I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.
So what, the statement is incorrect anyway but so what. Tabs are nice but the are not the be all and end all of browsing. Some people like them, some hate them, they are not a big deal.
I'm all for cultural diversity but what struck me about it was that if India is anything like Ireland, there will always be someone demanding the govt provide this service ot that in Gailge. For 2 languages its a pain but doable, 22 languages though I would have though would lead to an administrative nighmare.
I assume Hindi is accepted as standard language so people can actually communicate with each other.
Tell us something we didnt know. What was interesting to me though was
Eventually, the government plans to release CDs in all of the 22 official languages of India.
Holy crap, just how many languages exactly does a country need! I know its a big place but 22! It must require 95% of all IT resources just to localise software. How do they manage to find time for offshore work?
Well I meant deserved in that it was a better product. The fact it was ubiquitous is as others and yourself have noted was the major factor.
Regarding Netscapes strategy I think Mozilla have been down a very similar road (going to rule the world etc) Firefox is simpler but from painful experience rather than design.
Free ?? If you meant as in beer so was netscape and so is just about every other browser these days. If you meant speech, heres a newsflash Joe Sixpack doesnt give a rats ass.
Rapid rate of expansion?? You do know its slowing and is still at under 10%?
Firefox is undoubtly a better browser than IE at the moment but I expect that will change in the near future. The fact that Firefox is now as you put it simpler puts it squarely in the commodity market. What will its differentiator be when IE has a comparable feature list and comes preinstalled and is what people are familiar with? So I cant really see where your 'final decisive battle' is coming from other than the emotive cliche book. If there had been a quality OS browser back when Netscape and IE were duking it out then I think a lot more people would be using it if only because of market entrenchment, but the simple fact is that OS had nothing back then of sufficient quality to begin to even compete. Now 5 years after the fact they have a very good browser but personally I think its too late to achieve the sort of domination MS did (frankly I dont want anyone dominating I want 3 or 4 browsers sharing the market).
Fortunately though competition does improve the standard of browsers all round so I can switch between Firefox and Opera without much difference as the mood takes me.
You seem to be overlooking one small point, IE actually deserved to win the last browser war because guess what, it was a better browser than Netscape. So with previous experience at seeing off a competitor and still having by far the lions share of the market what makes you so sure they will loose this time?
I have no trouble with people who present facts, the post I was responding to presented no such facts though. I know what he meant but come on, how hard is it to find the right link.
My issue is really with the irreparable part or the original troll though. The 2 GB wrap around was a long identified issue, was preventable (does no one use the archiving and compression tools or monitor the size of their pst file?) and quite frankly tough shit if you ran into it, but as you noted Outlook behaves differently now. Also should you should you run into it most of the data is still (yes you will lose some) recoverable so the damage is not irreparable. The mail that gets deleted during the recovery process though is the newest mail so its likely whoever sent it still has a copy so it might be embarassing to ask for another copy but again not irreprable. Some of the oldset mail may have been overwritten but if it was important and you did not archive or backup then it serves you right.
When the size of your offline files (.ost) or personal folders (.pst) files approaches 2 gigabytes (GB), you may not be able to add more data to the.pst file or the.ost file.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'stops accepting data' and irreprable damage, let me guess, your cup explodes as well if you fill it to the brim with coffee, and I just dont want to be anywhere near you when you fill your car with gas.
Actually, the only thing that's useless is your comment. You know full well that third party software cannot reliably connect with Exchange servers, and you also know full well that the reason is that Microsoft keeps them proprietary and non-interoperable.
Bullshit, plenty of 3rd party programs can integrate with Exchange. Just because some not quite as 1337 as they thought OS coders cant do it properly does not mean no one can.
2G is about where Outlook irreparably damages your mailbox,
Care to provide some evidence of this?
Oh, and don't forget that PST is proprietary, too, so you will not be able to migrate your mail easily to anything else.
Complete and utter bullshit which really shows you are only trolling and I should not be responding. You have obviously never seen the export option on outlook. Is csv portable enough for you? FFS even Mozilla claim to be able to import PST files.
Thats one of the major probems with OS mail clients. For some reason theres an assumption that if the GUI looks like like Outlook that it works like Outlook and because its OS its even better than Outlook, completely ignoring the fact that all the stuff outlook does in the background, and the exchange integration and the extensibiliy actually have to be implemented.
