I say boycott them. Not only is it simply based on IE (with all its security holes and everything), they are trying to push the competition out of the market.
It would be like Opera patenting "mouse gestures in web browsers". If NetCaptor get a patent on tabbed browsing, it could be possible for Opera to patent mouse gestures in a web browser. But let's hope NetCaptor die a horrible death, and Opera will probably never try to stiffle competition by taking patents.
Opera 6.02 is for Windows. There has never been a 6.02 for Linux. You may be referring to Opera 6.02 beta 2. Opera 6.02 for Windows and Opera 6.0 for Linux are released on the same day, so 6.02 is not older than 6.0.
I have both posted on Opera's bug report site and previously e-mailed their tech support on this a dozen times and still get the same clueless answer that "there is something wrong with the Debian dependencies".
How can they have said that "there is something wrong" when they obviously know what it is about? There's nothing wrong, apart from the fact that you need Motif. How can telling you this be a "clueless answer"?
The version number you are referring to was 6.0 beta 2, not "6.02" or "6.2". There has never been anything but a 6.0 for Linux. No 6.02, no 6.2. Just 6.0. In the 6 series that is.
For Opera 5 they had a 5.0 and a 5.05.
The 6.02 version people are referring to is the Windows version.
> I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla.
Mozilla is at 1.0 RC2, Opera is at 6.01(windows) - That was a flawed argument, and it backfired.
What has version numbering got to do with anything? Version numbers are extremely unimporant in this case, as they are used differently from browser to browser. My point was that Mozilla has plenty of bugs, and it will never be bug-free. Just like Opera.
By the way what is PEBKAC? Perhaps you should explain to people what "PEBKAC" is as well?
"Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair":)
As for OS, I use Windows and Linux regularly.
>> And it can't move a layered iframe
> And let's have a look in Bugzilla again.
With RC2 it actually moves it, but it has to think for along time before it returns:) But if your point is that it is okay that Opera can't do it because Mozilla can't either then I must disagree. Are you by any chance from Norway?
Am I from Norway? Why?
No, my point is that all software has bugs, and one can easily dig up a few bugs from Bugzilla to show you that Mozilla isn't bug free either. I am not talking about resize bugs in particular.
It won't let you change the content of certain elements in an already loaded page
According to people in the opera.* newsgroups this will come in Opera 7.0, which is just around the corner apparently.
>Mozilla has its share of problems
>too. Do you want me to start digging it up?
Please do, and submit it to bugzilla - if it's new I'm sure they are interested. For the record - I focus on the good things in Mozilla (and in Opera as well for that matter), and if I can't talk about specific implementation problems in a developer forum, would you please tell me where to go then (and be polite about it too:)?
I don't think I quite follow you here. Is this a developer forum?
They won't have to know. They are simply safeguarding themselves. For example, stuffing a pizza in your CD drive is bound to go wrong. So they simply say that they do not support anything but proper, valid CDs.
I don't think anyone but the trolls argue that using the DMCA against people is "good" as such. People just see the irony of the situation. Blizzard as a company is now seen as being hypocritical because they have been rammed by the same weapon they have tried to use against others in the past (although it failed when it comes to bnetd).
It doesn't mean that it is a "good thing", just that it is ironic, and also hypocritical of Blizzard.
That there are plenty of other hypocrites out there is besides the point.
One can only speculate, but perhaps the vague wording is intended? Rather than saying "you can be fired for downloading and listening to MP3s for music you don't own yourself", they say "don't use [specific tool] for sharing MP3s". This means that employees can still happily break laws and listen to music they don't own.
On the other hand, I guess it is possible that every single Blizzard employee actually has actually bought all the music they are listening to in MP3 form at work...
It is good that Mozilla is finally about ready for prime time. However, that doesn't mean that spreading nonsense about competitors is a good thing.
The best way to spread the word Mozilla is to talk about Mozilla's good sides. Or someone could go into Bugzilla and list all of Mozilla's problems. It backfires you know.
Please, do everyone a favour and spread the word the right way, and not like a zealot.
however I suspect that it is in reality an evil ploy to bestow NS 4.7x upon poor webdevelopers again
If only "webdevelopers" could start following the specs rather than write proprietary code, this world would be a lot easier for everyone. If only they could free themselves for writing for one particular browser first, and then try to make it work in other browsers later.
You see, if you write a page for Mozilla, you will notice all the differences in other browsers. If you had written a page for Opera first, you would have noticed all the problems in Mozilla and IE. It is a flawed argument, and only backfires.
