" Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version."
Nope, because WWW didn't leak memory like a fucking sieve. Firefox 32? Just like every iteration before it, from XP to Win 7, is a straight up piece of swiss cheese when it comes to memory. I actually moved back to IE.
"we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use."
Funny, having installed it in a Windows 3.1 VM and tested it out, it's nowhere near as bad as you think, assuming you have the brains and intuition to find stuff.
"Thanks for playing."
Oh please, you weren't even a player in the first place. You were just a pawn.
I think you are getting a little confused.
Firstly if you are seriously suggesting that Firebox is worse than Tim Berners-Lee's original WorldWideWeb brower, you are seriously deranged. The original WWW had no image support, and no bookmarks, to name just two features.
Ridiculous to suggest Firefox is not a massive improvement.
Secondly I genuinely would like to know how you managed to get a program designed for the NextStep platform to work on Windows 3.1. Here is a hint. You didn't.
The original WWW was developed in 1990 and was developed for the NextStep platform, Windows 3.1 came out in 1992. So you were probably using Mosaic if you indeed setup Windows 3.1 in a VM to make a point! Well done on that. Thanks actually for completely proving my point, Mosaic is significantly easier to use than the original WWW program. Go back and use the original WWW and compare the two.
Uhhhhhh, you do realize that the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was in fact a graphical browser, right? Lynx and other text mode browsers didn't come out until years later.
If you're going to question the GP, at least have your facts straight, son.
Thanks Dad, you raise a good point. Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version. If Mosaic (which ultimately Firefox came from) had not come out in 1993, we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use.
Bottom line: Not all reboots are bad and doing the same thing is not always a good thing.
Son of a bitch, we don't need any more "reinventions" of this and "reimagining" of that and "rebooting" of franchises.
Any time anyone tries to do such things, the end product is total shit.
Look at GNOME 3. It tried to "reinvent the Linux desktop experience". It's total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.
Look at Firefox. It has recently tried to "reimagine" itself as if it were Chrome. It's now total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.
Look at all of the "rebooted" movie series. It's one total, utter, absolute shit Incredible Hulk reboot after another.
Going in with the reinvent/reimagine/reboot mindset just results in total, utter, absolute shit being produced. Please, if you're thinking of doing this sort of stuff, do us all a favor and DON'T FUCKING DO IT!
Speak for yourself, not all reboots are bad.
Would you still prefer to be using a text browser, or *shudder* Internet Explorer instead of Firefox? Technically Firefox is a re-invention of those.
Going in with the "lets do the same thing as everyone else is doing" is not a good mindset in any way, shape, or form. I for one love innovation, and ultimately despite road bumps along the way, it often leads to better products in the long term.
I've been a programmer (mostly) for the past 25 + years.
At 16 I wrote my first computer game, love it and then... Stopped.
Used Fortran, Cobol and stuff and eventually Java Enterprise stuff.
Realised I HATED IT!!
At 46 decided games were my passion (should have continued from my first game at 16).
Fast forward 3 years I feel proficient in Objective-C, Cocos2D and other game frameworks - I absolutely love it. 3 published games later and a pile of other stuff - Having the time of my life.
Do what you love is all I can say to anyone readying this.
And if you want to learn IOS there is NO BETTER COURSE out there (yeah I like capital letters) than the free Stanford CS193P course on iTunes - Google it.
I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).
It possibly might have meant that in the past. But I do know that the relatively new features facebook have added prevent people with facebook pages from getting their content out to all people following them unless they pay extra. I think they may be working on adding exceptions to this (possibly for non profit organisations, etc).
Note also there is a separate advertising program that marketers can use to target people with interests, etc (you can target by interest, by people who have liked a particular page [yours or someone else's], etc. I'm not talking about that program at all. Rather, I am talking about your own content being send to people already following you (having liked your page).
Interesting times to see if they are just going to upset their userbase.
Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed? So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?
This applies to pages e.g. fan pages that you have Liked and followed. When someone posts something to a fan page, everyone who is following that page does not automatically get the content in their newsfeed. You can see this if you have a page as it shows you the coverage. Facebook give you an option to "pay for more coverage" e.g. let more people already following you see your content.
