If they don't have the skills, time or money to maintain the website they shouldn't have put it up in the first place, or should have limited it to stuff that wasn't going to go out of date easily like prices.
I don't think it is too much to ask for a bit of responsibility by business owners, although also some common sense by the courts. In this case was warned first, so the whole argument about forgetting doesn't wash.
In this case "business my way" is simply a case of them being honest.
The idea that government should allow business to scam customers through false advertising is OK because customer will leave is ridiculous.
What if the scam is for something very expensive like a house, or about the safety of something? Hey, if you bankrupt or kill you customers you will go out of business so that is OK!
It doesn't do anything on the web end, it does stuff on the client end, that the user tells it to do.
Once the user has downloaded a web page, they can do whatever the hell they like to it on their own machine. If a webmaster doesn't get that, they have no business doing anything on the web.
A bunch of bloggers got their panties in a twist about it because they couldn't grasp the simple and fundamental concept that on the web once you serve a page up to a client you have no control on what the client does with it.
Like a lot of blog noise it isn't real controversy because most people using it really don't know or care about it.
At work we have mailbox limits, so after a while stuff gets archived off out of the main Outlook pst file into an archive. I have years worth of emails becuase you never know when you will need one.
I also have an old archive.pst from a previous machine. GDS will search them all, at once, far, far faster than Outlook can. It has been very very useful for me at work.
You rather missed his point that stuff isn't dropped. As it costs only time to keep open source software going, ego stops the less good stuff from going at lot of the time.
Since it never gets down to a common feature set developers are always faced with an overhead.
They pay money to the Russian equivilent of the RIAA. Under current Russia law that seems to give them the right without needing explicit permission, like a radio broadcaster.
You don't give you card to allofmp3 you give it to a 3rd party. I've never had any problems, I've never heard of anyone having any problems and I was worried so I researched it quite a bit.
Not if you are writing applications for them, which was largely his point. It is pretty easy to write (and compile and distribute) stuff that works on all the modern Windows versions.
As for a weekend device driver, I'm gald that the dominant software supplier in my shop spends more than 48 hours writing code that is going to be doing the brunt of the I/O work on my hardware....
You see some dumb arguments on/., but that, wow.
Certainly you want to tune and test a device driver well, but the less time you spend writing it, the more time you have to do it. Or you can spend the same time and get it out quicker. Also,
if it is simpler to write it may be simpler to write well.
You could attack any software tool, language or system that speeds up development with that argument. Why don't we write everything in assembler so it takes more time, and then somehow that magically means were are more likely to get it right.
Maybe they aren't doing the project "for free and open source software" but for users who want a decent browser on any platform? Mozilla aren't fighting any war for the desktop, because they make browsers, not desktops.
That seems to be their goal, so quite obviously windows is included, and the Mac. I notice you don't comment on the Mac, but that is also a closed source OS, even if it has Darwin underneath.
Your right that offering FireFox for Windows isn't going to get people to move off Windows. I've seen some people make the argument, but never seen it as being listed as a goal of the Moz and FF people. You can't call it failure if it wasn't their goal.
In fact, you seem to be against cross platform development altogether. It is hardly the only OSS software to do this (Open Office anyone?), and it is usually touted
Open source isn't some huge, unified movement dedicated to destroying Microsoft (although some individuals are). There isn't a "true open source" community, maybe you mean the free software community, which is based on the ideals of free software, rather than the more pragmatic open source community? (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Even then I'd think the point of open source is freedom, and that includes the freedom to delevop in MS Windows. The GPL and other licenses don't say you can't develop on a closed source OS.
Like freedom of speech lets people say things you don't like, including ideas that are against freedom of speech. Freedom to code lets you code for closed source systems, even if the people that
came up with the idea don't like what you are coding for.
It isn't any half way measure, they are doing exactly what they want to do (and other major OSS projects do), and they are doing very well. It just isn't what you want, but you are free to go make a *nix only fork if you think it will get more support by loosing all the Windows people.
I think by as good as the parent simply means "offers the same features", that would include easy of use and computability.
Open Office doesn't have the same feature set as MS office. Maybe you consider that "identical to", but for most people of one program (or suite) lacks feature the other one has, then it isn't as good.
Particularly if you use those features.
