Not every "browser" follows the same user-agent format. In fact, the "User-Agent" header field (as specified in RFC 2616) can contain just about anything. There is a "product" token format, but this doesn't specifically include operating system information. And then the spec allows for a "comment" token, which is really just a string inside parentheses. Google [most likely] used the "other" field for all those bots which don't report an operating system in any identifiable way.
This just proves the rule that "statistics alone are meaningless."
There is one factor your brother has completely to include: Enterprises.
Remember when people thought Apple made a better product, but still bought a PC? It was because their employers had PCs, and very few really want to deal with learning two different environemtns. The same could easily happen with IM.
Many businesses are begining to see a need (not just "want", but honest to goodness "NEED") for incorporating IM into their daily communications. The reasons are varied, but viable and (becomming) essential. While e-mail is not considered intrusive enough, phones are (or can be) too intrusive, and face-to-face meetings can be too burdensome.
The problem with the "entrenched" IM providers is the same: lack of a controlled, secure, auditable environment. When it comes to businesses, they want to make sure "what's in the company, stays in the company", which isn't really possible with the big three. They are also not all that secure (although the recent moves by MSN and Yahoo! to incorporate SSL/TLS into their connections is heading in the right direction). And finally, there is just no way to audit what is said on the IM network (this is not just a big-brother thing; if you and your boss agree to something via IM, don't you want verifiable proof of that? Hint: Your logs aren't enough).
Another aspect that's become important is interoperability across businesses. This is where XMPP will (and already does) shine. It's very easy to drop a server into your corporate network, deploy some of the standard clients, and be up-and-running on a secure, private, yet encompassing IM system. Just talk to some of the XMPP company's clients to get an idea of just how important it is to them.
AOL and Yahoo are quickly losing relevance everywhere *but* with average Joe users. And as more businesses deploy IM, the more that market will likely erode as well. Even AOL-TW is aware of this, even if they aren't likely to admit it just yet. MSN, on the other hand is apapting...
The biggest "threat" to XMPP isn't AOL, Yahoo!, or MSN. It's SIMPLE, the competing IM standard within the IETF. This standard has backing by two of the biggest gorrillas in software (IBM and Microsoft), and is the direction MS is taking all of their IM offerings (including MSN). It's already just two camps; those for XMPP, and those for SIMPLE (with "everyone else" trying to find gateways or services into either XMPP or SIMPLE).
It's just too bad (for SIMPLE) that XMPP reached this stage so quickly...
The MS version not only added things (WFC, JDirect), but removed some things (JNI), and weren't truly compatible on others (RMI, if I recall correctly). It was this removal (among others) that violated the contracts and trademark agreements. Basically, MS was calling something Java without it meeting the agreements to have that name.
MS did not uphold their end of the contract, along with violating a trademark agreement. This is why there's such a big legal and technical mess.
If the language can be compiled to Java bytecodes, then any JVM-supporting language should be able to use your compiled, not-from-java code. I say should, and not will, because it's now an issue of the compiler than the JVM. If you can compile against only the bytecodes (like javac can), then there's no issues.
On the other hand, you can always determine the Java-esque structure of your not-from-Java bytecodes using Introspection, for which there are tools (like Netbeans) that provide graphical views of this. It should be possible to generate any "headers" or their like, if the language and the compiler require it.
For the less-then-initiated, more JVM-supporting languages can be found here.
Here is the list of Sun filings. You may believe this link is biased, but its what I found to be the most complete without searching for days. (AFAICT) The specific license(s) MS violated are the Technology Distribution License Agreement (TDLA) and the Trademark License Agreement (TLA).
In a nutshell, the main violations were with removing required functionality. Specifically, MS decided not to implement JNI (in favor of J/Direct). Others are likely listed in the filings, I just haven't gone through them all.
The issue is not that MS added something, but that they intentionally replaced required functionality with their own. HP has a JVM that includes things specific to HP-UX, but they still played nice and kept the required functionality. MS decided to violate their contractual agreements, and make an incompatible JVM that they claimed was "full compliant" with the licensing term.
This isn't just a case of someone (here it was MS) deciding to "be different", but of "breach-of-contract".
I totally agree with your "opt-in" solutions: Getting just about every cell-phone into "quiet" mode (if its even possible) is really, really hard (<plug type='shameless' comp='0'>That's why I love my VisorPhone, which has a physical two-position switch for the ringer</plug>).
