The article was about someone who wants to make a $100 "laptop" not being smart enough to realize that Linux, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the kernel or the crap thrown around it, was able to be slimmed down enough to work on devices with much LOWER specs than is being thrown around. If they're willing to make their own very specialized hardware, I doubt they're "too scared" to make a distribution of linux that will run well on it. Your entire argument falls apart.
it's specialized hardware that's going to come with a specialized OS with a Linux kernel. If they can't get the Linux kernel and the userland apps to be small enough to fit on there, they should give up the project right now as they're obviously incompetent.
You realize that Mac OS X did the exact same thing with Mac OS 9, right?;) Yeah, maybe in corporate environments it wouldn't work out so well. Guess what, wait until people port all the stuff the businesses need to Vista and then not install the Windows XP compatibility.
I realize that my views are a bit skewed, but most of the businesses I deal with work with Microsoft, and about 4 other companies to put software on their machines. They're multi-million dollar sources of revenue for these 4 companies, if even ONE asked one of those companies to port to Vista, you bet your ass that the software would be ported in short order.
what other laptop has a 'standard' connector? And the iPod dock connector is essential, you can't do firewire + usb + svideo + sound + whatever else that thing supports in the space available on a nano without it.
Because writing a VM that isn't hosted in another operating system isn't hard. Act like a bios 'shadow' memory and the OS knows it can't touch where you live, and then you can subvert it in very strange and subtle ways.
All the ones you're describing are slow because of the memory bottleneck. Get a 32 bit OS running on a 64-bit virtualizer (not architecture emulator) and you'll notice almost no slow down. Just grab a 4GB chunk of memory, and let the OS play around in that, even if 3 GB of it is in swap.
What would google have to do to be 'right' in this situation? How much do you have to protect people from their own stupidity?
If they have something to protect, and yet still install and activate something that tells them that what they want to protect might not be so protected anymore, then I say it's their own damned fault.
This is just further proof that the world is full of idiots. I fully expect there to be mandatory signs posted every 5 feet along every roadway warning me of potential cars passing by, in about 5 years. "Well, it looked like a road, sir, but I didn't know for sure. There weren't any warnings!" "Caution: HOT" on an item you asked for that was hot. "Warning: Sharp" on a knife. "Warning: bridge wet when raining" (actual street sign). At what point does common sense and personal responsibility triumph?
I don't care what someone's background is, if they go in to the preferences and turn on something that they don't know what it does, when it says right next to it what it does, it's their own damned fault.
Fuck it. I'm going to make a device, put it on the sidewalk, and have a sign above a big red button that says "DANGER: If you press this button, you'll be punched in the face" (in several languages.). And if they press it, they get punched in the face. Is it illegal? Probably. Way too many stupid people won't believe it, or won't bother reading the sign. They deserve what they get.
If you double click "The Internet", go to the address bar, type in www.slashdot.org, log in, see my response, click Reply, type in a Comment, and click 'Submit', then you will send information to slashdot.org that might be read by others, searched, and indexed as slashdot sees fit.
Alternatively If you double click "The Internet", go to the address bar, type in desktop.google.com, Agree to the terms of use that you say you've read that state that if you click some checkbox that you have to find first it might send data to google for them to search, download the program, install it, then go to the preferences, find some checkbox that says if you click it it's going to send data to google for them to search, click it, and then click OK..
Who's the fucking idiot if that's not what they wanted?
I think non-programmers can understand that "This will send your data to google's servers" means that it might.. send the data to google's servers?
They have to INTENTIONALLY install the program. They have to INTENTIONALLY go to the preferences (this blocks 95% of the people who install it, I suspect). They have to INTENTIONALLY find an option that SPECIFICALLY states what it will do, and INTENTIONALLY click it and turn it on.
It's not "spying" on me if I call up Jim and say "Hey, come sit in my living room with a phone and relay everything I say and do to Bob."
I saw a music cd of the soundtrack for one of the shrek movies retailing for more money than the dvd (sitting two shelves over) of the movie, which HAD THE SOUNDTRACK, properly integrated in to the movie. Did it really cost them MORE to take the music, NOT ADD VIDEO OR VOICES, shove it in a SMALLER container with a CHEAPER disc, and sell it to the SAME distribution channel? Christ. Sorry, that rant has been building up for a while:P
yeah, but you had to use a pen there! http://www.fingerworks.com/ is probably more like what they were considering, except now there's a screen under it, so you pick up on the icon itself, instead of moving the pointer and then doing a pick up motion! *I haven't read the article*
I used to 'steal' music, but I haven't since I got a job. Haven't even really listened to any of the other stuff since I started using iTunes either, but it's still around.
