Nonsense. The open source community spends considerable amounts of time and intellectual capital in internecine warfare about how to make some variety of alternatly licensed Unix clone look and behave exactly like Windows.
Nope. The only computers that shipped with OEM Windows 95 that didn't have Plus Pack were those so underpowered that they didn't meet the minimum hardware requirements.
IE 1.0 was available either as part of the Windows 95 Plus Pack. EVERY SINGLE OEM copy of Windows 95 shipped with the Plus Pack installed. Every one. (Although it was up to the OEMs whether they wanted it, every one of them decided to.)
Various OEM Service Releases bundled later versions of IE including (as you point out) IE 3.0 being bundled as part of OSR2 and unless the OEM decided that they didn't want to include the Plus Pack components, they were installed as part of the OEM version of Windows.
As for IE4 being integrated into Win 95, nope. It was a stand-alone package and was later included into Windows 98.
IE1: Was awful. Was bundled with Windows. Went nowhere.
IE2: Was Better. Was bundled with Windows. Got a little market share.
IE3: Was on a par with Netscape and maybe a little better. Was bundled with Windows. Got some market share.
IE4: Blew Netscape away. Was bundled with Windows. Owned the market.
The bundling never changed. What changed was that IE got better and better and Netscape sat on their collective asses and whined about how unfair it was that they weren't guaranteed market share.
Nah, you can only have service packs when you actually get around to releasing something. Pehaps that's why so many open source apps seem to be at 0.0.9997 release? Going to 1.0 would mean that those were bugs being fixed rather than just incremental development...
With x86 processors nearing double the speed (if not more), the Megahertz Myth will not exist since the Apple/IBM processors will be half the speed at half the MHz. Voila, end of myth. (Then Apple and IBM will come up with another one)
Actually, the retail Win95 reported its Windows version as 4.00.950 and the DOS Version was 7.00.
You'd get the earlier numbers with some legacy compatibility switches turned on to allow brain dead apps that blew up on winver>3 or dosver>6 to still run.
Re:more level-headed view of "hackers"
on
Hacker Culture
·
· Score: 2
Actually it wasn't about the creation of the VAX, it was about the creation of Data General's competitor to Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC) much revered VAX.
Re:And The New Hacker's Dictionary is...???
on
Hacker Culture
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure ESR's name in BIG BOLD TYPE really qualifies as much more than just the Jargon File.
In all the hundreds of messages on this topic there are lots of discussions on how to install an automated patch, some on how to manually install the patch but NONE listing what to change in the source code.
So much for the "technical sophistication" of the community and the much publicized ability of "when a bug occurs, you fix the bug and recompile". It seems that really was "when a bug occurs, you download updated code and run a canned script". So tell me, how is that any different than Microsoft's "Windows Update" (except that it's easier to make typos)
All these years we've been told that Open Source software is immune to bugs like this. We've been told it's because all those eyes catch the bugs and the faults are caught long before production. And on top of this, the admins maintaining Apache were better because they had to learn cryptic command lines and text files rather than IIS admins having point and click. After all, if any program met these criteria it is Apache with all those eyes reviewing it for production and even more eyes studying it to create mods and all those professional *ix admins instead of MCSEs.
You mean that was all a lie and the real reasons why IIS was seeing more vulnerabilities was that nobody bothered writing exploits against Apache.
Huh. Guess it's time to rip another few pages out of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". I think that leaves the title page and ESR's bio. On second thought, make that just the title page.
No. Actually you missed my point. I agree with everything you said as far as it goes. I was talking about smarter use of data and distributed computing and not just using the web for HTML.
To try to control layout definitively is to miss the point of the web.
No. To try and control layout is to miss the point of HTML. The web is a LOT more than just HTML and thinking it is nothing more is the kind of blinders that locks people into using Personal computers as nothing more than a dumb terminal to a central mainframe. We've been past that for decades off the web and for years on the web. (Well, at least some of us have been)
Well, if you actually read the recount data rather than just the headlines you'd have seen that if all the votes in the state were counted (as the Florida constitution requires), Gore won by a significant number. It was only in selected partial-count scenarios that Bush got more.
And that's not dealing with the issues of Black voters taken off the voter roll, closed polls in Black districts, fraud in military ballots, the use of accurate voting machines in Republican districts and worn out machines in Democratic ones, the questionable legality of having a partisan campaign director running the election, the "bourgeois riot" paid for by the RNC and staffed by Republican Congressional staff halting the recount, the Supreme Court's ruling that isn't allowed to be precedent, the Supreme Court members who under ABA rules should have recused themselves for their family's working for the RNC...
Really, I expect more from Slashdot posters than I do from Limbaugh dittoheads. Apparently I shouldn't.
Simple. Because the capabilities of specific browsers are kept in a table on the server that has to be maintained for new browsers. If the owner of the server doesn't bother then new entries are unrecognized and default back to a more generic set of capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. The open source community spends considerable amounts of time and intellectual capital in internecine warfare about how to make some variety of alternatly licensed Unix clone look and behave exactly like Windows.
Oh wait, that was USCD p-System in the 1970s...
No. That I actually have some facts at my disposal rather than just mindless biases.
Nope. The only computers that shipped with OEM Windows 95 that didn't have Plus Pack were those so underpowered that they didn't meet the minimum hardware requirements.
I don't know where you were in 94-97 but I was watching my book on Windows 95 (and IE 1.0) sell over 80,000 copies.
