And that would be an advantage for the imperial system? Really? Having to keep in mind always different fractions, instead of just 1000 (as in kilo, mega, giga... and milli, micro, nano, pico...)?
How often has something given you something and said "cut 1/1000th of this off" vs "cut this in half"?
Most Americans cant picture a mile. picturing a kilometer is easy, it's very close to 7 city blocks.
Speak for yourself.
I can picture a mile much more easily than I can picture 7 city blocks. Hell, given your description, I'd picture 7 city blocks by picturing a mile, taking a bit more than half to get a kilometer, and saying that's 7 city blocks. Any place I've ever lived the blocks have varied tremendously in length, so I never understood that measurement.
You need to come spend some time with me in Wisconsin a bit. (Yeah, I know all you Canadians are laughing at me here.) I'll take 0 C over 30 C any day. Hell, I'll take -10 C over 30 C.
I agree with the guy a couple posts up the tree who said that Fahrenheit is a pretty good system for measuring temperatures that you actually experience.
Bah, I'm not impressed. SimCity 2000 taught me that fusion reactors will be available in about 2050 to 2060. If reality fails to live up to Will Wright, I will be sorely disappointed.
I'm glad to see you're so happy. Is it because the book review sounded particularly good or interesting? I didn't bother to read your post so I'm not sure.
To be fair, XP is what, 8 years old now? Even though it's seen patches and service packs, the base code is still rather old. Furthermore, XP-64 is not exactly a go-to guy for good driver support.
Meanwhile, I bet your Ubuntu installation is from the last year, maybe two, and Linux x64 kicks the butt of XP 64.
Here's a question: how is Windows 7? You said you have the RC of it, but you didn't say how successfully it detected your hardware and that sort of stuff. I bet it did comparable to Ubuntu.
If Miguel is distributing parts of Mono copyrighted by other people knowing that a patent license is required to use it, he's in violation of the GPL and violating those contributors' copyrights.
(I'm not sure if Mono requires copyright assignment for contribution.)
What does that have to do with whether Windows Explorer is a wrapper around the HTML control or not?
*sigh*
Fine, I'll be more explicit. Starting in Vista, Windows Explorer won't open HTML files itself.
If you think it can, I challenge you to find evidence of that fact. In the meantime, I'm going with the circumstantial evidence I've already presented, as well as this direct quote from Wikipedia:
"Also, with the release of Windows Vista & Server 2008 and Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP, Internet Explorer is no longer integrated with Windows Explorer. Unlike older versions, Windows Explorer does not host Internet Explorer controls in its own process, rather it launches a new process when necessary. In Windows Vista and Server 2008 (and in Windows XP as well if IE7 is installed), Windows Explorer no longer displays web pages, and IE7 does not support use as a file manager, although one will separately launch the other as necessary."
True, but this is a little bit non-standard of a mechanism to get help. Most commands that ship with Windows have a/? option that works like --help often does, but not FTP:
C:\Documents and Settings\Evan (alt)>ftp/? > ftp: connect:Unknown error number ftp>
The graphical client in file explorer works the same way as Windows.
I read MSHTML files on Linux using the Gecko engine. There is a package that needs to be installed, so that Gecko can read MSHTML, but it renders just fine. Maybe better than with IE. The other reasons why the core rendering agent is "required" may also be bogus. There ARE alternatives, to almost everything.
Read what I said carefully again; I didn't say anything about MS adding support to plug in external HTML renderers.
All I'm claiming in this thread is that it would be silly to ship Windows without a renderer and unreasonable to require them to ship it with a competitor's or without one, which means MS will and (I assert) should ship with an HTML renderer.
This is a ways away though from saying either that it should ship with a browser or that the renderer shouldn't be replaceable later.
Rubbish. You could ship it with a skeleton html renderer...
So now you want to require MS to maintain two HTML renderers for... what benefit exactly?...or you could ship it without on and bring up a dialog to download or activate one.
What if the help topic the user is trying to look up is "how do I get online?"
Since Windows Explorer is also a shell around the HTML control, this is a difference that makes no difference.
