the irony is of course that Germany is busy to trying to stomp on the Scientologists as much as they can.
Where is the irony here? The Scientology church is suspected to pursue anticonstitutional goals and is therefore observed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. For further information I reccomend to read the German constitution (PDF & German), especially article Nr.4 and article Nr.18.
You knew damn well the poster was referring to how long it takes to load a page INTO an already running browser, not how long it takes to start the browser the first time.
yes, I think so, however he didn't state that explicitly. But if you read my original reply you know that I also referred to Mozilla's sluggishnes, menu pull down delay etc. But these are not so simple to measure as startup time. If I have 10 tabs opened in Mozilla of which 5 are currently loading, changing tabs or bringing up a (context-)menu lasts very long and can surely not be described as instantly. The same just doesn't apply to any other browser, especially not to Opera.
Btw. this was surely not intended as trolling, especially because I really like Mozilla in terms of feature-richness and and capability of the rendering engine. But I cannot imagine that the "average user" doesn't recognize this sluggishness. Why would s.o. with an average computer (like a pIII 500:-) prefer a browser with a slower UI over one with a fast one? Because it's open source, standards compliant, portable, has a lot of features and whatelse? Maybe, but I just think that the lack of in-use-performance is a great flaw (and IMO the only one) for Mozilla, especially in times where Joe Average and me don't feel the need to buy a faster computer, and I cannot understand why these performance issues are always talked away, denial just doesn't make them go away.
Thanks for the hint, but I just answered to a post that imo included wrong "facts". Maybe I posted something similar before, but that doesn't make this a troll.
FYI, I stopped right now - from click to running application:
Mozilla 1.1b 12 seconds
Opera 6.04 ca. 1 second
IE 6.0 ca. 1 second - disqualified because of cheating
measured on pIII 500 win2k
The parent states:
Between Opera, IE, and Mozilla, the speed difference is small enough for your average user not to know the difference.
Thats plain BS because every fckng moron recognizes a huge difference between 12 seconds and 1 second.
Between Opera, IE, and Mozilla, the speed difference is small enough for your average user not to know the difference.
This statement allows only one conclusion, you never compared Mozilla on a Windows machine to one of the other players.
Mozilla is great, it renders nearly everything - and it's Open Source. That doesn't change the fact that it's the slowest and most sluggish piece of software I know - and that sucks.
What sucks even more is that any Open Source lover passes over this in silence just because it's Open Source and therefore has to be good.
I really like Mozilla, I like the excellent popup-stopper, cookie and password management and I like tabs (of course), but I expect a browser to need less time to start than Photoshop>=6 on a PIII 500. And I expect a menu to pull down when clicking on it, not 5 seconds later. Opera meets this expectation, IE too (of course), Mozilla clearly does not.
I'm looking forward to usable (fast) Mozilla, and I'm looking forward to an Opera 7 with an highly improved rendering engine. And I'm pretty sure what comes first.
Yes, it was an excellent service. But - as you may know best - it was such a good service only due to it's huge, centralized database of songs, so that it was possible to search it independent from whether the song was currently online or not. Since the day Napster was smashed, it was not really difficult to see that it will be the fate of Audiogalaxy as well as of other "centralized" p2p filesharing to get smashed the same way.
We are a culturally poorer country for the damage the RIAA has inflicted on our rights to fair use
In a democracy it shouldn't be possible for a commercial entity (the RIAA) to damage any rights (if you think of a right as defined by law). So either there is no such right as the right of fair use or you have to think about the state of your democracy. Oh, I see, the EFF link is already there.
As a sidenote:
...underrated by many because of the obnoxious spyware they unfortunately propagated. I'm clearly aware 1.any service has - at least - to cover it's expenses and 2.that it's stupid to install software without reading the EULA.
But it's a hard penalty for not following number 2 if s.o. has to reinstall her Windooze box because an application called Webhancer that came bundled with Audiogalaxy has smashed "winsock", which actually means "my internet doesn't work anymore"..
As they kill those services that have any sort of control mechanism in place, all that will remain is those services that they can't control...
Yes, maybe. And thaaan?
Most Slashdot readers probably live in that special country (point with the finger at it) where laws named "CBDTPA" and some other with lots of "S" are seriously considered, while the Gonvernment of that country at the same time claims "Freedom" as one of the highest (the highest?) values.
