I hope you mean in a non-Windows OS, because that's what the parent was referring to: the operating system, not the browser.
And even if you mean within Windows, then you'd expect it to hang, too, as it's the operating system that has the problem, not the application.
You're confusing two different things: an application may hang, that's just dodgy code in the application somewhere (which is what you're referring to) but there is no reason for an operating system to hang. That's dodgy code in the OS, and that would affect all applications equally.
Wow. You've been using a hacked financial management application for "a few years now" and still haven't been able to work out how to save enough cash to "afford anything any other way".
Assuming you live in America, the product costs $70 for the Premier SKU. You mean to tell me that this program, which has features to save you money, hasn't been able to save you the $1.95 per month for the last few years to be able to buy it?
Something doesn't seem quite right with what you're telling us...
Oh, and just out of curiousity: are those games you and your kids have pirated, too?
Sorry mate, but I believe I was informed. Did I not mention the whole Phoenix BIOS / browser thing? But you make it sound like the embedded browser existed before the Mozilla-based browser known as Phoenix.
What I said was that if you come into a market (eg. web browsers) which is what the Phoenix company is doing (they were in the BIOS market beforehand) then you cannot force a name change that's already established in that market.
The 'Apple' debate has finished, and I restate what I said earlier: if the computer company came into the music industry now, they could not force the music company to change their name, could they?
No. Different markets, same name. What your problem is is that you are missing the point that Phoenix are now coming into a new market: web browsers. BIOS software and web browsing software (whether embedded in the BIOS or not) are different markets.
This would be like whoever made the Phoenix car deciding they were going to embed a computer in the vehicle, and force Phoenix to change their name because now they are making BIOS code alongside the vehicle.
I'm sorry, but people with that kind of attitude shit me: what would he have done if one of those drivers decided not to be a sheep and ran him down?
Some rules and laws exist to keep people safe. DMCA? Go for your life. Don't be a sheep in that respect. But if you think that by not walking out into the middle of the road in traffic you're being a sheep, and that that's a bad thing, then you're a moron.
Show some respect for your fellow man. Be a sheep, but in the good sense of wanting to help others out.
Just remember: if you do walk out into that road because you're not a sheep then you better watch out, as I might just drive into you, with thanks to your "vision".
However, if you decide you're not going to be a sheep and allow blacks onto your bus, then you may still need to watch out, because you're bound to piss someone off, but I might just be there to look out with you, with thanks to your "vision".
Not having read either licence for some time I think that they are written so as to say that anything the source relies upon must be available too, with the exception of software and libraries that can be considered almost standard.
If this is true, which I'm sure someone will correct me on if I'm wrong, this would rule out the two final situations you mentioned as the compiler would be considered a requirement, as would a build script or makefile to tweak that syntactic sugar (if you're referring to ifdefs and whatnot).
Now, the other situation of just distributing garbage is totally impossible. Note that there's two scenarios here: one is that they have taken an already GPLed product and released that. This is easy to tell if they're distributing garbage code: just do a diff between what they release and the original tree. Look at the differences they issued, and see if it makes sense.
The alternative to this is if they create (ie. from scratch) a product and GPL that. Now, if they're releasing garbage, the GPL covers this in that the code must be in the form most useful to developers. This means that all you really have to do is drag a developer into the court room and get them to make some petty change. If they say they have to do something to the code first, or fool around not being able to work it out, you can safely assume that this code is not in the form most useful to developers.
If Shaun didn't originally plan it like that, then why should it end up being his fault that that's what it was used for?
If Smith and Wesson didn't originally plan for guns to be used offensively, then by your reasoning it's still their fault for how it all ended up.
What if I develop something for legal purposes, but someone finds an illegal use for it that was totally different to what it was intended for originally. Am I at fault?
I don't want to sound pedantic, but you're wrong in saying that they don't use Javascript to get this popup. Yes, they use the image onload, and yes, this seems like a Moz bug, but that's all Javascript code in that onload call...
That's true, it won't be, but who is really treading on whose toes in this whole Phoenix issue? Phoenix make a BIOS, and along comes a browser named Phoenix. Let's face it, there's a better chance of accidentally installing a relational database instead of the intended browser than installing a BIOS instead of the browser.
