How many have the latest version of Firefox? One of the websites I maintain is showing traffic from 66 versions of Firefox over the past 30 days. The oldest version? 0.9.2. Ouch.
I just wanted to add the following, from the site I mentioned above:
How many have the latest version of Firefox? One of the websites I maintain is showing traffic from 66 versions of Firefox over the past 30 days. The oldest version? 0.9.2. Ouch.
But FF 3.5 when locked down as much is still usable.
Not really. Not for your average user.
Putting it under LIDS makes it much safer. Adding RBAC from NSA makes it yet more secure.
Do you expect your average user to pull this off? Or are you offering your services in locking down the world's web browsers?
With closed source software, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer when it comes to even getting an acknowledgment of security issues, let alone receiving fixes in a timely fashion or before damage is already done.
I have yet to see anyone explain to me how, for the average user, this is any different when it comes to open source projects like Firefox.
How is your mother significantly more protected by the open source nature of Firefox versus the closed source nature of Internet Explorer? Answer: She isn't.
In either browser there exists the possibility for black hats to discover and exploit a vulnerability before anyone else is even aware of it.
If a vulnerability is discovered in Firefox, your average user is at the mercy of the Firefox developers to acknowledge, research, and patch that vulnerability in a timely manner. It's exactly the same with Internet Explorer.
Sure, some independent developer could write a patch themselves and offer it up if Mozilla seems to be slacking off, but that certainly isn't going to help your average user. They won't even know about it, let alone know what to do with it if they somehow stumble upon its existence.
The only thing that separates the security of one project from that of another project is the discipline of its developers and the turnaround time in patching vulnerabilities. Neither of those ultimately have anything to do with the openness of the source code.
All your apps sure, but what about your friends apps?
From Facebook:
Privacy Settings >> Applications and Websites >> What your friends can share about you
What your friends can share about you through applications and websites
When your friend visits a Facebook-enhanced application or website, they may want to share certain information to make the experience more social. For example, a greeting card application may use your birthday information to prompt your friend to send a card.
If your friend uses an application that you do not use, you can control what types of information the application can access. Please note that applications will always be able to access your publicly available information (Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages) and information that is visible to Everyone.
[ ] Personal info (activities, interests, etc.) [ ] Status updates [ ] Online presence [ ] Website [ ] Family and relationship [ ] Education and work [ ] My videos [ ] My links [ ] My notes [ ] My photos [ ] Photos and videos of me [ ] About me [ ] My birthday [ ] My hometown [ ] My religious and political views
Note the "If your friend uses an application that you do not use" part, though... It sounds like, if you do use the application, too, all bets are off.
Oh goody, so instead of the stress of a lawsuit with a huge telco, I wait 3 years and get a coupon good for "$10 off my next Verizon phone purchase", while the law firm makes $50M in fees and contingency?
Color me unexcited.
I think you may be completely missing the point of a lawsuit like this. That's... disheartening.
I see Slashdotters rant and rave about how companies use lawsuits as revenue streams, and yet here we have a comment that shows no interest in a lawsuit that doesn't result in a significant personal gain.
It would be even more effective to block known IP blocks of his businesses from any inbound or outbound access to Google services for a month.
If by "effective" you mean "completely retarded", I would agree.
What you're proposing is a completely unnecessary and misguided act of vengeance on Google's part. Even if Newscorp does what Murdoch wishes, what harm would Google suffer?
This is the guy who complained about that "idle process stealing 97% of his cpu power". Do you expect he knows what he is talking about?
He was actually complaining about how, sometimes, Windows goes unresponsive while the Task Manager shows the system is almost completely idle, and then, all of a sudden, every frustrated click goes into action in one flood.
On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries [...]
Is that supposed to be a good thing? I can't tell...
Java is installed at the choice of the user where the.NET plugin is installed by a Windows update without informing the user.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... There's an imbalance in your equation here. You're comparing Java itself to the.NET Framework plugin.
Yes, Java itself requires that the user explicitly install it, but the Java Quick Starter extension for Firefox is also silently injected. Now, with the exception of Windows Vista and Windows 7, the.NET Framework must also be explicitly installed by the user.
Also, the Java Quick Starter extension can not be removed through Firefox's UI; it can only be disabled. This may actually be the better option, though, because even if you remove it through the Java Control Panel applet, it's reinstalled with the next Java update (which is pretty heinous, in my opinion). Disabling it may leave it disabled across updates, but I haven't tested that.
To me this looks like an attempt to drag Firefox down to the level of IE by silently adding.NET holes into Firefox and then they can say, "It's not us because Firefox has the same problems we do".
