I don't think this is a nice solution, I think its awful. Like you said in your second paragraph, the real problem is that people have too many taskbar tray programs running in the background. Hiding these programs is only hiding the problem. This certainly fits into M$'s modis operandi, however.
What I would like to see is a uniform way of managing these programs (?applets?) from the right-click context menu. I want a way to easily shut these things down and a way to keep them from auto-starting. A control panel option to restart a tray program and reset it to auto-start again would also be useful. M$ has left tray program management up to the (?applet?) developer, and I don't think that was the right choice.
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. "stuff" is too suspicious looking. OTOH, I would only look in "~/projects/project##/data" if I knew what was in there.
And perhaps KDE is better off just releasing a "clean" version and then re-incorporating the
old code back in. But it also doesn't show ANY respect to the programmers how made the
code. Maybe they would actually like a say in how their work is being used.
The programmers who wrote the code released it as GPL. AFAIK, the extent of their say in how it can be used is governed by the GPL. Since using the code in other GPL projects is allowed, KDE doesn't need to "ask" for the original programmers permission. IMO, the fact that Trolltech and KDE have gone to all of this trouble to comply with the spirit of "Free Software" shows a lot of respect for the programmers who wrote the original code. It also shows a lot of respect for the FSF. It would be nice if the FSF (and its supporters) would return the favor.
Of course the Internet is unsafe, but IE is the gatekeeper, not word.
I'm not sure that the all-in-one approach that MS is using for Internet security is the right one, but if it is then the IE settings need to be a lot more flexible. Here's my wish list for improving IE security. Please note that I'm no expert on IE security settings, and I don't have IE installed on this computer so I can't check things as I type, so some of these ideas may already be implemented in one form or another.
There should be several levels of trusted (and restricted) sites.
You should be able to classify sites into a trusted or restricted level in a more generic way. Defining site names with regular expressions may be the way to go here.
You should be able to determine what the default level is for web browsing.
There should be a separate level for HTML viewer applications like e-mail or Word. This would allow you to turn images off for HTML e-mail, without doing that for regular web browsing.
You should be able to create a new security level.
Don't you think that a better solution would be to use appropriate tools for the purpose of "automation" and have properly trained staff who must use them. A task with consequences as serious as this should be done by trained professionals and not blundering amateurs.
Its a shame that this is currently at 0 and Opinion Dalek's response is at 1. Please get yourself an account Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous Coward.
I wonder if "Active Content" is a worthwhile thing to have. Instead of any old Word document being able to automate my system, I would prefer if the scripts needed to be separate from the document. The extension of the script file would indicate the type of language it is written in instead of the container it is trying to automate.
In this way, things could still be automated, but you have the opportunity to secure things on a script by script basis instead of on an action by action basis. In addition, people can tell whats what simply by looking at the file extension. If you received a document and associated script file attached to an e-mail, you could choose to run the script or simply open the document itself. More options would be available to the content "consumer". I believe this is a good thing, but I'm not a content "producer". They may have a different viewpoint.
Give Borland 10 years and you might be able to use Delphi.
I'm hoping Delphi will be ready next year so I can use it. However, Delphi will rely on Qt for its (Linux) GUI implementation, and a search for "qt" in the package list didn't turn up anything. Am I looking for the wrong thing (yes, I'm a newbie)?
How exactly is this "Flamebait"? It doesn't seem particularly partisan. The author doesn't refer to Clinton as "Bubba" or to GWB as "the Shrub" or even "Dubya". Is it flamebait because he doesn't slam Clinton?
It had much more to do with:
-The ending of the cold war allowing a vast reduction in military spending.
Clinton had the guts to make a vast reduction in military spending. Would George W. have done the same thing? Please note that I'm not saying that the reduction was right or wrong from a preparedness standpoint, only that a Republican president wouldn't have cut as deeply as Clinton did.
-The vast amounts of investment wealth available from working baby boomers who will soon begin retiring.
The "baby boomer" generation is a quite large one. The last of them probably won't retire for twenty years. This doesn't really refute your argument, it just points out that that "investment wealth" will be available for a while.
