Atleast you have the opportunity to get rid of the bloat if you want to...
I cant see you doing that with Netscape/IE/Mozilla short of doing your own build... and thats not gonna win any large marketshare!
Actually you can install Mozilla with only the browser if you so wish, or only the email client. You don't have to have any of the extra programs if you don't wish to - try using the Installer builds if you don't believe me.
I see people saying stuff like "Mozilla is bloated". That cracks me up. How big is a Mozilla install? About 18mb. Please compare that to Internet Explorer and yes Opera too, and I think you'll find it's favourable.
Now there is an argument that says, well you don't have to install Composer, but parts of it will still be there if you need Messenger, because Messenger uses Composer. This is a valid argument. But really, Mozilla is not bloated as in physically big. I always have it running in the background with FastLoad (when I'm in windows), and never notice it. I can do this, even with IE loaded.
This is true - there's a guy called Davey Winder who writes for PC Pro (a uk computing magazine). He is an Opera fanatic, and is extremely biased against IE and especially Netscape: he insists on making childish remarks about how pros don't use it and how it's slow and buggy and bloated compared to Opera (hah). In fact, I once wrote in and pointed out that he was making factual mistakes, referring to Mozilla's P3P implementation as being "less efficient" than Internet Explorers - he got that right, as at the time Moz didn't have P3P support.
Anyway, I digress. One thing that made me realise how bad Opera's bloat had become was that this Winder guy had run a whole article on theming and customising Opera. Could you do this from the menu bar? NO! Instead, he recommended you download Opera Composer, a separate utility that would let you create a customised executable with the ICQ/Email/News clients removed, and new skins installed. I'd never heard anything so crazy: you have to make your own custom binary to remove the bloat.
At the time, everybody was haranguing Mozilla for being too slow and bloated, yet here was the supposed champ of lightness and fastness forcing you to get extra programs to slim it down!
I'll be honest, though I use Opera at my college, it's because it's either a choice between that or Netscape 4.7 (ie5 is b0rked). I've been using (well, trying to use) Mozilla since the days of M5, and so could be considered one of the faithful.
I dunno. I still maintain Opera is great in terms of providing choice and competition, and they've certainly introduced some cool features like gestures, but I feel they are being outclassed by Mozilla in particular here.
This is the sort of news that makes me think that things really are getting better and improving. Not so much because of Opera itself, though it is a fine browser indeed, but more because there are now plenty of good competitors in the web browsing arena.
Especially on Linux, there are at least 3 excellent browsers, or 4 if you count Galeon/Gecko as separate to Mozilla, with none of them having a significant lead over the others as far as I'm aware.
This happy situation, with all the browsers competing against each other on a level playing field unfortunately does not (yet) exist on Windows, but lets hope that soon as Mozilla and Opera both improve the market will balance out again.
Oh no, that's not what I meant. I have great respect for OS X technically, and BSD doesn't suck. But to claim OS X is Linux done better (which is what the parent*3 post was saying) is to ignore fundamental points about where it came from and how you can use it.
And yes, Linux software management does suck (at present) but that is now: it won't be that way for long.
- If you want a pure Unix experience at the command line, install OS X on UFS. Trivial. Works. Breaks some third party apps that are Carbon based, but you'll likely not care (I don't).
But why would you want to? The only reason people use Mac OS X over a free UNIX is because OS X hides you from the command line, and all the other bits of unix. If you strip out all the bits Apple added you're left with - BSD! You'd have to be crazy to spend so much on something that can be got for free.
Oh also about the UFS thing - I know a friend of mine tried it, and OS X wasn't happy. He found it lost features for one thing, though I can't remember which ones.... anyway he quickly went back to HFS+
As James Gosling recently said: "OS X is like Linux, only with Q/A [Quality Assurance] and taste!".
Then James Gosling doesn't understand Linux. OS X is fundamentally not like Linux at all! Can I change OS X? No. Who is in control of OS X? That'd be Steve Jobs.
The thing that makes Linux better is the freedom, making comments like that simply reinforces this fact.