Anyway.
Aren't I already entitled to free music? I turn on the radio, and there it is. Is it illegal to record the radio? Nope. What if I record it, break it out in to the individual songs, and keep them for all eternity? That's fine, isn't it? What if I then give it to my friend, is that illegal? Still no. What if I give it to a stranger? Then it is?!
Ok, so there's work involved in recording, splitting, etc. What if I have a device that knows when a certain song is going to be played, and records it for me (ala tivo for radio), is that illegal?
What if I pay a fee to Sirius, can I now download every song they'll play during my subscription for free? No? Why not?
Why is obtaining content in one form any different from obtaining it in another form? Where do you draw the line?
It's inconvenient for me to listen to the radio and record stuff off of it, and I don't like most of what's played. Therefore, I just use iTunes and get the songs I want when I want them. I pay for that service.
This could have been sent to anyone here, but it got sent to you. Nothing personal, I'm just wondering.. feel free to label me a dirty pirate (even though I don't remember the last time I took iTunes off of 'Purchased Music' playlist.)
Because (At the moment) the dmca requests do need to be rather specific. Does that change anything, though? A US law effects a company that wants to work in the US. Some search results were removed. Not all of them, but that's not what Scientology used the courts to do. Scientology got what they wanted, and they used the US government's laws to do it. So Google cooperated with either Scientology or the US Government, or someone.. but they removed a search result.
Guess what? Go to www.google.fr, and perform the same search. Look at the bottom of the page. The US DMCA act has removed it from FRENCH pages. Which one is more evil.. www.google.cn blocking things that the government requires to be blocked, or www.google.com and www.google.fr both supporting what some have called a fascist regime here in the US? (disclaimer: I don't like Bush, but I realize the DMCA isn't his fault).
Censorship in China, when the government requires it == supporting an oppresive government. Censorship in America, when a religion that most people consider complete idiocy requires it ==... no outcry at all.
I happen to like google. I don't have a problem with them blocking pages, in China, according to the law of the country they're operating in. Similarly, they have to respect the laws of the US when giving us our search results, and the laws of all the other countries they do business in when they're giving them THEIR search results. The internet, while supposedly some borderless utopia where no one has any sort of control is a myth and a pipe dream. Companies that operate in a jurisdiction must adhere to the laws of that jurisdiction.
Let me put it this way: in the US, pornography depicting people under the age of 18 is illegal. In other countries, you could probably get away with 14-18 under their laws. If you search for porn involving 16 year olds on a server in the USA, from a computer in the USA, and Google doesn't give you those results (and doesn't tell the authorities you searched for it.. which google.cn supposedly will NOT be doing, coincindentally), is it censorship, or is it perfectly legal? Just because your laws and your religion and your beliefs find pornography with 16 year olds to not be appropriate, doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world would necessarily agree. Likewise, you have your beliefs (however true it may or may not be) on the topics that the Chinese government does not want its citizens to witness.
Who's the hypocrite now? Us for trying to impose our beliefs on others ("but they're being lied to about bla bla bla"), or Google for following the law like it has to in every other country?
google for xenu and look at the bottom. oh crap, they do! Should google fight the DMCA, get shut down in the US, fight the Chinese government, get shut down there, fight the French government over nazis, get shut down there.. and exist only in places that have maybe 5 people on the internet, all of whom are likely powerful enough in the government to not care about being told dissenting ideas?
normal ssh forwards are one-source, one-destination. There are options to allow the entrypoint to the tunnel to come from !localhost, (i.e. I set up an ssh connection from me to my friend, with a tunnel from me to google.com, and now anyone who can connect to me can use that same tunnel to connect to google.com), but normally it really is a one-off thing.
127.0.0.1:1000 goes to www.google.com:80 127.0.0.1:1001 goes to www.porn.com:80 127.0.0.1:1002 goes to www.slashdot.org:80
what using a SOCKS-mimicing "proxy server" allows you to do is to make it so that the requesting application requests the destination, instead of you setting it up and then pointing your computer at a special address. The requesting socks-aware application is like "Hmm, to get to login.messenger.yahoo.com:3697, I must use this special protocol and send stuff really to a connection at 127.0.0.1:4280. I'll do that."
So it connects to that, PuTTY sends it down the wire to my friend, and my friend's computer sends it to login.messenger.yahoo.com, port 3697.
