I agree Winux sounds better, although if Lindows is proven to be illegal under trademark law, Linus Torvalds could say the same about Winux as he owns the trademark on Linux. So if they have to change their name and they're considering Winux then they should check with Torvalds first.
My view is the same... I don't see a problem with Winux or Lindows but if they lost to Microsoft then they could face the same thing with Torvalds. However I only think torvalds would exercise this right if he thought it was going to affect the name of Linux.
It's obvious they're not Microsoft with that name. The only problem I'd see is if people thought it was a typo.
There were a few different DOS's when MS-DOS was popular, there was DR-DOS (then became Novell DOS and the Caldera OpenDOS) and PC-DOS. This didn't confuse people, so perhaps the full title of Lindows should have something prefixed to it so it's clear it's not MS.
The name is not "Windows" but "Lindows" which gives the impression that it's not Windows but somehow connected to Windows.
Therefore I see no problem in the name, if Microsoft were truly believers of free competition and innovation they'd leave this alone. The only time to complain is if they try and con people into thinking this project has a connection to Microsoft.
I think windows should be a generic term anyway, whether I'm running Windows, X or BeOS I call those boxes on the screen 'windows', therefore any derivatives of the name should be allowed I think.
Personally, now I think that it should be the system administrators of company networks that continue to use Outlook as well as the ISP's that continue to recommend OE to their customers to blame. These are not email viruses as they only affect poorly designed software and not the vast majority of decent email software out there. I don't run ICQ but that client has always striked me as a shoddy IM client, better to use something like Trillian instead. I like Jabber but it's having problems communicating with ICQ and AIM the last time I tried it.
Some Google pages have advertisements but they're text based rather than graphical.
However they're always at the top and highlighted as such (with a different colour background and the mention it's a sponsored link), or they appear down the right hand side of the page.
I think this is the best way to do advertising, it's effective as it's not annoying but it's still clear what is the sponsored links and the real search results.
Re:Finding a specific message not easy
on
Hotmail Hacked
·
· Score: 2
That MSN story you linked to is very informative, probably the best description of Hotmail I've ever seen:)
The whole point is that the talks for Microsoft to distribute AOL software and display the AOL icon have broke down, therefore the AOL icon is not gonna appear on the Windows desktop, so AOL have no reason to use IE.
Microsoft wanted everything their own way and AOL weren't happy to agree, obviously MS thought that icon meant more to them than it actually did.
Well you can tell an obvious troll, but just to clarify:
Mozilla supports PNG fully and has no problem accessing secure sites, Netscape 6.1 therefore has no problems with these features.
...and anyone who's actually seen IE2 will know this is an obvious troll and not a good one at that:)
The standards have been implemented for a reason, it's to make the web a place where people can access information regardless of platform and regardless of disabilities. One company can't just come along and then change the standards so that browsers coded to the standards don't work properly (Netscape were once like that, but now with their funding of the Mozilla project they're now doing the right thing).
It's very simple to write a page to the standards that works in both Mozilla and recent versions of IE with NO browser sniffing code, you may have to ditch support for IE4 or add some code to cater for IE4 too (not difficult), but you should design pages to the standard spec, it'll then work in Mozilla, in recent versions of Windows IE (most standards are supported now) and Mac IE (which is more standards compliant than the Windows version), also not forgetting Opera.
Personally I do use Mozilla most of the time, but I did take a look at 6.1 and AOL seem to have learnt their lesson and have reduced the number of "Sponsored Links" and other annoying ways to make money, now Netscape 6.1 looks like a real product not a piece of adware.
As for normal users: I's like to see them use Netscape as it gives Netscape market share and the bosses at AOL/TW are more likely to allow Netscape people working on Mozilla, if everyone uses unbranded Mozilla then they have no incentive. The improvements in 6.1 show that they've realised that people don't like in your face advertising and endless amounts of links.
As for me, I'll mainly stick with Mozilla as I get nightlies and like to be on the cutting edge.