Not to defend Microsoft, but that is unbelievably paranoid. In fact, I'd say it qualifies as an outright conspiracy theory.
It looks like it's just the summary (surprise, surprise) that is wildly incorrect. The article itself seems to only talk about the current generation of consoles.
With the ribbon I am flipping things in and out, trying to find something that seems relevant, wasting vast amounts of time waiting for tooltips to appear on undecipherable icons.
Again... How is this any different from the current menu and toolbar system? You've still got to click your way around to find something that might be what you actually need.
You're way too biased to be making meaningful comments about the usability of the new system. When you summarize your process of finding an unknown feature in a menu system as "I can quickly figure it out," yet summarize your process of finding an unknown feature in the ribbon system as, "I have to do this, this, and this," you've clearly not put a whole lot of thought into the argument.
I have seen more people migrate to linux on their laptops due to this single "feature" than anything else.
lol! So... rather than just learning to use the new interface, or even just switching to OpenOffice.org... you're telling us they decided to ditch Windows entirely and switch to a completely different OS... where they'd have to relearn many things?
I'm just not seeing what's so special about Win 7 here.
It appears to be the most well-liked, upcoming Windows OS in nearly a decade. I don't think even Windows XP got the kind of praise that Windows 7 is getting.
I'm sure the FSF felt that, because of this, they needed to fire some flak in order to damage Win7's image.
Slashdot Mirror
mostly all of nintendo's biggest games for wii or any of their platforms are developed in-house anyways
What is the Wii's most successful third-party game, anyway? And how does it compare to the success of first-party titles? Does anyone know?
Wasn't it peer reviewed?
Peer review is not the same thing as independent verification.
How many have the latest version of Firefox? One of the websites I maintain is showing traffic from 66 versions of Firefox over the past 30 days. The oldest version? 0.9.2. Ouch.
I just wanted to add the following, from the site I mentioned above:
Firefox (top 5 of 66)
3.5.7 : 45.29%
3.5.6 : 15.55%
3.0.17 : 14.19%
3.0.16 : 6.97%
3.5.5 : 2.66%
Internet Explorer (top 5 of 6)
8.0 : 46.29%
7.0 : 36.44%
6.0 : 17.25%
5.5 : 0.01%
5.23 : 0.00%
How many people HAVE the latest version of IE?
How many have the latest version of Firefox? One of the websites I maintain is showing traffic from 66 versions of Firefox over the past 30 days. The oldest version? 0.9.2. Ouch.
But FF 3.5 when locked down as much is still usable.
Not really. Not for your average user.
Putting it under LIDS makes it much safer. Adding RBAC from NSA makes it yet more secure.
Do you expect your average user to pull this off? Or are you offering your services in locking down the world's web browsers?
With closed source software, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer when it comes to even getting an acknowledgment of security issues, let alone receiving fixes in a timely fashion or before damage is already done.
I have yet to see anyone explain to me how, for the average user, this is any different when it comes to open source projects like Firefox.
How is your mother significantly more protected by the open source nature of Firefox versus the closed source nature of Internet Explorer? Answer: She isn't.
In either browser there exists the possibility for black hats to discover and exploit a vulnerability before anyone else is even aware of it.
If a vulnerability is discovered in Firefox, your average user is at the mercy of the Firefox developers to acknowledge, research, and patch that vulnerability in a timely manner. It's exactly the same with Internet Explorer.
Sure, some independent developer could write a patch themselves and offer it up if Mozilla seems to be slacking off, but that certainly isn't going to help your average user. They won't even know about it, let alone know what to do with it if they somehow stumble upon its existence.
The only thing that separates the security of one project from that of another project is the discipline of its developers and the turnaround time in patching vulnerabilities. Neither of those ultimately have anything to do with the openness of the source code.
All your apps sure, but what about your friends apps?
From Facebook:
Privacy Settings >> Applications and Websites >> What your friends can share about you
What your friends can share about you through applications and websites
When your friend visits a Facebook-enhanced application or website, they may want to share certain information to make the experience more social. For example, a greeting card application may use your birthday information to prompt your friend to send a card.
If your friend uses an application that you do not use, you can control what types of information the application can access. Please note that applications will always be able to access your publicly available information (Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages) and information that is visible to Everyone.
[ ] Personal info (activities, interests, etc.)
[ ] Status updates
[ ] Online presence
[ ] Website
[ ] Family and relationship
[ ] Education and work
[ ] My videos
[ ] My links
[ ] My notes
[ ] My photos
[ ] Photos and videos of me
[ ] About me
[ ] My birthday
[ ] My hometown
[ ] My religious and political views
Note the "If your friend uses an application that you do not use" part, though... It sounds like, if you do use the application, too, all bets are off.
