I second the above.
Back when I started experimenting with Linux I spent quite a bit of time dual-booting. (Didn't have the second PC back then...) The irritating thing was that my (internal) modem was a Winmodem. So I could get online easily in Windows, and not at all in linux. At first this was not a problem.
After a while (year 2000, I think) I got fed up of not being able to troubleshoot or do email when in Linux. And having to reboot into Windows to search online for a solution to a Linux problem was a total pain. At that point I decided that it was worth the cost to get an external modem. (U.S. Robotics. FaxModem I think)
It worked. I mean literally it just worked. It served me faithfully until I got broadband, and then got bequeathed to a colelague of my dad's who needed a modem for dialup. And as far as I know it's still working.
Plus bear in mind that if you've got a serial port, there a good chance nothing else is using it these days.
I think it's down to an unfortunate use of logical (but incorrect) assumption.
The problem lies with the misspellings compatable/compatability that do seem to make sense as is it an "ability".
It's one of the drawbacks of the English language that some wors fly in the face of logic and their misspellings make more sense than the true ones.
Possibly also down to pronunciation-drift. A common pronunciation (especially here in the UK) is compatable. The problem with this is that people will write it as they say it. And, unlike many English words, the "as said" misspelling is actually credible. Just wrong.
Seriously, why would you leave data on a free hosting service's servers? You can't count on them. If I use a Hotmail or Yahoo email account, I have to understand it could drop off the planet tomorrow.
Something's very wrong with the world when that's a common attitude.
Whatever happened to common courtesy?
OK, many (though not all) Blogs are worthless to any but the person who writes them. So what? Pulling the plug without warning your users just doesn't seem polite. OK, it looks like there are reasons. But that won't (and shouldn't) stop people getting majorly ticked that something they were using was yanked with no heads-up.
Maybe it's 'cos I work as an IT Support-tech, but I really don't like the idea of basically pulling a service without letting the users know first. Even outside my job something just doesn't sit right about it.
I admit that's a reason why I use paid-for webhosting for my site and email. But that doesn't mean I think it's right that for-free services can be yanked at no notice.
I'm a firm believer in "You get what you paid for", but I also believe that if you volunteer a service you still have some responsibility to it. And a week or so's warning is only fair.
How the heck did you get modded funny? It's a valid point.
So I guess nothing's changed since the last time I tried to look at OD2. If you ain't running IE, they ain't interested in ya.
Well that's just annoying. I might still be a Windows user, but I went Mozilla-based well voer a year ago. Apart from a few selected uses (Windows Update and OWA), I do not use and will not use Internet Explorer.
Once again they try and make a legal "solution" to the downloaded-music issue, and exclude many of the people who actually want a legal alternative.
Even if the mailservers are slow as hell, this should not affect anyone who is not trying to use them for business purposes,
Are you honestly trying to say that only business users are negatively affected by slow email service? Do you really believe that home users don't have legitimate reasons for wanting a message to get there ASAP?
If I'm doing private (i.e. non-work) stuff at home on my own time (especially when on my own time) then I would take serious offense at having my mail held up for hours at a time.
What if I'm trying to get some information to someone immediately? E-mail is still better than IM for many many uses - such as the ability to review information, reply, and comment inline.
Luckily I have no time issues with using my ISP's own mailservers, but if I did I'd want to option to have an alternative. I don't have a lot of money, but if desperate to fix something I do have the time and resources to try and do things myself.
Although I think that default-blocking of port 25 is a good thing, I do think it should always be possible to request (at little/no extra cost) the opening of the port. If your ISP's mailserver is too slow to trust, then I honestly think that it is a genuine reason for implementing a home mailserver if you have the knowhow.
I feel that avoiding your ISP's mailservers because you want to eliminate hops (why? does it matter?) is somewhat contrary, and unnecessarily so.
Unless their server is holding mail for inordinately long periods of time, or dropping it, I don't see the issue...
Eliminating hops isn't a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have as few potential points of failure as possible.
And after reading several replies in these threads, the latter point (mail being held too long) is precisely why some people use their own servers rather than the ISP's ones.
Firstly, thanks for the info. Helps a lot. Also gives me a few ideas. (Though probably not anything that hasn't already been considered before)
Maybe the next round of SMTP RFCs should require at require at least something to be given in the HELO/EHLO command. Depending on how strict the RFC requirements were you could then easily block on the criteria you supplied above.
