oh well.
Your second point about embedding is interesting, seeing as ActiveX is the way to embed controls in other applications in Windows (not just webpages, any app can embed any ActiveX control). And Moz does this too. I've never seen Mozilla embed via Java though, link anyone?
Microsoft keeps adding useless non-standard features claiming 'webdesigners' want them (marquee anyone?) , but they still don't have decent PNG (alpha transparency) support, something LOTS of designers would like.
It's not like <BLINK>Netscape listened to their customers either</BLINK>.
A Slash editor who is logged in (editor accounts are separate from user accounts, but most/. editors seem to use the same name) has infinite moderation points, plus the ability to delete posts.
And yes, they do moderate: I remember Hemos telling the WPI ACM that they spend time moderating down the trolls after a story goes live.
Re:I'm a disappointed GNOME user...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
KDE Libraries are released under LGPL. Check before making conclusions.
Qt is not. Check before assuming that just because some portions of the desktop are LGPL that the entire thing is.
Re:I'm a disappointed GNOME user...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
It also comes with the time-travel feature,...
That's one way to beat the competition - go to the past and release before them!
Re:While we're discussing GNOME...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Mandrake 8.0 essentially comes with Gnome 1.4.0 (as far as I can tell) - there's little need to reinstall the stuff. The only problem is that it's a bitch to figure out how to get xinit to use Gnome - ends up you need to do something like export DESKTOP=Gnome in your.bashrc - or completely rewrite your.xinit scripts.
Re:New file selection dialog
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's the goddamn Windows 2K file selection dialog, with the same damned problems it has.
Has anyone at GNOME ever done task analysis about what the user is most likely going to be doing when trying to save a file? While the shortcut bar to the left is nice (and I truly hope there's some obvious way to add new shortcuts, via the dialog), the most common task is to find the folder where the file either is (on open) or should be (on save) - ie, a tree view of files, or a separate list of folders from the list of available files. The old Gnome dialog used to separate the folders from the files - the new one apparently doesn't (although that completion is nice) - although there is evidently a mode to set it to.
Given that the dialog is already so damned big, couldn't a tree view be placed somewhere? And I really hope the greyed-out Folder icon next to the file type drop-down is "Create New Folder," another very common task when saving files - all the examples are evidently showing a file being opened, so I suppose removing the option on open sorta makes sense - although disabling it on open is a bad idea, IMHO.
Re:I'm a disappointed GNOME user...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They backed GNOME because it's licensed under the LGPL and not the GPL. It makes a big difference in the corporate world, and is why you are probably never going to see commericial applications under KDE, but you probably will under GNOME (eventually).
(For an example, the "official" Linux AIM client is written to use GTK+ for this reason.)
(Oh, and if anyone tries to explain to me that you can still sell GPL software, I know, but understand that most companies aren't thinking that way: the very release of source is considered dangerous to most companies. The $1500 fee might be OK, but as long as it's possible to run GNOME apps on most Linux desktops (even if the main desktop is KDE), anyone looking to write commericial software is most likely going to stick to the LGPL-ed GNOME.)
Consumer Reports tests consumer products. That's what they do. They then report on the relative merits of their tests. Contrast with Elcomsoft, that apparently sells spamsoftware and stuff that breaks a copyright protection mechanism.
Consumer Reports sells a magazine dedicated to telling people about flaws in products and relative merits. Elcomsoft was selling a product explicitly designed to exploit a flaw Adobe's software.
Not that any of the above really matters, since Consumer Reports is trying to help consumers, Elcomsoft is trying to make money off pirates (arr, matey). There's really no legitamate reason to use AeBPr (Lost the book? Show the receipt, get a new one. There - no need for backup.) - whereas there are plenty of legal reasons to want to know if your car will blow up. (I dare someone to come up with an illegal one. Just 'cause I think it would be funny.)
