Mozilla is a single application suite; it is small compared to either KDE or Gnome.
This is a joke, right?
I mean, there's even a company that is using Mozilla to create a nice interface for Linux machines. How exactly is this different from KDE/Gnome?
It's every bit a platform as KDE or Gnome: It provides a user interface via xml, scripting language support (javascript), the ability to write add-ons for it, and it includes an html rendering engine, a complete email program, an WYSIWYG html editor, an address book, and (soon) a calendar/scheduling program. And anything it gives up in size to KDE/Gnome, it makes back due to the cross-platform complexities.
If you prefer bleeding edge code with more bugs then use Mozilla.
Actually, according to asa, Mozilla 1.1 has about 1000 less bugs than Mozilla 1.0.1, which is what NS7 is based on.
Re:Cranky, but not entirely off...
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 2
Frankly, I was less worried about the feds than I was about having "targeted" advertising shoved in my face as soon as Google has a bad quarter and decides to start selling popup ads.
1. Yes, you're right, I'd much rather look at ads that have nothing to do with my interests. ?!
2. Popup ads? Block them with mozilla or any of the other popup-blockers available.
Re:Cranky, but not entirely off...
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Brandt sounds like a whiny crank who is rather missing the point. OTOH, he is correct that Google applies a persistent tracking ID via cookies, which I had not previously noticed, and about which I'm not terribly happy.
You're right, this is terrifying!
I can see the google conversations now:
Employee: Sir, our servers have indicated person #111439b95052c72a has a really interesting search pattern! I think we should send this info to the FBI for investigation!
Boss: Good work! Tell me his name and address, and we'll send that info over to the feds right away.
Employee: Ummm, name and address? How about a few dozen IP addresses from AOL's proxy servers instead?
And to the poor shmucks who listen to music on a satellite-subwoofer combo: I hope you don't ever come near a high-end audio system. If you do, you will probably realize that your system totally sucks, and will have to replace at least two of those speakers (and probably the amp). There is quite a bit of very tangible difference. Sort of like the difference between a 128k MP3 and the real uncompressed file.
DVD-Audio disc: $20
Satellite-subwoofer combo: $600
High-end audio system: $20,000+
Not being an elitist, audiophile prick, so you can't tell the difference: Priceless!
a 1 gig flash card is limited by your USB speeds a 1 gig flash drive is limited by your system bus speeds
the drives are MUCH faster
1. What does this have to do with price?
2. I have a PCMCIA card reader for my CF cards, where does USB speed fit into this equation? How much faster are the flash drives than my PCMCIA/CF card?
I know I just sound cynical, and I am ready for the 'Troll' and 'Flamebait' moderation points, but I just don't feel it's such a great time to be in the gaming industry right now.
Allow me to explain.
Tim Willits was exclaiming his happiness about the state of technology. He gave his opinion, it's a great time to be in games.
He didn't say "it's a great time for wackybrit to be in games," now did he?
Here in Britian, we pay a TV licence - about £120 per year. We do NOT get ANY ads on BBC1, BBC2, BBC24, etc. I think paying about £120 per year is a good deal for not having commercials
Here in America, I bought a Tivo, I don't pay any TV license, and I don't see any ads.
It would be refreshing to see the directors of a company admit that they have no idea how they can make any money and return whatever their investors ponied up.
I doubt they could return that much to the investors. The article says they can pay them more than what the stock is currently worth, but I imagine most of their long-term investors paid much more than that.
So viruses start coming in executables inside.zip files.
A virus inside a zipfile would never propagate enough to allow itself to be spread around. Viruses require the network effect to spread. You might get a couple of dumbasses to open the zipfile AND execute your program, but it would be VERY low profile.
The primary cause of viruses spreading is (1) stupid-asses clicking on viruses in their emails, (2) stupid-asses not keeping their computers patched, thereby allowing exploits like those found in OE that allow viruses to auto-execute themselves.
All this does is avoid the problem
That's right! We avoid the problem of viruses completely, because we don't allow executables through!
and impose a counter productive inconvenience on your users.
FYI, this "counter-productive inconvenience" is now the DEFAULT way for Outlook to operate, in Office XP and beyond, and anyone that was smart enough to install the Outlook security patch over a year ago.
People RARELY need to send someone an executable attachment. In those rare cases, renaming the file to.bin or zipping it up so that it can get through this sort of protection is not a big deal.
The entire time I was using Outlook with that security patch installed, and on outlook xp, I was never ONCE inconvenienced.
The alternative of virus scanning in an email server is much more expensive, complex, and a losing battle.
To wit, anti-virus companies don't detect specialized executables written specifically to input customized trojans in your internal network, such as someone trying to specifically hack your network, or the FBI/CIA spying on you. I could write a trojan right now that would not be detected by even the most sophisticated anti-virus software, because it doesn't fit any of their signatures. It would slip right into your network, whereas it gets stopped at the gate on mine.
