From now on, for a website to be defined as "AOL friendly", they will need to be "mozilla friendly". If they are not (now they only need to be "designed for IExplorer"), AOL viewers will complaint about those "pesky webpages makers that cannot get a webpage done right" and will not use them (hint: think web-commerce, web-services....)
Because AOL users represent the biggest piece of the internet consumers pie (at least, in the USA), all those websites will need to adapt and become "AOL (mozilla) compliant" ( = W3C compliant?? ) or (economically) die.
Now, with many websites turning into paysites, if AOL people cannot see your website in a proper and appealing way (font types, font syzes, table rendering, html extensions.... all those things that makes a website "designed for IExplorer".... and mostly unfriendly to mozilla/W3C) they will start to see that their projected visitors/revenue fall down because of lack of standards adherement.
So, I say that this is good for us, W3C-compliant browsers (mozilla, Konqueror...)
And then, people in black helicopters, payed by the Melissa and William Gates Foundation continuosly harass Andrea, Alan and Linus, so the Kernel work gets disturbed.
And there's a special comission of the CIA that manipulates the coffee beans used by those people, so they are decafeinated cofee beans, agravatting the situation.
Nevertheless, RMS is behind the situation. He is orchestrating an alternative-media based advertisement campaing that will reveal the isze of Bill's and Steve's undergearments. This will surely make MS developers stop fixin bugs and go back to develop new features and buffer overflows in Microsoft applications.
Also, a team of mutant ninja turtles ha been seen with spray cans on Redmond, WA, trying to change (defacement) all the advertisements from ".Net" ot ".Slash".
Goodness only knows who will win this battle. But rest assured, it will show up on the Season Finale of X-Files.
Of course. You post as A.C., I post as a registered user. This explains everything. I am the Troll. Sure.
There was a change from 95 to 97. It was very easy to create files that worked in both, it just increased the file size.
Have you tried complex documents? Have you tried automatically generated documents?
They failed almost everytime in the ocnversion proces from v.97 to v.95. Of course, it worked with empty files. But this is not the point. You want to convert full documents.
Since 97 the file format has not changed.
Maybe you should have written "has not changed as much as it did from v.95 to v.97" instead to be truthfull.
The worst you will see is certain formatting from an XP file may not show up if you open it in 97.
So, there you go. They are different.
I use XP at home and we are split between 97 and 2000 at work and I, or any of the other 50 people I work with directly, have yet to have a problem opening any file.
Try with 500 users, try with automated document generation, try with rather complex documents. And try to convert to previous formats.
But thanks for posting your bullshit with your bonus. Hopefully at least one moderator will see your shit and mod properly.
Thank you for speaking with such nice words, for making so much sense and for being so consistent throughout your post.
BTW, 'Anonymous Coward' is a heck of a funny login name!
If your dumb friends/coworkers can't figure out how to save in prior version formats so you can read their docs in your seven-years-old word processor then quit whining . The option to save in previous version formats exists in Word, y'know.
What I am talking about is a problem with MS-Office 97 that made impossible to save in MS-Office 95 format.
Yes, with pretty complex documents, that included images, tables and other stuff, MS-Office 97 failed everytime, crashing, BSODing and sometimes even FUBARed the whole thing. This costed us hundreds of lost documents.
I am talking about corporate use of the application. The kind of "automated document generation".
I know because this made loose 1 month of time talking with Microsoft Support teams (gold preferred support), trying the 2 official patches to MS-Office 97 and even a "sr2.b" patch.
In the end, we had to upgrade every single copy of MS-Office copy to v.97 and change our internal policy for file formats
I mean, the problem was clear, the bug was pointed at to the developers, the need was there.... but they refused to fix v.97.
Of course, there has been no move to MS-Office 2000 nor XP. And Star Office 6.0 will be the next upgrade.
Sorry, Microsoft. Your "trick" only worked once with us.
I'm in favour of a change in the Wine license that allows to:
- Keep the Seurce Code Open
- Let any software company to use it with their products in a way that WineHQ and the SoftwareCompany both beneffit from it.
Wine, everyday a little bit close to implement all of the Win32 function calls, is seen as a very good oportunity for software makers. But...
(Yes, I know, it's not the best thing. I love to see Linux native software only mysef. But if this new license allows a company to have a "Linux Version", IMHO this is a Good Thing for Linux.. Others have done it already: MusicMatch, Kylix 1.0 come to my mind.),
But, of course, the terms "GPL", and "Open Source" are a heavy obstacle (but untrue) for companies interested in making money in any platform. Specially when they associate GPL and OpenSource with and "Viral License".
