...reading this article where it seems that they were their partners who asked for it
Microsoft's people have said in public several times that IE is the best browser out there. Why are their customers asking for new versions then? Heh.
This is a way of saying "IE 6 sucks, even the one in SP2". A new excuse to "sell" firefox - "are you going to expect until summer to have a decent browser?"
Ideology is what made possible gcc, the compiler that Apple uses. All the mac os x kernel is open source too. So they care about OSS too
I'm not saying that I don't like mac os x as desktop - it's great - but i'd rather install linux and continue working on gnome/kde/whatever and try to surpass everything else than code apps against cocoa. That's myself, as individual, if they pay me I'd choose the best thing even if it's windows.
I would be surprised if linux wouldn't run great on G5s too. IBM has quite a lot of people working in the powerpc port of linux - and IBM is who makes G5s.
Who cares about open source operating systems if everything existing on it is a half implementation. 90% of the open source stuff is crap.
Crap? Linux on servers rocks and it's getting better every day on desktops - which is my whole point, i'd rather have a crappy OSS desktop than a propietary one.
What directions is mac os x taking? Are the ones you want, or the ones you're told to like? Some people don't like mac os x and they can't modify the propietary libraries.
What will hapen if apple has to close? (unlikely, but imagine it).There has been some operative systems which have been lost that way, have you ever heard of BeOS? I don't want to depend of propietary products like aqua and cocoa, no matter how good are them, so I'll install linux, thanks.
Indeed. In 2.4, real world (aka, redhat, suse, distros) was using forked kernel bases, not vanilla. Vanilla kernels were only being used by some distros like debian and some geeks, only a minority. Everybody else was using "forked" (O(1) scheduler, NTPL, etc etc)
Real world wasn't using 2.4 code and hence 2.4 was not being used and took a _lot_ of time (years) and efforts to be really stable. This is exactly the problem that the new "development model" addresses and many people don't seem to realize it
Do I've to remember all those disk corruptions, the 2.4 VM cata^Wissues (which it took years to fix in kernel.org despite of not existing in vendor's kernels) and all that?
Well, what can i say. If we'e going to tal about personal issues I've been using linux since 2.5.37 and I've had very few crashes. 0 since 2.6 was released.
oh yes some hardware is better supported than others. Ask your hardware vendor to give you open source drivers, I happen to run hardware that is well supported.
Linux keeps re-writing major portions of the kernel and has stability issues. It now depends on 3rd party vendors to integrate and make stable releases of the code.
Linux has always kept rewriting fundamental parts of the kernel true, and it will probably keep it that way. If not how can you explain that linux has gone from crawling in 8-ways to running in 512-cpu SGI boxes? When someone rewrites a part the kernel is for a reason, usually to do something better, and netbsd has also rewritten big parts of the kernel to get where netbsd 2.0. right now some people is rewriting fundamental parts of linux because they want to achieve realtime support. I don't see how this rewrite an be bad.
And I don't see lot of unstability issues, and I bet lot of people unsing 2.6 here will agree with me that 2.6 has been by far the stablest linux release ever. The fact that IBM has been testing linux in 32-way boxes during the whole development of the kernel has helped a lotfor that and its something BSDs can not benefit from (they don't even _boot_ on these boxes). A 32-way machine finds bugs much, much faster than a single-p4 does, it's as simple as that. That is one of the reasons 2.6 is so stable even with the new development model, people test things in those big machines before merging them in the main tree
And yes linux "depends" on distros to publish a workable system. This is how linux works, and while some people don't like it, the fact it that this way of doing things has encouraged the spread of linux,specially in the desktop - everyone can find a distro that fits to him. Do you really expect to be able to build a single base OS that 6000 millions of people will like?
oh yes 0.013...whatever, my point is that debian has lot of packages, so it has a lot of sense that it has more vulnerabilities. Same goes for any Linux distro - we ship a complete system, not just a bare os
Windows XP is a OS, graphical environment, msn messenger, wordpad, a few crappy games, some services...let's be good and say they've 1000 packages of software(they don't)
13/1000= 0.13 vulnerabilities per package
47/8000=0.005
"So you zealous fucker, which platform is more secure?"
Ever since AMD became the definitive number 1 in the market, I seriously lost interest in Intel stuff.
Except that if Intel takes his dual core out first, they'll be numer 1 again
BTW, Intel still owns 80% of the market, no mater how nice opterons can be. AMD can hardly be called "number 1". They'll become quickly 1 if they release the dual core stuff faster, though.
Remember, AMD was the first to get a 1 Ghz CPU, and that didn't give them the market.
Lots of opera users are "free" users ie: they don't pay. I doubt that the opera users who actually pay for opera are less.
Also, w3cschools are hardly a good source for stadistics. I wish google would show browser stadistics again - in the latest months before removing it, mozilla was winning a bit of market share.
Really, do you expect firefox can do something if it doesn't start growing faster?