- Remember the resize bug? Well you don't have to miss it - Opera is there...
"The" resize bug? A single, simple bug is not enough. I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla. Perhaps you should explain to people what "the resize bug" is as well.
- And the way it notoriously hangs when fetching simple GIFs (Windows)
I've never had this problem. Perhaps this is a case of PEBKAC?
- And if you zoom in it has trouble rendering when switching windows
Not at all. It works beautifully.
- And it's unstylable input elements
Which is basically useless anyway, and a breach of operating system guidelines. It is a nice fancy extra, but not really something which makes or breaks a browser.
Hey, neither Mozilla nor Opera can style scrollbars. That means they are crap? (Yes, I know it is not valid CSS.)
- And it can't move a layered iframe
And let's have a look in Bugzilla again.
- And the banner-top that steels way more screenspace than it actually occupies?
The advertising thing is OK - but certainly not the way it is implemented here!
Since you need a beefy system to run Mozilla anyway, you should at least be running in 800x600, in which case the ad screen is not a problem. In 1024x768 and above one doesn't even notice it.
- And won't let you write innerHTML
Which is a proprietary MSIE-thing.
Please, do yourself and Mozilla a favour and focus on the good things in Mozilla, rather than talking about specific problems in other browsers. Mozilla has its share of problems too. Do you want me to start digging it up?
Of course blame is being thrown. It is only natural. After all, Microsoft created e-mail software which is extremely easy to exploit to spread viruses. It looks like they completely disregarded the security aspect.
And releasing a multi-MB patch is not an optimal solution. For one, the damage has already been done.
And perhaps more importantly, most users probably won't even download the patch. I know my parents wouldn't, and other novice users I know of couldn't care less about patches. Some don't even know what they are. A vast number of systems out there will remain vulnerable because of the original security breach. No number of patches can fix this, as they will never be downloaded by some people.
Microsoft have created a system which is extremely easy to exploit for viruses, and try to solve the problems and add security after the damage has been done.
only 25 percent reported that the answer they got back actually solved their problem
I am not surprised. Not at all. You see, when doing e-mail support, in probably more than 50% of the cases I had to mail the person back and ask for basic information they should have included in the first place.
Many just send off a mail saying things like "I can't connect at all", and don't explain the problem in more detail.
These people are wasting the support people's time. Not only do they completely fail to explain the actual problem - the answer is often right under their noses, in a FAQ or similar easily accessible from our homepage.
Now I don't know how big this company is, but this is probably a good rule of thumb:
The smaller the company, the better tech support, or the better the chances to get hold of someone with actual knowledge.
Why? Because small companies have fewer users/customers. As companies grow, marketing and development are expanded, while support grows extremely slowly.
The larger the company and the more users, the more time is spent forcing users to actually bother to look for information online before asking basic questions to techs, basically wasting everyone's time.
Sometimes, a person with a lot of technical knowledge can be terrible to work with. They quickly understand whether or not their level of knowledge is above the tech support person's. Once this is established the tone often gets downright rude, and the customer starts talking to the support tech as if the tech was an idiot.
Saying things like "you are the one who is supposed to know this stuff" if the tech says something which isn't entirely correct doesn't exactly help for the tech's self confidence.
Some apparently don't understand that the one on the other end is actually a person, and even if this person knows his or her stuff, it doesn't mean that you can't know more about certain issues.
So if the tech doesn't fear advanced users initially, it doesn't take long for the fear to tighten its grip.
So the bottom line is probably the "I know better than you" attitude some customers/users have if they spot a weakness in the tech's knowledge. Just remember that we can't all know everything!
And even if the tech is useless and doesn't know anything, you might have a better chance of getting better help if you bear with him.
Will there be monthly fee to play the game?
Yes; however, we are still investigating our business model and have not yet determined what the fee will be.
Older games will naturally still be free. Or hopefully, rather.
1. Make Battle.net server emulator.
2. Make sure you are sued by Blizzard so you get a lot of press and support from people, and as a consequence, everyone starts using your software and become dependent of it.
3. Laugh an evil laughter as you start charging for your Battle.net emulator, which everyone is now locked into using because you've introduced some fancy technology which is very clever in the short term and forces people to continue using it.
4. Profit!
How would you know that the accident would happen and when?
How would you know who would be involved in that accident?
Oh, I get it. You would just walk around blowing away random people because they might do something some time in the future, somewhere. I understand now. Sorry for bothering you.