Now along comes Phoenix, and decide they're going to write a browser, and so get shitty that the name is already used. It was out of their domain, a different domain, and now that they're going into this new domain, they should have to deal with what's already there.
Compare this to the whole Apple music thing that's going on. Isn't this really like Apple (the software company) moving into the music domain and forcing Apple (the music company) to change their name?
Funny you should mention that: I've been noticing quite a few Linux/Mandrake/Red Hat serial number/crack files on Overnet recently. I downloaded one out of curiousity and found that it was just an executable that installed your typical spyware etc.
It's not like you have to fix the source before recompiling it, it's more like you have to re-obfuscate it before sending out the next release.
If you had the code before obfuscation, and need to fix an issue, are you going to take the final product, decompile and fix the obfuscation? No.
You take the original code, fix it, then obfuscate on the way to the compiler. Fixing an application that has had it's code obfuscated (when you have the original code) is really a non-issue when compared to just fixing the code.
Jeez, is this bait? Oh well, I bite and say that I'd be surprised if it was bigger than Phoenix. Did it deal with CSS, DHTML, XML, scripting and plugins like Phoenix does? No.
That's like saying "well geez, my mini van is smaller than that big rig truck". You can't compare them until your mini van does the same amount of work as the big rig.
Not being a physicist, or anything scientific, I used to think about that perpetual waterfall thing a lot, though not really as a waterfall. I actually had the idea a while back when I was watching a rag hung over the tap head in my sink, with the bottom of the rag in the water. I watched the water being absorbed up the rag and thought how cool it would be if you could make some material that changed it's absorbtion rate as the liquid went up the rag, and over the tap head until it got to the other end of the rag hanging back over the sink. I figured if the material was able to absorb enough water to the end of the rag such that the water would actually drop back into the sink, you could put a little turbine under the drop and get something from that. You wouldn't need to worry about evaporation, because you could put it all in a closed box.
As I said, I know nothing about the whole process, but if someone could give me a simple explanation as to why this wouldn't work, I'd love to be able to rest at night:)
I don't know if this really counts, but where we work the really complex work is done in PHP extensions. It actually started as a way to slowly move everyone across from all of their little apps that were floating about. ie. extracting code to a DLL (that was recompilable to a PHP extension) and changing the original app to use the library while we wrote the new PHP based one.
That way, we got the OO positives of C++ (internal to the DLL: the library itself had to have a C interface for PHP, so we wrote C wrappers for the "real" C++ code) plus the ability to dump those libraries into Windows applications if that were absolutely necessary (eg. offsite).
So now our PHP code basically does display and user interaction, while all of the complex business code is done in C++ libraries.
OK, so this might be slightly OT, but here goes. Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer, as I live in Australia, where there's no concept of paying for calls you receive on your mobile phones.
So here's my question: If the law forbids someone from calling a number where you have to pay to receive the call, is there any reason why your landline telephone company can't charge you, for example, half a cent for each call you receive on your landline? I mean really, for a dollar a month you would receive 200 phone calls, which is like 6 calls a day. Wouldn't it be worth that to ensure you don't receive any callers from telemarketing groups, or is there a "minimum cost" for the call before you can't receive calls there?
As I said, this might be a very stupid question, bit I was just wondering...
Warney might be a friggen axe, but don't forget that we have his mum to thank a lot for that. I just wish that my old lady was nice enough to feed me as many pills as she did:)
I don't think that "payment" has to mean dollars. I think it's HashCash that discusses and implements a payment system of CPU cycles.
On the same note, if the payment is made between the sending and receiving ISPs, as well as the traditional mail sender and sending ISP, then the whole "hey, we don't charge anything" argument is gone, as the ISP will have no alternative but to pay the ISP they are sending mail to. I mean they wouldn't have to charge the mail sender, but if it was going to strain the sending ISP's hardware, then it all works out.
The whole idea of HashCash (I assume there's plenty of other alternatives, I just saw this one listed here not long ago) is that the work of the CPU makes it economically unviable to send that number of emails. I mean even if it "costs" just 1 second to send an email, that limits you to 86400 emails every 24 hours. A lot less than the millions we hear the spammers bragging about.
Also, as the receiver gets to set the "cost" of the email, as the processing power of the sender gets larger, the sender can just up the "cost".
