Infact, i think bundling is fine but that bundled apps should be REQUIRED to open their specifications and follow open documented standards (even creating and publishing those standards if necessary)
The fact they include it isn't the problem.. The fact that their tools intentionally violate standards to try and force people to use them IS the problem. IE encourages people to write nonstandard sites that don't work on other browsers, which prevent many people from using other browsers. So even if someone else comes up with something better, many users will be unable to use it because of the intentional incompatibility.
Re:Internet Explorer already supports crazy graphi
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 2
But most of the things ie can do in this nonstandard way can also be achieved in a standard way using css on mozilla, safari, konqueror and opera. The difference is, the standard way will not work with ie.
What really disgusts me is that microsoft have the nerve to brand an os as suitable for use as a "server" when it has a mandatory browser and email client.. Such user-oriented applications have NO PLACE on the average server, and only introduce and additional headache for the admin. On a unix machine you could remove everything except the service your using, so you pretty much only need to patch that service and the kernel. A browser by default on a workstation os makes sense, tho you should ALWAYS have the ability to remove it. And while we're on the subject of patching, windows really needs a centralised package management system, on my debian or gentoo boxes i can update everything i have installed, the kernel, system tools, daemons, all in one go from one place. Windows on the other hand lets me update the os and bundled components, but then every third party app has it's own binary installer and it's own procedure for applying updates or uninstalling.
So by creating pages which require ie, i hope you send microsoft an invoice for your marketting work. If you truly value those features, then convince microsoft to open up the specifications and submit them to the w3c as standards. Until then, such features should not be used on principle. You are trying to force people to use a particular browser, not only that but a browser which would cost me money to obtain legally. This is actually a form of discrimination. And i'm sure you wouldn't like it if people imposed conditions on you for an activity you used to do freely, or perhaps you'd enjoy living in a dictatorship and being told what to do and what to use? Maybe you should visit myanmar(burma) or north korea. I value my freedom and will resist anything that restricts my freedom to choose.
I wouldn't call netscape 4.7 a modern browser, or ie for that matter.. As for the css filters, i assume you mean things like "alphaimageloader" etc - a nonstandard kludge where other browsers implement png properly. Things like this should not exist, rendering features should be standardised and not implemented in any browser until they are a defined standard and netscape is as guilty of doing this as microsoft. All i ask is that people follow standards, so that i have FREEDOM to use whatever browser i choose. Surely freedom is important? Having large portions of your life controlled by a single corporation is just as bad as having large portions controlled by a dictatorship.
They are ahead in marketshare only.. Their products are often leagues behind the competition and their propriatory and incompatible nature is the only thing stopping most of their customers from dropping them like a bad habit.
But those of use who are used to having a standard system-wide package management tool don't want to run nonstandard third party installation scripts which usually don't show you what they're doing, often don't provide complete uninstall support and usually don't put files in standard places and DEFINATELY dont integrate with your systemwide package management system.
Well, these binary formats shouldn't exist.. They are just attempts by cdr software vendors to lock you in to their product by reinventing a new container format for an iso image, nero does this too with its "nrg" format. What do these formats offer the user that a straight iso image doesn't ? NOTHING. They only serve to benefit the software vendor, and for this reason i won't support any software which tries to push it's own propriatory format when existing open documented formats already exost.
The problem is the fact that nero is commercial, therefore they have to keep providing new features in order to convince people to buy the upgrades. These new features serve to make the interface more cluttered and often aren't used by the majority of users. Often older versions of commercial apps are much better (without all the bloat and confusing options) but they're no longer maintained and won't work on modern machines.
Well, microsoft research originally sponsored xen development, and did port a version of XP.. However it's not available to the general public, not even to people who legitimately have copies of xp already.
Easier if your starting from scratch perhaps, but experience counts for a lot too, and people have far more experience optimizing for x86 style floating point units currently.. Although it may not take as long to bring compilers up to the same level with SSE as it did with x87.