There are lots of open source programs covering the same area as a commercial one, few are as good, or better. FireFox is a great example of one that is. OpenOffice is one that isn't, it doesn't really offer anything in the same area as Access for example (I hate Access, but lots of non-Technical, non-Database people use it a lot).
Or look at GIMP, it just isn't as good as Photoshop in terms of features and ease of use.
Open source software has come a long way, but the best way to keep improving it is to recognise where it still needs to catch up. Don't pretend it is all as good yet out of some misguided loyalty, keep pointing out the flaws so that it can get as good, then better, than proprietary software.
How on Earth this got modded up is beyond me, it's pure drivel, or maybe a clever joke the mods didn't get.
If you're not bit shifting hot registers at runtime then you're not programming. Plain and simple. You're just plugging different blocks together and hoping like hell it will work. How would you feel if they designed bridges like that?
How do you think anything complex is designed? One person doesn't sit down and design a whole computer, or every part of a car. You use a combination of existing things (blocks if you like), and new things developed by different people or teams. To each team the rest of the stuff is a block they plug into
Even if you are using a bunch of pre-written modules/objects/classes you may be doing a lot more than plugging them together. You write the core of the app, plugging them together well takes skill and work, and most definitely is programming.
that low level languages like C and Forth produce more efficient, faster, and easier to maintain code than today's so called high level languages.
Maybe faster to run, but slower to write, and harder to maintain.
The reason for this is simple, the amount of time spent in coding is finite, yet, oddly enough, CPU time isn't. Thusly unless you can improve an algorithm along that order then your time was wasted. This is simple first year college stuff here, hardly rocket science.
Not rocket science, just garbage. Firstly the limited programming time is an argument for high level languages that enable quick development. Secondly you can't just trade of CPU time and development time, a program may need to run in a certain time to be usable at all. If you can't get you runtime down to that you don't have an app. CPU time most definitely is limited if you have a user who wants a reasonable response.
Finally this has nothing to do with Linux/Open Source anyway.
This post has to be a joke or a troll, I wonder more at the moderators than the poster.
Firstly, receiving any communication incurs a cost on the recipient
For junk mail you can get on do not mail lists, likewise do not call lists for the phone, and calls at certain times are not allowed. I'm pretty sure that unsolicited fax advertising is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protections Act, because the cost is picked up by the receiver.
There is no such recourse with spam, and it costs companies a lot of time and money to deal with it. The cost seems to be the key, getting mail from you mail box doesn't impose enough cost in time or money. However unsolicited faxes and calls at night do, so they are not allowed.
I'd say spam is closer to the fax, it pushes cost onto you. While one is minimal, it is so easy to do in bulk that it can reach the point that the cost of dealing with it is not negligible. The cost for organisations is even worse, if you deal with hundreds of email accounts mounts up both in time, bandwidth and possibly hardware.
I've never yet seen a spam that resisted attempts to delete it.
Most spam these days pretty clearly is designed to get around filters.
I'm talking about people who want unsolicted spam.
Maybe some people do, you have to balance that with the people who don't and the cost to them.
I had some strange problems. SpellBound stopped working and needed an uninstall and reinstall. Even more strange, the browser crashed whenever I typed www.amazon.co.uk into the address bar. The error reporting has never worked properly through the company firewall or I would have sent the reports of.
Uninstalling an reinstalling the browser didn't help, but after running it in safe mode once everything was OK.
I really like FireFox, but upgrading needs to be made less painful. Just a patch please, and no uninstall/reinstall.
Why are compilied programs not RAD? I know ASP.NET auto compiles when you run it, you don't really notice it except the first time after you change a page it takes a bit longer to load.
If you had to mess around with a compilier every time it may not be, but I guess it would depend how much trouble it was. In some IDEs you can change code and run straight away, and only compile when it is finished.
Seems to me as long as quick and easy to develop with it is RAD.
Standards are good, but on the web slow. Look at neat things like XMLHTTPrequest that can update data to a page without a reload.
Non standard, but after MS puts it in, so have other browsers because it is really useful. Not following standards have given us some really bad ideas (Netscape's Layers) and some really good ones like this.
If it is non-standard but cross browser and useful I would definately use it as a web developer. Something IE or Windows only I would staty clear of.
