Y'know even if it's not something as sinister as that it could still well be that licensing issues are what are keeping them tight-lipped at the moment.
Even if they don't want Mozilla to actually shift licenses it's still quite possible that Google're wanting to make sure they can get the best deal - heck, as they're a commercial entity I'd be surprised if they weren't. And if they were in talks with Mozilla they might well be thrashing out licensing terms to see how they can get the best deal whilst not infringing the GPL/LGPL/MPL trilogy.
If it is something like this then they may well not want to say anything unless they aren't able to work things out.
Maybe you did and you just wanted to be funny, but the PAL region includes more than just the UK. The article mentioned translating to 13 different languages.
This is the problem, though. UK Gamers end up having to wait for a release until the translation out of our language is complete. And this does cause problems.
Pre-broadband people would import from America, ro occasionally bootleg, for just that reason. These days more people just jump straight onto the latest warez site.
It is one of the problems when rights to things like games and films are done geographically rather than by language. Relatively small matters (BBFC certification and NTSC-PAL conversion) notwisthstanding there is no real different theoretically between a US and a UK release fo a game or film or whatever. And as a result people do get annoyed at waiting for reason that, for an English-speaker, carry no added value whatsoever.
No wonder people then choose to import. And seeing that the companies complain almost as much at non-bootlegged imports as they do about illegal copies then it's also no wonder people just give up and download instead.
Personally I don't download games and don't really agree with those who do, however I can fully understand why people will download a game when it's on the servers several months before it's on the shelves.
It's probably a drawback that the many of the distributors are probably Europe-wide. And I also think some of them originate outside of the UK, so expecting them to release to the UK first might well not go down well.
It would make sense, though. To those of us in the UK a non-English translation is not exactly very high on our list of priorities. Waiting for a game to be translated out of English before we can legitimately get the English version isn't going to go down well. And as the parent pointed out many people will probably just download the US release to get it ASAP.
Plus there is the fact that a bought/downloaded import version will probably play full-screen on a chipped console. But the PAL release runs a high chance of getting letterboxed. So not exactly a great incentive for waiting a few more months. 'Cos even the non-downloaders won't have any ethical problems buying an import copy.
I do understand why they need to translate for the other European languages, but delaying the English-language PAL release when an English-language release is out is just asking for lost sales.
Sometimes even due to simple lack-of-interest. More than one game I ended up not buying 'cos I couldn't afford to import, didn't want to bootleg, and didn't give a damn by the time the release date finally stopped being pushed back.
I also have an nvidia card which runs on an exclusively-Linux PC. Granted in my case it's because I've had the card for 4 years since the machine was a Linux box.
Performance-wise I'm very happy with the proprietary drivers. Having said that, though, it makes me very reluctant to buy a new card.
I'd prefer proper open drivers for a card. Partially for the very practical reason that there'd be a higher chance of it being supported on newer or older kernels, or for at least a while should the manufacturer fold - or even just lose interest in supplying linux drivers.
Also I might be reluctant to spend money, but I'm more likely to spend money of hardware than software. So I'd gladly spend a bit more on a card from a company that's actilvely supporting the F/OSS community. Plus if i'm spending the cash on a new card, I'd rather like to be paying towards getting the drivers I need rather than the Windows drivers I no longer have a use for.
I don't game too much, but I do like the occasional blast on Stepmania or NWN. Plus am rather addicted to 3D screensavers. So I certainly wouldn't want to risk going back to 3D-crippled drivers.
So yeah. As long as it at least had passable 3D support I'd gladly pay extra for a card which had/encouraged open drivers.
This is why things like DeepFreeze or a daily (or weekly, or per-login, depending on paranioa and how public the computers are[*]) re-clone of a public machine is a good thing.
Each day (or whatever) you start back with the machine as it was. No sensitive data. No malware. No easy way of someone totally trashing the machine, without physically trashing the machine.
Google-desktop or not, between spyware and cached data there's a lot of things that are beneficial (both to the users and to the sysadmin) to not persist for too long on the computer. But if the public computers roll back frequently to a known-good configuration it means that yesterday's ReallyCoolToolbar or last week's batch of Hotmail user passwords are no longer there.
[*] I've seen at least one Internet Cafe that automatically runs Ghost to place a fresh clean copy back on each machine before the next user can logon.
Easy. I think it's a case of "Why if they take to long to get the languages translated can't they use some of that time to stretch the screen so we don't get that stupid letterboxing?"
Especially seeing that if you factor in both the extra wait and the possibility of a non-fullscreen display then they're going to have a hard time expecting people not to import/bootleg the NTSC version.
I'd personally expect localization to include optimising the game for the local hardware. Especially for those of us who speak English and therefore don't actually see any of the lingual localization - except for the occasional respelling of words we're used to seeing in the American spalling anyway.
Well for some reason it seems that the standard Windows RDP client doesn't really like network printers. (Yet the Citrix Metaframe product is apparently able to support them...)
One thing my research did find out it that it is very much a case of YMMV.
The other was that HP LaserJet printers don't mind being being connected to a Network and connected to a PC via a USB cable. So at least we could get it running on one of them.