My belief as well. I honestly never thought of having the security of my home and of my life depend on my internet connection, simply because it dies so regularly. Having it die on purpose, intentionally without warning though.. is something even more ridiculous.
I hope if you have a security system that you don't rely on Cablevision. It is their company policy to INTENTIONALLY not tell their customers about scheduled downtimes that range from 3-6 hours or more, due to the fact that security systems might rely on them, and that even if they DID post somewhere about it, people might not check it so it'd just waste their effort. I found this out on Friday when my internet disappeared, and all the cable internet for the entire region along with it.. from midnight to 6 am, and this was planned.
I asked to be told in the future. Those were the reasons that were given: if they posted notification, the bad guys could find out when would be a good time to break in to my house.
Guess what? If they posted notification, I might know when the bad guys would think would be a good time to break in to my house and I could perform other methods of securing myself, since my security system is now completely fucking useless!
Sorry, I needed to rant about that. If you don't believe me, call Cablevision.
That's the best part about all this: iTMS is HELPING the music industry by a ton! Imagine if iTMS started offering subscription downloads like Napster. $15/month, and you can download as much as you want. As long as you pay the $15/month, you can keep playing that music. Let's think about this for a second..
For the cost of one shrink wrapped album a month, I can download, legally, every single album that iTunes has. So far I've spent about $100 at iTMS, and downloaded a few albums. This was in approximately the past 4 months. I don't think I'm atypical. So if they offered me a subscription service that would work with my device, AND allow me to.. I'd be paying $10/month LESS than I have already, and get A LOT more. Sure, blame Apple for keeping ME down, but don't ever claim that Apple is hurting the music industry.
If Napster had 1/100th of the user base of iTMS, you bet your ass the music industry would be demanding a lot more from them.
Many people here have "200+ CD collections". on iTMS that would cost you $2,000 dollars, and last you until you upgraded to a device that doesn't support AAC/FairPlay anymore. on Napster that would cost you $15/mo, and last you as long as you kept paying them (and they were still around to give you a license key update). The convergence point is at around 11 years.. I wonder which one the music industry is going to make more money off of?
They may want to kill iTMS, but they can't do it, becaues then Napste-esque services WILL cause them MUCH worse damage.
Oh, but all this complaining is coming from... the CEO of Napster! This all makes sense now, doesn't it?:)/loves his iPod.//wishes iTMS had a subscription service.///hangs out at fark too much.
The entire world? No. The entire windows operating system? pretty much. MFC extensively uses ActiveX/COM controls, whether you realize it or not. VB? ActiveX/COM drives half of the VB interfaces you see (unless it's vb.net, in which case it might only be 1/4th.) Have you ever embedded something in an office document? That's an ActiveX/COM control right there. (Their solution to this Eolas patent essentially causes it to treat ActiveX like a COM control behaves in Office: click to activate [though, without the offscreen/wmf render that Office uses, since this visual interface is still updateable, just not interactable].. this annoyance plagues me daily at work)
Windows uses COM/OLE/ActiveX (and separating one from the other gets somewhat difficult at times) EXTENSIVELY. It's just like KDE and KParts. Yes, just remove the entire KParts foundation architecture, and see how well KDE works.
Hmm. Ok, he's apparently NOT connected to our corporate server, BECAUSE NTLM support doesn't work and our server DOES require it. I was mistaken about his success with it, though he said TLS is there I think, just doesn't support the auth scheme? I'm a bit confused as to what all is working there at the moment then..;)
Yeah, he's using a CVS version I believe. Our LCS requires SIP over TLS, so that's what we use, and while the username and password are the same as our windows one, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's (successfully) using NTLM I suppose. I think if I have to change my windows pw, I'd then have to change the pw in trillian/gaim.. it wouldn't happen automatically like other NTLM clients, so you're probably correct.
SIP over TLS is there, NTLM probably isn't. But that's what you said initially, I just wasn't able to read back then;)
how strange, I've gotten the SIP support in a Trillian Pro plugin to work, and the person sitting right next to me has it working in GAIM 2.0 (Win32, though I doubt that matters). Both connect to the stupid LCS (Live Communication Server I think?) that Microsoft has.
