I agree that it's not effective to move from the city to the airport, but between cities it should do very nice.
Airports take up lots of space and are very noisy. (= even more space made unvaluable. Who wants to life near the airport?) while a train can stop directly in the city.
So instead of city -> airport -> airport -> city you could go directly from city to city. On the same continent, this should always be faster than planes.
Besides, the Autobahn does carry more people per hour and kilometers than does this train any time soon.
A bold statement.
Let's calculate: The autobahn has usually 2 lanes in each direction. If the drivers keep a distance of 2 seconds, we get one vehicle per second - maximum.
Optimistically, we assume that each vehicle carries 2 people (in reality this number is much lower), so we get a realistical maximum throughput of 2 persons/second or 7200 persons per hour.
Now let's compare: The Transrapid carries up to 1000 people. If we have intervals of 5 minutes between trains, we would get 12000 people per hour.
Well if it were a minor bug, they wouldn't have pulled the release.
But I was using Moz1.2 since release without noticing any problems, so it's not the end of the world.
You can't have a security problem until you at least have a working product.
Moz1.0 and Moz1.1 are working products and they work great.
If you have such a thin skin about bugs, don't adopt early, use Moz1.1 for the next weeks until you go to Moz1.2. It's tested, stable and much more secure than any version of IE, what is your problem?
I don't get it. Why give every app have a half-assed window manager with its own quirky UI rather than making the system window manager usable?
Because Mozilla lets me open pages into the background. Whenever I open a page into a new browser-window it appears on top of my existing windows (which sucks).
Also I can close tabs with the middle mouse button, which I can't do with any windowmanager I am aware of.
(c) In this case, the name is actually deserved, as what they're fighting for is not to ban Open Source software from government contracts, but only to ensure that the US government not *require* Open Source, which would eliminate as an option most current closed software.
Well, there are currently zero OSS-only policies in the US among governmental organizations, but numerous MS-only policies at the operating system and office-suite level.
And now this "Initiative for Software Choice" starts fighting against policies that don't even exist (yet).
If they are serious about software choice, why don't they attack the numerous MS-only policies out there?
They don't think it's fair for the government to only consider open source software and ignore software made by, say, Microsoft.
But they seem to have absolutely no problems when government organizations implement Microsoft and only Microsoft policies, at least I have never heard them complain about that.
With OpenSource, you have an open market for supporters and companies - with a MS-only policy you have to swallow anything MS throws at you. (including rising fees and license costs, changing EULAs and registration/activation hassles)
A MS-only policy is much more restrictive than a OSS-only policy. If ISC's main goal is to "educate policymakers about the need to remain neutral with respect to government purchase of software" why don't they critizise MS-only policies?
But if Microsoft starts actually losing money, Bill Gate's valuable stock would become worthless. So they'll rather dump XBox/MSN/WinCE than let that happen.
XBox was sold only about half as often as expected by Microsoft - at a higher loss than expected. Keeping WinCE is debatable because it's reasonably successful, but dumping XBox is kind of a nobrainer.
Exactly. I wonder when their Windows and Office prices will go down so much that they can no longer afford ever-losing playthings like XBox, MSN and WindowsCE...
This can happen sooner than you think. Microsoft also dropped Windows on Alpha with only a week of warning...
My prediction is that XBox will die first, followed by MSN and WindowsCE.
It is just loaded in the browser cache and you won't ever notice when you don't click on the link.
Also you don't know in advance what will be on a give page so it's not your fault if the content provider puts copyrighted material on his page - hidden or not, that does not matter.
You should really try Phoenix. It's very stable (I only had 2 crashes in 2 or 3 months of near-exclusive use) and fast.
Also very nice is the fact that Phoenix needs not to be installed. It just works anywhere you unzip it. No registry problems, no risk of destroying settings, etc. And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.
So unlike most other browsers (including IE) you don't risk hosing your system when you install/upgrade.