And, while many places make the very explicit announcement about "keeping things quiet", maybe making a more explicit mention of cell phones and pagers would be effective. Currently, they all just ask that you "keep it down," without saying what to keep down (-:
The solution that those Japanese scientists have come up with is very cool, though. They should definitely be commended for their efforts, if this is something practical to implement. Since you wouldn't need to necessarily fully enclose the space to be effective (cell phones and pagers (minus sat-based) are still effectively LOS, and don't have tremendous ranges).
There is one problem with your argument: Copyright laws (and the "fair use" provision) are part of the Constitution. The latest laws being passed are really "extensions" to the current Consitution article (which I cannot remember right now, sorry).
So, we do have a right to fair use, under the Constitution. That's part of what the current fights against the DMCA are about: ruling the DMCA unconstitutional because it violates our rights.
I've never burned audio to a CD, unless it was a file within the back-ups I've made. Never.
It really sucks when the RIAA assumes that every CD-R purchase is for copying music. I pay money for music, when I don't even work with music.
This year, I'm going to make it a point to write my US representatives about once a month, on this issue (and similar ones). I didn't mind (well, I do, but I've gained some apathy) when the RIAA made me pay money to them for backing up my data, in the interest of compensating others' "abuse of their artists". I do mind paying them money when they are actively preventing "abuse of their artists" (or at least attempting to).
I would urge all of you out there (that are US citizens, of course), to write to your representatives. Given enough letters saying (essentially) the same thing, the rep's (most likely) going to listen. Even with all the money raised and spent in election campaigns, they can't afford to ignore their constituents. To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "We brought you into that world, and we can take you out." Just let your reps know that you know this (well, gently let them know).
I don't think all Gnutella-based (and Gnutella-cloned) software was designed with the intent to infringe on copyrights. I know that I'm using this type of software within my network to simply share files (easier administration than SMB, but not as easy to use...).
If MusicCity intended to have their software used solely to infringe on copyrights (and that you're able to prove it), and there wasn't any other legitimate use, then your claim that MusicCity violated the law is true. The big problem here is proving that MusicCity never wanted their software used for anything other than a pirating distribution system.
Intent is the biggest thing here: that's what the MPAA vs. Sony (correct plaintiff/defendant) case was about (regarding VCR's).
Does anyone have the scoop as to why Mike Angelo hates Mozilla so much? Was a contribution burned? Did they decide to use someone else's ideas instead of his? Is he just having a permanent "that-time-of-the-month"?
I ask this because he is not forthcoming on his own information. That, and his site is very, very misleading. Do not be fooled the "we asked" or "we investigated" lines. This is the pursuit of one person.
Also, almost all of this individual's "articles" are taken from the Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings. They have little foundation in actual fact.
Now, I myself am not involved in the day-to-day of Mozilla and Netscape, but I follow the direction of this project closely, since the technologies being developed here (mainly XUL and XPCOM) can have a dramatic effect on the future of my employers (sorry, I cannot go into much detail here). I keep updated from the mailing lists, and from MozillaZine and The lizard farm.
I very rarely ever head over to MozillaQuest. The reason: most of the "articles" are factually incorrect. take for instance the article on "Mozilla 0.9.2.1 released". If all you ever do is read MozillaQuest, you'd think there was this tremendous conspiracy going on between Mozilla and Netscape. But a quick perusal of Mozilla and/or MozillaZine shed actual light on the subject: The 0.9.2.1 release is 95-99% equivalent to Netscape 6.1, and is being provided for developers to test and debug their XUL/XPCOM/Plug-ins/skins/etc.. against for Netscape 6.1 compatibility.
MozillaQuest is fiction, with enough truth to make it sound legitimate. If you want the real scoop, head over to MozillaZine. Don't waste time at MozillaQuest.
Smooth installations? Check out the latest
Mandrake
or RedHat installations. Very simple. Very user-friendly. Plus they're customizable.
Package management? Check out Ximian's latest manager, Red-Carpet. Makes life 80% earier!
Now, before I possibly get flamed, these comments aren't just my opinion: they're also the opinions of a few of my co-workers. These co-workers were linux-bashers, until I "showed" them how to install RedHat 7.1 (red: Handed them the CD, and watched them boot said CD), then updated to the current Ximian GNOME.
Now, one of them is switching (almost) their entire home network over to Linux (except for one computer for games), and the other is asking our Technical Strategist and MIS why we don't use Linux more (both the TC and the MIS still firmly believe that Linux takes a week to install, and another week to setup, and is still lacking good server apps, like web servers, mail servers, etc...)!