You've obviously not tried Mozilla or Netscape 6.1 (that's 6.1 NOT 6.01 or 6.0), they're a massive improvement over previous Mozilla and Netscape releases, so please download and then offer some constructive criticism.
The breakdown in talks mean that AOL are probably gonna seriously consider using gecko rather than IE, and that's so good for Netscape and remember Netscape is the biggest contributor to Mozilla. Even if you like IE you have to agree it needs competition because otherwise Microsoft will have no incentive to improve it. This is indeed a great day for web standards, even though the breakdown in talks was about music.
Try Netscape 6.1 PR 1, it's much better than the crappy Netscape 6.0 browser, if you've not tried it, give it a go and let them know what you think (select Help > Feedback Center), even if Mozilla based browsers get a 20% market share it should be enough to encourage webmasters to code to standards and write pages to work anywhere.
The mozilla one is a lot more intelligent, it can support things like multiple search engines
More info see: http://sherlock.mozdev.org/
Re:Give credit where credit is due
on
Mozilla 0.9.1 Out
·
· Score: 2
The main thing is that they actually got something accurate about the Mozilla release and not the usual - this in Mozilla 0.x, late as usual, it sucks and lets all use Konquerer or whatever it's called!
The original submitter should have acknowledged the source, but I don't see this as too much of a problem. As long as something positive is written that's what matters.
At this stage mozilla needs all the testers and downloads it can get.
Download one of the builds with talkback and put the browser through its paces (and mail/news, chatzilla, composer, etc). Because of many people using Talkback in 0.9 a lot of top crasher bugs were discovered and fixed. Here's a few ways of putting the browser through its paces:
I assume that this web appliance will be using the Mozilla rendering engine and if a lot of these web appliances get out on the market it'll do a great job to increase Mozilla's market share meaning that people will finally have to develop web sites that conform to web standards.
I come across a lot of crappy sites that use some IE specific HTML or JavaScript that break under moz but with very little effort this page could be modified to work under Mozilla (and Netscape 6) and IE. But most refuse as they're too ignorant to realise that not everyone can or wants to use IE.
I assume that it is using Mozilla but can't see anywhere on the page that confirms it.
As for your comments, think about it this way, they're not going to use hardware that is gonna make mozilla crawl are they? Also a lot of performance work is going into mozilla ready for version 1.0
Just FYI Netscape 3.x and below didn't have AIM bundled, 4.0 didn't either but the AIM bundling did come before the AOL takeover of Netscape. I think version 4.05 was the first to have it.
Anyway the whole purpose of jabber is that you can talk to people on other networks almost transparently and therefore you can still receive messages off other users.
Most people I know are on the ICQ list so I've not suffered the problems with AIM that others have.
However I don't give a fuck whether AOL block their service or not. I'll let people on my contact list know why they can't contact me and they can always just use email, there's no way I'm going to have a separate client for each messaging system that people happen to use. Jabber is providing an open solution that is very extensible. Remember how MS was pushing for such a thing? Microsoft should really be supporting the efforts of jabber and using it as the base for the next MSN messenger.
But JabberZilla is not part of the Netscape distribution of Mozilla, it's a separate downloadable add-on. Chatzilla does work in Netscape 6 but is not part of it. No Netscape people were involved in writing Jabberzilla.
People who are not connected with Netscape can get involved in Mozilla it doesn't mean that Netscape will include it in their browser releases!
As for AOL.com telling people to upgrade to IE, well I thought it was funny, I hope they do plan to use Mozilla once their contract with MS runs out.
If I were AOL I'd sure not trust the future of my browser on MS.
I have to admit the current Windows clients all have some limitations but I'd recommend WinJab. Under Linux Gabber is a great client (requires GNOME tho:( so may not be suitable for everyone). You're not stuck to a central server and not to a single platform. If you encourage ISPs to use Jabber then you can have a jabber ID the same as your email address. If you run your own domain consider setting up your own Jabber server.