I totally agree. It's so irritating, whenever this topic comes up on Slashdot, a load of AC's post big rants about how they own every Blizzard game ever, and now they are going to boycott the company because they don't like the thing with BNETD.
Well, to them I say sock it. Soulseek has it right - it's their game, and I can totally understand them wanting to try and keep piracy down. Instead of bitching about it, write your own damn games.
Except the technology itself. K-12 institutions don't typically have any technical support. There are no sys admins, no help desk, etc. It may be that there is no desktop operating system that truly doesn't need a knowledgeable support person...but Linux is lightyears behind in terms of reaching this goal. The Macintosh is leading the pack in that arena.
Oh sure, I was talking long term. At the moment, Macs require less tech support than Linux, but that is something that is changing fast. You can't assume that Linux will always require lots of tech support. But you can assume that Macs will always be made by Apple for a profit, and that Linux will not be under anybodies control.
Besides, what are we really supposed to learn from the aforementioned "history book"? That because a for-profit company who holds a monopoly isn't very nice to do business with? I don't think anyone's going to be shocked by that news. Isn't claiming that nobody should do business with for-profit companies in that industry because of it..well, alarmist?
No, not really. Please remember that Windows doesn't have >90% market penetration because it's the best. Far from it. Computer platforms are exponential utility devices: ie their usefulness increases in line with how many people use it. Windows is more useful than a Mac (to most people) because far far more software runs on it, we're not talking about web browsers here, I mean stuff like small company produced educational software, or bespoke database software and so on
This is the same with anything that has exponential utility - for instance chat networks. Outside of the states, MSN Messenger is dominant. MSN is a dire chat network, with almost no features, but I use it anyway because all my friends are on it. I can't move away from it because then I would not be able to talk to my friends, which is the purpose of a chat program (well, actually I use jabber, but lets pretend I'm not a geek for a moment).
It's the same with operating systems, except worse: the corporations who make them work hard to ensure it's difficult to port programs from one to another. So developers say: Well, XYZ OS has 55% market share, it's not as good technically, but I'll write my software for it because I get access to a wider userbase. Then the user says "Well, I could use ABC, but if I buy XYZ OS I'll get more applications, which are at the end of the day what make my computer useful", so they buy XYZ and the cycle repeats.
This is how Gates got a monopoly, and Apple is no different. I guarantee, if tomorrow we woke up and found that Macs had say 60% market share, within a few years, it'd be 95%, and Jobs would suddenly have morphed into Gates faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
I'm far from being anti-capitalist, but where operating systems (and chat networks for that matter) are concerned, Linux is the only stable way forward. Inside the Linux sphere, there is healthy competition, but regulated by the fact that they are all broadly compatible. No distribution maker could take control of Linux - it's not only technically impossible but Linux companies as a general rule do not have that aim in mind. Take RedHat which sells more licenses than any other Linux company, and is dominant. It gives away its RPM software under the GPL, from which other distribution companies benefit - and if you don't want to use RPM you don't have to.
I realize that many in the slashdot crowd see any solution other than free/oss ones as inherently evil...and that companies with these solutions are engaged in nothing short of extortion and theft...but c'mon. Isn't one of the best options for these schools to simply buy more Macintoshes? Of course it is!
I'm afraid that would only be a short term solution. Note that this reply isn't about Mac vs Linux, that isn't what's relevant here.
First thing - why are the schools in this situation? Because they are locked in to one companies proprietary software, and that company is abusing its power and control.
Second thing - right now, Apple doesn't do that sort of thing, but this is because it doesn't have a monopoly. When I pointed this out to a Mac-loving friend of mine, he gave me the rather weak excuse that "well Apple isn't that sort of company, they're nice". Pah, I said, look at the history books. Centralised power leads to corruption - period.
So the solution is NOT to buy more Macs! Even if they could afford it (which they can't), this would only be a short term solution, which would lead to an identical problem a few years down the road.
Although I do like the new Macintoshes from a technical perspective, I have to state that the ONLY solution here is the PC/Linux combination, as whatever its flaws, it means nobody can hold them to ransom.
I don't think anybody can seriously say these days "open source can't innovate". It's winning awards for it!