Only because having been around a while, people are seeing their existing os's for the buggy piles of crap that they are.. They have no choice but to distance their new offerings from the existing crud. Ofcourse it's all lies, but by the time people realise this they've already bought into it and got locked in.
Yes, it's interesting to see how a product ms once touted as being so great, is now considered obsolete, crap and insecure and you shouldn't be using it.. If it was so great 5 years ago, why is it crap now? If it was so secure 5 years ago, why is it so insecure now?
It's all marketting crap, their products are crap and were just as crap 5 years ago. Their new products are also crap but they won't admit that for another 5 years.
Well, 3.1 crashed just as much as 95 did, 95 just required a lot more memory and ran much slower.. It also had a new and alien interface which confused ms-drones who are taught windows in the same way a dog is taught tricks, by repetition.
Because you won't be able to buy a new machine without longhorn, and the version in longhorn won't be compatible with the older version.. So that once there are a number of users running the new version, their incompatibility will pressure the other users to upgrade even tho they won't gain anything from it, and actually will end up with a much slower system.. It's the usual microsoft upgrade-coersion..
Plus the way the "windows" dir is layed out, all files dumped in there, or in "system32" with no real organisation.. Seems that executeables, libraries, kernel drivers and data files are all dumped into the same dirs, what the hell is with that? It seems only the fonts are in a sensible place.. And the files have incredibly cryptic names but that's more to do with limitations of the filesystem.
Well the mac mini is small enough that it would easily fit inside a standard case, i'm sure you could build a cluster of them in a standard case and even build in a switch, possibly even a kvm, all in one standardish case.
It's interesting to see how the 1.67ghz G4 chip holds it's own against the G5 chips for cracking RC5.. according to http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=all&arch=2&contest=rc572 Infact, the 1.67ghz beats the 2ghz G5 and isn't far behind the 2.5ghz G5..
Slashdot Mirror
Infact, i think bundling is fine but that bundled apps should be REQUIRED to open their specifications and follow open documented standards (even creating and publishing those standards if necessary)
The fact they include it isn't the problem..
The fact that their tools intentionally violate standards to try and force people to use them IS the problem. IE encourages people to write nonstandard sites that don't work on other browsers, which prevent many people from using other browsers. So even if someone else comes up with something better, many users will be unable to use it because of the intentional incompatibility.
But most of the things ie can do in this nonstandard way can also be achieved in a standard way using css on mozilla, safari, konqueror and opera.
The difference is, the standard way will not work with ie.
What really disgusts me is that microsoft have the nerve to brand an os as suitable for use as a "server" when it has a mandatory browser and email client.. Such user-oriented applications have NO PLACE on the average server, and only introduce and additional headache for the admin.
On a unix machine you could remove everything except the service your using, so you pretty much only need to patch that service and the kernel.
A browser by default on a workstation os makes sense, tho you should ALWAYS have the ability to remove it.
And while we're on the subject of patching, windows really needs a centralised package management system, on my debian or gentoo boxes i can update everything i have installed, the kernel, system tools, daemons, all in one go from one place. Windows on the other hand lets me update the os and bundled components, but then every third party app has it's own binary installer and it's own procedure for applying updates or uninstalling.
So by creating pages which require ie, i hope you send microsoft an invoice for your marketting work.
If you truly value those features, then convince microsoft to open up the specifications and submit them to the w3c as standards. Until then, such features should not be used on principle.
You are trying to force people to use a particular browser, not only that but a browser which would cost me money to obtain legally. This is actually a form of discrimination. And i'm sure you wouldn't like it if people imposed conditions on you for an activity you used to do freely, or perhaps you'd enjoy living in a dictatorship and being told what to do and what to use? Maybe you should visit myanmar(burma) or north korea.
I value my freedom and will resist anything that restricts my freedom to choose.
I wouldn't call netscape 4.7 a modern browser, or ie for that matter..
As for the css filters, i assume you mean things like "alphaimageloader" etc - a nonstandard kludge where other browsers implement png properly. Things like this should not exist, rendering features should be standardised and not implemented in any browser until they are a defined standard and netscape is as guilty of doing this as microsoft.