Even if you don't agree with the above (I'm not sure even I do) you have to admit that Consumer Reports just discloses problems, while Elcomsoft exploits problems. If you want to prove Adobe has bad encryption, mail 'em. Talk with 'em. But don't sell a product to exploit that.
IIS stands for Internet Information Services - that includes FTP and HTTP. IIS is usually used as a webserver, but you can also use it as a FTP server and various other servers, all through the same "friendly" interface. You can install IIS without the webserver and with various other interfaces.
My install of Win2K (hey, I'm at work, writing ASPs - it's a paycheck, layoff) has the following IIS options:
Common Files and Documentation as items - the Common Files are required, Docs are useful
FTP Server
FrontPage 2000 Server Extensions (allows FrontPage to post pages via the HTTP server)
Internet Information Services Snap-In - some sort of managment utility
Personal Web Server - actually, a GUI for idiots who want to screw themselves over with bad IIS installs (it's basically a on/off switch for the webserver plus some pretty slides)
SMTP Service - an SMTP server
Visual InterDev plugin - same as FrontPage extensions, but for InterDev
World Wide Web Server - what most people call "IIS"
IIS is just Microsofts server platform, it isn't just a webserver - that's why you have to install it with a FTP server - it contains some core files along with pretty graphical management software. If it helps, think of it like inetd - it also does configuration and other management "stuff." (I'm not sure exactly what the "Common Files" are and what they do - I think they're mainly the configuration/management utilities though.)
And the Modern theme is very nice and durable, which makes IE look very tired. Great work by all involved!
Just wait until you see IE 6 in XP - it is so much nicer than the "Modern" theme. With all the Luna goodness (minus the messed-up scrollbars - haven't tried RC1, might be fixed), it's really quite a pretty browser.
MUCH nicer looking than Mozilla, more colorful, better CSS support (well - as far as I can tell, I haven't done a detailed analysis, but so far I haven't run into too many bugs) - P3P support, image blocking support - it's really nice.
I'm not contesting that - I was trying to point out (poorly, I'll admit) that Microsoft has basically forced themselves into a corner. I see two possible outcomes if they are forced to remove IE from their operating systems:
Practically every Windows application under the sun will require you to install IE for some reason. (It should be noted that the HTML help is a vast improvement over previous help systems, and I for one would not like to return to the old Win3.1 style help system. This might force applications that otherwise wouldn't require IE to require it. It's easier than a custom help system, after all.)
Practically every OEM under the sun bundles IE for Microsoft anyway - either by MS giving them discounts to do so (which would probably be illegal) or by simply forcing IE via typically bundled software - like word processors and the like.
The fight isn't over IE anymore - they won, even if they lose the court battle. The new fight will be over bundling other features - an HTML viewer has just become too useful.
Yeah, right. They can't remove Internet Explorer anymore - that would break WinAmp, the lasted AOL Instant Messenger, the help system...
The latest versions of WinAmp include a "minibrowser" that is... the IE HTML control. All the latest "help" files (think texinfo pages, man pages, what have you) are done via HTML... rendered in... the IE HTML control. The latest IM, released today, starts up with this "AIM Today" screen... which is a webpage... rendered via the IE HTML control.
For added fun, the home addition of WinXP contains at least the following functions handled via the IE HTML control (at least as of the last beta before RC1 - I'll be able to test RC1 later this month, but not now):
The Login Screen (no, really)
Windows Explorer (the file manager - it would seem that the "web view" is now permentantly part of the thing and can't be disabled, but I haven't played around with it much)
User Control Panel (really! you control it via an HTML page, although it's set up like a control pane)
The bottom line is that while it could be demonstrated that IE wasn't really comminglinged with Windows 98, it is so throughly mixed up in WinXP (and in many apps that run on Win98+), that it can no longer effectively be removed. It wouldn't just break Microsoft software, it would break third party software.
(Personally, I believe that modern GUI kits should have an HTML control, but that it should be as tied down as possible - no JavaScript, image loading only via the app, etc. so as to make it that much more "secure.")
