The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy is a couple of years behind, technology has advanced since then, even my pocket calculator can answer that question.
if the NSA would build such a computer, you think they would announce it to the world ?
it may already be out there...
</paranoid>
Re:Mozilla ... Netscape ... what't the difference?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
Uh, yes it should - it's always a pain when a third-party site doesn't display, and you can't fix it.
Uh, no, it shouldn't. that error wouldn't have existed in the first place if during testing, the third party's browser would have shown a large, red page saying: "PARSE ERROR ON LINE X, DOCUMENT DISPLAY ABORTED"
too bad mozilla doesn't do this either. imho HTML should be parsed very strictly. luckily XHTML fixes some of this.
IE 5.0 doesn't do that on any computer I've used, 98SE or 2K.
IE 5.5 does on all computers I have run it on.
Having a consistant look should be of highest importance, but Mozilla decided to go their own path.
Mozilla HAS a consistent look, it looks exactly the same on every platform it runs on. people who know mozilla on windows can also use it on linux, mac, BeOS, etc. etc. etc.
And come November when I'm running XP, Mozilla will look really strange in the Luna-scape. Oh well.
I've played around a bit with some XP beta's,and luna really is butt-ugly, it's a failed attempt to rip off Aqua, the title bars on windows are huge, and take up a lot of screen space. the green start button looks weird and is even uglier when pressed (it 'behaves' like a square button).
that start button really shows that their attempt to make the OS skinnable failed miserably (the startbutton in the 'classic' style feels wierd too.)
Your second point about embedding is interesting, seeing as ActiveX is the way to embed controls in other applications in Windows (not just webpages, any app can embed any ActiveX control). And Moz does this too. I've never seen Mozilla embed via Java though, link anyone?
check here
you can not only embed mozilla in a java app, you can write mozilla plugins in java (pluglets) and write XPCOM components.
It's not like Netscape listened to their customers either.
they do now, check bugzilla.mozilla.org , submit bug reports, feature requests. people will listen. people will discuss it. it might end up getting implemented if there's enough people who want it.
Re:Mozilla ... Netscape ... what't the difference?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
By almost any technical measure, IE is a better browser than Netscape/Mozilla (N/M)
I have a different opinion.
IE's HTML parser is crap, if the HTML is fscked it guesses what it should look like. it shouldn't do that
try loading a page that is not reachable, not only does the IE window loading the page hang but ALL IE windows are completely locked up
IE is integrated into windows, there is a Mac version but it was developed independent from the windows version. what does this tell us: IE is not at all portable
mozilla is WAY more flexible than IE will ever be. a few examples: you can modify the GUI or even build completely different applications based on mozilla in XUL, Mozilla can be easily embedded, and not just through an activeX component, it can e.g. even be embedded in a java app.
Microsoft keeps adding useless non-standard features claiming 'webdesigners' want them (marquee anyone?) , but they still don't have decent PNG (alpha transparency) support, something LOTS of designers would like.
Reminds me of me and my brother when we were kids. We were playing video games, and my brother found some trick (dunno exactly what is was) that made it easier to complete the game.
he told my I could not use that trick because he was the one who 'invented' it.
offcourse this resulted in a fight in which I kicked his ass (I am 2 years olders *evil grin*)
I'm running one of the latest 0.9.2+ nightlies, and I don't see any slowness in the mailer. I don't use mozilla for my email so I can't really say if it has improved over time, but it at least here with my current build it works quite well
so grab that 0.9.3 release and try for yourself.
There's a slight difference: Microsoft has never sold a single copy of any version of any software package they produce. They license.
But if I go to the computer shop around the corner and buy a windows license, I am allowed to install whatever program I like on it.
why isn't AOL or compaq allowed to do the same ? ---
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
to me, this is kinda like a consumer buying a retail windows install, and then finding out he's only allowed to install Microsoft Certified applications on it.
"Instatallation of Mozilla on this OS is not permitted"
for now it's only OEM desktops, but when will the rest follow ? ---
- You can write your own mozila GUI using XUL
- You can embed mozzilla in your C++ application
- there is an Mozilla ActiveX component
- Mozilla can be embedded in Java applications.
Well I do get my episodes from the internet, but what I mean is are there other channels that air TLG, cause these guys need to capture the show from somewhere:) ---
With lots of new CD's being produced, how long before gracenote's database will go out of date because less and less people are submitting entries. ---
If you download the latest nightly build you'll see they're working on a new modern skin, and man does is look better and more professional than the current skins. ---
I checked their site and there seems to be no linux plug-in, in other words: their technology is completely useless.
why use PDF (== portable document format) and then require a plug-in that will only run on win32 or mac, that's just stupid.
since everyone and their mother is working on a content protection system (which in 99% of the cases only works in MS-DOS 9x/NT/2000), I wonder if there is being worked on an open source, cross-platform content protection system.
I realize OSS people don't like content-protection but since there seems to be a demand for it it's better to have an open, cross-platform system then to have a closed (security through obscurity) win32-only system wich will result in linux users not being able to view some content. ---
At our school gaming is allowed fridays after 17:00 (the machines get ghosted in the weekend) all machines are equipped with a TNT2, the top of the line at the time the machines were bought, and these are machines mainly used for MS office.
so or there was a some manager who thought he should have the best stuff with no clue what he was doing OR someone ordered those with the intent of gaming:) (I think the latter because they are located at and owned by the IT institution of the school) ---
There used to be an error page showing some cool cars (so you had something to look at when they fixed the servers), it used to show when things really got fscked, don't know if it's still in use. ---
Slashdot Mirror
The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy is a couple of years behind, technology has advanced since then, even my pocket calculator can answer that question.
it's 42.
if the NSA would build such a computer, you think they would announce it to the world ?
it may already be out there
</paranoid>
Uh, yes it should - it's always a pain when a third-party site doesn't display, and you can't fix it.