But - from the misinformed outside - it seems that only the possibility of minor turnover decreases of some mega-corporations counts way more than individual freedom over there.
I mean, do you really think that an organisation like the RIAA (or next time the MPAA) is incapable to cut off true peer2peer filesharing? Can't they hire some homeless CS students to monitor who (which ip) does what (which song/movie) and place a call to the ISP to cancel a cable/dsl/whatever subscription due to copyright infringement (the ISP probably would be happy to get rid of those bandwith hogs)? If that would be the case, who would risk to download anything from anywhere when she has to face being kicked by her ISP?
Please don't tell me about encrypted filesharing, it's not usable for at least the next five years (IMO). (Isn't strong encryption illegal anyway? Terrorists could use it..)
Please correct any spelling and grammar errors and mod me troll - thank you
Sometimes secrecy is useful in security: ask the NSA...
none of this matters because we're talking about M$, those nice folks asking to keep with Windows source secret because it has security flaws large enough to be considered economic and national security risks
Excuse me, but this comparison is completely wrong. The NSA is an organisation that is controlled (or at least should be) by the democratic government of the USA (e.g. you, if you live over there). If they deceide not to disclose some "algorythms" to the public, it is (or again, should be) in your interest and, they know what they don't disclose and why (that is, they know the "source code" of their algorythms).
A company (e.g. Microsoft) doesn't share any interests with you (probably) or me (for sure) or may yet have interests that are contrary to the user's interests. They deceide not to disclose their source to the people who pay for the software and tell them it would be for their security, but obviously the user can't know that, because she don't knows what is not disclosed and why.
Also, it is apparent that Microsoft is not really interested in the security of their customers because they create software that has flaws which are just too obvious to accidently oversee them.
"why bother when it doesn't offer any major advantages over another non-MS browser like Mozilla?"
Ok, I really like Mozilla too, because it's open source, it's free, it has many neat features, it runs on many platforms, it displays nearly as much websites as IE and and and....
But I was happier than seldomly before when I recognized today that Opera also runs on my new FreeBSD box. I used only Mozilla/Galeon for some days now exclusively, and starting Opera today was like switching from a supertanker to a speedboat.
Mozilla can have *whateverneverbeforeseenfeature* it is, compared to IE in Windows or to Opera in FreeBSD/other Unix just unusable due to it's unbearable sluggishness.
Mozilla for my Online-Banking site, Opera for everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the irony here? The Scientology church is suspected to pursue anticonstitutional goals and is therefore observed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. For further information I reccomend to read the German constitution (PDF & German), especially article Nr.4 and article Nr.18.
yes, I think so, however he didn't state that explicitly. But if you read my original reply you know that I also referred to Mozilla's sluggishnes, menu pull down delay etc. But these are not so simple to measure as startup time. If I have 10 tabs opened in Mozilla of which 5 are currently loading, changing tabs or bringing up a (context-)menu lasts very long and can surely not be described as instantly. The same just doesn't apply to any other browser, especially not to Opera.
Btw. this was surely not intended as trolling, especially because I really like Mozilla in terms of feature-richness and and capability of the rendering engine. But I cannot imagine that the "average user" doesn't recognize this sluggishness. Why would s.o. with an average computer (like a pIII 500:-) prefer a browser with a slower UI over one with a fast one? Because it's open source, standards compliant, portable, has a lot of features and whatelse? Maybe, but I just think that the lack of in-use-performance is a great flaw (and IMO the only one) for Mozilla, especially in times where Joe Average and me don't feel the need to buy a faster computer, and I cannot understand why these performance issues are always talked away, denial just doesn't make them go away.
Thanks for the hint, but I just answered to a post that imo included wrong "facts". Maybe I posted something similar before, but that doesn't make this a troll.
FYI, I stopped right now - from click to running application:
measured on pIII 500 win2k
The parent states:
Thats plain BS because every fckng moron recognizes a huge difference between 12 seconds and 1 second.
This statement allows only one conclusion, you never compared Mozilla on a Windows machine to one of the other players.
Mozilla is great, it renders nearly everything - and it's Open Source. That doesn't change the fact that it's the slowest and most sluggish piece of software I know - and that sucks.
What sucks even more is that any Open Source lover passes over this in silence just because it's Open Source and therefore has to be good.