Yes, there's Microsoft's FUD (remember Ballmer about "Linux as Cancer" and the likes?), lot of mis-information or simply plain lack of knowledge. And this can (is) prevent(ing) many companies to offer "Linux Versions" of their products. Quicken anyone? Children games? Stationary-making programs? software that comes with your hardware?.
So, with WINE offering a new license that allows a for-proffit company to sell Linux-products is good for Linux. With Wine offering a new license that is at the same time Open and usable by SoftwareMaker Inc. is a goog thing.
Hell, maybe they will even supply (paid) developers to the Wine project!
Those are my thoughts. What do you thing? Why I am right? why I am wrong? I am very interested in the Wine project. And I will read this discussion.
It was J.R.R. Tolkien himself who decided that, in the movie version of LotR, Tom Bombadil's part could (should?) be easily skiped.
So, he knew that it would become a movie. And P. Jackson is a Tolkien fan himself. As well as most of the artists in charge of wepons, CGI, costumes...
A whole bunch of Tolkien fanatics!
They even called P. Jackson "the Hobbit" during the film making.
BTW, I liked the books, I liked the movie.
And, as P. Jackson says, "the movie is just another way of telling the same history". Have in mind that Tolkien thought his work as a collection of poems, oral tradition, writtings, legends, songs.... telling a history. He was a Linguist, so this is why he took this approach. This is why it took so long to Christopher Tolkien to assemble a logical set of stories and compile The Silmarilion.
I remmeber reading that he submited the "drafts" of his work to sons and colleagues something like this:
"Hi Son,
"I just found this poem. Tell me what do you think.
"Love,
"JRRT
"Once upon a time, in a hole there was a Hobbit...."
In my former company I was a techie (coder + sysadmin skill needed), front line (level 2 support, 3 spoken languages). And I was in the second batch to get the axe. The first batch were the ones that spoke only 1 language.
The quasi-moronic manager didn't get the axe until this month, or so I said.
Now, living underemployed. And I'm happy to make $10/hour. It could be much worst. Like making $0.00/hour.
When I posted my comment there was no comments at all on this story. You know, it takes time to write a message longer than 2 lines, preview, correct and send... specialy if your first language it is not English.
And, then, I see no other previous post with the same ideas. Maybe there are some in the answers to previous comments, but sended way after mine.
What's all this "redundant" thing?
Please, check the timestamp of the comment before being ridiculous.
What I read was the original article before it went down by/.
So worry for the thing on Win9x/3.x + WinNT/2000.
So they are talking of Server OSes. So Win9x/3.x do not account as such.
What you say is that, of course, they do not include duplicates of the same vulnerability. But then there's no such program as rsync-2.07-3.i386.rpm on Debian 2.2 . Can you see it?
Also, why it is strangely coincidental de number of bugs for Red Hat Linux 6.2 for Alpha and Sparc? See:
For 2001, we see:
RedHat Linux 6.2 sparc - 18
RedHat Linux 6.2 alpha - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 sparc - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 arm - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 alpha - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 68k - 18
Maybe is a cross-architechture bug? Will this mean that, in fact, it is the same bug?
Then the numbers for Mandrake, Red Hat and Debian are waaay too similar (2001) to be just a coincidence (Mandrake 7.1, Red Hat 7.0 and Debian 2.2 can be thought as "equal distributions" by means of timeline, packets versions and such):
RedHat Linux 7.0 - 28
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 7.1 - 27
Debian Linux 2.2 - 26
Then, on 2001, we can assume that Red Hat 6.2, Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 have the same package versions :
RedHat Linux 6.2 i386 - 20
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 6.1 - 20
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 6.0 - 20
And those numbers are also very very close to the ones for Red Hat Linux 6.2 on different architectures.
Maybe, just maybe... they are the same bugs?
Then, on previous years, the trend is the same.
With all the respects, I am no FUDing here. I post my comments to some piece of news that was flawled.
And I tried to explain why it was flawed. And I was vry carefull to not to blame conspiracy theories.
Then, again, I'm human. And I make mistakes. Like the Win0x/3.x and Win2000/NT of my previous post.
What it seems to me, is that they compare the bougs announced by the maker in their shipped products.
So, from maker "Windows", for the "Windows 2000" product, they would ammount the bugs found in every single application shipped with the "Windows 2000" CD.
Then, from maker "Red Hat", for the "Red Hat Linux 7.0" product, they would ammount the bugs found in every single application shipped with the "Red Hat Linux 7.0" CDs.
