I used to use that. Windows 2000 had a problem with huge hosts files where the c/s process would freeze for a few seconds once in a while, I suppose while re-parsing the contents or something. I'm not really keen on figuring out if XP and Vista fixed that.
Also, that approach is completely inflexible. With AdBlock when I find a new adrat I just add it to the exclusion list - with wildcards and whatnot. I don't want to lose that =)
By the way, that must have been whatever previous version I was using (probably two?). Right now I'm running 1.5.0.11 but I don't remember when exactly was that and the next time I updated FF. Like I said, I simply don't bother much with that. I know it's a problem.
Thanks. I've tried AdBlocker and another one. They are inflexible and generally suck. I tried Proxomitron for a while, but that's a pain in the ass.
To be clear, I don't care that they cost money. That's not the point. I donated $100 to Mozilla before they started pulling in the millions from Google. I don't have a problem buying software. But it needs to work. AdBlock just works.
Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?
Not really (not to me at least), but that's not the point. Whatever extension system Microsoft adds to IE needs to get away from that brittle mess permanently. Otherwise they won't build up a community and without a community you have no diversity, which makes everything suck.
I don't know if such a thing exists, but if someone came up with an AdBlock clone for IE I'd jump on it in an instance, no matter how much $$ it was.
Oh, I'm sorry. I must have entered the fanboy zone. I thought all you people had given up on this "bwah, Firefox doesn't use too much memory" mantra. I measured close to 700MB memory usage as reported by the Windows task manager a few months ago. I run AdBlock, CustomizeGoogle, IEView and Google Notebook. With the "Whitehart" theme, which is pretty sparse. It had been runing for five or six days. Let me repeat that just so we're all clear: 700 Megabytes.
If I actually cared enough about the issue I wouldn't be using Firefox. I live with it because I consider it an acceptable tradeoff for what I get in return. That doesn't mean I'm making up bullshit about it.
They could ship one disabled by default. I mean, I really don't care a rat's ass about all the special rules people dream up that supposedly apply to Microsoft because they are a monopoly. Ship it and let the user decide. I like my monopolies better when they give me choices.
Seriously, Firefox is nice and all but 700MB for three tabs is just a little extreme. I'd jump back to IE in a heartbeat if they gave me AdBlock or an equivalent thereof. Hell, I'll settle for FlashBlock or something like that to begin with.
Seriously, the only reason I dropped IE and went to Firefox is the extensions (nee add-ins). I live with the almost glacial speed of Firefox and it annoying quirks just because of that one thing. And specifically, AdBlock. Nothing else. The others are nice, but AdBlock is the reason I started enjoying the internet more.
Until Microsoft figures out a way for people to create extensions easily, without having to know C++ and COM/ActiveX, they're not going to get people like me back. I don't care about tabs. I don't care about skins. I don't care about aggregators or fancy micro-whatevers. I don't care about security (in the sense that I was secure enough with IE since my IQ is above that of a jellyfish). Without the extensions and the community that needs to build behind them, it's a no-go for me at least. Holy shit, it's 2007 and I still don't have an easy way to turn off Flash on demand. Really, WTF?
But twitter, I thought you haven't actually purchased a computer in ten years? What "M$ tax" have you been paying?
from bios
You have been called on that before and found lacking. Might want to stop using that link completely. It's just sadly ridiculous.
BTW, I think you broke your own "dollar signs per post" record with this one. I can barely make out coherent phrases in that faux anger/creative spelling shitstorm you charitably call writing.
I find it amusing that you're complaining about.NET, given that you think it's a "buggy piece of shit" What exactly is it to you? Just like you enjoy compaining about the "M$ tax" but haven't bought a computer in eight years? Pointless flamebait, as usual.
Ah, but you're in karma whoring mode right now. I see. Gotta get out from under all those troll mods from the past few days.
Not that anyone has successfully done that on top of Linux AFAIK
Oh, you're wrong. I've used Linux-based distributions that don't use the GNU coreutils, GCC, bash and so on. Replacements exist for everything if you know where to look. It's pretty arrogant to claim that because glibc and bash are not present then the OS can't be "Unix-like". People actually used Unix systems before GNU, you know.
