If OSDL backs out, Microsoft says "See, they are afraid to compare their stuff to ours."
On the other hand, I think we all know that Microsoft doesn't boast without substance. They wouldn't be making this challenge if they didn't think they were going to come out on top.
I don't understand what you mean about reporting the same distortions and negative PR they always do. Isn't this what people do? Don't Linux zealots continually claim that Windows is insecure and poorly written?
"I don't know where your thing about XP even comes into it. I never brought it up, or even saw mention of it in the thread until you started obsessing about it."
Umm, as far as I'm concerned I'm talking to six million random monkeys.
"Why the fuck are you complaining about Linux?"
Who is complaining about Linux?
I only make fun of linux zealots who think they know something about computers, but don't.
So I take it you do all your computing on a C64? I mean, it can still do disk access, printing, etc. So obviously there haven't been any significant changes in computing since then?
Yep, if you listen to the anti-Microsoft zealots here, that is what you might conclude.
I didn't complain about XP. In point of fact, I didn't even mention it. Again with the reading comprehension...
Then what exactly are you babbling about?
Other than name calling, do you even have a point?
"The difference between what a linux distro does now and what it could do five years ago is enormous. If you disagree, you haven't compared them."
No different than the difference between say Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It still does the basic stuff... disk access, printing, etc. as it did before in much the same way. Is that your complaint about XP?
"a wholesome Linux setup without a desktop but with otherwise modern and totally complete functionality will run on a computer that's probably at least 15 years old."
Doubt it. My computer 15 years ago was a 386sx16 with 5 megs of RAM, and in 1992 it would barely run Linux with XFree86 and the most basic of window managers.
"Still, pretty funny to hear a wanker complain about a pretty amazing set of software that people use to do every kind of task that a computer can be used for, and that people with actual technical knowledge consider a solid and advanced OS. "
Now wouldn't the same be true of wankers complaining about XP? Hmm...
"By the way, your website sucks ass, and you've made abundantly clear that you're a pathetic cunt."
Child porn isn't a victimless crime. So by possessing the material, the man was in his actions committing a crime.
Taking your computer in because you can't view your child porn probably isn't the smartest action. It's like going to the gun shop and saying "Look, I need to hold up a bank at 4pm... can you repair my gun before then?"
This is just a wild guess, but somehow I suspect the gun shop would have a duty to call the cops.
It's an interesting case, but it's not clearly cut and dry.
In even further unrelated news... Linux versions released in 2000 are no longer supported.
And further yet, upgrading desktops from six year old Linux versions to new Linux versions still results in a version of Linux and even worse it uses ever more hardware to perform the same basic tasks.
"So you think that Microsoft using their near-monopoly on the desktop to force more people to buy more MS servers and to increasingly use only their browser is a good thing?"
When you put it that way, no.
But fortunately that's not the way it is in reality. I think it's a good thing for technology to improve and I appreciate having options available to me to improve my development efficiency and enduser experience. This is what Microsoft does by way of their product integration.
"Name a "new techology" that MS has come up with that is cross-platform. "
Most of the cool stuff you use today in your browser was pushed by MS. While Netscape was trying to hook you in with their proprietary crap, Microsoft was pushing web standards like DHTML and CSS. Why do you think the IE browser declares itself as a version of Mozilla? It was to fool the Netscape servers so that they'd allow it to process forms and other proprietary tags that Netscape added on to the old Mosaic browser.
"Has nothing to do with technology. Has to do with the fact that you can't seem to see that this is a power-grab and all about vendor lock in. So how is that a good thing?"
Doesn't matter, as long as it works.
Microsoft cares enough to promote innovation and encourage new business opportunities. The Linux loving hippies just try to undercut you, get everything for free, and destroy the market.
Why would I want to support people who are trying to hurt our industry?
How do you think your FREE internet is being paid for? Easy... they gotta jack up the prices on all the rest of us who pay for our internet connections.
I'll blame advertising blindly because it's gotten overboard. Today when I go to a movie, I get 15 minutes of commercials in addition to my 15 minutes of previews. yet the price of popcorn is still going up, and so are the ticket prices.
Naw, it's way overboard... There's so much, and the only way to differenitate themselves in the noise is to advertise even more, which just makes the problem all the worse.
This post has been brought to you by Mountain Dew. DO THE DEW!
