Now don't get me wrong, I'm a mozilla supporter, but it really pisses me off (and wastes time) everytime someone says that, because this is what happens:
Someone says IE/mozilla is the most standard compliants brower
Someone else says that mozilla/IE is the most comliant
Someone quotes a webpage that confirms their view of IE/mozilla being the most compliant
Someone accuses that page of being written by IE/mozilla supporter/bigot and posts a page to another unbiased view showing that mozilla/IE is the most compliant
Someone else discovers that that page is written by a company or supporter of mozilla/IE, and posts their own rant, quoting pages where IE/mozilla won't work.
Rant about pages where IE/mozilla won't work.
Name calling starts.
The sane people continue to surf on, and accept (grudgingly) the fact that no matter how standards compliant something is (or isn't) there are still pages that won't render right, and until everyone gets to the same point of standards compliance/un-compliance, anyone writing web pages is still hooped as far as making everything look the same for everyone
If we're lucky, everyone reverts to tableless pages with grey backgrounds.
Which is nice and good, but the problem is now the web is not driven by content any more. If the web were driven by content, (as a poster above notes) it wouldn't matter that netscape didn't follow w3c standards perfect, or if IE actually was the best browser in the entire universe, because I'd still be able to view every page I wanted to, and get the content therein.
Too bad now that 99% of the surfers out there don't care about content, but instead want their flashy, bullshit "user experience" to make it easier for them to read the bullet points of the information they're looking for. When was the last time you actually *read* a page full of content, that wasn't marked up to hell and back. I'm not saying everything out there should be block text for pages and pages, of course:) Just that that sort of page is slowly dissapearing.
Sometimes I *do* want the web to go back to the netscape 1.0 days (tables! wow!) where everything was grey (well, 1.0 had bgcolor I guess, so pre-1.0 days) when you surfed the web for information, not "experience". If I wanted experience back then I'd go outside and take a walk, watch a movie, or whatever.
Thanks for the mirror BTW, now I can change my background:)
I'm not sure what you're running off of, but try being/.ed on a P133, 32mb ram, on a DSL link (40k upstream cap). Especially when the page has lots of non-mod_perl'ed cgis:)
I use linux for my desktop and server for reasons I'm sure I don't have to explain here. However, I wouldn't mind playing with *BSD. Thing is, in my desktop configuration I use it for the standard gnome/kde/etc stuff as well as my one game of choice, quake. I can definately still play with *bsd on the server side, but I'd also like to know if I can see how it works as a desktop environment[1]
[1] disclaimer - a desktop environment for ME that is, not necisarily anyone else:)
I thought the movie was called "The End of the World", but I can't find it in imdb at all. Basically it's the story of the world after a nuclear blast knocks out power and all electrical devices, people don't know what happened, if they are at war, or what.
That has nothing to do with my comment though (but if anyone can recall the name of the movie, I'd appreciate it... it was named after a U2 (I think) song, or maybe REM.
At one point the main character's car's built in voice synth said basically "you are going over the posted limit, $xxx has been deducted from your account".
Pretty scary huh? I don't anticipate this to actually happen, but with the technology there, it could quite easily be done.
And in a way, this is no different than any other random company trying to persuade a client (or client-base) from using a competitors product. The difference is that MS is huge and widespread, and incrediably rich, and can do thir "marketing" in such a way to crush (normal) compeditors.
Personally I plan to stay with linux, despite what MS says. I'm going to guess that a lot of people are going to do the same. The thing that "we" have to worry about it business adoption, but I have faith that seeing better performance will move these people across.
Aside1: There was a contest on linuxcare (I think) a while back looking for linux anecdotes and stories. Anyone know where these are now?
Aside2: I work for a linux company (merilus.com) and I don't see us dying out anytime soon:)
I haven't actually heard of or dealt with the eazel package manager. I *hope* it's like redcarpet (the helix^Wximian yet-unreleased project). Red Carpet (at least what I saw of it at LWE last year) works by reading off either the rpm database or the dpkg database, making it completely usable on either rpm or dpkg based systems.
This is the sort of technology we need more of... not creating their own standards, but bending their own workmanship to work with other schemes/standards.
