If by "the guy" you mean me, yeah I did post the same link in another post. But that didn't get modded at all, it looks like. Then, the next post mentioning skipstone is this one. Then several hours later, some other people posted the link too....
It's actually not that slow when running -- slightly worse than NS 4.7x in the worst case, and far better in the best case.
However, the *startup* speed is what people see first. They get a bad initial impression, because it takes 4x as long as NS 4.7x to load. And of course, people think IE starts almost instantly because Microsoft thoughtfully preloads most of it at system boot time.
My bookmarks work again with 3/1/2001 win32 builds (although I had to delete my mozilla profile dir and start over (backed up bookmarks first) to keep it from crashing at startup.
Umm. Those domains belong to other people. They could fold, or start charging huge amounts, or do whatever they want. It's nice that someone is providing such a service, but it's not the same thing.
--
Re:So it's a good thing that's NOT what they're do
on
VeriSign Usurps .com
·
· Score: 2
I would assume that it's not talking about registered non-profit organizations, but would include not-for-profit and non-commercial organizations.
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Hopefully, with all the furor on the ICANN message board, the requirements for being an "organization" will be reasonable.
There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on.org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a.org domain.
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
government organizations may fit here.
In fact, although I can't find into on the IANA website anymore (it's all been "updated"),.org used to be specifically recommended as the place for individuals who wanted their own domain.
Anything more limiting than this wouldn't be old rules -- it'd be something completely new. If new TLDs are created which serve as functional replacements (something for personal and family domains, something for software projects, etc., etc.), that's all well and good for the future, but it's ridiculous and unfair to take away existing.org domains.
It took me about 1 minute to find a stupid user interface misfeature, 3 minutes to crash the browser without Java and another 2 minutes to find a completely reproducible bug with Java - and I wasn't even actively looking for crashbugs.
I'm posting this from Mozilla -- not Netscape 6. And I know a lot of people out there use Konqueror. Both of these browsers aim for complete compliance with modern web standards, and it'd be ridiculous for them to be locked of sites by silly javascript.
I'm pleased to notice that the proposed methods of browser detection and redirection actually utilize modern functions and see if they work -- sort of like <NOFRAMES>. So, first of all, obscure but modern browsers will "just work". And perhaps more importantly, older browsers (and special-purpose ones, like text-speech) could transparently be redirected to pages designed for that technology level.
As a compromise between users who want to stick with their old browsers and designers who don't want all of their time stuck in a quagmire of old-browser esoterica, I'd suggest that the redirection page should be a plain-text version of the content, with a footnote note that compliance with certain standards is required to view the fancy web page.
This is less heavy-handed than just pushing people away, and yet still gets the message out -- and doesn't take nearly as much time as it would to generate a distinct complete HTML site.
Except this term is descriptive -- ssh is an acronym for "secure shell", clearly derived from the traditional "remote shell". While it's possible to trademark descriptive terms, they tend to be much much weaker, and do *not* protect against other descriptive use of the term.
I really don't like the thought of random windows popping up as I type things. Where do new windows get placed? What happens to the focus? (You suggest that new windows would get the focus by default -- what a pain, since you'd have to then be switching back to your CLI mid-command all the time. And it's even worse when windows come up with prompts while you're typing -- "oops, didn't mean to hit okay to that....")
More fundamentally, I don't think the GUI has much to offer to the CLI other than added clutter. Your example of tail -f popping up a window telling the lines-per-minute scrolling past illustrates this perfectly -- maybe in some small fraction of cases, this would be useful information, but usually its not. One of the basic issues of UI design is the problem of dealing with huge amounts of information -- I don't really see a need to spew out more for no good reason.
Please note that I'm not saying that GUIs in general have nothing to offer -- for many tasks, they're superior to a command line. It's just not necessarily useful to make CLI utils pop up windows.
By contrast, adding a context-sensitive command line to GUI utils sounds like a very valuable sort of integration.
Slashdot Mirror
I should also mention that Mozilla sure does want a lot of RAM, and that psm tends to go crazy. Other than that....
--
--
(You're right though, it's a very cool feature.)
--
However, the *startup* speed is what people see first. They get a bad initial impression, because it takes 4x as long as NS 4.7x to load. And of course, people think IE starts almost instantly because Microsoft thoughtfully preloads most of it at system boot time.
--
(I don't use it for mail, though, just web.)
You *can* install it as root and then use it as a regular user; you just need to register components as root too.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Hopefully, with all the furor on the ICANN message board, the requirements for being an "organization" will be reasonable.
--
There are also apparently plans to reinstate the old limits on .org domains - if you aren't a non-profit corporation, you won't be permitted to register or keep a .org domain.
There never were any such limits. Read RFC 1591
In fact, although I can't find into on the IANA website anymore (it's all been "updated"), .org used to be specifically recommended as the place for individuals who wanted their own domain.
Anything more limiting than this wouldn't be old rules -- it'd be something completely new. If new TLDs are created which serve as functional replacements (something for personal and family domains, something for software projects, etc., etc.), that's all well and good for the future, but it's ridiculous and unfair to take away existing .org domains.
--
I'll have to investigate that further.
--
Mozilla's gone from my box now, and good riddance. Mozilla had a chance, but is now completely irrelevant[...]
Ok, now that's just silly. This is a 0.8 release!
--
And out of curiousity, what is the ui "misfeature"?
--
Did you file bugs against these in bugzilla?
--
Recent builds have very good performance, too. Takes 10 seconds to start up, but once it's running it's pretty snappy.
--
I'm pleased to notice that the proposed methods of browser detection and redirection actually utilize modern functions and see if they work -- sort of like <NOFRAMES>. So, first of all, obscure but modern browsers will "just work". And perhaps more importantly, older browsers (and special-purpose ones, like text-speech) could transparently be redirected to pages designed for that technology level.
As a compromise between users who want to stick with their old browsers and designers who don't want all of their time stuck in a quagmire of old-browser esoterica, I'd suggest that the redirection page should be a plain-text version of the content, with a footnote note that compliance with certain standards is required to view the fancy web page.
This is less heavy-handed than just pushing people away, and yet still gets the message out -- and doesn't take nearly as much time as it would to generate a distinct complete HTML site.
--
Except this term is descriptive -- ssh is an acronym for "secure shell", clearly derived from the traditional "remote shell". While it's possible to trademark descriptive terms, they tend to be much much weaker, and do *not* protect against other descriptive use of the term.
--
--
I really don't like the thought of random windows popping up as I type things. Where do new windows get placed? What happens to the focus? (You suggest that new windows would get the focus by default -- what a pain, since you'd have to then be switching back to your CLI mid-command all the time. And it's even worse when windows come up with prompts while you're typing -- "oops, didn't mean to hit okay to that....")
More fundamentally, I don't think the GUI has much to offer to the CLI other than added clutter. Your example of tail -f popping up a window telling the lines-per-minute scrolling past illustrates this perfectly -- maybe in some small fraction of cases, this would be useful information, but usually its not. One of the basic issues of UI design is the problem of dealing with huge amounts of information -- I don't really see a need to spew out more for no good reason.
Please note that I'm not saying that GUIs in general have nothing to offer -- for many tasks, they're superior to a command line. It's just not necessarily useful to make CLI utils pop up windows.
By contrast, adding a context-sensitive command line to GUI utils sounds like a very valuable sort of integration.
--
--
--
Hitting a key-combo for format codes has the advantage of being synced with your typing -- you know exactly when and where it will occur.
--