Well if IE also crashed on bad code then people who only ever use IE would be more likely to notice when their code is choppy.
IE is too highly forgiving. I was reading something where the author had used a row of to provide an indent. Only they'd missed off the trailing semicolon. IE rendered it fine. FF rendered it badly. As a result the author hadn't even noticed the error at all.
I doubt something that trivial would ever cause a Browser to bomb-out, but if it did then you'd get far less coding-mistakes getting though.
A browser really shouldn't be that forgiving. Otherwise how will people know when they have generated (or their software has...) malformed HTML?
My first thought on this was "IE renders bad code that other Browsers choke on" which isn't exactly unkown to me. So I'd hardly say that the report really reflects all that well on IE. I've seen things before that although they didn't cause other browsers to crash they did render wrongly under anything other than IE, whereas IE just happily skipped the problem and rendered it the way that the author was expecting despite the bad code. So I'm not exactly thrilled that "Bad code doesn't crash IE", as it's a symptom of anotehr problem.
Having said all of that one thing that I've believed about Browsers is that they should fail gracefully. Kinda why I hated NS4.x and CSS. At least other non-CSS-compliant browsers would straight-render my old pages - Netscape just mangled it.
So from the looks of the article it seems that the other browsers aren't exactly handling the bad code is a very good way. If badly coded stuff causes a page to bomb-out then it's definitely a flaw.
Like I said, though, no side really comes off best here. 'Cos it means either your browsers dies on particularly bad code, or it renderes bad code "perfectly" and thus causing problems when "Well it runs fine on my Browser" is the only method of testing.
On it's plus side it is possible to then access from Linux via rdp.
Against it there is a problem with printing. As mentioned it can use local printers - and can do local printers well. But if you use a network printer then it really does depend on several factors. If Remote Desktop is anything like it's "relative" Windows Terminal Services then it is choosy about which networks printing it likes. Trust me, if you're lumbered with an HP network-printer (JetDirect *sigh*) and using TS then you're SOL.
I'm not totally sure about all the hows and whys, but I think it's down to the HTML, the adverts and the speed of your connection.
It usually looks like it kinda halts slightly whilst waiting for the advert to load, which then breaks the rest of the page rendering. It also mainly happens at work (stuck on a too-slow shared ISDN128 line, and occasionally at home when I'm heavily using my bandwidth elsewhere.
It's better than it used to be. It's better in in 1.0PR under Wuindows, and I've had less problems ony Linux since about 0.9, but it still glitches occasionally. but, as mentioned above, I have more bandwidth at home.
It is, of course, an annoying irony. But at least it's one of the FF drawbacks that a non-geek would be less likely to encounter if you got them to switch.
I like and use Firefox. But to be perfectly honest, it isn't the huge leap over IE that people want it to be. The achievement has been in getting something to run as well as IE, which is monstrously difficult in itself (one of the very first times an open source group has equalled commercial software in terms of user experience).
Hmmmm. That's a good point. Personally I think that it is a huge leap partially because it's an Open Source project that has managed to equal the commercial equivalent.
The fact that it's a relatively small program and tends to outperform IE in the majority of the sites I visit does kind of influence my judgement too.
And the big negative feature is simply this: Sites that rely on ActiveX controls don't work under FF. Yes, I know, security, blah, blah, blah, but most people only see the "not working" part.
I defintiley have to aree with you there. Apart from my work's OWA Webmail page I personally don't actually visit any coded-only-for-IE pages (yes I know it does run under Firefox, but you end up losing the only features that make OWA even halfway usable)
But there's no way I can really recommend FF to any non-technical people I know because they go for all the kinds of things that (although useless and unsafe) they actually use the Web for.
And you're dead right that the average user won't see the fault as lying with the websites using features that are insecure and/or proprietary. They'll see the fault with Firefox/Mozilla/whatever-alternative-you-recommend for not displaying "their webpages" (or "the internet") properly.
And this latter might take a while to fully turn around. The sites aren't going to "waste" time/money/effort in implementing alternatives until the alternative browsers have a larger share. However the alternative browsers will only get picked up slowly whilst popular sites are IE-only.
I know that it will change and I can see that it is changing, but I think it's going to be slow progress.
Having said all of that, I think that if people hear about Firefox via the media then they won't think of it as just "That wierd IE-alternative that my geek-friend uses."
This ad-campaign might not have a huge impact, but I'd say it has the potential to be a subtle-but-significant one.
Now to just make sure that every TV closeup of "The Internet" is using something other than IE.
Pop-up blocking. This is another small-but-useful interface feature that Microsoft could add to IE but hasn't yet (although there are many add-ons for IE that do).
To be fair this is only half-right. In Microsoft's defense (and i don't do this lightly...) there is popup-blocking in IE6 under XP Service Pack 2. Although it is really annoying that they haven't released a similar update for older versions of Windows.
As much as I love tabs, it is really a "power-user" feature that few non-technical people use and it takes a while for them to grasp its usefulness.
Perhaps. But it's a Power User feature that I certainly appreciate being available on non-Power-users' machines.
