IE is a slimmed down browser where I can imagine its rendering engine simplicity combined with Microsoft's unique experience with the Windows kernel and the integration makes for a fast browser.
Opera seems to be a minor miracle in terms of code optimizations, at least on the Windows platform, since it's not OS integrated or cheats with pre-loadings, and the Opera team lacks Microsoft developers with knowledge about undocumented API calls, etc. Still it usually beats IE hands down with a vastly superior rendering engine, on par with Gecko. It's only unfortunate it's ad supported and closed source.
Finally, Firefox/Gecko is a very nice open source browser with nice extension support, but building on the cross-platform UI toolkit XUL instead of using native widgets, along with being built for platform independence instead of being heavily optimized for various platforms (I imagine the Opera team has to do more work for their browser to work on other platforms). I think some of these things play a role in some of Firefox's speed issues. There's no problem with the code I think, just a side effect from what Mozilla is trying to accomplish with the code.
It would've been interesting to have him compare to K-Meleon or Galeon as well, since it's slimmed down to the bare bones Gecko layout engine with just minor stuff in addition, and that stuff is also using native widgets AFAIK. Might have a positive effect on the loading times at least.
As long as you don't run into the memory deallocation issue in Firefox before that. I've browsed some gallery sites in Firefox and opened a few tabs in it, and at times it reaches 200 MB+ RAM usage. Which is maintained after you've closed all tabs of course. Oh well, it's at least a documented bug.:-/ (with 232 votes, hehe...) A major reason I've went back to Opera for now. I'll take another look in Firefox 1.1. My poor 512 MB RAM system simply can't stand these symptoms.
Just look at the Opera results for a moment. Notice how the later versions are actually slower.
What? Well, some aspects, yes, but some are dramatically faster. Just look at the impressive trend of its script execution speeds. Some heavy optimizations seem to have taken place there. The cold startup time of Opera 8 is also optimized to the point it's back to the Opera 6.03 speed, which is also impressive for its vastly expanded feature set since then (rewritten rendering engine in Opera 7 among others;-)).
Also, a browser can render much more quickly if it doesn't care how badly it renders what you see. How does this balance with the loading times in the article?
If you're still talking about Opera, it's known to be more sensitive to bad formed HTML than IE (well duh) and even Firefox. In other words, its "quirks mode" for bad formed HTML may be a bit less tolerant. However, like the other modern web browsers out there except IE, it supports what you can expect from one. The only notable difference I can see regarding modern standards is that IE 6 and Gecko supports XSLT 1.0 but Opera doesn't. That IE 6 supports XML 1.0 and XSLT is among the more strange parts about it IMO, by the way. No no, no transparent PNG's, but advanced stuff like XSLT? Hell yes.:-S
That option certainly isn't available in IE or Opera.
However, at least in my case, Opera is faster than optimized builds as well, so it doesn't really matter. Firefox still has its merits though of course; being open source and having extension support is very good aspects of it. However, its speed is nothing special really, and these test results are in line with what I've always "felt" but not taken my time to scientifically show.
"Windows Server 2003's 15 patches in the past year are far less than what RedHat or SuSE have had to endure."
:-D
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Edition Currently, 5 out of 44 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
Apple Macintosh OS X Currently, 3 out of 45 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 3 Currently, 0 out of 133 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 Currently, 0 out of 21 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
This is almost too funny. Yeah, he's probably right, but talk about focusing on the wrong thing! When will Microsoft learn. It's the number of open exploits that matter for fucks sake. And no, the common "but Windows is so much more used so people don't report as much problems on Linux" defense apparently just malfunctioned as well. Sure, I use Windows XP at home, dual booted with Mepis Linux, but that's because I don't use it as a server and don't require the same kind of security.
Re:"The only way not to get caught is to fake it"
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
Does it matter who uploaded the images? Maybe it was, say, lowkee. Who cares? What matters is who're speaking, and I'm pretty sure MPAA is the messenger here.
Don't bother trying to use the excuse, "I wouldn't have bought the song anyway." If you weren't going to buy the song/album then don't download it simply because it's free. Quit being a hypocrite.