It always makes me wonder just how many people here actually have experience working at a corporate level when this attitude prevails. I bet there are only a few people here who understand how MS actually expected Outlook to be used at a corporate level. It forms critical communication and workflow infrastructure which companies are not just going to drop because slashdot thinks Outlook sucks, and this is why Linux is years from the corporate desktop.
I tried Evolution a while ago and apart from being disappointed at the lack of imagination at an utterly shameless rip off of the Outlook UI it was glacially slow, making it look like a vert cheap imitation indeed.
Thank you for the typical linux moron 'stupid user' response when the xorg autodetect is a piece of crap . I know what the problem is, I know how to fix it but me having to hand edit xorg.conf with multiple configurations in 2005 because I want to use a monitor with my laptop shows a clear problem with the OS, and your response a clear problem with its advocates.
To be fair for a long time the US had little interest in what other countries were doing and prior to his inital election several commentators were concerned reagarding Bushs isolationist leanings.
9/11 and the rise of the neo cons has prompted a complete turn around where we are all terrorists until proven otherwise and any action by the US is justified under 'security' regardless of international law and conventions.
Its astonishing to contemplate the turn around from previous American apathy to a nation which now readily embarks on politically motivated military action.
No, 'works best with Firefox' is just as bad as 'works best with IE'. What would be nice would be to see 'works best with any standards compliant browser'.
I quite like Ubuntu, as i think its finally a step in the right direction for Linux distros and have it on a couple of my machines. Now my main machine is a laptop (Dell 9100) and i often use it with an external monitor capable of far higher resolutions than my laptop display and this is where my gripe come in. Ubuntu absolutely refuses to allow me use the monitor resolution I want and keeps forcing me to the laptop LCD defaults which look like shit on monitor display.
Now I know this is not an Ubuntu specific problem and its been touched on here before but I cant emphasise how fucking annoying it is and as a result Ubuntu rarely gets booted. I find it staggering that in 2005 there are still problems with screen resolutions in Linux.
I looked them up on MSN search I cant find anything about them. Why is Slashdot posting stories about piss ant little companies that no one has ever hear of?
You were lucky! We used to DREAM about eating sand, it would have been a slap up meal for us. All we got were ferrite boulders we had to try and gnaw pieces off.
Its not a fairly serious issue, employees (in the case you link the moron was a contractor who clearly didnt realise one of the features of contracting is that you can be fired on a whim) have been fired for doing stupid things since the concept of a company was developed, the only difference with blogging is the stupidity is made available for all to see.
And this is the main problem around here with Star Wars, you watched it as a child and now moan you are an adult (ok thats debatable in a lot of cases) you dont view movies with the same child like wonder and amazement. How so many slashdotters manage to blame Lucas for the ageing process and their overactive childhood imagination has always escaped me.
Face it, the ground breaking special effect aside star was was nothing special. Its an old tried and trusted story of young boy with destiny meets mystical mentor yada yada yada. Replace excalibur with light sabres, the black knight with vader and off you go. The story is a rehash of a couple of old concepts, the acting was dire, the dialog chronic. The only redeeming feature is the effects, you no longer needed an imagination because it looked to a child like the fucking things were real. And this is why we loved it as kids, now we just see the crap acting and dialog.
Just because you dont like the current trilogy does not mean Lucas is somehow trying to destroy your childhood memories or abuse you in some way. Also since its his rehashed idea Lucas can do whatever he wants with the story and clearly from the amount the current trilogy has grossed people are quit happy to part with their cash to see the results.
This peril as you put it can also work in the companys favour. An employee can slaughter a competitor in their blog with behind the scenes support from the company, or perhaps at its request. It's a handy way to get shit on your competitors out into the open without looking like blatent anti competitor marketing.
This happened to me so I called Mel Gibson because he has a proven history of resolving these demands without paying the ransom. Worked out great in the end, my files were freed without me paying the $200 ransom. I did have to pay Mel $10 million for his time though which was a bit of a bummer.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.
So what, the statement is incorrect anyway but so what. Tabs are nice but the are not the be all and end all of browsing. Some people like them, some hate them, they are not a big deal.
Thank god for that, I thought you meant /. and I was about to start encrypting all my posts.