If I'm trying to sort out someone else's computer for them it's a real pain to have to go back to not being able to launch several potential solutions in their own tabs in the one window.
I second this. My old-but-trusty m105 is a lifesaver for me. I can keepy my schedule, contacts and random notes kept up-to-date between the Palm and my home and work computers.
Plus until a piece of paper can bleep at me to remind me of an appointment then it's always going to be second-best.
Well, Lucas main argument for all the changes was that he didn't have the money and technology to make 'proper' movies.
I guess it is one of the drawbacks of the recent improvements in technology. Chances are that back then he really couldn't make the films he really wanted. There were definite limitations in what could be done, and he settled for "The Next Best Thing".
The problem with this is that it worked. Or at least, it worked for the fans. What was done for the originals is endearing. Plus obviously held a special place in the hearts of those who saw it back in 1977.
Me, I saw them first all the way through in the mid-1990s. So I wasn't quite as emotionally attached to the originals. And, as such, I loved the re-makes.
The new re-releases also mark something that I'm sure many directors love the idea of. Being able to make things consistant.
Like apparently they've re-done the lightsaber effects in "A New Hope" to match the way they were done from "Empire Strike Back" and onwards. I have to admit it always bugged me a little that the first film had a slightly different effect. I'm not sure which I prefer, I'm not even sure I think one way is better than the other, but having them look consistent is good.
Similarly I like the idea that in the sweeping added shots at the end of "Return of the Jedi" they've re-tweaked the landscapes to reflect stuff done in the prequels. I think that re-doing the emperor in "Empire" for actor-consistency is good. Same for Anakin, it's nice that for the brief shot of "Good Anakin" they've made it using the current actor.
Having said all that, as much as I beleive that the director does have the right to release the version he always wishes he could have I also believe that the fans have the right to see (and the director should have the sense to release) the version that they fell in love with years ago. Every "Director's Cut" should come alongside (not instead of) the Original Fan-Loved Version.
Even if only as a "Special Additional Feature" on the next "Special Milk 'Em Dry Edition" release, it really should be given an official DVD release. The fans deserve it. (And he'd make a few bucks out of it)
I was amused by that, too. I was tempted to call bull, but technically they are interested in interoperability.
It's just that they seem to believe that everyone else should have to pay them for the privilege of being interoperable.
It's great from a business point of view, but not much use from a F/OSS point of view, unless projects manage to pick up a sponsor who would be willing to shell out to license the technology and manage to do it in such a way as is compatible with whatever license they're using.
Short-term thinking is the new watchword in American business, dontcha know? Why build a business when you can take your cut now?
It's not just in American business (or even business at all), either. here in the UK it's just as bad. Especially in the case of local councils.
They end up spending far more in the long-term 'cos they are more concerned with keeping this year's budget-sheet down. If something requires regular maintenance they'll still bleed money into it rather than spending a large amount now even when it would defintiely more that recoup it's costs in a few years.
It's similar in both cases. Keeps the shareholders/taxpayers happy because the short-term finances look good on paper. But in the long-term it just becomes a problem that will eventually come and bite them (or, more usually, us) in the rear.
What I mean by that is that if you own the copyright -- say to popular songs of the 1960's -- you must have new product in the market every five years, or lose your copyright altogether.
Actually I like this idea. It would be interesting to see if there could be any mileage in trying to push this as a counterbalance to current trends in copyright law "enhancements".
Much as I hate the way copyright laws are going, I think it would take a miracle to send them going in the other direction. However requirements like "You must make this available every five years to hold onto your copyright" would at least help in a small way - and could be advantageous. Especially if it included making sure that current major formats must be used. (So no using the law to release cheap VHS releases to back out of releasing something on DVD - it wouldn't surprise me if places tried this)
If there are two things I hate about current pubslishers it's "Out of Print" and "Rights-sitting".
There are some cool fantasy and sci-fi books I only discovered in recent years and even though they were only published in the 1990s they're out of print. Similarly there are songs I loved a few years ago I just can't find anymore. Or songs where I only liked one invividual single, but bought it on cassette instead of CD. (Saved money then, causes hassle now) In both cases I find I can't actually get hold of something legitimately. And if I actually want to buy a legit copy I'm SOL.
And rights-sitting is a pain. It's a real pain when a video is available on VHS but not on DVD. I certianly don't think it's fair (from a customer point of view) when something is copyright-protected but only available in an increasingly-obsolete format.
This is further complicated here in the UK by BBFC regulations which, unless things have changed recently, require resubmission (at a cost) for new formats. Although I don't think this is the only reason many old VHS releases aren't re-released on DVD I certainly think it doesn't help.
But yeah. As long-winded as I sound, I do agree that copyright-protection should definitely require the holders to actually release what they hold rights to or risk having their copyrights withdrawn.
Even the iPod, from what I understand, doesn't do this quite "right". All I want is a fast interface (USB2 or FW), that shows up as a hard drive, and let me drag songs and playlists on/off as I like. let the box periodically re-index its database, rather than doing it as I transfer songs (as every other device seems to do).
Yes!
That's what I want in a hard-drive player. Forget indexing via the software, I want to be able to trigger a re-index on the hardware itself. So just drop files onto the USB-visible harddrive, and no extra software needed on the computer.