But seriously, if anyone ever says to you "well open source just copies the corporates" point to projects like the Linux virtual server project, or Tux, or Beowulf. Now Linux has achieved, then exceeded state of the art in the server arena, I wonder how soon it'll be before we see the same in the desktop market.
Good point about the drivers, I never claimed I was consitent or had the answer to everything!
Drivers in particular stumps me at the moment. Of course in the ideal world drivers would be open, but in practice in some parts of the hardware business the driver code can make or break the product - it's an integral part of the competition. Should companies have to give up that, so if Matrox make sucky drivers they can steal all the good techniques from NVidia?
Of course you could say, yes, then everyone gets better drivers. But then the extra money NVidia paid to get the best coders is gone, and their prices are now uncompetitive.
In an ideal world, drivers would be open, but as long as it uses open interfaces I'm not going to get too hung up about that.
Well perhaps yes, I prefer free/open software when possible for exactly that reason - but the practical side of me says: this isn't practical for when Linux is 50% of the market. Not all software can be free, indeed in 10 years I'd be surprised if even a quarter of the software on a typical Linux machine was open sourced. Well, maybe a bit more than a quarter, but the increase in commercial software is inevitable, so I'm not going to get hung up about using it. As long as there isn't the possibility of market abuse (games is a good example) I have no problem paying for software.
It should be pointed out that there is another open digital ID scheme if dotGNU isn't your cup of tea by the name of PingID
It's been set up by the guy who started Jabber Inc, who have successfully balanced open standards and code with commercial success. The stuff they're developing is completely open source, with one caveat, they can sell it if you want more than 5000 users connected to one server (ie for large ID carriers).
I've been personally involved since the beginning, as we rolled the Genio project into it. Before we did so, we tried talking to the Liberty Alliance, but didn't get too far. They were a bit busy sorting out all their internal politics methinks....
The advisory states that the chat control is not installed by default with any other software so you are probably safe. Of course a better course of action for trillian users would be to verify that the control is not installed and uninstall it if it is installed.
Unless you use Windows XP, in which case it's (cough) integrated. There is no uninstall option available, and even if there was I'm not sure it'd remove the chat control. There is however a workaround, you can run a command from the Run dialog that will manually trigger the uninstall routine. I can't remember it now, but it can be found on google. Doing so does not in any way harm or reduce the functionality of your system - that's how integrated it is.
Rant aside, this is worrying, not least because many people who don't actually use MSN but have WinXP will have MSN installed but not think to update it, as they never use it. Therefore it will sit there, leaving a hole, never to be updated (unless they use the auto-update tool).
This leads to a couple questions I do not personally know the answer to:
Is there a way to uninstall ActiveX controls?!?
Can I get a list of the ActiveX controls installed on my machine??!?
1) Sort of. You can "unregister" them, but this requires API calls and is therefore normally dealt with by the install program. If an ActiveX control is not associated with a particular program (the IE control for instance), it cannot be easily uninstalled.
2) ActiveX is a loosely defined superset of COM. Look in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES, and look at that rather long list of GUIDS. Each and every one is a COM object, that may or may not be classified as an ActiveX object by the Microsoft marketing department. As far as I know, there isn't any easy way of figuring out (other than manually querying the interfaces) to tell if something is a necessary part of Windows or simply a piece of fluff put there to push a corporate agenda.
Exactly, I totally agree with the following caveat:
I would use a free operating system, even when it is technically worse than a commercial competitor. Right now, Linux has a few things I miss from Windows, but not so much I can't get what I want to do done. I use it anyway, because I passionately believe that the only way to prevent another repeat of the situation we're in with Microsoft, where one man effectively controls 90% of computing, is to have a completely open platform.
Therefore, Linux is superior to Windows, the Mac, whatever, not necessarily because it's technically better (though in some respects it is), but because I think we have a moral obligation to protect the platform and keep it open and free to everyone.
On the other hand, the software on top of that platform is moot - I like open source/free software here too, but if for instance Microsoft released MS Office for Linux (with documented formats) then I'd be seriously tempted. The word processor I use is not core. The kernel is, and therefore the kernel has to be free.