I'm all for cultural diversity but what struck me about it was that if India is anything like Ireland, there will always be someone demanding the govt provide this service ot that in Gailge. For 2 languages its a pain but doable, 22 languages though I would have though would lead to an administrative nighmare.
I assume Hindi is accepted as standard language so people can actually communicate with each other.
Tell us something we didnt know. What was interesting to me though was
Eventually, the government plans to release CDs in all of the 22 official languages of India.
Holy crap, just how many languages exactly does a country need! I know its a big place but 22! It must require 95% of all IT resources just to localise software. How do they manage to find time for offshore work?
Well I meant deserved in that it was a better product. The fact it was ubiquitous is as others and yourself have noted was the major factor.
Regarding Netscapes strategy I think Mozilla have been down a very similar road (going to rule the world etc) Firefox is simpler but from painful experience rather than design.
Free ?? If you meant as in beer so was netscape and so is just about every other browser these days. If you meant speech, heres a newsflash Joe Sixpack doesnt give a rats ass.
Rapid rate of expansion?? You do know its slowing and is still at under 10%?
Firefox is undoubtly a better browser than IE at the moment but I expect that will change in the near future. The fact that Firefox is now as you put it simpler puts it squarely in the commodity market. What will its differentiator be when IE has a comparable feature list and comes preinstalled and is what people are familiar with? So I cant really see where your 'final decisive battle' is coming from other than the emotive cliche book. If there had been a quality OS browser back when Netscape and IE were duking it out then I think a lot more people would be using it if only because of market entrenchment, but the simple fact is that OS had nothing back then of sufficient quality to begin to even compete. Now 5 years after the fact they have a very good browser but personally I think its too late to achieve the sort of domination MS did (frankly I dont want anyone dominating I want 3 or 4 browsers sharing the market).
Fortunately though competition does improve the standard of browsers all round so I can switch between Firefox and Opera without much difference as the mood takes me.
You seem to be overlooking one small point, IE actually deserved to win the last browser war because guess what, it was a better browser than Netscape. So with previous experience at seeing off a competitor and still having by far the lions share of the market what makes you so sure they will loose this time?
I thought Rexx was the name of the animated doggie on the MS search dialog.
I have no trouble with people who present facts, the post I was responding to presented no such facts though. I know what he meant but come on, how hard is it to find the right link.
My issue is really with the irreparable part or the original troll though. The 2 GB wrap around was a long identified issue, was preventable (does no one use the archiving and compression tools or monitor the size of their pst file?) and quite frankly tough shit if you ran into it, but as you noted Outlook behaves differently now. Also should you should you run into it most of the data is still (yes you will lose some) recoverable so the damage is not irreparable. The mail that gets deleted during the recovery process though is the newest mail so its likely whoever sent it still has a copy so it might be embarassing to ask for another copy but again not irreprable. Some of the oldset mail may have been overwritten but if it was important and you did not archive or backup then it serves you right.
When the size of your offline files (.ost) or personal folders (.pst) files approaches 2 gigabytes (GB), you may not be able to add more data to the .pst file or the .ost file.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'stops accepting data' and irreprable damage, let me guess, your cup explodes as well if you fill it to the brim with coffee, and I just dont want to be anywhere near you when you fill your car with gas.
Actually, the only thing that's useless is your comment. You know full well that third party software cannot reliably connect with Exchange servers, and you also know full well that the reason is that Microsoft keeps them proprietary and non-interoperable.
Bullshit, plenty of 3rd party programs can integrate with Exchange. Just because some not quite as 1337 as they thought OS coders cant do it properly does not mean no one can.
2G is about where Outlook irreparably damages your mailbox,
Care to provide some evidence of this?
Oh, and don't forget that PST is proprietary, too, so you will not be able to migrate your mail easily to anything else.
Complete and utter bullshit which really shows you are only trolling and I should not be responding. You have obviously never seen the export option on outlook. Is csv portable enough for you? FFS even Mozilla claim to be able to import PST files.
Thats one of the major probems with OS mail clients. For some reason theres an assumption that if the GUI looks like like Outlook that it works like Outlook and because its OS its even better than Outlook, completely ignoring the fact that all the stuff outlook does in the background, and the exchange integration and the extensibiliy actually have to be implemented.
