I have similar experience with a 400 MHz Intel box running w2k. Although I didn't need to upgrade it with all that new stuff, apart from some memory. So I don't see what the big thing would be? That is, of course, from promoting your personal preference.:)
it takes my Athlon 1.2GHz to run Win2K reasonably.
I've run w2k on boxes from an old 200 MHz and up with no serious problems. Granted, on the 200 MHz, it was slow when opening lots of applications at the same time, but only stepping up to 400 cured that more or less completely.
Now I run w2k on two boxes, one 500 MHz, and one 1 GHz, and I don't really see the difference. Unless I start up photoshop and a few other heavy apps of course - but really, how does the old Mac behave then?
One thing worth noting is that it will behave a lot better if you give it at least 256 MB to work with, instead of just 128 which strangely enough seems to be some kind of standard out there when buying computers (or getting them from your employer hehe). But it seems you need that to run Mac stuff too, or more, if I read the above correctly.
From what I have seen you need pretty late (and very, very expensive) boxes to be able to run OS X at all, not to mention smoothly, but I have heard that it has been a little better lately. I won't really judge that, only your grossly incorrect statement about windows. That is trolling.
The fact that Apple drops support for anything replaced by something new faster than you can say "obsolete". Thus trying to force people to switch to the new stuff, and pay moeny for it. One of the many ways they try to make you pay again and again.
One of many examples I have is when we moved a working environment recently to a new set of boxes, and thus needed licenses for them. We were running in WebObjects, one of Apples products (and a damn sucky one at that, can't scale at all and is just bloated, but we haven't had the time to replace it yet). Our version was 4.5.1, which was replaced a couple of months ago by WO5. Only way they will sell us any license at all is if we buy MAC OS X, In which WO5 is bundled. So right now we are running on borrowed licenses, effectively making us pirates. We are not running on OS X, thank heavens, we run Solaris, and we don't want to waste the time porting to WO5 although a relatively small procedure (or so they say). We would, however, want to pay money the honest way. We'll see.
This same story, with variations seems to be true all the way, with both hardware and software from that company. Not to mention that they are double the cost for the same, or less punch. I'd stay very, very clear of that company if I were you.
Was it just recently that microsoft finally dropped their support for windows 95? After how many years? Now that is taking care of the customers. And the Linux world will of course never ever have such problems.:)
Last time I looked at browsing statistics, I think Windows had like 98% of it all by itself... it would still hold true, of course if you say it like that.:)
Like if I say that 100% of the browsing on my computer is made by me and Abraham Lincoln, that is still true, although I don't lend my computer to a dead US president.
What is more likely: That an US based, closed-source, capitalist company would build in secret backdoors, hidden features, security flaws (intentional or not) spyware, and you name it, or that an international, open source, freedom loving community would?
Oh, wait. The open source part kinda makes this not a question at all.
Bottom line #1 is that noone has any reason to trust Microsoft, matter of factly there are still some unidentified programs shipping with MSN among other things, that are frequently talking ot Redmond without any given reason. Think it was named "Q-Something". I don't use MSN, so I'll have to look it up. Word on the street is that it sends continous screendumps? Well, it matters not. The point is that it very well could, and since MS isn't telling us, we don't know. All we know is that it apparently slows modem traffic down to almost a halt...
Bottom line #2 is that MS is insecure, partly because they focus on other things (like sales), and partly because it is a popular platform to attack.
Bottom line #3 is that it is a US based company, with all what that means. It could mean both that they get money from the US gov or military to build in certain features, or that they are forced to do so. Remember encryption export restrictions? The debate about mandatory PGP backdoors? Yes, that is right. The same people. Huge cudos to NSA for their open source, GPL/BSD licensed enhancements to Linux though. I am not capable to determine the value of those patches, but it seems a good initiative in any case.
I could go on. I choose not to.:) I think my point is clear, whether you agree or not.
As a matter of personal taste, I dislike the Mozilla interface - mind you, this is only a taste question.
It is not so much the functionality, being able to search only that is the question. Opera6 for linux probably has the best support for Google so far, with linux specific searches and whatnot.
To me, it is the combination of the IE interface, that I like, and the addons such as "Up one level", search history and "Search this site" etc that makes the perfect match.