I really like Mozilla, I like the excellent popup-stopper, cookie and password management and I like tabs (of course), but I expect a browser to need less time to start than Photoshop>=6 on a PIII 500. And I expect a menu to pull down when clicking on it, not 5 seconds later. Opera meets this expectation, IE too (of course), Mozilla clearly does not.
I'm looking forward to usable (fast) Mozilla, and I'm looking forward to an Opera 7 with an highly improved rendering engine. And I'm pretty sure what comes first.
Yes, it was an excellent service. But - as you may know best - it was such a good service only due to it's huge, centralized database of songs, so that it was possible to search it independent from whether the song was currently online or not. Since the day Napster was smashed, it was not really difficult to see that it will be the fate of Audiogalaxy as well as of other "centralized" p2p filesharing to get smashed the same way.
We are a culturally poorer country for the damage the RIAA has inflicted on our rights to fair useIn a democracy it shouldn't be possible for a commercial entity (the RIAA) to damage any rights (if you think of a right as defined by law). So either there is no such right as the right of fair use or you have to think about the state of your democracy. Oh, I see, the EFF link is already there.
As a sidenote:
...underrated by many because of the obnoxious spyware they unfortunately propagated.
I'm clearly aware 1.any service has - at least - to cover it's expenses and 2.that it's stupid to install software without reading the EULA.
But it's a hard penalty for not following number 2 if s.o. has to reinstall her Windooze box because an application called Webhancer that came bundled with Audiogalaxy has smashed "winsock", which actually means "my internet doesn't work anymore"..
Yes, maybe. And thaaan?
Most Slashdot readers probably live in that special country (point with the finger at it) where laws named "CBDTPA" and some other with lots of "S" are seriously considered, while the Gonvernment of that country at the same time claims "Freedom" as one of the highest (the highest?) values.
But - from the misinformed outside - it seems that only the possibility of minor turnover decreases of some mega-corporations counts way more than individual freedom over there.
I mean, do you really think that an organisation like the RIAA (or next time the MPAA) is incapable to cut off true peer2peer filesharing? Can't they hire some homeless CS students to monitor who (which ip) does what (which song/movie) and place a call to the ISP to cancel a cable/dsl/whatever subscription due to copyright infringement (the ISP probably would be happy to get rid of those bandwith hogs)? If that would be the case, who would risk to download anything from anywhere when she has to face being kicked by her ISP?
Please don't tell me about encrypted filesharing, it's not usable for at least the next five years (IMO). (Isn't strong encryption illegal anyway? Terrorists could use it..)
Please correct any spelling and grammar errors and mod me troll - thank you
If so, how long does it usually take from the port release to the packet release?
Sometimes secrecy is useful in security: ask the NSA...
none of this matters because we're talking about M$, those nice folks asking to keep with Windows source secret because it has security flaws large enough to be considered economic and national security risksExcuse me, but this comparison is completely wrong. The NSA is an organisation that is controlled (or at least should be) by the democratic government of the USA (e.g. you, if you live over there). If they deceide not to disclose some "algorythms" to the public, it is (or again, should be) in your interest and, they know what they don't disclose and why (that is, they know the "source code" of their algorythms).
A company (e.g. Microsoft) doesn't share any interests with you (probably) or me (for sure) or may yet have interests that are contrary to the user's interests. They deceide not to disclose their source to the people who pay for the software and tell them it would be for their security, but obviously the user can't know that, because she don't knows what is not disclosed and why.
Also, it is apparent that Microsoft is not really interested in the security of their customers because they create software that has flaws which are just too obvious to accidently oversee them."why bother when it doesn't offer any major advantages over another non-MS browser like Mozilla?"
Ok, I really like Mozilla too, because it's open source, it's free, it has many neat features, it runs on many platforms, it displays nearly as much websites as IE and and and ....
But I was happier than seldomly before when I recognized today that Opera also runs on my new FreeBSD box. I used only Mozilla/Galeon for some days now exclusively, and starting Opera today was like switching from a supertanker to a speedboat.
Mozilla can have *whateverneverbeforeseenfeature* it is, compared to IE in Windows or to Opera in FreeBSD/other Unix just unusable due to it's unbearable sluggishness.Mozilla for my Online-Banking site, Opera for everything else.