I believe some or most IRC servers are "protected" against eavesdropping, or it is simply not possible. Not even an IRCop or admin can listen in, unless the server has been compiled with support for this.
Believe me - I've seen many a person with an o-line participate in channel wars, and if they could spy on users and channels, they would have. They have an o-line, but still want to be channel ops, or help their friends get their channel back:)
This would mainly be on networks without channel services, of course.
"It's simply false and deceptive to state that "There's just not enough market demand for these technologies to warrant the cost of implementing them." ActiveX and Visual Basic dominate the market, no matter what fantasy world you're living in."
How would you go about implementing ActiveX support for Mac, Linux, Solaris, Symbian OS, QNX, BeOS, etc.?
I think you should consider which market you are aiming for. Much like PNG has its place alongside JPEG2000 because they can be used for different things, ActiveX thankfully isn't very widespread on web pages today. ActiveX plugs you straight into the operating system, and the many security holes discovered makes it unsafe to use unless you know the site well.
So as you can see, Opera shouldn't bother wasting their money on ActiveX support when it isn't even cross-platform, nor is it an open standard. The market Opera is aiming for simply does not have use for ActiveX.
If you had read the original story, you would have seen that this is another story about the antitrust trial, and Microsoft claiming that it wouldn't be possible to replace parts of Windows, as it isn't modular enough. This might well be, but that doesn't mean that PCs couldn't be installed with alternative software if the vendor wishes to do so.
The whole point of this is that Microsoft are charged with abusing their position as a monopolist, and try to get rid of other solutions. As a way to mend this, Microsoft could allow alternative software to be installed with the operating system, if the distributor wishes to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.netcaptor.com/tour/1/:
I say boycott them. Not only is it simply based on IE (with all its security holes and everything), they are trying to push the competition out of the market.It would be like Opera patenting "mouse gestures in web browsers". If NetCaptor get a patent on tabbed browsing, it could be possible for Opera to patent mouse gestures in a web browser. But let's hope NetCaptor die a horrible death, and Opera will probably never try to stiffle competition by taking patents.
Oh yeah, I am sure you can dig up a few recommendations from w3.org, but then again one can do the same for any browser. The point isn't valid.
But 6.02 isn't out for Linux yet.
Opera support will actually tell you that libXm.so.2 is Motif. It even says so in their FAQ!
Just look at:
http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.c gi?options=index&name=621
Now please stop trolling willya!
1. You can also use the G key to toggle images on/cached only/off.
2. Opera 6.02 for Windows actually introduces full URL filtering capabilities! Rumours are it will be added to Opera 6.01 for Linux!
The version number you are referring to was 6.0 beta 2, not "6.02" or "6.2". There has never been anything but a 6.0 for Linux. No 6.02, no 6.2. Just 6.0. In the 6 series that is.
For Opera 5 they had a 5.0 and a 5.05.
The 6.02 version people are referring to is the Windows version.
As for OS, I use Windows and Linux regularly.
Am I from Norway? Why?No, my point is that all software has bugs, and one can easily dig up a few bugs from Bugzilla to show you that Mozilla isn't bug free either. I am not talking about resize bugs in particular.
According to people in the opera.* newsgroups this will come in Opera 7.0, which is just around the corner apparently. I don't think I quite follow you here. Is this a developer forum?They won't have to know. They are simply safeguarding themselves. For example, stuffing a pizza in your CD drive is bound to go wrong. So they simply say that they do not support anything but proper, valid CDs.
Suffering recording industry? Hah. They rip off artists and live well, while artists have a hard time pulling through.
It doesn't mean that it is a "good thing", just that it is ironic, and also hypocritical of Blizzard.
That there are plenty of other hypocrites out there is besides the point.
On the other hand, I guess it is possible that every single Blizzard employee actually has actually bought all the music they are listening to in MP3 form at work...
The best way to spread the word Mozilla is to talk about Mozilla's good sides. Or someone could go into Bugzilla and list all of Mozilla's problems. It backfires you know.
Please, do everyone a favour and spread the word the right way, and not like a zealot.
If only "webdevelopers" could start following the specs rather than write proprietary code, this world would be a lot easier for everyone. If only they could free themselves for writing for one particular browser first, and then try to make it work in other browsers later.You see, if you write a page for Mozilla, you will notice all the differences in other browsers. If you had written a page for Opera first, you would have noticed all the problems in Mozilla and IE. It is a flawed argument, and only backfires.
