I used to do similar things, like installing Windows to c:\ and installing all programs to d:\<category>\<name> And I changed the shell folder in the registry so that the setups default do d:\ Unfortunately, many programs had problems with that (like trying to use d:\\ or something). Of course you could correct this in the setup program. But even worse are those programs that install additional things there, without asking for a path. Like the Windows Installer (or InstallShield? Are they the same? Who knows...), who creates a folder named "InstallShield Installation Information". Yes, it's marked "hidden", but a guy like me who looks in every corner configures file managers to show those folders and files as well. I also used to have e:\ for games (which is more or less obsolete as of know, since I rarely play games these times) and f:\ for my "Archive" (what you call home). Again, I changed "My Documents" to this folder. An then there are those bloody applications that create a "My Music", "My Pictures" and similar stuff in there. God! Everything in there IS MINE. And I have a German Windows, for christ's sake. That's annoying.
Therefore, I left the shell folders pointing to where they where orignally pointing to. This way one can more or less ensure that stuff that goes to your own folder structure does so the way YOU want it.
Right you are. And while c:\windows may be the same on most Windows versions, Desktop did not get translated in the german version... it would have been Schreibtischoberfläche. A bit long, right?:)
But look at this: Windows (en): c:\Program Files Windows (de): c:\Programme en -> de: Program Files -> Programm-Dateien de -> en: Programme -> Programs It really seems like they wanted to use a longer name...
Nevertheless not everything should be installed to c:\, or CAN be installed on c:\, so programmers should look up the location anyway.
I don't know about Chimera, but Galeon does not use XUL - Phoenix does. I'd say Galeon is more of a browser using the _Gecko_ engine only, while Phoenix has little own code. Right?
After submitting this one I suddenly thought "Lite? What kind of word is that anyway"? Babelfish can't translate it to German... can someone please explain why many projects have the term "lite" in them? I'm a bit confused.
...but what about "Mozilla Lite". Because that's it. Everybody who has even heard of Mozilla (and I know many IE users who did) might want to try it then - even though it has a low version number. Because they somehow now that it is, in fact, Mozilla - but lighter. Brand recognition, right?
From a webdesigner point of view: *please* use Phoenix or any other Gecko based browser. Opera is a nightmare for webdesigners. Especially when using *gasp* DHTML, which can actually be useful.
The next big Opera release may change this, since it will be a complete rewrite with better DOM support in mind. But as of now, Opera sux in this regard.
Novice is relative. I'm kind of new to Linux, but not new to computers. Therefore I use the shell under Linux as well. And whenever I do, I dislike that it is case-sensitive, because I name my files carefully, caring for case. But it just does not make sense to have "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt", there's no way for a human being to distinguish them, for example, when you say the name. And names are for human beings, computers would be fine with numbers only. Yet I do not want to type "L" instead of "l", because I'm lazy in this regard. So Windows and with the right file system Mac OS too react in a way I like: save the file name caring for the case and ignore it when you have to type it. The problem with Explorer displaying "FILE.TXT" as "File.txt" is a result of FAT 16 storing file names all uppercase. Try "FILE 1.TXT" or "FILEWITHLONGNAME.TXT", this will be displayed like it is stored, because Explorer knows that such these names are not possible with FAT 16 (the former contains a space, the latter is longer than 8.3).
So: - Store "Letter.txt" - Accept "letter.txt", "LETTER.TXT" for this file as well
Can somebody give me an example of where case-sensitiveness really makes sense?
> By considering that only about 6% of the sites > are running BSDs, there SHOULD be a reason for > Linux not being in the top 50, only BSD
Yes, it's in the FAQ. Looks like nobody can PROVE that there is no single Linux system that ran long enough to appear in this list since the uptime counter resets before.
> By considering that only about 6% of the sites
> are running BSDs, there SHOULD be a reason for
> Linux not being in the top 50, only BSD
Yes, it's in the FAQ. Looks like nobody can PROVE that there is no single Linux system that ran long enough to appear in this list since the uptime counter resets before.
> As for the 497 day rollover, a Linux box with a > 1.5 year uptime? Don't make me laugh. If the > last paragraph implies that Solaris should be > represented more, then you have a point.
I don't have any experience with Solaris, but when I hear about Linux kernels being called rock solid (at least the 2.2 series or even older) I do not see a reason why Linux could not be on this list as well. At least a bit more often than IRIX, just because of how popular Linux is compared to IRIX. Am I wrong? I thought Windows was the only major OS that is guaranteed to crash after a specific (short) uptime.
Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are:
BSD/OS FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3] HP-UX [recent versions] IRIX Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems MacOSX NetBSD/OpenBSD [recent versions] Solaris 2.6 and later Windows 2000 Windows.NET Windows XP Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
AIX AS/400 Compaq Tru64 DG/UX MacOS NetWare NT3/Windows 95 NT4/Windows 98 OS/2 OS/390 SCO UNIX Sony NEWS-OS SunOS 4 VM
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.
Right, and this is exactly what's wrong here. Why edit the configuration file of a GUI configuration utility? If the author thinks he can write a good configuration utility for Apache, why not just add a few menu entries to configure the configuration program as well?
As I said before, use the Crazy browser and you have IE with tabs and a popup filter. IE is faster than Mozilla in certain areas, while Mozilla is faster in different areas. Don't be so biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Not strange. This guy knows why: Comment 4760413
Phoenix and IE. No problem. Strange...
That's okay :) As long as they really want Mozilla, why not...