"But looking at a current copy of IE6 I can't find such a thing. Point it out, please."
It's under menu... Tools - > Pop-Up Blocker
"Where is View Objects? "
Tools - > Options... Temporar File Settings, click on Advanced and there's a button called View Objects.
You're right, it's not obvious, but then the need to delete individual cookies is a pretty obscure need anyway.
More important is the ability to create security zones, where you can enable/disable javascript, java, etc. depending on whether you are browsing internet, or your local intranet, etc. This is something I don't see in Mozilla, but it's pretty obvious in IE.
"Yes and all of those "new technolgies" are going to require Windows on the desktop and more and more in the server room. This was my point."
As compared to all those "new technologies" which require Linux on the desktop and more and more in the server room?
I guess the point is... your point was not a particularly good one.
"Yes it does matter but you'll never grok why."
Oh yeah... I'm too stupid to know anything about technology. Why is it that OSS zealots always resort to this line whenever they are questioned on their choices?
IE6 does not have a popup blocker built in. Windows XP SP2 does. There is a difference in that most corps are still using Windows 2000, and that is still a valid supported OS
So? Mozilla 0.0.0.1 didn't have a popup blocker in it either. If you're still using it because you fear change, that is not my fault.
Until this is uniform on all IE6 installations, I wouldn't go so far as to say that IE6 has a popup browser.
What matters is what the latest version has, not what old versions did not have. At least when doing a product comparison.
So you yourself state that you have to fuck around with the filesystem to manage cookies in IE and then state that it has a cookie manager?
It opens up a folder, and everything is there. I wouldn't call that fucking around... everybody familiar with Windows knows how to use a filesystem. In fact I think it's pretty cool that IE uses the filesystem in the way it does... how favorites are nothing more than file links, etc. This is rather orthogonal, similar things work in a similar way... don't need a custom UI for each.
Favorites are in %USERPROFILE%\Favorites and Cookies are in %USERPROFILE\Cookies.
This is entirely dependent on what you are used to... I frankly don't like the way Mozilla works in this regard.
The problem parent poster was talking about revolves around the fact that IE is one of two major ways in which massive spyware and virus infections have been happening.
But as we've already seen, the same thing can happen with Mozilla as well, since it allows you to create add-ons and plugins which then can manipulate what the browser does.
The capability is there, so you can't claim it's secure by design. Just because it hasn't been exploited in a wide scale manner doesn't mean it won't.
Mozilla is a compelling utility which has a number of nice features, but don't be so naive as to believe it was written by immortal gods.
There's an old saying... The most expensive gift you can get someone is a Free Puppy.
Similarly speaking... I'm not sure I can afford to get "Free" Wi-Fi access from Google.
I'm just a whee bit tired of being innundated with advertising, and the cost of product purchases going up to pay for all of it. You know, I'd be willing to spend a little bit of money to just get the things I want and need, rather than paying for everybody else to get stuff they never asked for.
Both Firefox and Mozilla provide popup blockers as part of the browser.
IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.
Cookie management. Proper management of cookies is critical critical to maintiang your privacy and security online. With IE it is *very* hard to do.
Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.
There are so many security holes and ways for crackers to use IE to exploit your system and steal your data that I'm not going to take the time or place to list them here.
And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.
*snark*
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Microsoft has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away?
Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...
But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?
Is it to fight Microsoft, or is it to introduce new technology which makes the user and developer experience better? Frankly, I think it's the latter... Netscape tried the Former and failed.
What browser you use doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter what car you drive, or what golf club you want to use.
I know I for one am getting tired of elitist Republicans coming around telling me we're all fools just because we don't agree with their cronyism.
Or haven't you been watching the Abramhoff scandal unfold? The latest tidbit being the mob connections and how one of their business partners just amazingly got whacked by the mob.
The first step for Republicans to not be considered partisan fools is to start calling out the politicians who did business with this guy.
Perhaps the problem is not that you disagree, but rather that you are suffering from intellectual isolationism and don't want to hear any dissenting points of view wihch upsets your apple cart.
Sounds like defending democracy and freedom was a central theme there. Our motivations are rarely altruistic, but there is some truth to the statement that US is the worlds largest defender of democracy.
Democracy...
As long as it's the guys we want in office.
Frankly, I'm starting to prefer the Japanese model. Live and let live. We don't care who is in power, we'll buy oil from ya. Seems like it costs a whole lot less, and it doesn't kill nearly as many people.
