I would argue that GPG authentication is actually simpler than a username/password over HTTP security system
I would argue that using the X509 certificate support built into your browser is simplier than GPG authentication.
Especially because GPG web authentication is plainly not simple -- it would be a complete manual job, requiring that the user manually copy-n-paste crap between a GPG front-end and their browser. Nothing personal, but it's probably one of the dumbest proposals ever floated on slashdot.
Can ANY of you name a single non-MS related program that handles.DOC (oh mighty 'standard' that it is today) as well or better than OOo 2.0?
From all accounts, the WordPerfect DOC importer is very good and has been forever. In fact WP does a lot of things very well and frequently beats MS Office in reviews, and certainly has a much larger userbase than OpenOffice does. Which drives home the point that it's not really a two horse race and that OOo is literally third rate.
No sir, it is you who is wrong. A Macro Language is integrated and allows the user to "record" actions. It's been a standard feature in spreadsheets since 1983. Scriptable bindings != Macros.
At one time StarOffice worked like a normal office suite -- files loaded relatively quickly, the interface was spry enough.
Then someone got the idea to XMLize and Javaize everything, and now it takes 2 minutes to open a spreadsheet. The open source blonde bimbos responeded that "Well, it's like so worth it because XML is, like you know, the boomb. And like Java is like soooo much better than VB, ya know?".
But then MS Office adapted an XML format that has none of the ridiclous loadtimes and other assorted bloat. And OOO supporters were left with nothing but some technical point about patent licenses.
And MS Office went on earning billions of dollars every minute while OOO languished in obscurity.
> so the OOo core is more-or-less only developed by Sun
Yeah, if it wasn't for mean ol' Sun, there would be programmers lining up around the block to work on spreadsheet macro code and contextual help menus for free!
Or maybe, Sun does all the OOO dev because, frankly, nobody else would.
Note that all of the above was mozilla.org propaganda. It may or many not be true, but it was later admitted that most of the Netscape engineers thought it was untrue -- they would have been able to ship Version 5 in 1999 succesfully even with the legacy codebase.
As it was, Mozilla shipped in an extremely buggy form (Netscape 6) and didn't become acceptable to users until 2004
So, Better? Yes. "Smaller amount of time and probably with a even smaller budget"? Absolutely No.
And all of this was done at a fraction of the cost compared to things like IE.
I would like to see one shread of proof for that. AOL paid for a large Mozilla development team for four or five years. The cost was likely in the same ballpark as IE.
> It is really incredible to see how fast Apple's Preview application is at loading PDFs
I have a really lowend Mac (333Mhz G3 PB with only 192MB), and while Preview starts faster, it's significantly slower at rendering PDFs than Adobe Reader 6. When it takes your machine several minutes to render a complex PDF, it's very noticable.
> I really have to wonder when Intel will start using this technology in desktops.
You should start seeing them in January. See the various news reports around the web about Intel dropping their classic "Pentium" branding starting next year.
> That right there should show that Intell is should switch its R&D and support the Pentium M as a desktop chip.
That's been the stated plan for more than a year now.
Sounds like the major change in SP2 was to stop guessing at text/plain files. It used to be impossible to serve a TXT file to IE that started with "" because IE would ASSume it was HTML. But for binary files, IE still guesses and Firefox doesn't.
The main thing that's wrong is QuickTime. (Or its defaults at least.)
Why Apple, king of the slick UI, believes that people want to listen to MP3s inside of an empty browser window with nothing but a 10x200px slider is beyond me.
OK, but for case (1) ("Content-disposition: attachment"), you've still asked FF to save it to disk automatically. In particular, it SHOULD NOT ask "Do you want to save this?". Ever.
Dumping a potentially large download onto someone's disk without asking is very poor form. Especially if it's a malicious file and Firefox defaults to sticking it right on your mon's desktop where she'll find it and click on it.
A secure browser will always ask before it touches the filesystem outside of the cache.
Pretty sure it still does, but maybe only if it's a generic content type. I've never clicked on a link to an WMV (etc) and gotten a screen full of megabytes of garbage like you see sometimes with Firefox.
Also, you can be sure that MS will continue to invent new filetypes faster than Unix admins can reconfigure their servers:) And that pretty much mandates that a browser that "works right" (from the ignorant POV) must guess at content.
> Have you ever been in any MS office product and tried to change the default?
Have you? In Word, it's about three clicks.
A competent administrators should be able to set the default format across the entire organization via Group Policy in an afternoon. This is already common practice for Office sites which do rolling upgrades (eg most people using Office 2006 will want to revert the default back to DOC instead of the XML formats.)
Very professional response. I can see why you work at a company so stupid that they send $500 to Microsoft for a server OS they have no intention of using.
> Now ask what "Other" is.... Guess what is being installed on those?
Novell? OS/2? FreeBSD?
Look, this is all just statistical modeling based on surveys. Gartner may be dumb, but they aren't stupid -- they'll count Linux as "Linux" and not "Other".
