Umm.. You do realize that IE has had a similar extension model for ages, and there are lots of tools that use it, right?
I'd love to see tools like you mention, but nothign is stoping anyone from making them if they wanted to. Aparrently, nobody has wanted to. Well, there are lots of third party adblockers, but i was referring to the web developer toolbar.
If you think about it. While IS is version 6, it's gone through several "updates" (mostly service packs, but also what would be a Mozilla point release).
By the way. I don't use tab browsing *AT ALL* on Firefox or Mozilla. It's too annoying. I prefer to use alt-tab to switch between applciations. I don't want to have to switch to Mozilla, then switch to the correct page afterwards. I also frequently have multiple pages open concurrently and want to view them at the same time.
Tabbed browsing just doesn't work for me. Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious. In fact, I don't believe the majority of users out there would ever use it, assuming they even know it exists. Most users open one window at a time and close it before going to another one. They're very single tasking oriented.
If you've ever walked by a Mac lab and looked at all the apps running in the background (because most mac apps don't exit when you close the window) you know what I mean. If it's out of sight, it's out of mind.
I think you're mistaken. There is already adware/spyware for Mozilla/Firefox. See here.
Lots of spyware gets installed via social engineering rather than automatic installation. It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug or cuteftp. On top of that, it's looking like bugs in Flash will be a place for spyware to enter the system as well. Yes, you can block flash, but honestly.. how many average end users are going to do that?
Remember, Mozilla has plug-ins, that means spyware can be installed by any third party program. Remember, Mozilla has extensions, and spyware can be hidden in otherwise legitimate extensions.
This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble.
I'm kind of curious. How is Microsoft "working to prevent it"? None of the legacy MS document formats changed in Office 2003 (other than Access) and MS's "new" format is XML, which while MS makes noises about it being proprietary is far simpler to reverse engineer than a binary document.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but MS's Office license *ALLOWS* you to take a copy home (or use on your laptop), so long as it's not being used in both places simultaneously.
I'm not sure what you're talking about in the rest of your message though. Word 2003 opens Word97 documents just fine. Word97 will open Word 2003 documents just fine as well if you install the freely downloadable filter from MS (though it will strip out formatting that Word97 doesn't understand).
Word is a word processor, not a desktop publisher (though many people try to use it as such). Word is designed to format the data to best fit the printer, not format the printer to best fit the data.
That's not really the problem though. A properly formatted word doc looks good no matter what printer you're using. No, it may not look identical on two different machines, but it will still look *GOOD*.
Open Office screws up the formatting, not just making it look different, so the document no longer looks GOOD.
"- In late February I wrote a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper. The aim was to provide export to other source code management tools and provide a useful tool to the community.
- I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license. I developed the tool in a completely ethical and legal manner. "
Note that he doesn't use the term "client" anywhere and does use the word "at all" which is clearly not correct. He used the BitKeeper server software.
I guess that depends on the BitKeeper server license. I don't know the terms of it, but if it contained a clause about licensing use (such as a Client Access License) then breaking the terms of license while accessing the software would be illegal. The license is what gives you the right to use it. If you don't agree, you can't use it.
So in other words, the whole purpose of Tridge's work was to produce this outcome. Great. It's so nice to know there are others out there looking out for everyone elses best interests and think they are justified in coercing everyone into their way of thinking.
I thought free software was about choice and freedom? As in, freedom to use whatever software you want.
Tridge wants to write software to interoperate with BitKeeper. Writing said software will cause Larry to kill the free version of bitkeeper and force everyone to move to something else. There is now no need for the software to interoperate with anything.
In other words, the software was self-defeating. The very act of writing it makes it useless (not to mention causing all kinds of other problems).
That's easy to say, but Linus is the one that's ultimately responsible. One of the things that's made the Linux kernel so *GOOD* is the attentiont to detail that Linus gives each and every patch.
When you start delegating such things you end up with situations like FreeBSD. If you don't recall, not too long ago there was a big shakeup and Matt Dillon was ejected from the cabal because he was checking in things others didn't like. "trusting" others has it's own flaws.
I was responding to someone that claimed that the Window manager is what slowed X down. What I should have said was "If that's true..." I don't know if it's true or not, but you seem to be certain. Many people in this thread have claimed that running a light weight window manager made X fast.