So, yeah, I was there. As for rewriting history, perhaps you should study some before you pontificate about things you clearly don't really know.
Wrong.
IE 1.0 was available either as part of the Windows 95 Plus Pack. EVERY SINGLE OEM copy of Windows 95 shipped with the Plus Pack installed. Every one. (Although it was up to the OEMs whether they wanted it, every one of them decided to.)
Various OEM Service Releases bundled later versions of IE including (as you point out) IE 3.0 being bundled as part of OSR2 and unless the OEM decided that they didn't want to include the Plus Pack components, they were installed as part of the OEM version of Windows.
As for IE4 being integrated into Win 95, nope. It was a stand-alone package and was later included into Windows 98.
Nope
IE1: Was awful. Was bundled with Windows. Went nowhere.
IE2: Was Better. Was bundled with Windows. Got a little market share.
IE3: Was on a par with Netscape and maybe a little better. Was bundled with Windows. Got some market share.
IE4: Blew Netscape away. Was bundled with Windows. Owned the market.
The bundling never changed. What changed was that IE got better and better and Netscape sat on their collective asses and whined about how unfair it was that they weren't guaranteed market share.
Nah, you can only have service packs when you actually get around to releasing something. Pehaps that's why so many open source apps seem to be at 0.0.9997 release? Going to 1.0 would mean that those were bugs being fixed rather than just incremental development...
With x86 processors nearing double the speed (if not more), the Megahertz Myth will not exist since the Apple/IBM processors will be half the speed at half the MHz. Voila, end of myth. (Then Apple and IBM will come up with another one)
Guess people have forgotten ASCII. Or did you really mean:
"If you stop Office/Mac, we drop the atomi
Mac OS/X for x86").
(Just guessing you meant ^H instead of ^M)
Only as background to the main point of the book, the development of the "Eagle".
Actually, the retail Win95 reported its Windows version as 4.00.950 and the DOS Version was 7.00.
You'd get the earlier numbers with some legacy compatibility switches turned on to allow brain dead apps that blew up on winver>3 or dosver>6 to still run.
Actually it wasn't about the creation of the VAX, it was about the creation of Data General's competitor to Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC) much revered VAX.
I'm not sure ESR's name in BIG BOLD TYPE really qualifies as much more than just the Jargon File.
In all the hundreds of messages on this topic there are lots of discussions on how to install an automated patch, some on how to manually install the patch but NONE listing what to change in the source code.
So much for the "technical sophistication" of the community and the much publicized ability of "when a bug occurs, you fix the bug and recompile". It seems that really was "when a bug occurs, you download updated code and run a canned script". So tell me, how is that any different than Microsoft's "Windows Update" (except that it's easier to make typos)
Since you're advocating UNIX, shouldn't your sig be:
--- 1232....The Octal of the Beast
All these years we've been told that Open Source software is immune to bugs like this. We've been told it's because all those eyes catch the bugs and the faults are caught long before production. And on top of this, the admins maintaining Apache were better because they had to learn cryptic command lines and text files rather than IIS admins having point and click. After all, if any program met these criteria it is Apache with all those eyes reviewing it for production and even more eyes studying it to create mods and all those professional *ix admins instead of MCSEs.
You mean that was all a lie and the real reasons why IIS was seeing more vulnerabilities was that nobody bothered writing exploits against Apache.
Huh. Guess it's time to rip another few pages out of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". I think that leaves the title page and ESR's bio. On second thought, make that just the title page.
No. Actually you missed my point. I agree with everything you said as far as it goes. I was talking about smarter use of data and distributed computing and not just using the web for HTML.
To try to control layout definitively is to miss the point of the web.
No. To try and control layout is to miss the point of HTML. The web is a LOT more than just HTML and thinking it is nothing more is the kind of blinders that locks people into using Personal computers as nothing more than a dumb terminal to a central mainframe. We've been past that for decades off the web and for years on the web. (Well, at least some of us have been)
Which says a lot more about ESR than it does about Big Unix, Linux or Microsoft...
Well, if you actually read the recount data rather than just the headlines you'd have seen that if all the votes in the state were counted (as the Florida constitution requires), Gore won by a significant number. It was only in selected partial-count scenarios that Bush got more.
And that's not dealing with the issues of Black voters taken off the voter roll, closed polls in Black districts, fraud in military ballots, the use of accurate voting machines in Republican districts and worn out machines in Democratic ones, the questionable legality of having a partisan campaign director running the election, the "bourgeois riot" paid for by the RNC and staffed by Republican Congressional staff halting the recount, the Supreme Court's ruling that isn't allowed to be precedent, the Supreme Court members who under ABA rules should have recused themselves for their family's working for the RNC...
Really, I expect more from Slashdot posters than I do from Limbaugh dittoheads. Apparently I shouldn't.
Microsoft doesn't like to make bad investments and the California government is already, apparently, owned by Oracle.
Simple. Because the capabilities of specific browsers are kept in a table on the server that has to be maintained for new browsers. If the owner of the server doesn't bother then new entries are unrecognized and default back to a more generic set of capabilities.
Actually, ASP.NET reads the header, looks that up to see capabilities and emits based on capabilities.
And nobody could ever have a use for a computer in their home. Just ask the founder of DEC.
Those who find uses will get rich on them. Those that don't will whine about why the world changed out from under them.