For EVERY distribution? I doubt opera make packages for every distribution.. If you don't run a supported distribution, and yet the packages come out first, it's a pain having to decompress an rpm to install it on a non redhat system for instance.
I like the phrase: "Prevent, through intentionally deceptive means, an owner or operator's reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, computer software by causing the software that the owner or operator has properly removed or disabled automatically to reinstall or reactivate on the computer." Wouldn't microsoft fall foul of this? A number of their products reinstall themselves when you remove them, or re-enable themselves, or even invoke themselves after you have disabled them.. IE, Outlook Express and MSN Messenger are parasitic and very hard to get rid of, and even harder to make sure they stay gone.. And i'm sure theres other products about which the same things could be said.
I also don't like fixed-width websites, where if you view them on a higher resolution display you'l see big borders down either side.. I have a widescreen display at home and these sites designed for 800-width screens look REALLY shit. Whereas something like slashdot for instance, scales up to the width of my screen.. well, the stories do.. this post comment form doesnt and it's annoying typing in a tiny little box in the middle of the screen.
And why would it download to a temporary directory and then copy? why not download into your destination directory directly? Firefox does this, and renames the file until it's finished downloading so it's clearly marked as a partial file.. What if your browser download fails and you want to resume it later, or download it using another program?
With firefox you'd not even need to reinstall, you could remove the profile from your home directory.. Assuming your running as an unpriveleged user who can't overwrite the firefox application files.
And even those of us using linux on non x86 platforms.. The AMD64 version of java has lagged behind the x86 version, and sparc/mips/alpha/ia64 are pretty much screwed..
http:\\server\images\myemailaddy\blank.gif is not a valid URL, remember that the internet was designed for unix, on which the slashes go forwards just like they do in 99% of cases, a backwards slash is used to escape a character.
On the other hand.. If a friend i trusted and knew had similar taste to me told me a movie was good, i might pay to watch it.. If that same friend told me it was crap, i definately wouldnt pay for it, and would be very unlikely to download it.. If anyone told me a movie was lousy, i wouldnt risk wasting my money, i'd download it so i hadn't lost anything.. I have often spent money on music/games/movies only to find out theyre total crap, and then i feel like i've been conned. not a very nice feeling.
Well that's only good for the consumer.. If a show is lousy, then people won't watch it anyway.. And i would rather find out sooner and not waste my time with it.. On the other hand, if a show is good then it deserves good word of mouth. TV companies don't have the right to run lousy shows and expect people to watch them, despite what they would claim. Some movie studios were complaining recently that with so many people having mobile phones, the word of mouth about a lousy movie spreads much quicker and they can't make as many millions on the opening night as people go to watch it having seen the hyped up trailer not realising how crap the movie really is.
Can't speak for the other points you mentioned, but if you have a cups server on your network then workstations running cups will pick up the printers automatically, without any configuration required whatsoever.. You don't even need to install drivers, so long as the server has them. I turned on printer sharing on my mac, and the other unix machines on my network picked it's printer up straight away without me having to do anything.
That site loads just fine here, but it does seem to require a plugin i don't have installed.. Most likely that's the issue, most of the closed-source binary plugins i've used with firefox are the biggest cause of instability..
It's actually very hard to program a site according to standards and still have it render properly in ie, you have to use very old standards and even then you have to be carefull.
Any site that tries to take away your basic freedom to use whatever program you want, does not deserve your custom. Why not cancel those 2 cards and keep the third one that does work? And tell the companies WHY your cancelling. I am unwilling to buy ie, and therefore couldn't access any of these sites atall. But i would inform such companies of why they had lost a potential customer.
So now your user-agent identifies you as an ie user to your bank, so they will just assume that none of their users are using anything else and therefore that they shouldn't care about anything else. My bank explicitely supports firefox, and actually recommends it for security reasons, and will let you access it using any browser (but you do see a warning that it might not display correctly). If my bank tried to force me to use any particular browser, i would switch banks. I like my freedom. As a side note, wasn't there a bank in australia that was handing out knoppix cd's for accessing their online banking?
Which is just stupid.. If IE weren't so poor at rendering html/css/xhtml etc, there would be no need to "support" browsers, you could just write standard html code and any decent browser would automatically be supported.
Well, no server should ever have a web browser or even a gui installed.. That's a major flaw in windows that really needs correcting. Having such applications present on a server make it easier for anyone who does break in, and encourage lazy users to just run them on the server they're already logged in to rather than logging into a more suitable machine. It happens very often too, someone is trying to fix a problem on a server and goes searching for help with the problem they're having.. And get hijacked by some ie vulnerability and compromise the server, and windows encourages users to do this.