I used to have to write cross platform JavaScript for IE4/Netscape 4. That was hellish.
Mozilla and FireFox are really good for JavaScript. Most of the stuff is very close to IE6, it even support document.all now. The biggest problem is IE lets you drop the 'document' before a form name while FireFox doesn't.
I'm trying to think of an innovative language feature IE has that is on standard. XMLHttpRequest is cool, but Mozilla browsers have that. IIRC you initialise it a little differently, but it isn't tons of new code.
Got any examples? You can do some neat stuff with DX filters in IE, but that is Windows machines only, and I'm not aware of a coding equivilent you could do on another browser.
Still, 80% is a massive overstatement. I find FireFox JavaScript works fine on the vast majority of pages I visit.
For 3 there is a session saver extentions that does that.
I don't know how hjava does it, but flashblock will disable Flash until you click on it and tell it to activate, and AdBlock will block Flash from servers you specify.
They are as anoying as popups if you want to read the actual content of the web page without something getting in the way.
Sure you can just not read it, but if you are looking for something in particular and following a search, and you think the page has the answers, are you really going to go elsewhere when finding an elsewhere could take some time.
Just becuase they sell something at the smae price doesn't mean it costs them the same to make it.
Re:Ah, so this software does have vulnerabilities
on
Firefox 1.0.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course FireFox patches only fix Firefox, becuase that is all it is. That also means any problems in it only affect Firefox.
Ask anyone with a clue about computer security and they will tell you that is a good thing, unlike IE flaws causing problems all over the place becuase it is integrated into windows. It isn't like using Firefox stops you using windows update you know.
It definately is slower to start, as IE is loaded up when windows is. You don't notice IE's start up time as a seperate thing. As for spped in use, it depends on what the page is, images, script, CSS, complex layout and so on as too which one is faster.
I'm sure we will see lots of security updates for it, although so far it doesn't seem close to IE in terms of patches. I've never seen anyone claim it wouldn't need security updates. The argument has always been as open source the security would be better and the updates quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody, it sits ontop of NTFS, so you wouldn't need to format anything.
If they don't have the skills, time or money to maintain the website they shouldn't have put it up in the first place, or should have limited it to stuff that wasn't going to go out of date easily like prices.
I don't think it is too much to ask for a bit of responsibility by business owners, although also some common sense by the courts. In this case was warned first, so the whole argument about forgetting doesn't wash.
In this case "business my way" is simply a case of them being honest.
The idea that government should allow business to scam customers through false advertising is OK because customer will leave is ridiculous.
What if the scam is for something very expensive like a house, or about the safety of something? Hey, if you bankrupt or kill you customers you will go out of business so that is OK!
It doesn't do anything on the web end, it does stuff on the client end, that the user tells it to do.
Once the user has downloaded a web page, they can do whatever the hell they like to it on their own machine. If a webmaster doesn't get that, they have no business doing anything on the web.
A bunch of bloggers got their panties in a twist about it because they couldn't grasp the simple and fundamental concept that on the web once you serve a page up to a client you have no control on what the client does with it.
Like a lot of blog noise it isn't real controversy because most people using it really don't know or care about it.
At work we have mailbox limits, so after a while stuff gets archived off out of the main Outlook pst file into an archive. I have years worth of emails becuase you never know when you will need one.
I also have an old archive.pst from a previous machine. GDS will search them all, at once, far, far faster than Outlook can. It has been very very useful for me at work.
You rather missed his point that stuff isn't dropped. As it costs only time to keep open source software going, ego stops the less good stuff from going at lot of the time.
Since it never gets down to a common feature set developers are always faced with an overhead.
They pay money to the Russian equivilent of the RIAA. Under current Russia law that seems to give them the right without needing explicit permission, like a radio broadcaster.
You don't give you card to allofmp3 you give it to a 3rd party. I've never had any problems, I've never heard of anyone having any problems and I was worried so I researched it quite a bit.
Not if you are writing applications for them, which was largely his point. It is pretty easy to write (and compile and distribute) stuff that works on all the modern Windows versions.
An AC talking about guts, oh the irony.
How is 23.7 many times 15?
Isn't the guy also complaining that alot of it is just wrappers? If they weren't, wouldn't it be much bigger?