I belive that linux is what it is today because of linus and his vision and "hackerness". Taking control of the core of linux would destroy that. Yes, maybe it would arrange to give people what they want, or at least some of them, but in that there is also the possibility of curruption. How long would it take do you think for the consortium to be overly influenced by someone who *really* wants X feature, or doesn't want X feature, so they can use it in their own OS. Yes, a bit far fetched, but I prefer to leave it alone, as Linus has been responsible for the way that things have gone in the past.
True, however that's assuming the camera is pointed at a person sitting in front of a computer. Aim it at clouds, or a busy street, or a water fountain or something that's constantly changing. Interesting idea anyway.
That's something that no one has mentioned yet (that I've seen). ANY code you see can be beautiful code! A couple of months ago I got thrown back into coding C at work after being in perl for a couple of years. It went well, but I *knew* my code wasn't all that great. It worked, was readable, and relatively bug-free. But I still knew it needed some work. I read a couple of books (Programming Style or something like that?), and looked over a bunch of code that I was available. Everything from smail source to code from newsgroups.
I learnt little bits from all these sources. A chunk of code can be bug free and crappy, but still give you good insight into how to code better. For example, I had a great routine for getting system mem/cpu info from/proc/*. Browsing through the wmsysmon code I found that (to my surprise) there is a sysinfo() call that can give me that exact information... suddenly my code is made simpler, more elegant, and more readable, as well as more bugfree thanks to one line in an obscure little applet (well, maybe not *that* obscure:).
If the code for these programs wasn't open source, we'd have nowhere to look. There would be code around, but having a huge array of applications to look at and scoure through, makes everyone's code better.
As discussed in the article yesturday, they don't let you do that. This is the thread with some more info about that. Here is some more info on what can and can't be done.
Re:They were spying on Bob Young!
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
Anyone notice during the scenes of Milo flipping through the spy-cams while in the daycare center that one of them showed a man wearing a red fedora with his feet up on his desk?:)
We all cheered when we saw that:)
Also, I thought the movie was fairly decent for a first shot at open source in hollywood. We can't expect a big summer "blockbuster" the first time out. Take it for what it is: Good press. And invite all of your friends to see it.
I didn't expect a wonderful "true" depiction of open source, and I certainly didn't expect hollywood NOT to try to capitalize on open source and hit that niche of hackers. The end result was a good, fun movie. It just happened to be a fun movie about open source:)
Maybe web page authors should write in some sort of abstracted language, which is then run through an interpreter that spits out code that will display properly, and will filter out browser specific tags, etc?
Of course, that's what I thought a BROWSER was supposed to do!
All this is nice and good and all, and if you want to make a page that not everyone can see, that is your right.
In a way I agree with the people saying netscape sucks, mozilla is dead, and IE has "won" and to get over it. Yea, that's great. But I'm sitting here at my Linux box and I don't have IE. Sure, I could buy vmware (~$300) and windows (~$300) and install that, just to browse. Maybe VNC to the NT box in the server room and surf from there.
Why the hell can't I use a browser on my box? Here's what I have available to me:
- lynx (text mode, the choice of purists but pretty useless for the "Web experience" IMHO)
- links (text mode, but with tables and frames and such, but still lacking the web experience)
- netscape - which sucks, yes, but a solid browser that lets me do what I want, and the only mail client I know of for linux that does x509 certs for mail signing and encryption
- mozilla and derivatives such as galeon, skipstone, etc. Nice, but still lacking a smaller memory footprint and other things, but still coming along.
It's very easy to say "just use IE" but I DON'T HAVE FUCKING IE! I have access to IE yes, but if I'm at home I'd have to reboot to windows just to see a few pages that don't render, or whose authors are RUDE enough to not display pages to non-ie browsers.
Yes, I think "rude" is the right word. I'd much rather leave the page as is and let it not look as good in netscape than to totally shut the door. Hey, only like, 3 people even use netscape anymore anyway, right, so why bother to even put the check in to redirect them?
I know that even if IE came out for linux we (the linux/slashdot community) wouldn't use it (or at least admit it), but it would give us some choice. I don't like netscape, and would rather it die as well, but I'm not going to let that happen before I find an alternative. Mozilla is getting there, but much as I'd like to "just use ie" sometimes, I don't have the choice. Linux/is/ an upcoming market, whether people want to realize it or not, and issues like this will have to be dealt with I think.
I hope.
