Tabs at the sides is correct. Otherwise you end up with illegible tab titles once you pass five or six tabs. See my other comment about this.
This reminds me of Opera being ridiculed for its MDI for years, until suddenly tabs were all the rave. Of course, tabs are just an MDI with all windows maximized.
Don't worry, eventually people will figure out that vertical tabs are just so much better.
A default option for vertical tabs in Firefox sure would help, though.
What do you do that you need 40 - 60 tabs open at once? I don't think I've ever topped 15, and my normal work/browsing runs 4-9.
If you tried vertical tabs, you would soon find yourself with lots more tabs open, because they do not get in the way. This is a case of your tool dictating what you do.
I use tabs (along with session saver) as a kind of bookmarks, and have unread articles hanging around for weeks, before I get around to read them. It's great!
Also, vertical tabs really do not waste screen real estate. With the hugh widescreen displays of today, you have to shrink the width of the browser window anyway, or lines get too long to read.
*IF* MS wanted to be open source friendly, things like OOXML would just vanish
So, to be friendly to open source, they should get rid of the only open document format that can handle billions of legacy documents without losing fidelity???
Sure. Bonus points for opening the legacy format so everybody can write converters.
Not everybody who reads your comment will be prepared to buy and read the entire book just to reply. Page number please, and preferably a quotation under fair use if you can.
Well, lets try page 24: "And if he doesn't know who sent the message, then the message is pretty useless."
HTTPS with a self-signed certificate is vulnerable only to man-in-the-middle attacks, which are more difficult than sniffing.
Harder does not equal more secure, just more work for the attacker. Once he has your credit card details, you do not really care how hard it was to get.
Accepting it forever seems a little insecure to me.
Forever is actually better. Accepting the certificate forever (until it expires) means that you only get a warning when it actually changes.
If you always get a warning that you just click through, you will not notice when the site is one day hijacked through a DNS attack, and the warning looks slightly different.
IIRC it was Marc Andressen who first hit on this tactic for competing against Microsoft, when Netscape launched the Mozilla Foundation in 1998. It took a few years of fumbling around before that took fruit - probably because the Navigator/Communicator code was so badly written - but that turned out to be a masterstroke of business tactics.
Indeed. Where would Netscape have been today without that move?
I turn off referrer headers for privacy (set network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 in about:config in Firefox). Now it seems that it can also save me from malware:-).
Why would you want it enabled, anyway?
The Wii SDK with which retail games are built is not public. Nor is Nintendo's digital signing key for executables that run on retail Wii consoles.
So that would have to change in this hypothetical world where "software should be required to ship with buildable source if it is to qualify for copyright protection".
This is the Tivoization that the GPL3 tries to thwart.
On the other hand, the GPL has some very specific restrictions on how code may be modified or re-licensed. It's also got that fantastic clause that RMS may retroactively change the terms of your license at any time (Linus ignores that one).
Wrong. That is not a clause of the GPL.
A program can specify that it is released under "GPL v2 or (at your option) any later version" but that is really just a dual licensing.
Linus specified just v2, so that is the single license of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.
You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.
Wow, now they can see my penis from space!
Tabs at the sides is correct. Otherwise you end up with illegible tab titles once you pass five or six tabs. See my other comment about this.
This reminds me of Opera being ridiculed for its MDI for years, until suddenly tabs were all the rave. Of course, tabs are just an MDI with all windows maximized.
Don't worry, eventually people will figure out that vertical tabs are just so much better.
A default option for vertical tabs in Firefox sure would help, though.
What do you do that you need 40 - 60 tabs open at once? I don't think I've ever topped 15, and my normal work/browsing runs 4-9.
If you tried vertical tabs, you would soon find yourself with lots more tabs open, because they do not get in the way. This is a case of your tool dictating what you do.
I use tabs (along with session saver) as a kind of bookmarks, and have unread articles hanging around for weeks, before I get around to read them. It's great!
Also, vertical tabs really do not waste screen real estate. With the hugh widescreen displays of today, you have to shrink the width of the browser window anyway, or lines get too long to read.
Why would spammers look for email addresses in their own working directory (./)?
It is not their own working directory, but spammers are indeed scanning directories for address books.
I want to know what's better about the new one!
It was in the summary: Mozilla will stop supporting version 2 in December.
(Oh, and the awesomebar, no kidding)
Hi Jack!
So, to be friendly to open source, they should get rid of the only open document format that can handle billions of legacy documents without losing fidelity???
Sure. Bonus points for opening the legacy format so everybody can write converters.
It's called not being the low-hanging fruit.
That may be. I just said that it's not called security.
Citation needed.
Here
Not everybody who reads your comment will be prepared to buy and read the entire book just to reply. Page number please, and preferably a quotation under fair use if you can.
Well, lets try page 24: "And if he doesn't know who sent the message, then the message is pretty useless."
Citation needed.
Here
HTTPS with a self-signed certificate is vulnerable only to man-in-the-middle attacks, which are more difficult than sniffing.
Harder does not equal more secure, just more work for the attacker. Once he has your credit card details, you do not really care how hard it was to get.
Accepting it forever seems a little insecure to me.
Forever is actually better. Accepting the certificate forever (until it expires) means that you only get a warning when it actually changes.
If you always get a warning that you just click through, you will not notice when the site is one day hijacked through a DNS attack, and the warning looks slightly different.
A server with a self-signed certificate provides protection against passing (but not active) snooping.
So it helps against those that are not really out to get you. That's not security, and Firefox is right to warn about it.
Self-signed certs are still strictly more secure that completely unencrypted traffic.
No. If you do not know who you are talking to, encryption does nothing to increase your security.
IIRC it was Marc Andressen who first hit on this tactic for competing against Microsoft, when Netscape launched the Mozilla Foundation in 1998. It took a few years of fumbling around before that took fruit - probably because the Navigator/Communicator code was so badly written - but that turned out to be a masterstroke of business tactics.
Indeed. Where would Netscape have been today without that move?
Get off my lawn.
Modern hardware except one particular Pentium M stepping (which was popular for a while) handles PAE. 64G RAM on 32-bit
But Windows does not.
I hate the fact that a computer can view these things better than I can. Lately, a lot of the CAPTCHAs have become unreadable by human viewers.
They don't view it better than you, they just do not get impatient from failing 4 out of 5 times.
Many sites won't work without it, mainly to prevent "hotlinking".
That is about as effective as User-Agent sniffing.
This Firefox addon gives you arbitrary Referer headers on a per-site basis.
This is not a detection method. It is merely an aid in reverse engineering, once you have found some malware that you want to analyze.
I turn off referrer headers for privacy (set network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 in about:config in Firefox). Now it seems that it can also save me from malware :-).
Why would you want it enabled, anyway?
The Wii SDK with which retail games are built is not public. Nor is Nintendo's digital signing key for executables that run on retail Wii consoles.
So that would have to change in this hypothetical world where "software should be required to ship with buildable source if it is to qualify for copyright protection".
This is the Tivoization that the GPL3 tries to thwart.
Attention all DJB software fans, here's another chance to champion the superiority of DJB's software.
Yup, and we even have the time, as we are not busy patching our servers!
Of course, at one time, Firefox 3 was targeted for a Q3 2007 release.
Wrong. That is not a clause of the GPL.
A program can specify that it is released under "GPL v2 or (at your option) any later version" but that is really just a dual licensing.
Linus specified just v2, so that is the single license of Linux.