Java is a good language to use in learning OOP concepts, even better than C++. This is because Java is a very straight-forward, strictly-typed lanaguage. As such, the language helps to build good object-oriented programming and design practices because of its "simplicity". C++ has too many "relics" from its ancestors (C and CPML (?)) that cloud the OOP concepts.
Completely replacing C++ is probably not the thing to do, though. C++ is a very powerful language that includes such concepts as Generics (templates), Multiple-inheritance, and lower-level resource management. These are facets of general programming that all students of CS should learn.
Continuing to base a Computer Science curriculum on languages like C and Pascal (even VB) is a disservice to the students. The science of computer programming has progressed, and so should the academia. I am not saying that these languages should not be offered at all, rather that the emphasis not be on these older concepts. Teaching older concepts is worse than teaching older languages. I have found (through both personal experience, and from outside observation) that as long as the concepts are (thoroughly) understood, then the language starts to become irrelevent. This is why "object-oriented" has come before us: because procedural and declarative concepts could not adequately solve every problem.
Procedural and declarative programming concepts still have their place; object-oriented concepts bulid upon the foundation that these other concepts provide. Languages like Java (although not Free as in "libre") reinforce the procedural and declarative concepts, and also more solidly present object-oriented concepts.
Actually, AMD and Transmeta have both gotten to their current positions in the market by being transparently compatible with the current technology (which, in this case, is the 80x86 architecture).
AMD and Transmeta together still do not equal the "market clout" that Intel enjoys. For them to come out with (comsumer-level) chipsets not natively running x86 instructions could leave them both at the mercy of the much bigger Intel.
In a number of areas, DSL really is a monopoly. This is because you need to get the signals across a physical wire, and many telephone service providers do not want external boxes in the middle of their hardware (like Pacific Bell).
Even if I was to pay someone $100 for my minimum-speed DSL (which means I get one of their IP's), it ends up going through Pac-Bell hardware anyways (reason #1 why nobody in my area is using anything but Pac-Bell for DSL).
If Pac-Bell decides to set their router to block all RBL traffic, then I am screwed, whether I signed up with Pac-Bell, Earthlink, SpeakEasy, etc...
When it comes to MS operating systems, the hardware specs must be "high". Their operating systems suck away about 30-50% of the available RAM, require anywhere from 200 MB (Win98) to 800 GB (Win2k) of HDD, and also work your processor harder.
This isn't just repitition of other bashes here: This has been my experience writing device drivers for Win95 and WinNT (and researching WDM for Win2k).
Make fun of the Celeron, but if the mobo is optimized for the processor and graphics, it'll be faster. Examples are (just about) any desktop verses the equivalent Insipron laptop from Dell. My boss has one, and it screams compared to my workstation (which is equivalent in memory, HDD, processor, and graphics). The structure of the hardware can do a LOT.
Besides, where's the "firm date" on the XBox? If it follows MS tradition, it'll be 2-6 months late. I understand "late" in the console business means DOA, no?
"Out of the box" (which I still need to buy (-: ) it gives you an option to setup an IPChains-based firewall. The "default" choices result in a fairly secure workstation. Then you can customize...
...before you've even gotten one package onto the system. In this case, my home workstation was about 1000 times more secure than my work machine.
p>
Services may be running, but it is kinda hard to exploit something when the packet doesn't even see the light of day...
In fact, they converted not only their infrastructure, but a number of their corporate offices and their POS systems. I believe they started this in late 1998, but someone should correct this...
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but only three of those aren't "Mozilla inside"...
Nautilus is just (well, not "just") a skin over Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine (ever seen Neoplanet?). It's also the only one (of your four) that doesn't support "pop-ups" whatsoever (that is, Nautilus version 1.0)...
By the name of this bill (HR 46), this means that the bill ready for consideration within the House of Representatives. Given that the "Christmas break" is almost upon us, it is very possible that our congressional representatives may never see an e-mail before a vote takes place.
But that doesn't mean it will become law.
Any bill going though Congress needs to ultimately end up on the President's desk. You can contact him here.
I've written a couple of device drivers on Win9x, and one for WinNT. I can tell you that there are severe differences between the platforms' hardware methodology...
This tool is not really for generating a driver, but a library on top of their generic (read: inefficient) device driver. It allows for some customization, but not much (look up WinRT!). I've seen these before, and they don't usually meet the needs for anything more sophisticated than a VGA driver...
