I run both Netscape 6.1, and IE 5.5 on the same machine (a 128MB, 800MHz PIII).
I am constantly flipping between the two, running Netscape when I make my own choice, or IE when it pops up automatically because I clicked on a link in Outlook.
The fact is that they are both so similar in performance, that I tend to forget which one I am running (that is, until I happen to hit on a feature that works differently, which is usually the middle mouse button).
Of course, one day soon I'll get around to changing my defaults to point to Netscape, so I can stop using IE altogether. The performance may be the same, but there are other reasons why I prefer Netscape, such as the better security.
Re:Whats the top complaint about Mozilla?
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 1
> SPEED.
Yes, that's true.
But we have to remember that Mozilla is still under development.
Besides, the speed has improved a lot, recently, and they still haven't removed the debugging code, or performed the final optimization yet.
> XUL is slow no matter how fast the comp is you are running on.
No, that's not true.
It isn't XUL that's slowing down Mozilla. The fact that Mozilla can be slow to start up, or open new windows, has nothing to do with XUL.
To see XUL in action, try running Netscape 6.x on Windows (on a machine with 128MB, since they haven't optimized Netscape's memory usage yet). Now flip through the menus, and you'll see that they behave like any other Windows program. That's XUL.
On Windows, and Linux, XUL is just as fast as other user interface tools.
But don't listen to what I, or to any other posters, have to say about it. Try it, and judge for yourself.
I'll assume from the length of your post that it is not simply a troll, though I could be wrong.
Folks, it's time for a reality check and a little honesty with youselves
Given how easily refuted some of your points are, I have to wonder who is and is not being honest with themselves.
Mozilla is a disaster.
The Mozilla project started rewriting the browser from scratch just over a year ago, and in that time they have managed to catch up to Netscape Communicator and Internet Explorer, both of which have been under development for many years. I don't call that a disaster. I call it remarkable.
It's ugly, slow and far too buggy to be released
Exactly right, and that's why they haven't released it yet. Mozilla/Netscape 6 is still under development. The M15 (development) build was made available for those who want to take a look at Mozilla's progress, or who want to help with some debugging. Where did you get the ridiculous notion that they had released a product?
the Mozilla ui is the slowest I've ever used or seen and the most likely to crash
And the reason you find this surprizing for development software is...what?
these standards mean nothing to users, only to nerds and other developers.
That's an extremely short-sighted statement. Are you saying that users don't care if they can view their favorite web pages from their PC at work, their MAC at home, their cable box, their cellular palm browser, and their Sony Playstation? Get real.
AOL has no serious plans to challenge Microsoft in the browser market with Netscape 6.
Sure. AOL has paid over 100 developers, at over $1 million per year, for over two years -- so they can just let it sit on the shelf. If Microsoft is allowed to gain control of web standards, then AOL is dead, and AOL knows it.
AOL does have plans to use the Mozilla engine in set-top devices and hand-helds and all kinds of appliances, but not in a client for desktop systems. That's Microsoft's turf. Folks, this is AOL - the same AOL you make fun of and despise for meeting the needs of AOLamers, as you call them, who use Windows.
And I'll still think AOL's service is lame, just like I think most network television is lame. So what?
As to your theory that Mozilla is not intended for the desktop, what planet are you on? Mozilla has been designed for multi-platform support. Mozilla has been made available as Open Source. Mozilla, and especially Gecko, is already being picked for implementation on every major platform, including hand-helds, and set-top boxes.
I may not use AOL's service, but I'll give them full credit for doing right by the web with Mozilla. Aol could easily have dropped Mozilla, and focussed on coding for proprietary Netscape, but they didn't. Today, thanks in large part to AOL's support during the embrionic stage, Open Source Mozilla is going strong, and has more outside developers than inside AOL.
AOL had the opportunity to use its size, and its ownership of Netscape, to manipulate web standards in AOL's favour. Instead, they chose to support Mozilla, and Open Standards.
Perhaps the Gnome team can eventually take the Mozilla engine and build a decent browser for unix with an interface that works, but they are showing little interest in doing that. Why they haven't does puzzle me a lot.
Maybe it's because the Mozilla project is already doing it, and making good progress.
I do know that the Kde browser is damned good and the upcoming Konquer is looking superb.
KDE and Konqueror are excellent products, but AFAIK, they aren't intended to run on Windows, hand-helds, and Sony Playstations. While my primary interest is Linux, it's also vital to have a standards-compliant browser for Windows. On the other hand, if KDE did support those other platforms, then that would be good too.
I never cease to be amazed by the way knee-jerk zealots will praise out of one side of their mouths the great "open source" project that AOL-Mozilla is and out of the other mock and ridicule Joe and Jane user who are quite satisfied with AOL on the Windows platform, while pretending to ignore or write off as "peripheral" a truly native, open-source project like Kde.
Divide and conquer, huh? Sorry, but the Open Source community believes in friendly (and honest) competition. Maybe this is a new concept to you.
Open "my_home.html" in Netscape, go to the preferences, and choose "Use Current Page" for your home page.
Edit "my_home.html", create a table four columns wide, and fill the table cells with links for the following:
- Your favorite web pages (this will duplicate some bookmarks). - The "bookmarks.html" file. - The "my_home.html" file. - Your home firectory. - The top ("/" or 'C:") directory. - Any files you frequently want to view.
If the list of file links grows beyond one screen, then start a second level of index files (e.g. my_howtos.html, pgm_x_source, etc.), and put links to those index files in the "my_home" page.
Now, hitting "Home" opens the "my_home.html" page, it's just as fast as a blank page, it clears out any frames, you can make it the color of your choice, and it has the links you want without even using the bookmarks. Also, you can view any file or directory on your system in just a few clicks.
When you want to update your "my_home" or secondary index pages, it's very convenient: simply hit "Home", then right click on the link you want, and choose "Open in Composer" (even if you don't like Composer, it works fine for this purpose).
One last suggestion. If you are using Netscape under Windows, then you can add links in Composer by simply dragging a link, or the location icon, from a browser window. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in the Linux version (maybe Mozilla will eventually provide this), so you've got to get more creative with right-click and "Copy Link Location". I don't remember if you can also create file links by dragging files from the Windows file manager, but try it.
Things that are unobservable, by definition, can also have no affect on me.
This is really the core of your argument, and it's silly: you dismiss everything not observable because of your assumption that those things cannot have an effect on you. How do you support this claim?
It is a logical necessity. If something can affect me, then it is by its effect on me that I observe it. If something is unobservable, then it has never been seen, felt, or detected in any way, so any speculation on "its" existence is unwarranted, and an act of sheer imagination.
let's suppose that there is an all powerful being who directly manipulates the universe, yet is not a part of that universe. This being, though not a physical entity and therefore not observable, would be in control.
If there were such a being, then that creates two possibilities: either (1) he/she sits back and leaves the universe alone, in which case there would be no observable events to indicate his/her existance, or (2) he/she periodically bends the rules or communicates with us, in which case I would have observable phenomenon from which to begin a scientific investigation.
Science is a limited tool for the inductive study of the physical universe. Science is neither absolute truth nor the only means for discovering truth--it's merely a tool. Science, when treated as the only method of discovering truth, becomes a deity.
Observation and reason (i.e. science) are, in fact, the only means of discovering truth. Anything else is magic, and if magic exists, then we might as well give up, because then anything goes, and nothing is certain, not even the continued existence of the floor beneath me.
I didn't mean to imply that one must be an automaton in order to be a scientist. Of course a scientist is human, and he or she is going to engage in fantasy, fun, and sometimes downright foolishness.