You fail to mention why that's not an excuse. You only say why you personally don't like that excuse. "Don't bother trying to say that because I don't like you saying that?" Should I not bother using that excuse because you don't like it, or because it's no valid excuse? In the case of the latter, please explain why it isn't, this time leaving out irrelevant stuff like whether someone is a hypocrite or not. That would just be your personal opinion, after all.
I personally believe it's a perfectly valid excuse. We aren't all very rich, which some would have needed to be, to have money to pay for everything they've tried out over the years. You might say "but get only what you can pay for!", but even if that's a perfectly valid opinion, it doesn't help you in saying they lose money on it in the slightest. Sure, it may be hypocrisy, it may indicate someone is a loser, it may indicate someone gets turned on by distributing warez, it may indicate someone love orange juice for breakfast, but so what? It's besides the point. The point is that in this case they simply aren't losing money. Or can you tell me where the money they're losing originally would be? In the warezing gamers bank account? Hmm, that entirely depends on if s/he had enough money or not.
They're quite old anyway, basically from the day after it landed. For example mentioned here. Slashdot chose to post about the doomed mission instead, which made me believe it was indeed lost... but apparently it was like this all the time.
At least not on his blog. More to the contrary; he praised them pretty highly in a lot of posts and basically went "oops" when he had crossed the line with the NDA thing or whatever it was.
This is highly relevant to the "getting slammed by ISP for consuming tons of bandwidth", especially since this software may not consume "tons of bandwidth" at all. It would be very helpful to know how much it consumes.
Second, this is still only BETA. It is GOOD, but it is only BETA. Expect additional countries to surface as it approaches full utility.
Or, like many other Google services, expect the development of the service to halt as they announce the beta, forever staying in the same beta stage.
Google News? Google Desktop Search? Google Local Search? Google Scholar? Google Personalized Search? Google Video?
Not really complaining, many of those services are great, I just think I'm seeing where this service will be in the next year. Basically where it is now. Hopefully I'm wrong though, since I don't live in the USA.:-)
The article is trying to analyze what the bloat comes from. And no, it's not only about "unnecessary features". Maybe you should give it a read too.:-)
Imagine if this was in the 70-80's and you heard that in the future people would go "is this for real!?" when reading this:
Our users will get a real e-mail response to their questions you'll hear from a human being who will try to help you with your problem or question right off the bat.
I don't think you'd believe the 21st century would be as cool after hearing something like that back then.:-)
Re:The criminals' first accomplice is none other t
on
DDOS Mafia On The Loose
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, who, via his massively popular website Slashdot, has been crushing other, weaker websites for years. Prosecutors have a great deal of evidence, but are still looking for motives.
Speaking of this, has anyone yet solved the Slashdot Paradox? Few read the articles, yet the web servers get annihilated!
His stock answer to every fucking question vis a vis security and alternative platforms is that Windows is more targeted because it is more popular, and that is pure bullshit. Apache being used more than IIs and yet being more secure proved that one false fucking years ago, and no one thinks about actually mailing the interviewers and giving them the facts, so that, next time they interview BIllG, they can ask real questions.
Umm, but surely Apache must be quite a target for hackers since it's so common, too? Are you really saying Apache isn't such a big of a target even if it's a very common web server?
(also, obviously, note that there's a huge difference in "being a target" and "being a victim of an exploit")
First, they're obviously not trying to patent the coordinate system like the article title suggests in all its sensational style.
Second, I think there's prior art possibly in the universe simulator Celestia which supports URL encoding of coordinates (I don't know if it's uses the lat/long system though, that's why I'm bit unsure), and there definitely seem to be prior art in NASA's World Wind application. It uses a compact Lat/Long => URL encoding scheme as follows:
Slashdot Mirror
IE is a slimmed down browser where I can imagine its rendering engine simplicity combined with Microsoft's unique experience with the Windows kernel and the integration makes for a fast browser.
Opera seems to be a minor miracle in terms of code optimizations, at least on the Windows platform, since it's not OS integrated or cheats with pre-loadings, and the Opera team lacks Microsoft developers with knowledge about undocumented API calls, etc. Still it usually beats IE hands down with a vastly superior rendering engine, on par with Gecko. It's only unfortunate it's ad supported and closed source.