Besides, writing drivers under Linux are vastly easier to do than under Windows (NT or 9x), especially with the modularization.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should have tried reading the "What's in the box" section:
That lets you connect an Off-the-shelf MacBook Air to anything you can connect an Off-the-shelf MacBook Pro.
I'm not saying you won't get nibbled to death in other places (*cough* iTunes rentals *cough*), but this isn't one of them.
Not every "browser" follows the same user-agent format. In fact, the "User-Agent" header field (as specified in RFC 2616) can contain just about anything. There is a "product" token format, but this doesn't specifically include operating system information. And then the spec allows for a "comment" token, which is really just a string inside parentheses. Google [most likely] used the "other" field for all those bots which don't report an operating system in any identifiable way.
This just proves the rule that "statistics alone are meaningless."
There is one factor your brother has completely to include: Enterprises.
Remember when people thought Apple made a better product, but still bought a PC? It was because their employers had PCs, and very few really want to deal with learning two different environemtns. The same could easily happen with IM.
Many businesses are begining to see a need (not just "want", but honest to goodness "NEED") for incorporating IM into their daily communications. The reasons are varied, but viable and (becomming) essential. While e-mail is not considered intrusive enough, phones are (or can be) too intrusive, and face-to-face meetings can be too burdensome.
The problem with the "entrenched" IM providers is the same: lack of a controlled, secure, auditable environment. When it comes to businesses, they want to make sure "what's in the company, stays in the company", which isn't really possible with the big three. They are also not all that secure (although the recent moves by MSN and Yahoo! to incorporate SSL/TLS into their connections is heading in the right direction). And finally, there is just no way to audit what is said on the IM network (this is not just a big-brother thing; if you and your boss agree to something via IM, don't you want verifiable proof of that? Hint: Your logs aren't enough).
Another aspect that's become important is interoperability across businesses. This is where XMPP will (and already does) shine. It's very easy to drop a server into your corporate network, deploy some of the standard clients, and be up-and-running on a secure, private, yet encompassing IM system. Just talk to some of the XMPP company's clients to get an idea of just how important it is to them.
AOL and Yahoo are quickly losing relevance everywhere *but* with average Joe users. And as more businesses deploy IM, the more that market will likely erode as well. Even AOL-TW is aware of this, even if they aren't likely to admit it just yet. MSN, on the other hand is apapting...
The biggest "threat" to XMPP isn't AOL, Yahoo!, or MSN. It's SIMPLE, the competing IM standard within the IETF. This standard has backing by two of the biggest gorrillas in software (IBM and Microsoft), and is the direction MS is taking all of their IM offerings (including MSN). It's already just two camps; those for XMPP, and those for SIMPLE (with "everyone else" trying to find gateways or services into either XMPP or SIMPLE).
It's just too bad (for SIMPLE) that XMPP reached this stage so quickly...
The MS version not only added things (WFC, JDirect), but removed some things (JNI), and weren't truly compatible on others (RMI, if I recall correctly). It was this removal (among others) that violated the contracts and trademark agreements. Basically, MS was calling something Java without it meeting the agreements to have that name.
MS did not uphold their end of the contract, along with violating a trademark agreement. This is why there's such a big legal and technical mess.
If the language can be compiled to Java bytecodes, then any JVM-supporting language should be able to use your compiled, not-from-java code. I say should, and not will, because it's now an issue of the compiler than the JVM. If you can compile against only the bytecodes (like javac can), then there's no issues.
On the other hand, you can always determine the Java-esque structure of your not-from-Java bytecodes using Introspection, for which there are tools (like Netbeans) that provide graphical views of this. It should be possible to generate any "headers" or their like, if the language and the compiler require it.
For the less-then-initiated, more JVM-supporting languages can be found here.
Here is the list of Sun filings. You may believe this link is biased, but its what I found to be the most complete without searching for days. (AFAICT) The specific license(s) MS violated are the Technology Distribution License Agreement (TDLA) and the Trademark License Agreement (TLA).
In a nutshell, the main violations were with removing required functionality. Specifically, MS decided not to implement JNI (in favor of J/Direct). Others are likely listed in the filings, I just haven't gone through them all.
The issue is not that MS added something, but that they intentionally replaced required functionality with their own. HP has a JVM that includes things specific to HP-UX, but they still played nice and kept the required functionality. MS decided to violate their contractual agreements, and make an incompatible JVM that they claimed was "full compliant" with the licensing term.
This isn't just a case of someone (here it was MS) deciding to "be different", but of "breach-of-contract".