Sort of. The real reason is that PEOPLE ARE CHEAP.
You have a point, and a very good one. But it still doesn't stop the various Entertainment Industries missing the point entirely on how to deal with it.
You can't stop people being cheap. Simple fact. People will pay what they think is reasonable. Their opinion, not that of the distribution companies. In the past this wasn't too much of a problem as not only did the content have some perceived value, but so did the medium.
People are cheap. And now the perceived value of the physical media is down - I can buy a pack of blanks for cheaper than the cost of one pre-recorded item, and the equipment required to burn them comes as standard with many computers.
Plus the perceived value of the content itself has decreased as it's now just seen as data, and storage and bandwidth availabilityis at levels that it simply wasn't at before.
I don't disagree that people are cheap. I'm probably a prime example even with legitimate purchases - mainly buying things on special offer or pre-order as I simply won't pay premium price if I can avoid it. And the queues as the post-Christmas sales are obscenely long, as many others obviously agree that "Under a tenner" is much better to pay for that "Twenty quid or more".
But all the **AAs, and their international equivalents, simply bump the prices up higher than what people are willing to pay, and then wonder why they lose sales. (Whether to piracy or simple doing-without).
Basically if people are cheap, your prices better be too. Otherwise you simply won't get as many sales.
Add to that if you're interested in video-game music. I do have a handful of legally-purchased soundtracks to video games. 3 Final Fantasy and a DDR if I remember correctly. And at a significant dent to that day's shopping trip. (Two or three times an average CD from a normal shop - which I already class as overpriced)
I also simply refuse to spend over a certian amount for some things. So even of my legal purchases I'd say a small-but-significant percentage wasn't bought until I could pick up a copy on sale for about half the price. (Like a tenner rather than 22 quid for a copy of Aspects of Love)
Plus unless a new album's really good I won't buy it immediately. 'Cos no bloody way am I spending about fifteen pounds on something that will turn up in a sale for ten quid or less within a year. (Roll-on the post-Xmas sales...)
Outlook Web Access on Exchange Server is a pain if you're not using IE. Especially later versions of OWA use extra extensions meaning the IE version is rather nice and the non-IE version is rather not.
I was annoyed at work's latest upgrade, as they went from something that worked fine under FF to something that used an inferior interface if you're not using Internet Explorer. (And changing the UA string went spectacularly badly when I tried it. As the functions it wanted simply weren't there.)
Now I was about to say I've never had any problems with OWA completely failing under FF, but today it's simply not playing ball. I know it worked under 0.9m but the 1.0preview seems to be not working with it at all today - yet it works under IE.
And this is somethign that can keep you stuck with IE. I don't like OWA at all, I barely like using webmail for primary contact anyway, but being based fully off the main site we can only access via OWA here. So I'm stuck using IE of all things as my e-mail client. Not something i'm very happy about.
It is rather worrying. Suddenly at lot of the Slashdot lame jokes and mild paranoia comments are that much less in the realms of the impossible.
You're right that about five years ago you'd have been -1 and unseen probably within minutes of posting. People would have dismissed it as stupidly overdramatic paranoia.
But now even those who don't believe things are actually that bad do see the dark humour of a situation that might just happen if things continue along the current track.
Personally I don't believe that they would have actually allowed 9/11 to happen just to be able to implement these extyra layers of control. Having said that, however, I do believe they're taking it as a God-given opportunity to make those changes that wouldn't have been accepted at any other time.
(And even that opinion might have been classed as overly paranoid back in 1999)
Dunno about percentages, but...
1) Most of it - bearing in mind though that these days I don't use P2P that much. Most of that is from a few years back.
2) If Warp's "Bleep" counts then maybe 1%?
3) not so sure about that, but I do have some files legimitately downloaded from the artists' own sites. (Maybe 2%)
4) A steadily increasing amount. (Getting around to ripping all my old CDs takes time) Plus any new purchases go straight to hard-disc. (I mainly listen at my PC)
5) A bit. Not a great deal though.
As to missing questions:... "Roughly what percentage of your music collection was downloaded from P2P/FTP but that you already owned on CD?"
"Roughly what percentage of your music collection was downloaded from P2P/FTP and you subsequently bought on CD?"
I've no idea whether either would be very high for people, but they do happen and weren't covered by the wording of the previous questions.
Yep. That's about the atitude I take with my home PC too. Actually I admit it was your signature that contributed a bit.
FC1. Firestarter to cover the basics of firewalling. But anything not needed is turned off where possible. Don't even have sshd running at the moment as I don't need to access remotely, so why bother giving anyone else a chance. Same with Samba. When the laptop ain't on the LAN the main PC doesn't run Samba. Browsing via Firefox - usual safety settings. E-mail via Thunderbird - read settings to plaintext-only. Most of whatever my webhost's Spamassassin doesn't catch gets auto-junked by TBird.