Slashdot Mirror
The article was about someone who wants to make a $100 "laptop" not being smart enough to realize that Linux, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the kernel or the crap thrown around it, was able to be slimmed down enough to work on devices with much LOWER specs than is being thrown around. If they're willing to make their own very specialized hardware, I doubt they're "too scared" to make a distribution of linux that will run well on it. Your entire argument falls apart.
it's specialized hardware that's going to come with a specialized OS with a Linux kernel. If they can't get the Linux kernel and the userland apps to be small enough to fit on there, they should give up the project right now as they're obviously incompetent.
You realize that Mac OS X did the exact same thing with Mac OS 9, right? ;) Yeah, maybe in corporate environments it wouldn't work out so well. Guess what, wait until people port all the stuff the businesses need to Vista and then not install the Windows XP compatibility.
I realize that my views are a bit skewed, but most of the businesses I deal with work with Microsoft, and about 4 other companies to put software on their machines. They're multi-million dollar sources of revenue for these 4 companies, if even ONE asked one of those companies to port to Vista, you bet your ass that the software would be ported in short order.
what other laptop has a 'standard' connector? And the iPod dock connector is essential, you can't do firewire + usb + svideo + sound + whatever else that thing supports in the space available on a nano without it.
Because writing a VM that isn't hosted in another operating system isn't hard. Act like a bios 'shadow' memory and the OS knows it can't touch where you live, and then you can subvert it in very strange and subtle ways.
All the ones you're describing are slow because of the memory bottleneck. Get a 32 bit OS running on a 64-bit virtualizer (not architecture emulator) and you'll notice almost no slow down. Just grab a 4GB chunk of memory, and let the OS play around in that, even if 3 GB of it is in swap.
What would google have to do to be 'right' in this situation? How much do you have to protect people from their own stupidity?
If they have something to protect, and yet still install and activate something that tells them that what they want to protect might not be so protected anymore, then I say it's their own damned fault.
This is just further proof that the world is full of idiots. I fully expect there to be mandatory signs posted every 5 feet along every roadway warning me of potential cars passing by, in about 5 years. "Well, it looked like a road, sir, but I didn't know for sure. There weren't any warnings!" "Caution: HOT" on an item you asked for that was hot. "Warning: Sharp" on a knife. "Warning: bridge wet when raining" (actual street sign). At what point does common sense and personal responsibility triumph?
I don't care what someone's background is, if they go in to the preferences and turn on something that they don't know what it does, when it says right next to it what it does, it's their own damned fault.
Fuck it. I'm going to make a device, put it on the sidewalk, and have a sign above a big red button that says "DANGER: If you press this button, you'll be punched in the face" (in several languages.). And if they press it, they get punched in the face. Is it illegal? Probably. Way too many stupid people won't believe it, or won't bother reading the sign. They deserve what they get.
If you double click "The Internet", go to the address bar, type in www.slashdot.org, log in, see my response, click Reply, type in a Comment, and click 'Submit', then you will send information to slashdot.org that might be read by others, searched, and indexed as slashdot sees fit.
Alternatively
If you double click "The Internet", go to the address bar, type in desktop.google.com, Agree to the terms of use that you say you've read that state that if you click some checkbox that you have to find first it might send data to google for them to search, download the program, install it, then go to the preferences, find some checkbox that says if you click it it's going to send data to google for them to search, click it, and then click OK..
Who's the fucking idiot if that's not what they wanted?
I think non-programmers can understand that "This will send your data to google's servers" means that it might.. send the data to google's servers?
They have to INTENTIONALLY install the program. They have to INTENTIONALLY go to the preferences (this blocks 95% of the people who install it, I suspect). They have to INTENTIONALLY find an option that SPECIFICALLY states what it will do, and INTENTIONALLY click it and turn it on.
It's not "spying" on me if I call up Jim and say "Hey, come sit in my living room with a phone and relay everything I say and do to Bob."
I saw a music cd of the soundtrack for one of the shrek movies retailing for more money than the dvd (sitting two shelves over) of the movie, which HAD THE SOUNDTRACK, properly integrated in to the movie. Did it really cost them MORE to take the music, NOT ADD VIDEO OR VOICES, shove it in a SMALLER container with a CHEAPER disc, and sell it to the SAME distribution channel? Christ. Sorry, that rant has been building up for a while :P
or just bring in your own ipod with WoW installed to it and slap it in the dock they already provide for you
yeah, but you had to use a pen there! http://www.fingerworks.com/ is probably more like what they were considering, except now there's a screen under it, so you pick up on the icon itself, instead of moving the pointer and then doing a pick up motion! *I haven't read the article*
I used to 'steal' music, but I haven't since I got a job. Haven't even really listened to any of the other stuff since I started using iTunes either, but it's still around.
