this is not Mozilla's fault in my cases. It's IE's.
Well, that's another unlikely thing to accuse a browser of. Here's a concept: how about blaming the people who write the pages, can't give a shit about cross browser compatibility and can't be bothered to test with more than one? Wow, that actually makes sense.
And as for "they won't listen to me, bhwaaaaa" part, keep in mind that +90% of the web is viewed through IE. No amount of whining about how product X is better because it's free will change that. Instead, vote with your eyes and go somewhere else. But stop whining.
Re:Problems I have with Mozilla 1.3
on
Mozilla 1.4 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I love how posts like these are modded down. Flamebait? "look! someobody is saying bad tihngs abuot oppen sourse!! adn i haven mod pionts!!! bahahahaha!! take that, m$ suporter!!1!".
"[Consumers] may well be willing to pay for their entertainment -- if the quality is guaranteed and the price is fair"
Give that man a cee-gar. Billions of $$ spent on focus groups by Big Media and he figures out that we like to pay for what we like, and that sometimes we pay because we're just bored to death.
Meanwhile, in our next story (which subscribers can already see!), a researcher in Australia has determined that most mammals cannot stand the taste of Clorox.
because all the of the resources are preloaded into memory. take a look inside your startup programs
Wow, you are teh 1337. I remove that after installing Office.
please let me know where
Well it has different weird bugs depending on where you run it. For example, in Windows it can't deal with certain HP printer drivers. Off the top of my head.
and having to wait 8 more seconds. wow, talk about worker productivity.
P3-933/512MB running RH9 loads OO.org in about 9 seconds
In the same machine class all of the MS Office apps load in about 1 second or less. I can't see how 9 seconds means "it's so ready for the corporate desktop". Plus OO is buggier than hell compared to MS Office.
We have the opportunity to rescue all that hardware (and all those kids) from MS oblivion.
You people sound like christian missionaries. "We'll rescue you from your heathen make-believe gods. We know what's best for you. We have the True Imaginary Friend".
O yeah, it sucks to be your own worst enemy. Not "release the specs", not "allow other OSes to run", no. "Make Linux run on this thing or else". All Microsoft has to do is turn around and say See? This is what open source is all about! You've heard about al-Qaeda and Hamas, but you ain't seen nothing until you face the the Pensacola LUG!!
Take gun, aim at foot, pull trigger. Repeat until death.
The fact is, Sun could still obtain a final order that MS must bundle the Sun JRE with the Windows operating system
Explain how a court can order a company to include a competitor's product while at the same time order them to not ship their own. How about Oracle sues Microsoft to ship their crap forms package with every copy of SQL Server? How about Microsoft sues RedHat to include IE for Unix in every shipped copy if Linux? Or Real sues HP to ship their crap player with every PC they sell?
That smacks of even more government involvement where it is not needed.
And the "... blah blah blah monopoly blah blah blah..." part is irrelevant if Sun wants a judge to force Microsoft to do something, as opposed to stop doing something.
Your analogy of a painter is absurd, since the issues you are talking about with the paintbrush company (global warming) are completely irrelevant to painting
Really now. It is, isn't it?
In regards to Free Software, freedom of speech (which I think is largely what it's about), and the individual freedom of end users, is not "some vague ethic consideration".
You're just a confused zealot. You've probably been reading Slashbork for too long and seen that tired, pathetic "free as in speech" cliche one too many times.
Let me offer you a newsflash here. The creation of software is a form of free speech. But whether I charge for it and give the innards away or not has no relevance whatsoever to any type of freedom, be it speech or otherwise. The artifical claim that looking at source code is somehow a "freedom" is downright stupid.
Of course there's also freedom of choice, which people like you seem to always forget. I have a choice to use whatever version of a given application or OS I want. But with you, it's "join us or die", eh?
they should, however, ask their boss for a clear statement of if that is the only acceptable solution according to him/her, and try to persuade otherwise if it would be effective
Again, I question whether or not you have ever held an actual job in an IT group or as a consultant. My guess is no. We go back to the concept of "real world".