Technically it is correct. In fact, working memory basically works by repeating over and over the batches of things to be remembered (look up the articulatory rehearsal loop). Moreover, this actually activates brain areas involved with speech, so the connection is not superficial.
True to a certain extent, but having just finished a 2 year Psycho course, I have to point out that the working memory model has since been superseded for all intents and purposes by the Depth of Processing theory, which basically states that the more you "process" something, the better you will remember it.
For instance, sorting words alphabetically will not produce great recall. Sorting words by category will produce better recall because you are processing the words, for instance differentiating between "dog", "cat", "cow" may require quite a bit of mental effort if the categories are "animals" and "milk producers".
In the context of speech recognition, to be honest the psychological evidence that speaking improves memory IS pretty weak - basically if you think more about what you're doing, you'll remember it better. Speaking sometimes makes you think about it more, but not always.
Well, as the subject says, SVG does fine for vector graphics and can be embedded inside XHTML (or vice-versa). AFAIK the only open (well documented) standard for spreadsheets is the OpenOffice one, which is also based on XML.
Bear in mind that these specifications are EXTREMELY complicated - you do need special tools for them, writing SVG files by hand is a major drag.
How about I pay for the OS and get the DVD player for free? Best part, I don't have to download a darn thing, its built into the operating system.
Remember that the DVD player isn't technically free - you pay for it when you buy your Mac. Why pay for it if you already have a set top DVD player like my Mac friend? He never ever uses his Mac for playing DVDs, because he prefers the living room.
Why pay for something you don't need? Better to pay for only the stuff you do need, or to download a free player and get a cheaper platform as a result.
I found this,not sure how complete it is, but it might be worth a look.
One thing to bear in mind is that there are really not many "standard" APIs in the Linux world, other than perhaps the POSIX calls and X, ie the legacy of the commercial unix heritage. The rest works on an evolutionary basis - the survival of the fittest. This means you use the best API for your needs. If it's not currently installed then the software manager will auto-install the dependancies (well in theory, yes i know that doesn't always work but that's nor relevant and being resolved anyway).
Also remember that Linux DVD support is pretty new. Being non-commercial, support for it had to be reverse engineered, so there may not have been enough time yet for a complete set of DVD APIs to emerge. It'll happen though, have no doubt, though I couldn't say what it'll be like or when.
That way, you get a DVD decryption key, and everything will JUST WORK.
Wow. It's amazing. If you want to pay, then do so, and you don't have to go through the hassle of downloading an extra piece of software!
Otherwise, will you please stop with your Apple can do no wrong mantra? Please? All platforms have their faults, to pretend that OS X is more UNIX than Linux is just, well, so utterly pointless it's untrue. Who cares?
Well, I'd guess the equivalent is the various libraries that were mentioned:
libcss, libdvdread etc. I'm not sure how far exactly you would take this, but it shouldn't be too hard to write your own DVD player in Linux.
One simpler solution might be to get the KDE/GNOME guys to write a decent DVD player for their environments and then use their component models KParts or Bonobo (a la ActiveX) to embed the player component right into the plugin.
Sure, it took a little bit of effort but not too much.
First step : run Xine. Oh, except it sucks, because the version packaged with my distro is several months old. Watch out for this.
Second step: uninstall current Xine, go to the Xine homepage, and install the latest version. You may need either the tarball like I did, or there may be an RPM for you.
Third step: look in the links section at the bottom for CaptainCSS, download it, follow the instructions carefully, as they are non-standard, and you will have a fully working DVD player.
Final step: remember to click the D4D button rather than the DVD button.
Oh... actual final step: curse the MPAA for making your life harder than it needs to be. Yes, DVD encryption sucks, but I won't go into why here, there are plenty of other/. stories that cover that. Anyway, that should get you going. If you get stuck, then try opening a ticket at protonic:)
From what I've heard (no idea if it's true) XBox DVD playback is good, but you need to buy an "activation" CD first, which costs about £80. Not sure if that's just rumour or true.
2) Microsoft must release full API documentation detailing all APIs that non-OS tasks can call.