I bet that's what the guy downloaded, given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.
But if the file he downloaded was deceptively named, how could that possibly work?
When performing a Windows 2000 or XP install, it prompts you to name a user, which is an administrator account.
What's even more retarded is that you always have to one non-Administrator administrative account, even if the Administrator account is "enabled".
My head nearly exploded when I found that out.
(8) USA
(16) United States
Hmm... There seems to be a problem with your list.
Oh goody, so instead of the stress of a lawsuit with a huge telco, I wait 3 years and get a coupon good for "$10 off my next Verizon phone purchase", while the law firm makes $50M in fees and contingency?
Color me unexcited.
I think you may be completely missing the point of a lawsuit like this. That's... disheartening.
I see Slashdotters rant and rave about how companies use lawsuits as revenue streams, and yet here we have a comment that shows no interest in a lawsuit that doesn't result in a significant personal gain.
Sometimes you sue just to get things changed.
It would be even more effective to block known IP blocks of his businesses from any inbound or outbound access to Google services for a month.
If by "effective" you mean "completely retarded", I would agree.
What you're proposing is a completely unnecessary and misguided act of vengeance on Google's part. Even if Newscorp does what Murdoch wishes, what harm would Google suffer?
This is the guy who complained about that "idle process stealing 97% of his cpu power".
Do you expect he knows what he is talking about?
He was actually complaining about how, sometimes, Windows goes unresponsive while the Task Manager shows the system is almost completely idle, and then, all of a sudden, every frustrated click goes into action in one flood.
On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries [...]
Is that supposed to be a good thing? I can't tell...
Java is installed at the choice of the user where the .NET plugin is installed by a Windows update without informing the user.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... There's an imbalance in your equation here. You're comparing Java itself to the .NET Framework plugin.
Yes, Java itself requires that the user explicitly install it, but the Java Quick Starter extension for Firefox is also silently injected. Now, with the exception of Windows Vista and Windows 7, the .NET Framework must also be explicitly installed by the user.
Also, the Java Quick Starter extension can not be removed through Firefox's UI; it can only be disabled. This may actually be the better option, though, because even if you remove it through the Java Control Panel applet, it's reinstalled with the next Java update (which is pretty heinous, in my opinion). Disabling it may leave it disabled across updates, but I haven't tested that.
To me this looks like an attempt to drag Firefox down to the level of IE by silently adding .NET holes into Firefox and then they can say, "It's not us because Firefox has the same problems we do".
Not to defend Microsoft, but that is unbelievably paranoid. In fact, I'd say it qualifies as an outright conspiracy theory.
With iPhone I use everything that comes with it [...]
Eh? Didn't you just get done ranting about all those features that now come with the iPhone that you've never used?
Thanks Mozilla, now I have to go back to IE to use 2df.
If you're annoyed enough, it might worth installing the IE Tab add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419
Could not be less correct.
It looks like it's just the summary (surprise, surprise) that is wildly incorrect. The article itself seems to only talk about the current generation of consoles.
Anybody else see what's wrong with this picture?
They might contain lead?
With the ribbon I am flipping things in and out, trying to find something that seems relevant, wasting vast amounts of time waiting for tooltips to appear on undecipherable icons.
Again... How is this any different from the current menu and toolbar system? You've still got to click your way around to find something that might be what you actually need.
You're way too biased to be making meaningful comments about the usability of the new system. When you summarize your process of finding an unknown feature in a menu system as "I can quickly figure it out," yet summarize your process of finding an unknown feature in the ribbon system as, "I have to do this, this, and this," you've clearly not put a whole lot of thought into the argument.
[...] with everything getting roughly the same amount of visual play.
Err... how is this any different from the current menu and toolbar system?
I have seen more people migrate to linux on their laptops due to this single "feature" than anything else.
lol! So... rather than just learning to use the new interface, or even just switching to OpenOffice.org... you're telling us they decided to ditch Windows entirely and switch to a completely different OS... where they'd have to relearn many things?
I'm not buying it.
God dammit, Slashdot. Why does clicking the Preview button for the first time set the Post Anonymously flag? *sigh*
I'm just not seeing what's so special about Win 7 here.
It appears to be the most well-liked, upcoming Windows OS in nearly a decade. I don't think even Windows XP got the kind of praise that Windows 7 is getting.
I'm sure the FSF felt that, because of this, they needed to fire some flak in order to damage Win7's image.
I am surprised that CNET missed that!
From TFA: "Let's take a look at some notable shrinkage from the last three generations of consoles." (emphasis mine)
I'm just waiting for someone to 'CSI enhance' this so that we can see Neil's bootprints.
On it. :oP