Most people missing the point. This isn't about driving people to Linux, it's not about making things easier for pirates. You assume that people care about an up to date machine, and most don't. Know what the net effect of this actually is? It has nothing to do with pirates.
Unpatched machines means more "zombies," more zombies that relay spam and viruses and worms and jam up residential broadband subnets with chatter and useless, often malicious, traffic. Microsoft has just done more to assist spammers and virus and worm writers than any virus or worm could do on it's own!
I think Windows is generally a good product - it does what it's supposed to for the vast majority of people. But the company behind it is so consumed with fighting pirates that it's willing to sacrifice anything and everything, including the entire internet. Microsoft must topple, because they DO NOT CARE about the greater good, only about squeezing the last dime out of consumers.
1. Backup your Mozilla profile, or at least copy it, before using the new one. You certainly may break extensions.
2. If you're on Windows, rename \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox to \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox.old or somesuch. That way you can revert. Your extensions are generally in the profile anyway. If you're on Linux, just keep the old files.
3. Upgrade to the nightly.
4. Open a new tab, type about:config search for app.extensions.version. Change it to 1.0 to avoid the extensions disabling themselves.
4a. Close and restart Firefox.
5. Give it a shot. If everything gets hosed (not likely, but possible - it has happened to me, though very rarely), you can backout and replace the executables and your profile data.
That's the best I can offer. I am not a Moz developer, I just follow the stuff closely. It's a PITA to play with Mozilla profiles and extensions and frankly, the worst part of Mozilla administration - a failed upgrade or bug can hose your extensions/configuration unless you know which files in the profile can be replaced and which can't.
In general, for what it's worth, Adblock has *never* broken for me, and that's the toughest one to reconfigure.
This has been fixed in the trunk for a long time (but not the branch Firefox 1.0 comes from), and will be in Firefox 1.1, whether Mozilla increments to 2.0 or not.
If you really, really need a fix now, visit this URL and download one of the nightlies from the trunk [fair warning - some nightlies have some annoying bugs in them, but generally, are pretty good]. It works just fine there, but I'm told requires too many changes to backport into the ff1/mozilla whatever branch.
I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes
Yes, but isn't that tantamount to admitting they wrote something that is broken?
If I buy RHEL, Red Hat doesn't try to SELL me a product whose sole purpose is to make sure their own poor design decisions are covered. They give me access to their up2date servers.
Microsoft buys a company that writes anti-spyware software and tries to sell the product. So essentially, if I got this right, Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in...the software they wrote? Why doesn't that sound right?
Yes, I tried the beta and it does have (by far) the best interface of all the anti-spyware products. That doesn't make it an instant winner though. Do people trust Microsoft to protect them? And if so, why didn't they protect us with Windows in the first place?
It would cause the number of complaints to decrease, because their users don't even realize they aren't getting their email, or else they wouldn't be on AOL.
I can't disagree completely, but in fairness, their userbase doesn't know they are pushing this, and most ISPs (including Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc) don't have such strict requirements. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes me wonder if it's worth some consortium suggesting that the standards are implemented by, say, 2006-01-01. Then, every makes it well known that on that day, you're officially in the dark if you don't have valid records.
In other words, starting on an agreed day, if I dig -x the originating IP and don't get your domain, I reject your mail.
AOL reports a drop in spam because they falsely classify REAL messages as spam! Most network admins I know have had to deal with AOL at one time or another. They are pretty strict for a large ISP: they require valid rDNS records, last I checked, for one, and many times have my parents (stubborn AOL'ers) found legitimate mail in their spam folder).
In my company, one blocked false positive is considered a mortal sin. Report less spam doesn't mean you are great at blocking it, it might mean you're just too damn aggressive at fighting it.
This is Slashdot, not the New York Times. And this is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
People, this is Slashdot, not the New York Times. This is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
I think I "kinda" misspoke, because what I know about reiser4 suggests it is awesome (e.g. echo Yellowcard >/music/Yellowcard/Yellowcard\ -\ Breathing.mp3/artist) and I wasn't trying to imply it's some sort of clone or vaporware or anything.
However, it doesn't change that many of the features that people really dig about "modern" filesystems were pioneered in BFS 5 years ago. That's fair, right?
Unless they are using some other method I'm unfamiliar with, third party Exchange retrieval stuff uses IMAP and requires that the Exchange server be running OWA.
That's what Ximian's first Evolution Connector was based on. It's all IMAP based. Outlook pre-2003 (and maybe post) both use RPCs and MAPI stuff.
Oh, I'd strongely disagree. You made your own case:
What Be did with the BeOS is STILL exciting, so much so that there are no fewer than 3 groups trying to do the same thing open source, there are efforts to finalize Reiser4 and WinFS, both of which appear to build on the work on Dominic Giampolo's BFS, and I'd argue than most OS'es are still behind in UI responsiveness.
Why is it exciting? Because if Robert and crew come up with something amazing, it might be one day the next big player. And if not, maybe they can introduce some new ideas that make their way to other OS projects.
I love the gumption of Slashdotters. Such an arrogance to everything. A guy decides to more or less code an entire OS by himself, ports nearly all the apps, and has a running OS that does things in a pretty unique way, and some holier-than-thou nerd, with, I might add, zero credentials that we know of, immediately dismisses it. No wonder OSS gets a bad rap, this is the attitude of our citizens.
Actually, if you browse around Google and Gmail, you'll find tons of links like this one - the file has a.py extension.
Google writes A LOT in Javascript. It would not surprise me, although I have no evidence of this, if they wrote the code in their choice editor and then ran a python app that condensed the code to remove space, renamed the functions, and replaced all function references. At 1000+ functions, if the function names had just 5 letters each (not much if you're not being terse), that would be an extra 3000 characters (3k) PER PAGE LOAD. Multiply that times thousands (tens of thousands after general release?), and you'll see A LOT of extra bandwidth.
Well, first off, eDirectory which replaces NDS already runs in a Linux environment. Secondly, Samba is an implementation of SMB, which is what Microsoft uses. Samba would not seek to replace Novell servers, because they don't work using SMB (aka CIFS).
Sadly, I think you're right. It just doesn't seem possible that this many doctors could blow him off without introducing the possiblity of an expensive lawsuit. SOMEONE somewhere would have referred him to someplace where they do expensive tests with shiny machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people missing the point. This isn't about driving people to Linux, it's not about making things easier for pirates. You assume that people care about an up to date machine, and most don't. Know what the net effect of this actually is? It has nothing to do with pirates.
Unpatched machines means more "zombies," more zombies that relay spam and viruses and worms and jam up residential broadband subnets with chatter and useless, often malicious, traffic. Microsoft has just done more to assist spammers and virus and worm writers than any virus or worm could do on it's own!
I think Windows is generally a good product - it does what it's supposed to for the vast majority of people. But the company behind it is so consumed with fighting pirates that it's willing to sacrifice anything and everything, including the entire internet. Microsoft must topple, because they DO NOT CARE about the greater good, only about squeezing the last dime out of consumers.
I hope people understand how funny that actually was. Nice work.
I'm betting Night Rider actually featured NITT (Night Industries Two Thousand).
How did Sepultura make that list? They are NOTHING like the other bands you named, and 98% of the Slashdot crowd has probably never heard of them.
That's just random.
p.s. I was a big Sepultura fan in high school back in 90-94.
Unfortunately, I don't know how quickly it would get to Slashdot even if it went into Slash code today.
But what an awesome statement. After all, Slashdot is a huge referrer.
1. Backup your Mozilla profile, or at least copy it, before using the new one. You certainly may break extensions.
2. If you're on Windows, rename \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox to \Program Files\Mozilla Firefox.old or somesuch. That way you can revert. Your extensions are generally in the profile anyway. If you're on Linux, just keep the old files.
3. Upgrade to the nightly.
4. Open a new tab, type about:config search for app.extensions.version. Change it to 1.0 to avoid the extensions disabling themselves.
4a. Close and restart Firefox.
5. Give it a shot. If everything gets hosed (not likely, but possible - it has happened to me, though very rarely), you can backout and replace the executables and your profile data.
That's the best I can offer. I am not a Moz developer, I just follow the stuff closely. It's a PITA to play with Mozilla profiles and extensions and frankly, the worst part of Mozilla administration - a failed upgrade or bug can hose your extensions/configuration unless you know which files in the profile can be replaced and which can't.
In general, for what it's worth, Adblock has *never* broken for me, and that's the toughest one to reconfigure.
This has been fixed in the trunk for a long time (but not the branch Firefox 1.0 comes from), and will be in Firefox 1.1, whether Mozilla increments to 2.0 or not.
Bug 217527
Bug 264913
If you really, really need a fix now, visit this URL and download one of the nightlies from the trunk [fair warning - some nightlies have some annoying bugs in them, but generally, are pretty good]. It works just fine there, but I'm told requires too many changes to backport into the ff1/mozilla whatever branch.
Or you could do this:
1. Visit page in Firefox.
2. Click link to download (since I have no ActiveX).
3. Click download button.
That was all I had to do.
I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes
Yes, but isn't that tantamount to admitting they wrote something that is broken?
If I buy RHEL, Red Hat doesn't try to SELL me a product whose sole purpose is to make sure their own poor design decisions are covered. They give me access to their up2date servers.
Microsoft buys a company that writes anti-spyware software and tries to sell the product. So essentially, if I got this right, Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in ...the software they wrote? Why doesn't that sound right?
Yes, I tried the beta and it does have (by far) the best interface of all the anti-spyware products. That doesn't make it an instant winner though. Do people trust Microsoft to protect them? And if so, why didn't they protect us with Windows in the first place?
I read "spam" as mail still getting to the inbox, in other words, slipping through the filters that direct mail to their "spam" box.
It would cause the number of complaints to decrease, because their users don't even realize they aren't getting their email, or else they wouldn't be on AOL.
I can't disagree completely, but in fairness, their userbase doesn't know they are pushing this, and most ISPs (including Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc) don't have such strict requirements. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes me wonder if it's worth some consortium suggesting that the standards are implemented by, say, 2006-01-01. Then, every makes it well known that on that day, you're officially in the dark if you don't have valid records.
In other words, starting on an agreed day, if I dig -x the originating IP and don't get your domain, I reject your mail.
AOL reports a drop in spam because they falsely classify REAL messages as spam! Most network admins I know have had to deal with AOL at one time or another. They are pretty strict for a large ISP: they require valid rDNS records, last I checked, for one, and many times have my parents (stubborn AOL'ers) found legitimate mail in their spam folder).
In my company, one blocked false positive is considered a mortal sin. Report less spam doesn't mean you are great at blocking it, it might mean you're just too damn aggressive at fighting it.
This is Slashdot, not the New York Times. And this is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
Sorry about that. My bad.
People, this is Slashdot, not the New York Times. This is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
I think I "kinda" misspoke, because what I know about reiser4 suggests it is awesome (e.g. echo Yellowcard > /music/Yellowcard/Yellowcard\ -\ Breathing.mp3/artist) and I wasn't trying to imply it's some sort of clone or vaporware or anything.
However, it doesn't change that many of the features that people really dig about "modern" filesystems were pioneered in BFS 5 years ago. That's fair, right?
Unless they are using some other method I'm unfamiliar with, third party Exchange retrieval stuff uses IMAP and requires that the Exchange server be running OWA.
That's what Ximian's first Evolution Connector was based on. It's all IMAP based. Outlook pre-2003 (and maybe post) both use RPCs and MAPI stuff.
Oh, I'd strongely disagree. You made your own case:
What Be did with the BeOS is STILL exciting, so much so that there are no fewer than 3 groups trying to do the same thing open source, there are efforts to finalize Reiser4 and WinFS, both of which appear to build on the work on Dominic Giampolo's BFS, and I'd argue than most OS'es are still behind in UI responsiveness.
Why is it exciting? Because if Robert and crew come up with something amazing, it might be one day the next big player. And if not, maybe they can introduce some new ideas that make their way to other OS projects.
nothing particularly exciting != not impressive.
Fair. But I guess I think it *is* exciting when a relatively new OS NOT based on existing code (read: overhead) becomes "full featured."
After all, this is Slashdot. I go to espn.com for my sports scores, I come here for news like this.
...nothing particularly exciting..
I love the gumption of Slashdotters. Such an arrogance to everything. A guy decides to more or less code an entire OS by himself, ports nearly all the apps, and has a running OS that does things in a pretty unique way, and some holier-than-thou nerd, with, I might add, zero credentials that we know of, immediately dismisses it. No wonder OSS gets a bad rap, this is the attitude of our citizens.
Actually, if you browse around Google and Gmail, you'll find tons of links like this one - the file has a .py extension.
Google writes A LOT in Javascript. It would not surprise me, although I have no evidence of this, if they wrote the code in their choice editor and then ran a python app that condensed the code to remove space, renamed the functions, and replaced all function references. At 1000+ functions, if the function names had just 5 letters each (not much if you're not being terse), that would be an extra 3000 characters (3k) PER PAGE LOAD. Multiply that times thousands (tens of thousands after general release?), and you'll see A LOT of extra bandwidth.
Well, first off, eDirectory which replaces NDS already runs in a Linux environment. Secondly, Samba is an implementation of SMB, which is what Microsoft uses. Samba would not seek to replace Novell servers, because they don't work using SMB (aka CIFS).
Sadly, I think you're right. It just doesn't seem possible that this many doctors could blow him off without introducing the possiblity of an expensive lawsuit. SOMEONE somewhere would have referred him to someplace where they do expensive tests with shiny machines.
Right?