Apparently, it can be done [98lite.net] with a 100k zip [98lite.net] file, for free.
In Windows 98. NT (and it's children, SPx, 2000, XP home/pro) are different. I'm skeptical that IE can be removed from the newer OS's while still keeping the other functions intact. It can be done, but Windows would lose some functionality, or would have to be rewritten.
So how are they going to "voluntarily download a tiny piece of plug-in code" if they don't have a browser? Should MS put in an FTP client? It's the same issue. MS is giving away a free ride on the internet, whereas others would love to make people pay (essentially we all are by buying a Windows bundled PC or Windows itself) extra by using/buying competitor x's browser. It's all about power. MS has it. The states don't like that.
But the spec defines what a package body. Both the program and the package must be ahdhere to the gidelines in the spec file, to maintain operability and compatability. They are basicaly tring to redefine the standard. If samba deviates from what's in the spec, they will have to write a lot more (and mostly basic functional) code. It's not the end of the world, but it does mean something.
Actually, there's more. You should run Ad Aware after all of that to make sure you finished everything. WebHancer 3000 is one of those offending programs, I believe.
Grab both ad-aware and it's reference file updater to stay better protected. 'Better', because it always seems like something gets through, no matter how well you maintain your system.
Well, check it out. If company X (we'll call them Microsoft) creates an API, keeps parts of it private, and finds out that it's broken (or needs to be improved). They can update that code without breaking 10 million applications that use that API. It's got it's +'s and -'s, but it's not completely wrong.
I was in my CS Class today from Dr. Jon Beck and we talked about packages. He said private instances in a spec were a good thing. This way you really don't need to know EXACTLY how they work, just the fact that they work. He said this way if you have, say a List, you just know that, it's a list. But not what type. The API (or packages) do that for you. It could very well be an array, or a linked list, or a doubly-linked list. You don't know. But you just know the API does it for you.
I don't necessarily agree/understand completely, but it really makes sense when he teaches it.
I love google just as much (more?) than the next guy, but does anyone think that they could use their monopoly (used loosely) of the search engine world to do things that microsoft is doing?
It just struck me that really they can do anything they want and will basically control what people see, because so many people use it.
I'm sure if you could mod me flaimbait and off topic, you would. =)
Slashdot Mirror
In Windows 98. NT (and it's children, SPx, 2000, XP home/pro) are different. I'm skeptical that IE can be removed from the newer OS's while still keeping the other functions intact. It can be done, but Windows would lose some functionality, or would have to be rewritten.
So how are they going to "voluntarily download a tiny piece of plug-in code" if they don't have a browser? Should MS put in an FTP client? It's the same issue. MS is giving away a free ride on the internet, whereas others would love to make people pay (essentially we all are by buying a Windows bundled PC or Windows itself) extra by using/buying competitor x's browser. It's all about power. MS has it. The states don't like that.
But the spec defines what a package body. Both the program and the package must be ahdhere to the gidelines in the spec file, to maintain operability and compatability. They are basicaly tring to redefine the standard. If samba deviates from what's in the spec, they will have to write a lot more (and mostly basic functional) code. It's not the end of the world, but it does mean something.
Please mod this one down so that it doesn't blow up my columns.
Grab both ad-aware and it's reference file updater to stay better protected. 'Better', because it always seems like something gets through, no matter how well you maintain your system.
Well, check it out. If company X (we'll call them Microsoft) creates an API, keeps parts of it private, and finds out that it's broken (or needs to be improved). They can update that code without breaking 10 million applications that use that API. It's got it's +'s and -'s, but it's not completely wrong.
I was in my CS Class today from Dr. Jon Beck and we talked about packages. He said private instances in a spec were a good thing. This way you really don't need to know EXACTLY how they work, just the fact that they work. He said this way if you have, say a List, you just know that, it's a list. But not what type. The API (or packages) do that for you. It could very well be an array, or a linked list, or a doubly-linked list. You don't know. But you just know the API does it for you. I don't necessarily agree/understand completely, but it really makes sense when he teaches it.
I love google just as much (more?) than the next guy, but does anyone think that they could use their monopoly (used loosely) of the search engine world to do things that microsoft is doing? It just struck me that really they can do anything they want and will basically control what people see, because so many people use it. I'm sure if you could mod me flaimbait and off topic, you would. =)
he's right. check out for yourself or use javascript for your needs. Thanks for playing!