Certainly if you reject at the level of RFC requirements then any corporation or individual complaining that their legitimate mail got rejected can then be told that their server breaks the published standards. (Yes, I know that RFCs are more suggestions than had requirements, but they are the closest we have to de facto standards for the various protocols)
Also if it was part of the RFC, then there would be more pressure for software-houses and ISPs to have the Windows-based servers set up to respond properly.
What would help (and would be nice) was if ISPs would allows RDNS records for those that request them for no extra charge. So then you could easily reject on the fourth (or fifth) item in the list. Especially if it was opt-in only, then anyone sending directly from their machine legitimate would have a valid RDNS entry.
People sending directly from machines without RDNS entries are more likely to be either compromised boxes or people trying not to get caught. And if it was free to get your IP address an RDNS entry from your ISP then it would reduce the legitimate reasons for people not wanting to get one.
It wouldn't catch everything, but it'd at least make it harder to send anything unofficially. And provide a way of directly identifying any server that sent you stuff you didn't want.
The best way is to make sure this way of advertisement of your services is illegal in the USA, and actively go after those that still do it.
This idea seems so obvious, and so potentially effective. So why won't the governments (or whoever else has the authority to do so) do this?
What I'm guessing contributes to it is two simple facts.
Companies pay taxes.
Knowing where to draw the line between what is Spam and what is legitimate advertising.
The first I'm guessing in itself is only a very small factor. But when a billion-selling company pays its taxes, then you want to be very sure they're not legit before pulling the plug or slapping them with hefty fines.
The main problem is the second. A great deal of mail is easily flagged as Spam. A great deal of mail (including some advertising) is definitely legit. The difficulty is that there is also mail all across the scale.
Too relaxed and you don't block enough Spam, people still complain, and there's enough leeway for the Spammers to adjust tactics to stay in the "grey areas".
Too restrictive and you run the risk of arresting/fining/whatever people who were sending mail that in that case was totally legit. And in the current knee-jerk sue-em mentality, that could be a bad move to make.
You could make it illegal to advertise certain product types over the internet, but again this could easily meet corporate resistance.
Now banning advertising would be cool. But that's only in my personal opinion, and highly unlikely to ever happen. Besides, even I understand that sometimes advertising revenue is important - even though I perosnally hate seeing adverts anywhere I go.
I guess that the Follow the Money idea is one that although would be the msot effective, is also the one with the biggest legal minefield.
OK, for those of us who aren't quite as up-to-speed on how SMTP works (OK, maybe just me then), how does this work?
I don't really understand the HELO/EHLO checks, so haev no idea what they're checking for. What is it that, in this case, they look for that Spam messages don't respond with?
The problem is that the concept of Software Patents seems broken in any context other than software being exclusively paid-for. Yes, some are genuinely innovative, as apposed to patently obvious (pun fully intended.
Certainly at the current lengths of exclusivity offered by Patents. Especially as Patents seem to class the iplementation of the idea as being the actual invention. So even if someone re-codes from scratch, it's considered infringing.
So they patent this, and it's genuinely an innovative idea. They have the right to restrict it's use for a set period of time.
OK, so in physical invention context this isn't a problem. But I genuinely don't like the idea of any company being able to tell any other "We came up with that idea first, you can't use it". At least, certainly not for the current timescales.
(I don't care whether it's Big Fish Corp. trying to stifle Small Fry Inc's software, or vice-versa. If someone else can do it better, or cheaper, or integrated with something else, then why not let them.
Now "That's using our Source Code, you can't use it" is a different matter. But I believe that, especially in software, anyone should have the right to try and come up with a better implementation of an idea. Certainly they shouldn't have to be forced to wait 20 years to do so. (I'm assuming the same term applies to software patents, as a search of uspto.gov doesn't imply otherwise)
To get back to the example at hand:
Interactive TODO lists seem like a great idea. But patenting them seems much less so. 'Cos either the idea will take off, and one one company can use them (or at least, decide who can use them). Otehrwise the idea will fail, as no-one else can use them and the idea fails to gain mindshare and an otherwise great idea dies an early death.
It doesn't matter how innovative an idea is, surely it needs a chance at mass implementation to really gain ground and come to maturity.
And especially in this case, it's a function that F/OSS coders would probably benefit from. Yet it looks like they'd be effectively blocked from submitting an implementation of it to any project.
It's a good idea, but would need a slight refinement.