(And I most point out the irony that IM, which is currently bundled with Navigator (I kid you not), apparently now uses IE to render it's little "IM Today" screen.)
How does one define a copyright protecting system?
Well, they'll have to decide exactly what it means, but the DMCA itself (from the EFF) says in Section 1201, subsection (a)(3):
`(3) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
You'll notice that even "impairing" a technical measure is illegal - if you do anything to "avoid" the measure, that is still illegal. It would seem to me that this device would fall under this terms, as it "impares" or "avoids" the measure designed to protect copyright...
As for whether or not what Macrovision is doing is a "measure" to protect copyright, it would seem that it is, as a "process or treatment" (namely error correction) is required to "access" the work. Which means that most likely, those of us in the United States, the land of the Free*, cannot legally use this system.
* Does not include tax, title or license. Some restrictions may apply.
As for a couple of posts i've read about CDFreak being in danger of legal repercussions, their case is different from Dmitry's in that (please correct me if i'm mistaken) they're giving the software away for free, not selling it to make money, so they're not breaking any laws, even under the DMCA.
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Notice it does not say they have to "selling" the device, only "traffic" in it. Now while Sec 1201, subsection (a)(1)(E)(2)(C) (is that how you reference it?) says "is marketed," that has been interpretted in the past as meaning something along the lines of "offered" and not necessarily "offered for trade."
So it would seem that yet, they can still be tried criminally under the DMCA.
The malicious program can only be stopped if enough Web site operators install Microsoft's software patch, which plugs the security hole the worm uses to attack.
Well, the Alphaserver I admin seems to be doing... ok, actually, it's down right now, but that's another story (flaky hardware, it seems)... but anyway, during the last Code Red outbreak, it got probed, and it survived the attack without Microsoft's patch. Fancy that, the Apache server running on RedHat 7.0 wasn't effected, and I didn't even install the Microsoft patch!
Listening to them, I would have thought that Microsoft owned the Internet...
But it gives you the option, which is a bit daunting to users. Instead of just saying "Dump it on my harddrive" it asks you to partition your harddrive and give mount points, when all an average user will be thinking is "I want to install it on my harddrive - what's a partition? I don't have an partitions, just a harddrive." Windows gives you a list of drives and asks "Where should I install?" and you pick one and it just works.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already not free - it's tied to Windows. IE is used as a method to tie users into Windows and to force upgrades to the latest versions of Windows by discontinuing support of IE for previous OSes. Yeah, there's the Mac and the UNIX versions of IE, but they're not really the same product and they don't really work as well. (Sorta - comments about Mac IE's supperior standards compliance are basically irrelevent.)
Face it - when the web becomes unreadable without Internet Explorer, where do you go? You basically have to move to Windows. (Oops, Mac IE won't work with MacOS 10.4 because we went out of our way to find some way to make it rely on MacOS 9! UNIX IE discontinued due to lack of demand. You get the idea.) All the web-development stuff I do (except with a company that still uses a custom Netscape 4) has discontinued any Netscape support. Since Netscape 6.1 no longer supports the <SELECT> tag I've completely stopped supporting it.
It should be noted that "not supporting" in this case means that if it works under IE 5, it goes - if it doesn't, it's worked on until it does. Doesn't work in NS6? Tough. And a lot of other websites are moving that way too. Now while you're still allowed to try and view the content with NS4, it probably won't work. It may work in Moz and NS6, but I dunno, and I don't test it. In fact, Moz and NS6 are explicitly not supported in the application described above where NS4 is supported since although it'll work with NS4 and IE, it won't with Moz/NS6.
This is why IE will always be free - it's become Windows. And Windows is most decidely not free, so IE isn't really free after all, is it? It's just a method to tie you into MS platforms - when you can only experience the web via IE 7.0 running on Windows 2005, there's no reason to up the cost of IE - MS just increases the price of Windows.
ActiveX controls run as the user on the system - there's no "sandbox" and the only security is that it'll only run digitally signed controls. And on the default permissions, it'll ask you first. That's it.