Re:i think i saw these things
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I did mean what spitzak said:) I'd like to go to a shockwave page and have something pop up and say:
"shockwave not here, install?"
"yes" I say.
[click wirr]
"download of 1,123 kb, continue?"
"yes".
[click wirr].
then the page continues loading, shockwave and all.
IE and netscape get around this a bit by shipping with a lot of built in plugins, which is fine. The above described system works already (kinda) in mozilla when you install any of the xpi's for java, psm, themes, etc, which is great. I love being able to click on a new theme, install it, and it's immediately there and waiting for me. However, to be successful I think mozilla has to do the same for all major plugins.
I'm not sure how the plugin scheme on IE works, if it is all within the browser (which would mean that mozilla could do it too) or that it's dependant on the company that writes the plugins to set it up (more trouble, as mozilla isn't "standard" and isn't IE and all that shit).
- plugins... I still have yet to find a plugin system that works as well as it does on IE. In ie, when you get one of those "plugin needed" messages, you can click install, wait for a few seconds, and the page now works, no reloading, no nothing. When mozilla has this then I'll be very happy.. just a $HOME/.mozilla/plugins dir, so it's user configuable and everything.
- still slower than ns 4.x. Yes, netscape sucks, but it still appears quicker for me (1s) than mozilla (~2s) when clicked from the gnome panel. That's with an already running program btw, not from scratch.
- x509 certs.... we use encrypted mail at work and I really hate to have to run netscape for mail. When mozilla gets the ability to veryify, encode and decode verisign certs, I will be a very happy camper.
Aside from those bitches, I'm pretty happy. I don't see a huge increase over the nightly builds I've been using, but I'm sure that over.6 (wasn't it milestone 7 last time?) it's a huge improvement.
I think I'd cancel my account for nothing more than the fact that they showed the ARROGANCE of this action. They are basically saying that they can make your choices for you, when they chose. Sure, maybe you're making $1000/day from them, they are still showing that they feel the customers choices (NO, I don't want to recieve spam) don't matter and they can play Big Brother with their users should they feel they want to.
I'm a server admin and I own the server that my users use, and theorectically have the right to do whatever I want with it, including canceling accounts, reading email, snooping at files, or shutting down domains. Why don't I do this? Well, eithics for one, but also I don't consider that MY RIGHT to do. Sure, sometimes it'd be fun, but in reality, it's simply NOT MY RIGHT TO DO. Ditto with ebay.
Slashdot Mirror
Which episode was that?
Which is nice and good, but the problem is now the web is not driven by content any more. If the web were driven by content, (as a poster above notes) it wouldn't matter that netscape didn't follow w3c standards perfect, or if IE actually was the best browser in the entire universe, because I'd still be able to view every page I wanted to, and get the content therein.
:) Just that that sort of page is slowly dissapearing.
Too bad now that 99% of the surfers out there don't care about content, but instead want their flashy, bullshit "user experience" to make it easier for them to read the bullet points of the information they're looking for. When was the last time you actually *read* a page full of content, that wasn't marked up to hell and back. I'm not saying everything out there should be block text for pages and pages, of course
Sometimes I *do* want the web to go back to the netscape 1.0 days (tables! wow!) where everything was grey (well, 1.0 had bgcolor I guess, so pre-1.0 days) when you surfed the web for information, not "experience". If I wanted experience back then I'd go outside and take a walk, watch a movie, or whatever.
So did I. Helps if you are part owner of a company :)
Thanks for the mirror BTW, now I can change my background :)
/.ed on a P133, 32mb ram, on a DSL link (40k upstream cap). Especially when the page has lots of non-mod_perl'ed cgis :)
I'm not sure what you're running off of, but try being
Ooops. And wow, did that hurt!
This question really depends on if you are looking to get your ass kicked or are just hungry :)
(this is not a troll)
:)
But can you play quake on it?
I use linux for my desktop and server for reasons I'm sure I don't have to explain here. However, I wouldn't mind playing with *BSD. Thing is, in my desktop configuration I use it for the standard gnome/kde/etc stuff as well as my one game of choice, quake. I can definately still play with *bsd on the server side, but I'd also like to know if I can see how it works as a desktop environment[1]
[1] disclaimer - a desktop environment for ME that is, not necisarily anyone else
That has nothing to do with my comment though (but if anyone can recall the name of the movie, I'd appreciate it... it was named after a U2 (I think) song, or maybe REM.