I wish. I seem to recall seeing a former MS employee saying though that often there is no documentation even inside the company. Thing is you see, because of the internal structure of the company product teams often don't document their work so as to ensure their project isn't killed or they aren't split up. By keeping the docs inside their heads, they help increase their job security.
This leads to the "secret" APIs in Windows/Office/whatever that Microsofts enemies like to jump on - it's not really an evil conspiracy (though MS do enough evil stuff as it is), it's more an indictment of their internal corporate organisation skills.
A monopoly is the exception. Regular capitalistic competition is normal. You apparently cannot see that as a possibility. Competition is a *good* thing.
Yes, competition is a good thing, and the third each scenario would be the best, but when the OS is full of closed specifications a monopoly is in fact normal. It's a catch-22 situation:
Person looks at what computer they want. They look at platform X, and platform Y. Platform X is good, but it doesn't have many applications. Platform Y isn't as good, but it has lots of apps and is slightly better known and supported. They buy platform Y, because at the end of the day it may suck but it lets them get more done.
Developers look at what platform to target for the next project. X is easier, but Y has more users. More users = more potential customers, therefore they target platform Y. Cycle repeats.
This, in a nutshell, is what keeps MS at the top of the food chain, despite years of terrible products. Because porting programs between platforms is made deliberately difficult, the market becomes distorted.
Now look at Linux. It's easy to port Linux apps to Mac OS X, and to a lesser extent Windows. Why? Because it's based upon open and documented interfaces.
That's what I meant by my only-monopoly comment: not that I want to see a monopoly, because I don't, but instead that due to lack of central control this would be the only one that wouldn't end up being subverted for corporate agendas.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you can install Mozilla with only the browser if you so wish, or only the email client. You don't have to have any of the extra programs if you don't wish to - try using the Installer builds if you don't believe me.
I see people saying stuff like "Mozilla is bloated". That cracks me up. How big is a Mozilla install? About 18mb. Please compare that to Internet Explorer and yes Opera too, and I think you'll find it's favourable.
Now there is an argument that says, well you don't have to install Composer, but parts of it will still be there if you need Messenger, because Messenger uses Composer. This is a valid argument. But really, Mozilla is not bloated as in physically big. I always have it running in the background with FastLoad (when I'm in windows), and never notice it. I can do this, even with IE loaded.
Anyway, I digress. One thing that made me realise how bad Opera's bloat had become was that this Winder guy had run a whole article on theming and customising Opera. Could you do this from the menu bar? NO! Instead, he recommended you download Opera Composer, a separate utility that would let you create a customised executable with the ICQ/Email/News clients removed, and new skins installed. I'd never heard anything so crazy: you have to make your own custom binary to remove the bloat.
At the time, everybody was haranguing Mozilla for being too slow and bloated, yet here was the supposed champ of lightness and fastness forcing you to get extra programs to slim it down!
I'll be honest, though I use Opera at my college, it's because it's either a choice between that or Netscape 4.7 (ie5 is b0rked). I've been using (well, trying to use) Mozilla since the days of M5, and so could be considered one of the faithful.
I dunno. I still maintain Opera is great in terms of providing choice and competition, and they've certainly introduced some cool features like gestures, but I feel they are being outclassed by Mozilla in particular here.
Especially on Linux, there are at least 3 excellent browsers, or 4 if you count Galeon/Gecko as separate to Mozilla, with none of them having a significant lead over the others as far as I'm aware.
This happy situation, with all the browsers competing against each other on a level playing field unfortunately does not (yet) exist on Windows, but lets hope that soon as Mozilla and Opera both improve the market will balance out again.
Hurray for the benefits of competition!
And yes, Linux software management does suck (at present) but that is now: it won't be that way for long.
But why would you want to? The only reason people use Mac OS X over a free UNIX is because OS X hides you from the command line, and all the other bits of unix. If you strip out all the bits Apple added you're left with - BSD! You'd have to be crazy to spend so much on something that can be got for free.
Oh also about the UFS thing - I know a friend of mine tried it, and OS X wasn't happy. He found it lost features for one thing, though I can't remember which ones.... anyway he quickly went back to HFS+
As James Gosling recently said: "OS X is like Linux, only with Q/A [Quality Assurance] and taste!".