The Jabber protocol is open, the server is open source and the clients can be open source, closed source freeware, commercial or whatever you want to licence them under.
Under development is JabberZilla which is going to be a cross platform mozilla based client that will offer similar functionality to the AIM with Netscape 6. Opera currently supports ICQ in their version 5 windows browser, there are people who want them to change to Jabber support. Voice your views in the opera.wishlist newsgroup (on news.opera.no).
Slashdot Mirror
Erm slash is stripping the link... Try again: Some interesting comments on the BBC and it's licensing model
Some interesting comments on the BBC and it's licensing model
I agree Winux sounds better, although if Lindows is proven to be illegal under trademark law, Linus Torvalds could say the same about Winux as he owns the trademark on Linux. So if they have to change their name and they're considering Winux then they should check with Torvalds first.
My view is the same... I don't see a problem with Winux or Lindows but if they lost to Microsoft then they could face the same thing with Torvalds. However I only think torvalds would exercise this right if he thought it was going to affect the name of Linux.
> So if Microsoft started shipping a product called "Gnoo Winix", no one around here would complain?
;) It'd sound funny and I think the vast majority of people could tell the difference.
I'd laugh
It's obvious they're not Microsoft with that name. The only problem I'd see is if people thought it was a typo.
There were a few different DOS's when MS-DOS was popular, there was DR-DOS (then became Novell DOS and the Caldera OpenDOS) and PC-DOS. This didn't confuse people, so perhaps the full title of Lindows should have something prefixed to it so it's clear it's not MS.
More MS bashing
The name is not "Windows" but "Lindows" which gives the impression that it's not Windows but somehow connected to Windows.
Therefore I see no problem in the name, if Microsoft were truly believers of free competition and innovation they'd leave this alone. The only time to complain is if they try and con people into thinking this project has a connection to Microsoft.
I think windows should be a generic term anyway, whether I'm running Windows, X or BeOS I call those boxes on the screen 'windows', therefore any derivatives of the name should be allowed I think.
Personally, now I think that it should be the system administrators of company networks that continue to use Outlook as well as the ISP's that continue to recommend OE to their customers to blame. These are not email viruses as they only affect poorly designed software and not the vast majority of decent email software out there. I don't run ICQ but that client has always striked me as a shoddy IM client, better to use something like Trillian instead. I like Jabber but it's having problems communicating with ICQ and AIM the last time I tried it.
Some Google pages have advertisements but they're text based rather than graphical.
However they're always at the top and highlighted as such (with a different colour background and the mention it's a sponsored link), or they appear down the right hand side of the page.
I think this is the best way to do advertising, it's effective as it's not annoying but it's still clear what is the sponsored links and the real search results.
That MSN story you linked to is very informative, probably the best description of Hotmail I've ever seen :)
The whole point is that the talks for Microsoft to distribute AOL software and display the AOL icon have broke down, therefore the AOL icon is not gonna appear on the Windows desktop, so AOL have no reason to use IE.
Microsoft wanted everything their own way and AOL weren't happy to agree, obviously MS thought that icon meant more to them than it actually did.
Well you can tell an obvious troll, but just to clarify:
:)
Mozilla supports PNG fully and has no problem accessing secure sites, Netscape 6.1 therefore has no problems with these features.
...and anyone who's actually seen IE2 will know this is an obvious troll and not a good one at that
The standards have been implemented for a reason, it's to make the web a place where people can access information regardless of platform and regardless of disabilities. One company can't just come along and then change the standards so that browsers coded to the standards don't work properly (Netscape were once like that, but now with their funding of the Mozilla project they're now doing the right thing).
It's very simple to write a page to the standards that works in both Mozilla and recent versions of IE with NO browser sniffing code, you may have to ditch support for IE4 or add some code to cater for IE4 too (not difficult), but you should design pages to the standard spec, it'll then work in Mozilla, in recent versions of Windows IE (most standards are supported now) and Mac IE (which is more standards compliant than the Windows version), also not forgetting Opera.