Well, the cursor jumping around the screen exposed a design flaw in the way analog mice worked. This was fixed in the "optical" variety with an entirely new design.
My point is, maybe the way window managers work is broken. Just because it gives you what you want doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
Maybe.. just maybe.. someone could start a "foundation" or something to collect donations to PAY nVidia and ATI to port quality drivers to Linux.
Then again, maybe that would start a bad precedent, and they'd expect a payment every time a new card was released. But then the alternative is putting up with crap drivers.
Indeed. Not only do you have this you->kernel->x->kernel->you transition, but you also have the various attempts to optimize that (such as batching) which, while cutting down on the context switches drastically, also increases latency. It also makes it more dificult to do certain actions efficiently (like getting or setting the value of a single pixel).
X works a *LOT* better on a dual processor system, since X can be running on one processor and the current app on another, but I doubt various processor balancing algorithms keep this in mind.
I'm not convinced that this is really the problem though, since architectures like BeOS used a similar technique and were very fast. I just think the mechanisms X uses to marshal data suck donkey dick.
Not everything works well as a serial data stream, and that's what network transparency seems to enforce on X.
Indeed. This is nothing new. MS sold a "GoLive" license for VS2003 beta as well. They also sold one for Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 before that.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. You do realize that IE has had a similar extension model for ages, and there are lots of tools that use it, right?
I'd love to see tools like you mention, but nothign is stoping anyone from making them if they wanted to. Aparrently, nobody has wanted to. Well, there are lots of third party adblockers, but i was referring to the web developer toolbar.
just look at how long IE's been in version 6!
;)
Not as long as Mozilla has been at version 1
If you think about it. While IS is version 6, it's gone through several "updates" (mostly service packs, but also what would be a Mozilla point release).
By the way. I don't use tab browsing *AT ALL* on Firefox or Mozilla. It's too annoying. I prefer to use alt-tab to switch between applciations. I don't want to have to switch to Mozilla, then switch to the correct page afterwards. I also frequently have multiple pages open concurrently and want to view them at the same time.
Tabbed browsing just doesn't work for me. Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious. In fact, I don't believe the majority of users out there would ever use it, assuming they even know it exists. Most users open one window at a time and close it before going to another one. They're very single tasking oriented.
If you've ever walked by a Mac lab and looked at all the apps running in the background (because most mac apps don't exit when you close the window) you know what I mean. If it's out of sight, it's out of mind.
I think you're mistaken. There is already adware/spyware for Mozilla/Firefox. See here.
Lots of spyware gets installed via social engineering rather than automatic installation. It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug or cuteftp. On top of that, it's looking like bugs in Flash will be a place for spyware to enter the system as well. Yes, you can block flash, but honestly.. how many average end users are going to do that?
Remember, Mozilla has plug-ins, that means spyware can be installed by any third party program. Remember, Mozilla has extensions, and spyware can be hidden in otherwise legitimate extensions.
This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble.
I'm kind of curious. How is Microsoft "working to prevent it"? None of the legacy MS document formats changed in Office 2003 (other than Access) and MS's "new" format is XML, which while MS makes noises about it being proprietary is far simpler to reverse engineer than a binary document.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but MS's Office license *ALLOWS* you to take a copy home (or use on your laptop), so long as it's not being used in both places simultaneously.
I'm not sure what you're talking about in the rest of your message though. Word 2003 opens Word97 documents just fine. Word97 will open Word 2003 documents just fine as well if you install the freely downloadable filter from MS (though it will strip out formatting that Word97 doesn't understand).
As someone else said, this is a feature.
Word is a word processor, not a desktop publisher (though many people try to use it as such). Word is designed to format the data to best fit the printer, not format the printer to best fit the data.
That's not really the problem though. A properly formatted word doc looks good no matter what printer you're using. No, it may not look identical on two different machines, but it will still look *GOOD*.
Open Office screws up the formatting, not just making it look different, so the document no longer looks GOOD.
Just because you leave your door open doesn't mean someone can legally walk in and take stuff.
I agree with you that you shouldn't be surprised if someone walks in and takes stuff, but that doesn't condone it.