My point is that when a scientist starts speculating about things that are mystical (i.e. unobservable, intestable, and unknowable), then he has left the realm of science. Now such dabbling may be good as a mental exercise, or it may satisfy some psychological or social need in that person, but it's not science. And, if a person spends too much time in such flights of imagination; if he tends to take them seriously; if he gives mystical speculation precedence over what can be discovered through scientific investigation, then he cannot be called a scientist.
As to love, that's a complicated issue because it has both an animal side, derived from our evolution, and a rational side, which I would call the human side. Now the animal side is affected by pherimones, hormones, and other body chemistry, and visual and behavioural stimulation that speaks directly to the lower parts of our brain, and comes out as purely emotional responses. However, as humans, we can override, and train our animal side to respond to our rational considerations, such as whether the other person is honest and respectful. A man can say to himself, sure I find myself inexplicably attracted to her, but she's a convicted axe murderer, and it probably wouldn't work out.:)
You know, I'm not saying that we must be robots, and that the world is a cold mathematical place. It is mathematical, but it's not cold. The world is a wondrous place! Discovering how the world works is a joyous activity, and scientists should be passionate about their work. We humans are remarkable, and, assuming we can avoid destroying ourselves, we have an incredible future.
What I'm saying is that in the light of all that beauty and understanding, why would we want to try to go back to viewing the world the way our primitive ancestors did, as a mystical, incomprehensible, and frighteneing place?
By mysticism, I mean anyone or anything that purports to have knowledge beyond what is observable, testable, provable, and thus knowable. Obviously, this includes religion.
Now I don't want to be totally down on religion. Religion was man's early attempt to understand the universe, until we discovered science. In a way, religion helped to create science. Religions also act as a curator and teacher of moral values, and, though I think it preferable to define those values through reason, I do acknowledge that most people still learn their positive values through religion. I would suggest, however, that the values taught by religion have been collected from a few thousand years of (mostly) rational thinkers, which is why today most religions teach tolerance, instead of starting crusades and shouting "death to the infidels".
I agree with you that imagination is a necessary tool for a scientist. Obviously, if a scientist is to make a new discovery, he or she must think of something that no one else has thought of before. But there is a big difference between speculating about how something might work in the real world, and speculating about things that are, by definition, outside of the real world.
By "that which is unobservable", I assume you do not mean things like atoms, which we can't observe directly, but we can observe the effect they have under various conditions. I assume you mean things that are by definition unobservable, such as the creator of the universe.
Things that are unobservable, by definition, can also have no affect on me. It is thus pointless to spend any time thinking seriously about them. I disagree that the questions are important. They may seem basic, and they may seem big, but they're not important, because it doesn't matter what answer you propose, it can't change anything (by definition), and there is no way to know if it is correct.
Now you could try to argue that it is only by thinking about the unobservable that we discovered atoms, but as I pointed out before, the existance of atoms has observable consequences. We didn't discover atoms by random speculation, rather we first observed some phenomenon in the real world (e.g. that we can cut things into smaller parts), then we asked ourselves how it might work.
Note that I am not against fantasy. For example, I really enjoy the television show Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I don't, however, spend any time thinking that it might be real. Fantasy can also be great mental exercise, such as science fiction that speculates what might happen if people could read minds, or travel through time.
Indulging in fantasy, and speculating about the unknowable, may be entertaining, relaxing, or great mental exercise. As such, it may be good for my health, and for keeping my mind sharp, such that I may come up with the next great discovery. Nevertheless, it is fantasy, it is not to be taken seriously, and it is outside the realm of science.
When a so-called scientist starts speculating about mystical things, he is no longer acting as a scientist, and may be demonstrating that he never was.
The universe follows rules, and by observation, and experimentation, we can discover those rules. That's science.
You can speculate about mystical explanations for things like the purpose of the universe, and it may serve as entertainment, but to take such thoughts seriously is unjustified, and a waste of time.
It's true that a scientist should keep an open mind. That means always being ready to consider any credible evidence that an accepted explanation might be in error. It doesn't mean giving credence to every wild speculation that might be proposed.
Anyone can say that we are all walking around with gremlins on our heads, but if you want me to consider the idea seriously, you must first demonstrate a contradiction, i.e. some situation or event that cannot adequately be explained by current scientific laws, that would be better explained by your Gremlin-Kopf theory.
Meanwhile, I will continue to rely on the laws of momentum and friction when I drive my car, the laws of chemistry when I brew my coffee, and the laws of electronics and logic when I write my programs. And, I will continue to look both ways before crossing the street, confident that my eyes are providing me with mostly correct information about the world around me.
The modern university teaching that "every idea has equal value", and "science is just another form of faith" are crap. When you can prove what you say through observable events, and logic, then let's talk, otherwise, don't waste my time.
***Note*** Anyone who hasn't seen the movie, please don't read this. You owe yourself the joy of discovering this movie's message on your own as the movie unfolds.
It's unfortunate that you missed the point of American Beauty, because you missed one of the most joyous, uplifting, life-changing experiences ever to come from a movie. Maybe you could see it again. The closest thing to this movie is Billy Wilder's movie, The Apartment, which both Spacey and Mendes have mentioned in tribute.
Here is what American Beauty is not:
It is not a comedy (though it has comedy).
It is not a dark movie.
It is not about corruption in our society, dropping out, drugs, teen lust, or homosexuality, though all those things play a part in the plot.
It is not about death!
American Beauty is about the main character, Lester Burnham, and the journey he takes in discovering the secret of his own life, and his own happiness. And, it is about discovering the beauty in our lives, and the world around us, regardless of the turmoil and the tragedies that might occur.
As the movie starts, Lester is a normal shmuck, like any of us, but his life has gone horribly wrong. His job is unfulfilling and somewhat dishonest, his wife is an artificial persona with no passion, his marriage is empty, and so on. Of course, he's only dimly aware of this, because he is living by habit, or as he puts it, it's like he is in a coma.
Lester is jarred out of this routine by a spark, in the form of his daughter's friend, an apparent vixen. Now the teen lust is not the important issue here. What matters is that it awakens in Lester a feeling that he has not had in years. He starts to see just how bad his life has become, so he decides he's going to break out -- he's going to find the thing that he has lost, the happiness he knew in his younger days. Note that "decides" is not really the right word -- Lester has no idea what exactly it is that he has lost, in fact he didn't know it when he had it, and he has no idea how to find it again.
So, acting purely on instinct, Lester breaks out, and tries to find what he is missing.
He quits his job, and rather than playing the meek little good boy, as he has always done, he plays it their way for once, taking what he can get, and "blackmailing" his boss for a big severance check. Aha, payback! It provides a momentary sense of satisfaction, freedom, and power, but it doesn't make him happy.
In response to the lies and hypocrisy, he tries brutal honesty, which provides for some moments of humour and satifaction, but doesn't really change his life.
He tries to recapture his youth. He takes a job at a fast food joint, he exercises, he smokes pot, listens to rock music, and buys his dream car. All of these things make him feel more free, at least for a short time, but he still hasn't found the secret. He still has no direction, no passion for anything, no relationship with his wife or his daughter, etc. Though he's closer, and he wouldn't go back, he's still not there yet.
Meanwhile, there remains one more thing to shoot for, the thing that reignited the spark in him in the first place, the fantasy and his lust for the young Angela. Had that fantasy remained unfulfilled, he might never have finished his journey, and discovered the secret, but by chance, he gets the opportunity to fulfill his fantasy.
And at that point, the bubble bursts. He's been chasing an illusion -- Angela is not the experienced vixen he believed. Faced with the truth, he chooses to do the right thing, and stops. In doing so, he discovers that he's actually decent guy, and he's not the loser he believed himself to be.