If it automatically dropped everything from a Windows machine, then it will drop some legitimate mail. Either from Exchange Servers or other Windows-based legitimate server-applications.
Now personally, I'd rather that Exchange-servers fell of the virtual-map, but that ain't gonna happen. And any solution which doesn't differentiate between a compromised Windows box and a legitimate Exchange (or whatever) server and loses non-spam as colateral damage isn't going to get off the ground as people who find legitimate corporate mail blocked won't use it. And I can see people complaining to their ISPs if the stuff they send themselves from work can't get through.
But something that can tell Exchange Server from Trojan-Box would be a pretty useful filter. So if main is from Windows and not Exchange then block it.
I think this is where the problems come in. From what I can tell (be warned: legal-speak confuses me immensely) it seems to be a necessary change because of the recent furore about software patents. It seems to be merely a restriction to prevent patent-holders from contributing their ideas to the codebase and then down the line trying to charge for use.
The problem then appears to stem from the fact that said restriction is a restriction - and is incompatible with the majority of current free/open licenses.
Or something, anyway. but basically it looks like changes which are a good idea in theory are incompatible with the letter of a lot of F/OSS licenses. And, like it or not, this means that it can cause problems unless/until the GPL/BSD/WTF licenses catch up with the changes.
I'm not so sure it's that the changes are nevessarily a "bad thing", more that the various F/OSS groups are showing that they take licensing seriously. And with the current anti-free FUD going around, showing that they will take serious steps to avoid breaking licenses can only be a positive step.
Sadly, the drawback is that to Play By The Rules sometimes they have to make unpopular decisions. But the flipside is that, if necessary, they can still fork from earlier versions.
Children need to be protected from [...] exploitation but not from sex.
And this is what gets right to the heart of the matter. Certainly in the US and UK there seems to be an opinion that a blanket-ban on any content remotely sexual if "in the best interests of protecting the children".
Now if there was a (slightly) more relaxed attitute to the human body, and (contextual or not) nudity wasn't such a broadcasting no-no, then people wouldn't be as shocked by the mere sight of a female breast.
And if it wasn't considered so shocking, the whole Superbowl incident may well not have occured. (Remove some of the taboo over nudity and the "Sex Sells" concept is reduced)
Nudity and sexuality only seem dirty because we're made to feel that they are. If broadcasting could more freely (and, importantly, responsibly) air these themes without fear of automatic reprisal then people wouldn't feel as compelled to use them for shock-value.
Keep the idea of responsibility there. Plus complaints should be investigated thoroughly (by whoever does it), not merely upheld as a knee-jerk reaction. 'Cos knee-jerk reactions like that to the Superbowl incident actually have the opposite reaction to what is needed. Personally I think that the boob-stunt was ill-thought and probably inappropriate. However, the reaction to it was far too extreme. They were treating it as if it was obscene or evil, when it was merely stupid.
Of course, some things will always shock. But there is (or should be) a huge difference between Miss Jackson's boob and Mr Goatse's backside.
The human body (male or female) should be treated (and referred to) as something important. Treating it as something inherantly offensive is just sending out the wrong signals.
If it doesn't run in Mozilla or Firefox I don't visit it. So if it's a shop, then I don't buy, they don't see my money, and therefore they can't pass it on to developers.
Oh, I know that the lack of my spending is hardly an issue in the grand scale of things. But more and more people either don't use Windows, or use Windows but not IE.
And as IE6 is currently frozen, and exploits and Malware still seem to abound, more and more people are switching to alternatives (whether Mozilla or Opera). And not forgetting that Linux is being touted by some companies as a potential corporate DesktopOS. So if businesspeople can't use a site, that company isn't going to do business with it.
Unless MS do something really drastic (admitedly not impossible) then IE's share is going to decrease over the next few years, and corporate sites that don't support alternatives are going to lose out bigtime.
Besides, the article did mention being backwards-compatible, so even if it's a new standard it shouldn't break old sites. (Except for badly-coded ones)
I'll bet the guys in Redmond are slapping their foreheads as they read this post thinking, "All this time we have been doing things like making the Windows more stable (my laptop running XP hasn't crashed ONCE since my last reinstall) and supporting all kinds of wierd software and hardware, and making it easy to use.