The funny thing about this report is that it has appeared here many times and Slashbot reaction is entirely based on the spin put on by the story submitter. "Linux server revenue up" (Yeah! Windows is going down!) "Linux server revenue behind Windows" (No Fair! Waah! Mommie!)
Well, I imagine that most servers spend 90% of their useful life running the same OS. Regardless, this kind of report is of interest to server vendors, not fans at home keeping score, so new server sales are what's being counted.
Most of the "revenue" they're talking about here is actually hardware revenue.
This is actually fairer than counting number of boxes, because one could argue that Unix/Linux tends to be installed on larger, more expensive systems than Windows.
To reiterate the AC, you sound a lot like a Novell network admin in the mid 90s. "You can encapsulate IPv4 inside of IPX", "You can use a webproxy to fetch IPv4 sites to IPX machines.", "I can access resources directly with IPX without routing" etc etc.
OK, so IPX wasn't the Way Forward(tm), but the point is that almost everyone wants to run a single protocol on both the inside and the outside -- and right now that protocol is IPv4. DJB's point is that that protocol is never going to be something other than IPv4 until the new thing is totally universal.
The issue is mainly with blogs like DailyKos -- not only are they a journalistic blog site, they also run a Political Action Committee, and blatantly place stories designed to attract money and other support for certain candidates. So, are they a "blog", or are they a "PAC"?
Almost everyone could tell you the difference between a "small independent paper" with a bias, and a paper published by the NRA or ACLU and designed to reflect the official positions of those organizations.
My belief is that the Blog issue is just thrown out there to muddy the campaign finance waters. Everyone's thinking about reading their favorite Joe Blog rants, but this really could become a elephant-sized exception for almost every sort of online electioneering.
> They've made their opinion quite clear as of recent that they couldn't care less about the direction Apple is moving
I thought the Adobe CEO was at the Intel annoucement and said something like "We wanted you to switch to Intel years ago!"
Personally, I think Adobe will be ready, but they will be ready according to the pre-determined CS3 product schedule, meaning late 2006. (Because they have apps built around the old environments, it is not just a recompile for them.)
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that GPG authentication is actually simpler than a username/password over HTTP security system
I would argue that using the X509 certificate support built into your browser is simplier than GPG authentication.
Especially because GPG web authentication is plainly not simple -- it would be a complete manual job, requiring that the user manually copy-n-paste crap between a GPG front-end and their browser. Nothing personal, but it's probably one of the dumbest proposals ever floated on slashdot.
HP doesn't make servers anymore. Except for the label, they're still 100% Compaq. :)
Can ANY of you name a single non-MS related program that handles .DOC (oh mighty 'standard' that it is today) as well or better than OOo 2.0?
From all accounts, the WordPerfect DOC importer is very good and has been forever. In fact WP does a lot of things very well and frequently beats MS Office in reviews, and certainly has a much larger userbase than OpenOffice does. Which drives home the point that it's not really a two horse race and that OOo is literally third rate.
No sir, it is you who is wrong. A Macro Language is integrated and allows the user to "record" actions. It's been a standard feature in spreadsheets since 1983. Scriptable bindings != Macros.
I'm confused. How does Gnumeric look different to Excel? The screenshot is an exact copy of Excel 97 (and I think that was the stated intention).
And while it may have features not present in Excel, there's some huge Excel features not present in Gnumeric (pivot tables, macro language, etc.)
At one time StarOffice worked like a normal office suite -- files loaded relatively quickly, the interface was spry enough.
Then someone got the idea to XMLize and Javaize everything, and now it takes 2 minutes to open a spreadsheet. The open source blonde bimbos responeded that "Well, it's like so worth it because XML is, like you know, the boomb. And like Java is like soooo much better than VB, ya know?".
But then MS Office adapted an XML format that has none of the ridiclous loadtimes and other assorted bloat. And OOO supporters were left with nothing but some technical point about patent licenses.
And MS Office went on earning billions of dollars every minute while OOO languished in obscurity.
The End.
> so the OOo core is more-or-less only developed by Sun
Yeah, if it wasn't for mean ol' Sun, there would be programmers lining up around the block to work on spreadsheet macro code and contextual help menus for free!
Or maybe, Sun does all the OOO dev because, frankly, nobody else would.
Note that all of the above was mozilla.org propaganda. It may or many not be true, but it was later admitted that most of the Netscape engineers thought it was untrue -- they would have been able to ship Version 5 in 1999 succesfully even with the legacy codebase.
As it was, Mozilla shipped in an extremely buggy form (Netscape 6) and didn't become acceptable to users until 2004
So, Better? Yes. "Smaller amount of time and probably with a even smaller budget"? Absolutely No.
And all of this was done at a fraction of the cost compared to things like IE.
I would like to see one shread of proof for that. AOL paid for a large Mozilla development team for four or five years. The cost was likely in the same ballpark as IE.