Listen, go read his silly FAQ. Then come back and tell me that's not a case of simple envy. Stallman is essentially saying "I had the idea for a free Unix. I couldn't write a kernel. The posterboy wrote one, his ideals are orthogonal to mine and everyone ran with it. That pisses me off and I can't do a single thing about it because I hung myself with my own license. Please do as I say or I'll throw a hissy fit"
If he wants more recognition (which again I'm not contesting he deserves), he's going to have to find a better way. He has a better chance of getting people to stop using "google" as a verb than to have them call what they know as "Linux" something else. "noo-slash-leenucks" is never going to stick.
Let's try to run those on just Linux, the kernel. Not going to work.
Let's try to run them on BSD. Wow, it works. So why isn't Stallman asking for people to call it "GNU/FreeBSD"? Read his answer to that in his FAQ. It's hilarious. He might as well have written "because Linux is the popular one, I don't care about BSD".
Not going to work.
Not going to work without X.org, either. So why don't we call it "X11/Linux" instead? Surely X is as important as GNU? At least for a non-server? And when we have a server, why not call it "Apache/Linux"? Or "Perl/Linux"? When do you stop?
Interestingly, people have built GNU-based operating systems without Linux
People have built operating systems using the GNU userspace tools. Quite a different thing.
I don't know of any attempt to build a Linux-based unix-like OS without GNU.
Never been to embedded much, have you?
There are replacements for anything GNU has ever published. From bash to GCC to Emacs and everything else. Using the GNU tools is just convenient. Again, not to minimize their importance, but creating a bunch of tools doesn't give you an operating system and it doesn't entitle you to append your name to other people's work.
Bottom line is, Richard Stallman and the FSF should create their own distro and call it "GNU/Linux". Oh wait, it already exists. It's called Debian. He should count his blessings and stop bitching.
After that, it was pale faces, trembling, and hushed whispers.
Yes, I'm sure that's the case. I mean, I'm going to choose a CLR, compiler and toolset written on Novell's dime instead of the Microsoft one released for free that is fully supported and tested for the past six years. Just like everyone uses half-assed implementations instead of J2EE when they go with Java. I'm sure that's what they're afraid of. After all, it's not like they didn't release an open source version of their own that also builds on OS X.
Or maybe I'm missing the point here - why exactly were they "trembling"?
The problem is that you can even say "GNU System" with a straight face. There's no such thing. Why is that so hard to understand? Stallman had a plan, and he ended up succeeding only partially at it. "GNU" is a userspace toolchain that can be adapted to a kernel. Nothing more. He can be commended for his vision and 50% of the execution. But again, if he wants naming rights then he can ship his own kernel.
Do you see the irony here? He released his code under his own vaunted license, failed at creating a usable kernel, and now the terms of his own license preclude him from getting the recognition he deserves (a point I'm not contesting) other than whining about how the "poster boy for open source" robbed him of his "decade" and further dividing the community he helped create. Seriously, if that's not a textbook case on why you shouldn't use the GPL I don't know what is. Either use the BSD license if you don't care, like Theo de Raadt, or use another license where you specifically require attribution.
Calling a bunch of tools an "operating system" without a kernel doesn't quite cut it in my book, but you're more than welcome to call it whatever you want.
That's pretty much the state Linux was at in 1995. Considering Linux wasn't actually "grandma-friendly" until 2003 or so, assuming HURD gets all the volunteer and corporate backing Linux has had since then they have what... 8-10 years to go?
Unless they're going for some alternative-platform server-only niche or something like that and not really shooting for the desktop or commodity app server spaces.
It's not "being a jerk". And I don't mind other people giving credit to whomever they want, as long as they don't try to push the ideal on others.
As to the "GNU/Linux" thing, it's quite simple. When asked why not call it "Linux/GNU/Apache/X.org/KDE/etc" Stallman's response is a disingenous "well you have to draw the line somewhere" and he wants the line drawn where he think it fits best.