Personally I do use Mozilla most of the time, but I did take a look at 6.1 and AOL seem to have learnt their lesson and have reduced the number of "Sponsored Links" and other annoying ways to make money, now Netscape 6.1 looks like a real product not a piece of adware.
As for normal users: I's like to see them use Netscape as it gives Netscape market share and the bosses at AOL/TW are more likely to allow Netscape people working on Mozilla, if everyone uses unbranded Mozilla then they have no incentive. The improvements in 6.1 show that they've realised that people don't like in your face advertising and endless amounts of links.
As for me, I'll mainly stick with Mozilla as I get nightlies and like to be on the cutting edge.
You've obviously not tried Mozilla or Netscape 6.1 (that's 6.1 NOT 6.01 or 6.0), they're a massive improvement over previous Mozilla and Netscape releases, so please download and then offer some constructive criticism.
Try Netscape 6.1 PR 1, it's much better than the crappy Netscape 6.0 browser, if you've not tried it, give it a go and let them know what you think (select Help > Feedback Center), even if Mozilla based browsers get a 20% market share it should be enough to encourage webmasters to code to standards and write pages to work anywhere.
Netscape 4.x had this, it was called roaming access.
The mozilla one is a lot more intelligent, it can support things like multiple search engines
More info see: http://sherlock.mozdev.org/
The main thing is that they actually got something accurate about the Mozilla release and not the usual - this in Mozilla 0.x, late as usual, it sucks and lets all use Konquerer or whatever it's called!
The original submitter should have acknowledged the source, but I don't see this as too much of a problem. As long as something positive is written that's what matters.
At this stage mozilla needs all the testers and downloads it can get.
Well Metro Radio is worse. Used to be the best local radio station in the UK and now is one of the worst.
Ana Schofield - Metro's breakfast DJ is worse than anything radio 1 can come up with.
I assume that this web appliance will be using the Mozilla rendering engine and if a lot of these web appliances get out on the market it'll do a great job to increase Mozilla's market share meaning that people will finally have to develop web sites that conform to web standards.
I come across a lot of crappy sites that use some IE specific HTML or JavaScript that break under moz but with very little effort this page could be modified to work under Mozilla (and Netscape 6) and IE. But most refuse as they're too ignorant to realise that not everyone can or wants to use IE.
I assume that it is using Mozilla but can't see anywhere on the page that confirms it.
As for your comments, think about it this way, they're not going to use hardware that is gonna make mozilla crawl are they? Also a lot of performance work is going into mozilla ready for version 1.0
Just FYI Netscape 3.x and below didn't have AIM bundled, 4.0 didn't either but the AIM bundling did come before the AOL takeover of Netscape. I think version 4.05 was the first to have it. Anyway the whole purpose of jabber is that you can talk to people on other networks almost transparently and therefore you can still receive messages off other users. Most people I know are on the ICQ list so I've not suffered the problems with AIM that others have. However I don't give a fuck whether AOL block their service or not. I'll let people on my contact list know why they can't contact me and they can always just use email, there's no way I'm going to have a separate client for each messaging system that people happen to use. Jabber is providing an open solution that is very extensible. Remember how MS was pushing for such a thing? Microsoft should really be supporting the efforts of jabber and using it as the base for the next MSN messenger.
People who are not connected with Netscape can get involved in Mozilla it doesn't mean that Netscape will include it in their browser releases!
As for AOL.com telling people to upgrade to IE, well I thought it was funny, I hope they do plan to use Mozilla once their contract with MS runs out.
If I were AOL I'd sure not trust the future of my browser on MS.
The Jabber protocol is open, the server is open source and the clients can be open source, closed source freeware, commercial or whatever you want to licence them under.
Under development is JabberZilla which is going to be a cross platform mozilla based client that will offer similar functionality to the AIM with Netscape 6. Opera currently supports ICQ in their version 5 windows browser, there are people who want them to change to Jabber support. Voice your views in the opera.wishlist newsgroup (on news.opera.no).