You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion.
In order for technology to progress, someone has to realize it needs to change.
But you claim everybody who promotes change is an alarmist.
Except... The price of oil has gone up because demand has surpassed supply. Or rather, demand has surpassed supply at price point X. Raising the price to X+1 changes the demand curve to match the supply. But the last I checked, the Global Warming theory was not dependent on cash outlays for oil, but rather the gas byproducts from oil consumption. So if supply and consumption are unchanged, despite a rise in prices... that doesn't seem to bode well for your free market theory.
Now I'm a believer in free markets. However, it's not clear to me that a free market entirely focused on cost will enforce social change of bad behaviors. Consider the London Fog... the pollution that killed thousands of londoners over the past couple centuries. It was a direct result of burning of wood and coal inside the city.
The cost was in death and health problems. That doesn't change the price of coal or wood. So there is no free market disincentive to not use those materials for heating.
From a macro sense, obviously the London Fog was bad. But from a micro sense, there was no free market incentive to address the problem.
Ultimately the government banned the burning of coal and wood within the city.
Also, another factor that is often ignored by free marketers(mainly of the ignorant Ayn Rand sort)... Society is part of the free market. Fur sales have plummeted in recent years. Not because of the cost of fur, so much, as the social issues surrounding them.
A Free Market includes people arguing against a product.... not just costs of the product.
My point was... without the FCC... If I started using 90Mhz for something... someone else could come along and use 90Mhz for something else. Becuase the devices would interfere, one or the other of us would boost our broadcast power to overwhelm the other one.
It's the spectrum which is scarce.
The ISM bands were created to allow innovation for these personal devices, and it's really quite cool and nice. I think the FCC did the right thing here.
The argument thought that because of these ISM bands, we ought to throw out the whole FCC is what's crap.
Slashdot Mirror
If OSDL backs out, Microsoft says "See, they are afraid to compare their stuff to ours."
On the other hand, I think we all know that Microsoft doesn't boast without substance. They wouldn't be making this challenge if they didn't think they were going to come out on top.
I don't understand what you mean about reporting the same distortions and negative PR they always do. Isn't this what people do? Don't Linux zealots continually claim that Windows is insecure and poorly written?
I don't know. It's pretty bad, and it shows a sinking to new lows.
But then, they used to post Jon Katz articles here, where he reveled in school violence and other crap.
"I don't know where your thing about XP even comes into it. I never brought it up, or even saw mention of it in the thread until you started obsessing about it."
Umm, as far as I'm concerned I'm talking to six million random monkeys.
"Why the fuck are you complaining about Linux?"
Who is complaining about Linux?
I only make fun of linux zealots who think they know something about computers, but don't.
"The name calling is just for fun."
That's ok monkey boy.
So I take it you do all your computing on a C64? I mean, it can still do disk access, printing, etc. So obviously there haven't been any significant changes in computing since then?
Yep, if you listen to the anti-Microsoft zealots here, that is what you might conclude.
I didn't complain about XP. In point of fact, I didn't even mention it. Again with the reading comprehension...
Then what exactly are you babbling about?
Other than name calling, do you even have a point?
"The difference between what a linux distro does now and what it could do five years ago is enormous. If you disagree, you haven't compared them."
No different than the difference between say Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It still does the basic stuff... disk access, printing, etc. as it did before in much the same way. Is that your complaint about XP?
"a wholesome Linux setup without a desktop but with otherwise modern and totally complete functionality will run on a computer that's probably at least 15 years old."
Doubt it. My computer 15 years ago was a 386sx16 with 5 megs of RAM, and in 1992 it would barely run Linux with XFree86 and the most basic of window managers.
"Still, pretty funny to hear a wanker complain about a pretty amazing set of software that people use to do every kind of task that a computer can be used for, and that people with actual technical knowledge consider a solid and advanced OS. "
Now wouldn't the same be true of wankers complaining about XP? Hmm...
"By the way, your website sucks ass, and you've made abundantly clear that you're a pathetic cunt."
Oh my. I've been called a name by an AC.
Interesting point.
Child porn isn't a victimless crime. So by possessing the material, the man was in his actions committing a crime.
Taking your computer in because you can't view your child porn probably isn't the smartest action. It's like going to the gun shop and saying "Look, I need to hold up a bank at 4pm... can you repair my gun before then?"