As a plugin framework, ActiveX - well, works. I personally do not enjoy trying to write ActiveX controls, but I've never really tried to other than a simple one that didn't work. It seems to work about as well as the Netscape plugin API for simple plugins. It's just as secure - both involve running native code as the user - and it's actually much easier to install new plugins with.
MS's entire browser technology is much more extensible than Netscape's ever will be, and ActiveX controls as plugins are one part of that. ActiveX controls as downloaded content are a security nightmare, but as plugins, it's just as secure as any Netscape plugin.
And I read every reply, although I don't admit to it :)
Since the screen says that the Advanced eBook Processor is Copyright (whenever) by Dmitri Sklyarov, the FBI decided that he was the person responsible for "trafficking" the illegal circumvention device.
Look it up in the complaint - it's far too late in the life of this story for me to bother quoting the actual bit but the next time this story is rehashed and someone says he was arrested for speaking at Defcon, I'll find the relavent quotes.
Since I couldn't find any answers to either or the questions (and I did look in both stories), I have to ask two things:
Just curious :) ...
As any real net admin by now can tell, I've never run a network involving connections to other networks; don't really understand the DHCP protocol; and have no real idea what I'm talking about. But I'm fairly certain that there's a solution to that problem to be found.
Besides, it's very nice to have a network set up for DHCP since then when clubs try and run LAN parties, all the club netadmins have to do is set up a DHCP server running on the LAN party LAN and then all the incoming people who know just about enough to cart their computers over and not much more can just plug into the network and go without worrying about network settings. This solves the problem of trying to give out IPs and watching as the people go back to their dorms with the LAN IP and can't get back online.
This is extremely helpful when various dorms are on different subnets and will try and route packets to a non-accessible gateway if left to static settings.
Same reason I keep on looking for open source projects on http://sourceforget.net/?
If anyone had bothered to read the article, they'd see that this was a major victory for... X-Windows. Maybe. Basically, they've moved all the applications onto a central server which happens to be running Linux. The rest of the clients are running some sort of "thin client," and pull the information off the core server. Wowee, KDE instead of CDE. Most of the actual applications, though, are proprietary - WordPerfect, Inprise, and other commercial applications, some of them running on another server running a commerical OS.
So for the actual work, OSS loses yet again and the useful applications are all being written by companies. What a victory for Linux and the Open Source Army! In reality, it's a win for ASP-type services.
If you're going to argue the case, at least get the facts straight - there was a criminal complaint against him before he came to the US (it's dated July 10th), and he was only arrested once the FBI found out that he was in Las Vegas (on July 17th).
He was arrested specifically because the copyright to the Advanced eBook Processor was assigned to him - leading the FBI to believe that he is the one responsible for it. He was also arrested because the software could be purchased in the United States and was purchased in the United States. This doesn't make the DMCA any more fair, but at least realize that he wasn't arrested for speech, but for trafficking in an illegal copyright-circumvention device.
Uh, yes it should - it's always a pain when a third-party site doesn't display, and you can't fix it. Although it would be nice to have a mode that did strict testing for your own pages - oh wait, they do. Just add the appropriate DOCTYPE.
try loading a page that is not reachable, not only does the IE window loading the page hang but ALL IE windows are completely locked up
What the hell are you smoking? Are you using IE for Win 3.1? IE 5.0 doesn't do that on any computer I've used, 98SE or 2K. And IE6.0beta on XP most certainly doesn't do it. Granted, if one window crashes the browser, all the windows for that process are lost, but at least with IE you can run multiple processes - which you can't do with Mozilla.
IE is integrated into windows, there is a Mac version but it was developed independent from the windows version. what does this tell us: IE is not at all portable
Uh, so? Very fex applications are really portable, and Mozilla isn't an exception - most of the parsing code is portable, but when you're dealing with GUI code, and not using Mozilla's hideous chrome hack and actually (gasp!) using the native GUI then it'll generally require rewritting large portions of code.
mozilla is WAY more flexible than IE will ever be. a few examples: you can modify the GUI or even build completely different applications based on mozilla in XUL, Mozilla can be easily embedded, and not just through an activeX component, it can e.g. even be embedded in a java app.