The whole history of the "GNU System" is like a bad joke. "Hey, here are a bunch of tools! They don't have anywhere to run, but we demand that you consider us an operating system!!"
I would never argue that the GNU userspace contribution is trivial. But if Stallman wants naming rights he can write his own kernel.
As far as I'm concerned, it's "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" or "SuSE", or just plain "Linux". If that means "being a jerk" then that's too bad.
Really though, if you don't have GNU/Linux as your primary home desktop right now, you have something against Linux.
"Join us or die"
It's "Linux", BTW. Most of us don't agree with Stallman's arguments about naming conventions. Are you by any chance paid by the FSF to push that line on people?
The only thing M$ has over GNU/Linux is accelerated video drivers
And running all of their applications.
Funny how M$'s revenue uptick did nothing for Dell, now isn't it?
Wow, talk about reductio ad absurdum. Why don't you go research about what's wrong with Dell's business model before you start connecting the dots? It's been on the news lately.
I've got no need for a new computer because my six year old hardware does what I need it to do.
So, you've been complaining for seven years about how you have to pay the "M$ tax", but you haven't actually bought a computer in six years? So "Windoze" sucks, but you haven't used it in six years (even though of course you know it BSoD's three times a day)? Interesting.
2007 is the year
Seems to me 2007 is going to be the year of business as usual if most professional GNU/Linux "commentators" are much like you. Suddenly no one wants to buy a computer with Linux because it "takes away your freedom" or "that's not my distro" and so on. Joe Windows is not going to buy a box with Linux because they don't know any better, and the people who do really don't have any use for a new preloaded Ubuntu box. Sounds like a win-win situation for sure. And you seem to be doing your part.
AIX, Solaris and HP-UX are essentially what defines the concept of UNIX nowadays. The descendants of System V (well, not really Solaris). Linux and BSD are a distant second, at least in enterprise environments.
Besides mainframe and midrange systems, that's what you'd call "big iron".
All I have to do is send you a TAR file with an already chmod'ed ELF binary and get you to unpack it and run it. And why not? Windows users do that all the time. Heck, they get infected by executables in password-protected ZIP files, even after Winzip and Windows ask them TWICE whether they want to run it or not. And Outlook by default won't even let them open it.
But maybe when all those people switch to "GNU/Linux" they'll automagically have their IQ upgraded by 70 points. Right?
I think you're missing some context here. I would never try to argue as to the number of machines in botnets that belong to a particular OS. The vast majority of them are running Windows. This really goes back to an incident where "Erris" here (actually his other suckpuppet account) dared someone to provide proof that any "GNU/Linux" machine was in a botnet. Of course, he was given the proof, after which he curiously decided that he didn't want to participate in the discussion anymore. That's all.
Having said that, while I think it would be disingenuous to claim there aren't a crapload of Windows machines in botnets, I'm still waiting from Cerf's proof that 1/4 of all Windows machines are. It's interesting no one else bothered to question that number. Oh, wait, it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly on my Ubuntu box I have to run the "normal" version because for some reason the Plus one shits up Firefox like there's no tomorrow.
It's the extensions which invariably cause the memory bloat.
I disagree. Obviously the more extensions you drop in the more memory you will consume (and leak), but FF is pretty good at it without much help.
Also, that approach is completely inflexible. With AdBlock when I find a new adrat I just add it to the exclusion list - with wildcards and whatnot. I don't want to lose that =)
By the way, that must have been whatever previous version I was using (probably two?). Right now I'm running 1.5.0.11 but I don't remember when exactly was that and the next time I updated FF. Like I said, I simply don't bother much with that. I know it's a problem.
To be clear, I don't care that they cost money. That's not the point. I donated $100 to Mozilla before they started pulling in the millions from Google. I don't have a problem buying software. But it needs to work. AdBlock just works.
Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?
Not really (not to me at least), but that's not the point. Whatever extension system Microsoft adds to IE needs to get away from that brittle mess permanently. Otherwise they won't build up a community and without a community you have no diversity, which makes everything suck.
I don't know if such a thing exists, but if someone came up with an AdBlock clone for IE I'd jump on it in an instance, no matter how much $$ it was.