Best of all, my solution requires no extra money or time to be spent to maintain. Occasionally we may need to add a new file extension to the list, wow...
I'm sorry, but tabs are a feature I always turn off. I mean, I'm not mad they're there, but I tried using them and didn't like them. The basic problem with tabs is that they force you to switch windows at two totally different places on your desktop.
Actually, tabbed browsing is completely logical, given the way the desktop and file manager theme is carried out on modern OS's.
Think about it...
Each tab in your window manager is associated with a running program. You click on Mozilla or Konq, and within that program are more tabs associated with multiple views of data for that program.
It's like expanding a folder in your file manager. Opening up a new window for each new page you want to view is akin to putting all your files in one huge directory. It just makes it harder to locate what you want as the number of files (windows) increases.
Tabbed browsing also decreases resource usage. Instead of having a new window open for each page, you have one window with multiple page views available. The resource usage is constrained to what is necessary to render the page, minimizing all the other widgets and menus normally needed for a complete window for each page.
The tabbed interface can be found in other similar programs, such as GUI text editors (www.ultraedit.com is one of my favorites on the Windows platform). I often have 20 files open at a time, and a dozen web pages. Between those two programs, I'd have 30+ windows open without the tabbed interface. No thanks!
Not to mention how nice tabbed browsing is for reading blogs and newspapers. I go through my favorites: slashdot, cnn, my local newspaper, news.com, etc (incidentally, I have one bookmark that opens up all these pages at once with a single click... thanks to tabbed browsing and the cool bookmarks available in mozilla). Each site I middle-click all the interesting links, stacking up other pages to peruse, without taking my immediate attention away from what I am scanning.
I'm sure eventually you will be able to move the tab row in mozilla/konq to the bottom of the screen, to be closer to where most people have their window manager programs running. It doesn't make much difference to me, as the rest of the menu, bookmarks, and url bar are all located right by the browser tabs. It'd make more sense to drag your window manager bar to the top of the screen, if your UI allows.
Re:Dude, you gatta get a Dell.
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
The difference here being that people were well-informed about DIVX's drawbacks because of the relatively uninhibited alternative that was DVD. The only "alternatives" to buying CDs (P2P programs & file sharing in general) are legally shaky at best. They won't be hearing about broken CDs from store clerks because there's no available legal alternative.
Excuse me, but you're completely leaving out the fact that people have had access to completely uninhibited CD's for over a decade. You think they won't notice when suddenly they are running into roadblocks when trying to use these new CD's as they normally would with their others? This is even more obvious than the differences between DVD and DIVX. And in case you forgot, for a while there, several studios were ONLY going to release titles on DIVX. What legal alternatives were going to be available for those movies?
The buying public only makes the right decisions when they are fully informed.
This crap will fail the same way P2P thrived: a few knowledgeable newspaper and magazine articles spread out in the popular rags, and some word-of-mouth from friends and peers.
Re:Dude, you gatta get a Dell.
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
It's much easier just to reject any message that contains a "dangerous attachment." You can figure this out by examining the attachment's filename extension. Here's a good list to work from for dangerous file extensions:
(You could add a few more to the list, maybe Office files like Word.doc's, or even.html to avoid potential javacript holes.)
Send a server level error message stating "message rejected due to dangerous attachment... zip these files, and resend."
If it's a human that really needs to send someone something "dangerous," they can re-package it.
This way you block ALL files that could contain viruses or trojans, without any of the overhead and maintenance. You're basically implementing the same new security model in Outlook XP in your server. If anyone complains, just tell them Outlook XP does the same exact thing.
So sodding what if it doesn't have direct application today ? Would the SFC complain about yet another Dean Kootz book or another pointless film with Tom Cruise in it ?
But the practical application of a Dean Koontz book or a Tom Cruise movie is apparant to everyone: ENTERTAINMENT.
Math is not fun to most people. And really far-out math is worse...
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla is a single application suite; it is small compared to either KDE or Gnome.
This is a joke, right?
I mean, there's even a company that is using Mozilla to create a nice interface for Linux machines. How exactly is this different from KDE/Gnome?
It's every bit a platform as KDE or Gnome: It provides a user interface via xml, scripting language support (javascript), the ability to write add-ons for it, and it includes an html rendering engine, a complete email program, an WYSIWYG html editor, an address book, and (soon) a calendar/scheduling program. And anything it gives up in size to KDE/Gnome, it makes back due to the cross-platform complexities.
OBOS, sadly, just isn't ready for primetime yet.
This is a BETA test of one small part of OBOS. Why on earth would you think OBOS might be ready for primetime after reading this announcement???
How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?
The fact that you think these questions would be hard to answer "No" to is really amazing.