This triggers in him a wholescale rethinking of his life. He realizes that while he's been totally focussed on chasing the things he didn't have, or was supposed to have, meanwhile, the things that made him happy were right there in front of him. It's so simple. He's actually had a good life, not the least of which, before he lost sight of it, was the love he felt for his wife, and the joy of his daughter.
Of course, the movie is not making a simple shallow statement (like "love is the answer" -- blech). Lester's answers are not necessarily the same as yours. The question is: What makes you happy, and are you doing the right things to achieve it, or are you caught up chasing an empty dream? Lester discovers his answers too late, but, as he says in the narration at the beginning, it's not too late for you.
The story is five months old, and it appears that people have forgotten a couple of things.
1. MindCraft chose the only hardware configuration where NT beat Linux:
Around the same time, a more comprehensive set of tests were run by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/
The c't tests showed that Linux beat NT under most conditions. It was only in a specific situation (serving multiple saturated high speed lines from a single box) where NT was substantially faster than Linux. Non-coincidentally, it was this specific situation that MindCraft chose to benchmark.
Thus, MindCraft may have run the test fairly, but they rigged it ahead of time when they chose the hardware configuration.
2. The results are ancient history:
The Linux problem that caused it to be slower (but not slow) in the MindCraft configuration was debugged and fixed within weeks of the test (thePC Week rerun, that is).
If you want a valid comparison today, the test would have to be rerun using the new Linux code.
Why is Slashdot running a repeat of 5 month old story anyway?
Good response, and good links. I would have no problem if someone wants to moderate your post up.
Why is it relevant that Microsoft engages in such "business" tactics? Two reasons:
1. It lends credence to the idea that the recent spate of anti-Netscape stories is actually part a FUD campaign by Microsoft.
2. It tells us that if Microsoft succeeds in killing Netscape, then they won't hesitate to manipulate (i.e. corrupt) Web standards to harm their competitors (those competitors being whatever business Microsoft wants to enter next).
Is AOL as bad as Microsoft? I can't say for sure, but I'm not aware of anything AOL has done to me, that is, other than annoying me by waging an aggressive marketing campaign, and by bringing a bunch of non-techies onto the Net. Also, it may be true, as the article states, that AOL is a bureaucratic company, and not a nice place to work. However, none of that matters in this case.
What matters is that if you want to avoid both Microsoft and AOL, then the way to do it will be to use Mozilla. But wait, you say, isn't Mozilla controlled by AOL? Not really. Mozilla is Open Source, and the number of non-AOL developers is growing every day. As long as AOL is doing the right thing with Mozilla, their contribution is appreciated. But, if AOL ever tried to use Mozilla to betray the Internet community, then control of Mozilla's development would be snatched from them in an eyeblink.
In other words, Open Source Mozilla helps protect Web standards. The fact that AOL is supporting it suggests that they intend to compete fairly, rather than by trying to bend the rules the way Microsoft does.
So you don't believe Microsoft engages in FUD campaigns, and other unethical behaviour?
Here are some Microsoft quotes for you . . .
Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:
"We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out."
Microsoft analysis paper re DR-DOS:
"On the PR side, we have begun an 'aggressive leak campaign' for MS-DOS 5.0. The goal is to build anticipation for MS-DOS 5.0, and diffuse potential excitement/momentum from the DR DOS 5.0 announcement."
Microsoft PR plan re DR-DOS:
"Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made."
Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:
"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos. or decide not to take the risk for all the other machines he has to buy for in the office."
Microsoft J++ Pricing Proposal re Java:
The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
Memo re Java:
"at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."
Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil re Linux:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:
"I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share. Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform [means] losing our biggest advantage -- Windows marketshare. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more. . . . We should think about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."
Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:
"Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have [less than] 20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows integration."
"If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together."
Microsoft's Paul Maritz on Netscape:
The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to [] position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on Windows.
Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer on Netscape:
"The stunning insight is this: To make [users] switch away from Netscape, we need to make them upgrade to Memphis. . . . It seems clear to me that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."
Microsoft executive re Netscape:
Content drives browser adoption, and we need to go to the top five sites and ask them, "What can we do to get you to adopt IE?" We should be prepared to write a check, buy sites, or add features -- basically do whatever it takes to drive adoption.
Microsoft's Brad Chase re Netscape:
"We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."
Yep. Just honest-to-goodness competition on the merits of their products -- in a pig's eye.
Besides wanting the Netcenter hits, AOL had a reason that made it imperative to buy Netscape:
AOL needed to ensure the survival of the Netscape browser.
AOL knows that Microsoft wants their business. They also know their history, for example, they know that Microsoft has used Windows in ways that tended to sabotage Microsoft's competitors (e.g. DR-DOS and WordPerfect).
Consider this quote from Bill Gates:
"You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run DR-DOS. Is there any version check or api they fail to have? Is ther feature they have that might get in our way? I am not looking for something they cant get around. I am looking for something their current binary fails on."
Or, consider this quote from Microsoft's Brad Chase:
"We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."
If Netscape disappeared, and AOL was left dependent on IE, how long would it be before AOL's customers found it a "jolting experience" to surf the Net, while MSN's customers found it smooth as silk?
Don't you find it curious that a whole series of stories like this have appeared just prior to the release of Netscape 5.0? Don't you find it strange that, according to the comments, 90% of Windows supporters want to see Netscape dead? Does it make sense? Why would the average Windows user care?
The story is part of Microsoft's ongoing campaign to kill Netscape and leave Microsoft with a near-monopoly in the web browser market. If Microsoft succeeds, then technological progress on the Net will slow to a crawl, because any innovation will have to come from Microsoft.
The Mozilla project is progressing nicely. Those who claim that Mozilla's progress has been slow are either showing a high degree of ignorance, or have an ulterior motive. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that, after giving up on trying to improve the original Netscape code, the Mozilla team has basically rewritten the browser from scratch in less than a year. It's an amazing accomplishment!
Note: I'm posting this a second time because my first post seems to have disappeared (actually, it looked like Slashdot was restarted after being hacked for a minute or so:).
I think the actress, Jeri Ryan, is being given a bad rap. It's true that the producers are using her for sex appeal (and she does look good in those tight outfits), but I'd still like watching her character, 7 of 9, even if she was more conservatively dressed.
Say what you like about Voyager, but 7 of 9 is a good character, with a unique point of view, a penchant for cut-theough-the-BS straight talk, and a dry sardonic wit. I like her. And, it's Jeri Ryan's acting, with her quizzical looks, aloof stances, and so on, that brings out 7 of 9's character.
Look at what's been going on meanwhile: Babylon 5, Earth: Final Conflict, Farscape, X-Files.
Exactly. Audiences and TV sci-fi have become more sophisticated while Star Trek has not (sci-fi has also become more mainstream, which means there are some pretty pathetic sci-fi soaps around these days).
I don't think Star Trek has degraded as much as it has simply stood still. After all, even Voyager has its moments, for example, the episode about the meta-matter(?) duplicate crew (where they realize that they are not the originals, and that when they die, nothing about them will be known or remembered) was excellent pathos, and was quite unique.
But, for the most part, Star Trek has been surpassed by more intelligent, and logically consistent, sci-fi, such as the new Outer Limits, Babylon 5, Stargate, the first season of Earth: The Final Conflict, and so on.
Mindcraft *did* seriously mis-configure Linux in the first test.
The Linux/Apache peak performance in the second test was approximately 50% higher than in the first test.
More important, the disasterous collapse of Linux/Apache at higher loads, that occurred in MindCraft's first test, was nowhere to be seen in the second test - Linux/Apache performance remained high as the load increased. The performance drop-off in the first test was caused by MindCraft's mis-configuration.
2. The Anti-Linux Zealots Were Wrong
Linux advocates did *not* oppose the first test simply because NT beat Linux. The opposition was based on valid concerns about how the test was run - concerns that have been born out by the second test.