So, what they show are ammount of bugs announced from a released product form one vendor.
Anyway, they comparison is flawed because they add for "Linux" all the bugs found on every single distribution.
And this is bogus. A bug found on "bind", for example, would be accounted as 1 bug for Mandrake Linux 7.1 + 1 bug for Mandrake Linux 7.2 + 1 bug for Red Hat Linux 7.0 + 1 bug for Red Hat Linux 7.1 + 1 bug for Debian Linux 2.2 +...
You see, it is the same bug. But ther "grouping" is erroneous.
Slashdot Mirror
I really would like to have mod points, so I can mod up the parent (the comment #3145234, by hkmwbz)
Well.
.... and mostly unfriendly to mozilla/W3C) they will start to see that their projected visitors/revenue fall down because of lack of standards adherement.
From now on, for a website to be defined as "AOL friendly", they will need to be "mozilla friendly". If they are not (now they only need to be "designed for IExplorer"), AOL viewers will complaint about those "pesky webpages makers that cannot get a webpage done right" and will not use them (hint: think web-commerce, web-services....)
Because AOL users represent the biggest piece of the internet consumers pie (at least, in the USA), all those websites will need to adapt and become "AOL (mozilla) compliant" ( = W3C compliant?? ) or (economically) die.
Now, with many websites turning into paysites, if AOL people cannot see your website in a proper and appealing way (font types, font syzes, table rendering, html extensions.... all those things that makes a website "designed for IExplorer"
So, I say that this is good for us, W3C-compliant browsers (mozilla, Konqueror...)
Using Konqueror:
- highlight URL,
- click on Konqueror's "delete URL" button,
- middle click,
- press enter
- grin.
What good is a stable tree if all vendors have to apply 500 patches to it for it to be useful?
Exactly.
Mod this A.C. up!
Absolutely.
And then, people in black helicopters, payed by the Melissa and William Gates Foundation continuosly harass Andrea, Alan and Linus, so the Kernel work gets disturbed.
And there's a special comission of the CIA that manipulates the coffee beans used by those people, so they are decafeinated cofee beans, agravatting the situation.
Nevertheless, RMS is behind the situation. He is orchestrating an alternative-media based advertisement campaing that will reveal the isze of Bill's and Steve's undergearments. This will surely make MS developers stop fixin bugs and go back to develop new features and buffer overflows in Microsoft applications.
Also, a team of mutant ninja turtles ha been seen with spray cans on Redmond, WA, trying to change (defacement) all the advertisements from ".Net" ot ".Slash".
Goodness only knows who will win this battle. But rest assured, it will show up on the Season Finale of X-Files.
What a bunch of troll bullshit.
Of course. You post as A.C., I post as a registered user. This explains everything. I am the Troll. Sure.
There was a change from 95 to 97. It was very easy to create files that worked in both, it just increased the file size.
Have you tried complex documents? Have you tried automatically generated documents?
They failed almost everytime in the ocnversion proces from v.97 to v.95. Of course, it worked with empty files. But this is not the point. You want to convert full documents.
Since 97 the file format has not changed.
Maybe you should have written "has not changed as much as it did from v.95 to v.97" instead to be truthfull.
The worst you will see is certain formatting from an XP file may not show up if you open it in 97.
So, there you go. They are different.
I use XP at home and we are split between 97 and 2000 at work and I, or any of the other 50 people I work with directly, have yet to have a problem opening any file.
Try with 500 users, try with automated document generation, try with rather complex documents. And try to convert to previous formats.
But thanks for posting your bullshit with your bonus. Hopefully at least one moderator will see your shit and mod properly.
Thank you for speaking with such nice words, for making so much sense and for being so consistent throughout your post.
BTW, 'Anonymous Coward' is a heck of a funny login name!
If your dumb friends/coworkers can't figure out how to save in prior version formats so you can read their docs in your seven-years-old word processor then quit whining . The option to save in previous version formats exists in Word, y'know.
What I am talking about is a problem with MS-Office 97 that made impossible to save in MS-Office 95 format.
Yes, with pretty complex documents, that included images, tables and other stuff, MS-Office 97 failed everytime, crashing, BSODing and sometimes even FUBARed the whole thing. This costed us hundreds of lost documents.
I am talking about corporate use of the application. The kind of "automated document generation".
I know because this made loose 1 month of time talking with Microsoft Support teams (gold preferred support), trying the 2 official patches to MS-Office 97 and even a "sr2.b" patch.