Even if the original sender doesn't have to negotiate a "cost" with their ISP, this sees a lot of advantage, as the economies of scale of the bulk mailing are lost when it takes you (well, the ISP) weeks to send out the same number of emails you could do before in a day. Your market is significantly reduced.
The beauty of all of this, I suppose, is that ISPs could integrate this system without the end user having to change anything on their side. All they would "notice" is that it took another couple of seconds for the mail to get to whoever they sent it to. And if an ISP's mail system refuses to "pay" for sending the mail on, then the receiver could just bail down to only accepting one or two a minute. Even that shouldn't affect the user that much. If you're e-mailing to all your friends, it might take a few hours for them all to get it, but only if they're all on the same mail server.
Now that would've been funny (and ironic?) if she was spamming you with those "find out anything on anyone" products and that was how you found out everything about her...
You mean to say that AOL were sending out their stuff on CDRs? I'm definitely no expert in this area, but wouldn't they have been sending out pressed CDs? As far as I was aware, no CD burner writes to a pressed CD, so what would it matter if the session was closed or not?
Oh, and I think you meant the disc wasn't closed, because, once again, as far as I knew, an unclosed session wasn't readable at all...
Too bad for the music corps that seeing as it's an open source application, as the title of this little threads mentions, we would be able to remove their mathematical biases whether they like it or not.
I wouldn't mind having a government issued email address, so long as there was no law to require me to use it. Just as I can use FedEx, a pigeon or kid on a bike to deliver a package / letter for me without the involvement of the postal service, would they be able to stop me from using another email service?
And even if they enacted a law like that (how likely would it be, well here in Australia, anyway...), would they actually be able to stop you?
As I say, a government issued email address would be good, as then I can just use that for my "expecting spam" account, and free up a Hotmail account for some other person, or actually for receiving normal email, as no doubt the biggest spam shipments would go straight to the government addresses.
Unlike the US, who only get one word: arrogant. I really do hope that the attitude displayed above is not that felt for the rest of the US, otherwise things are worse than I assumed.
We hear George W saying that he will attack Iraq, UN be damned, but also tells us that the US cannot afford to rebuild the country after the attack, and that we are going to have to help out.
Screw that. We don't want an attack on Iraq, 'cause we can see what's really going on. Do you really think that Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" would hurt the US? They don't have the missiles to launch to the States, and so will really only be effective around the Arab nations.
Iraq has been crippled by economic sanctions (thanks to the USA) and to add insult to injury, they're going in again! For God's sake, the original Gulf War was a joke to begin with: what makes the US believe that they can come in and solve century old disputes because they are who they are?
North Korea is practically taunting the world with their nuclear capabilities, with no doubt of their abilities to strike America, and what happens? Your fearless president decides to negotiate? Did I hear that right? Everywhere else in the world, that's called "Double Standards". Apparently in the US, it's known as "diplomatic efforts".
So why the difference in attitude? It's obvious to everyone in the world, and I assumed that it would be obvious from where you stand.
Take a look at your economy: reaching debt limits faster than you can increase them, and introducing a "budget" while the last one still hasn't been completely passed yet!
The Euro and gold looks set to become the new currency reserve, and all of a sudden the US dollar doesn't have it's absolute power, and the US economy has to work like every other one. Don't think the US dollar's losing control? No country with the Euro needs it, and together they have more citizens and buying power than the US.
Should I go on? No. Why? Because as with everything, no-one will ever change their point of view on something like this.
But all I see is a guy in the White House saying to the UN "Give us an answer, and if we don't like it, you can all go to hell. Oh by the way, you'll pick up the tab, right?"
The only difference between the dictators in these member nations is that they aren't trying to dictate other countries.
Maybe before you knock Shippy you should try and understand what Mono is. Locutus runs in.NET. Mono is an open source implementation of the.NET framework..NET is designed to be cross platform! Ask Microsoft, 'cause they'll tell you straight away: bring on the competition, bring on the other OSes. The portability comes in the VM (ie..NET, Mono) not the application that runs on it. Read that again. Now again.
So, like, Jeezus, dude, please understand their fucking technologies before asking people to "please read their fucking website".
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you mean in a non-Windows OS, because that's what the parent was referring to: the operating system, not the browser.