As for IE specific sites, that is kinda the reason I didn't make the switch all the way. Most browsers, including Konqureror and all the others, are well goo d enough at rendering 99% of the sites, it is all the damn sites that use IE/NS specific javascripts for their navigation and other critical functions that makes it necessary. Big:(
I wish ppl would just stick to standards, it isn't harder. Although you'd wish the documentation was available in "light" versions sometimes. Hehe.
While you are at it, take a look at the faq, my favourite sentence is: 'Do Java applets run in a "sandbox," or do they rely on UNIX security?' - notice how carefully worded that is to imply something about UNIX secirity. We all know how bad that is, right? Lol.
All in all, quite amusing pages, if you are bored like me.
And actually, I'd like to see IE on Linux too. Opera is starting to get really good, but nothing, and I do mean nothing, beats IE with the Google Toolbar today. If only Opera would implement all that functionality instead of just linking to google. *Sigh*. I'd never use IE again.:)
I don't care if MS have to write Office for Linux. Frankly, I fail to see what that would accomplish, for MS, for me, for the average Joe, or whatever. I don't use it anyways, it is kind of a sucky product. But it is the de-facto standard, and a closed one. So what would I want then, that would not combat this, but rather make it something good?
What I want is simple. I want good, solid software, and the possibility to toss something "good-enough" together when I find myself without. This is how I goa long my everyday business (that is, when I'm not geeking around, doing stuff for fun, of course).
If the same, or similar software, *or* possibilities to create it, exists on the platforms/OS's/whatever that I encounter, my life is also so much easier.
Take perl for instance. Thank heavens for ActiveState that has brought a solid version to W32, so I can create my fast but simple tools. This goes for a lot of things.
Diversity is a strength of a kind, but conformity can also be one. The best of both worlds is what I want. We need diversity to have evolution, but we also need conformity to be able to do anything at all.
So where am I going with this?
Well, my wishes and requests in the context of MS and Linux and Apple and whatever is that all should do what they do best, but be open about the way you let endusers use your product.
Conform to standards wherever possible.
Release your API's and your reference, and don't hinder anyone from using your product in the way they see fit.
Those two things would go such a long way it is unbeleivable.
Imagine a huge, empty field...
on
Dashboard Linux
·
· Score: 1
Then you imagine a car with too much horsepower, with Quake controlled by the wheel, the gas pedal, etc. All of which are still connected to their usual stuff as well. And the engine is running, the tank is filled.
Like last week, I spent half a day hacking our time reporting system so I could just put "Coming" and "Leaving" links on my desktop, instead of logging in and wandering far deep down into our intranet. Before morning coffee, that can take vast amounts of slashdot time away from me.
Now that is silly. But fun. Like that car thingummy.
Course you should have it. A good toy is a bought toy.:)
What has not using https on a *public* site has to do with security on the network that is being set up?
And I don't even see the point with pointing out the asp pages. Granted, that is a poor choice for security *if* the admins aren't very thourough and alert, but that has still nothing to do with what will come, has it?
I just remembered this article on www.perl.com about a guy, Jon Bjornstad, who has been doing some custom perl/Tk programming for his disabled friend, Sue.
Maybe it is too specialized in this context, but it is a very nice story, and a good example on how You can help, with your skills, with relatively small measures.
This is also the perfect example of "an itch to scratch" leading to something useful, and in this case it was even someone else's itch.:)
Slashdot Mirror
...cracking their new "security layer"?
Yup. Definetely a "snap". And faster than I could read about it too...
I have similar experience with a 400 MHz Intel box running w2k. Although I didn't need to upgrade it with all that new stuff, apart from some memory. So I don't see what the big thing would be? That is, of course, from promoting your personal preference. :)
it takes my Athlon 1.2GHz to run Win2K reasonably.
I've run w2k on boxes from an old 200 MHz and up with no serious problems. Granted, on the 200 MHz, it was slow when opening lots of applications at the same time, but only stepping up to 400 cured that more or less completely.
Now I run w2k on two boxes, one 500 MHz, and one 1 GHz, and I don't really see the difference. Unless I start up photoshop and a few other heavy apps of course - but really, how does the old Mac behave then?
One thing worth noting is that it will behave a lot better if you give it at least 256 MB to work with, instead of just 128 which strangely enough seems to be some kind of standard out there when buying computers (or getting them from your employer hehe). But it seems you need that to run Mac stuff too, or more, if I read the above correctly.
