It annoys the hell out of me when people say IE is only faster because MSIE is preloaded in RAM
BOLLOCKS. I don't care. The end user doesn't care. The point made (and the point that any decent software designer should realise) is that apparent speed is as important-if not more important-than actual speed. Therefore, whatever reason IE is faster to boot is irrelevant. It just *is*.
As with the preload, you can change your shourtcuts by adding "/prefetch:1" at the end (no quotes).
I'm also one of those people that hate it when malformed html doesn't work properly in Firefox. I also would tend to blame IE for this. Unfortunately, as you said, until Firefox's market share becomes the majority, websites will have to be fix to be viewed. I'm also soley a linux user, so don't flame me for being pro-Microsoft. I'm just a designer who can take a users' point of view.
I'm undecided on the "firefox should make their code tolerant of bad html", as it could be a nice point to force website developers to adhere to standards. But meh!
Or maybe better; If someone wrote a guide on how to port DirectX apps to OpenGL+SDL Apps. As soon as its relatively easy to do and profitable (ie. high demand) then companies will follow.
Maybe, some game developer decides to do a pre-order version of a new game, ported to linux. (Even nicer, if it was a core engine developer, thus allowing more of a portability market).
If the pre-order price for the Linux version reaches the critical level needed to justify porting costs then they go ahead and make it. If not, they refund the money to the user.
Simple idea. Low-risk for the game developer, with a potentially large return if the game market does explode in Linux-land, as they'd have a massive headstart.
I've seen some forms of trojans via P2P programs. It seems to come back as an x kb sized file with the name you searched for.
So the question arises: If you search for something legitimate, download their trojaned file and run it, what happens then? They are not legally allowed to enter your PC and is therefore an illegal act. Could you then sue them?
Could many people sue them to force them out of doing this type of "sting"?
It seems to me that Tor (and possibly all onion-type concepts, although I dont know a huge amount about them as a whole) actually increases the footprint of any given request/response by increasing the amount of hops taken from source to destination. Could it be that it increases anonymity of a connection but also potentially decreases the privacy instead? Couple this with payload analysis (HTTP packets having obvious information about destination at least) and you have a powerful tracking mechanism
Which brings up an interesting point. If these searching programs have a different algorithm for finding text/content in files, then isnt find/grep/locate doing something wrong? And/or is the filesystem not organised as efficiently as possible?
I must say, after using the Spatial view, I'm a bit undecided. I dont like it, although I think going back to the Explorer-style view would not be a huge step forward either.
I dont think the Spatial view "works" properly; Viewing the filesystem folders as seperate entities is fundamentally flawed, since a filesystem itself isnt really modelled on anything tangible. Then again the Explorer-style is just a bit more hassle than should be. Its a fine line really, I guess...
Re:Somone get these ppl some free software!
on
Given Up to Spyware?
·
· Score: 1
Its not disturbing. Its obvious. Think about it - what does the average person do on t'internet? Instant Messaging, Email and Web Browsing. Inevitably using MS Windows, these users have the tools (as bad as they be) and have learnt how to use these tools to do what they want. Ignorance is bliss, as it were. It will take a long while until people start realising how bad spyware can/will get. Taking money out of accounts etc. Until then, it be the same as it is at present.
2) Most (h|cr)ackers "grow up" (ie. get to a certain state where they dont feel the need to be destructive). These people - a lot of the time - end up in security anyway. Of course, by this time, their experiences and knowledge have increased ten fold and are therefore much more useful to a security company.
Ok, so some poor bastard types in his (bought) key after a reinstall, only to find that his home directory got removed by, well lets face it, an unauthorised program. This user's PC was cracked into a few months back and information (including said key). Just one of probably many false positives. A retarded idea, IMHO.
More to the point... As this is an issue generally for just 56k users, the linux kernel would need (proper) support for modems (read:winmodems) before this would be as effective as intended.
I like the sound of using delta compression for making an "upgrade" iso. Say I wanted to upgrade from fedora core 2 to fedora core 3, I could just download an upgrade iso at a fraction of the size etc.
Im just wondering if I can think really stupidly and say this:
There are more possible character combinations (in fact, an infinite amount) in an arbitary-lengthed string than possible combinations in an md-5 string. Obviously, if this is not a one-to-one relationship, then there are going to be some (well, a lot of) collisions.
You are right in the sense that it is not a "standard" vunerability as such, but as is the case for IE "spoofing", it is still valid. It could still cause users to think a spoofed page is a real page, so in essence the browser is "vunerable".
As a sidepoint, I think the actual vunerability is the fact that XUL can be effectively imported and utilised from a website, rather than a vunerability saying "you can spoof the xyz browser using http user-agent flags and jpeg images" as a bad example:)
I think this whole "tree" filesystem is fundamentally flawed. Why have one root (\) when you can have... many.
I think having one "root" drive for your main hard drive would be a good idea. And as to stop user confusion, get rid of this "\" and name it a "see" drive. Extending on this philosophy, we can group other similar devices around it. A "Deigh" drive for a cd-rom, and an "eh?" drive for a floppy disk for example. The possibilities are endless.
Oh, and I also think its pivotal to have encorporated a graphical assistant built into the very core of the device drivers. One that, when you at least expect it, pops up and asks you if you need help to "view your see drive", or "delete off your eh? drive".
Slashdot Mirror
It annoys the hell out of me when people say IE is only faster because MSIE is preloaded in RAM
BOLLOCKS. I don't care. The end user doesn't care. The point made (and the point that any decent software designer should realise) is that apparent speed is as important-if not more important-than actual speed. Therefore, whatever reason IE is faster to boot is irrelevant. It just *is*.
As with the preload, you can change your shourtcuts by adding "/prefetch:1" at the end (no quotes).