All i ask is that people follow standards, so that i have FREEDOM to use whatever browser i choose. Surely freedom is important? Having large portions of your life controlled by a single corporation is just as bad as having large portions controlled by a dictatorship.
They are ahead in marketshare only.. Their products are often leagues behind the competition and their propriatory and incompatible nature is the only thing stopping most of their customers from dropping them like a bad habit.
Because it's trivial to put whatever crap you want into the WHOIS records.
But those of use who are used to having a standard system-wide package management tool don't want to run nonstandard third party installation scripts which usually don't show you what they're doing, often don't provide complete uninstall support and usually don't put files in standard places and DEFINATELY dont integrate with your systemwide package management system.
Well, these binary formats shouldn't exist.. They are just attempts by cdr software vendors to lock you in to their product by reinventing a new container format for an iso image, nero does this too with its "nrg" format.
What do these formats offer the user that a straight iso image doesn't ? NOTHING. They only serve to benefit the software vendor, and for this reason i won't support any software which tries to push it's own propriatory format when existing open documented formats already exost.
The problem is the fact that nero is commercial, therefore they have to keep providing new features in order to convince people to buy the upgrades. These new features serve to make the interface more cluttered and often aren't used by the majority of users. Often older versions of commercial apps are much better (without all the bloat and confusing options) but they're no longer maintained and won't work on modern machines.
Still, this is intended for virtual servers for hosting customers, i can't see why you would want power management on a box that must be up 24/7
Xen is free, vmware costs a _LOT_ for the enterprise versions (esx) and only supports a limited set of hardware..
Well, why would you want power management on a virtual machine? the host machine should manage the power...
Odd, itunes never skips on my old 450mhz G4.. perhaps something else is wrong?
Well, microsoft research originally sponsored xen development, and did port a version of XP.. However it's not available to the general public, not even to people who legitimately have copies of xp already.
Easier if your starting from scratch perhaps, but experience counts for a lot too, and people have far more experience optimizing for x86 style floating point units currently.. Although it may not take as long to bring compilers up to the same level with SSE as it did with x87.
Only because having been around a while, people are seeing their existing os's for the buggy piles of crap that they are.. They have no choice but to distance their new offerings from the existing crud. Ofcourse it's all lies, but by the time people realise this they've already bought into it and got locked in.
Yes, it's interesting to see how a product ms once touted as being so great, is now considered obsolete, crap and insecure and you shouldn't be using it..
If it was so great 5 years ago, why is it crap now? If it was so secure 5 years ago, why is it so insecure now?
It's all marketting crap, their products are crap and were just as crap 5 years ago. Their new products are also crap but they won't admit that for another 5 years.
Well, 3.1 crashed just as much as 95 did, 95 just required a lot more memory and ran much slower..
It also had a new and alien interface which confused ms-drones who are taught windows in the same way a dog is taught tricks, by repetition.
Because you won't be able to buy a new machine without longhorn, and the version in longhorn won't be compatible with the older version.. So that once there are a number of users running the new version, their incompatibility will pressure the other users to upgrade even tho they won't gain anything from it, and actually will end up with a much slower system..
It's the usual microsoft upgrade-coersion..
The unix find command has done that for years, i even have scripts to delete logfiles over a certain age and other such operations.
Plus the way the "windows" dir is layed out, all files dumped in there, or in "system32" with no real organisation.. Seems that executeables, libraries, kernel drivers and data files are all dumped into the same dirs, what the hell is with that? It seems only the fonts are in a sensible place.. And the files have incredibly cryptic names but that's more to do with limitations of the filesystem.
Well the mac mini is small enough that it would easily fit inside a standard case, i'm sure you could build a cluster of them in a standard case and even build in a switch, possibly even a kvm, all in one standardish case.
It's interesting to see how the 1.67ghz G4 chip holds it's own against the G5 chips for cracking RC5.. according to http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=all&arch=2&contest=rc572
Infact, the 1.67ghz beats the 2ghz G5 and isn't far behind the 2.5ghz G5..