Plus I refuse to think that just 'cos I ain't running Windows that I'm fine. So there's the usual occasional checking of services running to make sure that nothing untoward has slipped through. Plus clamav to check periodically - especially my home directory and anywhere that downloaded files go. (Just 'cos that PC doesn't run Windows doesn't mean I'm not going to check for the viruses. Plus if i'm downloading a program installer for Windows it's probably a good idea to check that the file is what it says it is before letting it near a Windows box)
Plus I take the "Don't run what you don't need" seriously. Some may see it as overkill, but overnight or at work if I'm not actually downloading anything I down the ethernet connection. If it ain't being used, it don't run. And if I'm not using the connection then why leave it up? It's not like it takes more than a second or two to reactivate anyway.
Oh yeah. The laptop. WinXP Home. My parents' machine. They only use dialup. Runs AVG anyway. I'll borrow it every so often (weekly) to update the defs and AdAware via my broadband connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'know even if it's not something as sinister as that it could still well be that licensing issues are what are keeping them tight-lipped at the moment.
Even if they don't want Mozilla to actually shift licenses it's still quite possible that Google're wanting to make sure they can get the best deal - heck, as they're a commercial entity I'd be surprised if they weren't. And if they were in talks with Mozilla they might well be thrashing out licensing terms to see how they can get the best deal whilst not infringing the GPL/LGPL/MPL trilogy.
If it is something like this then they may well not want to say anything unless they aren't able to work things out.
This is the problem, though. UK Gamers end up having to wait for a release until the translation out of our language is complete. And this does cause problems.
Pre-broadband people would import from America, ro occasionally bootleg, for just that reason. These days more people just jump straight onto the latest warez site.
It is one of the problems when rights to things like games and films are done geographically rather than by language. Relatively small matters (BBFC certification and NTSC-PAL conversion) notwisthstanding there is no real different theoretically between a US and a UK release fo a game or film or whatever. And as a result people do get annoyed at waiting for reason that, for an English-speaker, carry no added value whatsoever.
No wonder people then choose to import. And seeing that the companies complain almost as much at non-bootlegged imports as they do about illegal copies then it's also no wonder people just give up and download instead.
Personally I don't download games and don't really agree with those who do, however I can fully understand why people will download a game when it's on the servers several months before it's on the shelves.
It's probably a drawback that the many of the distributors are probably Europe-wide. And I also think some of them originate outside of the UK, so expecting them to release to the UK first might well not go down well.
It would make sense, though. To those of us in the UK a non-English translation is not exactly very high on our list of priorities. Waiting for a game to be translated out of English before we can legitimately get the English version isn't going to go down well. And as the parent pointed out many people will probably just download the US release to get it ASAP.
Plus there is the fact that a bought/downloaded import version will probably play full-screen on a chipped console. But the PAL release runs a high chance of getting letterboxed. So not exactly a great incentive for waiting a few more months. 'Cos even the non-downloaders won't have any ethical problems buying an import copy.
I do understand why they need to translate for the other European languages, but delaying the English-language PAL release when an English-language release is out is just asking for lost sales.
Sometimes even due to simple lack-of-interest. More than one game I ended up not buying 'cos I couldn't afford to import, didn't want to bootleg, and didn't give a damn by the time the release date finally stopped being pushed back.
I also have an nvidia card which runs on an exclusively-Linux PC. Granted in my case it's because I've had the card for 4 years since the machine was a Linux box.
Performance-wise I'm very happy with the proprietary drivers. Having said that, though, it makes me very reluctant to buy a new card.
I'd prefer proper open drivers for a card. Partially for the very practical reason that there'd be a higher chance of it being supported on newer or older kernels, or for at least a while should the manufacturer fold - or even just lose interest in supplying linux drivers.
Also I might be reluctant to spend money, but I'm more likely to spend money of hardware than software. So I'd gladly spend a bit more on a card from a company that's actilvely supporting the F/OSS community. Plus if i'm spending the cash on a new card, I'd rather like to be paying towards getting the drivers I need rather than the Windows drivers I no longer have a use for.
I don't game too much, but I do like the occasional blast on Stepmania or NWN. Plus am rather addicted to 3D screensavers. So I certainly wouldn't want to risk going back to 3D-crippled drivers.
So yeah. As long as it at least had passable 3D support I'd gladly pay extra for a card which had/encouraged open drivers.
This is why things like DeepFreeze or a daily (or weekly, or per-login, depending on paranioa and how public the computers are[*]) re-clone of a public machine is a good thing.
Each day (or whatever) you start back with the machine as it was. No sensitive data. No malware. No easy way of someone totally trashing the machine, without physically trashing the machine.
Google-desktop or not, between spyware and cached data there's a lot of things that are beneficial (both to the users and to the sysadmin) to not persist for too long on the computer. But if the public computers roll back frequently to a known-good configuration it means that yesterday's ReallyCoolToolbar or last week's batch of Hotmail user passwords are no longer there.
[*] I've seen at least one Internet Cafe that automatically runs Ghost to place a fresh clean copy back on each machine before the next user can logon.
Easy. I think it's a case of "Why if they take to long to get the languages translated can't they use some of that time to stretch the screen so we don't get that stupid letterboxing?"
Especially seeing that if you factor in both the extra wait and the possibility of a non-fullscreen display then they're going to have a hard time expecting people not to import/bootleg the NTSC version.
