I play Warcraft and use my browser with it all the time. Just open it in Windowed mode. What? you don't have that? Must just be Mac and Linux that have that then.
Actually, compared to PHP, it is slow. Alot of people benchmark PHP incorrectly. Everyone who knows anything about PHP knows it was built to be an Apache module and never to be used as a command line utility because it doesn't have a daemon; it doesn't run in the background like other languages, it starts up and shuts down after running each script.
This is why if you don't benchmark it as an Apache module (where it IS running as a daemon), it loses a second or two in the benchmark while it starts up its engine. Nuby developers love to quote this stat but are clueless in the fact that what they are quoting is completely wrong. If you were to benchmark the other languages the same way, you would have to shut their daemons off so the startup of their engines are taken into consideration with the benchmark as well.
If I come up with an idea that the company patents, give me partial ownership of the patent. Otherwise I'm keeping my mouth shut until long after my contract expires. There is no incentive when I know the company is making millions and I only get a new iPod.
nobody gives a presentation staring down to a piece of glass. And yes. Many people have given presentations using the Wii remote but people didn't realize it because you don't use it as a wand, moron. You use it as a detection device for simulating multitouch on projection screens or LCD's. The Wii remote just has to be within detection range.
You'd know that if you knew anything about this kind of technology or what you were even talking about.
Unfortunately, many people have figured out how to make the same thing using Wii remotes, projectors and cameras and other devices for far less R&D costs. And they actually figured it out BEFORE Microsoft! So I honestly have no idea what that R&D was for except for a giant marketing toy.
Well... ok, but OEMs *could* already do that right now and they're choosing not to. What makes you think a lawsuit would change anything?
Because then Microsoft couldn't threaten OEM's in raising their licensing costs if they did that. The OEM's would HAVE to do it or end users would be helpless.
Because that.001% who complain about 'obscure browser' already know how to FTP and install that browser. They are educated and knowledgable users. They have the option to install the browser of their choice like everyone else... it's just that OEM's can only provide a limited selection.
I'm totally fine as a knowledgable user installing my own software as long as I know Microsoft isn't going to walk all over my install choices.
I mean, without IE pre-installed on the box, how is Joe User going to go and download Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome?
The consumer could choose on the OEM's site what browser to install or the OEM's could make a deal with a browser company to install their browser by default. OEMs make their money through installed software contracts. Very few people purchase computers without a browser these days. If people purchase Windows OS, they could easily put a separate IE instyall disk in the box (like they used to).
But by separating the browser from the OS and the file browser, this gives consumers the option to attach whatever browser they want to the system rather than having the OS route all calls through their browser by default. And if the OEM's handle the install process and all the consumer has to do is make a choice from the top 5 (opera, safari, firefox, chrome and IE) then you have covered 99.99% of the market. Others can easily uninstall and reinstall their browser of choice.
You see pretentiousness because you project it yourself. Others are often merely a mirror of yourself. And if you cannot see how the conversation came about, I suggest reading more carefully.
No your assumption that a browser SHOULD be interweaved with an OS is retarded. A file browser does not need to BE a web browser but can INTEGRATE with a web browser. Obviously, you do very little programming otherwise this concept would be quite easy for you to grasp. See, I can be uncivilized in conversation too. Now should you choose to act like an adult in future conversations, I will address you as one. Speak rationally, not emotionally.
Who cares if it is hard coded? So long as I can hit my FF button and FF opens and works as intended, what do I care if some internal functions still reference IE?
Well to answer your question... No one cares what you care about. We care what HACKERS care about... and they care about accessing an insecure browser that has ROOT access to your system and can be accessed through your email, through a word doc, through an excel doc, etc etc etc.
Hence the reason government and security agencies often send out alerts telling people to stop using IE (as they cannot remove it) and why industry experts and the European Union have requested Microsoft to provide a way to remove it because they have thus far been unable to secure it.
And no, a computers primary function is to 'compute'. A browsers primary function is to browse the web. A cars primary function is to travel... not play the radio. You honestly need to have a better understanding of metaphors before using them in the future.
Well actually, I wrote an article a LOOOOOONG time ago to do just that... remove internet explorer. It's no longer online but these guys mirrored part of the article. http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=191
Not the same comparison, your OS doesn't RUN off the web browser. Remove the browser and the Operating system still runs. Remove gas from your car or power from your house and neither of those RUN.