It always makes me wonder just how many people here actually have experience working at a corporate level when this attitude prevails. I bet there are only a few people here who understand how MS actually expected Outlook to be used at a corporate level. It forms critical communication and workflow infrastructure which companies are not just going to drop because slashdot thinks Outlook sucks, and this is why Linux is years from the corporate desktop.
I tried Evolution a while ago and apart from being disappointed at the lack of imagination at an utterly shameless rip off of the Outlook UI it was glacially slow, making it look like a vert cheap imitation indeed.
Thank you for the typical linux moron 'stupid user' response when the xorg autodetect is a piece of crap . I know what the problem is, I know how to fix it but me having to hand edit xorg.conf with multiple configurations in 2005 because I want to use a monitor with my laptop shows a clear problem with the OS, and your response a clear problem with its advocates.
To be fair for a long time the US had little interest in what other countries were doing and prior to his inital election several commentators were concerned reagarding Bushs isolationist leanings.
9/11 and the rise of the neo cons has prompted a complete turn around where we are all terrorists until proven otherwise and any action by the US is justified under 'security' regardless of international law and conventions.
Its astonishing to contemplate the turn around from previous American apathy to a nation which now readily embarks on politically motivated military action.
No, 'works best with Firefox' is just as bad as 'works best with IE'. What would be nice would be to see 'works best with any standards compliant browser'.
I quite like Ubuntu, as i think its finally a step in the right direction for Linux distros and have it on a couple of my machines. Now my main machine is a laptop (Dell 9100) and i often use it with an external monitor capable of far higher resolutions than my laptop display and this is where my gripe come in. Ubuntu absolutely refuses to allow me use the monitor resolution I want and keeps forcing me to the laptop LCD defaults which look like shit on monitor display.
Now I know this is not an Ubuntu specific problem and its been touched on here before but I cant emphasise how fucking annoying it is and as a result Ubuntu rarely gets booted. I find it staggering that in 2005 there are still problems with screen resolutions in Linux.
I looked them up on MSN search I cant find anything about them. Why is Slashdot posting stories about piss ant little companies that no one has ever hear of?
You were lucky! We used to DREAM about eating sand, it would have been a slap up meal for us. All we got were ferrite boulders we had to try and gnaw pieces off.
Its not a fairly serious issue, employees (in the case you link the moron was a contractor who clearly didnt realise one of the features of contracting is that you can be fired on a whim) have been fired for doing stupid things since the concept of a company was developed, the only difference with blogging is the stupidity is made available for all to see.
and a nice cardboard box to sleep in.
And this is the main problem around here with Star Wars, you watched it as a child and now moan you are an adult (ok thats debatable in a lot of cases) you dont view movies with the same child like wonder and amazement. How so many slashdotters manage to blame Lucas for the ageing process and their overactive childhood imagination has always escaped me.
Face it, the ground breaking special effect aside star was was nothing special. Its an old tried and trusted story of young boy with destiny meets mystical mentor yada yada yada. Replace excalibur with light sabres, the black knight with vader and off you go. The story is a rehash of a couple of old concepts, the acting was dire, the dialog chronic. The only redeeming feature is the effects, you no longer needed an imagination because it looked to a child like the fucking things were real. And this is why we loved it as kids, now we just see the crap acting and dialog.
Just because you dont like the current trilogy does not mean Lucas is somehow trying to destroy your childhood memories or abuse you in some way. Also since its his rehashed idea Lucas can do whatever he wants with the story and clearly from the amount the current trilogy has grossed people are quit happy to part with their cash to see the results.
This peril as you put it can also work in the companys favour. An employee can slaughter a competitor in their blog with behind the scenes support from the company, or perhaps at its request. It's a handy way to get shit on your competitors out into the open without looking like blatent anti competitor marketing.
This happened to me so I called Mel Gibson because he has a proven history of resolving these demands without paying the ransom. Worked out great in the end, my files were freed without me paying the $200 ransom. I did have to pay Mel $10 million for his time though which was a bit of a bummer.
What is this Australia of which you speak? Is it that new bar just off Central Ave?
MS dont collect personally identifable information. If this is a concern for you then you should be a lot more worried about google.
they decided against showing Titanic, event though its possible a few viewers may have survived by clinging to the inflatable rig.