First, all security holes were fixed long before Register "exposed" them (No, I don't consider "The webmaster might find out which link I clicked on his site" a security hole.)
Anyway, the worst Mozilla has contained security-wise so far is DoS. Sure it should be fixed, but there is not really a danger. The worst thing that could happen is a crash.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand continues to feature real bad security holes that let an attacker run code and take over the machine.
Just imagine a Code-Red like Virus that inserts malicious code on webservers to also take over IE-using clients....
I don't know where this strange pro-MS poster "Anonymous Coward" gets his data from, but in my experience, Windows workstation is much harder to install and to mantain than a Linux workstation.
Windows itself is usually easier to get because it comes with the computer. If you had to install it, it would not be easier or faster.
However that small advantage is completely lost in all the additional software you need: Office suite, a browser that doesn't suck, image manipulation software, packaging software, etc. (all things that are already included in all serious Linux distributions) - and in case of Windows: virus scanners and constant patches.
He was just pointing out that DOS is still performing real work, even in some fairly critical roles. I thought that was pretty clear, myself.
DOS just launched that application and does no work at all. In fact because DOS doesn't even know multitasking, it isn't even active when some other app runs.
Actually yes, many things... I know of companies that still use DOS for many things to this day for accounting, customer tracking, or other important tasks.
DOS can do accounting and customer tracking?
It's amazing. If it's from Microsoft all 3rd party-effort (like accounting or customer tracking applications, or in the case of Windows drivers.) all of the sudden is credited to Microsoft.
Face it: DOS is a very, very primitive OS. Even in 1981 when it was released, it was already outdated. A decade later, when it was still shipped on most PCs, it was even more outdated. multi-user, multitasking... As a die-hard Microsoft user you probably don't know, but those existed long before Windows - and also before DOS.
Most of the stuff that is part of OSes simply do not exist in DOS: sound drivers, GUI, system services, etc.
Is there really anything DOS could do, except launch programs?
DOS is still important in embedded apps
on
MS-DOS 1981-2002 RIP
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
DOS is still used in many embedded applications. Even though very few new DOS-based embedded apps are currently developed, there are lots of previously developed apps currently in production.
If Microsoft really wants to deny new DOS-licenses, this could be a real problem for a couple of companies.
I know that since the Microsoft courtcase everybody - both anti and pro MS people - have portraied Microsoft as an huge amassement of (evil or good) geniuses.
But let's face it: They are incompetent.
Microsoft is like some communistic state buerocracy. When the money keeps flowing in and nobodys job is at stake, there is not much incentive to work hard.
Of course Microsoft, the 40000 man company needs 10 times as long to fix a security bug than a 20-man company. Of course every project Microsoft that was started after the 80's and early 90's (like keyboards, mice, WinCE, MSN, MS Bob, Internet Explorer, PenWindows, Windows on non-x86, Hailstorm, XBox, etc.) was making big losses. Of course they did not innovate anything really new and instead just ripped off concepts from somewhere else (first the basic windowing system from Apple, now more advanced concepts like multiple desktops from the Unix GUI. Also the much-hyped tablet PC is nothing new and already existed and failed in the early 90's)
Microsoft is very powerful and rich. But they also became lazy, incompetent and slow. Everywhere, where Microsoft can't use their desktop domination to push a product, it is doomed to fail. - Simply because Microsoft is too slow and too expensive to create a competitive product that can survive on it's own. (Just look at XBox. It came out 2 years after Playstation2 (= too late), it features a short-term low numbers design for a long-term, mass produced project (off-the-shelf design where a custom design would fit best =stupid design), they are pumping about 200 million per quarter into it, and it still has fallen behind PS2 and Gamecube. Unlike Sony and Nintendo who have higher development costs and will sell so-and-so many units to break-even, Microosft will never break even. The more the sell, the deeper they get into the red. There is no hope for XBox, Microsoft may keep it alive for a few years until it's livetime is over, but XBox, the platform is doomed and there will be no XBox2. There is no way they can put out a product competing with PS3 at the sime time. First, because they already have choosen a stupid design and second because they are not very competent, especially in the gaming market.)