Did you read anything I wrote? Namely "Windows Explorer: Not true, starting with Vista."
Entering a URL in Windows Explorer opens that URL in your default browser now, not in the Explorer window. Hell, I was even too conservative in saying what Microsoft did there; that's true now even in XP if you have IE 7 or maybe 8. (I have 8 and confirmed that behavior now; a poster in another thread said that was the behavior starting with 7.)
Cite, please.
Strictly speaking, all I said was "that I know of".
But, for instance, we have what Wikipedia says about removing it: "The Windows help and support system will also not function due to the heavy reliance on HTML help files and components of IE. In versions of Windows before Vista, it is also not possible to run Microsoft's Windows Update or Microsoft Update with any other browser due to the service's implementation of an ActiveX control, which no other browser supports. In Windows Vista, Windows Update is implemented as a Control Panel applet."
Note that the only thing they specifically mention as breaking now is Windows Help.
Doxygen is able to write.chm files, so I think it is sufficiently documented so that another browser could display them.
I have no firsthand knowledge of how much is known about CHM's format, but this is a pretty large leap. All that says is that enough of CHM is known to do what Doxygen needs to do; this is a far cry from saying that you can build a reader for arbitrary CHM files.
I think the complaint is more that Microsoft is not providing any means to call another browser. Assuming the file is adequately documented and actually serves some purpose then the browsers should interpret them.
Well, sort of. I would say in a narrow sense this debate is on MS shipping their HTML renderer; and while help files are some form of HTML I think this is a non-question. In a broader sense though, yes, being able to substitute other renderers for MSHTML would be nice.
(Incidentally, it looks like with Vista MS is moving away from CHM files to something called MAML.)
In theory you could completely remove IE, as long as you replace the rendering engine with some other, and provide the necessary bindings so all the softwares using HTML can still function.
Oh, sure. I didn't mean to claim otherwise. I was just saying that shipping Windows without any HTML rendering engine would be foolhardy on MS's part and stupid on the part of any regulators to require. And requiring MS to ship competitors' renderers opens a whole can of worms and, I think, would be entirely unreasonable. Put these too together and you'll see why I said that I don't see Windows shipping without MSHTML.
Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?
Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.
They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.
(Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)
Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.
I disagree with that statement. Installing an OS nowadays is really not that hard, and it guides you through the process pretty clearly. If it's not clear enough, there's help available there.
If you're using an FTP client, you have to explicitly know the commands for how to work it. They aren't *hard* to pick up, but how many people actually know them?
Finally, what do you FTP to? ftp.mozilla.com? mozilla.com? firefox.com? ftp.firefox.com? Guess how many of those actually work?
Sadly though, I still don't think they let you remove the browser 100% as they should, unless they're letting you do WGA online without requiring ActiveX.
You already can do WGA without ActiveX, by downloading a program that you then run and copy a value into Firefox or whatever. I forget details since it's been a while, but you definitely can do it.
At the very worst, they could write a Java applet or a standard browser plugin or something like that which would do it.
That "computer maker option" = windows OS discount.
Maybe; they'd probably have to be very careful about it. I'm sure they would want to, but I'm also pretty sure the EU would jump on them basically as hard for that stunt as they have been for IE bundling in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
(Ref: Conservatives MPs... want topless... bathing banned on NSW beaches)
Jeez, you think the "NSW" label would be good enough to warn people.
If Fahrenheit really was "better", then 50 would be "just right", because it's right smack in the middle of "too cold" and "too hot".
I probably do not represent the majority opinion, but I do think 50 is "just right", or at least very close.
And that would be an advantage for the imperial system? Really? Having to keep in mind always different fractions, instead of just 1000 (as in kilo, mega, giga... and milli, micro, nano, pico...)?
How often has something given you something and said "cut 1/1000th of this off" vs "cut this in half"?
Most Americans cant picture a mile. picturing a kilometer is easy, it's very close to 7 city blocks.
Speak for yourself.