There is little serious opposition to the second test, which is generally considered fair (within the limits of the benchmark). In fact, the knowledge gained from the second test has been welcomed by the Linux community, who look forward to the performance gains that will result.
3. NT/IIS Beat Linux/Apache - Not That It Matters
IIS on NT *did* achieve a higher benchmark result than Apache (or Samba) on Linux. But, as many have pointed out, the conditions of the benchmark are highly artificial. In the real world, where there is a greater mix of activity on the server, Linux's virtues in the areas of stability, task management, and I/O performance would play a greater role.
As some have pointed out, when you're shopping for a reliable delivery van, the fact that it can be beat by a dragster is of little consequence. Or, to use another car analogy, by pouring on the nitrous, you can beat any other car on the track - for one lap (before burning out your engine).
4. Linux/Apache Performance Was Excellent - Not That It Matters
As others have pointed out, the Linux/Apache performance on one CPU was enough to handle the load of *twenty* T1 lines. But again, the test is too artificial for that to have much meaning.
5. That MindCraft Guy is a Whiner
There are always jerks on every side of every issue. For him to pick out the most obnoxious things said by some Linux supporters, and suggest that they mean something, is childish. Those mouth-offs don't represent the Linux community, anymore than Ballmer represents the...NT...oh...wait...:^)
Congratulations on a job well done! You deserve a break. I can wait a while longer for my other requests...tap...tap...tap...okay, that's long enough:).
The "Highlight Threshold" is a great idea. It provides most of the benefits I was seeking through some of my earlier (different, maybe not as good) suggestions.
I agree with the poster who wants to be able to trigger "Highlight Threshold" on request (rather than setting his spillover to a low number). Just add a "Headers" option to the "Flat, Nested...".
I agree with the poster(s) about the "Order by Score" problem, whereby it only works for first level comments. I also have a concern that if moderators use this option, they will tend to bump up messages that already have a high score, while ignoring new messages that should get a higher score. Personally, I think that "Highlight Threshold" makes "Order by Score" unnecessary.
Nested mode is nice, but I will support capital punishment for anyone who repeats the maximum-depth experiment that some turkey carried out under Moderation 1.1.1.
I think that Rob has been successful enough at implementing changes, that we don't need to berate him for the temporrary bugs that do get through. I would, however, like to see a status page (or a section on the home page) to tell us what is currently happening. That way I won't be bugging him by telling him about things he already knows (like I apparently did earlier today).
I disagree with the idea that moderators should only be able to moderate upward. In that case, how would you get rid of MEEPT? Would you kick out any Moderators who were weird enough to bump up his score? Where would it end? That really would lead to censorship. (Of course, a vote-averaging system would solve the whole problem--nudge, nudge--broken record).
Contrary to some posters, I think that Moderators should increase the scores of (good) posts that are in agreement with their own ideas. Since not all moderators will think the same, this sort of mini-survey would allow us to see the best arguments on both (all) sides of a debate. To me, the moderators should be bumping up posts that make a good point (with which they probably agree), that make an interesting point (agree or not), that provide useful information, or that are entertaining (especially humour).
Lastly, lest it be forgotten, let me repeat an earlier request for a filter-by-date-time option to allow me to view the posts that are newer than my last visit, even if they are nested.
The carriage returns appear to be the result of copying the text from the Post Comment form into Notepad (to avoid losing it again due to the AC posting bug), then copying it from Notepad back into the Post Comment form (after my AC post did, in fact, get lost). The carriage returns are exactly where Notepad was breaking the text lines.
The interesting thing is that the extra blank lines do not show up on the Preview page, but they do appear on the Comment Posted, and subsequent Slashdot pages.
I now conclude that this is a bug with the Preview page, and it may have always been there.
I didn't put those extra carriage returns in, and they weren't there on the preview screen, so that looks like another new bug. I will bypass the preview screen this time.
1) I really like the selection criteria form. Now I don't need to reload a pags three
times (e.g. up-one, up-one, flat) to get what I want. My only preference would be
for the criteria to apply to the current page only, leaving my user profile
defaults unchanged. I can understand why, however, it would be faster to implement
it this way, since your current filtering logic is based on the user profile (or
maybe that's the only easy way to do it - I'd have to think about it).
2) Contrary to some of the earlier posters, I like having a limited range for the
scores. If I were to change it at all, it would only be to widen the range
slightly (say -2 to 10) to leave room for the worst (FP), and most excellent posts
(mine:^).
3) I agree with the suggestions made earlier to add some color coding to highlight
the scores. My variation would be to place a colored bar (text-based, no graphics)
beside the score. The length of the bar (in character positions) would indicate
the score, while the color (say green and red), or perhaps an arrow, would
indicate whether it was plus or minus.
4) I am having a fairly serious problem with the mechanism used for moderating. It
really slows down the browser to have it render all those radio buttons. For a 400
message flat display, on my P166 96MB NT (at work:^), the page finishes
downloading, then Netscape pegs the CPU at 100% for over 2 minutes (I timed it),
while it renders the buttons. On my P400 128MB Linux machine at home, the page
displays faster, but then the scrolling is jerky and slow. This problem could
probably be resolved by adding a "moderate" link beside the "reply-to" link, in
place of the radio buttons. Not only would this speed things up, but it would also
have the advantage that, for a given message, I could open the "moderate" form in
a second window (by right-clicking or dragging the link), and enter my vote
immediately, without ever leaving, or losing my place in the original page.
5) I would also like to repeat my preference for an unlimited vote averaging system,
in place of the current limited-votes, up-one down-one system. The current system
is causing me a lot of stress because, as I am reading, I am constantly thinking
"Is this the one? Is this the message that deserves my vote? Maybe there's a
better message further down. Maybe I need to save my votes for the next story...".
Add to that the fact that when I change a score that was previously moderated, I
am conciously overriding someone else's opinion, rather than simply registering my
own. I've got to tell you, this is really eating into my enjoyment of the Slashdot
experience.
As discussed earlier, it should not be difficult to implement a vote averaging
system within the limitations of your SQL system. Each message would require three
fields: the total votes for that message, the total of the scores entered, and the
resulting average score. Thus, when a moderator submits his vote, the total votes
is incremented, his suggested score is added to the total score, and the new
average is calculated. The display for each message would include its rounded
average score, and also the total number of votes. The total votes would not only
tell a moderator how much effect his vote was going to have, but some readers
might also be interested in seeing which messages generated the most votes.
With a vote averaging system, the number of votes per moderator does not need to
be limited (the averaging limits his power), and each moderator can merrily vote
as his heart desires. I can think of ways to prevent a moderator from voting twice
for the same story, as I'm sure you can, but I would suggest not worrying about
it. It should be easy to weed out the abusers by sorting the moderation log (I
assume there is one) and looking for duplicates (i.e. same story-id, message-id,
and moderator-id). After a few days, the remaining moderators should not need
close supervision.
6) As to how you maintain your list of moderators, I would suggest that you continue
to base it on the scores of your trusted inner circle. That way, Slashdot will
continue to reflect your unique personality(s). If you based it on the incestious
scores of the moderators themselves, eventually you would reach the lowest common
denominator, and Slashdot would become every bit as good as daytime television.
I like what you've done so far. Keep forging ahead.
Note: I tried posting this twice as an AC, and both times failed to get a confirmation screen. It appears to have simple lost my messages (the first time I lost over an hours work - ouch). Looking through the list, I don't see any AC's, so I assume this is a bug. Therefore, say hello to my new secret identity:^).
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
I run both Netscape 6.1, and IE 5.5 on the same machine (a 128MB, 800MHz PIII).
I am constantly flipping between the two, running Netscape when I make my own choice, or IE when it pops up automatically because I clicked on a link in Outlook.