And even if you mean within Windows, then you'd expect it to hang, too, as it's the operating system that has the problem, not the application.
You're confusing two different things: an application may hang, that's just dodgy code in the application somewhere (which is what you're referring to) but there is no reason for an operating system to hang. That's dodgy code in the OS, and that would affect all applications equally.
Wow. You've been using a hacked financial management application for "a few years now" and still haven't been able to work out how to save enough cash to "afford anything any other way".
Assuming you live in America, the product costs $70 for the Premier SKU. You mean to tell me that this program, which has features to save you money, hasn't been able to save you the $1.95 per month for the last few years to be able to buy it?
Something doesn't seem quite right with what you're telling us...
Oh, and just out of curiousity: are those games you and your kids have pirated, too?
Sorry mate, but I believe I was informed. Did I not mention the whole Phoenix BIOS / browser thing? But you make it sound like the embedded browser existed before the Mozilla-based browser known as Phoenix.
What I said was that if you come into a market (eg. web browsers) which is what the Phoenix company is doing (they were in the BIOS market beforehand) then you cannot force a name change that's already established in that market.
The 'Apple' debate has finished, and I restate what I said earlier: if the computer company came into the music industry now, they could not force the music company to change their name, could they?
No. Different markets, same name. What your problem is is that you are missing the point that Phoenix are now coming into a new market: web browsers. BIOS software and web browsing software (whether embedded in the BIOS or not) are different markets.
This would be like whoever made the Phoenix car deciding they were going to embed a computer in the vehicle, and force Phoenix to change their name because now they are making BIOS code alongside the vehicle.
I'm sorry, but people with that kind of attitude shit me: what would he have done if one of those drivers decided not to be a sheep and ran him down?
Some rules and laws exist to keep people safe. DMCA? Go for your life. Don't be a sheep in that respect. But if you think that by not walking out into the middle of the road in traffic you're being a sheep, and that that's a bad thing, then you're a moron.
Show some respect for your fellow man. Be a sheep, but in the good sense of wanting to help others out.
Just remember: if you do walk out into that road because you're not a sheep then you better watch out, as I might just drive into you, with thanks to your "vision".
However, if you decide you're not going to be a sheep and allow blacks onto your bus, then you may still need to watch out, because you're bound to piss someone off, but I might just be there to look out with you, with thanks to your "vision".
Not having read either licence for some time I think that they are written so as to say that anything the source relies upon must be available too, with the exception of software and libraries that can be considered almost standard.
If this is true, which I'm sure someone will correct me on if I'm wrong, this would rule out the two final situations you mentioned as the compiler would be considered a requirement, as would a build script or makefile to tweak that syntactic sugar (if you're referring to ifdefs and whatnot).
Now, the other situation of just distributing garbage is totally impossible. Note that there's two scenarios here: one is that they have taken an already GPLed product and released that. This is easy to tell if they're distributing garbage code: just do a diff between what they release and the original tree. Look at the differences they issued, and see if it makes sense.
The alternative to this is if they create (ie. from scratch) a product and GPL that. Now, if they're releasing garbage, the GPL covers this in that the code must be in the form most useful to developers. This means that all you really have to do is drag a developer into the court room and get them to make some petty change. If they say they have to do something to the code first, or fool around not being able to work it out, you can safely assume that this code is not in the form most useful to developers.
If Shaun didn't originally plan it like that, then why should it end up being his fault that that's what it was used for?
If Smith and Wesson didn't originally plan for guns to be used offensively, then by your reasoning it's still their fault for how it all ended up.
What if I develop something for legal purposes, but someone finds an illegal use for it that was totally different to what it was intended for originally. Am I at fault?
Where's the line?
I don't want to sound pedantic, but you're wrong in saying that they don't use Javascript to get this popup. Yes, they use the image onload, and yes, this seems like a Moz bug, but that's all Javascript code in that onload call...
That's true, it won't be, but who is really treading on whose toes in this whole Phoenix issue? Phoenix make a BIOS, and along comes a browser named Phoenix. Let's face it, there's a better chance of accidentally installing a relational database instead of the intended browser than installing a BIOS instead of the browser.
Now along comes Phoenix, and decide they're going to write a browser, and so get shitty that the name is already used. It was out of their domain, a different domain, and now that they're going into this new domain, they should have to deal with what's already there.