This is just a wild guess, but somehow I suspect the gun shop would have a duty to call the cops.
It's an interesting case, but it's not clearly cut and dry.
In even further unrelated news... Linux versions released in 2000 are no longer supported.
And further yet, upgrading desktops from six year old Linux versions to new Linux versions still results in a version of Linux and even worse it uses ever more hardware to perform the same basic tasks.
I don't want to go on and on...
Windows 2000 was released in December of 1999.
Like being justified has ever stopped us from invading a country. HA!
But look on the bright side, you can probably make more money off rigged reconstruction projects than your porn site will have ever made you.
"So you think that Microsoft using their near-monopoly on the desktop to force more people to buy more MS servers and to increasingly use only their browser is a good thing?"
When you put it that way, no.
But fortunately that's not the way it is in reality. I think it's a good thing for technology to improve and I appreciate having options available to me to improve my development efficiency and enduser experience. This is what Microsoft does by way of their product integration.
"Name a "new techology" that MS has come up with that is cross-platform. "
Most of the cool stuff you use today in your browser was pushed by MS. While Netscape was trying to hook you in with their proprietary crap, Microsoft was pushing web standards like DHTML and CSS. Why do you think the IE browser declares itself as a version of Mozilla? It was to fool the Netscape servers so that they'd allow it to process forms and other proprietary tags that Netscape added on to the old Mosaic browser.
"Has nothing to do with technology. Has to do with the fact that you can't seem to see that this is a power-grab and all about vendor lock in. So how is that a good thing?"
Doesn't matter, as long as it works.
Microsoft cares enough to promote innovation and encourage new business opportunities. The Linux loving hippies just try to undercut you, get everything for free, and destroy the market.
Why would I want to support people who are trying to hurt our industry?
"By then, we will have moved that counter to a 64-bit number."
We will all have moved to Australian outback... or updated our Resumes as Y2k39 consultants.
How do you think your FREE internet is being paid for? Easy... they gotta jack up the prices on all the rest of us who pay for our internet connections.
I'll blame advertising blindly because it's gotten overboard. Today when I go to a movie, I get 15 minutes of commercials in addition to my 15 minutes of previews. yet the price of popcorn is still going up, and so are the ticket prices.
Naw, it's way overboard... There's so much, and the only way to differenitate themselves in the noise is to advertise even more, which just makes the problem all the worse.
This post has been brought to you by Mountain Dew. DO THE DEW!
"But looking at a current copy of IE6 I can't find such a thing. Point it out, please."
It's under menu... Tools - > Pop-Up Blocker
"Where is View Objects? "
Tools - > Options... Temporar File Settings, click on Advanced and there's a button called View Objects.
You're right, it's not obvious, but then the need to delete individual cookies is a pretty obscure need anyway.
More important is the ability to create security zones, where you can enable/disable javascript, java, etc. depending on whether you are browsing internet, or your local intranet, etc. This is something I don't see in Mozilla, but it's pretty obvious in IE.
"Yes and all of those "new technolgies" are going to require Windows on the desktop and more and more in the server room. This was my point."
As compared to all those "new technologies" which require Linux on the desktop and more and more in the server room?
I guess the point is... your point was not a particularly good one.
"Yes it does matter but you'll never grok why."
Oh yeah... I'm too stupid to know anything about technology. Why is it that OSS zealots always resort to this line whenever they are questioned on their choices?
So? Mozilla 0.0.0.1 didn't have a popup blocker in it either. If you're still using it because you fear change, that is not my fault.
What matters is what the latest version has, not what old versions did not have. At least when doing a product comparison.
It opens up a folder, and everything is there. I wouldn't call that fucking around... everybody familiar with Windows knows how to use a filesystem. In fact I think it's pretty cool that IE uses the filesystem in the way it does... how favorites are nothing more than file links, etc. This is rather orthogonal, similar things work in a similar way... don't need a custom UI for each.
Favorites are in %USERPROFILE%\Favorites and Cookies are in %USERPROFILE\Cookies.
This is entirely dependent on what you are used to... I frankly don't like the way Mozilla works in this regard.
But as we've already seen, the same thing can happen with Mozilla as well, since it allows you to create add-ons and plugins which then can manipulate what the browser does.
