Unless he stops using the GPL, there is no way AFAIK to slip in an anti-SUN clause. The best he could do is modify the GPL to close the loophole, which he says is intended to only cover apps and not drivers to explicitly state this, and hope it is still compatible with the GPL
Of course, the distinction between driver and application may not always be as clearcut as in this case.
Example: An X server is currently considered an application under Linux, but in some systems the equivalent functionality is provided by code that runs as part of the kernel.
Re:What the real question is...
on
The First Mouse
·
· Score: 1
I've heard rumours that the "official" name was the rodentiometer and that the smallest detectable unit of mouse movement is called a "mickey".
Can't remember where I read that though.
From the Jargon File, v. 4.2.2:
mickey n.
The resolution unit of mouse movement. It has been suggested that the `disney' will become a benchmark unit for animation graphics performance.
I've never heard anything about this being the "official" terminology. I certainly hope the disney part doesn't become a reality.
IE on the other hand, I've seen it take out every MS OS (including NT) on several occasions.
But this is more of an indictment of Windows than IE. If IE ran on Linux, you'd see the same behavior as with Netscape.
The only things I have ever seen "crash" Linux are games using the SVGAlib. Even then Linux is still running, just the console is totally fscked and you have to telnet in.
(Of course, this leads to the problem that the browser's don't fully support the W3C spec, but that's all the more reason they should work on getting THAT done before they think about adding new and unusual features...)
And unfortunately, IE appears to support a larger subset of the standards than Netscape 4.x.
The disparity is so great for the designer, it often comes down to a choice between supporting Netscape and complying with standards.
IE has its own wacky features, but they tend to be things that most people don't use anyway and can safely be ignored.
Mozilla, of course, is a whole other matter. If it ever gets to the point that it runs faster on a windows box than IE, it will be a serious threat.
About once a month when I start IE I get sent to a MS page telling me there's a wonderful new upgrade. AFAIK you can't get around this behaviour, it's a "feature".
Several others have pointed out that you can turn this off. Its under "Advanced Options", though, so 99.99% of IE users probably do not turn it off.
I have had the dubious pleasure of being an internal IT guy at a company where the firewall would not allow connections to the outside world except from certain priveledged internal IPs.
(Yes, this was done on purpose. Yes, I know how many ways there are to thwart this kind of policy, but I wasn't interested in getting fired).
IE still worked on the local intranet, whether or not the PC could get to microsoft.com, except when it tried to run these upgrades. The upgrades wouldn't have worked anyway, probably, since most people were running NT with a "user" level account.
Still, is it true that the upgrade process actually goes through the redirect, thereby informing microsoft of what your homepage is? There is no legitimate excuse for that!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the modifications you'd have to make to get that TV to work with US cable systems will almost certainly be illegal.
Not saying it will stop anybody, of course.
Prediction: broadcast TV (and radio) will be so dead that the VHF/UHF spectra will be re-assigned to carry Internet traffic exclusively.
Of course, the distinction between driver and application may not always be as clearcut as in this case.
Example: An X server is currently considered an application under Linux, but in some systems the equivalent functionality is provided by code that runs as part of the kernel.
From the Jargon File, v. 4.2.2:
I've never heard anything about this being the "official" terminology. I certainly hope the disney part doesn't become a reality.But this is more of an indictment of Windows than IE. If IE ran on Linux, you'd see the same behavior as with Netscape.
The only things I have ever seen "crash" Linux are games using the SVGAlib. Even then Linux is still running, just the console is totally fscked and you have to telnet in.
I screwed up and didn't clearly indicate what was quoted from the other post, and what was mine.
The phrase
was a quote. The rest of the post was my reply.Sorry for confusion. Damn me for not using Preview, but I did know what I was talking about.
My example used a FQDN, but it is not neccessary. If the server gives a URL that your local browser is capable of following, it will work.
Note that I did not say that IE actually redirect like this, especially not every time you start it. I'm just saying they could if they wanted to.
They don't have to. They can just send your browser an HTTP header like this:
and your browser will do the rest. Microsoft themselves never actually connect to mysever.me.com.I'm not saying this is what they actually do, I'm just saying this is how they would do it if they did.
And unfortunately, IE appears to support a larger subset of the standards than Netscape 4.x.
The disparity is so great for the designer, it often comes down to a choice between supporting Netscape and complying with standards.
IE has its own wacky features, but they tend to be things that most people don't use anyway and can safely be ignored.
Mozilla, of course, is a whole other matter. If it ever gets to the point that it runs faster on a windows box than IE, it will be a serious threat.
Several others have pointed out that you can turn this off. Its under "Advanced Options", though, so 99.99% of IE users probably do not turn it off.
I have had the dubious pleasure of being an internal IT guy at a company where the firewall would not allow connections to the outside world except from certain priveledged internal IPs.
(Yes, this was done on purpose. Yes, I know how many ways there are to thwart this kind of policy, but I wasn't interested in getting fired).
IE still worked on the local intranet, whether or not the PC could get to microsoft.com, except when it tried to run these upgrades. The upgrades wouldn't have worked anyway, probably, since most people were running NT with a "user" level account.
Still, is it true that the upgrade process actually goes through the redirect, thereby informing microsoft of what your homepage is? There is no legitimate excuse for that!
Its not like the algortithm hasn't been on T-shirts and bumper stickers for the better part of a decade..