At one point the main character's car's built in voice synth said basically "you are going over the posted limit, $xxx has been deducted from your account".
Pretty scary huh? I don't anticipate this to actually happen, but with the technology there, it could quite easily be done.
And in a way, this is no different than any other random company trying to persuade a client (or client-base) from using a competitors product. The difference is that MS is huge and widespread, and incrediably rich, and can do thir "marketing" in such a way to crush (normal) compeditors.
:)
Personally I plan to stay with linux, despite what MS says. I'm going to guess that a lot of people are going to do the same. The thing that "we" have to worry about it business adoption, but I have faith that seeing better performance will move these people across.
Aside1: There was a contest on linuxcare (I think) a while back looking for linux anecdotes and stories. Anyone know where these are now?
Aside2: I work for a linux company (merilus.com) and I don't see us dying out anytime soon
If Microsoft can deliver on a *cross-platform* solution.
....
Of course they could! Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, NT3.51, NT4, Win2k-pro, Win2k-ent,
Oh wait, I'm so silly, of course they probably won't support win95 or NT3.51...
:)
I haven't actually heard of or dealt with the eazel package manager. I *hope* it's like redcarpet (the helix^Wximian yet-unreleased project). Red Carpet (at least what I saw of it at LWE last year) works by reading off either the rpm database or the dpkg database, making it completely usable on either rpm or dpkg based systems.
This is the sort of technology we need more of... not creating their own standards, but bending their own workmanship to work with other schemes/standards.
Somehow I think that that was an intentional mistaike.
Because :)
I belive that linux is what it is today because of linus and his vision and "hackerness". Taking control of the core of linux would destroy that. Yes, maybe it would arrange to give people what they want, or at least some of them, but in that there is also the possibility of curruption. How long would it take do you think for the consortium to be overly influenced by someone who *really* wants X feature, or doesn't want X feature, so they can use it in their own OS. Yes, a bit far fetched, but I prefer to leave it alone, as Linus has been responsible for the way that things have gone in the past.
True, however that's assuming the camera is pointed at a person sitting in front of a computer. Aim it at clouds, or a busy street, or a water fountain or something that's constantly changing. Interesting idea anyway.
Excellent point!
/proc/*. Browsing through the wmsysmon code I found that (to my surprise) there is a sysinfo() call that can give me that exact information... suddenly my code is made simpler, more elegant, and more readable, as well as more bugfree thanks to one line in an obscure little applet (well, maybe not *that* obscure :).
That's something that no one has mentioned yet (that I've seen). ANY code you see can be beautiful code! A couple of months ago I got thrown back into coding C at work after being in perl for a couple of years. It went well, but I *knew* my code wasn't all that great. It worked, was readable, and relatively bug-free. But I still knew it needed some work. I read a couple of books (Programming Style or something like that?), and looked over a bunch of code that I was available. Everything from smail source to code from newsgroups.
I learnt little bits from all these sources. A chunk of code can be bug free and crappy, but still give you good insight into how to code better. For example, I had a great routine for getting system mem/cpu info from
If the code for these programs wasn't open source, we'd have nowhere to look. There would be code around, but having a huge array of applications to look at and scoure through, makes everyone's code better.
As discussed in the article yesturday, they don't let you do that. This is the thread with some more info about that. Here is some more info on what can and can't be done.
Not bad :) How did you do it?
We all cheered when we saw that
Also, I thought the movie was fairly decent for a first shot at open source in hollywood. We can't expect a big summer "blockbuster" the first time out. Take it for what it is: Good press. And invite all of your friends to see it.
I didn't expect a wonderful "true" depiction of open source, and I certainly didn't expect hollywood NOT to try to capitalize on open source and hit that niche of hackers. The end result was a good, fun movie. It just happened to be a fun movie about open source
+5 Good Karma
:)
This is the sort of thing the net needs
Maybe web page authors should write in some sort of abstracted language, which is then run through an interpreter that spits out code that will display properly, and will filter out browser specific tags, etc?
Of course, that's what I thought a BROWSER was supposed to do!
:\
All this is nice and good and all, and if you want to make a page that not everyone can see, that is your right.