The fact is that they are both so similar in performance, that I tend to forget which one I am running (that is, until I happen to hit on a feature that works differently, which is usually the middle mouse button).
Of course, one day soon I'll get around to changing my defaults to point to Netscape, so I can stop using IE altogether. The performance may be the same, but there are other reasons why I prefer Netscape, such as the better security.
> SPEED.
Yes, that's true.
But we have to remember that Mozilla is still under development.
Besides, the speed has improved a lot, recently, and they still haven't removed the debugging code, or performed the final optimization yet.
> XUL is slow no matter how fast the comp is you are running on.
No, that's not true.
It isn't XUL that's slowing down Mozilla. The fact that Mozilla can be slow to start up, or open new windows, has nothing to do with XUL.
To see XUL in action, try running Netscape 6.x on Windows (on a machine with 128MB, since they haven't optimized Netscape's memory usage yet). Now flip through the menus, and you'll see that they behave like any other Windows program. That's XUL.
On Windows, and Linux, XUL is just as fast as other user interface tools.
But don't listen to what I, or to any other posters, have to say about it. Try it, and judge for yourself.
I'll assume from the length of your post that it is not simply a troll, though I could be wrong.
Folks, it's time for a reality check and a little honesty with youselves
Given how easily refuted some of your points are, I have to wonder who is and is not being honest with themselves.
Mozilla is a disaster.
The Mozilla project started rewriting the browser from scratch just over a year ago, and in that time they have managed to catch up to Netscape Communicator and Internet Explorer, both of which have been under development for many years. I don't call that a disaster. I call it remarkable.
It's ugly, slow and far too buggy to be released
Exactly right, and that's why they haven't released it yet. Mozilla/Netscape 6 is still under development. The M15 (development) build was made available for those who want to take a look at Mozilla's progress, or who want to help with some debugging. Where did you get the ridiculous notion that they had released a product?
the Mozilla ui is the slowest I've ever used or seen and the most likely to crash
And the reason you find this surprizing for development software is...what?
these standards mean nothing to users, only to nerds and other developers.
That's an extremely short-sighted statement. Are you saying that users don't care if they can view their favorite web pages from their PC at work, their MAC at home, their cable box, their cellular palm browser, and their Sony Playstation? Get real.
AOL has no serious plans to challenge Microsoft in the browser market with Netscape 6.
Sure. AOL has paid over 100 developers, at over $1 million per year, for over two years -- so they can just let it sit on the shelf. If Microsoft is allowed to gain control of web standards, then AOL is dead, and AOL knows it.
AOL does have plans to use the Mozilla engine in set-top devices and hand-helds and all kinds of appliances, but not in a client for desktop systems. That's Microsoft's turf. Folks, this is AOL - the same AOL you make fun of and despise for meeting the needs of AOLamers, as you call them, who use Windows.
And I'll still think AOL's service is lame, just like I think most network television is lame. So what?
As to your theory that Mozilla is not intended for the desktop, what planet are you on? Mozilla has been designed for multi-platform support. Mozilla has been made available as Open Source. Mozilla, and especially Gecko, is already being picked for implementation on every major platform, including hand-helds, and set-top boxes.
I may not use AOL's service, but I'll give them full credit for doing right by the web with Mozilla. Aol could easily have dropped Mozilla, and focussed on coding for proprietary Netscape, but they didn't. Today, thanks in large part to AOL's support during the embrionic stage, Open Source Mozilla is going strong, and has more outside developers than inside AOL.
AOL had the opportunity to use its size, and its ownership of Netscape, to manipulate web standards in AOL's favour. Instead, they chose to support Mozilla, and Open Standards.
Perhaps the Gnome team can eventually take the Mozilla engine and build a decent browser for unix with an interface that works, but they are showing little interest in doing that. Why they haven't does puzzle me a lot.
Maybe it's because the Mozilla project is already doing it, and making good progress.
I do know that the Kde browser is damned good and the upcoming Konquer is looking superb.
KDE and Konqueror are excellent products, but AFAIK, they aren't intended to run on Windows, hand-helds, and Sony Playstations. While my primary interest is Linux, it's also vital to have a standards-compliant browser for Windows. On the other hand, if KDE did support those other platforms, then that would be good too.
I never cease to be amazed by the way knee-jerk zealots will praise out of one side of their mouths the great "open source" project that AOL-Mozilla is and out of the other mock and ridicule Joe and Jane user who are quite satisfied with AOL on the Windows platform, while pretending to ignore or write off as "peripheral" a truly native, open-source project like Kde.
Divide and conquer, huh? Sorry, but the Open Source community believes in friendly (and honest) competition. Maybe this is a new concept to you.
Here's what I've done:
Create a file on your PC named "my_home.html".
Open "my_home.html" in Netscape, go to the preferences, and choose "Use Current Page" for your home page.
Edit "my_home.html", create a table four columns wide, and fill the table cells with links for the following:
- Your favorite web pages (this will duplicate some bookmarks).
- The "bookmarks.html" file.
- The "my_home.html" file.
- Your home firectory.
- The top ("/" or 'C:") directory.
- Any files you frequently want to view.
If the list of file links grows beyond one screen, then start a second level of index files (e.g. my_howtos.html, pgm_x_source, etc.), and put links to those index files in the "my_home" page.
Now, hitting "Home" opens the "my_home.html" page, it's just as fast as a blank page, it clears out any frames, you can make it the color of your choice, and it has the links you want without even using the bookmarks. Also, you can view any file or directory on your system in just a few clicks.
When you want to update your "my_home" or secondary index pages, it's very convenient: simply hit "Home", then right click on the link you want, and choose "Open in Composer" (even if you don't like Composer, it works fine for this purpose).
One last suggestion. If you are using Netscape under Windows, then you can add links in Composer by simply dragging a link, or the location icon, from a browser window. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in the Linux version (maybe Mozilla will eventually provide this), so you've got to get more creative with right-click and "Copy Link Location". I don't remember if you can also create file links by dragging files from the Windows file manager, but try it.
Flamebait???
I can only assume that I hit too close to the truth for somebody.
Things that are unobservable, by definition, can also have no affect on me.
This is really the core of your argument, and it's silly: you dismiss everything not observable because of your assumption that those things cannot have an effect on you. How do you support this claim?
It is a logical necessity. If something can affect me, then it is by its effect on me that I observe it. If something is unobservable, then it has never been seen, felt, or detected in any way, so any speculation on "its" existence is unwarranted, and an act of sheer imagination.
let's suppose that there is an all powerful being who directly manipulates the universe, yet is not a part of that universe. This being, though not a physical entity and therefore not observable, would be in control.
If there were such a being, then that creates two possibilities: either (1) he/she sits back and leaves the universe alone, in which case there would be no observable events to indicate his/her existance, or (2) he/she periodically bends the rules or communicates with us, in which case I would have observable phenomenon from which to begin a scientific investigation.
Science is a limited tool for the inductive study of the physical universe. Science is neither absolute truth nor the only means for discovering truth--it's merely a tool. Science, when treated as the only method of discovering truth, becomes a deity.
Observation and reason (i.e. science) are, in fact, the only means of discovering truth. Anything else is magic, and if magic exists, then we might as well give up, because then anything goes, and nothing is certain, not even the continued existence of the floor beneath me.
I didn't mean to imply that one must be an automaton in order to be a scientist. Of course a scientist is human, and he or she is going to engage in fantasy, fun, and sometimes downright foolishness.
:)
My point is that when a scientist starts speculating about things that are mystical (i.e. unobservable, intestable, and unknowable), then he has left the realm of science. Now such dabbling may be good as a mental exercise, or it may satisfy some psychological or social need in that person, but it's not science. And, if a person spends too much time in such flights of imagination; if he tends to take them seriously; if he gives mystical speculation precedence over what can be discovered through scientific investigation, then he cannot be called a scientist.