For your own posts to your friends I am not sure about that. I believe they might all get it. Not 100% sure.
Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site.
I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?
Facebook are now charging you to get access to your own fans per post, this is not extra advertising. Whenever you post something on facebook only a small subset will get your content injected into their news feed unless you cough up the extra money so that more/all of them see it.
This is something they only added a few months ago. They want to charge this every time you post as well.
So I don't blame him for getting a bit upset at least here as this is something that facebook have taken away e.g. it was free and now they charge for it. To be fair though, they never gave you 100% coverage of your posts into fans feeds before, but now it's a really low "free" coverage and you have to pay to get the vast majority of people who are already following you to see your content.
In Australia, your domain name is tied to your business name.
As an Australian myself (Adelaide, how are you?), I would never use a.com.au even if you paid me.
Why paid more to get less..com.au suck imho.
I've owned a business in the past with a.com.au and know all about the hoops you have to jump through to get one, but they have been relaxed to a degree lately..com is more "international" anyway and pretty well accepted so why lock yourself in to an australian only domain name?
If I wanted to change the domain, I'd have to rename the business.
So don't use a.com.au and problem solved.
Of course almost every combination of "good".com names are taken but I can't help you with that.
Renaming a business is not hard, but granted there are some costs involved and sure it would suck having to do it because of some spammer.
As a one-man-band trying to earn money as well as administer the business, at some stage I have to make the decision that it's easier to just work for someone else.
Same here.
As a one-man-band though how many "phone calls" and mailouts are we talking about?
I am sure you could do this on the cheap.
The other thing to do is try and figure out how the spammer "got" your domain name. Do you post with the email shown so it can be found easy by spammer email crawlers?
I have a number of domain's (some 5+ years old) and pretty well all of them don't (yet) suffer from spam problems. Yes it could happen, but it hasn't yet.
Maybe you need to spent some time figuring out how your domain got found out.
Is your mail server owned? Maybe they got it from there.
One thing I rarely see mentioned is that spam is mostly micrososft's fault.
What a pile of crap. While I am no MS supporter blaming Microsoft is pure and simply wrong.
Blame the people DOING the spamming, blame the people who don't keep up to date with the latest patches (which will dramatically reduce the chance of your box becoming owned).
While you at it blame the people trying to own the box.
Those are owned because Billy and the Boys from Redmond simply have no idea how to build an operating system
Bzzzt. Wrong. See above. (This from a linux advocate).
I was making a very quick point that perhaps this wasn't the best value when Windows XP was needed.
After all others have already mentioned that there are better solutions out there, ranging from dumb terminal, to running X remotely and even a dedicated linux box.
All of these solutions are going to save the $300 bucks for a copy of Windows XP.
Having used Redhat, Mandrake, Slackware I never really "got" linux.
Once I tried out gentoo I really started to understand how it hangs together.
Am I a linux guru now? Nope, But what I am is comfortable in a linux environment and happily pushing it to others like me.
Of course the other advantage of using gentoo is the "USE" flags where you can ensure that all programs on your system are completely configured for your hardware and setup.
End result for me was a much faster system containing only those programs/utilities I have decided to load, and not what a vendor has "decided" I need.
If you are struggling to make the "linux leap" look at gentoo (and be prepared to invest a bit of time) you won't look back.
Now if only I could get Quickbooks working in WINE I could remove my windows partition completely.
This will be more of benefit to you if you actually are going to use RedHat, but of course the general principles will apply.
If I were you, I'd also get Linux on a home machine and start "fiddling" to get up to speed.
Maybe install Vmware or a similar product so you can try different things.
Personally I took a leap and went from Windows to Gentoo linux and never looked back!
Good luck with it.
You could dual-boot an existing Windows machine or run VMWARE so you c
Re:Promise Raid Controllers and their support Suck
on
IDE RAID Examined
·
· Score: 1
Generally speaking yes win 2000 drivers work with windows xp.
The problem with this card, is that they are using a driver dated april 2001 with the card and never bothered to update it when win xp was released or since then.
The driver itself is flawed causing all sorts of problems, including the need to hard boot each time.
These are NOT the promise windows xp drivers, they are still the old windows 2000 drivers from over a year ago.
All they have done is put "windows xp" in the description on the web page.