/is/ an upcoming market, whether people want to realize it or not, and issues like this will have to be dealt with I think.
In a way I agree with the people saying netscape sucks, mozilla is dead, and IE has "won" and to get over it. Yea, that's great. But I'm sitting here at my Linux box and I don't have IE. Sure, I could buy vmware (~$300) and windows (~$300) and install that, just to browse. Maybe VNC to the NT box in the server room and surf from there.
Why the hell can't I use a browser on my box? Here's what I have available to me:
- lynx (text mode, the choice of purists but pretty useless for the "Web experience" IMHO)
- links (text mode, but with tables and frames and such, but still lacking the web experience)
- netscape - which sucks, yes, but a solid browser that lets me do what I want, and the only mail client I know of for linux that does x509 certs for mail signing and encryption
- mozilla and derivatives such as galeon, skipstone, etc. Nice, but still lacking a smaller memory footprint and other things, but still coming along.
It's very easy to say "just use IE" but I DON'T HAVE FUCKING IE! I have access to IE yes, but if I'm at home I'd have to reboot to windows just to see a few pages that don't render, or whose authors are RUDE enough to not display pages to non-ie browsers.
Yes, I think "rude" is the right word. I'd much rather leave the page as is and let it not look as good in netscape than to totally shut the door. Hey, only like, 3 people even use netscape anymore anyway, right, so why bother to even put the check in to redirect them?
I know that even if IE came out for linux we (the linux/slashdot community) wouldn't use it (or at least admit it), but it would give us some choice. I don't like netscape, and would rather it die as well, but I'm not going to let that happen before I find an alternative. Mozilla is getting there, but much as I'd like to "just use ie" sometimes, I don't have the choice. Linux
I hope.
Well, not "microscopic"....
:)
Actually, I did mean what spitzak said :) I'd like to go to a shockwave page and have something pop up and say:
"shockwave not here, install?"
"yes" I say.
[click wirr]
"download of 1,123 kb, continue?"
"yes".
[click wirr].
then the page continues loading, shockwave and all.
IE and netscape get around this a bit by shipping with a lot of built in plugins, which is fine. The above described system works already (kinda) in mozilla when you install any of the xpi's for java, psm, themes, etc, which is great. I love being able to click on a new theme, install it, and it's immediately there and waiting for me. However, to be successful I think mozilla has to do the same for all major plugins.
I'm not sure how the plugin scheme on IE works, if it is all within the browser (which would mean that mozilla could do it too) or that it's dependant on the company that writes the plugins to set it up (more trouble, as mozilla isn't "standard" and isn't IE and all that shit).
Things that still suck in mozilla:
.6 (wasn't it milestone 7 last time?) it's a huge improvement.
- plugins... I still have yet to find a plugin system that works as well as it does on IE. In ie, when you get one of those "plugin needed" messages, you can click install, wait for a few seconds, and the page now works, no reloading, no nothing. When mozilla has this then I'll be very happy.. just a $HOME/.mozilla/plugins dir, so it's user configuable and everything.
- still slower than ns 4.x. Yes, netscape sucks, but it still appears quicker for me (1s) than mozilla (~2s) when clicked from the gnome panel. That's with an already running program btw, not from scratch.
- x509 certs.... we use encrypted mail at work and I really hate to have to run netscape for mail. When mozilla gets the ability to veryify, encode and decode verisign certs, I will be a very happy camper.
Aside from those bitches, I'm pretty happy. I don't see a huge increase over the nightly builds I've been using, but I'm sure that over
Disclaimer: Not a recipiant of the letter
I think I'd cancel my account for nothing more than the fact that they showed the ARROGANCE of this action. They are basically saying that they can make your choices for you, when they chose. Sure, maybe you're making $1000/day from them, they are still showing that they feel the customers choices (NO, I don't want to recieve spam) don't matter and they can play Big Brother with their users should they feel they want to.
I'm a server admin and I own the server that my users use, and theorectically have the right to do whatever I want with it, including canceling accounts, reading email, snooping at files, or shutting down domains. Why don't I do this? Well, eithics for one, but also I don't consider that MY RIGHT to do. Sure, sometimes it'd be fun, but in reality, it's simply NOT MY RIGHT TO DO. Ditto with ebay.
My $0.02