I'm also one of those people that hate it when malformed html doesn't work properly in Firefox. I also would tend to blame IE for this. Unfortunately, as you said, until Firefox's market share becomes the majority, websites will have to be fix to be viewed. I'm also soley a linux user, so don't flame me for being pro-Microsoft. I'm just a designer who can take a users' point of view.
I'm undecided on the "firefox should make their code tolerant of bad html", as it could be a nice point to force website developers to adhere to standards. But meh!
But unfortunately, Google 's Cache can't be password-protected.
Haha, well according to the rota, his name is actually Declan and he is working right now... (~9:30PM GMT)
Also, the time taken for the MSAS scan is a bit disconcerting (25mins 4secs
Compared to 4mins 27secs and unknown for AdAware.
Other than this, its nice to see that Microsoft is (seemingly) changing their game plan in the OS market!
Maybe there will appear "portals" for everyone not using DRM hardware.
Naturally, theres always a way around something, given enough time.
Or maybe better; If someone wrote a guide on how to port DirectX apps to OpenGL+SDL Apps. As soon as its relatively easy to do and profitable (ie. high demand) then companies will follow.
So heres a crazy idea...
Maybe, some game developer decides to do a pre-order version of a new game, ported to linux. (Even nicer, if it was a core engine developer, thus allowing more of a portability market).
If the pre-order price for the Linux version reaches the critical level needed to justify porting costs then they go ahead and make it. If not, they refund the money to the user.
Simple idea. Low-risk for the game developer, with a potentially large return if the game market does explode in Linux-land, as they'd have a massive headstart.
I've seen some forms of trojans via P2P programs. It seems to come back as an x kb sized file with the name you searched for.
So the question arises: If you search for something legitimate, download their trojaned file and run it, what happens then? They are not legally allowed to enter your PC and is therefore an illegal act. Could you then sue them?
Could many people sue them to force them out of doing this type of "sting"?
Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"
Well, it'd be kinda silly to try and become something that it already is, wouldnt it?
It seems to me that Tor (and possibly all onion-type concepts, although I dont know a huge amount about them as a whole) actually increases the footprint of any given request/response by increasing the amount of hops taken from source to destination. Could it be that it increases anonymity of a connection but also potentially decreases the privacy instead? Couple this with payload analysis (HTTP packets having obvious information about destination at least) and you have a powerful tracking mechanism
Google caches of:
Main page
Samples page
Firefox, Opera and Safari all have this feature too.
Which brings up an interesting point. If these searching programs have a different algorithm for finding text/content in files, then isnt find/grep/locate doing something wrong? And/or is the filesystem not organised as efficiently as possible?
Just a thought...
Its a great idea, however there is still a single point-of-failure. Maybe a P2P-style system would be advantageous for this service instead?
I must say, after using the Spatial view, I'm a bit undecided. I dont like it, although I think going back to the Explorer-style view would not be a huge step forward either.
I dont think the Spatial view "works" properly; Viewing the filesystem folders as seperate entities is fundamentally flawed, since a filesystem itself isnt really modelled on anything tangible. Then again the Explorer-style is just a bit more hassle than should be. Its a fine line really, I guess...
Its not disturbing. Its obvious. Think about it - what does the average person do on t'internet? Instant Messaging, Email and Web Browsing. Inevitably using MS
Windows, these users have the tools (as bad as they be) and have learnt how to use these tools to do what they want. Ignorance is bliss, as it were. It will take a long while until people start realising how bad spyware can/will get. Taking money out of accounts etc. Until then, it be the same as it is at present.
No.
1) They got caught.
2) Most (h|cr)ackers "grow up" (ie. get to a certain state where they dont feel the need to be destructive). These people - a lot of the time - end up in security anyway. Of course, by this time, their experiences and knowledge have increased ten fold and are therefore much more useful to a security company.
Move?
Ok, so some poor bastard types in his (bought) key after a reinstall, only to find that his home directory got removed by, well lets face it, an unauthorised program. This user's PC was cracked into a few months back and information (including said key). Just one of probably many false positives. A retarded idea, IMHO.
More to the point... As this is an issue generally for just 56k users, the linux kernel would need (proper) support for modems (read:winmodems) before this would be as effective as intended.
I like the sound of using delta compression for making an "upgrade" iso. Say I wanted to upgrade from fedora core 2 to fedora core 3, I could just download an upgrade iso at a fraction of the size etc.
50% of people are NOT dumber than the average person.
Well, erm... obviously.
No, not really.
Im just wondering if I can think really stupidly and say this:
There are more possible character combinations (in fact, an infinite amount) in an arbitary-lengthed string than possible combinations in an md-5 string. Obviously, if this is not a one-to-one relationship, then there are going to be some (well, a lot of) collisions.
You are right in the sense that it is not a "standard" vunerability as such, but as is the case for IE "spoofing", it is still valid. It could still cause users to think a spoofed page is a real page, so in essence the browser is "vunerable".
:)
As a sidepoint, I think the actual vunerability is the fact that XUL can be effectively imported and utilised from a website, rather than a vunerability saying "you can spoof the xyz browser using http user-agent flags and jpeg images" as a bad example
I think this whole "tree" filesystem is fundamentally flawed. Why have one root (\) when you can have... many.
I think having one "root" drive for your main hard drive would be a good idea. And as to stop user confusion, get rid of this "\" and name it a "see" drive. Extending on this philosophy, we can group other similar devices around it. A "Deigh" drive for a cd-rom, and an "eh?" drive for a floppy disk for example. The possibilities are endless.
Oh, and I also think its pivotal to have encorporated a graphical assistant built into the very core of the device drivers. One that, when you at least expect it, pops up and asks you if you need help to "view your see drive", or "delete off your eh? drive".