Re:But what I am rellay looking forward to...
on
KDE 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That can't be fixed in Konqueror (or Safari) because they've made an architectural decision to use native widgets (Qt in Konqueror, Cocoa in Safari). Mozilla and IE use their own widgets and this problem is one reason why.
There are a lot of advantages to using native widgets, of course. It's a tradeoff.
> Takahashi does a good job of describing how > Microsoft worked through how much of a loss they > would be willing to take on each Xbox to increase > total installed base.
So "That Book" supports the idea that Microsoft does lose money on every XBox. And that was before they cut the price from $300 to $200 to boost sales.
Brin doesn't know his Tolkien
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
and that's the real problem with his article, whether you agree or disagree with his philosophical viewpoint.
First of all, the heroes of the story are clearly Frodo and Sam, and Tolkien explicitly portrays hobbits as "the commoners" of the story. Brin manages to completely ignore this.
> Did they all leave their homes and march to war > thinking, "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil > Dark Lord"? Tolkien explicitly states that the Easterlings were deceived and used by Sauron. There is no suggestion that they are inherently evil. Aragorn makes peace with the Easterling survivors after Sauron is destroyed. All the rants about how Tolkien considers the Easterlings subhuman are nonsense. You only have to read the scene where Sam discovers the dead Easterling to see this.
> count the number of powerful beings who are > vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of > power would allow themselves to be. Brin needs to read the Silmarillion to see how Sauron made himself appear beautiful for hundreds of years in order to seduce the Numenoreans, and was afterwards cursed by the Valar and forced to appear ugly forever after.
> Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are > deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use > them, especially those nine normal humans who > tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and > then usurp the rightful powers of their betters > -- the High Elves. This is nearly the exact opposite of what Tolkien describes. The rings were not made by men. They were made by Elves and Sauron and given to men in friendship.
Furthermore Tolkien repeatedly emphasises that the evil of the rings influenced by Sauron, especially the One Ring, can corrupt anyone. The whole point of the story --- the key to the plot --- is that his "everyman" characters, the hobbits, are the *least* corruptible. Brin seems to have missed that point completely. Or maybe he just ignored it because it didn't serve his agenda.
Lots of pages look better without the vertical scrollbar space. It's not just standards pedantry.
To say "there can be no reasonable doubt that this change should have been made, and the fact that it wasn't made means the developers are idiots and the project is doomed" --- THAT is zealotry.
This isn't true. We don't tell users as soon as a security bug is found, which is probably actually a good thing. What we don't do well, as this Register article shows, is publicising the bugs that we have fixed, even after we've distributed the fix in new stable releases.
Bad news: they can already do this in any browser. All they have to do is include a zero-height IFRAME in their banner that SRCs the linked page. This is actually a *lot* worse than Mozilla's prefetching, since it will compete for bandwidth with other page loads and it can't easily be disabled.
The greedy web master doesn't get a cent, because Mozilla doesn't send a referrer for prefetches.
BTW your greedy web master can already just include a hidden IFRAME with SRC pointing to the click-through, which WILL send a referrer, so Mozilla's prefetching adds no new danger here.
This point has been made elsewhere but it needs to be reiterated:
A Web page can already force you to download arbitrary files. For example, it can include a hidden IFRAME linked to some URL. This prefetching feature does not allow Web sites to do anything nefarious that they couldn't do before.
In fact, this prefetching feature is strictly better for users than hidden IFRAMEs or similar, mainly because prefetches are given bottom priority so they never interfere with your other Mozilla network activity.
> A better solution would be to hook the XUL form > widgets up to the existing theme engine support > in Mozilla.
That is, in fact, exactly what we are doing. Sometime reasonably soon we should have all XUL and HTML widgets rendered using the platform theme.
On WinXP we already use the WinXP theme to render XUL widgets. There are some problems with GTK themes that are holding things up for GTK. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id= 142334 is the bug for turning on GTK theme support in XUL.
> On the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks, the two fastest > boxes are 1ghz I2s
That's only true because of Itanium 2's floating-point performance. Real server workloads don't use floating point. For a slightly more realistic workload, look at the SPEC CINT numbers. There, the 1GHz Itanium 2 falls behind 2.4GHz Pentium 4s and Xeons.
Furthermore, none of these SPEC bencharks are nearly as memory-intensive as real server workloads. That's where Itanium really gets Hammered.
> With the older closed browsers there is > supposedly a much smaller chance of that > happening.
Completely wrong. With a little practice and the right tools it's easy to understand and modify binaries. The idea that binaries are somehow "hard" to work with is a pervasive myth that has no basis in reality.
In this kind of situation, i.e., an opportunity to install some trojan, I wouldn't even bother trying to modify the browser, whether I had the source or not. I'd just inject a keyboard sniffer into the user's system.
Slashdot Mirror
That can't be fixed in Konqueror (or Safari) because they've made an architectural decision to use native widgets (Qt in Konqueror, Cocoa in Safari). Mozilla and IE use their own widgets and this problem is one reason why.
There are a lot of advantages to using native widgets, of course. It's a tradeoff.
> Takahashi does a good job of describing how
> Microsoft worked through how much of a loss they
> would be willing to take on each Xbox to increase
> total installed base.
So "That Book" supports the idea that Microsoft does lose money on every XBox. And that was before they cut the price from $300 to $200 to boost sales.
and that's the real problem with his article, whether you agree or disagree with his philosophical viewpoint.
First of all, the heroes of the story are clearly Frodo and Sam, and Tolkien explicitly portrays hobbits as "the commoners" of the story. Brin manages to completely ignore this.