Anyway.
Aren't I already entitled to free music? I turn on the radio, and there it is. Is it illegal to record the radio? Nope. What if I record it, break it out in to the individual songs, and keep them for all eternity? That's fine, isn't it? What if I then give it to my friend, is that illegal? Still no. What if I give it to a stranger? Then it is?!
Ok, so there's work involved in recording, splitting, etc. What if I have a device that knows when a certain song is going to be played, and records it for me (ala tivo for radio), is that illegal?
What if I pay a fee to Sirius, can I now download every song they'll play during my subscription for free? No? Why not?
Why is obtaining content in one form any different from obtaining it in another form? Where do you draw the line?
It's inconvenient for me to listen to the radio and record stuff off of it, and I don't like most of what's played. Therefore, I just use iTunes and get the songs I want when I want them. I pay for that service.
This could have been sent to anyone here, but it got sent to you. Nothing personal, I'm just wondering.. feel free to label me a dirty pirate (even though I don't remember the last time I took iTunes off of 'Purchased Music' playlist.)
Because (At the moment) the dmca requests do need to be rather specific. Does that change anything, though? A US law effects a company that wants to work in the US. Some search results were removed. Not all of them, but that's not what Scientology used the courts to do. Scientology got what they wanted, and they used the US government's laws to do it. So Google cooperated with either Scientology or the US Government, or someone.. but they removed a search result.
... no outcry at all.
Guess what? Go to www.google.fr, and perform the same search. Look at the bottom of the page. The US DMCA act has removed it from FRENCH pages. Which one is more evil.. www.google.cn blocking things that the government requires to be blocked, or www.google.com and www.google.fr both supporting what some have called a fascist regime here in the US? (disclaimer: I don't like Bush, but I realize the DMCA isn't his fault).
Censorship in China, when the government requires it == supporting an oppresive government.
Censorship in America, when a religion that most people consider complete idiocy requires it ==
I happen to like google. I don't have a problem with them blocking pages, in China, according to the law of the country they're operating in. Similarly, they have to respect the laws of the US when giving us our search results, and the laws of all the other countries they do business in when they're giving them THEIR search results. The internet, while supposedly some borderless utopia where no one has any sort of control is a myth and a pipe dream. Companies that operate in a jurisdiction must adhere to the laws of that jurisdiction.
Let me put it this way: in the US, pornography depicting people under the age of 18 is illegal. In other countries, you could probably get away with 14-18 under their laws. If you search for porn involving 16 year olds on a server in the USA, from a computer in the USA, and Google doesn't give you those results (and doesn't tell the authorities you searched for it.. which google.cn supposedly will NOT be doing, coincindentally), is it censorship, or is it perfectly legal? Just because your laws and your religion and your beliefs find pornography with 16 year olds to not be appropriate, doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world would necessarily agree. Likewise, you have your beliefs (however true it may or may not be) on the topics that the Chinese government does not want its citizens to witness.
Who's the hypocrite now? Us for trying to impose our beliefs on others ("but they're being lied to about bla bla bla"), or Google for following the law like it has to in every other country?
google for xenu and look at the bottom. oh crap, they do! Should google fight the DMCA, get shut down in the US, fight the Chinese government, get shut down there, fight the French government over nazis, get shut down there.. and exist only in places that have maybe 5 people on the internet, all of whom are likely powerful enough in the government to not care about being told dissenting ideas?
normal ssh forwards are one-source, one-destination. There are options to allow the entrypoint to the tunnel to come from !localhost, (i.e. I set up an ssh connection from me to my friend, with a tunnel from me to google.com, and now anyone who can connect to me can use that same tunnel to connect to google.com), but normally it really is a one-off thing.
:)
127.0.0.1:1000 goes to www.google.com:80
127.0.0.1:1001 goes to www.porn.com:80
127.0.0.1:1002 goes to www.slashdot.org:80
what using a SOCKS-mimicing "proxy server" allows you to do is to make it so that the requesting application requests the destination, instead of you setting it up and then pointing your computer at a special address. The requesting socks-aware application is like "Hmm, to get to login.messenger.yahoo.com:3697, I must use this special protocol and send stuff really to a connection at 127.0.0.1:4280. I'll do that."
So it connects to that, PuTTY sends it down the wire to my friend, and my friend's computer sends it to login.messenger.yahoo.com, port 3697.
magically.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173521&cid=144 36559
???