From what I have seen you need pretty late (and very, very expensive) boxes to be able to run OS X at all, not to mention smoothly, but I have heard that it has been a little better lately. I won't really judge that, only your grossly incorrect statement about windows. That is trolling.
The fact that Apple drops support for anything replaced by something new faster than you can say "obsolete". Thus trying to force people to switch to the new stuff, and pay moeny for it. One of the many ways they try to make you pay again and again.
:)
One of many examples I have is when we moved a working environment recently to a new set of boxes, and thus needed licenses for them. We were running in WebObjects, one of Apples products (and a damn sucky one at that, can't scale at all and is just bloated, but we haven't had the time to replace it yet). Our version was 4.5.1, which was replaced a couple of months ago by WO5. Only way they will sell us any license at all is if we buy MAC OS X, In which WO5 is bundled. So right now we are running on borrowed licenses, effectively making us pirates. We are not running on OS X, thank heavens, we run Solaris, and we don't want to waste the time porting to WO5 although a relatively small procedure (or so they say). We would, however, want to pay money the honest way. We'll see.
This same story, with variations seems to be true all the way, with both hardware and software from that company. Not to mention that they are double the cost for the same, or less punch. I'd stay very, very clear of that company if I were you.
Was it just recently that microsoft finally dropped their support for windows 95? After how many years? Now that is taking care of the customers. And the Linux world will of course never ever have such problems.
... which is midnight here in Sweden.
:)
That is the one I'll be watching.
Hehe. Worth a try, I guess. Here is one link about that very thing:
:)
You are welcome.
Last time I looked at browsing statistics, I think Windows had like 98% of it all by itself... it would still hold true, of course if you say it like that. :)
Like if I say that 100% of the browsing on my computer is made by me and Abraham Lincoln, that is still true, although I don't lend my computer to a dead US president.
china wants the source code. the company sends them the none backdoored code
China compiles without the backdoor. Backdoor gone.
Open Source is perfectly rational in a capitalistic society.
Most things are, as long as you are on the right side of the "fence".
What is more likely: That an US based, closed-source, capitalist company would build in secret backdoors, hidden features, security flaws (intentional or not) spyware, and you name it, or that an international, open source, freedom loving community would?
:) I think my point is clear, whether you agree or not.
Oh, wait. The open source part kinda makes this not a question at all.
Bottom line #1 is that noone has any reason to trust Microsoft, matter of factly there are still some unidentified programs shipping with MSN among other things, that are frequently talking ot Redmond without any given reason. Think it was named "Q-Something". I don't use MSN, so I'll have to look it up. Word on the street is that it sends continous screendumps? Well, it matters not. The point is that it very well could, and since MS isn't telling us, we don't know. All we know is that it apparently slows modem traffic down to almost a halt...
Bottom line #2 is that MS is insecure, partly because they focus on other things (like sales), and partly because it is a popular platform to attack.
Bottom line #3 is that it is a US based company, with all what that means. It could mean both that they get money from the US gov or military to build in certain features, or that they are forced to do so. Remember encryption export restrictions? The debate about mandatory PGP backdoors? Yes, that is right. The same people. Huge cudos to NSA for their open source, GPL/BSD licensed enhancements to Linux though. I am not capable to determine the value of those patches, but it seems a good initiative in any case.
I could go on. I choose not to.
I agree it is futile trying to "block" porn on certain hours, by "outlawing", or rather regulating it in your own country.
But if they really, really want this, they would have to start first, and hope that other follows. That is the only explanation I can think of.
On the other hand, time zones would stop that. Porno surfers would ultimately just learn what coutry has sites up at any given hour...
I am usually opposed to pointing people out in public, but this is kind of a special case.
The idea would be simple:
Keep a track on who clicks on the files, sending out the virus.
First time, talk with them thouroughly, explaining why this is a bad idea.
Second time, tell everyone who did it, make them feel really stupid. Yes, you are sacrificing a few, but all of them will learn.
I wish I had a better method, but withoud going total nazi on the employees, I don't know what else would work.
"This ad will disappear if you leave this site."
As a matter of personal taste, I dislike the Mozilla interface - mind you, this is only a taste question.
:(
It is not so much the functionality, being able to search only that is the question. Opera6 for linux probably has the best support for Google so far, with linux specific searches and whatnot.