I'd personally expect localization to include optimising the game for the local hardware. Especially for those of us who speak English and therefore don't actually see any of the lingual localization - except for the occasional respelling of words we're used to seeing in the American spalling anyway.
Well for some reason it seems that the standard Windows RDP client doesn't really like network printers. (Yet the Citrix Metaframe product is apparently able to support them...)
One thing my research did find out it that it is very much a case of YMMV.
The other was that HP LaserJet printers don't mind being being connected to a Network and connected to a PC via a USB cable. So at least we could get it running on one of them.
Well if IE also crashed on bad code then people who only ever use IE would be more likely to notice when their code is choppy.
IE is too highly forgiving. I was reading something where the author had used a row of to provide an indent. Only they'd missed off the trailing semicolon. IE rendered it fine. FF rendered it badly. As a result the author hadn't even noticed the error at all.
I doubt something that trivial would ever cause a Browser to bomb-out, but if it did then you'd get far less coding-mistakes getting though.
A browser really shouldn't be that forgiving. Otherwise how will people know when they have generated (or their software has...) malformed HTML?
My first thought on this was "IE renders bad code that other Browsers choke on" which isn't exactly unkown to me. So I'd hardly say that the report really reflects all that well on IE. I've seen things before that although they didn't cause other browsers to crash they did render wrongly under anything other than IE, whereas IE just happily skipped the problem and rendered it the way that the author was expecting despite the bad code. So I'm not exactly thrilled that "Bad code doesn't crash IE", as it's a symptom of anotehr problem.
Having said all of that one thing that I've believed about Browsers is that they should fail gracefully. Kinda why I hated NS4.x and CSS. At least other non-CSS-compliant browsers would straight-render my old pages - Netscape just mangled it.
So from the looks of the article it seems that the other browsers aren't exactly handling the bad code is a very good way. If badly coded stuff causes a page to bomb-out then it's definitely a flaw.
Like I said, though, no side really comes off best here. 'Cos it means either your browsers dies on particularly bad code, or it renderes bad code "perfectly" and thus causing problems when "Well it runs fine on my Browser" is the only method of testing.
On it's plus side it is possible to then access from Linux via rdp.
Against it there is a problem with printing. As mentioned it can use local printers - and can do local printers well. But if you use a network printer then it really does depend on several factors. If Remote Desktop is anything like it's "relative" Windows Terminal Services then it is choosy about which networks printing it likes. Trust me, if you're lumbered with an HP network-printer (JetDirect *sigh*) and using TS then you're SOL.
I'm not totally sure about all the hows and whys, but I think it's down to the HTML, the adverts and the speed of your connection.
It usually looks like it kinda halts slightly whilst waiting for the advert to load, which then breaks the rest of the page rendering. It also mainly happens at work (stuck on a too-slow shared ISDN128 line, and occasionally at home when I'm heavily using my bandwidth elsewhere.
It's better than it used to be. It's better in in 1.0PR under Wuindows, and I've had less problems ony Linux since about 0.9, but it still glitches occasionally. but, as mentioned above, I have more bandwidth at home.
It is, of course, an annoying irony. But at least it's one of the FF drawbacks that a non-geek would be less likely to encounter if you got them to switch.
Hmmmm. That's a good point. Personally I think that it is a huge leap partially because it's an Open Source project that has managed to equal the commercial equivalent.
The fact that it's a relatively small program and tends to outperform IE in the majority of the sites I visit does kind of influence my judgement too.
I defintiley have to aree with you there. Apart from my work's OWA Webmail page I personally don't actually visit any coded-only-for-IE pages (yes I know it does run under Firefox, but you end up losing the only features that make OWA even halfway usable)
But there's no way I can really recommend FF to any non-technical people I know because they go for all the kinds of things that (although useless and unsafe) they actually use the Web for.
And you're dead right that the average user won't see the fault as lying with the websites using features that are insecure and/or proprietary. They'll see the fault with Firefox/Mozilla/whatever-alternative-you-recommend for not displaying "their webpages" (or "the internet") properly.
And this latter might take a while to fully turn around. The sites aren't going to "waste" time/money/effort in implementing alternatives until the alternative browsers have a larger share. However the alternative browsers will only get picked up slowly whilst popular sites are IE-only.
I know that it will change and I can see that it is changing, but I think it's going to be slow progress.
Having said all of that, I think that if people hear about Firefox via the media then they won't think of it as just "That wierd IE-alternative that my geek-friend uses."
This ad-campaign might not have a huge impact, but I'd say it has the potential to be a subtle-but-significant one.
Now to just make sure that every TV closeup of "The Internet" is using something other than IE.
To be fair this is only half-right. In Microsoft's defense (and i don't do this lightly...) there is popup-blocking in IE6 under XP Service Pack 2. Although it is really annoying that they haven't released a similar update for older versions of Windows.
Perhaps. But it's a Power User feature that I certainly appreciate being available on non-Power-users' machines.
If I'm trying to sort out someone else's computer for them it's a real pain to have to go back to not being able to launch several potential solutions in their own tabs in the one window.