As to love, that's a complicated issue because it has both an animal side, derived from our evolution, and a rational side, which I would call the human side. Now the animal side is affected by pherimones, hormones, and other body chemistry, and visual and behavioural stimulation that speaks directly to the lower parts of our brain, and comes out as purely emotional responses. However, as humans, we can override, and train our animal side to respond to our rational considerations, such as whether the other person is honest and respectful. A man can say to himself, sure I find myself inexplicably attracted to her, but she's a convicted axe murderer, and it probably wouldn't work out.
You know, I'm not saying that we must be robots, and that the world is a cold mathematical place. It is mathematical, but it's not cold. The world is a wondrous place! Discovering how the world works is a joyous activity, and scientists should be passionate about their work. We humans are remarkable, and, assuming we can avoid destroying ourselves, we have an incredible future.
What I'm saying is that in the light of all that beauty and understanding, why would we want to try to go back to viewing the world the way our primitive ancestors did, as a mystical, incomprehensible, and frighteneing place?
By mysticism, I mean anyone or anything that purports to have knowledge beyond what is observable, testable, provable, and thus knowable. Obviously, this includes religion.
Now I don't want to be totally down on religion. Religion was man's early attempt to understand the universe, until we discovered science. In a way, religion helped to create science. Religions also act as a curator and teacher of moral values, and, though I think it preferable to define those values through reason, I do acknowledge that most people still learn their positive values through religion. I would suggest, however, that the values taught by religion have been collected from a few thousand years of (mostly) rational thinkers, which is why today most religions teach tolerance, instead of starting crusades and shouting "death to the infidels".
I agree with you that imagination is a necessary tool for a scientist. Obviously, if a scientist is to make a new discovery, he or she must think of something that no one else has thought of before. But there is a big difference between speculating about how something might work in the real world, and speculating about things that are, by definition, outside of the real world.
By "that which is unobservable", I assume you do not mean things like atoms, which we can't observe directly, but we can observe the effect they have under various conditions. I assume you mean things that are by definition unobservable, such as the creator of the universe.
Things that are unobservable, by definition, can also have no affect on me. It is thus pointless to spend any time thinking seriously about them. I disagree that the questions are important. They may seem basic, and they may seem big, but they're not important, because it doesn't matter what answer you propose, it can't change anything (by definition), and there is no way to know if it is correct.
Now you could try to argue that it is only by thinking about the unobservable that we discovered atoms, but as I pointed out before, the existance of atoms has observable consequences. We didn't discover atoms by random speculation, rather we first observed some phenomenon in the real world (e.g. that we can cut things into smaller parts), then we asked ourselves how it might work.
Note that I am not against fantasy. For example, I really enjoy the television show Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I don't, however, spend any time thinking that it might be real. Fantasy can also be great mental exercise, such as science fiction that speculates what might happen if people could read minds, or travel through time.
Indulging in fantasy, and speculating about the unknowable, may be entertaining, relaxing, or great mental exercise. As such, it may be good for my health, and for keeping my mind sharp, such that I may come up with the next great discovery. Nevertheless, it is fantasy, it is not to be taken seriously, and it is outside the realm of science.
When a so-called scientist starts speculating about mystical things, he is no longer acting as a scientist, and may be demonstrating that he never was.
The universe follows rules, and by observation, and experimentation, we can discover those rules. That's science.
You can speculate about mystical explanations for things like the purpose of the universe, and it may serve as entertainment, but to take such thoughts seriously is unjustified, and a waste of time.
It's true that a scientist should keep an open mind. That means always being ready to consider any credible evidence that an accepted explanation might be in error. It doesn't mean giving credence to every wild speculation that might be proposed.
Anyone can say that we are all walking around with gremlins on our heads, but if you want me to consider the idea seriously, you must first demonstrate a contradiction, i.e. some situation or event that cannot adequately be explained by current scientific laws, that would be better explained by your Gremlin-Kopf theory.
Meanwhile, I will continue to rely on the laws of momentum and friction when I drive my car, the laws of chemistry when I brew my coffee, and the laws of electronics and logic when I write my programs. And, I will continue to look both ways before crossing the street, confident that my eyes are providing me with mostly correct information about the world around me.
The modern university teaching that "every idea has equal value", and "science is just another form of faith" are crap. When you can prove what you say through observable events, and logic, then let's talk, otherwise, don't waste my time.
This book would be a waste of my time.
It's unfortunate that you missed the point of American Beauty, because you missed one of the most joyous, uplifting, life-changing experiences ever to come from a movie. Maybe you could see it again. The closest thing to this movie is Billy Wilder's movie, The Apartment, which both Spacey and Mendes have mentioned in tribute.
Here is what American Beauty is not:
American Beauty is about the main character, Lester Burnham, and the journey he takes in discovering the secret of his own life, and his own happiness. And, it is about discovering the beauty in our lives, and the world around us, regardless of the turmoil and the tragedies that might occur.
As the movie starts, Lester is a normal shmuck, like any of us, but his life has gone horribly wrong. His job is unfulfilling and somewhat dishonest, his wife is an artificial persona with no passion, his marriage is empty, and so on. Of course, he's only dimly aware of this, because he is living by habit, or as he puts it, it's like he is in a coma.
Lester is jarred out of this routine by a spark, in the form of his daughter's friend, an apparent vixen. Now the teen lust is not the important issue here. What matters is that it awakens in Lester a feeling that he has not had in years. He starts to see just how bad his life has become, so he decides he's going to break out -- he's going to find the thing that he has lost, the happiness he knew in his younger days. Note that "decides" is not really the right word -- Lester has no idea what exactly it is that he has lost, in fact he didn't know it when he had it, and he has no idea how to find it again.
So, acting purely on instinct, Lester breaks out, and tries to find what he is missing.
He quits his job, and rather than playing the meek little good boy, as he has always done, he plays it their way for once, taking what he can get, and "blackmailing" his boss for a big severance check. Aha, payback! It provides a momentary sense of satisfaction, freedom, and power, but it doesn't make him happy.
In response to the lies and hypocrisy, he tries brutal honesty, which provides for some moments of humour and satifaction, but doesn't really change his life.
He tries to recapture his youth. He takes a job at a fast food joint, he exercises, he smokes pot, listens to rock music, and buys his dream car. All of these things make him feel more free, at least for a short time, but he still hasn't found the secret. He still has no direction, no passion for anything, no relationship with his wife or his daughter, etc. Though he's closer, and he wouldn't go back, he's still not there yet.
Meanwhile, there remains one more thing to shoot for, the thing that reignited the spark in him in the first place, the fantasy and his lust for the young Angela. Had that fantasy remained unfulfilled, he might never have finished his journey, and discovered the secret, but by chance, he gets the opportunity to fulfill his fantasy.
And at that point, the bubble bursts. He's been chasing an illusion -- Angela is not the experienced vixen he believed. Faced with the truth, he chooses to do the right thing, and stops. In doing so, he discovers that he's actually decent guy, and he's not the loser he believed himself to be.
This triggers in him a wholescale rethinking of his life. He realizes that while he's been totally focussed on chasing the things he didn't have, or was supposed to have, meanwhile, the things that made him happy were right there in front of him. It's so simple. He's actually had a good life, not the least of which, before he lost sight of it, was the love he felt for his wife, and the joy of his daughter.
Of course, the movie is not making a simple shallow statement (like "love is the answer" -- blech). Lester's answers are not necessarily the same as yours. The question is: What makes you happy, and are you doing the right things to achieve it, or are you caught up chasing an empty dream? Lester discovers his answers too late, but, as he says in the narration at the beginning, it's not too late for you.