Compare this to the whole Apple music thing that's going on. Isn't this really like Apple (the software company) moving into the music domain and forcing Apple (the music company) to change their name?
Funny you should mention that: I've been noticing quite a few Linux/Mandrake/Red Hat serial number/crack files on Overnet recently. I downloaded one out of curiousity and found that it was just an executable that installed your typical spyware etc.
It's not like you have to fix the source before recompiling it, it's more like you have to re-obfuscate it before sending out the next release.
If you had the code before obfuscation, and need to fix an issue, are you going to take the final product, decompile and fix the obfuscation? No.
You take the original code, fix it, then obfuscate on the way to the compiler. Fixing an application that has had it's code obfuscated (when you have the original code) is really a non-issue when compared to just fixing the code.
Jeez, is this bait? Oh well, I bite and say that I'd be surprised if it was bigger than Phoenix. Did it deal with CSS, DHTML, XML, scripting and plugins like Phoenix does? No.
That's like saying "well geez, my mini van is smaller than that big rig truck". You can't compare them until your mini van does the same amount of work as the big rig.
Not being a physicist, or anything scientific, I used to think about that perpetual waterfall thing a lot, though not really as a waterfall. I actually had the idea a while back when I was watching a rag hung over the tap head in my sink, with the bottom of the rag in the water. I watched the water being absorbed up the rag and thought how cool it would be if you could make some material that changed it's absorbtion rate as the liquid went up the rag, and over the tap head until it got to the other end of the rag hanging back over the sink. I figured if the material was able to absorb enough water to the end of the rag such that the water would actually drop back into the sink, you could put a little turbine under the drop and get something from that. You wouldn't need to worry about evaporation, because you could put it all in a closed box.
:)
As I said, I know nothing about the whole process, but if someone could give me a simple explanation as to why this wouldn't work, I'd love to be able to rest at night
I don't know if this really counts, but where we work the really complex work is done in PHP extensions. It actually started as a way to slowly move everyone across from all of their little apps that were floating about. ie. extracting code to a DLL (that was recompilable to a PHP extension) and changing the original app to use the library while we wrote the new PHP based one.
That way, we got the OO positives of C++ (internal to the DLL: the library itself had to have a C interface for PHP, so we wrote C wrappers for the "real" C++ code) plus the ability to dump those libraries into Windows applications if that were absolutely necessary (eg. offsite).
So now our PHP code basically does display and user interaction, while all of the complex business code is done in C++ libraries.
The reason he'd be crucified is because we'd still have to wait how long until the patch came through?
Pay the $60 to Red Hat, check the time between flaw discovery and fix, and then compare to what MS have to offer.
OK, so this might be slightly OT, but here goes. Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer, as I live in Australia, where there's no concept of paying for calls you receive on your mobile phones.
So here's my question: If the law forbids someone from calling a number where you have to pay to receive the call, is there any reason why your landline telephone company can't charge you, for example, half a cent for each call you receive on your landline? I mean really, for a dollar a month you would receive 200 phone calls, which is like 6 calls a day. Wouldn't it be worth that to ensure you don't receive any callers from telemarketing groups, or is there a "minimum cost" for the call before you can't receive calls there?
As I said, this might be a very stupid question, bit I was just wondering...
Warney might be a friggen axe, but don't forget that we have his mum to thank a lot for that. I just wish that my old lady was nice enough to feed me as many pills as she did :)
On the same note, if the payment is made between the sending and receiving ISPs, as well as the traditional mail sender and sending ISP, then the whole "hey, we don't charge anything" argument is gone, as the ISP will have no alternative but to pay the ISP they are sending mail to. I mean they wouldn't have to charge the mail sender, but if it was going to strain the sending ISP's hardware, then it all works out.
The whole idea of HashCash (I assume there's plenty of other alternatives, I just saw this one listed here not long ago) is that the work of the CPU makes it economically unviable to send that number of emails. I mean even if it "costs" just 1 second to send an email, that limits you to 86400 emails every 24 hours. A lot less than the millions we hear the spammers bragging about.
Also, as the receiver gets to set the "cost" of the email, as the processing power of the sender gets larger, the sender can just up the "cost".