The browser is just a TOOL within the OS. But most end users are incompetent monkeys without a browser so while your metaphor is bad, your point is still valid. Which is why I stated above that the power can be put within the hands of the OEM as long as the browser is not HARD CODED as part of the OS; it can always be removed and supplanted by another browser of the users choice.
To use a better metaphor, it would be like removing the default factory radio from your car and installing another or removing cable from your house and installing satelite TV. Thats a more valid metaphor.
You are definitely right however the OEM's can have a default list of the top 3-5 favorite browsers: Chrome, Opera, Firefox, IE and Safari. This covers 99.99% of the market.If you honestly want another browser, you are more informed about browsers than most people and should install it yourself when you get your system.
But I think his greater argument is that they should not be bundled in such a way that they cannot be removed by the consumer in favor of the browser that they want and that OEM's should have the option to make a buck off of consumers who want an option.
No... I mean his argument that a grassroots campain that stole 21% marketshare is an invalid argument when the stats show that Firefox's campaign is consistently working and still is working. His initial argument is that they don't know how to run a campaign and my statement was that the stats over the last 4 years show otherwise.
Your comeback is that 'vs Netscape we did AWESOME when bundling' which has nothing to do with the Firefox campaign since Netscape was another company entirely and we were talking about the Firefox campaign NOT bundling.
If you wish to discuss bundling, the point of the Mozilla exec's arguments is that bundling is bad for the market and bad for competition which is what most open source advocates have been saying. As a dominant browser, they are merely being a responsible player in the IT market... especially considering they are open source. Because being open source, if they BECOME dominant, they actually DO stifle innovation and crush other players since free AND dominant will stop other free open source browsers from getting a foothold.
Considering the fact that they stole 21% of Microsoft's market share, encouraged new competitors and continues to grow new market share based on a grassroots campaign and Google backing, I'd say their track record refutes your statements quite effectively. Until you can show how Microsofts shrinking market share stolen by Firefox was not a direct affect of their growth, I'd say your argument is rendered inneffective.
Slashdot Mirror
I play Warcraft and use my browser with it all the time. Just open it in Windowed mode. What? you don't have that? Must just be Mac and Linux that have that then.
Actually, compared to PHP, it is slow. Alot of people benchmark PHP incorrectly. Everyone who knows anything about PHP knows it was built to be an Apache module and never to be used as a command line utility because it doesn't have a daemon; it doesn't run in the background like other languages, it starts up and shuts down after running each script.
This is why if you don't benchmark it as an Apache module (where it IS running as a daemon), it loses a second or two in the benchmark while it starts up its engine. Nuby developers love to quote this stat but are clueless in the fact that what they are quoting is completely wrong. If you were to benchmark the other languages the same way, you would have to shut their daemons off so the startup of their engines are taken into consideration with the benchmark as well.
PEBKAC. Brains are optional. Just ask any Exchange user.
If I come up with an idea that the company patents, give me partial ownership of the patent. Otherwise I'm keeping my mouth shut until long after my contract expires. There is no incentive when I know the company is making millions and I only get a new iPod.
Thats what I just said... pay attention. It's crowd sourcing NOT open source.
This isn't open source... this is 'crowd sourcing'. Two entirely different things.
nobody gives a presentation staring down to a piece of glass. And yes. Many people have given presentations using the Wii remote but people didn't realize it because you don't use it as a wand, moron. You use it as a detection device for simulating multitouch on projection screens or LCD's. The Wii remote just has to be within detection range.
You'd know that if you knew anything about this kind of technology or what you were even talking about.
if you say so.
So they say but Dell and HP and others tell a different story.
and still you go on. Needing your ego stroked. Again, seek help.
Unfortunately, many people have figured out how to make the same thing using Wii remotes, projectors and cameras and other devices for far less R&D costs. And they actually figured it out BEFORE Microsoft! So I honestly have no idea what that R&D was for except for a giant marketing toy.
Because then Microsoft couldn't threaten OEM's in raising their licensing costs if they did that. The OEM's would HAVE to do it or end users would be helpless.
Because that .001% who complain about 'obscure browser' already know how to FTP and install that browser. They are educated and knowledgable users. They have the option to install the browser of their choice like everyone else... it's just that OEM's can only provide a limited selection.
I'm totally fine as a knowledgable user installing my own software as long as I know Microsoft isn't going to walk all over my install choices.