Yes, WinXP seems to be the most stable version of Windows out there. Personally I actually enjoy using it when I have to. But I haven't (and won't) purchase it for my main PC for two main reasons. Activation (I am not calling Microsoft every time I change a few hardware components to just to prove that software I paid for isn't pirated) and Cost (#200+ pricetag? forget that!).
XP supports most major hardware. And most software supports it - even some things (games) that wouldn't run under Win2K. But i don't have that sort of cash for a software component. Hell, I don't have that sort of cash for a hardware component - and I'm more likely to pay high for a physical individual item than a copy of data.
That said, I've known people with major problems with XP. True, they're home users. but some programs (again, games) refuse to install unless as Admin - and then only drop Icons in the admin-rights user menu.
And if they make it hard for average Users, they're going to start losing mindshare there almost as fast as they are in geek circles.
XP is probably the best version of Windows out there, yes. But the politics makes me use alternatives - even Windows ones (I use 2K).
If they ditched the politics, dropped the price, and made stuff more compatible (or even more open) then I'd probably stick with MS.
There are two ways of looking at this.
True, it seems like one of those "far too little, purely to look good in PR" stunts, and it probably is. But even if they're small steps, at least it's removing some of the irritations they usually hold to. Yes, it would be nice if they dropped more of them, but even these are bound to benefit somebody.
In a way, I want these to succeed. If they see that "being nice" (even slightly nice) can be beneficial to business, maybe they'll consider it a little more.
I can't see MS improving quickly any time soon, but they do seem to make small steps every once in a while. It will probably take a while (a decade or so? they've got the cash to survive that long...) but maybe they'll actually become decent one day.
If it's a Flash ad, it could be to do with the plugin you use.
My work PC had problems with Flash contect in that it made LiteSteps CPU-load thingie flicker, and the CPU load itself would rise between 5&10%.
Then when checking my plugins (after putting in FlashBlock on Mozilla - at work I don't want ads, and I think that the college's Intranet "cool animated thingie" in the logo is totally shit) I noticed that Flash was being handled by QuickTime.
One deinstall later and an upgrade to the proper Flash plugin, and when I do choose to look at Flash content it's smooth and carries no CPU-spike.
But when you use tabbed browsing and set new windows to open up as new tabs, this problem is gone.
Is it possible to get Mozilla to open new windows in tabs? I've never been able to find an option for that, and get irritated when sites launch a new browser Window.
When not using tabbed browsing this can be useful, but when you are using tabs I just wish it'd use a new tab in my existing window.
A moderation-system for Patents would be interesting. I can't see it happening, if for no other reason whan it'd be impossible to both police for abuse and keep it fair and open to all.
But the score-weighted reasons idea could well work.
+1 Innovative - Patent application is for genuinely innovative idea.
+1 Enterprising - Application is for something that could revolutionalise business (and earn a few pennies for the company behind it)
+1 Funny - because it's traditional - plus there may well be something ludicrous where it being patented wil be harmless.
-1 Prior Art - Application is for something that has been done (commercially or otherwise) before.
-1 Obvious - Not only is application not innovative, but it's something so obvious that they may as well try to patent "A method of breathing by taking air in through the nose and expelling it out through the mouth."
-1 Anticompetitive - Application is technically innovative, but submittee has (or would have) a monopoly, and licensing fees would most likely swallow any gains form otehrs wishing to use the technology.
-1 WTF - Application must have been submitted under influence of intoxicating substances.
OK, so maybe a little on the non-serious side there. But if there was some sort of in-house scoring system either in tandem with the sorting process (like Moderation) or afterwards for approved submissions (like metamodding), then anything under a certain threshold could either be reinvestigated, or thrown out entirely.
Windows 2000 can suffer from the same problems.
OK, not as often as Win98, but it can still happen more often than people would think. Windows (2000) still seems to have problems with releasing resources and shutting down services and background processes cleanly.
That said, I've not had any of those problems under Windows XP. But in XP it's Microsoft's politics which mean I wouldn't chose it for my home PC.
having never realy looked at Emacs, are you really saying that it's Ctrl-A then start typing to "insert before"?
Oof! Across about 11 years and at least 3 different OS platforms, that's the one combination I've learned never to perform.
On a slightly more serious note, does this interfere with Emacs' learning-curve at all? And does it make it hard to flip between the two?
(Like how when switching between driving stick-shift and automatic, it it possible to forget which you're in and stall the damn engine)
Unfortunately you have a point. The average Slashdotter is probably a "Function before Form" subscriber. Even with skinnable programs, so often I can't find anything better than the default skin or theme. So many look nice, but don't actually work as well.
