While that would be nice, it would also be more the done thing to credit a lot of the other chaps & chapettes involved in the against-but-not-anti Microsoft brigade...
A small element, but essential - where would the open-source movement be today without a favourite OS underneath it?
(No, I'm not saying open-source wouldn't exist, nor that it's only linux that's open-source. But there is a 'certain relationship' between the d00ds at the FSF and, say, Debian...)
The way i see it, this is kinda terminal for sendmail, or at least should be. Going non-open-source about it, having had an OS version for yonx, is such a retrograde step it's unbelievable, if it weren't for the fact that it's on NT.
Another, closed-source app, running on NT, in direct competition with Exchange? What are they, off their heads? They deserve to go under, and we can then get on with using another MTA instead. Good ol' exim...
I think we sort-of agree, but in thinking about 'auto-run' and 'double-clicking', don't forget "failure to RTFreadme"...
And is the "usability study" against linux, or Loki?
In some respects, thank heavens it did get posted, because at least this way when the "results" come out, we'll know better than to believe a word of them.
Tech support is not usability. It's what you call when you can't use it - in this case, because you're a brain-dead moron from Microsoft.
No, I think it's debatable whether Loki should've submitted it, and frankly I don't care about whether it should've made it through to slashdot or not (I'm pissed off enough at this place anyway), but in your "privacy" debates don't forget that it's microsoft, being clueless, and giving us all a good laugh.
The problem we have with that is that, increasingly, I've seen sites who use a bit of javascript to open the link in a new window - eg http://www.antionline.com/. The problem is that if you open the javascript in a new window, you get a window with a javascript "location", and no content. Otherwise, definitely, it should be possible (and probably encouraged) to use both open-in-new and use of the Back button.
So actually, disabling javascript might still be a good thing - it's one of those time-to-decide moments as to whether you javascript your 'open in new window' links or not.
(FWIW I hate these 'return to top of page' or 'back to index.html' links on redundancy grounds alone - if your browser doesn't do ctrl+home or some equivalent, get a new one!)
I think anyone is, or at least should be, authorised to extend the specs, it's when they extend the implementation without producing a publically-available version of the spec underneath for all to criticise, that it sucks.
Extending HTML is a bad thing, if done in the wrong way, ie without the community (and/ie W3C)'s blessing. It should be a free give & take of definition and sample implementation between companies and the open-source "world".
Both NS and IE have their pros & cons; you just have to choose which you want, based on the advantages of one over the other, coupled with the mindset behind it if you want to involve some politics.
But they haven't done it in HTML - they've done everything in MSHTML, whatever that is - it's not as though there are sources for MS parsers around, nor have the W3C exactly ratified it...
I don't think browser ability is required anywhere else in the OS. If they'd approached it that way up, then fine. But I'm far from convinced...
ISTM that there are a few possible responses to this sort of thing, especially in slashdot, being the, LINUX R0X, unbiassed place it is.
In particular, the bit about linux as a 'rival' needs defining. At the moment I suspect it's more that there should be more machines out there with linux on (fair enough) with more desktop-level users (OK, ish). However, with users come lusers, and even worse, fundamentalist advocates.
I recommend a new "metric" for having "won" - that the linux community's signal is at least as strong as the microsoft community's, although there are *fewer* *geeks* doing the promoting but more quality per capita, as it were.
Yup. Good one Bruce for lifting pinkie from keyboard to phone, too, I guess:)
Re:Kicking the gift-horse in the mouth
on
SGI Releases IDE
·
· Score: 1
Corel is not "giving away" this "distro" though - they're making a huuuge cockup in calling something that should be limited to internal testing "beta" when "alpha" would be more accurate, and they're violating the licenses of *lots* of software in the distribution.
SGI, now here I think they are doing a good thing. I dunno what the license on the stuff is, I haven't run it yet, but as long as it's appropriate, we shan't (shouldn't) object.
Complaints about SGI? Well, it's how you approach them, either as comments / criticisms / areas for improvement / complaints. There are several alternative ways of looking at it, including some positive ones.
Have you encountered , the Bradford Robotic Telescope thing? Admittedly it points in the wrong direction altogether for the nudey beaches, but you can still get one or two pretty pictures out of it, and at the last count, even schedule jobs for it to do too:)
It's not as though one has to be so stupid as to give out *real* data all the time - it's fun what you can do with a town of Nowheresville and postcode of S0D 0FF;)
Re:Why IP? Lets Invent a new Protocol...