If I actually cared enough about the issue I wouldn't be using Firefox. I live with it because I consider it an acceptable tradeoff for what I get in return. That doesn't mean I'm making up bullshit about it.
Seriously, Firefox is nice and all but 700MB for three tabs is just a little extreme. I'd jump back to IE in a heartbeat if they gave me AdBlock or an equivalent thereof. Hell, I'll settle for FlashBlock or something like that to begin with.
Until Microsoft figures out a way for people to create extensions easily, without having to know C++ and COM/ActiveX, they're not going to get people like me back. I don't care about tabs. I don't care about skins. I don't care about aggregators or fancy micro-whatevers. I don't care about security (in the sense that I was secure enough with IE since my IQ is above that of a jellyfish). Without the extensions and the community that needs to build behind them, it's a no-go for me at least. Holy shit, it's 2007 and I still don't have an easy way to turn off Flash on demand. Really, WTF?
But twitter, I thought you haven't actually purchased a computer in ten years? What "M$ tax" have you been paying?
from bios
You have been called on that before and found lacking. Might want to stop using that link completely. It's just sadly ridiculous.
BTW, I think you broke your own "dollar signs per post" record with this one. I can barely make out coherent phrases in that faux anger/creative spelling shitstorm you charitably call writing.
Ah, but you're in karma whoring mode right now. I see. Gotta get out from under all those troll mods from the past few days.
Oh, you're wrong. I've used Linux-based distributions that don't use the GNU coreutils, GCC, bash and so on. Replacements exist for everything if you know where to look. It's pretty arrogant to claim that because glibc and bash are not present then the OS can't be "Unix-like". People actually used Unix systems before GNU, you know.
Listen, go read his silly FAQ. Then come back and tell me that's not a case of simple envy. Stallman is essentially saying "I had the idea for a free Unix. I couldn't write a kernel. The posterboy wrote one, his ideals are orthogonal to mine and everyone ran with it. That pisses me off and I can't do a single thing about it because I hung myself with my own license. Please do as I say or I'll throw a hissy fit"
If he wants more recognition (which again I'm not contesting he deserves), he's going to have to find a better way. He has a better chance of getting people to stop using "google" as a verb than to have them call what they know as "Linux" something else. "noo-slash-leenucks" is never going to stick.
twitter, I think I speak for everyone when I say that I am eagerly awating your response to this post.
It's not for him to draw.
Let's try to run them on BSD. Wow, it works. So why isn't Stallman asking for people to call it "GNU/FreeBSD"? Read his answer to that in his FAQ. It's hilarious. He might as well have written "because Linux is the popular one, I don't care about BSD".
Not going to work.
Not going to work without X.org, either. So why don't we call it "X11/Linux" instead? Surely X is as important as GNU? At least for a non-server? And when we have a server, why not call it "Apache/Linux"? Or "Perl/Linux"? When do you stop?
Interestingly, people have built GNU-based operating systems without Linux
People have built operating systems using the GNU userspace tools. Quite a different thing.
I don't know of any attempt to build a Linux-based unix-like OS without GNU.
Never been to embedded much, have you?
There are replacements for anything GNU has ever published. From bash to GCC to Emacs and everything else. Using the GNU tools is just convenient. Again, not to minimize their importance, but creating a bunch of tools doesn't give you an operating system and it doesn't entitle you to append your name to other people's work.
Bottom line is, Richard Stallman and the FSF should create their own distro and call it "GNU/Linux". Oh wait, it already exists. It's called Debian. He should count his blessings and stop bitching.
Yes, Foo.get_Adapter() is so much better than Foo.Adapter.
Yes, I'm sure that's the case. I mean, I'm going to choose a CLR, compiler and toolset written on Novell's dime instead of the Microsoft one released for free that is fully supported and tested for the past six years. Just like everyone uses half-assed implementations instead of J2EE when they go with Java. I'm sure that's what they're afraid of. After all, it's not like they didn't release an open source version of their own that also builds on OS X.