Ethical and moral beliefs indeed are black and white.
Your "beliefs" are a jumble of confused and misunderstood concepts. I think that much is clear. So whether or not they're absolute is irrelevant - you're not only confusing them with real freedoms, but you're obviously blind to reality, and you're applying them in the wrong way. You fail to see gray areas. Ergo, you're a zealot. "Belief" is a word better suited for things like religion, not which widget I happen to use for my r0xx0r AIM clone.
it the question of the morality of Free Software vs. proprietary software
And finally, free software is no more moral than commercial software. Morality implies a higher standard, which is not fullfiled by the people who produce it. I can point to dozens of instances where open source "companies" or "authors" behave exactly the same way as a predatory commercial software corporation. In the end, everyone has to eat. Which wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that everyone always waxes poetic about this supposed moral quality - except when it goes away, in which case there's all sorts of rationalizations and epigrams about how that is "the exception, not the rule". That's called "hypocrisy". Heck, at least when I deal with Microsoft or Oracle I know what I'm getting into.
BTW, I apologize (seriously) for calling you an idiot back there. That was uncalled for.
Let me put it to you this way. You're a home improvement contractor, and I hire you to paint my house. You show up Saturday morning with a can of paint and a little brush. When I ask why you're using such a small brush, you reply that you don't buy the big PaintMan (TM) brushes because you disagree with the company's stance on global warming and the spotted owl. So instead of taking you half a day to paint my house, it's going to take a week. And you're charging by the hour.
Well, by god, you're fired.
Perhaps you operate in an environment where you are fortunate enough to make technical decisions based on vague ethic considerations, but most people (including myself), don't. I use OSS when it makes sense. I use Microsoft and Oracle and IBM software when it doesn't. Or I use whatever the hell the client wants me to use. That's how it works out there.
Stomping your feet and saying that they don't exist does not make them go away
Nor does stomping your feet actually create those implications or even validate them against the backdrop of the real world, which is what you are doing.
I always get the impression that folks like yourself live in this little room where you're isolated from the rest of us. Occasionally you come out and try to argue the finer points of things that you simply do not grok because of your inability to see anything other than black or white. Gray areas are an anathema to you.
Some people have something called ethical considerations. They believe that only users should have certain freedoms in regards to the software they user.
That's great, except that we're talking technology here. Attempts by nutcases like RMS to tie software (!) to ethics notwhitstanding.
Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job.
Minor correction - that's not called "ethics". It's called stupidity.
Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle.
Mwahaha. Tell that to people who use RH server software. Need I link to the various articles published here about the topic where the zealots came out in force and made weak rationalizations how what RH was doing was "less evil" than the product lifecycle followed by Microsoft? Nah.
This explains those who will only use Free Software.
Preferences != reality.
As for those who will only use Macs, loyalty is what drives them.
Loyalty != blind religious stupidity.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
So apparently you tend to revert to claiming people are insulting you when they get tired of your illogical tirades about things you obviously don't even remotely understand. Quite interesting.
And BTW, yes, I heard about this thread from Xer's JE. And yes, you are an idiot.
That's pretty impressive. You managed to mention nazis, SOVIET RUSSIA, the terrorists attacks on the world trade center, did the obligatory "Microsoft is dying" gig and bashed the US government in one seemingly lucid post about a programming language that you apparently don't even like.
The more of these dime companies release crap boxes, the more Linux will be thought of as a crap OS, the kind of thing your redneck friends buy at Wal-Mart because they can't afford a real PC from Dell or Gateway with the "good" OS.
Sounds crappy, but that's where I see this going. Keep it up.
That most interesting of human endeavors whereby some people give away the fruit of their labor and get nothing in return. The idea here is that "closed software" is an anathema to human freedom and therefore clashes with the pursuit of life, liberty and well-cooked apple pie.
A theory formulated by people who came to age trying to screw universities out of what they considered their own personal property, which was then somehow extrapolated to the real world and subsequently swallowed in extremis by a few technically capable idealists and several million people looking for a free ride who contribute absolutely nothing but "believe" and therefore are part of the "community".