The consumer could choose on the OEM's site what browser to install or the OEM's could make a deal with a browser company to install their browser by default. OEMs make their money through installed software contracts. Very few people purchase computers without a browser these days. If people purchase Windows OS, they could easily put a separate IE instyall disk in the box (like they used to).
But by separating the browser from the OS and the file browser, this gives consumers the option to attach whatever browser they want to the system rather than having the OS route all calls through their browser by default. And if the OEM's handle the install process and all the consumer has to do is make a choice from the top 5 (opera, safari, firefox, chrome and IE) then you have covered 99.99% of the market. Others can easily uninstall and reinstall their browser of choice.
Can't agree more. Owasps tools and their manuals are great for people looking for answers on web security.
you believe what you wish to and what makes you comfortable. And it shows in your need to blame others for your own lack of reason. seek help.
Good point. Plus with the help of OEM's any decent open source app could get installed by OEM's and eventually replace the dominant player.
You see pretentiousness because you project it yourself. Others are often merely a mirror of yourself. And if you cannot see how the conversation came about, I suggest reading more carefully.
No your assumption that a browser SHOULD be interweaved with an OS is retarded. A file browser does not need to BE a web browser but can INTEGRATE with a web browser. Obviously, you do very little programming otherwise this concept would be quite easy for you to grasp. See, I can be uncivilized in conversation too. Now should you choose to act like an adult in future conversations, I will address you as one. Speak rationally, not emotionally.
Well to answer your question... No one cares what you care about. We care what HACKERS care about... and they care about accessing an insecure browser that has ROOT access to your system and can be accessed through your email, through a word doc, through an excel doc, etc etc etc.
Hence the reason government and security agencies often send out alerts telling people to stop using IE (as they cannot remove it) and why industry experts and the European Union have requested Microsoft to provide a way to remove it because they have thus far been unable to secure it.
And no, a computers primary function is to 'compute'. A browsers primary function is to browse the web. A cars primary function is to travel... not play the radio. You honestly need to have a better understanding of metaphors before using them in the future.
Well actually, I wrote an article a LOOOOOONG time ago to do just that... remove internet explorer. It's no longer online but these guys mirrored part of the article. http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=191
Not the same comparison, your OS doesn't RUN off the web browser. Remove the browser and the Operating system still runs. Remove gas from your car or power from your house and neither of those RUN.
The browser is just a TOOL within the OS. But most end users are incompetent monkeys without a browser so while your metaphor is bad, your point is still valid. Which is why I stated above that the power can be put within the hands of the OEM as long as the browser is not HARD CODED as part of the OS; it can always be removed and supplanted by another browser of the users choice.
To use a better metaphor, it would be like removing the default factory radio from your car and installing another or removing cable from your house and installing satelite TV. Thats a more valid metaphor.
You are definitely right however the OEM's can have a default list of the top 3-5 favorite browsers: Chrome, Opera, Firefox, IE and Safari. This covers 99.99% of the market.If you honestly want another browser, you are more informed about browsers than most people and should install it yourself when you get your system.
But I think his greater argument is that they should not be bundled in such a way that they cannot be removed by the consumer in favor of the browser that they want and that OEM's should have the option to make a buck off of consumers who want an option.
No... I mean his argument that a grassroots campain that stole 21% marketshare is an invalid argument when the stats show that Firefox's campaign is consistently working and still is working. His initial argument is that they don't know how to run a campaign and my statement was that the stats over the last 4 years show otherwise.
Your comeback is that 'vs Netscape we did AWESOME when bundling' which has nothing to do with the Firefox campaign since Netscape was another company entirely and we were talking about the Firefox campaign NOT bundling.
If you wish to discuss bundling, the point of the Mozilla exec's arguments is that bundling is bad for the market and bad for competition which is what most open source advocates have been saying. As a dominant browser, they are merely being a responsible player in the IT market... especially considering they are open source. Because being open source, if they BECOME dominant, they actually DO stifle innovation and crush other players since free AND dominant will stop other free open source browsers from getting a foothold.
Considering the fact that they stole 21% of Microsoft's market share, encouraged new competitors and continues to grow new market share based on a grassroots campaign and Google backing, I'd say their track record refutes your statements quite effectively. Until you can show how Microsofts shrinking market share stolen by Firefox was not a direct affect of their growth, I'd say your argument is rendered inneffective.