If you dont believe me open up the zip file and look at the contents.
Like I say Promise suck.
Promise Raid Controllers and their support Suck
on
IDE RAID Examined
·
· Score: 1
I have a Promise FastTrack 100 TX 4 Raid controller purchased twelve months ago.
To cut a very long story short their driver support absolutely sucks. To this day there is still not a Windows XP driver for the card, and the windows 2000 driver I was forced to use took a lot of hassle to get working. They realised a new version of the Win 2000 driver that just hard locks my machine. Apparently this type of problem is fairly common with Promise controllers.
The worst part is that numerous emails to their support dept went unanswered, finally got one back (only 3 months after sending it!) [yes this is email, not snail mail] to say buy the new card.
I made a promise not to buy another one of there crappy cards again.
Slashdot Mirror
" Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version."
Nope, because WWW didn't leak memory like a fucking sieve. Firefox 32? Just like every iteration before it, from XP to Win 7, is a straight up piece of swiss cheese when it comes to memory. I actually moved back to IE.
"we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use."
Funny, having installed it in a Windows 3.1 VM and tested it out, it's nowhere near as bad as you think, assuming you have the brains and intuition to find stuff.
"Thanks for playing."
Oh please, you weren't even a player in the first place. You were just a pawn.
I think you are getting a little confused.
Firstly if you are seriously suggesting that Firebox is worse than Tim Berners-Lee's original WorldWideWeb brower, you are seriously deranged. The original WWW had no image support, and no bookmarks, to name just two features.
Ridiculous to suggest Firefox is not a massive improvement.
Secondly I genuinely would like to know how you managed to get a program designed for the NextStep platform to work on Windows 3.1. Here is a hint. You didn't.
The original WWW was developed in 1990 and was developed for the NextStep platform, Windows 3.1 came out in 1992. So you were probably using Mosaic if you indeed setup Windows 3.1 in a VM to make a point! Well done on that. Thanks actually for completely proving my point, Mosaic is significantly easier to use than the original WWW program. Go back and use the original WWW and compare the two.
Uhhhhhh, you do realize that the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was in fact a graphical browser, right? Lynx and other text mode browsers didn't come out until years later.
If you're going to question the GP, at least have your facts straight, son.
Thanks Dad, you raise a good point. Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version. If Mosaic (which ultimately Firefox came from) had not come out in 1993, we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use.
Bottom line: Not all reboots are bad and doing the same thing is not always a good thing.
Thanks for playing.
Son of a bitch, we don't need any more "reinventions" of this and "reimagining" of that and "rebooting" of franchises.
Any time anyone tries to do such things, the end product is total shit.
Look at GNOME 3. It tried to "reinvent the Linux desktop experience". It's total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.
Look at Firefox. It has recently tried to "reimagine" itself as if it were Chrome. It's now total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.
Look at all of the "rebooted" movie series. It's one total, utter, absolute shit Incredible Hulk reboot after another.
Going in with the reinvent/reimagine/reboot mindset just results in total, utter, absolute shit being produced. Please, if you're thinking of doing this sort of stuff, do us all a favor and DON'T FUCKING DO IT!
Speak for yourself, not all reboots are bad.
Would you still prefer to be using a text browser, or *shudder* Internet Explorer instead of Firefox? Technically Firefox is a re-invention of those.
Going in with the "lets do the same thing as everyone else is doing" is not a good mindset in any way, shape, or form. I for one love innovation, and ultimately despite road bumps along the way, it often leads to better products in the long term.
I've been a programmer (mostly) for the past 25 + years.
At 16 I wrote my first computer game, love it and then... Stopped.
Used Fortran, Cobol and stuff and eventually Java Enterprise stuff.
Realised I HATED IT!!
At 46 decided games were my passion (should have continued from my first game at 16).
Fast forward 3 years I feel proficient in Objective-C, Cocos2D and other game frameworks - I absolutely love it. 3 published games later and a pile of other stuff - Having the time of my life.
Do what you love is all I can say to anyone readying this.
And if you want to learn IOS there is NO BETTER COURSE out there (yeah I like capital letters) than the free Stanford CS193P course on iTunes - Google it.
Paul Hegarty rocks as an instructor.