This is actually two points, so I'll tackle the first one - uh, first.
You can modify the GUI in IE too - in a sensible way - you can customize the rebars and add buttons and the like. With your mouse. Without restarting IE. Right click on any toolbar and choose "customize." You can't do that in Mozilla, and changing stuff is a damned pain, involving JavaScript and XUL. And if you think changing the "look" is important - you're wrong. Having a consistant look should be of highest importance, but Mozilla decided to go their own path.
And come November when I'm running XP, Mozilla will look really strange in the Luna-scape. Oh well.
Your second point about embedding is interesting, seeing as ActiveX is the way to embed controls in other applications in Windows (not just webpages, any app can embed any ActiveX control). And Moz does this too. I've never seen Mozilla embed via Java though, link anyone?
Microsoft keeps adding useless non-standard features claiming 'webdesigners' want them (marquee anyone?) , but they still don't have decent PNG (alpha transparency) support, something LOTS of designers would like.
It's not like <BLINK>Netscape listened to their customers either</BLINK>.
And yes, they do moderate: I remember Hemos telling the WPI ACM that they spend time moderating down the trolls after a story goes live.
Qt is not. Check before assuming that just because some portions of the desktop are LGPL that the entire thing is.
That's one way to beat the competition - go to the past and release before them!
Mandrake 8.0 essentially comes with Gnome 1.4.0 (as far as I can tell) - there's little need to reinstall the stuff. The only problem is that it's a bitch to figure out how to get xinit to use Gnome - ends up you need to do something like export DESKTOP=Gnome in your .bashrc - or completely rewrite your .xinit scripts.
AAAHHHH!!!
That's the goddamn Windows 2K file selection dialog, with the same damned problems it has.
Has anyone at GNOME ever done task analysis about what the user is most likely going to be doing when trying to save a file? While the shortcut bar to the left is nice (and I truly hope there's some obvious way to add new shortcuts, via the dialog), the most common task is to find the folder where the file either is (on open) or should be (on save) - ie, a tree view of files, or a separate list of folders from the list of available files. The old Gnome dialog used to separate the folders from the files - the new one apparently doesn't (although that completion is nice) - although there is evidently a mode to set it to.
Given that the dialog is already so damned big, couldn't a tree view be placed somewhere? And I really hope the greyed-out Folder icon next to the file type drop-down is "Create New Folder," another very common task when saving files - all the examples are evidently showing a file being opened, so I suppose removing the option on open sorta makes sense - although disabling it on open is a bad idea, IMHO.
(For an example, the "official" Linux AIM client is written to use GTK+ for this reason.)
(Oh, and if anyone tries to explain to me that you can still sell GPL software, I know, but understand that most companies aren't thinking that way: the very release of source is considered dangerous to most companies. The $1500 fee might be OK, but as long as it's possible to run GNOME apps on most Linux desktops (even if the main desktop is KDE), anyone looking to write commericial software is most likely going to stick to the LGPL-ed GNOME.)
Not that any of the above really matters, since Consumer Reports is trying to help consumers, Elcomsoft is trying to make money off pirates (arr, matey). There's really no legitamate reason to use AeBPr (Lost the book? Show the receipt, get a new one. There - no need for backup.) - whereas there are plenty of legal reasons to want to know if your car will blow up. (I dare someone to come up with an illegal one. Just 'cause I think it would be funny.)
Even if you don't agree with the above (I'm not sure even I do) you have to admit that Consumer Reports just discloses problems, while Elcomsoft exploits problems. If you want to prove Adobe has bad encryption, mail 'em. Talk with 'em. But don't sell a product to exploit that.