In the end, we had to upgrade every single copy of MS-Office copy to v.97 and change our internal policy for file formats
I mean, the problem was clear, the bug was pointed at to the developers, the need was there.... but they refused to fix v.97.
Of course, there has been no move to MS-Office 2000 nor XP. And Star Office 6.0 will be the next upgrade.
Sorry, Microsoft. Your "trick" only worked once with us.
Of course.
OpenOffice is meant to work with MS-Office (any version).
On the other hand, MS-Windows v.X is meant to not be exactly compatible with documents created with MS-Office v.(X-1).
It was very very obvious with MS-Office 97/95. And it was a RPITA to export from MS-Office 87 to 95 version.
This is what you get with closed file formats. They own your documents.
Hi there,
:
I'm in favour of a change in the Wine license that allows to
- Keep the Seurce Code Open
- Let any software company to use it with their products in a way that WineHQ and the SoftwareCompany both beneffit from it.
Wine, everyday a little bit close to implement all of the Win32 function calls, is seen as a very good oportunity for software makers. But...
(Yes, I know, it's not the best thing. I love to see Linux native software only mysef. But if this new license allows a company to have a "Linux Version", IMHO this is a Good Thing for Linux.. Others have done it already: MusicMatch, Kylix 1.0 come to my mind.),
But, of course, the terms "GPL", and "Open Source" are a heavy obstacle (but untrue) for companies interested in making money in any platform. Specially when they associate GPL and OpenSource with and "Viral License".
Yes, there's Microsoft's FUD (remember Ballmer about "Linux as Cancer" and the likes?), lot of mis-information or simply plain lack of knowledge. And this can (is) prevent(ing) many companies to offer "Linux Versions" of their products. Quicken anyone? Children games? Stationary-making programs? software that comes with your hardware?.
So, with WINE offering a new license that allows a for-proffit company to sell Linux-products is good for Linux. With Wine offering a new license that is at the same time Open and usable by SoftwareMaker Inc. is a goog thing.
Hell, maybe they will even supply (paid) developers to the Wine project!
Those are my thoughts. What do you thing? Why I am right? why I am wrong? I am very interested in the Wine project. And I will read this discussion.
All the best.
Then try the Win2000 theme plus the same Icon theme mentioned before. Also on KDE-look.
And install Evolution. Too close to the look of Outlook.
But one thing will tell them that you are cheating: No BSOD!!
All the best.
Op
Install Mandrake 8.1, Texstar's KDE 2.2.2, KDE-Look WindowsXP themes and there you go!
:)
Check it out this theme here with those icons here.
He will surelly be fooled
When you say that RedHat lacks GUI tools, you probably are talking about old RedHat versions.
I use and like Mandrake. A lot.
But let's be fair. Red Hat Linux 7.2 has GUI configuration tools:
From the "About MySelf" to the "Firewall Configuration", I can count 40 GUI tools under the "System" entry on the KDE menu.
Being a Mandrake User, well, I do not dare to say that Red Hat lacks GUI configuration tools.
#include humour.h
LOL = Lol'd of Lings ?
ROTFL = Ring Of The Fsck'ng Lord ?
Also,
It was J.R.R. Tolkien himself who decided that, in the movie version of LotR, Tom Bombadil's part could (should?) be easily skiped.
So, he knew that it would become a movie. And P. Jackson is a Tolkien fan himself. As well as most of the artists in charge of wepons, CGI, costumes...
A whole bunch of Tolkien fanatics!
They even called P. Jackson "the Hobbit" during the film making.
BTW, I liked the books, I liked the movie.
And, as P. Jackson says, "the movie is just another way of telling the same history". Have in mind that Tolkien thought his work as a collection of poems, oral tradition, writtings, legends, songs.... telling a history. He was a Linguist, so this is why he took this approach. This is why it took so long to Christopher Tolkien to assemble a logical set of stories and compile The Silmarilion.
I remmeber reading that he submited the "drafts" of his work to sons and colleagues something like this:
"Hi Son,
"I just found this poem. Tell me what do you think.
"Love,
"JRRT
"Once upon a time, in a hole there was a Hobbit...."
Quality Assurance a non-techie position?
Have you ever been involved in a big project? The ones that need QA?
QA is a techie position.
She is obviously a woman from California, a "Valley Girl".
They really talk like this.
anyone who uses their 401k as their emergency fund is on crack. they should get crappy temp work before they touch their 401k/ira funds
Maybe their out of any other kind of money.
As unvelibable as it might seem, people can run out of money.