Then James Gosling doesn't understand Linux. OS X is fundamentally not like Linux at all! Can I change OS X? No. Who is in control of OS X? That'd be Steve Jobs.
The thing that makes Linux better is the freedom, making comments like that simply reinforces this fact.
I believe it refers to the area of San Francisco in which it is based
Well, to them I say sock it. Soulseek has it right - it's their game, and I can totally understand them wanting to try and keep piracy down. Instead of bitching about it, write your own damn games.
Oh sure, I was talking long term. At the moment, Macs require less tech support than Linux, but that is something that is changing fast. You can't assume that Linux will always require lots of tech support. But you can assume that Macs will always be made by Apple for a profit, and that Linux will not be under anybodies control.
Besides, what are we really supposed to learn from the aforementioned "history book"? That because a for-profit company who holds a monopoly isn't very nice to do business with? I don't think anyone's going to be shocked by that news. Isn't claiming that nobody should do business with for-profit companies in that industry because of it ..well, alarmist?
No, not really. Please remember that Windows doesn't have >90% market penetration because it's the best. Far from it. Computer platforms are exponential utility devices: ie their usefulness increases in line with how many people use it. Windows is more useful than a Mac (to most people) because far far more software runs on it, we're not talking about web browsers here, I mean stuff like small company produced educational software, or bespoke database software and so on
This is the same with anything that has exponential utility - for instance chat networks. Outside of the states, MSN Messenger is dominant. MSN is a dire chat network, with almost no features, but I use it anyway because all my friends are on it. I can't move away from it because then I would not be able to talk to my friends, which is the purpose of a chat program (well, actually I use jabber, but lets pretend I'm not a geek for a moment).
It's the same with operating systems, except worse: the corporations who make them work hard to ensure it's difficult to port programs from one to another. So developers say: Well, XYZ OS has 55% market share, it's not as good technically, but I'll write my software for it because I get access to a wider userbase. Then the user says "Well, I could use ABC, but if I buy XYZ OS I'll get more applications, which are at the end of the day what make my computer useful", so they buy XYZ and the cycle repeats.
This is how Gates got a monopoly, and Apple is no different. I guarantee, if tomorrow we woke up and found that Macs had say 60% market share, within a few years, it'd be 95%, and Jobs would suddenly have morphed into Gates faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
I'm far from being anti-capitalist, but where operating systems (and chat networks for that matter) are concerned, Linux is the only stable way forward. Inside the Linux sphere, there is healthy competition, but regulated by the fact that they are all broadly compatible. No distribution maker could take control of Linux - it's not only technically impossible but Linux companies as a general rule do not have that aim in mind. Take RedHat which sells more licenses than any other Linux company, and is dominant. It gives away its RPM software under the GPL, from which other distribution companies benefit - and if you don't want to use RPM you don't have to.
I'm afraid that would only be a short term solution. Note that this reply isn't about Mac vs Linux, that isn't what's relevant here.
First thing - why are the schools in this situation? Because they are locked in to one companies proprietary software, and that company is abusing its power and control.
Second thing - right now, Apple doesn't do that sort of thing, but this is because it doesn't have a monopoly. When I pointed this out to a Mac-loving friend of mine, he gave me the rather weak excuse that "well Apple isn't that sort of company, they're nice". Pah, I said, look at the history books. Centralised power leads to corruption - period.
So the solution is NOT to buy more Macs! Even if they could afford it (which they can't), this would only be a short term solution, which would lead to an identical problem a few years down the road.
Although I do like the new Macintoshes from a technical perspective, I have to state that the ONLY solution here is the PC/Linux combination, as whatever its flaws, it means nobody can hold them to ransom.
But seriously, if anyone ever says to you "well open source just copies the corporates" point to projects like the Linux virtual server project, or Tux, or Beowulf. Now Linux has achieved, then exceeded state of the art in the server arena, I wonder how soon it'll be before we see the same in the desktop market.