IIS stands for Internet Information Services - that includes FTP and HTTP. IIS is usually used as a webserver, but you can also use it as a FTP server and various other servers, all through the same "friendly" interface. You can install IIS without the webserver and with various other interfaces.
My install of Win2K (hey, I'm at work, writing ASPs - it's a paycheck, layoff) has the following IIS options:
IIS is just Microsofts server platform, it isn't just a webserver - that's why you have to install it with a FTP server - it contains some core files along with pretty graphical management software. If it helps, think of it like inetd - it also does configuration and other management "stuff." (I'm not sure exactly what the "Common Files" are and what they do - I think they're mainly the configuration/management utilities though.)
Just wait until you see IE 6 in XP - it is so much nicer than the "Modern" theme. With all the Luna goodness (minus the messed-up scrollbars - haven't tried RC1, might be fixed), it's really quite a pretty browser.
MUCH nicer looking than Mozilla, more colorful, better CSS support (well - as far as I can tell, I haven't done a detailed analysis, but so far I haven't run into too many bugs) - P3P support, image blocking support - it's really nice.
NS6 doesn't stand a chance against IE6.
The fight isn't over IE anymore - they won, even if they lose the court battle. The new fight will be over bundling other features - an HTML viewer has just become too useful.
--
The latest versions of WinAmp include a "minibrowser" that is... the IE HTML control. All the latest "help" files (think texinfo pages, man pages, what have you) are done via HTML ... rendered in ... the IE HTML control. The latest IM, released today, starts up with this "AIM Today" screen... which is a webpage... rendered via the IE HTML control.
For added fun, the home addition of WinXP contains at least the following functions handled via the IE HTML control (at least as of the last beta before RC1 - I'll be able to test RC1 later this month, but not now):
The bottom line is that while it could be demonstrated that IE wasn't really comminglinged with Windows 98, it is so throughly mixed up in WinXP (and in many apps that run on Win98+), that it can no longer effectively be removed. It wouldn't just break Microsoft software, it would break third party software.
(Personally, I believe that modern GUI kits should have an HTML control, but that it should be as tied down as possible - no JavaScript, image loading only via the app, etc. so as to make it that much more "secure.")
(And I most point out the irony that IM, which is currently bundled with Navigator (I kid you not), apparently now uses IE to render it's little "IM Today" screen.)
--
Well, they'll have to decide exactly what it means, but the DMCA itself (from the EFF) says in Section 1201, subsection (a)(3):
You'll notice that even "impairing" a technical measure is illegal - if you do anything to "avoid" the measure, that is still illegal. It would seem to me that this device would fall under this terms, as it "impares" or "avoids" the measure designed to protect copyright...
As for whether or not what Macrovision is doing is a "measure" to protect copyright, it would seem that it is, as a "process or treatment" (namely error correction) is required to "access" the work. Which means that most likely, those of us in the United States, the land of the Free*, cannot legally use this system.
* Does not include tax, title or license. Some restrictions may apply.
Sorry, you asked for it (literally), but you are mistaken. From the DMCA (as reproduced by the EFF):
Notice it does not say they have to "selling" the device, only "traffic" in it. Now while Sec 1201, subsection (a)(1)(E)(2)(C) (is that how you reference it?) says "is marketed," that has been interpretted in the past as meaning something along the lines of "offered" and not necessarily "offered for trade."
So it would seem that yet, they can still be tried criminally under the DMCA.
On my way in to work this morning, I was listening to a local news radio station, and they were talking about how "Code Red" will effect servers and that everyone (!!) should download Microsoft's patch. From the linked article:
Well, the Alphaserver I admin seems to be doing ... ok, actually, it's down right now, but that's another story (flaky hardware, it seems) ... but anyway, during the last Code Red outbreak, it got probed, and it survived the attack without Microsoft's patch. Fancy that, the Apache server running on RedHat 7.0 wasn't effected, and I didn't even install the Microsoft patch!
Listening to them, I would have thought that Microsoft owned the Internet...
--