,and luna really is butt-ugly, it's a failed attempt to rip off Aqua, the title bars on windows are huge, and take up a lot of screen space. the green start button looks weird and is even uglier when pressed (it 'behaves' like a square button).
Uh, no, it shouldn't.
that error wouldn't have existed in the first place if during testing, the third party's browser would have shown a large, red page saying: "PARSE ERROR ON LINE X, DOCUMENT DISPLAY ABORTED"
too bad mozilla doesn't do this either. imho HTML should be parsed very strictly. luckily XHTML fixes some of this.
IE 5.0 doesn't do that on any computer I've used, 98SE or 2K.
IE 5.5 does on all computers I have run it on.
Having a consistant look should be of highest importance, but Mozilla decided to go their own path.
Mozilla HAS a consistent look, it looks exactly the same on every platform it runs on. people who know mozilla on windows can also use it on linux, mac, BeOS, etc. etc. etc.
And come November when I'm running XP, Mozilla will look really strange in the Luna-scape. Oh well.
I've played around a bit with some XP beta's
that start button really shows that their attempt to make the OS skinnable failed miserably (the startbutton in the 'classic' style feels wierd too.)
Your second point about embedding is interesting, seeing as ActiveX is the way to embed controls in other applications in Windows (not just webpages, any app can embed any ActiveX control). And Moz does this too. I've never seen Mozilla embed via Java though, link anyone?
check here
you can not only embed mozilla in a java app, you can write mozilla plugins in java (pluglets) and write XPCOM components.
It's not like Netscape listened to their customers either.
they do now, check bugzilla.mozilla.org , submit bug reports, feature requests. people will listen. people will discuss it. it might end up getting implemented if there's enough people who want it.
I have a different opinion.
Reminds me of me and my brother when we were kids. We were playing video games, and my brother found some trick (dunno exactly what is was) that made it easier to complete the game.
he told my I could not use that trick because he was the one who 'invented' it.
offcourse this resulted in a fight in which I kicked his ass (I am 2 years olders *evil grin*)
That ain't Linux, that's Audrey.
check the site, he didn't install linux on it, he got a prompt on the native OS, which is QNX
But incredibly insecure?
that's why people invented VPN's
I'm running one of the latest 0.9.2+ nightlies, and I don't see any slowness in the mailer. I don't use mozilla for my email so I can't really say if it has improved over time, but it at least here with my current build it works quite well
so grab that 0.9.3 release and try for yourself.
There's a slight difference: Microsoft has never sold a single copy of any version of any software package they produce. They license.
But if I go to the computer shop around the corner and buy a windows license, I am allowed to install whatever program I like on it.
why isn't AOL or compaq allowed to do the same ?
---
But after they've sold their product to e.g. compaq or AOL. they should be able to do with it whatever they like.
to me, this is kinda like a consumer buying a retail windows install, and then finding out he's only allowed to install Microsoft Certified applications on it.
"Instatallation of Mozilla on this OS is not permitted"
for now it's only OEM desktops, but when will the rest follow ?
---
K.I.T.T. , does it also have a nice running light with a woosh! sound on the front of the car ?
---
They could always call it KDraw or something :)
What about KorelDraw!
---
Same here in the netherlands and no doubt the rest of europe.
actually, I'm rather surprised it is not popular in the US.
---
- You can write your own mozila GUI using XUL
- You can embed mozzilla in your C++ application
- there is an Mozilla ActiveX component
- Mozilla can be embedded in Java applications.
---
Well I do get my episodes from the internet, but what I mean is are there other channels that air TLG, cause these guys need to capture the show from somewhere :)
---
Are there other sources to get my weekly Lone Gunman fix ?
---
If the writers of these windows apps have to pay for using gracenotes db, why won't they change to freedb ?
---
With lots of new CD's being produced, how long before gracenote's database will go out of date because less and less people are submitting entries.
---
I have a LaserJet 5M and I can configure it using WebJetDirect config for linux.
so there ARE config tools.
---
No, it's an alternative implementation of the win32 API.
if you think that's an emulator then so is windows.
---
It's in the latest nightlies and will be in 0.9.1
---
If you download the latest nightly build you'll see they're working on a new modern skin, and man does is look better and more professional than the current skins.
---
I checked their site and there seems to be no linux plug-in, in other words: their technology is completely useless.
why use PDF (== portable document format) and then require a plug-in that will only run on win32 or mac, that's just stupid.
since everyone and their mother is working on a content protection system (which in 99% of the cases only works in MS-DOS 9x/NT/2000), I wonder if there is being worked on an open source, cross-platform content protection system.
I realize OSS people don't like content-protection but since there seems to be a demand for it it's better to have an open, cross-platform system then to have a closed (security through obscurity) win32-only system wich will result in linux users not being able to view some content.
---
At our school gaming is allowed fridays after 17:00 (the machines get ghosted in the weekend) all machines are equipped with a TNT2, the top of the line at the time the machines were bought, and these are machines mainly used for MS office. :) (I think the latter because they are located at and owned by the IT institution of the school)
so or there was a some manager who thought he should have the best stuff with no clue what he was doing OR someone ordered those with the intent of gaming
---
There used to be an error page showing some cool cars (so you had something to look at when they fixed the servers), it used to show when things really got fscked, don't know if it's still in use.
---