Just because you can connect to a server and there is little or no security, doesn't mean you have the legal right to do whatever you want with it.
The servers may be being run by someone else, but he's USING them. Have you never heard of a client access license?
Actually, no. I quote from Tridges comments:
"- In late February I wrote a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper. The aim was to provide export to other source code management tools and provide a useful tool to the community.
- I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license. I developed the tool in a completely ethical and legal manner. "
Note that he doesn't use the term "client" anywhere and does use the word "at all" which is clearly not correct. He used the BitKeeper server software.
I guess that depends on the BitKeeper server license. I don't know the terms of it, but if it contained a clause about licensing use (such as a Client Access License) then breaking the terms of license while accessing the software would be illegal. The license is what gives you the right to use it. If you don't agree, you can't use it.
You're advocating a very slippery slope.
Just because your data is in my repository doesn't give you the right to break into it against the terms of my license.
That would be like telling the police "Yeah, I broke into Joe's house. I left my wallet in there, so i was justified."
So in other words, the whole purpose of Tridge's work was to produce this outcome. Great. It's so nice to know there are others out there looking out for everyone elses best interests and think they are justified in coercing everyone into their way of thinking.
I thought free software was about choice and freedom? As in, freedom to use whatever software you want.
Here's the part that is stupid.
Tridge wants to write software to interoperate with BitKeeper. Writing said software will cause Larry to kill the free version of bitkeeper and force everyone to move to something else. There is now no need for the software to interoperate with anything.
In other words, the software was self-defeating. The very act of writing it makes it useless (not to mention causing all kinds of other problems).
Apparently Monotone is still too slow to use for a project like the kernel and Arch is not quite there yet.
That's easy to say, but Linus is the one that's ultimately responsible. One of the things that's made the Linux kernel so *GOOD* is the attentiont to detail that Linus gives each and every patch.
When you start delegating such things you end up with situations like FreeBSD. If you don't recall, not too long ago there was a big shakeup and Matt Dillon was ejected from the cabal because he was checking in things others didn't like. "trusting" others has it's own flaws.
Yeah, she was just asking for it dressed like that. It's no wonder.
This kind of logic escapes me. Just because a certain kind of reaction is expected doesn't EXCUSE that action.
Umm.. I don't believe anyone ever accused Tridge of using a BitKeeper client. BitKeeper is both a client and a server.
Clearly he is using the BitKeeper server software by doing this. How can he claim to not use BitKeeper *AT ALL*? That sounds disingenuous to me.
I was responding to someone that claimed that the Window manager is what slowed X down. What I should have said was "If that's true..." I don't know if it's true or not, but you seem to be certain. Many people in this thread have claimed that running a light weight window manager made X fast.
Well, the cursor jumping around the screen exposed a design flaw in the way analog mice worked. This was fixed in the "optical" variety with an entirely new design.
My point is, maybe the way window managers work is broken. Just because it gives you what you want doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
One might argue that if X were properly designed then the choice of Window manager shouldn't slow down the performance of the windowing system.
Of course i'm sure you will disagree. It's like arguing that an application shouldn't be able to crash the OS.
Maybe.. just maybe.. someone could start a "foundation" or something to collect donations to PAY nVidia and ATI to port quality drivers to Linux.
Then again, maybe that would start a bad precedent, and they'd expect a payment every time a new card was released. But then the alternative is putting up with crap drivers.
Indeed. Not only do you have this you->kernel->x->kernel->you transition, but you also have the various attempts to optimize that (such as batching) which, while cutting down on the context switches drastically, also increases latency. It also makes it more dificult to do certain actions efficiently (like getting or setting the value of a single pixel).
X works a *LOT* better on a dual processor system, since X can be running on one processor and the current app on another, but I doubt various processor balancing algorithms keep this in mind.
I'm not convinced that this is really the problem though, since architectures like BeOS used a similar technique and were very fast. I just think the mechanisms X uses to marshal data suck donkey dick.
Not everything works well as a serial data stream, and that's what network transparency seems to enforce on X.
Games don't need administrator either. They just need physical write access to the CD device, a privilege you can grant explicitly.
Indeed. This is nothing new. MS sold a "GoLive" license for VS2003 beta as well. They also sold one for Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 before that.