I can picture a mile much more easily than I can picture 7 city blocks. Hell, given your description, I'd picture 7 city blocks by picturing a mile, taking a bit more than half to get a kilometer, and saying that's 7 city blocks. Any place I've ever lived the blocks have varied tremendously in length, so I never understood that measurement.
under 0 is way too damn cold.
You need to come spend some time with me in Wisconsin a bit. (Yeah, I know all you Canadians are laughing at me here.) I'll take 0 C over 30 C any day. Hell, I'll take -10 C over 30 C.
I agree with the guy a couple posts up the tree who said that Fahrenheit is a pretty good system for measuring temperatures that you actually experience.
Bah, I'm not impressed. SimCity 2000 taught me that fusion reactors will be available in about 2050 to 2060. If reality fails to live up to Will Wright, I will be sorely disappointed.
;-)
I'm glad to see you're so happy. Is it because the book review sounded particularly good or interesting? I didn't bother to read your post so I'm not sure.
To be fair, XP is what, 8 years old now? Even though it's seen patches and service packs, the base code is still rather old. Furthermore, XP-64 is not exactly a go-to guy for good driver support.
Meanwhile, I bet your Ubuntu installation is from the last year, maybe two, and Linux x64 kicks the butt of XP 64.
Here's a question: how is Windows 7? You said you have the RC of it, but you didn't say how successfully it detected your hardware and that sort of stuff. I bet it did comparable to Ubuntu.
Keep in mind that a wheel will throw the pieces of gravel back in addition to up, which totally invalidates your calculation.
Not to dispute the "only a fool breaks the three second rule" concept.
add-ons, by definition, are not part of the application.
No, but the code that loads and runs the add-on is.
Or they've already gotten him.
If Miguel is distributing parts of Mono copyrighted by other people knowing that a patent license is required to use it, he's in violation of the GPL and violating those contributors' copyrights.
(I'm not sure if Mono requires copyright assignment for contribution.)
Maybe NASA could do it.
It even has all of the right letters already. Should be a cinch to make that transition!
What does that have to do with whether Windows Explorer is a wrapper around the HTML control or not?
*sigh*
Fine, I'll be more explicit. Starting in Vista, Windows Explorer won't open HTML files itself.
If you think it can, I challenge you to find evidence of that fact. In the meantime, I'm going with the circumstantial evidence I've already presented, as well as this direct quote from Wikipedia:
"Also, with the release of Windows Vista & Server 2008 and Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP, Internet Explorer is no longer integrated with Windows Explorer. Unlike older versions, Windows Explorer does not host Internet Explorer controls in its own process, rather it launches a new process when necessary. In Windows Vista and Server 2008 (and in Windows XP as well if IE7 is installed), Windows Explorer no longer displays web pages, and IE7 does not support use as a file manager, although one will separately launch the other as necessary."
Well, the command line client responds to "help".
True, but this is a little bit non-standard of a mechanism to get help. Most commands that ship with Windows have a /? option that works like --help often does, but not FTP:
The graphical client in file explorer works the same way as Windows.
True.
I read MSHTML files on Linux using the Gecko engine. There is a package that needs to be installed, so that Gecko can read MSHTML, but it renders just fine. Maybe better than with IE. The other reasons why the core rendering agent is "required" may also be bogus. There ARE alternatives, to almost everything.
Read what I said carefully again; I didn't say anything about MS adding support to plug in external HTML renderers.
All I'm claiming in this thread is that it would be silly to ship Windows without a renderer and unreasonable to require them to ship it with a competitor's or without one, which means MS will and (I assert) should ship with an HTML renderer.
This is a ways away though from saying either that it should ship with a browser or that the renderer shouldn't be replaceable later.
Rubbish. You could ship it with a skeleton html renderer...
So now you want to require MS to maintain two HTML renderers for... what benefit exactly? ...or you could ship it without on and bring up a dialog to download or activate one.
What if the help topic the user is trying to look up is "how do I get online?"
Since Windows Explorer is also a shell around the HTML control, this is a difference that makes no difference.
Did you read anything I wrote? Namely "Windows Explorer: Not true, starting with Vista."