Drivers in particular stumps me at the moment. Of course in the ideal world drivers would be open, but in practice in some parts of the hardware business the driver code can make or break the product - it's an integral part of the competition. Should companies have to give up that, so if Matrox make sucky drivers they can steal all the good techniques from NVidia?
Of course you could say, yes, then everyone gets better drivers. But then the extra money NVidia paid to get the best coders is gone, and their prices are now uncompetitive.
In an ideal world, drivers would be open, but as long as it uses open interfaces I'm not going to get too hung up about that.
Well perhaps yes, I prefer free/open software when possible for exactly that reason - but the practical side of me says: this isn't practical for when Linux is 50% of the market. Not all software can be free, indeed in 10 years I'd be surprised if even a quarter of the software on a typical Linux machine was open sourced. Well, maybe a bit more than a quarter, but the increase in commercial software is inevitable, so I'm not going to get hung up about using it. As long as there isn't the possibility of market abuse (games is a good example) I have no problem paying for software.
It's been set up by the guy who started Jabber Inc, who have successfully balanced open standards and code with commercial success. The stuff they're developing is completely open source, with one caveat, they can sell it if you want more than 5000 users connected to one server (ie for large ID carriers).
I've been personally involved since the beginning, as we rolled the Genio project into it. Before we did so, we tried talking to the Liberty Alliance, but didn't get too far. They were a bit busy sorting out all their internal politics methinks....
Unless you use Windows XP, in which case it's (cough) integrated. There is no uninstall option available, and even if there was I'm not sure it'd remove the chat control. There is however a workaround, you can run a command from the Run dialog that will manually trigger the uninstall routine. I can't remember it now, but it can be found on google. Doing so does not in any way harm or reduce the functionality of your system - that's how integrated it is.
Rant aside, this is worrying, not least because many people who don't actually use MSN but have WinXP will have MSN installed but not think to update it, as they never use it. Therefore it will sit there, leaving a hole, never to be updated (unless they use the auto-update tool).
This leads to a couple questions I do not personally know the answer to: Is there a way to uninstall ActiveX controls?!? Can I get a list of the ActiveX controls installed on my machine??!?
1) Sort of. You can "unregister" them, but this requires API calls and is therefore normally dealt with by the install program. If an ActiveX control is not associated with a particular program (the IE control for instance), it cannot be easily uninstalled.
2) ActiveX is a loosely defined superset of COM. Look in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES, and look at that rather long list of GUIDS. Each and every one is a COM object, that may or may not be classified as an ActiveX object by the Microsoft marketing department. As far as I know, there isn't any easy way of figuring out (other than manually querying the interfaces) to tell if something is a necessary part of Windows or simply a piece of fluff put there to push a corporate agenda.
I would use a free operating system, even when it is technically worse than a commercial competitor. Right now, Linux has a few things I miss from Windows, but not so much I can't get what I want to do done. I use it anyway, because I passionately believe that the only way to prevent another repeat of the situation we're in with Microsoft, where one man effectively controls 90% of computing, is to have a completely open platform.
Therefore, Linux is superior to Windows, the Mac, whatever, not necessarily because it's technically better (though in some respects it is), but because I think we have a moral obligation to protect the platform and keep it open and free to everyone.
On the other hand, the software on top of that platform is moot - I like open source/free software here too, but if for instance Microsoft released MS Office for Linux (with documented formats) then I'd be seriously tempted. The word processor I use is not core. The kernel is, and therefore the kernel has to be free.
True to a certain extent, but having just finished a 2 year Psycho course, I have to point out that the working memory model has since been superseded for all intents and purposes by the Depth of Processing theory, which basically states that the more you "process" something, the better you will remember it.
For instance, sorting words alphabetically will not produce great recall. Sorting words by category will produce better recall because you are processing the words, for instance differentiating between "dog", "cat", "cow" may require quite a bit of mental effort if the categories are "animals" and "milk producers".
In the context of speech recognition, to be honest the psychological evidence that speaking improves memory IS pretty weak - basically if you think more about what you're doing, you'll remember it better. Speaking sometimes makes you think about it more, but not always.
Bear in mind that these specifications are EXTREMELY complicated - you do need special tools for them, writing SVG files by hand is a major drag.