I second this. My old-but-trusty m105 is a lifesaver for me. I can keepy my schedule, contacts and random notes kept up-to-date between the Palm and my home and work computers.
Plus until a piece of paper can bleep at me to remind me of an appointment then it's always going to be second-best.
I guess it is one of the drawbacks of the recent improvements in technology. Chances are that back then he really couldn't make the films he really wanted. There were definite limitations in what could be done, and he settled for "The Next Best Thing".
The problem with this is that it worked. Or at least, it worked for the fans. What was done for the originals is endearing. Plus obviously held a special place in the hearts of those who saw it back in 1977.
Me, I saw them first all the way through in the mid-1990s. So I wasn't quite as emotionally attached to the originals. And, as such, I loved the re-makes.
The new re-releases also mark something that I'm sure many directors love the idea of. Being able to make things consistant.
Like apparently they've re-done the lightsaber effects in "A New Hope" to match the way they were done from "Empire Strike Back" and onwards. I have to admit it always bugged me a little that the first film had a slightly different effect. I'm not sure which I prefer, I'm not even sure I think one way is better than the other, but having them look consistent is good.
Similarly I like the idea that in the sweeping added shots at the end of "Return of the Jedi" they've re-tweaked the landscapes to reflect stuff done in the prequels. I think that re-doing the emperor in "Empire" for actor-consistency is good. Same for Anakin, it's nice that for the brief shot of "Good Anakin" they've made it using the current actor.
Having said all that, as much as I beleive that the director does have the right to release the version he always wishes he could have I also believe that the fans have the right to see (and the director should have the sense to release) the version that they fell in love with years ago. Every "Director's Cut" should come alongside (not instead of) the Original Fan-Loved Version.
Even if only as a "Special Additional Feature" on the next "Special Milk 'Em Dry Edition" release, it really should be given an official DVD release. The fans deserve it. (And he'd make a few bucks out of it)
I was amused by that, too. I was tempted to call bull, but technically they are interested in interoperability.
It's just that they seem to believe that everyone else should have to pay them for the privilege of being interoperable.
It's great from a business point of view, but not much use from a F/OSS point of view, unless projects manage to pick up a sponsor who would be willing to shell out to license the technology and manage to do it in such a way as is compatible with whatever license they're using.
It's not just in American business (or even business at all), either. here in the UK it's just as bad. Especially in the case of local councils.
They end up spending far more in the long-term 'cos they are more concerned with keeping this year's budget-sheet down. If something requires regular maintenance they'll still bleed money into it rather than spending a large amount now even when it would defintiely more that recoup it's costs in a few years.
It's similar in both cases. Keeps the shareholders/taxpayers happy because the short-term finances look good on paper. But in the long-term it just becomes a problem that will eventually come and bite them (or, more usually, us) in the rear.
Actually I like this idea. It would be interesting to see if there could be any mileage in trying to push this as a counterbalance to current trends in copyright law "enhancements".
Much as I hate the way copyright laws are going, I think it would take a miracle to send them going in the other direction. However requirements like "You must make this available every five years to hold onto your copyright" would at least help in a small way - and could be advantageous. Especially if it included making sure that current major formats must be used. (So no using the law to release cheap VHS releases to back out of releasing something on DVD - it wouldn't surprise me if places tried this)
If there are two things I hate about current pubslishers it's "Out of Print" and "Rights-sitting".
There are some cool fantasy and sci-fi books I only discovered in recent years and even though they were only published in the 1990s they're out of print. Similarly there are songs I loved a few years ago I just can't find anymore. Or songs where I only liked one invividual single, but bought it on cassette instead of CD. (Saved money then, causes hassle now) In both cases I find I can't actually get hold of something legitimately. And if I actually want to buy a legit copy I'm SOL.
And rights-sitting is a pain. It's a real pain when a video is available on VHS but not on DVD. I certianly don't think it's fair (from a customer point of view) when something is copyright-protected but only available in an increasingly-obsolete format.
This is further complicated here in the UK by BBFC regulations which, unless things have changed recently, require resubmission (at a cost) for new formats. Although I don't think this is the only reason many old VHS releases aren't re-released on DVD I certainly think it doesn't help.
But yeah. As long-winded as I sound, I do agree that copyright-protection should definitely require the holders to actually release what they hold rights to or risk having their copyrights withdrawn.
Yes!
That's what I want in a hard-drive player. Forget indexing via the software, I want to be able to trigger a re-index on the hardware itself. So just drop files onto the USB-visible harddrive, and no extra software needed on the computer.
You have a point, and a very good one. But it still doesn't stop the various Entertainment Industries missing the point entirely on how to deal with it.
You can't stop people being cheap. Simple fact. People will pay what they think is reasonable. Their opinion, not that of the distribution companies. In the past this wasn't too much of a problem as not only did the content have some perceived value, but so did the medium.
People are cheap. And now the perceived value of the physical media is down - I can buy a pack of blanks for cheaper than the cost of one pre-recorded item, and the equipment required to burn them comes as standard with many computers.
Plus the perceived value of the content itself has decreased as it's now just seen as data, and storage and bandwidth availabilityis at levels that it simply wasn't at before.