It's true... some of us have never used/sold illegal drugs.
What, alcohol doesn't alter your mind enough for you?
Bertelsmann got its tentacles into Napster when it was the biggest thing on the net.
Bertelsmann bought Napster when it was already dead in the water. I know this because I remember thinking, WHY THE F*CK ARE THEY BUYING NAPSTER?
...like Stephenson's works, it feels like it's aimed squarely at the geeks' demographic.
Maybe this is a different type of "slashdot effect." Where a content publisher puts up articles knowing they will get linked from slashdot.
Just for CmdrTaco, I would like to differentiate this type by calling it the "slashdot affect."
You mean Mozilla 1.1 wasn't based on Mozilla 1.0.1? WOW!
No, it wasn't, smart ass. It was based on 1.0. That's when they branched the code for 1.1.
If you prefer bleeding edge code with more bugs then use Mozilla.
Actually, according to asa, Mozilla 1.1 has about 1000 less bugs than Mozilla 1.0.1, which is what NS7 is based on.
Frankly, I was less worried about the feds than I was about having "targeted" advertising shoved in my face as soon as Google has a bad quarter and decides to start selling popup ads.
1. Yes, you're right, I'd much rather look at ads that have nothing to do with my interests. ?!
2. Popup ads? Block them with mozilla or any of the other popup-blockers available.
Brandt sounds like a whiny crank who is rather missing the point. OTOH, he is correct that Google applies a persistent tracking ID via cookies, which I had not previously noticed, and about which I'm not terribly happy.
You're right, this is terrifying!
I can see the google conversations now:
Employee: Sir, our servers have indicated person #111439b95052c72a has a really interesting search pattern! I think we should send this info to the FBI for investigation!
Boss: Good work! Tell me his name and address, and we'll send that info over to the feds right away.
Employee: Ummm, name and address? How about a few dozen IP addresses from AOL's proxy servers instead?
Boss: Doh.
And to the poor shmucks who listen to music on a satellite-subwoofer combo: I hope you don't ever come near a high-end audio system. If you do, you will probably realize that your system totally sucks, and will have to replace at least two of those speakers (and probably the amp). There is quite a bit of very tangible difference. Sort of like the difference between a 128k MP3 and the real uncompressed file.
DVD-Audio disc: $20
Satellite-subwoofer combo: $600
High-end audio system: $20,000+
Not being an elitist, audiophile prick, so you can't tell the difference: Priceless!
Maybe then you won't put on 100 pounds of fat, and continue to score only at video games.
a 1 gig flash card is limited by your USB speeds
a 1 gig flash drive is limited by your system bus speeds
the drives are MUCH faster
1. What does this have to do with price?
2. I have a PCMCIA card reader for my CF cards, where does USB speed fit into this equation? How much faster are the flash drives than my PCMCIA/CF card?
Let's see here... a strange language written in the shape of a ring.
Well, I dare not utter it here, but in the elvish tongue, it means, "One Ring to Rule them All..."
And so on.
I know I just sound cynical, and I am ready for the 'Troll' and 'Flamebait' moderation points, but I just don't feel it's such a great time to be in the gaming industry right now.
Allow me to explain.
Tim Willits was exclaiming his happiness about the state of technology. He gave his opinion, it's a great time to be in games.
He didn't say "it's a great time for wackybrit to be in games," now did he?
Is this really a issue for perl? or just a matter of time?
If this isn't a perfect setup for a Larry Wall-ism, then I don't know what is!
As Larry says, which do you use more, non-capturing groups or non-named character classes?
Non-named character classes, ten-fold.
Thanks for asking!
Here in Britian, we pay a TV licence - about £120 per year. We do NOT get ANY ads on BBC1, BBC2, BBC24, etc. I think paying about £120 per year is a good deal for not having commercials
Here in America, I bought a Tivo, I don't pay any TV license, and I don't see any ads.
It would be refreshing to see the directors of a company admit that they have no idea how they can make any money and return whatever their investors ponied up.
I doubt they could return that much to the investors. The article says they can pay them more than what the stock is currently worth, but I imagine most of their long-term investors paid much more than that.
So viruses start coming in executables inside .zip files.
.bin or zipping it up so that it can get through this sort of protection is not a big deal.
A virus inside a zipfile would never propagate enough to allow itself to be spread around. Viruses require the network effect to spread. You might get a couple of dumbasses to open the zipfile AND execute your program, but it would be VERY low profile.
The primary cause of viruses spreading is (1) stupid-asses clicking on viruses in their emails, (2) stupid-asses not keeping their computers patched, thereby allowing exploits like those found in OE that allow viruses to auto-execute themselves.
All this does is avoid the problem
That's right! We avoid the problem of viruses completely, because we don't allow executables through!
and impose a counter productive inconvenience on your users.