Finally, Firefox/Gecko is a very nice open source browser with nice extension support, but building on the cross-platform UI toolkit XUL instead of using native widgets, along with being built for platform independence instead of being heavily optimized for various platforms (I imagine the Opera team has to do more work for their browser to work on other platforms). I think some of these things play a role in some of Firefox's speed issues. There's no problem with the code I think, just a side effect from what Mozilla is trying to accomplish with the code.
It would've been interesting to have him compare to K-Meleon or Galeon as well, since it's slimmed down to the bare bones Gecko layout engine with just minor stuff in addition, and that stuff is also using native widgets AFAIK. Might have a positive effect on the loading times at least.
As long as you don't run into the memory deallocation issue in Firefox before that. I've browsed some gallery sites in Firefox and opened a few tabs in it, and at times it reaches 200 MB+ RAM usage. Which is maintained after you've closed all tabs of course. Oh well, it's at least a documented bug. :-/ (with 232 votes, hehe...) A major reason I've went back to Opera for now. I'll take another look in Firefox 1.1. My poor 512 MB RAM system simply can't stand these symptoms.
Just look at the Opera results for a moment. Notice how the later versions are actually slower.
;-)).
:-S
What? Well, some aspects, yes, but some are dramatically faster. Just look at the impressive trend of its script execution speeds. Some heavy optimizations seem to have taken place there. The cold startup time of Opera 8 is also optimized to the point it's back to the Opera 6.03 speed, which is also impressive for its vastly expanded feature set since then (rewritten rendering engine in Opera 7 among others
Also, a browser can render much more quickly if it doesn't care how badly it renders what you see. How does this balance with the loading times in the article?
If you're still talking about Opera, it's known to be more sensitive to bad formed HTML than IE (well duh) and even Firefox. In other words, its "quirks mode" for bad formed HTML may be a bit less tolerant. However, like the other modern web browsers out there except IE, it supports what you can expect from one. The only notable difference I can see regarding modern standards is that IE 6 and Gecko supports XSLT 1.0 but Opera doesn't. That IE 6 supports XML 1.0 and XSLT is among the more strange parts about it IMO, by the way. No no, no transparent PNG's, but advanced stuff like XSLT? Hell yes.
That option certainly isn't available in IE or Opera.
However, at least in my case, Opera is faster than optimized builds as well, so it doesn't really matter. Firefox still has its merits though of course; being open source and having extension support is very good aspects of it. However, its speed is nothing special really, and these test results are in line with what I've always "felt" but not taken my time to scientifically show.
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Edition
Currently, 5 out of 44 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
Apple Macintosh OS X
Currently, 3 out of 45 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 3
Currently, 0 out of 133 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9
Currently, 0 out of 21 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
This is almost too funny. Yeah, he's probably right, but talk about focusing on the wrong thing! When will Microsoft learn. It's the number of open exploits that matter for fucks sake. And no, the common "but Windows is so much more used so people don't report as much problems on Linux" defense apparently just malfunctioned as well. Sure, I use Windows XP at home, dual booted with Mepis Linux, but that's because I don't use it as a server and don't require the same kind of security.
Does it matter who uploaded the images? Maybe it was, say, lowkee. Who cares? What matters is who're speaking, and I'm pretty sure MPAA is the messenger here.
Don't bother trying to use the excuse, "I wouldn't have bought the song anyway." If you weren't going to buy the song/album then don't download it simply because it's free. Quit being a hypocrite.
You fail to mention why that's not an excuse. You only say why you personally don't like that excuse. "Don't bother trying to say that because I don't like you saying that?" Should I not bother using that excuse because you don't like it, or because it's no valid excuse? In the case of the latter, please explain why it isn't, this time leaving out irrelevant stuff like whether someone is a hypocrite or not. That would just be your personal opinion, after all.