I don't disagree that people are cheap. I'm probably a prime example even with legitimate purchases - mainly buying things on special offer or pre-order as I simply won't pay premium price if I can avoid it. And the queues as the post-Christmas sales are obscenely long, as many others obviously agree that "Under a tenner" is much better to pay for that "Twenty quid or more".
But all the **AAs, and their international equivalents, simply bump the prices up higher than what people are willing to pay, and then wonder why they lose sales. (Whether to piracy or simple doing-without).
Basically if people are cheap, your prices better be too. Otherwise you simply won't get as many sales.
Agreed.
Add to that if you're interested in video-game music. I do have a handful of legally-purchased soundtracks to video games. 3 Final Fantasy and a DDR if I remember correctly. And at a significant dent to that day's shopping trip. (Two or three times an average CD from a normal shop - which I already class as overpriced)
I also simply refuse to spend over a certian amount for some things. So even of my legal purchases I'd say a small-but-significant percentage wasn't bought until I could pick up a copy on sale for about half the price. (Like a tenner rather than 22 quid for a copy of Aspects of Love)
Plus unless a new album's really good I won't buy it immediately. 'Cos no bloody way am I spending about fifteen pounds on something that will turn up in a sale for ten quid or less within a year. (Roll-on the post-Xmas sales...)
Outlook Web Access on Exchange Server is a pain if you're not using IE. Especially later versions of OWA use extra extensions meaning the IE version is rather nice and the non-IE version is rather not.
I was annoyed at work's latest upgrade, as they went from something that worked fine under FF to something that used an inferior interface if you're not using Internet Explorer. (And changing the UA string went spectacularly badly when I tried it. As the functions it wanted simply weren't there.)
Now I was about to say I've never had any problems with OWA completely failing under FF, but today it's simply not playing ball. I know it worked under 0.9m but the 1.0preview seems to be not working with it at all today - yet it works under IE.
And this is somethign that can keep you stuck with IE. I don't like OWA at all, I barely like using webmail for primary contact anyway, but being based fully off the main site we can only access via OWA here. So I'm stuck using IE of all things as my e-mail client. Not something i'm very happy about.
It is rather worrying. Suddenly at lot of the Slashdot lame jokes and mild paranoia comments are that much less in the realms of the impossible.
You're right that about five years ago you'd have been -1 and unseen probably within minutes of posting. People would have dismissed it as stupidly overdramatic paranoia.
But now even those who don't believe things are actually that bad do see the dark humour of a situation that might just happen if things continue along the current track.
Personally I don't believe that they would have actually allowed 9/11 to happen just to be able to implement these extyra layers of control. Having said that, however, I do believe they're taking it as a God-given opportunity to make those changes that wouldn't have been accepted at any other time.
(And even that opinion might have been classed as overly paranoid back in 1999)
Dunno about percentages, but...
1) Most of it - bearing in mind though that these days I don't use P2P that much. Most of that is from a few years back.
2) If Warp's "Bleep" counts then maybe 1%?
3) not so sure about that, but I do have some files legimitately downloaded from the artists' own sites. (Maybe 2%)
4) A steadily increasing amount. (Getting around to ripping all my old CDs takes time) Plus any new purchases go straight to hard-disc. (I mainly listen at my PC)
5) A bit. Not a great deal though.
As to missing questions:...
"Roughly what percentage of your music collection was downloaded from P2P/FTP but that you already owned on CD?"
"Roughly what percentage of your music collection was downloaded from P2P/FTP and you subsequently bought on CD?"
I've no idea whether either would be very high for people, but they do happen and weren't covered by the wording of the previous questions.
Yep. That's about the atitude I take with my home PC too. Actually I admit it was your signature that contributed a bit.
FC1. Firestarter to cover the basics of firewalling. But anything not needed is turned off where possible. Don't even have sshd running at the moment as I don't need to access remotely, so why bother giving anyone else a chance. Same with Samba. When the laptop ain't on the LAN the main PC doesn't run Samba. Browsing via Firefox - usual safety settings. E-mail via Thunderbird - read settings to plaintext-only. Most of whatever my webhost's Spamassassin doesn't catch gets auto-junked by TBird.
Plus I refuse to think that just 'cos I ain't running Windows that I'm fine. So there's the usual occasional checking of services running to make sure that nothing untoward has slipped through. Plus clamav to check periodically - especially my home directory and anywhere that downloaded files go. (Just 'cos that PC doesn't run Windows doesn't mean I'm not going to check for the viruses. Plus if i'm downloading a program installer for Windows it's probably a good idea to check that the file is what it says it is before letting it near a Windows box)
Plus I take the "Don't run what you don't need" seriously. Some may see it as overkill, but overnight or at work if I'm not actually downloading anything I down the ethernet connection. If it ain't being used, it don't run. And if I'm not using the connection then why leave it up? It's not like it takes more than a second or two to reactivate anyway.
Oh yeah. The laptop. WinXP Home. My parents' machine. They only use dialup. Runs AVG anyway. I'll borrow it every so often (weekly) to update the defs and AdAware via my broadband connection.