But Slashdotters aren't the target audience for these things. (Or, at least, "target" or not we often don't use something we don't have an actual preference for unless we have no choice)
Ironically that's why I like Media Player Classic. The basic look is that of an earlier WMP (version 6?), and I remember switching from that to WMP7 'cos it did genuinely look better.
But these days I swear by MPC for video 'cos it might look like an unadorned Window, but that's all it needs to - especially when running full-screen video.
But it does seem that it's the "Pretty Factor" that actually makes software popular with the average user.
Slashdot Mirror
I second the above.
Back when I started experimenting with Linux I spent quite a bit of time dual-booting. (Didn't have the second PC back then...) The irritating thing was that my (internal) modem was a Winmodem. So I could get online easily in Windows, and not at all in linux. At first this was not a problem.
After a while (year 2000, I think) I got fed up of not being able to troubleshoot or do email when in Linux. And having to reboot into Windows to search online for a solution to a Linux problem was a total pain. At that point I decided that it was worth the cost to get an external modem. (U.S. Robotics. FaxModem I think)
It worked. I mean literally it just worked. It served me faithfully until I got broadband, and then got bequeathed to a colelague of my dad's who needed a modem for dialup. And as far as I know it's still working.
Plus bear in mind that if you've got a serial port, there a good chance nothing else is using it these days.
TiggsI think it's down to an unfortunate use of logical (but incorrect) assumption.
The problem lies with the misspellings compatable/compatability that do seem to make sense as is it an "ability".
It's one of the drawbacks of the English language that some wors fly in the face of logic and their misspellings make more sense than the true ones.
Possibly also down to pronunciation-drift. A common pronunciation (especially here in the UK) is compatable. The problem with this is that people will write it as they say it. And, unlike many English words, the "as said" misspelling is actually credible. Just wrong.
TiggsSomething's very wrong with the world when that's a common attitude.
Whatever happened to common courtesy?
OK, many (though not all) Blogs are worthless to any but the person who writes them. So what? Pulling the plug without warning your users just doesn't seem polite. OK, it looks like there are reasons. But that won't (and shouldn't) stop people getting majorly ticked that something they were using was yanked with no heads-up.
Maybe it's 'cos I work as an IT Support-tech, but I really don't like the idea of basically pulling a service without letting the users know first. Even outside my job something just doesn't sit right about it.
I admit that's a reason why I use paid-for webhosting for my site and email. But that doesn't mean I think it's right that for-free services can be yanked at no notice.
I'm a firm believer in "You get what you paid for", but I also believe that if you volunteer a service you still have some responsibility to it. And a week or so's warning is only fair.
TiggsYou may of may not be joking, but by 15:50 BST it looks like we have.
TiggsHow the heck did you get modded funny? It's a valid point.
So I guess nothing's changed since the last time I tried to look at OD2. If you ain't running IE, they ain't interested in ya.
Well that's just annoying. I might still be a Windows user, but I went Mozilla-based well voer a year ago. Apart from a few selected uses (Windows Update and OWA), I do not use and will not use Internet Explorer.
Once again they try and make a legal "solution" to the downloaded-music issue, and exclude many of the people who actually want a legal alternative.
TiggsNo no no. The SCO claims are the exploit - they're trying to use it to "own" every Linux box worldwide.
Are you honestly trying to say that only business users are negatively affected by slow email service? Do you really believe that home users don't have legitimate reasons for wanting a message to get there ASAP?
If I'm doing private (i.e. non-work) stuff at home on my own time (especially when on my own time) then I would take serious offense at having my mail held up for hours at a time.
What if I'm trying to get some information to someone immediately? E-mail is still better than IM for many many uses - such as the ability to review information, reply, and comment inline.
Luckily I have no time issues with using my ISP's own mailservers, but if I did I'd want to option to have an alternative. I don't have a lot of money, but if desperate to fix something I do have the time and resources to try and do things myself.
Although I think that default-blocking of port 25 is a good thing, I do think it should always be possible to request (at little/no extra cost) the opening of the port. If your ISP's mailserver is too slow to trust, then I honestly think that it is a genuine reason for implementing a home mailserver if you have the knowhow.
Eliminating hops isn't a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have as few potential points of failure as possible.
TiggsAnd after reading several replies in these threads, the latter point (mail being held too long) is precisely why some people use their own servers rather than the ISP's ones.