And, while many places make the very explicit announcement about "keeping things quiet", maybe making a more explicit mention of cell phones and pagers would be effective. Currently, they all just ask that you "keep it down," without saying what to keep down (-:
The solution that those Japanese scientists have come up with is very cool, though. They should definitely be commended for their efforts, if this is something practical to implement. Since you wouldn't need to necessarily fully enclose the space to be effective (cell phones and pagers (minus sat-based) are still effectively LOS, and don't have tremendous ranges).
There is one problem with your argument: Copyright laws (and the "fair use" provision) are part of the Constitution. The latest laws being passed are really "extensions" to the current Consitution article (which I cannot remember right now, sorry).
So, we do have a right to fair use, under the Constitution. That's part of what the current fights against the DMCA are about: ruling the DMCA unconstitutional because it violates our rights.
I've never burned audio to a CD, unless it was a file within the back-ups I've made. Never.
It really sucks when the RIAA assumes that every CD-R purchase is for copying music. I pay money for music, when I don't even work with music.
This year, I'm going to make it a point to write my US representatives about once a month, on this issue (and similar ones). I didn't mind (well, I do, but I've gained some apathy) when the RIAA made me pay money to them for backing up my data, in the interest of compensating others' "abuse of their artists". I do mind paying them money when they are actively preventing "abuse of their artists" (or at least attempting to).
I would urge all of you out there (that are US citizens, of course), to write to your representatives. Given enough letters saying (essentially) the same thing, the rep's (most likely) going to listen. Even with all the money raised and spent in election campaigns, they can't afford to ignore their constituents. To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "We brought you into that world, and we can take you out." Just let your reps know that you know this (well, gently let them know).
I don't think all Gnutella-based (and Gnutella-cloned) software was designed with the intent to infringe on copyrights. I know that I'm using this type of software within my network to simply share files (easier administration than SMB, but not as easy to use...).
If MusicCity intended to have their software used solely to infringe on copyrights (and that you're able to prove it), and there wasn't any other legitimate use, then your claim that MusicCity violated the law is true. The big problem here is proving that MusicCity never wanted their software used for anything other than a pirating distribution system.
Intent is the biggest thing here: that's what the MPAA vs. Sony (correct plaintiff/defendant) case was about (regarding VCR's).
Does anyone have the scoop as to why Mike Angelo hates Mozilla so much? Was a contribution burned? Did they decide to use someone else's ideas instead of his? Is he just having a permanent "that-time-of-the-month"?
I ask this because he is not forthcoming on his own information. That, and his site is very, very misleading. Do not be fooled the "we asked" or "we investigated" lines. This is the pursuit of one person.
Also, almost all of this individual's "articles" are taken from the Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings. They have little foundation in actual fact.
Now, I myself am not involved in the day-to-day of Mozilla and Netscape, but I follow the direction of this project closely, since the technologies being developed here (mainly XUL and XPCOM) can have a dramatic effect on the future of my employers (sorry, I cannot go into much detail here). I keep updated from the mailing lists, and from MozillaZine and The lizard farm.
I very rarely ever head over to MozillaQuest. The reason: most of the "articles" are factually incorrect. take for instance the article on "Mozilla 0.9.2.1 released". If all you ever do is read MozillaQuest, you'd think there was this tremendous conspiracy going on between Mozilla and Netscape. But a quick perusal of Mozilla and/or MozillaZine shed actual light on the subject: The 0.9.2.1 release is 95-99% equivalent to Netscape 6.1, and is being provided for developers to test and debug their XUL/XPCOM/Plug-ins/skins/etc.. against for Netscape 6.1 compatibility.
MozillaQuest is fiction, with enough truth to make it sound legitimate. If you want the real scoop, head over to MozillaZine. Don't waste time at MozillaQuest.
Smooth installations? Check out the latest Mandrake or RedHat installations. Very simple. Very user-friendly. Plus they're customizable.
Package management? Check out Ximian's latest manager, Red-Carpet. Makes life 80% earier!
Now, before I possibly get flamed, these comments aren't just my opinion: they're also the opinions of a few of my co-workers. These co-workers were linux-bashers, until I "showed" them how to install RedHat 7.1 (red: Handed them the CD, and watched them boot said CD), then updated to the current Ximian GNOME.
Now, one of them is switching (almost) their entire home network over to Linux (except for one computer for games), and the other is asking our Technical Strategist and MIS why we don't use Linux more (both the TC and the MIS still firmly believe that Linux takes a week to install, and another week to setup, and is still lacking good server apps, like web servers, mail servers, etc...)!