Embrace it, I am living proof its never too late!
I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).
It possibly might have meant that in the past. But I do know that the relatively new features facebook have added prevent people with facebook pages from getting their content out to all people following them unless they pay extra. I think they may be working on adding exceptions to this (possibly for non profit organisations, etc).
Note also there is a separate advertising program that marketers can use to target people with interests, etc (you can target by interest, by people who have liked a particular page [yours or someone else's], etc. I'm not talking about that program at all. Rather, I am talking about your own content being send to people already following you (having liked your page).
Interesting times to see if they are just going to upset their userbase.
Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?
This applies to pages e.g. fan pages that you have Liked and followed. When someone posts something to a fan page, everyone who is following that page does not automatically get the content in their newsfeed. You can see this if you have a page as it shows you the coverage. Facebook give you an option to "pay for more coverage" e.g. let more people already following you see your content.
For your own posts to your friends I am not sure about that. I believe they might all get it. Not 100% sure.
Cheers
Tim
Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site.
I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?
Facebook are now charging you to get access to your own fans per post, this is not extra advertising. Whenever you post something on facebook only a small subset will get your content injected into their news feed unless you cough up the extra money so that more/all of them see it.
This is something they only added a few months ago. They want to charge this every time you post as well.
So I don't blame him for getting a bit upset at least here as this is something that facebook have taken away e.g. it was free and now they charge for it. To be fair though, they never gave you 100% coverage of your posts into fans feeds before, but now it's a really low "free" coverage and you have to pay to get the vast majority of people who are already following you to see your content.
start applauding
Also learn to read there is a heap of posts on other stuff he is done that is worth applauding.
Happy to have the option of teaching even more kids?
Happy to have a job?
Happy to be working in new surroundings?
Irony? What Irony?
It does if your a kid dying of malaria in a third world country you moron (yes bill spends millions helping kids like this).
I suppose if you were sure a kid you would say "no can't accept your life saving gift, let me die".
Yeah right, sure you would.
Not that I agree with what your saying about it being illegal anyway.
Essentially sir, you are full of it.
I can't stand people who bash Bill and his foundation. Sure bash Microsoft if you must, but why the foundation?
Yes he is mega rich but he still doesn't have to give the money away does he?
I am sure he could find other ways to get rid of the money. Instead he is doing some good.
His foundation has practically wiped our Malaria in third world countries.
I suppose he did that for advertising as well??
No I am not a MS support, Linux is my vehicle of choice, but I am man enough to applaud someone doing good for the community.
Would be nice if some of the wallies posted here could do the same.
Yeah I know, fat chance of that.
In Australia, your domain name is tied to your business name.
.com.au even if you paid me.
.com.au suck imho.
.com.au and know all about the hoops you have to jump through to get one, but they have been relaxed to a degree lately. .com is more "international" anyway and pretty well accepted so why lock yourself in to an australian only domain name?
.com.au and problem solved.
.com names are taken but I can't help you with that.
As an Australian myself (Adelaide, how are you?), I would never use a
Why paid more to get less.
I've owned a business in the past with a
If I wanted to change the domain, I'd have to rename the business.
So don't use a
Of course almost every combination of "good"
Renaming a business is not hard, but granted there are some costs involved and sure it would suck having to do it because of some spammer.
As a one-man-band trying to earn money as well as administer the business, at some stage I have to make the decision that it's easier to just work for someone else.
Same here.
As a one-man-band though how many "phone calls" and mailouts are we talking about?
I am sure you could do this on the cheap.
The other thing to do is try and figure out how the spammer "got" your domain name. Do you post with the email shown so it can be found easy by spammer email crawlers?
I have a number of domain's (some 5+ years old) and pretty well all of them don't (yet) suffer from spam problems. Yes it could happen, but it hasn't yet.
Maybe you need to spent some time figuring out how your domain got found out.
Is your mail server owned? Maybe they got it from there.
Good luck with it all, hope it works out for you.
but at the moment it looks like they'll succeed in putting me out of business -
Get a new domain ($12 US or less) and email your customers/associated web sites (if your referring/receiving traffic).
Forward you old domains url to the new one (at least for a while and your done).
Sure it's a pain, but surely it's better to do this then go out of business?