To me, it is the combination of the IE interface, that I like, and the addons such as "Up one level", search history and "Search this site" etc that makes the perfect match.
As for IE specific sites, that is kinda the reason I didn't make the switch all the way. Most browsers, including Konqureror and all the others, are well goo d enough at rendering 99% of the sites, it is all the damn sites that use IE/NS specific javascripts for their navigation and other critical functions that makes it necessary. Big
I wish ppl would just stick to standards, it isn't harder. Although you'd wish the documentation was available in "light" versions sometimes. Hehe.
Internet Explorer for Unix - it mentions Solaris and HP-UX, so how far away can it be? :)
:)
While you are at it, take a look at the faq, my favourite sentence is: 'Do Java applets run in a "sandbox," or do they rely on UNIX security?' - notice how carefully worded that is to imply something about UNIX secirity. We all know how bad that is, right? Lol.
All in all, quite amusing pages, if you are bored like me.
And actually, I'd like to see IE on Linux too. Opera is starting to get really good, but nothing, and I do mean nothing, beats IE with the Google Toolbar today. If only Opera would implement all that functionality instead of just linking to google. *Sigh*. I'd never use IE again.
Heh. I disagree. I think the OS is ok, but the apps suck.
I use W2k as W32 version though, maybe that affects my judgement. Haven't used 98 for two years, and won't touch me or XP.
:)
What I want is simple. I want good, solid software, and the possibility to toss something "good-enough" together when I find myself without. This is how I goa long my everyday business (that is, when I'm not geeking around, doing stuff for fun, of course).
If the same, or similar software, *or* possibilities to create it, exists on the platforms/OS's/whatever that I encounter, my life is also so much easier.
Take perl for instance. Thank heavens for ActiveState that has brought a solid version to W32, so I can create my fast but simple tools. This goes for a lot of things.
Diversity is a strength of a kind, but conformity can also be one. The best of both worlds is what I want. We need diversity to have evolution, but we also need conformity to be able to do anything at all.
So where am I going with this?
Well, my wishes and requests in the context of MS and Linux and Apple and whatever is that all should do what they do best, but be open about the way you let endusers use your product.
Those two things would go such a long way it is unbeleivable.
Then you imagine a car with too much horsepower, with Quake controlled by the wheel, the gas pedal, etc. All of which are still connected to their usual stuff as well. And the engine is running, the tank is filled.
:)
:)
Man, what a ride.
Then for the ultimate rush, the magic mushroom and the extra life, try navigating out from an ugly, cluttered and foreign-tounged bloat-portal. using Konquerer attached to the same navigation system.
The home of the Little Mermaid, the Submariner or Aquaman?
Still waiting for scientist finding a huge, yellow door at the northpole, a skull shaped cave in deep Africa or at least a portal to the negative zone.
...convenience issues like that.
:)
Like last week, I spent half a day hacking our time reporting system so I could just put "Coming" and "Leaving" links on my desktop, instead of logging in and wandering far deep down into our intranet. Before morning coffee, that can take vast amounts of slashdot time away from me.
Now that is silly. But fun. Like that car thingummy.
Course you should have it. A good toy is a bought toy.
Actually, that is my stupid signature. Sorry about that one. In this case, it was misplaced. :)
...country would have that kind of patent laws and "possibilities" anyways?
Oh. Ermm... forget I said anything.
It is funny, however, because that system and the abuse is unique *in the world*.
Put the p0rn and stuff up for half a day, then turn on the security measures... not *that* will be the real test.
My bet is that a regular stopwatch at a few bucks will be well enough to measure the time it will stand. Hehe.
I don't get it.
What has javascripts to do with anything?
What has not using https on a *public* site has to do with security on the network that is being set up?
And I don't even see the point with pointing out the asp pages. Granted, that is a poor choice for security *if* the admins aren't very thourough and alert, but that has still nothing to do with what will come, has it?
I just remembered this article on www.perl.com about a guy, Jon Bjornstad, who has been doing some custom perl/Tk programming for his disabled friend, Sue.
:)
Maybe it is too specialized in this context, but it is a very nice story, and a good example on how You can help, with your skills, with relatively small measures.
This is also the perfect example of "an itch to scratch" leading to something useful, and in this case it was even someone else's itch.