well, since for the majority of flash-enabled sites I visit in Netscape for Linux (or SunOS, or HP-UX, or anything not win*), the flash fails to execute...
I may just be delighted to see "Movie not loaded..." when I right-click on a blank space in a webpage after all!
Isn't this how the "moral majority" keep their numbers up? Oh well, I'll think about that (briefly) as I practice my religion of sleeping in on Sunday afternoon.
--
Re:OFFTOPIC - Telnet apps for Windows...
on
Wine In New Skins
·
· Score: 1
There's also PuTTY -- telnet, ssh, and scp for win32.
If you read your CD it says that it is illegal, without prior consent, to copy it to another form.
There is a problem. See, these fuckwits have no way (nor do they have the right in reality, imo) to tell me what I can and cannot do with something I bought when I'm using it in the privacy of my own home/car/other for MY enjoyment. I can do whatever I want with the stuff I purchased as long as I'm the only one involved.
Of course, my argument stops being valid once I distribute it.
Intel's 1.4 and 1.5 Ghz chips are available from 8 vendors and will cost you between $950 and $1100.
This is funny... If I looked hard -- even not SO hard -- I could prolly find 8 places in south KCMO that sell an athlon... maybe even at a competitive price to online retailers!:o)
Of course, Intel shot themselves in both feet (as well as their head) when they went RAMBUS, so no money from me!
So why the hell do any distributions even ship with a Telnetd, much less install it,
Because telnet is much more ubiquitous than ssh/scp?... much to my chagrin...
much less turn it on by default?
Any installer worth its salt will let you TURN IT OFF before you boot for the first time. This, I can agree with. Joe User doesn't need telnet turned on automagically.
If only my win* users would use PuTTY, I could abolish telnet for good.
Why bother? Just use one of the many free alternatives.
Yup... already doing this (not using napster and friends counts as a "free alternative," right?). As for napster, their presence is neither here nor there. The RIAA/MPAA (tho the latter isn't involved here) just want to control everything. It doesn't negate the piracy argument, but I still think these folks need to be humbled. They're sure not going to stop something that's been out of the bag for so long.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the music companies cannot be trusted
You should've stopped your sentence right there. I know myself that the media companies (movies, music, etc) have eternally lost my trust. I won't trust them to author a digital music format that I can use.
(Maybe we can train them.)
I feel comfortable in being highly pessimistic as to the outcome of this one. *nod*
If it wasnt, maybe people wouldnt use it? I mean, have they forced it on anyone? Have they held it to your head like a gun?
Didn't you use this SAME argument in the IE thread last week? My rebuttal is the same. I'll use whatever client I feel works best, and it Sure Ain't AIM:o)
But everyone else uses it, so i have to if i want to talk to them.
This one can be reversed. I only use IRC most days, so if anyone wants to talk to me, they must also use IRC.
If AOL is forced to open thier extremely successful program it will prove the government is just one big joke.
If AOL doesn't open OSCAR (not their program per se), then it'll be just another "I'd switch to <better OS here>, but I need AIM" type argument from anyone. AOL is indirectly making you choose more than just AIM. Think of it as a "dependency."
I'm not gonna bother quoting the stuff about Time-Warner... when they're the ONLY choice in my region, I can't exercise my right. I have no rights. And no bullshit about satellite dishes or any of that until I buy a house.
Windows is easy to install, but you have to be very patient in doing so, and you have to spend a lot of time getting things right. The same is true in Linux, albeit to a lesser extent for those of us who have been around before. With Windows, no matter how many times you've installed it, it takes roughly the same amount of time to redo, in my experience.
Firsrt-time Linux installs, while worlds better than they were back in 1995, are still quite problematic for the green-type Windows user.
While on the surface, this would appear to solve the problem, lack of privacy dictates that anything you can see, your workmates can see too... ON YOUR MONITOR!
Of course, the ultimate solution is to have reasonably-private spaces that EACH person can control themselves without screwing it up for everyone else (this most importantly includes independent control of useless overhead fluorescent lighting, clocking in at 160w per can).
This is a valid concern. I HATE those freaking fluorescent boxes with FOUR 40w bulbs in each can, and the cans are 5ft apart in the ceiling. They cause eyestrain, wash out the images on my good monitors, and are a general pain in the ass.
I'd much rather have that "Star Trek" look going, lighting on the walls, pointing up. You still get your lighting, but not the freaking glare.
They need the NT source code so they can support Win32, not 'hidden apis'.
From what I've read so far, if the win32 API is documented in MSDN, they in fact DON'T need the source. This assumes (perhaps stupidly) that the ENTIRE API is documented on those shiny little platters Mainsoft pays a bunch of money for.
No, I don't do win32 programming (and I hardly use win* as an end-user). Yes, I may have some facts missing... But I'm calling it as I see it. Now, if the entire win32 API isn't documented in MSDN, then they most likely need source!
aha! The same reason that Rational Rose 98i for Unix is slow as hell... looking forward to those stupid "RPCSS ServiceMain() failed (14)" errors, or whatnot...:oP
It's ugly and slow (NFS and X11 notwithstanding, now)... oh well, the old Rose saw fit to emulate a Motif look within platforms that HAD the Motif runtime and the lot!