Slashdot Mirror
Airports take up lots of space and are very noisy. (= even more space made unvaluable. Who wants to life near the airport?) while a train can stop directly in the city.
So instead of city -> airport -> airport -> city you could go directly from city to city. On the same continent, this should always be faster than planes.
A bold statement.
Let's calculate: The autobahn has usually 2 lanes in each direction. If the drivers keep a distance of 2 seconds, we get one vehicle per second - maximum.
Optimistically, we assume that each vehicle carries 2 people (in reality this number is much lower), so we get a realistical maximum throughput of 2 persons/second or 7200 persons per hour.
Now let's compare: The Transrapid carries up to 1000 people. If we have intervals of 5 minutes between trains, we would get 12000 people per hour.
But I was using Moz1.2 since release without noticing any problems, so it's not the end of the world.
You can't have a security problem until you at least have a working product.
Moz1.0 and Moz1.1 are working products and they work great.
If you have such a thin skin about bugs, don't adopt early, use Moz1.1 for the next weeks until you go to Moz1.2. It's tested, stable and much more secure than any version of IE, what is your problem?
Because Mozilla lets me open pages into the background. Whenever I open a page into a new browser-window it appears on top of my existing windows (which sucks).
Also I can close tabs with the middle mouse button, which I can't do with any windowmanager I am aware of.
Well, there are currently zero OSS-only policies in the US among governmental organizations, but numerous MS-only policies at the operating system and office-suite level.
And now this "Initiative for Software Choice" starts fighting against policies that don't even exist (yet).
If they are serious about software choice, why don't they attack the numerous MS-only policies out there?
But they seem to have absolutely no problems when government organizations implement Microsoft and only Microsoft policies, at least I have never heard them complain about that.
With OpenSource, you have an open market for supporters and companies - with a MS-only policy you have to swallow anything MS throws at you. (including rising fees and license costs, changing EULAs and registration/activation hassles)
A MS-only policy is much more restrictive than a OSS-only policy. If ISC's main goal is to "educate policymakers about the need to remain neutral with respect to government purchase of software" why don't they critizise MS-only policies?
Face it: ISC is just the long arm of Microsoft.
Sure it's not perfectly secure and some criminals will overcome the defensive measures.
But it's better than the tent (=Windows) you had before, so I don't see why this move should be wrong.
But if Microsoft starts actually losing money, Bill Gate's valuable stock would become worthless. So they'll rather dump XBox/MSN/WinCE than let that happen.
XBox was sold only about half as often as expected by Microsoft - at a higher loss than expected. Keeping WinCE is debatable because it's reasonably successful, but dumping XBox is kind of a nobrainer.
Exactly. I wonder when their Windows and Office prices will go down so much that they can no longer afford ever-losing playthings like XBox, MSN and WindowsCE...
This can happen sooner than you think. Microsoft also dropped Windows on Alpha with only a week of warning...
My prediction is that XBox will die first, followed by MSN and WindowsCE.
Microsoft might reduce the licensing costs for Windows, but I doubt they will pay your admin to keep it running.
Nobody sees a reason to upgrade Office anymore and switching to OpenOffice is a lot easier than switching to Linux altogether.
Also you don't know in advance what will be on a give page so it's not your fault if the content provider puts copyrighted material on his page - hidden or not, that does not matter.
At least Phoenix can do it (did not try with Mozilla)
Just make your icon point to this script and it will either start Phoenix or open a new window:
#!/bin/sh
phoenix -remote "openurl(about:blank, new-window)" || phoenix
Also very nice is the fact that Phoenix needs not to be installed. It just works anywhere you unzip it. No registry problems, no risk of destroying settings, etc. And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.