The resulting movement (and its derivatives) can be thought of as the technological version of the catholic church during the depth of the medieval era - in both structure and radical "join us or die" behavior.
Along the way they convince themselves that "some day" they'll make a buck on giving away stuff, and when they don't (which is the most common result), they blame the government, the system, the corporations and the weather for being "unfair".
I've recently heard that there is a redmond,india.
There's also a Paris, Texas. Think about it.
Re:This will be another solid update
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Interesting. So what you're saying is that there's no compelling reason to upgrade from Windows 98 or ME to XP, but OS X to OS Whatever is an absolutely compelling upgrade?
Or, to put it another way, how does Microsoft *force* users to upgrade while Apple *makes* them want to upgrade?
I can understand gushing about new technology, but this "Apple can do no wrong" fetish is starting to get weird.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's another unlikely thing to accuse a browser of. Here's a concept: how about blaming the people who write the pages, can't give a shit about cross browser compatibility and can't be bothered to test with more than one? Wow, that actually makes sense.
And as for "they won't listen to me, bhwaaaaa" part, keep in mind that +90% of the web is viewed through IE. No amount of whining about how product X is better because it's free will change that. Instead, vote with your eyes and go somewhere else. But stop whining.
Stupid crackhead mods.
Give that man a cee-gar. Billions of $$ spent on focus groups by Big Media and he figures out that we like to pay for what we like, and that sometimes we pay because we're just bored to death.
Meanwhile, in our next story (which subscribers can already see!), a researcher in Australia has determined that most mammals cannot stand the taste of Clorox.
Makes a good bumper sticker, too.
It rhymes with 'urinated' tho. You gotta give'em that.
Wow, you are teh 1337. I remove that after installing Office.
please let me know where
Well it has different weird bugs depending on where you run it. For example, in Windows it can't deal with certain HP printer drivers. Off the top of my head.
and having to wait 8 more seconds. wow, talk about worker productivity.
Whoosh!
Right. Of course.
In the same machine class all of the MS Office apps load in about 1 second or less. I can't see how 9 seconds means "it's so ready for the corporate desktop". Plus OO is buggier than hell compared to MS Office.
Abstract thought is sometimes hard. I understand.
Nope. Karma's fine, for all it matters. That's why I can post at +2. Thanks for asking tho.
That's nice. And how is that not blackmail again?
You people sound like christian missionaries. "We'll rescue you from your heathen make-believe gods. We know what's best for you. We have the True Imaginary Friend".
Fuck off and die.
Take gun, aim at foot, pull trigger. Repeat until death.
Explain how a court can order a company to include a competitor's product while at the same time order them to not ship their own. How about Oracle sues Microsoft to ship their crap forms package with every copy of SQL Server? How about Microsoft sues RedHat to include IE for Unix in every shipped copy if Linux? Or Real sues HP to ship their crap player with every PC they sell?
That smacks of even more government involvement where it is not needed.
And the "... blah blah blah monopoly blah blah blah..." part is irrelevant if Sun wants a judge to force Microsoft to do something, as opposed to stop doing something.
Really now. It is, isn't it?
In regards to Free Software, freedom of speech (which I think is largely what it's about), and the individual freedom of end users, is not "some vague ethic consideration".
You're just a confused zealot. You've probably been reading Slashbork for too long and seen that tired, pathetic "free as in speech" cliche one too many times.
Let me offer you a newsflash here. The creation of software is a form of free speech. But whether I charge for it and give the innards away or not has no relevance whatsoever to any type of freedom, be it speech or otherwise. The artifical claim that looking at source code is somehow a "freedom" is downright stupid.
Of course there's also freedom of choice, which people like you seem to always forget. I have a choice to use whatever version of a given application or OS I want. But with you, it's "join us or die", eh?
they should, however, ask their boss for a clear statement of if that is the only acceptable solution according to him/her, and try to persuade otherwise if it would be effective
Again, I question whether or not you have ever held an actual job in an IT group or as a consultant. My guess is no. We go back to the concept of "real world".