One thing I rarely see mentioned is that spam is mostly micrososft's fault.
What a pile of crap. While I am no MS supporter blaming Microsoft is pure and simply wrong.
Blame the people DOING the spamming, blame the people who don't keep up to date with the latest patches (which will dramatically reduce the chance of your box becoming owned).
While you at it blame the people trying to own the box.
Those are owned because Billy and the Boys from Redmond simply have no idea how to build an operating system
Bzzzt. Wrong. See above. (This from a linux advocate).
We need to get tough with them.
Charge them, arrest them.
This is a good start
Of course this was not just spammers but they are all as bad as each other if you ask me.
Don't I know it.
I am typing this at work on a Pentium III Windows NT 4 system with 256Mb ram. Contractors get all the crap hardware (and software for the matter).
Try java development with that, my head hurts (I've got plenty of time to think about it while the hard drive continually swaps).
Still I have introduced other developers here to linux tools for linux developers forced to use windows.
Would prefer to be using my favorite dist but you can't get everything you want can you?
Gotta admit this is a more viable solution than this silly device.
And actually citrix is still quite large in the corporate world (not sure why, their support is terrible).
The biggest problem I have with citrix is their binary only versions of the citrix client for linux.
They seem to fix one thing in a new version, but introduce several stopping features in the next.
Now rdesktop that is a nice utility, works nice and full c code is available so you can hack it to your hearts delight.
Sheesh you Windows lover.
Troll indeed!
I was making a very quick point that perhaps this wasn't the best value when Windows XP was needed.
After all others have already mentioned that there are better solutions out there, ranging from dumb terminal, to running X remotely and even a dedicated linux box.
All of these solutions are going to save the $300 bucks for a copy of Windows XP.
Surely that is good value for money.
Ahh well, that's my 5 cents.
It needs Windows XP, adding cost.
Pass
Nothing to see here, move along...
Yeah I totally agree with this.
Having used Redhat, Mandrake, Slackware I never really "got" linux.
Once I tried out gentoo I really started to understand how it hangs together.
Am I a linux guru now? Nope, But what I am is comfortable in a linux environment and happily pushing it to others like me.
Of course the other advantage of using gentoo is the "USE" flags where you can ensure that all programs on your system are completely configured for your hardware and setup.
End result for me was a much faster system containing only those programs/utilities I have decided to load, and not what a vendor has "decided" I need.
If you are struggling to make the "linux leap" look at gentoo (and be prepared to invest a bit of time) you won't look back.
Now if only I could get Quickbooks working in WINE I could remove my windows partition completely.
Personally I'd recommend the RedHat training.
This will be more of benefit to you if you actually are going to use RedHat, but of course the general principles will apply.
If I were you, I'd also get Linux on a home machine and start "fiddling" to get up to speed.
Maybe install Vmware or a similar product so you can try different things.
Personally I took a leap and went from Windows to Gentoo linux and never looked back!
Good luck with it.
You could dual-boot an existing Windows machine or run VMWARE so you c
Generally speaking yes win 2000 drivers work with windows xp.
The problem with this card, is that they are using a driver dated april 2001 with the card and never bothered to update it when win xp was released or since then.
The driver itself is flawed causing all sorts of problems, including the need to hard boot each time.
Wrong Answer try again.
These are NOT the promise windows xp drivers, they are still the old windows 2000 drivers from over a year ago.
All they have done is put "windows xp" in the description on the web page.
If you dont believe me open up the zip file and look at the contents.
Like I say Promise suck.
I have a Promise FastTrack 100 TX 4 Raid controller purchased twelve months ago.
To cut a very long story short their driver support absolutely sucks. To this day there is still not a Windows XP driver for the card, and the windows 2000 driver I was forced to use took a lot of hassle to get working. They realised a new version of the Win 2000 driver that just hard locks my machine. Apparently this type of problem is fairly common with Promise controllers.
The worst part is that numerous emails to their support dept went unanswered, finally got one back (only 3 months after sending it!) [yes this is email, not snail mail] to say buy the new card.
I made a promise not to buy another one of there crappy cards again.
Releasing a product to the public domain does not necessarily mean realising the source code.
Open source includes the source code!
That's the difference.