First, "% of browsers used" != "% of boxes". Firefox is having a hit because its users are people who spend a lot of time in internet. There're a *lot* of people who don't use internet a lot, and they don't get eflected in the stadistics just because they don't browse a lot.
Second, If firefox continues growing at this rate, microsoft will have enought time to rewrite their browser. Remember, 100% of windows boxes have IE installed, and as soon as microsoft gives them a update which is "good enought" they could stop using firefox. Don't understimate the power of microsoft, they control the most used software distribution channel for windows boxes - windows update
And let's remember that around 50% of the OS used to browser internet is XP. XP SP2 has a popup killer by default which is one of the biggest reasons to use firefox. And SP2 enables automatic updates, so IE is "safer". It doesn't really matters if IE is secure or not, if microsoft patches it fast enought users won't have problems.
so, what we need is to get *better*, and get better *faster*. Currently, firefox is just "a better IE". Yes, it's more than that, we know, but users only see that "a better explorer". We need to offer something different, innovative. We need to give them more things that are not just "better than the IE equivalent", but cool things that have not equivalent so users will stick with firefox. (don't talk me about extensions, IE has plugins and they could start those to add funcionality!)
And of course we need to have "automatic updates" for firefox. I think those are already there, right? If you don't updae users' browser, they won't do it themselves, automatic update (or at least a window warning about a "fastest, more secure version) is needed if you want that your users continue appreciating all the work you do.
Micros~1's tool is supposed to remove spyware and some of the most spread viruses
Micros~1's tool is a SPYWARE product, not a antivirus. The review critizes micros~1 for not removing viruses. Oh, what surprise. What if he buys a antivirus instead of a antispyware product?
Intel has a couple of programmers taking care of ACPI, they've merged their own GPL drivers for their network cards, they've published specs of SATA hardware or documentation of mainboard chipsets, drivers for their graphics chipsets, there're intel guys at the kernel mailing list...I buy Intel just for how good linux support is having lately. No cookie for you, amd: grep -i "@amd.com" MAINTAINERS | wc -l
0
Slashdot Mirror
...reading this article where it seems that they were their partners who asked for it
Microsoft's people have said in public several times that IE is the best browser out there. Why are their customers asking for new versions then? Heh.
This is a way of saying "IE 6 sucks, even the one in SP2". A new excuse to "sell" firefox - "are you going to expect until summer to have a decent browser?"
for geeks it is not of value For enterprises it's the leader. Debian and Fedora don't give you support when oracle runs slow.
Ideology is what made possible gcc, the compiler that Apple uses. All the mac os x kernel is open source too. So they care about OSS too
I'm not saying that I don't like mac os x as desktop - it's great - but i'd rather install linux and continue working on gnome/kde/whatever and try to surpass everything else than code apps against cocoa. That's myself, as individual, if they pay me I'd choose the best thing even if it's windows.
Oh, pero yo no soy sudaca, yo soy español de pura cepa. Castilla y León, el viejo reino de los reyes católicos ;)
I would be surprised if linux wouldn't run great on G5s too. IBM has quite a lot of people working in the powerpc port of linux - and IBM is who makes G5s.
Who cares about open source operating systems if everything existing on it is a half implementation. 90% of the open source stuff is crap.
Crap? Linux on servers rocks and it's getting better every day on desktops - which is my whole point, i'd rather have a crappy OSS desktop than a propietary one.
What directions is mac os x taking? Are the ones you want, or the ones you're told to like? Some people don't like mac os x and they can't modify the propietary libraries.
What will hapen if apple has to close? (unlikely, but imagine it).There has been some operative systems which have been lost that way, have you ever heard of BeOS? I don't want to depend of propietary products like aqua and cocoa, no matter how good are them, so I'll install linux, thanks.
People who cares about having a 100% open source operative system, instead only a part?
This version is not about forbiding people viewing videos.
It's about being able to REMOVE it if you want. You can install WMP again.
The new msn search engine searchs in Encarta
Indeed. In 2.4, real world (aka, redhat, suse, distros) was using forked kernel bases, not vanilla. Vanilla kernels were only being used by some distros like debian and some geeks, only a minority. Everybody else was using "forked" (O(1) scheduler, NTPL, etc etc)
Real world wasn't using 2.4 code and hence 2.4 was not being used and took a _lot_ of time (years) and efforts to be really stable. This is exactly the problem that the new "development model" addresses and many people don't seem to realize it
Do I've to remember all those disk corruptions, the 2.4 VM cata^Wissues (which it took years to fix in kernel.org despite of not existing in vendor's kernels) and all that?
Well, what can i say. If we'e going to tal about personal issues I've been using linux since 2.5.37 and I've had very few crashes. 0 since 2.6 was released.
oh yes some hardware is better supported than others. Ask your hardware vendor to give you open source drivers, I happen to run hardware that is well supported.
Linux keeps re-writing major portions of the kernel and has stability issues. It now depends on 3rd party vendors to integrate and make stable releases of the code.