The capability is there, so you can't claim it's secure by design. Just because it hasn't been exploited in a wide scale manner doesn't mean it won't.
Mozilla is a compelling utility which has a number of nice features, but don't be so naive as to believe it was written by immortal gods.
There's an old saying... The most expensive gift you can get someone is a Free Puppy.
Similarly speaking... I'm not sure I can afford to get "Free" Wi-Fi access from Google.
I'm just a whee bit tired of being innundated with advertising, and the cost of product purchases going up to pay for all of it. You know, I'd be willing to spend a little bit of money to just get the things I want and need, rather than paying for everybody else to get stuff they never asked for.
IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.
Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.
And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.
*snark*
Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...
But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?
Is it to fight Microsoft, or is it to introduce new technology which makes the user and developer experience better? Frankly, I think it's the latter... Netscape tried the Former and failed.
What browser you use doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter what car you drive, or what golf club you want to use.
So in other words.
This guys problem is he acts like a Republican?
I know I for one am getting tired of elitist Republicans coming around telling me we're all fools just because we don't agree with their cronyism.
Or haven't you been watching the Abramhoff scandal unfold? The latest tidbit being the mob connections and how one of their business partners just amazingly got whacked by the mob.
The first step for Republicans to not be considered partisan fools is to start calling out the politicians who did business with this guy.
You're right, in a sense. Cronyism, wasteful spending, pork, these aren't entitlements.
However, bribery and corruption is a far worse evil upon our society and our economy than any entitlement ever was.
I don't have to say "a plague on both their houses", because right now only one house is in power... so everything is there fault.
Perhaps the problem is not that you disagree, but rather that you are suffering from intellectual isolationism and don't want to hear any dissenting points of view wihch upsets your apple cart.
Sounds like defending democracy and freedom was a central theme there. Our motivations are rarely altruistic, but there is some truth to the statement that US is the worlds largest defender of democracy.
Democracy...
As long as it's the guys we want in office.
Frankly, I'm starting to prefer the Japanese model. Live and let live. We don't care who is in power, we'll buy oil from ya. Seems like it costs a whole lot less, and it doesn't kill nearly as many people.
The main reason the US entered the war against Germany was because Germany formerly declared war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor.
We didn't oust Hitler because we didn't like him. We did it because he invaded most of Europe with his armies.
This defending democracy bullshit started with Kennedy. Lovely liberalism, but I'm tired of people distorting the ideal to fit imperialist goals.
You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion.
In order for technology to progress, someone has to realize it needs to change.
But you claim everybody who promotes change is an alarmist.
You're caught in a loop of illogic.
Except... The price of oil has gone up because demand has surpassed supply. Or rather, demand has surpassed supply at price point X. Raising the price to X+1 changes the demand curve to match the supply. But the last I checked, the Global Warming theory was not dependent on cash outlays for oil, but rather the gas byproducts from oil consumption. So if supply and consumption are unchanged, despite a rise in prices... that doesn't seem to bode well for your free market theory.
Now I'm a believer in free markets. However, it's not clear to me that a free market entirely focused on cost will enforce social change of bad behaviors. Consider the London Fog... the pollution that killed thousands of londoners over the past couple centuries. It was a direct result of burning of wood and coal inside the city.
The cost was in death and health problems. That doesn't change the price of coal or wood. So there is no free market disincentive to not use those materials for heating.
From a macro sense, obviously the London Fog was bad. But from a micro sense, there was no free market incentive to address the problem.
Ultimately the government banned the burning of coal and wood within the city.
Also, another factor that is often ignored by free marketers(mainly of the ignorant Ayn Rand sort)... Society is part of the free market. Fur sales have plummeted in recent years. Not because of the cost of fur, so much, as the social issues surrounding them.
A Free Market includes people arguing against a product.... not just costs of the product.
Simplifying to that level doesn't help the point.
No, but it makes for a nice strawman argument, doesn't it?
My point was... without the FCC... If I started using 90Mhz for something... someone else could come along and use 90Mhz for something else. Becuase the devices would interfere, one or the other of us would boost our broadcast power to overwhelm the other one.
It's the spectrum which is scarce.
The ISM bands were created to allow innovation for these personal devices, and it's really quite cool and nice. I think the FCC did the right thing here.
The argument thought that because of these ISM bands, we ought to throw out the whole FCC is what's crap.