The story is five months old, and it appears that people have forgotten a couple of things.
1. MindCraft chose the only hardware configuration where NT beat Linux:
Around the same time, a more comprehensive set of tests were run by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/
The c't tests showed that Linux beat NT under most conditions. It was only in a specific situation (serving multiple saturated high speed lines from a single box) where NT was substantially faster than Linux. Non-coincidentally, it was this specific situation that MindCraft chose to benchmark.
Thus, MindCraft may have run the test fairly, but they rigged it ahead of time when they chose the hardware configuration.
2. The results are ancient history:
The Linux problem that caused it to be slower (but not slow) in the MindCraft configuration was debugged and fixed within weeks of the test (thePC Week rerun, that is).
If you want a valid comparison today, the test would have to be rerun using the new Linux code.
Why is Slashdot running a repeat of 5 month old story anyway?
Good response, and good links. I would have no problem if someone wants to moderate your post up.
Why is it relevant that Microsoft engages in such "business" tactics? Two reasons:
1. It lends credence to the idea that the recent spate of anti-Netscape stories is actually part a FUD campaign by Microsoft.
2. It tells us that if Microsoft succeeds in killing Netscape, then they won't hesitate to manipulate (i.e. corrupt) Web standards to harm their competitors (those competitors being whatever business Microsoft wants to enter next).
Is AOL as bad as Microsoft? I can't say for sure, but I'm not aware of anything AOL has done to me, that is, other than annoying me by waging an aggressive marketing campaign, and by bringing a bunch of non-techies onto the Net. Also, it may be true, as the article states, that AOL is a bureaucratic company, and not a nice place to work. However, none of that matters in this case.
What matters is that if you want to avoid both Microsoft and AOL, then the way to do it will be to use Mozilla. But wait, you say, isn't Mozilla controlled by AOL? Not really. Mozilla is Open Source, and the number of non-AOL developers is growing every day. As long as AOL is doing the right thing with Mozilla, their contribution is appreciated. But, if AOL ever tried to use Mozilla to betray the Internet community, then control of Mozilla's development would be snatched from them in an eyeblink.
In other words, Open Source Mozilla helps protect Web standards. The fact that AOL is supporting it suggests that they intend to compete fairly, rather than by trying to bend the rules the way Microsoft does.
So you don't believe Microsoft engages in FUD campaigns, and other unethical behaviour?
h tml
Here are some Microsoft quotes for you . . .
Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:
"We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out."
Microsoft analysis paper re DR-DOS:
"On the PR side, we have begun an 'aggressive leak campaign' for MS-DOS 5.0. The goal is to build anticipation for MS-DOS 5.0, and diffuse potential excitement/momentum from the DR DOS 5.0 announcement."
Microsoft PR plan re DR-DOS:
"Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made."
Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:
"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos. or decide not to take the risk for all the other machines he has to buy for in the office."
Microsoft J++ Pricing Proposal re Java:
The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
Memo re Java:
"at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."
Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil re Linux:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:
"I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share. Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform [means] losing our biggest advantage -- Windows marketshare. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more. . . . We should think about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."
Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:
"Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have [less than] 20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows integration."
"If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together."
Microsoft's Paul Maritz on Netscape:
The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to [] position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on Windows.
Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer on Netscape:
"The stunning insight is this: To make [users] switch away from Netscape, we need to make them upgrade to Memphis. . . . It seems clear to me that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."
Microsoft executive re Netscape:
Content drives browser adoption, and we need to go to the top five sites and ask them, "What can we do to get you to adopt IE?" We should be prepared to write a check, buy sites, or add features -- basically do whatever it takes to drive adoption.
Microsoft's Brad Chase re Netscape:
"We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."
Yep. Just honest-to-goodness competition on the merits of their products -- in a pig's eye.
Sources:
DR-DOS Case - Consolidated Statement of Facts:
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
Java Case - Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html
Linux - Halloween Document:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.
DOJ Case - Findings of Fact:
http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
Besides wanting the Netcenter hits, AOL had a reason that made it imperative to buy Netscape:
AOL needed to ensure the survival of the Netscape browser.
AOL knows that Microsoft wants their business. They also know their history, for example, they know that Microsoft has used Windows in ways that tended to sabotage Microsoft's competitors (e.g. DR-DOS and WordPerfect).
Consider this quote from Bill Gates:
"You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run DR-DOS. Is there any version check or api they fail to have? Is ther feature they have that might get in our way? I am not looking for something they cant get around. I am looking for something their current binary fails on."
Or, consider this quote from Microsoft's Brad Chase:
"We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."
If Netscape disappeared, and AOL was left dependent on IE, how long would it be before AOL's customers found it a "jolting experience" to surf the Net, while MSN's customers found it smooth as silk?
The article is FUD.
Don't you find it curious that a whole series of stories like this have appeared just prior to the release of Netscape 5.0? Don't you find it strange that, according to the comments, 90% of Windows supporters want to see Netscape dead? Does it make sense? Why would the average Windows user care?
The story is part of Microsoft's ongoing campaign to kill Netscape and leave Microsoft with a near-monopoly in the web browser market. If Microsoft succeeds, then technological progress on the Net will slow to a crawl, because any innovation will have to come from Microsoft.
The Mozilla project is progressing nicely. Those who claim that Mozilla's progress has been slow are either showing a high degree of ignorance, or have an ulterior motive. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that, after giving up on trying to improve the original Netscape code, the Mozilla team has basically rewritten the browser from scratch in less than a year. It's an amazing accomplishment!
Note: I'm posting this a second time because my first post seems to have disappeared (actually, it looked like Slashdot was restarted after being hacked for a minute or so :).
I think the actress, Jeri Ryan, is being given a bad rap. It's true that the producers are using her for sex appeal (and she does look good in those tight outfits), but I'd still like watching her character, 7 of 9, even if she was more conservatively dressed.
Say what you like about Voyager, but 7 of 9 is a good character, with a unique point of view, a penchant for cut-theough-the-BS straight talk, and a dry sardonic wit. I like her. And, it's Jeri Ryan's acting, with her quizzical looks, aloof stances, and so on, that brings out 7 of 9's character.
Look at what's been going on meanwhile: Babylon 5, Earth: Final Conflict, Farscape, X-Files.
Exactly. Audiences and TV sci-fi have become more sophisticated while Star Trek has not (sci-fi has also become more mainstream, which means there are some pretty pathetic sci-fi soaps around these days).
I don't think Star Trek has degraded as much as it has simply stood still. After all, even Voyager has its moments, for example, the episode about the meta-matter(?) duplicate crew (where they realize that they are not the originals, and that when they die, nothing about them will be known or remembered) was excellent pathos, and was quite unique.
But, for the most part, Star Trek has been surpassed by more intelligent, and logically consistent, sci-fi, such as the new Outer Limits, Babylon 5, Stargate, the first season of Earth: The Final Conflict, and so on.
Very well done. Bravo!
You forgot the reason that was most important for me:
The investment you make in application software won't suddenly become worthless with the next release of the O/S.
With Linux, compatibility is a primary goal, and sabotage is unheard of.
Here's what the second benchmark showed:
:^)
1. The Linux Advocates Were Right
Mindcraft *did* seriously mis-configure Linux in the first test.
The Linux/Apache peak performance in the second test was approximately 50% higher than in the first test.
More important, the disasterous collapse of Linux/Apache at higher loads, that occurred in MindCraft's first test, was nowhere to be seen in the second test - Linux/Apache performance remained high as the load increased. The performance drop-off in the first test was caused by MindCraft's mis-configuration.