Linux has always kept rewriting fundamental parts of the kernel true, and it will probably keep it that way. If not how can you explain that linux has gone from crawling in 8-ways to running in 512-cpu SGI boxes? When someone rewrites a part the kernel is for a reason, usually to do something better, and netbsd has also rewritten big parts of the kernel to get where netbsd 2.0. right now some people is rewriting fundamental parts of linux because they want to achieve realtime support. I don't see how this rewrite an be bad.
And I don't see lot of unstability issues, and I bet lot of people unsing 2.6 here will agree with me that 2.6 has been by far the stablest linux release ever. The fact that IBM has been testing linux in 32-way boxes during the whole development of the kernel has helped a lotfor that and its something BSDs can not benefit from (they don't even _boot_ on these boxes). A 32-way machine finds bugs much, much faster than a single-p4 does, it's as simple as that. That is one of the reasons 2.6 is so stable even with the new development model, people test things in those big machines before merging them in the main tree
And yes linux "depends" on distros to publish a workable system. This is how linux works, and while some people don't like it, the fact it that this way of doing things has encouraged the spread of linux,specially in the desktop - everyone can find a distro that fits to him. Do you really expect to be able to build a single base OS that 6000 millions of people will like?
oh yes 0.013...whatever, my point is that debian has lot of packages, so it has a lot of sense that it has more vulnerabilities. Same goes for any Linux distro - we ship a complete system, not just a bare os
It were the original words from the anonymous coward ;)
debian woody has like 8000 packages.
Windows XP is a OS, graphical environment, msn messenger, wordpad, a few crappy games, some services...let's be good and say they've 1000 packages of software(they don't)
13/1000= 0.13 vulnerabilities per package
47/8000=0.005
"So you zealous fucker, which platform is more secure?"
Ever since AMD became the definitive number 1 in the market, I seriously lost interest in Intel stuff.
Except that if Intel takes his dual core out first, they'll be numer 1 again
BTW, Intel still owns 80% of the market, no mater how nice opterons can be. AMD can hardly be called "number 1". They'll become quickly 1 if they release the dual core stuff faster, though.
Remember, AMD was the first to get a 1 Ghz CPU, and that didn't give them the market.
\/ \/ ||
You've a sick mind
Google is sponsoring someone. It hasn't bought Netscape.
If he starts being impartial I guess that they won't alow him to develop firefox.
A link to what?
They're helping to oneof the most succesful OSS projects
I can't see how that can be "evil" in any way
Outlook, does it really matters?
Hotmail is the problem, and can't be fixed.
Lots of opera users are "free" users ie: they don't pay. I doubt that the opera users who actually pay for opera are less.
Also, w3cschools are hardly a good source for stadistics. I wish google would show browser stadistics again - in the latest months before removing it, mozilla was winning a bit of market share.
Really, do you expect firefox can do something if it doesn't start growing faster?
First, "% of browsers used" != "% of boxes". Firefox is having a hit because its users are people who spend a lot of time in internet. There're a *lot* of people who don't use internet a lot, and they don't get eflected in the stadistics just because they don't browse a lot.
Second, If firefox continues growing at this rate, microsoft will have enought time to rewrite their browser. Remember, 100% of windows boxes have IE installed, and as soon as microsoft gives them a update which is "good enought" they could stop using firefox. Don't understimate the power of microsoft, they control the most used software distribution channel for windows boxes - windows update
And let's remember that around 50% of the OS used to browser internet is XP. XP SP2 has a popup killer by default which is one of the biggest reasons to use firefox. And SP2 enables automatic updates, so IE is "safer". It doesn't really matters if IE is secure or not, if microsoft patches it fast enought users won't have problems.
so, what we need is to get *better*, and get better *faster*. Currently, firefox is just "a better IE". Yes, it's more than that, we know, but users only see that "a better explorer". We need to offer something different, innovative. We need to give them more things that are not just "better than the IE equivalent", but cool things that have not equivalent so users will stick with firefox. (don't talk me about extensions, IE has plugins and they could start those to add funcionality!)
And of course we need to have "automatic updates" for firefox. I think those are already there, right? If you don't updae users' browser, they won't do it themselves, automatic update (or at least a window warning about a "fastest, more secure version) is needed if you want that your users continue appreciating all the work you do.
Micros~1's tool is supposed to remove spyware and some of the most spread viruses
Micros~1's tool is a SPYWARE product, not a antivirus. The review critizes micros~1 for not removing viruses. Oh, what surprise. What if he buys a antivirus instead of a antispyware product?
~/kernel/stable # grep -i "@intel.com" MAINTAINERS | wc -l
11
Intel has a couple of programmers taking care of ACPI, they've merged their own GPL drivers for their network cards, they've published specs of SATA hardware or documentation of mainboard chipsets, drivers for their graphics chipsets, there're intel guys at the kernel mailing list...I buy Intel just for how good linux support is having lately. No cookie for you, amd:
grep -i "@amd.com" MAINTAINERS | wc -l
0