-A fiscal policy of low interest rates by Alan Greenspan that decreased static savings accounts and increased stock market investments.
Well, Greenspan is still the man, so maybe we can see continued economic growth.
-Low energy cost spurred by high production in OPEC nations.
AFAIK, energy costs are quite low in the US compared to Europe. Are they too low in the US or are they too high in Europe? Either way, Clinton didn't affect the cost of energy so you're right on this point.
So, to come back to what Clinton did to spur economic growth, I think he was instrumental in reducing the deficit - which is what Greenspan wanted. Maybe that's all that Clinton did for the country: support Alan Greenspan's economic policies by reducing the deficit. Lets hope that George W. can do as good a job (on the economy).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is a nice solution, I think its awful. Like you said in your second paragraph, the real problem is that people have too many taskbar tray programs running in the background. Hiding these programs is only hiding the problem. This certainly fits into M$'s modis operandi, however.
What I would like to see is a uniform way of managing these programs (?applets?) from the right-click context menu. I want a way to easily shut these things down and a way to keep them from auto-starting. A control panel option to restart a tray program and reset it to auto-start again would also be useful. M$ has left tray program management up to the (?applet?) developer, and I don't think that was the right choice.
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. "stuff" is too suspicious looking. OTOH, I would only look in "~/projects/project##/data" if I knew what was in there.
See the Programmer's Guild web site for one attempt at an IT union.
Funny, that was my conclusion too.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but the last thing the USA needs is more job opportunities for lawyers.
The programmers who wrote the code released it as GPL. AFAIK, the extent of their say in how it can be used is governed by the GPL. Since using the code in other GPL projects is allowed, KDE doesn't need to "ask" for the original programmers permission. IMO, the fact that Trolltech and KDE have gone to all of this trouble to comply with the spirit of "Free Software" shows a lot of respect for the programmers who wrote the original code. It also shows a lot of respect for the FSF. It would be nice if the FSF (and its supporters) would return the favor.
Of course the Internet is unsafe, but IE is the gatekeeper, not word.
I'm not sure that the all-in-one approach that MS is using for Internet security is the right one, but if it is then the IE settings need to be a lot more flexible. Here's my wish list for improving IE security. Please note that I'm no expert on IE security settings, and I don't have IE installed on this computer so I can't check things as I type, so some of these ideas may already be implemented in one form or another.
Don't you think that a better solution would be to use appropriate tools for the purpose of "automation" and have properly trained staff who must use them. A task with consequences as serious as this should be done by trained professionals and not blundering amateurs.
Its a shame that this is currently at 0 and Opinion Dalek's response is at 1. Please get yourself an account Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous Coward.
I wonder if "Active Content" is a worthwhile thing to have. Instead of any old Word document being able to automate my system, I would prefer if the scripts needed to be separate from the document. The extension of the script file would indicate the type of language it is written in instead of the container it is trying to automate.
In this way, things could still be automated, but you have the opportunity to secure things on a script by script basis instead of on an action by action basis. In addition, people can tell whats what simply by looking at the file extension. If you received a document and associated script file attached to an e-mail, you could choose to run the script or simply open the document itself. More options would be available to the content "consumer". I believe this is a good thing, but I'm not a content "producer". They may have a different viewpoint.
Welcome to the wonders of the two-party system.
Give Borland 10 years and you might be able to use Delphi.
I'm hoping Delphi will be ready next year so I can use it. However, Delphi will rely on Qt for its (Linux) GUI implementation, and a search for "qt" in the package list didn't turn up anything. Am I looking for the wrong thing (yes, I'm a newbie)?
How exactly is this "Flamebait"? It doesn't seem particularly partisan. The author doesn't refer to Clinton as "Bubba" or to GWB as "the Shrub" or even "Dubya". Is it flamebait because he doesn't slam Clinton?
So, to come back to what Clinton did to spur economic growth, I think he was instrumental in reducing the deficit - which is what Greenspan wanted. Maybe that's all that Clinton did for the country: support Alan Greenspan's economic policies by reducing the deficit. Lets hope that George W. can do as good a job (on the economy).