> It is really incredible to see how fast Apple's Preview application is at loading PDFs
I have a really lowend Mac (333Mhz G3 PB with only 192MB), and while Preview starts faster, it's significantly slower at rendering PDFs than Adobe Reader 6. When it takes your machine several minutes to render a complex PDF, it's very noticable.
> I really have to wonder when Intel will start using this technology in desktops.
You should start seeing them in January. See the various news reports around the web about Intel dropping their classic "Pentium" branding starting next year.
> That right there should show that Intell is should switch its R&D and support the Pentium M as a desktop chip.
That's been the stated plan for more than a year now.
Sounds like the major change in SP2 was to stop guessing at text/plain files. It used to be impossible to serve a TXT file to IE that started with "" because IE would ASSume it was HTML. But for binary files, IE still guesses and Firefox doesn't.
The main thing that's wrong is QuickTime. (Or its defaults at least.)
Why Apple, king of the slick UI, believes that people want to listen to MP3s inside of an empty browser window with nothing but a 10x200px slider is beyond me.
OK, but for case (1) ("Content-disposition: attachment"), you've still asked FF to save it to disk automatically. In particular, it SHOULD NOT ask "Do you want to save this?". Ever.
Dumping a potentially large download onto someone's disk without asking is very poor form. Especially if it's a malicious file and Firefox defaults to sticking it right on your mon's desktop where she'll find it and click on it.
A secure browser will always ask before it touches the filesystem outside of the cache.
Pretty sure it still does, but maybe only if it's a generic content type. I've never clicked on a link to an WMV (etc) and gotten a screen full of megabytes of garbage like you see sometimes with Firefox.
:) And that pretty much mandates that a browser that "works right" (from the ignorant POV) must guess at content.
Also, you can be sure that MS will continue to invent new filetypes faster than Unix admins can reconfigure their servers
> Have you ever been in any MS office product and tried to change the default?
Have you? In Word, it's about three clicks.
A competent administrators should be able to set the default format across the entire organization via Group Policy in an afternoon. This is already common practice for Office sites which do rolling upgrades (eg most people using Office 2006 will want to revert the default back to DOC instead of the XML formats.)
Very professional response. I can see why you work at a company so stupid that they send $500 to Microsoft for a server OS they have no intention of using.
I believe you are all wrong. These aren't SALES figures, they're ESTIMATES based on vendor data and user surveys.
> Now ask what "Other" is. ... Guess what is being installed on those?
Novell? OS/2? FreeBSD?
Look, this is all just statistical modeling based on surveys. Gartner may be dumb, but they aren't stupid -- they'll count Linux as "Linux" and not "Other".
The funny thing about this report is that it has appeared here many times and Slashbot reaction is entirely based on the spin put on by the story submitter. "Linux server revenue up" (Yeah! Windows is going down!) "Linux server revenue behind Windows" (No Fair! Waah! Mommie!)
Well, I imagine that most servers spend 90% of their useful life running the same OS. Regardless, this kind of report is of interest to server vendors, not fans at home keeping score, so new server sales are what's being counted.
Most of the "revenue" they're talking about here is actually hardware revenue.
This is actually fairer than counting number of boxes, because one could argue that Unix/Linux tends to be installed on larger, more expensive systems than Windows.
To reiterate the AC, you sound a lot like a Novell network admin in the mid 90s. "You can encapsulate IPv4 inside of IPX", "You can use a webproxy to fetch IPv4 sites to IPX machines.", "I can access resources directly with IPX without routing" etc etc.
OK, so IPX wasn't the Way Forward(tm), but the point is that almost everyone wants to run a single protocol on both the inside and the outside -- and right now that protocol is IPv4. DJB's point is that that protocol is never going to be something other than IPv4 until the new thing is totally universal.
The issue is mainly with blogs like DailyKos -- not only are they a journalistic blog site, they also run a Political Action Committee, and blatantly place stories designed to attract money and other support for certain candidates. So, are they a "blog", or are they a "PAC"?
Almost everyone could tell you the difference between a "small independent paper" with a bias, and a paper published by the NRA or ACLU and designed to reflect the official positions of those organizations.
My belief is that the Blog issue is just thrown out there to muddy the campaign finance waters. Everyone's thinking about reading their favorite Joe Blog rants, but this really could become a elephant-sized exception for almost every sort of online electioneering.
The tech docs make it clear that SSE3 is not a requirement. And the fact that it sucks at Rosetta probably won't be enough to keep it out of an iBook.
> They've made their opinion quite clear as of recent that they couldn't care less about the direction Apple is moving
I thought the Adobe CEO was at the Intel annoucement and said something like "We wanted you to switch to Intel years ago!"
Personally, I think Adobe will be ready, but they will be ready according to the pre-determined CS3 product schedule, meaning late 2006. (Because they have apps built around the old environments, it is not just a recompile for them.)
If you're carrying around 12 pound laptop, you're going to look like a dork no matter what color it is.