2. The Anti-Linux Zealots Were Wrong
Linux advocates did *not* oppose the first test simply because NT beat Linux. The opposition was based on valid concerns about how the test was run - concerns that have been born out by the second test.
There is little serious opposition to the second test, which is generally considered fair (within the limits of the benchmark). In fact, the knowledge gained from the second test has been welcomed by the Linux community, who look forward to the performance gains that will result.
3. NT/IIS Beat Linux/Apache - Not That It Matters
IIS on NT *did* achieve a higher benchmark result than Apache (or Samba) on Linux. But, as many have pointed out, the conditions of the benchmark are highly artificial. In the real world, where there is a greater mix of activity on the server, Linux's virtues in the areas of stability, task management, and I/O performance would play a greater role.
As some have pointed out, when you're shopping for a reliable delivery van, the fact that it can be beat by a dragster is of little consequence. Or, to use another car analogy, by pouring on the nitrous, you can beat any other car on the track - for one lap (before burning out your engine).
4. Linux/Apache Performance Was Excellent - Not That It Matters
As others have pointed out, the Linux/Apache performance on one CPU was enough to handle the load of *twenty* T1 lines. But again, the test is too artificial for that to have much meaning.
5. That MindCraft Guy is a Whiner
There are always jerks on every side of every issue. For him to pick out the most obnoxious things said by some Linux supporters, and suggest that they mean something, is childish. Those mouth-offs don't represent the Linux community, anymore than Ballmer represents the...NT...oh...wait...
Congratulations on a job well done! You deserve a break. I can wait a while longer for my other requests...tap...tap...tap...okay, that's long enough :).
The "Highlight Threshold" is a great idea. It provides most of the benefits I was seeking through some of my earlier (different, maybe not as good) suggestions.
I agree with the poster who wants to be able to trigger "Highlight Threshold" on request (rather than setting his spillover to a low number). Just add a "Headers" option to the "Flat, Nested...".
I agree with the poster(s) about the "Order by Score" problem, whereby it only works for first level comments. I also have a concern that if moderators use this option, they will tend to bump up messages that already have a high score, while ignoring new messages that should get a higher score. Personally, I think that "Highlight Threshold" makes "Order by Score" unnecessary.
Nested mode is nice, but I will support capital punishment for anyone who repeats the maximum-depth experiment that some turkey carried out under Moderation 1.1.1.
I think that Rob has been successful enough at implementing changes, that we don't need to berate him for the temporrary bugs that do get through. I would, however, like to see a status page (or a section on the home page) to tell us what is currently happening. That way I won't be bugging him by telling him about things he already knows (like I apparently did earlier today).
I disagree with the idea that moderators should only be able to moderate upward. In that case, how would you get rid of MEEPT? Would you kick out any Moderators who were weird enough to bump up his score? Where would it end? That really would lead to censorship. (Of course, a vote-averaging system would solve the whole problem--nudge, nudge--broken record).
Contrary to some posters, I think that Moderators should increase the scores of (good) posts that are in agreement with their own ideas. Since not all moderators will think the same, this sort of mini-survey would allow us to see the best arguments on both (all) sides of a debate. To me, the moderators should be bumping up posts that make a good point (with which they probably agree), that make an interesting point (agree or not), that provide useful information, or that are entertaining (especially humour).
Lastly, lest it be forgotten, let me repeat an earlier request for a filter-by-date-time option to allow me to view the posts that are newer than my last visit, even if they are nested.
Once again, great work!
The carriage returns appear to be the result of copying the text from the Post Comment form into Notepad (to avoid losing it again due to the AC posting bug), then copying it from Notepad back into the Post Comment form (after my AC post did, in fact, get lost). The carriage returns are exactly where Notepad was breaking the text lines.
The interesting thing is that the extra blank lines do not show up on the Preview page, but they do appear on the Comment Posted, and subsequent Slashdot pages.
I now conclude that this is a bug with the Preview page, and it may have always been there.
I didn't put those extra carriage returns in, and they weren't there on the preview screen, so that looks like another new bug. I will bypass the preview screen this time.
Way to go guys. That was fast work.
:^).
:^), the page finishes
:^).
I have the following thoughts and suggestions:
1) I really like the selection criteria form. Now I don't need to reload a pags three
times (e.g. up-one, up-one, flat) to get what I want. My only preference would be
for the criteria to apply to the current page only, leaving my user profile
defaults unchanged. I can understand why, however, it would be faster to implement
it this way, since your current filtering logic is based on the user profile (or
maybe that's the only easy way to do it - I'd have to think about it).
2) Contrary to some of the earlier posters, I like having a limited range for the
scores. If I were to change it at all, it would only be to widen the range
slightly (say -2 to 10) to leave room for the worst (FP), and most excellent posts
(mine
3) I agree with the suggestions made earlier to add some color coding to highlight
the scores. My variation would be to place a colored bar (text-based, no graphics)
beside the score. The length of the bar (in character positions) would indicate
the score, while the color (say green and red), or perhaps an arrow, would
indicate whether it was plus or minus.
4) I am having a fairly serious problem with the mechanism used for moderating. It
really slows down the browser to have it render all those radio buttons. For a 400
message flat display, on my P166 96MB NT (at work
downloading, then Netscape pegs the CPU at 100% for over 2 minutes (I timed it),
while it renders the buttons. On my P400 128MB Linux machine at home, the page
displays faster, but then the scrolling is jerky and slow. This problem could
probably be resolved by adding a "moderate" link beside the "reply-to" link, in
place of the radio buttons. Not only would this speed things up, but it would also
have the advantage that, for a given message, I could open the "moderate" form in
a second window (by right-clicking or dragging the link), and enter my vote
immediately, without ever leaving, or losing my place in the original page.
5) I would also like to repeat my preference for an unlimited vote averaging system,
in place of the current limited-votes, up-one down-one system. The current system
is causing me a lot of stress because, as I am reading, I am constantly thinking
"Is this the one? Is this the message that deserves my vote? Maybe there's a
better message further down. Maybe I need to save my votes for the next story...".
Add to that the fact that when I change a score that was previously moderated, I
am conciously overriding someone else's opinion, rather than simply registering my
own. I've got to tell you, this is really eating into my enjoyment of the Slashdot
experience.
As discussed earlier, it should not be difficult to implement a vote averaging
system within the limitations of your SQL system. Each message would require three
fields: the total votes for that message, the total of the scores entered, and the
resulting average score. Thus, when a moderator submits his vote, the total votes
is incremented, his suggested score is added to the total score, and the new
average is calculated. The display for each message would include its rounded
average score, and also the total number of votes. The total votes would not only
tell a moderator how much effect his vote was going to have, but some readers
might also be interested in seeing which messages generated the most votes.
With a vote averaging system, the number of votes per moderator does not need to
be limited (the averaging limits his power), and each moderator can merrily vote
as his heart desires. I can think of ways to prevent a moderator from voting twice
for the same story, as I'm sure you can, but I would suggest not worrying about
it. It should be easy to weed out the abusers by sorting the moderation log (I
assume there is one) and looking for duplicates (i.e. same story-id, message-id,
and moderator-id). After a few days, the remaining moderators should not need
close supervision.
6) As to how you maintain your list of moderators, I would suggest that you continue
to base it on the scores of your trusted inner circle. That way, Slashdot will
continue to reflect your unique personality(s). If you based it on the incestious
scores of the moderators themselves, eventually you would reach the lowest common
denominator, and Slashdot would become every bit as good as daytime television.
I like what you've done so far. Keep forging ahead.
Note: I tried posting this twice as an AC, and both times failed to get a confirmation screen. It appears to have simple lost my messages (the first time I lost over an hours work - ouch). Looking through the list, I don't see any AC's, so I assume this is a bug. Therefore, say hello to my new secret identity