Remember that the DVD player isn't technically free - you pay for it when you buy your Mac. Why pay for it if you already have a set top DVD player like my Mac friend? He never ever uses his Mac for playing DVDs, because he prefers the living room.
Why pay for something you don't need? Better to pay for only the stuff you do need, or to download a free player and get a cheaper platform as a result.
One thing to bear in mind is that there are really not many "standard" APIs in the Linux world, other than perhaps the POSIX calls and X, ie the legacy of the commercial unix heritage. The rest works on an evolutionary basis - the survival of the fittest. This means you use the best API for your needs. If it's not currently installed then the software manager will auto-install the dependancies (well in theory, yes i know that doesn't always work but that's nor relevant and being resolved anyway).
Also remember that Linux DVD support is pretty new. Being non-commercial, support for it had to be reverse engineered, so there may not have been enough time yet for a complete set of DVD APIs to emerge. It'll happen though, have no doubt, though I couldn't say what it'll be like or when.
That way, you get a DVD decryption key, and everything will JUST WORK.
Wow. It's amazing. If you want to pay, then do so, and you don't have to go through the hassle of downloading an extra piece of software!
Otherwise, will you please stop with your Apple can do no wrong mantra? Please? All platforms have their faults, to pretend that OS X is more UNIX than Linux is just, well, so utterly pointless it's untrue. Who cares?
libcss, libdvdread etc. I'm not sure how far exactly you would take this, but it shouldn't be too hard to write your own DVD player in Linux.
One simpler solution might be to get the KDE/GNOME guys to write a decent DVD player for their environments and then use their component models KParts or Bonobo (a la ActiveX) to embed the player component right into the plugin.
First step : run Xine. Oh, except it sucks, because the version packaged with my distro is several months old. Watch out for this.
Second step: uninstall current Xine, go to the Xine homepage, and install the latest version. You may need either the tarball like I did, or there may be an RPM for you.
Third step: look in the links section at the bottom for CaptainCSS, download it, follow the instructions carefully, as they are non-standard, and you will have a fully working DVD player.
Final step: remember to click the D4D button rather than the DVD button.
Oh ... actual final step: curse the MPAA for making your life harder than it needs to be. Yes, DVD encryption sucks, but I won't go into why here, there are plenty of other /. stories that cover that. Anyway, that should get you going. If you get stuck, then try opening a ticket at protonic :)
From what I've heard (no idea if it's true) XBox DVD playback is good, but you need to buy an "activation" CD first, which costs about £80. Not sure if that's just rumour or true.
I wish. I seem to recall seeing a former MS employee saying though that often there is no documentation even inside the company. Thing is you see, because of the internal structure of the company product teams often don't document their work so as to ensure their project isn't killed or they aren't split up. By keeping the docs inside their heads, they help increase their job security.
This leads to the "secret" APIs in Windows/Office/whatever that Microsofts enemies like to jump on - it's not really an evil conspiracy (though MS do enough evil stuff as it is), it's more an indictment of their internal corporate organisation skills.
Yes, competition is a good thing, and the third each scenario would be the best, but when the OS is full of closed specifications a monopoly is in fact normal. It's a catch-22 situation:
Person looks at what computer they want. They look at platform X, and platform Y. Platform X is good, but it doesn't have many applications. Platform Y isn't as good, but it has lots of apps and is slightly better known and supported. They buy platform Y, because at the end of the day it may suck but it lets them get more done.
Developers look at what platform to target for the next project. X is easier, but Y has more users. More users = more potential customers, therefore they target platform Y. Cycle repeats.
This, in a nutshell, is what keeps MS at the top of the food chain, despite years of terrible products. Because porting programs between platforms is made deliberately difficult, the market becomes distorted.
Now look at Linux. It's easy to port Linux apps to Mac OS X, and to a lesser extent Windows. Why? Because it's based upon open and documented interfaces.
That's what I meant by my only-monopoly comment: not that I want to see a monopoly, because I don't, but instead that due to lack of central control this would be the only one that wouldn't end up being subverted for corporate agendas.