Or maybe I'm missing the point here - why exactly were they "trembling"?
ROFL. Just that little bitty piece?
The problem is that you can even say "GNU System" with a straight face. There's no such thing. Why is that so hard to understand? Stallman had a plan, and he ended up succeeding only partially at it. "GNU" is a userspace toolchain that can be adapted to a kernel. Nothing more. He can be commended for his vision and 50% of the execution. But again, if he wants naming rights then he can ship his own kernel.
Do you see the irony here? He released his code under his own vaunted license, failed at creating a usable kernel, and now the terms of his own license preclude him from getting the recognition he deserves (a point I'm not contesting) other than whining about how the "poster boy for open source" robbed him of his "decade" and further dividing the community he helped create. Seriously, if that's not a textbook case on why you shouldn't use the GPL I don't know what is. Either use the BSD license if you don't care, like Theo de Raadt, or use another license where you specifically require attribution.
Calling a bunch of tools an "operating system" without a kernel doesn't quite cut it in my book, but you're more than welcome to call it whatever you want.
Unless they're going for some alternative-platform server-only niche or something like that and not really shooting for the desktop or commodity app server spaces.
As to the "GNU/Linux" thing, it's quite simple. When asked why not call it "Linux/GNU/Apache/X.org/KDE/etc" Stallman's response is a disingenous "well you have to draw the line somewhere" and he wants the line drawn where he think it fits best.
The whole history of the "GNU System" is like a bad joke. "Hey, here are a bunch of tools! They don't have anywhere to run, but we demand that you consider us an operating system!!"
I would never argue that the GNU userspace contribution is trivial. But if Stallman wants naming rights he can write his own kernel.
As far as I'm concerned, it's "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" or "SuSE", or just plain "Linux". If that means "being a jerk" then that's too bad.
"Join us or die"
It's "Linux", BTW. Most of us don't agree with Stallman's arguments about naming conventions. Are you by any chance paid by the FSF to push that line on people?
The only thing M$ has over GNU/Linux is accelerated video drivers
And running all of their applications.
Funny how M$'s revenue uptick did nothing for Dell, now isn't it?
Wow, talk about reductio ad absurdum. Why don't you go research about what's wrong with Dell's business model before you start connecting the dots? It's been on the news lately.
I've got no need for a new computer because my six year old hardware does what I need it to do.
So, you've been complaining for seven years about how you have to pay the "M$ tax", but you haven't actually bought a computer in six years? So "Windoze" sucks, but you haven't used it in six years (even though of course you know it BSoD's three times a day)? Interesting.
2007 is the year
Seems to me 2007 is going to be the year of business as usual if most professional GNU/Linux "commentators" are much like you. Suddenly no one wants to buy a computer with Linux because it "takes away your freedom" or "that's not my distro" and so on. Joe Windows is not going to buy a box with Linux because they don't know any better, and the people who do really don't have any use for a new preloaded Ubuntu box. Sounds like a win-win situation for sure. And you seem to be doing your part.
Besides mainframe and midrange systems, that's what you'd call "big iron".
Interesting. When that's the case with a Windows solution, as I understand it it's always Microsoft's fault.
And you smell funny.
Other than that, you are free to say all the "bad" things you want about "M$". Just don't be surprised when someone questions your FUD.
I can't imagine why anyone would actually say that other than not nowing any better or being paid to spew retarded FUD about Microsoft.
http://nostarch.com/download/rootkits_ch2.pdf
All I have to do is send you a TAR file with an already chmod'ed ELF binary and get you to unpack it and run it. And why not? Windows users do that all the time. Heck, they get infected by executables in password-protected ZIP files, even after Winzip and Windows ask them TWICE whether they want to run it or not. And Outlook by default won't even let them open it.
But maybe when all those people switch to "GNU/Linux" they'll automagically have their IQ upgraded by 70 points. Right?
Having said that, while I think it would be disingenuous to claim there aren't a crapload of Windows machines in botnets, I'm still waiting from Cerf's proof that 1/4 of all Windows machines are. It's interesting no one else bothered to question that number. Oh, wait, it's not.