Java is a good language to use in learning OOP concepts, even better than C++. This is because Java is a very straight-forward, strictly-typed lanaguage. As such, the language helps to build good object-oriented programming and design practices because of its "simplicity". C++ has too many "relics" from its ancestors (C and CPML (?)) that cloud the OOP concepts.
Completely replacing C++ is probably not the thing to do, though. C++ is a very powerful language that includes such concepts as Generics (templates), Multiple-inheritance, and lower-level resource management. These are facets of general programming that all students of CS should learn.
Continuing to base a Computer Science curriculum on languages like C and Pascal (even VB) is a disservice to the students. The science of computer programming has progressed, and so should the academia. I am not saying that these languages should not be offered at all, rather that the emphasis not be on these older concepts. Teaching older concepts is worse than teaching older languages. I have found (through both personal experience, and from outside observation) that as long as the concepts are (thoroughly) understood, then the language starts to become irrelevent. This is why "object-oriented" has come before us: because procedural and declarative concepts could not adequately solve every problem.
Procedural and declarative programming concepts still have their place; object-oriented concepts bulid upon the foundation that these other concepts provide. Languages like Java (although not Free as in "libre") reinforce the procedural and declarative concepts, and also more solidly present object-oriented concepts.
Actually, AMD and Transmeta have both gotten to their current positions in the market by being transparently compatible with the current technology (which, in this case, is the 80x86 architecture).
AMD and Transmeta together still do not equal the "market clout" that Intel enjoys. For them to come out with (comsumer-level) chipsets not natively running x86 instructions could leave them both at the mercy of the much bigger Intel.
What is the assumption here?
In a number of areas, DSL really is a monopoly. This is because you need to get the signals across a physical wire, and many telephone service providers do not want external boxes in the middle of their hardware (like Pacific Bell).
Even if I was to pay someone $100 for my minimum-speed DSL (which means I get one of their IP's), it ends up going through Pac-Bell hardware anyways (reason #1 why nobody in my area is using anything but Pac-Bell for DSL).
If Pac-Bell decides to set their router to block all RBL traffic, then I am screwed, whether I signed up with Pac-Bell, Earthlink, SpeakEasy, etc...
When it comes to MS operating systems, the hardware specs must be "high". Their operating systems suck away about 30-50% of the available RAM, require anywhere from 200 MB (Win98) to 800 GB (Win2k) of HDD, and also work your processor harder.
This isn't just repitition of other bashes here: This has been my experience writing device drivers for Win95 and WinNT (and researching WDM for Win2k).
Make fun of the Celeron, but if the mobo is optimized for the processor and graphics, it'll be faster. Examples are (just about) any desktop verses the equivalent Insipron laptop from Dell. My boss has one, and it screams compared to my workstation (which is equivalent in memory, HDD, processor, and graphics). The structure of the hardware can do a LOT.
Besides, where's the "firm date" on the XBox? If it follows MS tradition, it'll be 2-6 months late. I understand "late" in the console business means DOA, no?
Try red Hat 7.1...
"Out of the box" (which I still need to buy (-: ) it gives you an option to setup an IPChains-based firewall. The "default" choices result in a fairly secure workstation. Then you can customize...
...before you've even gotten one package onto the system. In this case, my home workstation was about 1000 times more secure than my work machine.
p> Services may be running, but it is kinda hard to exploit something when the packet doesn't even see the light of day...Burlington Coat Factory
In fact, they converted not only their infrastructure, but a number of their corporate offices and their POS systems. I believe they started this in late 1998, but someone should correct this...
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but only three of those aren't "Mozilla inside"...
Nautilus is just (well, not "just") a skin over Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine (ever seen Neoplanet?). It's also the only one (of your four) that doesn't support "pop-ups" whatsoever (that is, Nautilus version 1.0)...
That's better than my response: Fullerton College in (you guessed it) Fullerton, CA.
By the name of this bill (HR 46), this means that the bill ready for consideration within the House of Representatives. Given that the "Christmas break" is almost upon us, it is very possible that our congressional representatives may never see an e-mail before a vote takes place.
But that doesn't mean it will become law.
Any bill going though Congress needs to ultimately end up on the President's desk. You can contact him here.
This tool is not really for generating a driver, but a library on top of their generic (read: inefficient) device driver. It allows for some customization, but not much (look up WinRT!). I've seen these before, and they don't usually meet the needs for anything more sophisticated than a VGA driver...
Besides, writing drivers under Linux are vastly easier to do than under Windows (NT or 9x), especially with the modularization.