Firstly, thanks for the info. Helps a lot. Also gives me a few ideas. (Though probably not anything that hasn't already been considered before)
Maybe the next round of SMTP RFCs should require at require at least something to be given in the HELO/EHLO command. Depending on how strict the RFC requirements were you could then easily block on the criteria you supplied above.
Certainly if you reject at the level of RFC requirements then any corporation or individual complaining that their legitimate mail got rejected can then be told that their server breaks the published standards. (Yes, I know that RFCs are more suggestions than had requirements, but they are the closest we have to de facto standards for the various protocols)
Also if it was part of the RFC, then there would be more pressure for software-houses and ISPs to have the Windows-based servers set up to respond properly.
What would help (and would be nice) was if ISPs would allows RDNS records for those that request them for no extra charge. So then you could easily reject on the fourth (or fifth) item in the list. Especially if it was opt-in only, then anyone sending directly from their machine legitimate would have a valid RDNS entry.
People sending directly from machines without RDNS entries are more likely to be either compromised boxes or people trying not to get caught. And if it was free to get your IP address an RDNS entry from your ISP then it would reduce the legitimate reasons for people not wanting to get one.
It wouldn't catch everything, but it'd at least make it harder to send anything unofficially. And provide a way of directly identifying any server that sent you stuff you didn't want.
TiggsThis idea seems so obvious, and so potentially effective. So why won't the governments (or whoever else has the authority to do so) do this?
What I'm guessing contributes to it is two simple facts.
The first I'm guessing in itself is only a very small factor. But when a billion-selling company pays its taxes, then you want to be very sure they're not legit before pulling the plug or slapping them with hefty fines.
The main problem is the second. A great deal of mail is easily flagged as Spam. A great deal of mail (including some advertising) is definitely legit. The difficulty is that there is also mail all across the scale.
Too relaxed and you don't block enough Spam, people still complain, and there's enough leeway for the Spammers to adjust tactics to stay in the "grey areas".
Too restrictive and you run the risk of arresting/fining/whatever people who were sending mail that in that case was totally legit. And in the current knee-jerk sue-em mentality, that could be a bad move to make.
You could make it illegal to advertise certain product types over the internet, but again this could easily meet corporate resistance.
Now banning advertising would be cool. But that's only in my personal opinion, and highly unlikely to ever happen. Besides, even I understand that sometimes advertising revenue is important - even though I perosnally hate seeing adverts anywhere I go.
I guess that the Follow the Money idea is one that although would be the msot effective, is also the one with the biggest legal minefield.
TiggsOK, for those of us who aren't quite as up-to-speed on how SMTP works (OK, maybe just me then), how does this work?
TiggsI don't really understand the HELO/EHLO checks, so haev no idea what they're checking for. What is it that, in this case, they look for that Spam messages don't respond with?
The problem is that the concept of Software Patents seems broken in any context other than software being exclusively paid-for. Yes, some are genuinely innovative, as apposed to patently obvious (pun fully intended.
Certainly at the current lengths of exclusivity offered by Patents. Especially as Patents seem to class the iplementation of the idea as being the actual invention. So even if someone re-codes from scratch, it's considered infringing.
So they patent this, and it's genuinely an innovative idea. They have the right to restrict it's use for a set period of time.
OK, so in physical invention context this isn't a problem. But I genuinely don't like the idea of any company being able to tell any other "We came up with that idea first, you can't use it". At least, certainly not for the current timescales.
(I don't care whether it's Big Fish Corp. trying to stifle Small Fry Inc's software, or vice-versa. If someone else can do it better, or cheaper, or integrated with something else, then why not let them.
Now "That's using our Source Code, you can't use it" is a different matter. But I believe that, especially in software, anyone should have the right to try and come up with a better implementation of an idea. Certainly they shouldn't have to be forced to wait 20 years to do so. (I'm assuming the same term applies to software patents, as a search of uspto.gov doesn't imply otherwise)
To get back to the example at hand:
Interactive TODO lists seem like a great idea. But patenting them seems much less so. 'Cos either the idea will take off, and one one company can use them (or at least, decide who can use them). Otehrwise the idea will fail, as no-one else can use them and the idea fails to gain mindshare and an otherwise great idea dies an early death.
It doesn't matter how innovative an idea is, surely it needs a chance at mass implementation to really gain ground and come to maturity.