Is it filed as a bug with bugzilla? Not being able to read such languages, i wouldn't have noticed such a thing.. But i'm sure there are plenty of indian coders who could lend a hand in fixing this. Aside from that, firefox still does a much better job overall at rendering pages, and from a purely english speaking latin charset perspective it renders far better than ie.
There aren't any opensource players for the latest versions of flash... Also i can't find a non precompiled (32bit x86) firefox plugin for it, so it's unuseable on a 64bit amd64 machine or anything else they dont build binaries for.
Load up SWAT (the samba web based admin tool) it comes by default with modern versions of samba.. Mind you, redhat 8/9 are old obsolete distributions and likely come with equally obsolete versions of samba. OTOH.. NFS is much easier to setup than samba, however windows is the only os that doesn't support nfs by default.
Well, most distributions come with a good set of drivers, and are constantly being updated.. There is usually no need for third party drivers, just look at knoppix for instance.. Contrast this with windows, the latest version of which is 3-4 years old now and lacks support for a lot of modern hardware devices, even entire classes of hardware such as SATA controllers.. It can be impossible to install windows on some modern machines, you need to load drivers from the sata controller from a floppy during installation, however there is no floppy drive on the machine.
Renders sites better? Actually IE renders sites very badly, the fact that some sites depend on ie's buggy rendering is disturbing enough. Firefox will render any site closer to what the site's html/xml code is specifying. IE doesnt support xhtml atall, and only manages to render an approximation of it when you set the mime type to incorrectly identify it as html. Also, you are more vulnerable to cross site scripting attacks when using ie.. mozilla will correctly url-encode requests, while ie will not.. therefore when the server returns the data, it will be url-encoded and mozilla won't accept any malicious html tags.. Also mozilla actually supports HTTP (ie doesnt, heres why) and uses the mime-type to work out how it should render a file.. ie on the other hand ignores it (the HTTP rfc 2616 states that any tool supporting http will use the mime type if one is present) so if an error is returned as text/plain and contains html tags, ie will render the html tags (leading to possible malicious code or cross site scripting etc) whereas mozilla will render it as plain text like it should.
Slashdot Mirror
And what would the chinese government do to the chinese firm when they realise they were selling their country out to foreigners?
For EVERY distribution? I doubt opera make packages for every distribution.. If you don't run a supported distribution, and yet the packages come out first, it's a pain having to decompress an rpm to install it on a non redhat system for instance.
I like the phrase:
"Prevent, through intentionally deceptive means, an owner or operator's reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, computer software by causing the software that the owner or operator has properly removed or disabled automatically to reinstall or reactivate on the computer."
Wouldn't microsoft fall foul of this? A number of their products reinstall themselves when you remove them, or re-enable themselves, or even invoke themselves after you have disabled them.. IE, Outlook Express and MSN Messenger are parasitic and very hard to get rid of, and even harder to make sure they stay gone.. And i'm sure theres other products about which the same things could be said.
I also don't like fixed-width websites, where if you view them on a higher resolution display you'l see big borders down either side.. I have a widescreen display at home and these sites designed for 800-width screens look REALLY shit. Whereas something like slashdot for instance, scales up to the width of my screen.. well, the stories do.. this post comment form doesnt and it's annoying typing in a tiny little box in the middle of the screen.
And why would it download to a temporary directory and then copy? why not download into your destination directory directly? Firefox does this, and renames the file until it's finished downloading so it's clearly marked as a partial file..
What if your browser download fails and you want to resume it later, or download it using another program?
With firefox you'd not even need to reinstall, you could remove the profile from your home directory.. Assuming your running as an unpriveleged user who can't overwrite the firefox application files.
Which would require modular programming, whereas microsoft only ever seem to make large monolithic apps...
And even those of us using linux on non x86 platforms.. The AMD64 version of java has lagged behind the x86 version, and sparc/mips/alpha/ia64 are pretty much screwed..
http:\\server\images\myemailaddy\blank.gif is not a valid URL, remember that the internet was designed for unix, on which the slashes go forwards just like they do in 99% of cases, a backwards slash is used to escape a character.
On the other hand.. If a friend i trusted and knew had similar taste to me told me a movie was good, i might pay to watch it.. If that same friend told me it was crap, i definately wouldnt pay for it, and would be very unlikely to download it..
If anyone told me a movie was lousy, i wouldnt risk wasting my money, i'd download it so i hadn't lost anything..
I have often spent money on music/games/movies only to find out theyre total crap, and then i feel like i've been conned. not a very nice feeling.
Well that's only good for the consumer.. If a show is lousy, then people won't watch it anyway.. And i would rather find out sooner and not waste my time with it..