(Of course, I only know Rose is a freaking pig because I (used to) have to support it for SunOS and HP-UX)
Slashdot Mirror
My computers are the reason for my TV viewing going down the can. I can count the number of hours I've watched TV in the last 6 months on ONE HAND. :o)
--
I'll be happy if said gcc port generates 6502 that's suitable for a IIe... tho I'd rather have a real IIgs :o)
--
I may just be delighted to see "Movie not loaded..." when I right-click on a blank space in a webpage after all!
--
Isn't this how the "moral majority" keep their numbers up? Oh well, I'll think about that (briefly) as I practice my religion of sleeping in on Sunday afternoon.
--
There's also PuTTY -- telnet, ssh, and scp for win32.
--
Perhaps someone mistook it for a washing machine and hauled it off! ... they needed an entry for the latest washing machine races!
--
There is a problem. See, these fuckwits have no way (nor do they have the right in reality, imo) to tell me what I can and cannot do with something I bought when I'm using it in the privacy of my own home/car/other for MY enjoyment. I can do whatever I want with the stuff I purchased as long as I'm the only one involved.
Of course, my argument stops being valid once I distribute it.
--
This is funny... If I looked hard -- even not SO hard -- I could prolly find 8 places in south KCMO that sell an athlon... maybe even at a competitive price to online retailers! :o)
Of course, Intel shot themselves in both feet (as well as their head) when they went RAMBUS, so no money from me!
--
Because telnet is much more ubiquitous than ssh/scp? ... much to my chagrin...
much less turn it on by default?
Any installer worth its salt will let you TURN IT OFF before you boot for the first time. This, I can agree with. Joe User doesn't need telnet turned on automagically.
If only my win* users would use PuTTY, I could abolish telnet for good.
--
Exactly why, IF I have children, they won't be subjected to public schooling. Home education would be a much better bet.
Of course, this political crap is the reason why I'm petrified of having kids in the first place.
--
Yup... already doing this (not using napster and friends counts as a "free alternative," right?). As for napster, their presence is neither here nor there. The RIAA/MPAA (tho the latter isn't involved here) just want to control everything. It doesn't negate the piracy argument, but I still think these folks need to be humbled. They're sure not going to stop something that's been out of the bag for so long.
They're twits, and that's my honest opinion.
--
They're not giving you $400. You're paying THEM $300 or so. ($21.95 * 36 months)
As for MS in general... they're a major reason I don't want a new x86-based box.
--
You should've stopped your sentence right there. I know myself that the media companies (movies, music, etc) have eternally lost my trust. I won't trust them to author a digital music format that I can use.
(Maybe we can train them.)
I feel comfortable in being highly pessimistic as to the outcome of this one. *nod*
--
Didn't you use this SAME argument in the IE thread last week? My rebuttal is the same. I'll use whatever client I feel works best, and it Sure Ain't AIM :o)
But everyone else uses it, so i have to if i want to talk to them.
This one can be reversed. I only use IRC most days, so if anyone wants to talk to me, they must also use IRC.
If AOL is forced to open thier extremely successful program it will prove the government is just one big joke.
If AOL doesn't open OSCAR (not their program per se), then it'll be just another "I'd switch to <better OS here>, but I need AIM" type argument from anyone. AOL is indirectly making you choose more than just AIM. Think of it as a "dependency."
I'm not gonna bother quoting the stuff about Time-Warner... when they're the ONLY choice in my region, I can't exercise my right. I have no rights. And no bullshit about satellite dishes or any of that until I buy a house.
--
Mozilla/4.73 (Unix; U) Opera 4.02
seems to work fine. :o)
--
Back on topic... this isn't a law; if you really want the stuff, just goto the store next door that doesn't prescribe to it.
--
<!-- Bypass record companies to pay artists directly -->
maybe they have an ulterior motive! :o)
--
(Of course, there's the little issue of the user's data, and working apps, but we're winning! :o)
--
Firsrt-time Linux installs, while worlds better than they were back in 1995, are still quite problematic for the green-type Windows user.
YMMV
--
While on the surface, this would appear to solve the problem, lack of privacy dictates that anything you can see, your workmates can see too... ON YOUR MONITOR!
Of course, the ultimate solution is to have reasonably-private spaces that EACH person can control themselves without screwing it up for everyone else (this most importantly includes independent control of useless overhead fluorescent lighting, clocking in at 160w per can).
--
I'd much rather have that "Star Trek" look going, lighting on the walls, pointing up. You still get your lighting, but not the freaking glare.
--
These folks would like to disagree with you for Windows 98.
--
From what I've read so far, if the win32 API is documented in MSDN, they in fact DON'T need the source. This assumes (perhaps stupidly) that the ENTIRE API is documented on those shiny little platters Mainsoft pays a bunch of money for.
No, I don't do win32 programming (and I hardly use win* as an end-user). Yes, I may have some facts missing... But I'm calling it as I see it. Now, if the entire win32 API isn't documented in MSDN, then they most likely need source!
--
aha! The same reason that Rational Rose 98i for Unix is slow as hell... looking forward to those stupid "RPCSS ServiceMain() failed (14)" errors, or whatnot... :oP
It's ugly and slow (NFS and X11 notwithstanding, now)... oh well, the old Rose saw fit to emulate a Motif look within platforms that HAD the Motif runtime and the lot!
(Of course, I only know Rose is a freaking pig because I (used to) have to support it for SunOS and HP-UX)
--
Perhaps because your idea of usability and mine differ. For me, the command line *is* the usability.
Doesn't mean I as a programmer should force my version of usability on the poor users that try to grapple with my program...
(I also lament the total lack of keyboard accelerators in most of these graphical programs.)
--