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 1
IPv6, from what I understand of it, is more than just a wider IPv4. Amongst other things, I think you get end-to-end encryption as standard. Roll on!
And if you were to flip it all to IPX or something as remote, who'd want to rewrite Apache (web servers), netscape (browsers) and IE (market-space) just so that they'd work over the new protocol?
I vote we boycott Corel, or send them a swinging letter of complaint or something.
ISTM it's totally against the way we've worked thus far to say "it's a beta, don't let it get too far". The open-source 'line' is "It's a beta, check it out and send me the diffs"!
"NCR has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Netscape's infringement" and protecting methods for organizing and retrieving information from computer databases. are really not in the slightest bit detailed journalism - they don't mean a thing to me other than someone with more emotive orative ability than brains decided to spew forth.
"Broadly speaking, the debate is between people who collect raw data and people who distribute it"
That, and a comment about spending $2E6 to set up a database and not "protecting" it, sum it up for me. Frankly, if people don't distinguish between what they want to publicise or not, in whatever ways available, I don't think they've a right to complain. It means you decide this at the outset - and continually review it as you're compiling the database. If you want something to be communally available, good, say so and folks will be grateful for it (open-source, "free"ware, and all that). If you don't, slop a stinkin' big copyright notice and secure access website around it, and we'll treat it accordingly.
Sorry, disagree. While there's some mileage in them restricting the betas, we've not got to this advanced usability of the OS by Linus deciding to keep it all to himself until v1.1 was ready.
If they can do this over a beta, we don't know what the real thing will be like.
And anyone who can't maintain their versions properly deserves to get in a mess with a beta thing.
Slashdot Mirror
*Sigh*
While that would be nice, it would also be more the done thing to credit a lot of the other chaps & chapettes involved in the against-but-not-anti Microsoft brigade...
A small element, but essential - where would the open-source movement be today without a favourite OS underneath it?
(No, I'm not saying open-source wouldn't exist, nor that it's only linux that's open-source. But there is a 'certain relationship' between the d00ds at the FSF and, say, Debian...)
The way i see it, this is kinda terminal for sendmail, or at least should be.
Going non-open-source about it, having had an OS version for yonx, is such a retrograde step it's unbelievable, if it weren't for the fact that it's on NT.
Another, closed-source app, running on NT, in direct competition with Exchange? What are they, off their heads?
They deserve to go under, and we can then get on with using another MTA instead. Good ol' exim...
I think we sort-of agree, but in thinking about 'auto-run' and 'double-clicking', don't forget "failure to RTFreadme"...
And is the "usability study" against linux, or Loki?
In some respects, thank heavens it did get posted, because at least this way when the "results" come out, we'll know better than to believe a word of them.
Tech support is not usability. It's what you call when you can't use it - in this case, because you're a brain-dead moron from Microsoft.
No, I think it's debatable whether Loki should've submitted it, and frankly I don't care about whether it should've made it through to slashdot or not (I'm pissed off enough at this place anyway), but in your "privacy" debates don't forget that it's microsoft, being clueless, and giving us all a good laugh.
Yikes. How do you manage to run windoze? ;)
:)
Or maybe Italy will be the next source of all the geeks (on knowlegable grounds)... strategic move to take over the world.. I dunno
The problem we have with that is that, increasingly, I've seen sites who use a bit of javascript to open the link in a new window - eg http://www.antionline.com/. The problem is that if you open the javascript in a new window, you get a window with a javascript "location", and no content.
Otherwise, definitely, it should be possible (and probably encouraged) to use both open-in-new and use of the Back button.
So actually, disabling javascript might still be a good thing - it's one of those time-to-decide moments as to whether you javascript your 'open in new window' links or not.
(FWIW I hate these 'return to top of page' or 'back to index.html' links on redundancy grounds alone - if your browser doesn't do ctrl+home or some equivalent, get a new one!)
I think anyone is, or at least should be, authorised to extend the specs, it's when they extend the implementation without producing a publically-available version of the spec underneath for all to criticise, that it sucks.
You might be surprised to know about some of the redirection warnings you can set in Tools / Internet Options / Advanced - if you're using IE5 ;8]
Just a thought...
In one word: Autoconf :)
I never said either, did I?