I personally believe it's a perfectly valid excuse. We aren't all very rich, which some would have needed to be, to have money to pay for everything they've tried out over the years. You might say "but get only what you can pay for!", but even if that's a perfectly valid opinion, it doesn't help you in saying they lose money on it in the slightest. Sure, it may be hypocrisy, it may indicate someone is a loser, it may indicate someone gets turned on by distributing warez, it may indicate someone love orange juice for breakfast, but so what? It's besides the point. The point is that in this case they simply aren't losing money. Or can you tell me where the money they're losing originally would be? In the warezing gamers bank account? Hmm, that entirely depends on if s/he had enough money or not.
If they looked ahead, they'd realize that extinct wildlife won't give any revenues.
This is one of the main faults (along with running as Administrator) in the MS world.
Yeah, more obscurity to the OS!
Lack of security through obscurity is the main fault in the MS world...
*sigh*
So, someone developer an application that deletes some files and installs a keylogger. Whoop-de-doo... :-S
"Linux kernel swear counts"?
So "penguin" is a swear word...?
Their devs is more uptight than I thought!
They're quite old anyway, basically from the day after it landed. For example mentioned here.
Slashdot chose to post about the doomed mission instead, which made me believe it was indeed lost... but apparently it was like this all the time.
I didn't see him criticizing Google much?
At least not on his blog. More to the contrary; he praised them pretty highly in a lot of posts and basically went "oops" when he had crossed the line with the NDA thing or whatever it was.
Off-topic? Maybe I should clarify:
With "you" I meant "you as a user of this tool".
So...
How much data do this software transfer?
1 MB / month? As much as it can?
This is highly relevant to the "getting slammed by ISP for consuming tons of bandwidth", especially since this software may not consume "tons of bandwidth" at all. It would be very helpful to know how much it consumes.
Beware of getting slammed by your ISP with a "friendly" letter, after consuming tons of bandwidth using something like this.
So, how much data do you send/receive?
It's hard to judge the relevancy of what you say without knowing that.
Second, this is still only BETA. It is GOOD, but it is only BETA. Expect additional countries to surface as it approaches full utility.
:-)
Or, like many other Google services, expect the development of the service to halt as they announce the beta, forever staying in the same beta stage.
Google News?
Google Desktop Search?
Google Local Search?
Google Scholar?
Google Personalized Search?
Google Video?
Not really complaining, many of those services are great, I just think I'm seeing where this service will be in the next year. Basically where it is now. Hopefully I'm wrong though, since I don't live in the USA.
Hey, that works great!
:-(
For page 1 of 29.
Anyone know if they've commented on this?
The article is trying to analyze what the bloat comes from. And no, it's not only about "unnecessary features". Maybe you should give it a read too. :-)
You mean Denmark, eh?
:-)
Or Norway. Or both.
Here in sweden
And Finland.
Our users will get a real e-mail response to their questions you'll hear from a human being who will try to help you with your problem or question right off the bat.
I don't think you'd believe the 21st century would be as cool after hearing something like that back then.
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, who, via his massively popular website Slashdot, has been crushing other, weaker websites for years. Prosecutors have a great deal of evidence, but are still looking for motives.
Speaking of this, has anyone yet solved the Slashdot Paradox?
Few read the articles, yet the web servers get annihilated!
His stock answer to every fucking question vis a vis security and alternative platforms is that Windows is more targeted because it is more popular, and that is pure bullshit. Apache being used more than IIs and yet being more secure proved that one false fucking years ago, and no one thinks about actually mailing the interviewers and giving them the facts, so that, next time they interview BIllG, they can ask real questions.
Umm, but surely Apache must be quite a target for hackers since it's so common, too? Are you really saying Apache isn't such a big of a target even if it's a very common web server?
(also, obviously, note that there's a huge difference in "being a target" and "being a victim of an exploit")
Ah sorry, missed the part about it being in base 30. Well, I guess that makes it unique. And human unreadable. :-p
Second, I think there's prior art possibly in the universe simulator Celestia which supports URL encoding of coordinates (I don't know if it's uses the lat/long system though, that's why I'm bit unsure), and there definitely seem to be prior art in NASA's World Wind application. It uses a compact Lat/Long => URL encoding scheme as follows: