It's a part of Slashcode. Long lines automatically get spaces inserted. This is to prevent trolls and crapflooders from creating very long lines that break the layout of the page.
This cannot be censorship, can it? You basically have two scenarios:
1. He wrote the software at work, in which case the IP belongs to AOL, and it is their right to do what they wish with their own software.
2. He wrote the software at home, in which case AOL has got no right over him or his creation. So even if they tried, they wouldn't be able to "censor" him.
If you still insist on calling this censorship, I must assume that you think anyone who moves to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by others is performing censorship. A company suing a competitor for industrial espionage is performing censorship. Anything done by anyone to get back a specific set of ideas which has been stolen by someone, must be considered censorship.
But from Justin's homepage, you could only make out this: He wrote the software at work, so it is AOL's IP. Now he quits because he wants to write software which he owns himself. Where is the censorship?
And finally, I find it rather distasteful of you to use Justin's situation to basically karma whore and try to get more hits on your message board by posting useless one-liners and link to them. If only you had something to add to the discussion there, but all you said was basically "Justin has quit".
I'll probably be modded down for stating the obvious, but it has to be said...
What is "superior" depends entirely on your needs.
If Windows offers you exactly what you need, Windows is superior for that task. If Linux offers you exactly what you need, Linux is superior for that task.
"Superior" is a bad word to use, though. Try "best suited" or "works best". I am not going to claim that I know exactly what is best at what - I am sure others have their informed opinions, and are probably debating the details as we speak (does Linux really run better with multiple processors, and so on). So I try to stay out of discussions like this. But you are making a sweeping statement based on nothing but ignorance.
Your "fact" is nothing but a badly informed opinion it seems. BSD is a branch of Linux? Please.
The link to his site is in the story itself. You make it sound like it's a completely new link you discovered or something.
And if you try to read his site, you won't see anything about "censorship". Just that code he writes for a company belongs to that company. This is a simple matter of writing code in your own time if you want to own it. If you write your code while at work, the company owns it. There is no censorship here - this is how it works! Sorry to bust your bubble. I am sure Justin knew this already, which is why he isn't pulling out the big guns to attack the company. Morally and legally, the company is right. It owns the code. It does whatever it wishes to do with the code.
Now, Justin apparently does not like this, so he decides to leave so the code he writes can remain under his control. Nothing wrong with that. And it's got nothing to do with censorship!
"Here is some more comments about his leaving..."
Oh really? It looks more like your own vanity forum, and the "comments" are really just one comment, which happens to be from you, and which doesn't add anything new to the discussion. Who on earth modded you up? This is blatant karma whoring. Linking to the site as if it is a link no one else has, when it's in the main story. Coming with your own lame analysis of the situation, which brings nothing new either. Linking to your own forum with a single post - your own - about it, as if it brings anything new to the discussion what so ever. My God.
I agree. When a representative of a nation can lie through his behind, why can't a dying, insignificant company do the same? The Iraqi information minister ended up dead. Hopefully, everyone in SCO ends up behind bars.
The point is that you don't need to reach 100% to help distribute the file. Different users are sent different parts of the file, but put together they may have 100% even though no single one of them has the complete file.
You can upload to others even though you haven't reached 100%. See the book example here:
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Let's return to the basics and your claim:
"Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence."
I have proven you completely wrong on this. EOD.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
OOo is not a web browser.
Yes, I have said that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have better standards support if you take WML and others into account. I said that Mozilla might support more standards before I thought about those standards Opera supports but Mozilla doesn't.
If I conceded in my first message that Mozilla supports more standards overall, the new information presented later will show you that it isn't that clear anymore.
SVG is not a "relevant" standard despite its intended use. Why? Because it is hardly used at all, unless you visit special purpose sites.
It seems that you are going into aggressive mode now that I have thoroughly proven you wrong, so the discussion might as well end here.
I believe the client actually gives different parts of the file out to different downloaders. And as long as you are downloading, other people can download the parts you already have.
The seeder can either be one person with the complete file, or a number of people - each with an incomplete file. But put together they do have the complete file. I think this has a special name, but then again, I just remember reading about it somewhere.
Since the seeder apparently sends different parts to different people, you may be able to "leech like a mofo" if the file is popular, but if it isn't, you will get people downloading from you. There simply isn't any way to prevent it.
Disclaimer: I am taking all this from memory. It might not be 100% accurate.
Exactly. And BitTorrent is already widely used for legal downloads like game demos, patches, trailers and so on. There's a BT tracker at id Software for instance.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Well, agreement schmagreement...:)
WML is a proper standard and Opera supports it. Mozilla doesn't. Opera supports standards that Mozilla does not, which again means that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have "better standards support".
Whether or not the standard is for mobile use or not is irrelevant. It is a standard, and Opera supports it.
A "mobile" standard is not "less good" than other standards.
I think we can agree that both Opera and Mozilla have outstanding standards support compared to the competition (mostly MSIE, but also Konqueror/Safari and Mac browsers like OmniWeb).
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
BLINK and MARQUEE are non-standard extensions. You cannot compare WML, a proper standard, to these.
And the desktop and embedded versions of Opera actually use the exact same core. If desktop supports it, so does embedded, and vice versa.
And lastly, I am not redefining my terms, I am clarifying them. If you can claim that WML is irrelevant because it is "embedded only", then I can say that SVG is irrelevant because it is not used by anyone anyway. It is only used in special cases. SVG might be intended to be widespread and used everywhere, but the fact is that it isn't.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
"No. You are confusing "being made for a specialised use" with "being made for a specialised platform"."
That isn't really relevant. The fact is that Opera supports these standards, and Mozilla doesn't. As Mozilla supports standards Opera doesn't. A standard is a standard.
"In any case, SVG is most definitely not special-purpose in any way."
No, but it is not in very wide use today. If you can claim that WML and such are "irrelevant, because...", I can make the same claim about SVG and XSL/XSLT. They are not in wide use today - you will hardly ever see them used. Maybe on specialized sites, but not on the mainstream web.
"You are redefining your terms after a claim; this is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You had claimed that Opera was supporting CSS years before Mozilla was, which is patently false. It doesn't matter that nobody knew about Mozilla or that the browser had bugs aplenty -- the point is, the support was there."
Anyone can create a minimal browser and just support the bold tag, then claim that it supports HTML. But I think It takes a bit more than that to claim support.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
"Do note that these standards are intended for mobile phones and PDAs, a market that Opera is trying hard to get into but that Mozilla isn't really designed for. Certainly, it's a separate arena to the "normal" full-size PC browser world -- if nothing else, the standards are simpler."
They are still standards. But hey, I could easily say similar things about MathML - it is a very specialized standard. The same with SVG - it is hardly in use at all on "mainstream" sites. And so on. So Mozilla implements standards for specialized use, just like Opera does.
"This illustrates my point nicely. CSS 2.1 is a revised edition of CSS 2 with only a few changes. By contrast, CSS3 introduces a number of very significant changes. Both are still in the Working Draft stage at the W3C. Mozilla is the only browser to have started implementing the changes of CSS3 -- which is an example of why its standards support, moreso than that of other browsers, can be considered to be very good."
Actually, Opera 7 also has "experimental" support for CSS3. And the changes for CSS 2.1 are mostly in place (if not completely - could be, I am not sure). The only thing is that I don't necessarily think this is a good idea to do until the recommendations are official. Right now they are just drafts, and could potentially change.
"As for being able to "hold up to a lot of the competition even today": no, this is not correct."
I would argue that Opera 3 is actually better than even MSIE 6 in some situations since it has a more correct implementation. MSIE can't even get its box model right. I think Opera 3 had just about complete support for CSS1.
"And finally, note that the Mozilla project was started in April 1998, switched to the current codebase after a few months, and released their first builds later that year. Opera 3 was released sometime in the first half of 1998, IIRC. This is hardly "years before Mozilla was even thought about"."
True, but there was no release considered to be of even alpha quality until some time in 2000. That was M13.
Also note that Mozilla was rewritten over four years (it took that time to reach the stable 1.0 platform), while Opera 7 was a complete rewrite of the browser core and GUI, and was done in about a year and a half, according to articles in the media. You could read about it just before the first beta of Opera 7.0 for Windows.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Yes, Mozilla might support more standards, but Opera can still claim to have very good standards support. It can because it does. But on the other hand, don't forget that Opera supports standards that Mozilla might not support. It supports SVG Tiny, XHTML Mobile Profile, WML (1.3 and 2.0), WAP CSS, and maybe more. It also includes support for VoiceXML and is ready for CSS 2.1.
As for CSS, Opera has supported CSS for years and years. I think it was first introduced in Opera 3, years before Mozilla was even though about. CSS support has always been one of Opera's strong points. CSS support in Opera 3 can probably even hold up to a lot of the competition even today.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Are you serious? First you go on about how previous versions of Opera didn't have full DOM support and then you pick out pages created specifically to list bugs in Opera to prove that it has worse CSS support? Incredible.
You do realize that Mozilla has bugs as well? And that Opera nicely renders testcases that show off bugs in Mozilla's CSS implementation? The reason it works in Opera and not Mozilla is that the test was done to show bugs in Mozilla, not in Opera. It's the same with your Opera tests.
It is really pointless to argue which browser has the better CSS support since results seem to vary, but this well known test site shows Opera as the current leader. Not that it proves anything apart from the fact that things may not be so clear in Mozilla's favor as you seem to think.
My point is just that claiming that Mozilla somehow is vastly superior to other browsers, or at least Opera, when it comes to standards that are actually in wide use (HTML, CSS, DOM - MathML is hardly widely used on the web today) is simply incorrect. Which one has better CSS support of Opera and Mozilla? No idea. I don't really care. But anyone who claims that Mozilla has supperior CSS support compared to Opera or vice versa should be corrected.
"You didn't read what I said -- ever tried using these? The latest Opera for BeOS is version 3, and the company has dropped support for the operating system. Mozilla for BeOS is a current version, and there are pseudo-nightly builds available. The story is similar for OS/2."
It still proves that Opera is quite portable too. Version 7 even more so. But money speaks, and BeOS and OS/2 probably aren't viable markets.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
"by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence"? Sorry, but this is not entirely true. While it might support more standards, it does not actually have vastly better standards support compared to Opera when it comes so standards they both support.
And Opera is available for BeOS and OS/2 actually.
You are, sadly, a minority. The huge masses are ignorant and take whatever they are given. They don't understand what this could mean. They don't care. You may refuse to buy copy protected media, but the masses will buy whatever is available.
It is a crime against humanity because it locks information in formats that will eventually die, and no one will be able to retrieve the information. Information will be lost to future generations. This is a crime against humanity. Why do you think there is such a huge interest in history, even back to the stone ages? We want to learn about it, and see what has turned us into what we are today. Every single little piece of information is a part of the puzzle scientists can use to try to understand past times, and we can perhaps even learn from it.
Depriving humanity of (understanding) its history is most definitely a crime against humanity!
CD copy protection only deters casual copiers because CDs weren't created with copy protection measures in mind. But just wait until the "next generation" of digital media arrives. Maybe with built-in copy protection and so on. They have learned from CDs and DVDs, and will continue to fight against fair use rights until even hardcore warez puppies will have a hard time getting their hit and people who want to be able to copy for legitimate purposes are basically SOL.
But who were the ones using PCs in the 1980s? That's right. The same kind of people who are complaining about restriction of fair use rights today.
The problem is that they are a minority today. The same number of people may well complain, but they will be ignored because the majority of PC users today are clueless and haven't the slightest idea what's going on. The masses will let themselves be manipulated, and the few that try to raise warning flags drown in a sea of ignorance.
So the times are different. You can't compare today, where everyone is ignorant and basically uses whatever is handed to them, to the 1980s, where a PC user was someone who actually knew what he was doing and wasn't going to let himself be stepped on just like that.
Back then, the knowledgeagle geeks were the market. Today, the ignorant sheep are the market.
MSIE doesn't "appeal" to anyone. It hardly has any "appealing" functionality for end-users at all. What it does have is the advantage of being built into the Windows operating system.
In terms of usability, Mozilla/Gecko, Safari/KHTML and Opera/Presto (the second being the engine used in the browser - all three being differene engines), completely devastate MSIE. MSIE is a target for worms, spyware, malicious scripts on the web and so on. Other browsers let you block popups, ads, use mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, and other innovative features that do not exist in MSIE.
You are probably trolling, but I felt it necessary to point this out, since you actually got modded up for the nonsense you are posting.
MSIE isn't the most widely used browser because it "appeals" to people, but because it is bundled with Windows. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a part of Slashcode. Long lines automatically get spaces inserted. This is to prevent trolls and crapflooders from creating very long lines that break the layout of the page.
1. He wrote the software at work, in which case the IP belongs to AOL, and it is their right to do what they wish with their own software.
2. He wrote the software at home, in which case AOL has got no right over him or his creation. So even if they tried, they wouldn't be able to "censor" him.
If you still insist on calling this censorship, I must assume that you think anyone who moves to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by others is performing censorship. A company suing a competitor for industrial espionage is performing censorship. Anything done by anyone to get back a specific set of ideas which has been stolen by someone, must be considered censorship.
But from Justin's homepage, you could only make out this: He wrote the software at work, so it is AOL's IP. Now he quits because he wants to write software which he owns himself. Where is the censorship?
And finally, I find it rather distasteful of you to use Justin's situation to basically karma whore and try to get more hits on your message board by posting useless one-liners and link to them. If only you had something to add to the discussion there, but all you said was basically "Justin has quit".
What is "superior" depends entirely on your needs.
If Windows offers you exactly what you need, Windows is superior for that task. If Linux offers you exactly what you need, Linux is superior for that task.
"Superior" is a bad word to use, though. Try "best suited" or "works best". I am not going to claim that I know exactly what is best at what - I am sure others have their informed opinions, and are probably debating the details as we speak (does Linux really run better with multiple processors, and so on). So I try to stay out of discussions like this. But you are making a sweeping statement based on nothing but ignorance.
Your "fact" is nothing but a badly informed opinion it seems. BSD is a branch of Linux? Please.
And if you try to read his site, you won't see anything about "censorship". Just that code he writes for a company belongs to that company. This is a simple matter of writing code in your own time if you want to own it. If you write your code while at work, the company owns it. There is no censorship here - this is how it works! Sorry to bust your bubble. I am sure Justin knew this already, which is why he isn't pulling out the big guns to attack the company. Morally and legally, the company is right. It owns the code. It does whatever it wishes to do with the code.
Now, Justin apparently does not like this, so he decides to leave so the code he writes can remain under his control. Nothing wrong with that. And it's got nothing to do with censorship!
"Here is some more comments about his leaving..."
Oh really? It looks more like your own vanity forum, and the "comments" are really just one comment, which happens to be from you, and which doesn't add anything new to the discussion. Who on earth modded you up? This is blatant karma whoring. Linking to the site as if it is a link no one else has, when it's in the main story. Coming with your own lame analysis of the situation, which brings nothing new either. Linking to your own forum with a single post - your own - about it, as if it brings anything new to the discussion what so ever. My God.
I can't find the netstat file..? And how did you find the new filename for sysadmin? I get a 403 when trying to open the directory listing.
http://www.sco.com/images/pdf/eserver/not-any-more -eserver_sysadmin.pdf
Be aware of the space in "more -eserver" if you copy the text rather than copying/clicking the link.
Hmm, I wonder why this file is so popular..? ;) But here it is if you still want it...
I agree. When a representative of a nation can lie through his behind, why can't a dying, insignificant company do the same? The Iraqi information minister ended up dead. Hopefully, everyone in SCO ends up behind bars.
You can upload to others even though you haven't reached 100%. See the book example here:
http://www.dessent.net/btfaq/#what
"Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence."
I have proven you completely wrong on this. EOD.
Yes, I have said that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have better standards support if you take WML and others into account. I said that Mozilla might support more standards before I thought about those standards Opera supports but Mozilla doesn't.
If I conceded in my first message that Mozilla supports more standards overall, the new information presented later will show you that it isn't that clear anymore.
SVG is not a "relevant" standard despite its intended use. Why? Because it is hardly used at all, unless you visit special purpose sites.
It seems that you are going into aggressive mode now that I have thoroughly proven you wrong, so the discussion might as well end here.
The seeder can either be one person with the complete file, or a number of people - each with an incomplete file. But put together they do have the complete file. I think this has a special name, but then again, I just remember reading about it somewhere.
Since the seeder apparently sends different parts to different people, you may be able to "leech like a mofo" if the file is popular, but if it isn't, you will get people downloading from you. There simply isn't any way to prevent it.
Disclaimer: I am taking all this from memory. It might not be 100% accurate.
Exactly. And BitTorrent is already widely used for legal downloads like game demos, patches, trailers and so on. There's a BT tracker at id Software for instance.
How did the hat taste? :)
WML is a proper standard and Opera supports it. Mozilla doesn't. Opera supports standards that Mozilla does not, which again means that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have "better standards support".
Whether or not the standard is for mobile use or not is irrelevant. It is a standard, and Opera supports it.
A "mobile" standard is not "less good" than other standards.
I think we can agree that both Opera and Mozilla have outstanding standards support compared to the competition (mostly MSIE, but also Konqueror/Safari and Mac browsers like OmniWeb).
And the desktop and embedded versions of Opera actually use the exact same core. If desktop supports it, so does embedded, and vice versa.
And lastly, I am not redefining my terms, I am clarifying them. If you can claim that WML is irrelevant because it is "embedded only", then I can say that SVG is irrelevant because it is not used by anyone anyway. It is only used in special cases. SVG might be intended to be widespread and used everywhere, but the fact is that it isn't.
Also note that Mozilla was rewritten over four years (it took that time to reach the stable 1.0 platform), while Opera 7 was a complete rewrite of the browser core and GUI, and was done in about a year and a half, according to articles in the media. You could read about it just before the first beta of Opera 7.0 for Windows.
Yes, Mozilla might support more standards, but Opera can still claim to have very good standards support. It can because it does. But on the other hand, don't forget that Opera supports standards that Mozilla might not support. It supports SVG Tiny, XHTML Mobile Profile, WML (1.3 and 2.0), WAP CSS, and maybe more. It also includes support for VoiceXML and is ready for CSS 2.1.
As for CSS, Opera has supported CSS for years and years. I think it was first introduced in Opera 3, years before Mozilla was even though about. CSS support has always been one of Opera's strong points. CSS support in Opera 3 can probably even hold up to a lot of the competition even today.
You do realize that Mozilla has bugs as well? And that Opera nicely renders testcases that show off bugs in Mozilla's CSS implementation? The reason it works in Opera and not Mozilla is that the test was done to show bugs in Mozilla, not in Opera. It's the same with your Opera tests.
It is really pointless to argue which browser has the better CSS support since results seem to vary, but this well known test site shows Opera as the current leader. Not that it proves anything apart from the fact that things may not be so clear in Mozilla's favor as you seem to think.
My point is just that claiming that Mozilla somehow is vastly superior to other browsers, or at least Opera, when it comes to standards that are actually in wide use (HTML, CSS, DOM - MathML is hardly widely used on the web today) is simply incorrect. Which one has better CSS support of Opera and Mozilla? No idea. I don't really care. But anyone who claims that Mozilla has supperior CSS support compared to Opera or vice versa should be corrected.
It still proves that Opera is quite portable too. Version 7 even more so. But money speaks, and BeOS and OS/2 probably aren't viable markets.And Opera is available for BeOS and OS/2 actually.
You are, sadly, a minority. The huge masses are ignorant and take whatever they are given. They don't understand what this could mean. They don't care. You may refuse to buy copy protected media, but the masses will buy whatever is available.
Depriving humanity of (understanding) its history is most definitely a crime against humanity!
CD copy protection only deters casual copiers because CDs weren't created with copy protection measures in mind. But just wait until the "next generation" of digital media arrives. Maybe with built-in copy protection and so on. They have learned from CDs and DVDs, and will continue to fight against fair use rights until even hardcore warez puppies will have a hard time getting their hit and people who want to be able to copy for legitimate purposes are basically SOL.
The problem is that they are a minority today. The same number of people may well complain, but they will be ignored because the majority of PC users today are clueless and haven't the slightest idea what's going on. The masses will let themselves be manipulated, and the few that try to raise warning flags drown in a sea of ignorance.
So the times are different. You can't compare today, where everyone is ignorant and basically uses whatever is handed to them, to the 1980s, where a PC user was someone who actually knew what he was doing and wasn't going to let himself be stepped on just like that.
Back then, the knowledgeagle geeks were the market. Today, the ignorant sheep are the market.
MSIE doesn't "appeal" to anyone. It hardly has any "appealing" functionality for end-users at all. What it does have is the advantage of being built into the Windows operating system.
In terms of usability, Mozilla/Gecko, Safari/KHTML and Opera/Presto (the second being the engine used in the browser - all three being differene engines), completely devastate MSIE. MSIE is a target for worms, spyware, malicious scripts on the web and so on. Other browsers let you block popups, ads, use mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, and other innovative features that do not exist in MSIE.
You are probably trolling, but I felt it necessary to point this out, since you actually got modded up for the nonsense you are posting.
MSIE isn't the most widely used browser because it "appeals" to people, but because it is bundled with Windows. It's that simple.