Maybe you should call the parent company and complaint about lack of representatives skilled enough in English!
If you do not tell them that something is wrong, they will not care.
Maybe I would disagree on the order of priorities (first feed the kids, then pay the rent), but, overall, this is a most sensible post.
Philosophy? When there's barely enough money to keep you alive?
Come on!
Not really.
In my former company I was a techie (coder + sysadmin skill needed), front line (level 2 support, 3 spoken languages). And I was in the second batch to get the axe. The first batch were the ones that spoke only 1 language.
The quasi-moronic manager didn't get the axe until this month, or so I said.
Now, living underemployed. And I'm happy to make $10/hour. It could be much worst. Like making $0.00/hour.
:/
What is the problem with the moderators?
... specialy if your first language it is not English.
When I posted my comment there was no comments at all on this story. You know, it takes time to write a message longer than 2 lines, preview, correct and send
And, then, I see no other previous post with the same ideas. Maybe there are some in the answers to previous comments, but sended way after mine.
What's all this "redundant" thing?
Please, check the timestamp of the comment before being ridiculous.
Have you read Netcraft comments about those figures?
I recommend you this link.. Check also the "Results", down the same page.
Those figures show number of servers. But some servers can hold more than one site. Have you heard of virtual domains under Apache?
Also, Apache can (And it is) run under Windows OS.
So, in short: Those numbers lead me to think that:
1.- You can have more websites with fewer machines if you do not use Windows OS
2.- You need a lot of servers with Windows OS to host a fewer amount of websites.
3. -Your numbers are only one part of the facts, one part that you choose because it fits your need for FUD.
What I read was the original article before it went down by /.
So worry for the thing on Win9x/3.x + WinNT/2000.
So they are talking of Server OSes. So Win9x/3.x do not account as such.
What you say is that, of course, they do not include duplicates of the same vulnerability. But then there's no such program as rsync-2.07-3.i386.rpm on Debian 2.2 . Can you see it?
Also, why it is strangely coincidental de number of bugs for Red Hat Linux 6.2 for Alpha and Sparc? See:
For 2001, we see:
RedHat Linux 6.2 sparc - 18
RedHat Linux 6.2 alpha - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 sparc - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 arm - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 alpha - 18
Debian Linux 2.2 68k - 18
Coincidental? See it yourselves at SecurityFocus WebSite
Maybe is a cross-architechture bug? Will this mean that, in fact, it is the same bug?
Then the numbers for Mandrake, Red Hat and Debian are waaay too similar (2001) to be just a coincidence (Mandrake 7.1, Red Hat 7.0 and Debian 2.2 can be thought as "equal distributions" by means of timeline, packets versions and such):
RedHat Linux 7.0 - 28
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 7.1 - 27
Debian Linux 2.2 - 26
Then, on 2001, we can assume that Red Hat 6.2, Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 have the same package versions :
RedHat Linux 6.2 i386 - 20
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 6.1 - 20
MandrakeSoft Linux Mandrake 6.0 - 20
And those numbers are also very very close to the ones for Red Hat Linux 6.2 on different architectures.
Maybe, just maybe... they are the same bugs?
Then, on previous years, the trend is the same.
With all the respects, I am no FUDing here. I post my comments to some piece of news that was flawled.
And I tried to explain why it was flawed. And I was vry carefull to not to blame conspiracy theories.
Then, again, I'm human. And I make mistakes. Like the Win0x/3.x and Win2000/NT of my previous post.
But this does not invalidate at all my message.
... and just now., E*Trade is moving towards Linux.
The world is amazing.
What it seems to me, is that they compare the bougs announced by the maker in their shipped products.
...
So, from maker "Windows", for the "Windows 2000" product, they would ammount the bugs found in every single application shipped with the "Windows 2000" CD.
Then, from maker "Red Hat", for the "Red Hat Linux 7.0" product, they would ammount the bugs found in every single application shipped with the "Red Hat Linux 7.0" CDs.
So, what they show are ammount of bugs announced from a released product form one vendor.
Anyway, they comparison is flawed because they add for "Linux" all the bugs found on every single distribution.
And this is bogus. A bug found on "bind", for example, would be accounted as 1 bug for Mandrake Linux 7.1 + 1 bug for Mandrake Linux 7.2 + 1 bug for Red Hat Linux 7.0 + 1 bug for Red Hat Linux 7.1 + 1 bug for Debian Linux 2.2 +
You see, it is the same bug. But ther "grouping" is erroneous.
So far for fairness.