FYI, this "counter-productive inconvenience" is now the DEFAULT way for Outlook to operate, in Office XP and beyond, and anyone that was smart enough to install the Outlook security patch over a year ago.
People RARELY need to send someone an executable attachment. In those rare cases, renaming the file to
The entire time I was using Outlook with that security patch installed, and on outlook xp, I was never ONCE inconvenienced.
The alternative of virus scanning in an email server is much more expensive, complex, and a losing battle.
To wit, anti-virus companies don't detect specialized executables written specifically to input customized trojans in your internal network, such as someone trying to specifically hack your network, or the FBI/CIA spying on you. I could write a trojan right now that would not be detected by even the most sophisticated anti-virus software, because it doesn't fit any of their signatures. It would slip right into your network, whereas it gets stopped at the gate on mine.
Best of all, my solution requires no extra money or time to be spent to maintain. Occasionally we may need to add a new file extension to the list, wow...
I'm sorry, but tabs are a feature I always turn off. I mean, I'm not mad they're there, but I tried using them and didn't like them. The basic problem with tabs is that they force you to switch windows at two totally different places on your desktop.
Actually, tabbed browsing is completely logical, given the way the desktop and file manager theme is carried out on modern OS's.
Think about it...
Each tab in your window manager is associated with a running program. You click on Mozilla or Konq, and within that program are more tabs associated with multiple views of data for that program.
It's like expanding a folder in your file manager. Opening up a new window for each new page you want to view is akin to putting all your files in one huge directory. It just makes it harder to locate what you want as the number of files (windows) increases.
Tabbed browsing also decreases resource usage. Instead of having a new window open for each page, you have one window with multiple page views available. The resource usage is constrained to what is necessary to render the page, minimizing all the other widgets and menus normally needed for a complete window for each page.
The tabbed interface can be found in other similar programs, such as GUI text editors (www.ultraedit.com is one of my favorites on the Windows platform). I often have 20 files open at a time, and a dozen web pages. Between those two programs, I'd have 30+ windows open without the tabbed interface. No thanks!
Not to mention how nice tabbed browsing is for reading blogs and newspapers. I go through my favorites: slashdot, cnn, my local newspaper, news.com, etc (incidentally, I have one bookmark that opens up all these pages at once with a single click... thanks to tabbed browsing and the cool bookmarks available in mozilla). Each site I middle-click all the interesting links, stacking up other pages to peruse, without taking my immediate attention away from what I am scanning.
I'm sure eventually you will be able to move the tab row in mozilla/konq to the bottom of the screen, to be closer to where most people have their window manager programs running. It doesn't make much difference to me, as the rest of the menu, bookmarks, and url bar are all located right by the browser tabs. It'd make more sense to drag your window manager bar to the top of the screen, if your UI allows.
The difference here being that people were well-informed about DIVX's drawbacks because of the relatively uninhibited alternative that was DVD. The only "alternatives" to buying CDs (P2P programs & file sharing in general) are legally shaky at best. They won't be hearing about broken CDs from store clerks because there's no available legal alternative.
Excuse me, but you're completely leaving out the fact that people have had access to completely uninhibited CD's for over a decade. You think they won't notice when suddenly they are running into roadblocks when trying to use these new CD's as they normally would with their others? This is even more obvious than the differences between DVD and DIVX. And in case you forgot, for a while there, several studios were ONLY going to release titles on DIVX. What legal alternatives were going to be available for those movies?
The buying public only makes the right decisions when they are fully informed.
This crap will fail the same way P2P thrived: a few knowledgeable newspaper and magazine articles spread out in the popular rags, and some word-of-mouth from friends and peers.
If this were true, DIVX would be alive and well.
It's much easier just to reject any message that contains a "dangerous attachment." You can figure this out by examining the attachment's filename extension. Here's a good list to work from for dangerous file extensions:
s ecFAQ.aspx
.doc's, or even .html to avoid potential javacript holes.)
... zip these files, and resend."
http://office.microsoft.com/Assistance/2000/Out2k
(You could add a few more to the list, maybe Office files like Word
Send a server level error message stating "message rejected due to dangerous attachment
If it's a human that really needs to send someone something "dangerous," they can re-package it.
This way you block ALL files that could contain viruses or trojans, without any of the overhead and maintenance. You're basically implementing the same new security model in Outlook XP in your server. If anyone complains, just tell them Outlook XP does the same exact thing.
I think Mr. Dennett has a secret. His friend on the left in this picture is trying to record the secret for posterity.
So sodding what if it doesn't have direct application today ? Would the SFC complain about yet another Dean Kootz book or another pointless film with Tom Cruise in it ?
But the practical application of a Dean Koontz book or a Tom Cruise movie is apparant to everyone: ENTERTAINMENT.
Math is not fun to most people. And really far-out math is worse...