Extending HTML is a bad thing, if done in the wrong way, ie without the community (and/ie W3C)'s blessing. It should be a free give & take of definition and sample implementation between companies and the open-source "world".
Both NS and IE have their pros & cons; you just have to choose which you want, based on the advantages of one over the other, coupled with the mindset behind it if you want to involve some politics.
But they haven't done it in HTML - they've done everything in MSHTML, whatever that is - it's not as though there are sources for MS parsers around, nor have the W3C exactly ratified it...
I don't think browser ability is required anywhere else in the OS. If they'd approached it that way up, then fine. But I'm far from convinced...
ISTM that there are a few possible responses to this sort of thing, especially in slashdot, being the, LINUX R0X, unbiassed place it is.
In particular, the bit about linux as a 'rival' needs defining. At the moment I suspect it's more that there should be more machines out there with linux on (fair enough) with more desktop-level users (OK, ish). However, with users come lusers, and even worse, fundamentalist advocates.
I recommend a new "metric" for having "won" - that the linux community's signal is at least as strong as the microsoft community's, although there are *fewer* *geeks* doing the promoting but more quality per capita, as it were.
Yup. :)
Good one Bruce for lifting pinkie from keyboard to phone, too, I guess
Corel is not "giving away" this "distro" though - they're making a huuuge cockup in calling something that should be limited to internal testing "beta" when "alpha" would be more accurate, and they're violating the licenses of *lots* of software in the distribution.
SGI, now here I think they are doing a good thing. I dunno what the license on the stuff is, I haven't run it yet, but as long as it's appropriate, we shan't (shouldn't) object.
Complaints about SGI? Well, it's how you approach them, either as comments / criticisms / areas for improvement / complaints. There are several alternative ways of looking at it, including some positive ones.
Oops, URL is http://www.telescope.org/rti/ .
Have you encountered , the Bradford Robotic Telescope thing? :)
Admittedly it points in the wrong direction altogether for the nudey beaches, but you can still get one or two pretty pictures out of it, and at the last count, even schedule jobs for it to do too
What other means do you suggest to bring them to their senses?
I vote quite in favour of the upload-betas approach, myself, as long as quite a few folks do it.
Corel is not doing anything good for "the linux community" by putting around this crappy license, and violating the GPL in the process.
Not that the GPL is the last word in licenses, but rather that lots of the stuff in the Corel "distro" is *already* GPLd, that's the problem.
Fair enough.
;)
It's not as though one has to be so stupid as to give out *real* data all the time - it's fun what you can do with a town of Nowheresville and postcode of S0D 0FF
IPv6, from what I understand of it, is more than just a wider IPv4. Amongst other things, I think you get end-to-end encryption as standard. Roll on!
And if you were to flip it all to IPX or something as remote, who'd want to rewrite Apache (web servers), netscape (browsers) and IE (market-space) just so that they'd work over the new protocol?
Hear hear!
I vote we boycott Corel, or send them a swinging letter of complaint or something.
ISTM it's totally against the way we've worked thus far to say "it's a beta, don't let it get too far". The open-source 'line' is "It's a beta, check it out and send me the diffs"!
Pah. Commercialised linux, *spit*.
Well, the subject's taking it a tad far, but
"NCR has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Netscape's infringement"
and
protecting methods for organizing and retrieving information from computer databases.
are really not in the slightest bit detailed journalism - they don't mean a thing to me other than someone with more emotive orative ability than brains decided to spew forth.
Let's hope someone kicks NCR's bottie anyway...
"Broadly speaking, the debate is between people who collect raw data and people who distribute it"
That, and a comment about spending $2E6 to set up a database and not "protecting" it, sum it up for me.
Frankly, if people don't distinguish between what they want to publicise or not, in whatever ways available, I don't think they've a right to complain.
It means you decide this at the outset - and continually review it as you're compiling the database.
If you want something to be communally available, good, say so and folks will be grateful for it (open-source, "free"ware, and all that). If you don't, slop a stinkin' big copyright notice and secure access website around it, and we'll treat it accordingly.
Author's call, not mine.
Sorry, disagree. While there's some mileage in them restricting the betas, we've not got to this advanced usability of the OS by Linus deciding to keep it all to himself until v1.1 was ready.
If they can do this over a beta, we don't know what the real thing will be like.
And anyone who can't maintain their versions properly deserves to get in a mess with a beta thing.