> Did they all leave their homes and march to war
> thinking, "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil
> Dark Lord"?
Tolkien explicitly states that the Easterlings were deceived and used by Sauron. There is no suggestion that they are inherently evil. Aragorn makes peace with the Easterling survivors after Sauron is destroyed. All the rants about how Tolkien considers the Easterlings subhuman are nonsense. You only have to read the scene where Sam discovers the dead Easterling to see this.
> count the number of powerful beings who are
> vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of
> power would allow themselves to be.
Brin needs to read the Silmarillion to see how Sauron made himself appear beautiful for hundreds of years in order to seduce the Numenoreans, and was afterwards cursed by the Valar and forced to appear ugly forever after.
> Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are
> deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use
> them, especially those nine normal humans who
> tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and
> then usurp the rightful powers of their betters
> -- the High Elves.
This is nearly the exact opposite of what Tolkien describes. The rings were not made by men. They were made by Elves and Sauron and given to men in friendship.
Furthermore Tolkien repeatedly emphasises that the evil of the rings influenced by Sauron, especially the One Ring, can corrupt anyone. The whole point of the story --- the key to the plot --- is that his "everyman" characters, the hobbits, are the *least* corruptible. Brin seems to have missed that point completely. Or maybe he just ignored it because it didn't serve his agenda.
Lots of pages look better without the vertical scrollbar space. It's not just standards pedantry.
To say "there can be no reasonable doubt that this change should have been made, and the fact that it wasn't made means the developers are idiots and the project is doomed" --- THAT is zealotry.
This isn't true. We don't tell users as soon as a security bug is found, which is probably actually a good thing. What we don't do well, as this Register article shows, is publicising the bugs that we have fixed, even after we've distributed the fix in new stable releases.
oops.
You could just use an IFRAME with zero height, specified with style="height:0" or whatever. Mozilla will load that.
Of course it would be better if people didn't do this...
Then just hide the IFRAME using
Someone already mentioned this but they don't have enough karma:
We *already* support native look on Windows, but it only works on Windows XP, because only Windows XP gives us the theme engine hooks we need.
Bad news: they can already do this in any browser. All they have to do is include a zero-height IFRAME in their banner that SRCs the linked page. This is actually a *lot* worse than Mozilla's prefetching, since it will compete for bandwidth with other page loads and it can't easily be disabled.
Not if it's something that the browser can display natively, like an image or a Web page.
The greedy web master doesn't get a cent, because Mozilla doesn't send a referrer for prefetches.
BTW your greedy web master can already just include a hidden IFRAME with SRC pointing to the click-through, which WILL send a referrer, so Mozilla's prefetching adds no new danger here.
Be careful with your terminology. Chimera is developed by Mozilla.org and is 90% the same code as the Mozilla application suite.
This point has been made elsewhere but it needs to be reiterated:
A Web page can already force you to download arbitrary files. For example, it can include a hidden IFRAME linked to some URL. This prefetching feature does not allow Web sites to do anything nefarious that they couldn't do before.
In fact, this prefetching feature is strictly better for users than hidden IFRAMEs or similar, mainly because prefetches are given bottom priority so they never interfere with your other Mozilla network activity.
Please file a bug about any themes you find which crash Mozilla. Or at least mention theme here on Slashdot.
> What's to stop a page from tagging a really huge
> file, hosted on someone *else's* server as a
> "prefetch" item.
You can already do this by loading someone else's page into a hidden IFRAME.
Nothing new here. Move along.
Phoenix is the Mozilla engine with a different UI and some components replaced.
In terms of what it can render, standards support, etc, it's exactly the same as the Mozilla browser (i.e., pretty much top of the class).
> A better solution would be to hook the XUL form
= 142334
> widgets up to the existing theme engine support
> in Mozilla.
That is, in fact, exactly what we are doing. Sometime reasonably soon we should have all XUL and HTML widgets rendered using the platform theme.
On WinXP we already use the WinXP theme to render XUL widgets. There are some problems with GTK themes that are holding things up for GTK.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id
is the bug for turning on GTK theme support in XUL.
I'd like to know how to render a widget UNDER a translucent PNG using GTK or Qt (or Win32 or Carbon, for that matter).
> Call me when
o w_bug.cgi?id=142334
:-)
"Turn on nsNativeThemeGTK"
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sh
So what's your number?
Galeon doesn't run on Windows. Phoenix does.
On WinXP Mozilla's Classic theme renders using the native Windows theme.
Win2K doesn't have the hooks we needed to support that.
"Turn on nsNativeThemeGTK"o w_bug.cgi?id=142334
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/sh
You're lying. I'm not a full-time grad student, and if I had a bug number for this guy's bug, I'd fix it.
> On the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks, the two fastest
> boxes are 1ghz I2s
That's only true because of Itanium 2's floating-point performance. Real server workloads don't use floating point. For a slightly more realistic workload, look at the SPEC CINT numbers. There, the 1GHz Itanium 2 falls behind 2.4GHz Pentium 4s and Xeons.
Furthermore, none of these SPEC bencharks are nearly as memory-intensive as real server workloads. That's where Itanium really gets Hammered.
> With the older closed browsers there is
> supposedly a much smaller chance of that
> happening.
Completely wrong. With a little practice and the right tools it's easy to understand and modify binaries. The idea that binaries are somehow "hard" to work with is a pervasive myth that has no basis in reality.
In this kind of situation, i.e., an opportunity to install some trojan, I wouldn't even bother trying to modify the browser, whether I had the source or not. I'd just inject a keyboard sniffer into the user's system.