Can't have it both ways.
As for a weekend device driver, I'm gald that the dominant software supplier in my shop spends more than 48 hours writing code that is going to be doing the brunt of the I/O work on my hardware....
You see some dumb arguments on /., but that, wow.
Certainly you want to tune and test a device driver well, but the less time you spend writing it, the more time you have to do it. Or you can spend the same time and get it out quicker. Also, if it is simpler to write it may be simpler to write well.
You could attack any software tool, language or system that speeds up development with that argument. Why don't we write everything in assembler so it takes more time, and then somehow that magically means were are more likely to get it right.
Maybe they aren't doing the project "for free and open source software" but for users who want a decent browser on any platform? Mozilla aren't fighting any war for the desktop, because they make browsers, not desktops.
That seems to be their goal, so quite obviously windows is included, and the Mac. I notice you don't comment on the Mac, but that is also a closed source OS, even if it has Darwin underneath.
Your right that offering FireFox for Windows isn't going to get people to move off Windows. I've seen some people make the argument, but never seen it as being listed as a goal of the Moz and FF people. You can't call it failure if it wasn't their goal.
In fact, you seem to be against cross platform development altogether. It is hardly the only OSS software to do this (Open Office anyone?), and it is usually touted
Open source isn't some huge, unified movement dedicated to destroying Microsoft (although some individuals are). There isn't a "true open source" community, maybe you mean the free software community, which is based on the ideals of free software, rather than the more pragmatic open source community? (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Even then I'd think the point of open source is freedom, and that includes the freedom to delevop in MS Windows. The GPL and other licenses don't say you can't develop on a closed source OS.
Like freedom of speech lets people say things you don't like, including ideas that are against freedom of speech. Freedom to code lets you code for closed source systems, even if the people that came up with the idea don't like what you are coding for.
It isn't any half way measure, they are doing exactly what they want to do (and other major OSS projects do), and they are doing very well. It just isn't what you want, but you are free to go make a *nix only fork if you think it will get more support by loosing all the Windows people.
I think by as good as the parent simply means "offers the same features", that would include easy of use and computability.
Open Office doesn't have the same feature set as MS office. Maybe you consider that "identical to", but for most people of one program (or suite) lacks feature the other one has, then it isn't as good.
Particularly if you use those features.
There are lots of open source programs covering the same area as a commercial one, few are as good, or better. FireFox is a great example of one that is. OpenOffice is one that isn't, it doesn't really offer anything in the same area as Access for example (I hate Access, but lots of non-Technical, non-Database people use it a lot).
Or look at GIMP, it just isn't as good as Photoshop in terms of features and ease of use.
Open source software has come a long way, but the best way to keep improving it is to recognise where it still needs to catch up. Don't pretend it is all as good yet out of some misguided loyalty, keep pointing out the flaws so that it can get as good, then better, than proprietary software.
How on Earth this got modded up is beyond me, it's pure drivel, or maybe a clever joke the mods didn't get.
If you're not bit shifting hot registers at runtime then you're not programming. Plain and simple. You're just plugging different blocks together and hoping like hell it will work. How would you feel if they designed bridges like that?
How do you think anything complex is designed? One person doesn't sit down and design a whole computer, or every part of a car. You use a combination of existing things (blocks if you like), and new things developed by different people or teams. To each team the rest of the stuff is a block they plug into
Even if you are using a bunch of pre-written modules/objects/classes you may be doing a lot more than plugging them together. You write the core of the app, plugging them together well takes skill and work, and most definitely is programming.
that low level languages like C and Forth produce more efficient, faster, and easier to maintain code than today's so called high level languages.
Maybe faster to run, but slower to write, and harder to maintain.
The reason for this is simple, the amount of time spent in coding is finite, yet, oddly enough, CPU time isn't. Thusly unless you can improve an algorithm along that order then your time was wasted. This is simple first year college stuff here, hardly rocket science.
Not rocket science, just garbage. Firstly the limited programming time is an argument for high level languages that enable quick development. Secondly you can't just trade of CPU time and development time, a program may need to run in a certain time to be usable at all. If you can't get you runtime down to that you don't have an app. CPU time most definitely is limited if you have a user who wants a reasonable response.
Finally this has nothing to do with Linux/Open Source anyway.