Even if the original sender doesn't have to negotiate a "cost" with their ISP, this sees a lot of advantage, as the economies of scale of the bulk mailing are lost when it takes you (well, the ISP) weeks to send out the same number of emails you could do before in a day. Your market is significantly reduced.
The beauty of all of this, I suppose, is that ISPs could integrate this system without the end user having to change anything on their side. All they would "notice" is that it took another couple of seconds for the mail to get to whoever they sent it to. And if an ISP's mail system refuses to "pay" for sending the mail on, then the receiver could just bail down to only accepting one or two a minute. Even that shouldn't affect the user that much. If you're e-mailing to all your friends, it might take a few hours for them all to get it, but only if they're all on the same mail server.
Now that would've been funny (and ironic?) if she was spamming you with those "find out anything on anyone" products and that was how you found out everything about her...
You mean to say that AOL were sending out their stuff on CDRs? I'm definitely no expert in this area, but wouldn't they have been sending out pressed CDs? As far as I was aware, no CD burner writes to a pressed CD, so what would it matter if the session was closed or not?
Oh, and I think you meant the disc wasn't closed, because, once again, as far as I knew, an unclosed session wasn't readable at all...
Too bad for the music corps that seeing as it's an open source application, as the title of this little threads mentions, we would be able to remove their mathematical biases whether they like it or not.
And yet in Australia I could buy both and still not be a criminal...
I wouldn't mind having a government issued email address, so long as there was no law to require me to use it. Just as I can use FedEx, a pigeon or kid on a bike to deliver a package / letter for me without the involvement of the postal service, would they be able to stop me from using another email service?
And even if they enacted a law like that (how likely would it be, well here in Australia, anyway...), would they actually be able to stop you?
As I say, a government issued email address would be good, as then I can just use that for my "expecting spam" account, and free up a Hotmail account for some other person, or actually for receiving normal email, as no doubt the biggest spam shipments would go straight to the government addresses.
Yeah, but the notes are rolled up for the actual task of snorting, aren't they?
Unlike the US, who only get one word: arrogant. I really do hope that the attitude displayed above is not that felt for the rest of the US, otherwise things are worse than I assumed.
We hear George W saying that he will attack Iraq, UN be damned, but also tells us that the US cannot afford to rebuild the country after the attack, and that we are going to have to help out.
Screw that. We don't want an attack on Iraq, 'cause we can see what's really going on. Do you really think that Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" would hurt the US? They don't have the missiles to launch to the States, and so will really only be effective around the Arab nations.
Iraq has been crippled by economic sanctions (thanks to the USA) and to add insult to injury, they're going in again! For God's sake, the original Gulf War was a joke to begin with: what makes the US believe that they can come in and solve century old disputes because they are who they are?
North Korea is practically taunting the world with their nuclear capabilities, with no doubt of their abilities to strike America, and what happens? Your fearless president decides to negotiate? Did I hear that right? Everywhere else in the world, that's called "Double Standards". Apparently in the US, it's known as "diplomatic efforts".
So why the difference in attitude? It's obvious to everyone in the world, and I assumed that it would be obvious from where you stand.
Take a look at your economy: reaching debt limits faster than you can increase them, and introducing a "budget" while the last one still hasn't been completely passed yet!
The Euro and gold looks set to become the new currency reserve, and all of a sudden the US dollar doesn't have it's absolute power, and the US economy has to work like every other one. Don't think the US dollar's losing control? No country with the Euro needs it, and together they have more citizens and buying power than the US.
Should I go on? No. Why? Because as with everything, no-one will ever change their point of view on something like this.
But all I see is a guy in the White House saying to the UN "Give us an answer, and if we don't like it, you can all go to hell. Oh by the way, you'll pick up the tab, right?"
The only difference between the dictators in these member nations is that they aren't trying to dictate other countries.
Maybe before you knock Shippy you should try and understand what Mono is. Locutus runs in .NET. Mono is an open source implementation of the .NET framework. .NET is designed to be cross platform! Ask Microsoft, 'cause they'll tell you straight away: bring on the competition, bring on the other OSes. The portability comes in the VM (ie. .NET, Mono) not the application that runs on it. Read that again. Now again.
So, like, Jeezus, dude, please understand their fucking technologies before asking people to "please read their fucking website".