Lenovo put windows keys on the thinkpads now, thank god :)
My belief as well. I honestly never thought of having the security of my home and of my life depend on my internet connection, simply because it dies so regularly. Having it die on purpose, intentionally without warning though.. is something even more ridiculous.
because cablevision has their own voip solution which provides the telephone access that most security systems rely on.
it's more the internet access. There's nothing around that competes on price, perhaps because of local monopoly or whatever.
I hope if you have a security system that you don't rely on Cablevision. It is their company policy to INTENTIONALLY not tell their customers about scheduled downtimes that range from 3-6 hours or more, due to the fact that security systems might rely on them, and that even if they DID post somewhere about it, people might not check it so it'd just waste their effort. I found this out on Friday when my internet disappeared, and all the cable internet for the entire region along with it.. from midnight to 6 am, and this was planned.
I asked to be told in the future. Those were the reasons that were given: if they posted notification, the bad guys could find out when would be a good time to break in to my house.
Guess what? If they posted notification, I might know when the bad guys would think would be a good time to break in to my house and I could perform other methods of securing myself, since my security system is now completely fucking useless!
Sorry, I needed to rant about that. If you don't believe me, call Cablevision.
+ and - are home-recording standards only. Pressed discs do not have such a ridiculous divide.
That's the best part about all this: iTMS is HELPING the music industry by a ton! Imagine if iTMS started offering subscription downloads like Napster. $15/month, and you can download as much as you want. As long as you pay the $15/month, you can keep playing that music. Let's think about this for a second..
:) /loves his iPod. //wishes iTMS had a subscription service. ///hangs out at fark too much.
For the cost of one shrink wrapped album a month, I can download, legally, every single album that iTunes has. So far I've spent about $100 at iTMS, and downloaded a few albums. This was in approximately the past 4 months. I don't think I'm atypical. So if they offered me a subscription service that would work with my device, AND allow me to.. I'd be paying $10/month LESS than I have already, and get A LOT more. Sure, blame Apple for keeping ME down, but don't ever claim that Apple is hurting the music industry.
If Napster had 1/100th of the user base of iTMS, you bet your ass the music industry would be demanding a lot more from them.
Many people here have "200+ CD collections". on iTMS that would cost you $2,000 dollars, and last you until you upgraded to a device that doesn't support AAC/FairPlay anymore. on Napster that would cost you $15/mo, and last you as long as you kept paying them (and they were still around to give you a license key update). The convergence point is at around 11 years.. I wonder which one the music industry is going to make more money off of?
They may want to kill iTMS, but they can't do it, becaues then Napste-esque services WILL cause them MUCH worse damage.
Oh, but all this complaining is coming from... the CEO of Napster! This all makes sense now, doesn't it?
The entire world? No. The entire windows operating system? pretty much. MFC extensively uses ActiveX/COM controls, whether you realize it or not. VB? ActiveX/COM drives half of the VB interfaces you see (unless it's vb.net, in which case it might only be 1/4th.) Have you ever embedded something in an office document? That's an ActiveX/COM control right there. (Their solution to this Eolas patent essentially causes it to treat ActiveX like a COM control behaves in Office: click to activate [though, without the offscreen/wmf render that Office uses, since this visual interface is still updateable, just not interactable].. this annoyance plagues me daily at work)
Windows uses COM/OLE/ActiveX (and separating one from the other gets somewhat difficult at times) EXTENSIVELY. It's just like KDE and KParts. Yes, just remove the entire KParts foundation architecture, and see how well KDE works.
Hmm. Ok, he's apparently NOT connected to our corporate server, BECAUSE NTLM support doesn't work and our server DOES require it. I was mistaken about his success with it, though he said TLS is there I think, just doesn't support the auth scheme? I'm a bit confused as to what all is working there at the moment then.. ;)
Yeah, he's using a CVS version I believe. Our LCS requires SIP over TLS, so that's what we use, and while the username and password are the same as our windows one, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's (successfully) using NTLM I suppose. I think if I have to change my windows pw, I'd then have to change the pw in trillian/gaim.. it wouldn't happen automatically like other NTLM clients, so you're probably correct.
;)
SIP over TLS is there, NTLM probably isn't. But that's what you said initially, I just wasn't able to read back then
how strange, I've gotten the SIP support in a Trillian Pro plugin to work, and the person sitting right next to me has it working in GAIM 2.0 (Win32, though I doubt that matters). Both connect to the stupid LCS (Live Communication Server I think?) that Microsoft has.