I used to do similar things, like installing Windows to c:\ and installing all programs to
d:\<category>\<name>
And I changed the shell folder in the registry so that the setups default do d:\
Unfortunately, many programs had problems with that (like trying to use d:\\ or something).
Of course you could correct this in the setup program.
But even worse are those programs that install additional things there, without asking for a path. Like the Windows Installer (or InstallShield? Are they the same? Who knows...), who creates a folder named "InstallShield Installation Information". Yes, it's marked "hidden", but a guy like me who looks in every corner configures file managers to show those folders and files as well.
I also used to have e:\ for games (which is more or less obsolete as of know, since I rarely play games these times) and f:\ for my "Archive" (what you call home). Again, I changed "My Documents" to this folder. An then there are those bloody applications that create a "My Music", "My Pictures" and similar stuff in there. God! Everything in there IS MINE. And I have a German Windows, for christ's sake. That's annoying.
Therefore, I left the shell folders pointing to where they where orignally pointing to. This way one can more or less ensure that stuff that goes to your own folder structure does so the way YOU want it.
Right you are. And while c:\windows may be the same on most Windows versions, Desktop did not get translated in the german version... it would have been Schreibtischoberfläche. A bit long, right? :)
But look at this:
Windows (en): c:\Program Files
Windows (de): c:\Programme
en -> de: Program Files -> Programm-Dateien
de -> en: Programme -> Programs
It really seems like they wanted to use a longer name...
Nevertheless not everything should be installed to c:\, or CAN be installed on c:\, so programmers should look up the location anyway.
Okay, I thought so. Yet I ask myself who started using the mispelled version...
I don't know about Chimera, but Galeon does not use XUL - Phoenix does. I'd say Galeon is more of a browser using the _Gecko_ engine only, while Phoenix has little own code. Right?
After submitting this one I suddenly thought "Lite? What kind of word is that anyway"? Babelfish can't translate it to German... can someone please explain why many projects have the term "lite" in them? I'm a bit confused.
...but what about "Mozilla Lite". Because that's it. Everybody who has even heard of Mozilla (and I know many IE users who did) might want to try it then - even though it has a low version number. Because they somehow now that it is, in fact, Mozilla - but lighter. Brand recognition, right?
Searching this page didn't show it up, so here's the link:
Wolfenstein in 5kb of JavaScript
Search for "throttle" on http://modules.apache.org/search
Search for "throttle" on http://modules.apache.org/search.
From a webdesigner point of view: *please* use Phoenix or any other Gecko based browser. Opera is a nightmare for webdesigners. Especially when using *gasp* DHTML, which can actually be useful.
The next big Opera release may change this, since it will be a complete rewrite with better DOM support in mind. But as of now, Opera sux in this regard.
Novice is relative. I'm kind of new to Linux, but not new to computers. Therefore I use the shell under Linux as well. And whenever I do, I dislike that it is case-sensitive, because I name my files carefully, caring for case. But it just does not make sense to have "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt", there's no way for a human being to distinguish them, for example, when you say the name. And names are for human beings, computers would be fine with numbers only. Yet I do not want to type "L" instead of "l", because I'm lazy in this regard.
So Windows and with the right file system Mac OS too react in a way I like: save the file name caring for the case and ignore it when you have to type it.
The problem with Explorer displaying "FILE.TXT" as "File.txt" is a result of FAT 16 storing file names all uppercase. Try "FILE 1.TXT" or "FILEWITHLONGNAME.TXT", this will be displayed like it is stored, because Explorer knows that such these names are not possible with FAT 16 (the former contains a space, the latter is longer than 8.3).
So:
- Store "Letter.txt"
- Accept "letter.txt", "LETTER.TXT" for this file as well
Can somebody give me an example of where case-sensitiveness really makes sense?
That's not Windows, that's Explorer. And you can switch it off. Or use Windows Commander. There you can switch it on and off as well.
It should have looked like this, of course:
> By considering that only about 6% of the sites
> are running BSDs, there SHOULD be a reason for
> Linux not being in the top 50, only BSD
Yes, it's in the FAQ. Looks like nobody can PROVE that there is no single Linux system that ran long enough to appear in this list since the uptime counter resets before.
> By considering that only about 6% of the sites > are running BSDs, there SHOULD be a reason for > Linux not being in the top 50, only BSD Yes, it's in the FAQ. Looks like nobody can PROVE that there is no single Linux system that ran long enough to appear in this list since the uptime counter resets before.
Yes, but this could happen to BSD as well. Or is the little BSD daemon the reason for this "shit happening in the real world"? :)
> As for the 497 day rollover, a Linux box with a
> 1.5 year uptime? Don't make me laugh. If the
> last paragraph implies that Solaris should be
> represented more, then you have a point.
I don't have any experience with Solaris, but when I hear about Linux kernels being called rock solid (at least the 2.2 series or even older) I do not see a reason why Linux could not be on this list as well. At least a bit more often than IRIX, just because of how popular Linux is compared to IRIX. Am I wrong? I thought Windows was the only major OS that is guaranteed to crash after a specific (short) uptime.
Right, and this is exactly what's wrong here. Why edit the configuration file of a GUI configuration utility? If the author thinks he can write a good configuration utility for Apache, why not just add a few menu entries to configure the configuration program as well?
Mod him up! Mod him up!
Especially Joel's article is REALLY good. Thx for the link!
As I said before, use the Crazy browser and you have IE with tabs and a popup filter. IE is faster than Mozilla in certain areas, while Mozilla is faster in different areas. Don't be so biased.
Use the Crazy Browser, it's IE with tabs und PopUp filter.