This post has to be a joke or a troll, I wonder more at the moderators than the poster.
Firstly, receiving any communication incurs a cost on the recipient
For junk mail you can get on do not mail lists, likewise do not call lists for the phone, and calls at certain times are not allowed. I'm pretty sure that unsolicited fax advertising is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protections Act, because the cost is picked up by the receiver.
There is no such recourse with spam, and it costs companies a lot of time and money to deal with it. The cost seems to be the key, getting mail from you mail box doesn't impose enough cost in time or money. However unsolicited faxes and calls at night do, so they are not allowed.
I'd say spam is closer to the fax, it pushes cost onto you. While one is minimal, it is so easy to do in bulk that it can reach the point that the cost of dealing with it is not negligible. The cost for organisations is even worse, if you deal with hundreds of email accounts mounts up both in time, bandwidth and possibly hardware.
I've never yet seen a spam that resisted attempts to delete it.
Most spam these days pretty clearly is designed to get around filters.
I'm talking about people who want unsolicted spam.
Maybe some people do, you have to balance that with the people who don't and the cost to them.
I had some strange problems. SpellBound stopped working and needed an uninstall and reinstall. Even more strange, the browser crashed whenever I typed www.amazon.co.uk into the address bar. The error reporting has never worked properly through the company firewall or I would have sent the reports of.
Uninstalling an reinstalling the browser didn't help, but after running it in safe mode once everything was OK.
I really like FireFox, but upgrading needs to be made less painful. Just a patch please, and no uninstall/reinstall.
Why are compilied programs not RAD? I know ASP.NET auto compiles when you run it, you don't really notice it except the first time after you change a page it takes a bit longer to load.
If you had to mess around with a compilier every time it may not be, but I guess it would depend how much trouble it was. In some IDEs you can change code and run straight away, and only compile when it is finished.
Seems to me as long as quick and easy to develop with it is RAD.
Standards are good, but on the web slow. Look at neat things like XMLHTTPrequest that can update data to a page without a reload.
Non standard, but after MS puts it in, so have other browsers because it is really useful. Not following standards have given us some really bad ideas (Netscape's Layers) and some really good ones like this.
If it is non-standard but cross browser and useful I would definately use it as a web developer. Something IE or Windows only I would staty clear of.
I used to have to write cross platform JavaScript for IE4/Netscape 4. That was hellish.
Mozilla and FireFox are really good for JavaScript. Most of the stuff is very close to IE6, it even support document.all now. The biggest problem is IE lets you drop the 'document' before a form name while FireFox doesn't.
I'm trying to think of an innovative language feature IE has that is on standard. XMLHttpRequest is cool, but Mozilla browsers have that. IIRC you initialise it a little differently, but it isn't tons of new code.
Got any examples? You can do some neat stuff with DX filters in IE, but that is Windows machines only, and I'm not aware of a coding equivilent you could do on another browser.
Still, 80% is a massive overstatement. I find FireFox JavaScript works fine on the vast majority of pages I visit.
For 3 there is a session saver extentions that does that.
I don't know how hjava does it, but flashblock will disable Flash until you click on it and tell it to activate, and AdBlock will block Flash from servers you specify.
They are as anoying as popups if you want to read the actual content of the web page without something getting in the way.
Sure you can just not read it, but if you are looking for something in particular and following a search, and you think the page has the answers, are you really going to go elsewhere when finding an elsewhere could take some time.
Just becuase they sell something at the smae price doesn't mean it costs them the same to make it.
Of course FireFox patches only fix Firefox, becuase that is all it is. That also means any problems in it only affect Firefox.
Ask anyone with a clue about computer security and they will tell you that is a good thing, unlike IE flaws causing problems all over the place becuase it is integrated into windows. It isn't like using Firefox stops you using windows update you know.
It definately is slower to start, as IE is loaded up when windows is. You don't notice IE's start up time as a seperate thing. As for spped in use, it depends on what the page is, images, script, CSS, complex layout and so on as too which one is faster.
I'm sure we will see lots of security updates for it, although so far it doesn't seem close to IE in terms of patches. I've never seen anyone claim it wouldn't need security updates. The argument has always been as open source the security would be better and the updates quicker.
I do suspect you a really a troll.