Ethical and moral beliefs indeed are black and white.
Your "beliefs" are a jumble of confused and misunderstood concepts. I think that much is clear. So whether or not they're absolute is irrelevant - you're not only confusing them with real freedoms, but you're obviously blind to reality, and you're applying them in the wrong way. You fail to see gray areas. Ergo, you're a zealot. "Belief" is a word better suited for things like religion, not which widget I happen to use for my r0xx0r AIM clone.
it the question of the morality of Free Software vs. proprietary software
And finally, free software is no more moral than commercial software. Morality implies a higher standard, which is not fullfiled by the people who produce it. I can point to dozens of instances where open source "companies" or "authors" behave exactly the same way as a predatory commercial software corporation. In the end, everyone has to eat. Which wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that everyone always waxes poetic about this supposed moral quality - except when it goes away, in which case there's all sorts of rationalizations and epigrams about how that is "the exception, not the rule". That's called "hypocrisy". Heck, at least when I deal with Microsoft or Oracle I know what I'm getting into.
BTW, I apologize (seriously) for calling you an idiot back there. That was uncalled for.
Well, by god, you're fired.
Perhaps you operate in an environment where you are fortunate enough to make technical decisions based on vague ethic considerations, but most people (including myself), don't. I use OSS when it makes sense. I use Microsoft and Oracle and IBM software when it doesn't. Or I use whatever the hell the client wants me to use. That's how it works out there.
Stomping your feet and saying that they don't exist does not make them go away
Nor does stomping your feet actually create those implications or even validate them against the backdrop of the real world, which is what you are doing.
I always get the impression that folks like yourself live in this little room where you're isolated from the rest of us. Occasionally you come out and try to argue the finer points of things that you simply do not grok because of your inability to see anything other than black or white. Gray areas are an anathema to you.
That's great, except that we're talking technology here. Attempts by nutcases like RMS to tie software (!) to ethics notwhitstanding.
Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job.
Minor correction - that's not called "ethics". It's called stupidity.
Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle.
Mwahaha. Tell that to people who use RH server software. Need I link to the various articles published here about the topic where the zealots came out in force and made weak rationalizations how what RH was doing was "less evil" than the product lifecycle followed by Microsoft? Nah.
This explains those who will only use Free Software.
Preferences != reality.
As for those who will only use Macs, loyalty is what drives them.
Loyalty != blind religious stupidity.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
So apparently you tend to revert to claiming people are insulting you when they get tired of your illogical tirades about things you obviously don't even remotely understand. Quite interesting.
And BTW, yes, I heard about this thread from Xer's JE. And yes, you are an idiot.
Only on Slashdot.
Look up "general example" somewhere. I build my own boxes. And BTW, I've bought laptops from Dell. Not "EVERYONE" has had bad experiences with them.
The more of these dime companies release crap boxes, the more Linux will be thought of as a crap OS, the kind of thing your redneck friends buy at Wal-Mart because they can't afford a real PC from Dell or Gateway with the "good" OS.
Sounds crappy, but that's where I see this going. Keep it up.
A theory formulated by people who came to age trying to screw universities out of what they considered their own personal property, which was then somehow extrapolated to the real world and subsequently swallowed in extremis by a few technically capable idealists and several million people looking for a free ride who contribute absolutely nothing but "believe" and therefore are part of the "community".
The resulting movement (and its derivatives) can be thought of as the technological version of the catholic church during the depth of the medieval era - in both structure and radical "join us or die" behavior.
Along the way they convince themselves that "some day" they'll make a buck on giving away stuff, and when they don't (which is the most common result), they blame the government, the system, the corporations and the weather for being "unfair".
Basically.
Finding Nemo?
There's also a Paris, Texas. Think about it.
Or, to put it another way, how does Microsoft *force* users to upgrade while Apple *makes* them want to upgrade?
I can understand gushing about new technology, but this "Apple can do no wrong" fetish is starting to get weird.