"The" resize bug? A single, simple bug is not enough. I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla. Perhaps you should explain to people what "the resize bug" is as well. I've never had this problem. Perhaps this is a case of PEBKAC? Not at all. It works beautifully. Which is basically useless anyway, and a breach of operating system guidelines. It is a nice fancy extra, but not really something which makes or breaks a browser.Hey, neither Mozilla nor Opera can style scrollbars. That means they are crap? (Yes, I know it is not valid CSS.)
And let's have a look in Bugzilla again. Since you need a beefy system to run Mozilla anyway, you should at least be running in 800x600, in which case the ad screen is not a problem. In 1024x768 and above one doesn't even notice it. Which is a proprietary MSIE-thing.Please, do yourself and Mozilla a favour and focus on the good things in Mozilla, rather than talking about specific problems in other browsers. Mozilla has its share of problems too. Do you want me to start digging it up?
Time to read before you post perhaps? :)
And releasing a multi-MB patch is not an optimal solution. For one, the damage has already been done.
And perhaps more importantly, most users probably won't even download the patch. I know my parents wouldn't, and other novice users I know of couldn't care less about patches. Some don't even know what they are. A vast number of systems out there will remain vulnerable because of the original security breach. No number of patches can fix this, as they will never be downloaded by some people.
Microsoft have created a system which is extremely easy to exploit for viruses, and try to solve the problems and add security after the damage has been done.
Of course they are to blame for this.
Many just send off a mail saying things like "I can't connect at all", and don't explain the problem in more detail.
These people are wasting the support people's time. Not only do they completely fail to explain the actual problem - the answer is often right under their noses, in a FAQ or similar easily accessible from our homepage.
The smaller the company, the better tech support, or the better the chances to get hold of someone with actual knowledge.
Why? Because small companies have fewer users/customers. As companies grow, marketing and development are expanded, while support grows extremely slowly.
The larger the company and the more users, the more time is spent forcing users to actually bother to look for information online before asking basic questions to techs, basically wasting everyone's time.
How big is the company you are talking about?
Saying things like "you are the one who is supposed to know this stuff" if the tech says something which isn't entirely correct doesn't exactly help for the tech's self confidence.
Some apparently don't understand that the one on the other end is actually a person, and even if this person knows his or her stuff, it doesn't mean that you can't know more about certain issues.
So if the tech doesn't fear advanced users initially, it doesn't take long for the fear to tighten its grip.
So the bottom line is probably the "I know better than you" attitude some customers/users have if they spot a weakness in the tech's knowledge. Just remember that we can't all know everything!
And even if the tech is useless and doesn't know anything, you might have a better chance of getting better help if you bear with him.
Of course they are planning to charge for using Battle.net. World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and will require a monthly fee or similar:
http://www.blizzard.com/WoW/ns/faq_general.shtml:
Older games will naturally still be free. Or hopefully, rather.
1. Make Battle.net server emulator.
2. Make sure you are sued by Blizzard so you get a lot of press and support from people, and as a consequence, everyone starts using your software and become dependent of it.
3. Laugh an evil laughter as you start charging for your Battle.net emulator, which everyone is now locked into using because you've introduced some fancy technology which is very clever in the short term and forces people to continue using it.
4. Profit!
How would you know who would be involved in that accident?
Oh, I get it. You would just walk around blowing away random people because they might do something some time in the future, somewhere. I understand now. Sorry for bothering you.
Believe me - I've seen many a person with an o-line participate in channel wars, and if they could spy on users and channels, they would have. They have an o-line, but still want to be channel ops, or help their friends get their channel back :)
This would mainly be on networks without channel services, of course.
How would you go about implementing ActiveX support for Mac, Linux, Solaris, Symbian OS, QNX, BeOS, etc.?
I think you should consider which market you are aiming for. Much like PNG has its place alongside JPEG2000 because they can be used for different things, ActiveX thankfully isn't very widespread on web pages today. ActiveX plugs you straight into the operating system, and the many security holes discovered makes it unsafe to use unless you know the site well.
So as you can see, Opera shouldn't bother wasting their money on ActiveX support when it isn't even cross-platform, nor is it an open standard. The market Opera is aiming for simply does not have use for ActiveX.
The whole point of this is that Microsoft are charged with abusing their position as a monopolist, and try to get rid of other solutions. As a way to mend this, Microsoft could allow alternative software to be installed with the operating system, if the distributor wishes to do so.
Read the story.