And especially in this case, it's a function that F/OSS coders would probably benefit from. Yet it looks like they'd be effectively blocked from submitting an implementation of it to any project.
TiggsIt's a good idea, but would need a slight refinement.
If it automatically dropped everything from a Windows machine, then it will drop some legitimate mail. Either from Exchange Servers or other Windows-based legitimate server-applications.
Now personally, I'd rather that Exchange-servers fell of the virtual-map, but that ain't gonna happen. And any solution which doesn't differentiate between a compromised Windows box and a legitimate Exchange (or whatever) server and loses non-spam as colateral damage isn't going to get off the ground as people who find legitimate corporate mail blocked won't use it. And I can see people complaining to their ISPs if the stuff they send themselves from work can't get through.
But something that can tell Exchange Server from Trojan-Box would be a pretty useful filter. So if main is from Windows and not Exchange then block it.
I think this is where the problems come in. From what I can tell (be warned: legal-speak confuses me immensely) it seems to be a necessary change because of the recent furore about software patents. It seems to be merely a restriction to prevent patent-holders from contributing their ideas to the codebase and then down the line trying to charge for use.
The problem then appears to stem from the fact that said restriction is a restriction - and is incompatible with the majority of current free/open licenses.
Or something, anyway. but basically it looks like changes which are a good idea in theory are incompatible with the letter of a lot of F/OSS licenses. And, like it or not, this means that it can cause problems unless/until the GPL/BSD/WTF licenses catch up with the changes.
I'm not so sure it's that the changes are nevessarily a "bad thing", more that the various F/OSS groups are showing that they take licensing seriously. And with the current anti-free FUD going around, showing that they will take serious steps to avoid breaking licenses can only be a positive step.
TiggsSadly, the drawback is that to Play By The Rules sometimes they have to make unpopular decisions. But the flipside is that, if necessary, they can still fork from earlier versions.
And this is what gets right to the heart of the matter. Certainly in the US and UK there seems to be an opinion that a blanket-ban on any content remotely sexual if "in the best interests of protecting the children".
Now if there was a (slightly) more relaxed attitute to the human body, and (contextual or not) nudity wasn't such a broadcasting no-no, then people wouldn't be as shocked by the mere sight of a female breast.
And if it wasn't considered so shocking, the whole Superbowl incident may well not have occured. (Remove some of the taboo over nudity and the "Sex Sells" concept is reduced)
Nudity and sexuality only seem dirty because we're made to feel that they are. If broadcasting could more freely (and, importantly, responsibly) air these themes without fear of automatic reprisal then people wouldn't feel as compelled to use them for shock-value.
Keep the idea of responsibility there. Plus complaints should be investigated thoroughly (by whoever does it), not merely upheld as a knee-jerk reaction. 'Cos knee-jerk reactions like that to the Superbowl incident actually have the opposite reaction to what is needed. Personally I think that the boob-stunt was ill-thought and probably inappropriate. However, the reaction to it was far too extreme. They were treating it as if it was obscene or evil, when it was merely stupid.
Of course, some things will always shock. But there is (or should be) a huge difference between Miss Jackson's boob and Mr Goatse's backside.
TiggsThe human body (male or female) should be treated (and referred to) as something important. Treating it as something inherantly offensive is just sending out the wrong signals.
If that works on the User-Agent string, remember that some people spoof it to either fox some "IE-Only" sites, or merely for the hell of it.
True, but for how much longer?
If it doesn't run in Mozilla or Firefox I don't visit it. So if it's a shop, then I don't buy, they don't see my money, and therefore they can't pass it on to developers.
Oh, I know that the lack of my spending is hardly an issue in the grand scale of things. But more and more people either don't use Windows, or use Windows but not IE.
And as IE6 is currently frozen, and exploits and Malware still seem to abound, more and more people are switching to alternatives (whether Mozilla or Opera). And not forgetting that Linux is being touted by some companies as a potential corporate DesktopOS. So if businesspeople can't use a site, that company isn't going to do business with it.
Unless MS do something really drastic (admitedly not impossible) then IE's share is going to decrease over the next few years, and corporate sites that don't support alternatives are going to lose out bigtime.
Besides, the article did mention being backwards-compatible, so even if it's a new standard it shouldn't break old sites. (Except for badly-coded ones)
TiggsYes, WinXP seems to be the most stable version of Windows out there. Personally I actually enjoy using it when I have to. But I haven't (and won't) purchase it for my main PC for two main reasons. Activation (I am not calling Microsoft every time I change a few hardware components to just to prove that software I paid for isn't pirated) and Cost (#200+ pricetag? forget that!).