On the other hand, if a show is good then it deserves good word of mouth.
TV companies don't have the right to run lousy shows and expect people to watch them, despite what they would claim. Some movie studios were complaining recently that with so many people having mobile phones, the word of mouth about a lousy movie spreads much quicker and they can't make as many millions on the opening night as people go to watch it having seen the hyped up trailer not realising how crap the movie really is.
Can't speak for the other points you mentioned, but if you have a cups server on your network then workstations running cups will pick up the printers automatically, without any configuration required whatsoever.. You don't even need to install drivers, so long as the server has them.
I turned on printer sharing on my mac, and the other unix machines on my network picked it's printer up straight away without me having to do anything.
That site loads just fine here, but it does seem to require a plugin i don't have installed.. Most likely that's the issue, most of the closed-source binary plugins i've used with firefox are the biggest cause of instability..
It's actually very hard to program a site according to standards and still have it render properly in ie, you have to use very old standards and even then you have to be carefull.
Yeah, my site (www.ev6.net) has problems with windows ie too, but every other browser i've tried renders it perfectly, ie for mac included.
Any site that tries to take away your basic freedom to use whatever program you want, does not deserve your custom. Why not cancel those 2 cards and keep the third one that does work? And tell the companies WHY your cancelling.
I am unwilling to buy ie, and therefore couldn't access any of these sites atall. But i would inform such companies of why they had lost a potential customer.
So now your user-agent identifies you as an ie user to your bank, so they will just assume that none of their users are using anything else and therefore that they shouldn't care about anything else.
My bank explicitely supports firefox, and actually recommends it for security reasons, and will let you access it using any browser (but you do see a warning that it might not display correctly). If my bank tried to force me to use any particular browser, i would switch banks. I like my freedom.
As a side note, wasn't there a bank in australia that was handing out knoppix cd's for accessing their online banking?
Which is just stupid..
If IE weren't so poor at rendering html/css/xhtml etc, there would be no need to "support" browsers, you could just write standard html code and any decent browser would automatically be supported.
Well, no server should ever have a web browser or even a gui installed.. That's a major flaw in windows that really needs correcting. Having such applications present on a server make it easier for anyone who does break in, and encourage lazy users to just run them on the server they're already logged in to rather than logging into a more suitable machine. It happens very often too, someone is trying to fix a problem on a server and goes searching for help with the problem they're having.. And get hijacked by some ie vulnerability and compromise the server, and windows encourages users to do this.
Is it filed as a bug with bugzilla?
Not being able to read such languages, i wouldn't have noticed such a thing.. But i'm sure there are plenty of indian coders who could lend a hand in fixing this.
Aside from that, firefox still does a much better job overall at rendering pages, and from a purely english speaking latin charset perspective it renders far better than ie.
There aren't any opensource players for the latest versions of flash... Also i can't find a non precompiled (32bit x86) firefox plugin for it, so it's unuseable on a 64bit amd64 machine or anything else they dont build binaries for.
Load up SWAT (the samba web based admin tool) it comes by default with modern versions of samba..
Mind you, redhat 8/9 are old obsolete distributions and likely come with equally obsolete versions of samba.
OTOH.. NFS is much easier to setup than samba, however windows is the only os that doesn't support nfs by default.
Well, most distributions come with a good set of drivers, and are constantly being updated.. There is usually no need for third party drivers, just look at knoppix for instance..
Contrast this with windows, the latest version of which is 3-4 years old now and lacks support for a lot of modern hardware devices, even entire classes of hardware such as SATA controllers.. It can be impossible to install windows on some modern machines, you need to load drivers from the sata controller from a floppy during installation, however there is no floppy drive on the machine.
Renders sites better? Actually IE renders sites very badly, the fact that some sites depend on ie's buggy rendering is disturbing enough. Firefox will render any site closer to what the site's html/xml code is specifying.
IE doesnt support xhtml atall, and only manages to render an approximation of it when you set the mime type to incorrectly identify it as html.
Also, you are more vulnerable to cross site scripting attacks when using ie.. mozilla will correctly url-encode requests, while ie will not.. therefore when the server returns the data, it will be url-encoded and mozilla won't accept any malicious html tags.. Also mozilla actually supports HTTP (ie doesnt, heres why) and uses the mime-type to work out how it should render a file.. ie on the other hand ignores it (the HTTP rfc 2616 states that any tool supporting http will use the mime type if one is present) so if an error is returned as text/plain and contains html tags, ie will render the html tags (leading to possible malicious code or cross site scripting etc) whereas mozilla will render it as plain text like it should.
Works for me..