So unlike most other browsers (including IE) you don't risk hosing your system when you install/upgrade.
So I would really recommend you to give it a try.
Exactly my thoughts.
At least Netscape7 now looks OK with default settings, so you have something to recommend to eyecandy-junkies.
The worst what can happen with Mozilla is a crash, with IE they can take over the machine
You are showing your bias in thinking these bugs are "the same".
Anyway, the worst Mozilla has contained security-wise so far is DoS. Sure it should be fixed, but there is not really a danger. The worst thing that could happen is a crash.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand continues to feature real bad security holes that let an attacker run code and take over the machine.
Just imagine a Code-Red like Virus that inserts malicious code on webservers to also take over IE-using clients....
Windows itself is usually easier to get because it comes with the computer. If you had to install it, it would not be easier or faster.
However that small advantage is completely lost in all the additional software you need: Office suite, a browser that doesn't suck, image manipulation software, packaging software, etc. (all things that are already included in all serious Linux distributions) - and in case of Windows: virus scanners and constant patches.
DOS just launched that application and does no work at all. In fact because DOS doesn't even know multitasking, it isn't even active when some other app runs.
DOS can do accounting and customer tracking?
It's amazing. If it's from Microsoft all 3rd party-effort (like accounting or customer tracking applications, or in the case of Windows drivers.) all of the sudden is credited to Microsoft.
Face it: DOS is a very, very primitive OS. Even in 1981 when it was released, it was already outdated. A decade later, when it was still shipped on most PCs, it was even more outdated. multi-user, multitasking... As a die-hard Microsoft user you probably don't know, but those existed long before Windows - and also before DOS.
Well, DOS was hardly an OS in the first place.
Most of the stuff that is part of OSes simply do not exist in DOS: sound drivers, GUI, system services, etc.
Is there really anything DOS could do, except launch programs?
If Microsoft really wants to deny new DOS-licenses, this could be a real problem for a couple of companies.
What does this GUI do that KDE/Linux couldn't do for years already?
I know that since the Microsoft courtcase everybody - both anti and pro MS people - have portraied Microsoft as an huge amassement of (evil or good) geniuses.
But let's face it: They are incompetent.
Microsoft is like some communistic state buerocracy. When the money keeps flowing in and nobodys job is at stake, there is not much incentive to work hard.
Of course Microsoft, the 40000 man company needs 10 times as long to fix a security bug than a 20-man company. Of course every project Microsoft that was started after the 80's and early 90's (like keyboards, mice, WinCE, MSN, MS Bob, Internet Explorer, PenWindows, Windows on non-x86, Hailstorm, XBox, etc.) was making big losses. Of course they did not innovate anything really new and instead just ripped off concepts from somewhere else (first the basic windowing system from Apple, now more advanced concepts like multiple desktops from the Unix GUI. Also the much-hyped tablet PC is nothing new and already existed and failed in the early 90's)
Microsoft is very powerful and rich. But they also became lazy, incompetent and slow. Everywhere, where Microsoft can't use their desktop domination to push a product, it is doomed to fail. - Simply because Microsoft is too slow and too expensive to create a competitive product that can survive on it's own. (Just look at XBox. It came out 2 years after Playstation2 (= too late), it features a short-term low numbers design for a long-term, mass produced project (off-the-shelf design where a custom design would fit best =stupid design), they are pumping about 200 million per quarter into it, and it still has fallen behind PS2 and Gamecube. Unlike Sony and Nintendo who have higher development costs and will sell so-and-so many units to break-even, Microosft will never break even. The more the sell, the deeper they get into the red. There is no hope for XBox, Microsoft may keep it alive for a few years until it's livetime is over, but XBox, the platform is doomed and there will be no XBox2. There is no way they can put out a product competing with PS3 at the sime time. First, because they already have choosen a stupid design and second because they are not very competent, especially in the gaming market.)