XP supports most major hardware. And most software supports it - even some things (games) that wouldn't run under Win2K. But i don't have that sort of cash for a software component. Hell, I don't have that sort of cash for a hardware component - and I'm more likely to pay high for a physical individual item than a copy of data.
That said, I've known people with major problems with XP. True, they're home users. but some programs (again, games) refuse to install unless as Admin - and then only drop Icons in the admin-rights user menu.
And if they make it hard for average Users, they're going to start losing mindshare there almost as fast as they are in geek circles.
XP is probably the best version of Windows out there, yes. But the politics makes me use alternatives - even Windows ones (I use 2K).
TiggsIf they ditched the politics, dropped the price, and made stuff more compatible (or even more open) then I'd probably stick with MS.
There are two ways of looking at this.
True, it seems like one of those "far too little, purely to look good in PR" stunts, and it probably is. But even if they're small steps, at least it's removing some of the irritations they usually hold to. Yes, it would be nice if they dropped more of them, but even these are bound to benefit somebody.
In a way, I want these to succeed. If they see that "being nice" (even slightly nice) can be beneficial to business, maybe they'll consider it a little more.
I can't see MS improving quickly any time soon, but they do seem to make small steps every once in a while. It will probably take a while (a decade or so? they've got the cash to survive that long...) but maybe they'll actually become decent one day.
TiggsIf it's a Flash ad, it could be to do with the plugin you use.
My work PC had problems with Flash contect in that it made LiteSteps CPU-load thingie flicker, and the CPU load itself would rise between 5&10%.
Then when checking my plugins (after putting in FlashBlock on Mozilla - at work I don't want ads, and I think that the college's Intranet "cool animated thingie" in the logo is totally shit) I noticed that Flash was being handled by QuickTime.
One deinstall later and an upgrade to the proper Flash plugin, and when I do choose to look at Flash content it's smooth and carries no CPU-spike.
TiggsIs it possible to get Mozilla to open new windows in tabs? I've never been able to find an option for that, and get irritated when sites launch a new browser Window.
TiggsWhen not using tabbed browsing this can be useful, but when you are using tabs I just wish it'd use a new tab in my existing window.
A moderation-system for Patents would be interesting. I can't see it happening, if for no other reason whan it'd be impossible to both police for abuse and keep it fair and open to all.
But the score-weighted reasons idea could well work.
OK, so maybe a little on the non-serious side there. But if there was some sort of in-house scoring system either in tandem with the sorting process (like Moderation) or afterwards for approved submissions (like metamodding), then anything under a certain threshold could either be reinvestigated, or thrown out entirely.
TiggsHeh. Unfortunate really.
And now I do find myself wondering how many people have been caught out by this at times.
Windows 2000 can suffer from the same problems.
OK, not as often as Win98, but it can still happen more often than people would think. Windows (2000) still seems to have problems with releasing resources and shutting down services and background processes cleanly.
That said, I've not had any of those problems under Windows XP. But in XP it's Microsoft's politics which mean I wouldn't chose it for my home PC.
Tiggshaving never realy looked at Emacs, are you really saying that it's Ctrl-A then start typing to "insert before"?
Oof! Across about 11 years and at least 3 different OS platforms, that's the one combination I've learned never to perform.
On a slightly more serious note, does this interfere with Emacs' learning-curve at all? And does it make it hard to flip between the two?
Tiggs(Like how when switching between driving stick-shift and automatic, it it possible to forget which you're in and stall the damn engine)
Unfortunately you have a point. The average Slashdotter is probably a "Function before Form" subscriber. Even with skinnable programs, so often I can't find anything better than the default skin or theme. So many look nice, but don't actually work as well.
But Slashdotters aren't the target audience for these things. (Or, at least, "target" or not we often don't use something we don't have an actual preference for unless we have no choice)
Ironically that's why I like Media Player Classic. The basic look is that of an earlier WMP (version 6?), and I remember switching from that to WMP7 'cos it did genuinely look better.
But these days I swear by MPC for video 'cos it might look like an unadorned Window, but that's all it needs to - especially when running full-screen video.
But it does seem that it's the "Pretty Factor" that actually makes software popular with the average user.