Entering a URL in Windows Explorer opens that URL in your default browser now, not in the Explorer window. Hell, I was even too conservative in saying what Microsoft did there; that's true now even in XP if you have IE 7 or maybe 8. (I have 8 and confirmed that behavior now; a poster in another thread said that was the behavior starting with 7.)
Cite, please.
Strictly speaking, all I said was "that I know of".
But, for instance, we have what Wikipedia says about removing it:
"The Windows help and support system will also not function due to the heavy reliance on HTML help files and components of IE. In versions of Windows before Vista, it is also not possible to run Microsoft's Windows Update or Microsoft Update with any other browser due to the service's implementation of an ActiveX control, which no other browser supports. In Windows Vista, Windows Update is implemented as a Control Panel applet."
Note that the only thing they specifically mention as breaking now is Windows Help.
Doxygen is able to write .chm files, so I think it is sufficiently documented so that another browser could display them.
I have no firsthand knowledge of how much is known about CHM's format, but this is a pretty large leap. All that says is that enough of CHM is known to do what Doxygen needs to do; this is a far cry from saying that you can build a reader for arbitrary CHM files.
I think the complaint is more that Microsoft is not providing any means to call another browser. Assuming the file is adequately documented and actually serves some purpose then the browsers should interpret them.
Well, sort of. I would say in a narrow sense this debate is on MS shipping their HTML renderer; and while help files are some form of HTML I think this is a non-question. In a broader sense though, yes, being able to substitute other renderers for MSHTML would be nice.
(Incidentally, it looks like with Vista MS is moving away from CHM files to something called MAML.)
In theory you could completely remove IE, as long as you replace the rendering engine with some other, and provide the necessary bindings so all the softwares using HTML can still function.
Oh, sure. I didn't mean to claim otherwise. I was just saying that shipping Windows without any HTML rendering engine would be foolhardy on MS's part and stupid on the part of any regulators to require. And requiring MS to ship competitors' renderers opens a whole can of worms and, I think, would be entirely unreasonable. Put these too together and you'll see why I said that I don't see Windows shipping without MSHTML.
Windows doesn't have anything like wget to download the packages over the internet...
Does FTP not count as "something like wget"? Hell, you'd have your choice of CLI or GUI FTP client.
Internet Explorer is not just another application, it's a deeply embedded part of the OS.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
It's still there, as part of Windows Explorer and the Control Panel and Windows Update and Windows Media Player.
Windows Explorer: Not true, starting with Vista.
Control Panel: Huh? Not true; that's just standard Windows Explorer.
Windows Update: Not true, starting with Vista.
WMP: I can't speak to that.
About the only "fundamental" part of Windows where their HTML rendering engine is used that I know of at this point is the help system.
Basically, you are part of a group of people who spout as much FUD about MS and Windows as anyone does about Linux.
And you don't think Complied HTML is based on HTML?
You still need a renderer for HTML. Lose the renderer, no more help until you install IE. Wouldn't that be fun.
Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?
Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.
They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.
(Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)
Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.
I disagree with that statement. Installing an OS nowadays is really not that hard, and it guides you through the process pretty clearly. If it's not clear enough, there's help available there.
If you're using an FTP client, you have to explicitly know the commands for how to work it. They aren't *hard* to pick up, but how many people actually know them?
Finally, what do you FTP to? ftp.mozilla.com? mozilla.com? firefox.com? ftp.firefox.com? Guess how many of those actually work?
Sadly though, I still don't think they let you remove the browser 100% as they should, unless they're letting you do WGA online without requiring ActiveX.
You already can do WGA without ActiveX, by downloading a program that you then run and copy a value into Firefox or whatever. I forget details since it's been a while, but you definitely can do it.
At the very worst, they could write a Java applet or a standard browser plugin or something like that which would do it.
That "computer maker option" = windows OS discount.
Maybe; they'd probably have to be very careful about it. I'm sure they would want to, but I'm also pretty sure the EU would jump on them basically as hard for that stunt as they have been for IE bundling in the first place.