That's great until you notice that the domain name has been truncated from seven characters down t o one and constantly asks you to re-authenticate because some part of the process continues to truncate the domain.
I'm one of those who went from having a laptop that functioned just fine on the Windows domain to accessing maybe 50-60% of the shares and not consistently. Some of us do have some real bugs on fresh installs.
A quick count from March 2, 2005 to current shows Mozilla ahead. I didn't count items with (updated) and only counted Mozilla lines that contained Firefox. The same for IE.
I'm not going to count further as I already count a lot of of bulletins for Firefox and that is one of the points.
I already see people complaining about bias and how misinformed this person is yet on the first page alone the author praises Firefox and takes IE to task on languishing and having a boatload of security fixes.
Oh, I see. The author goes on to critisize Firefox. Now he is mis-informed since he states at CERT and Symantec you can count more vulnerabilities recently with Firefox than IE. I can go to those sites as well and count.
I believe he is right: firefox isn't a panecea. I use firefox and helped push it to be used at the company I work for. In the last six months it seems Firefox is being patched as much as IE.
Is it just me being tired of constantly reading about how perfect flawed software is. If it's flaw or flaws are being brought out consistently it's seemingly OK. There is always a "but" following why OSS is OK despite flaws. When a commercial product has a problem it's because they aren't OSS. What is the problem when the OSS darlings have issues?
Perhaps when the flaws being shown in Firefox calm down a bit a lot of the rhetoric will sound better.
Linus is worked up about something and it may be something we've not heard yet, especially with Andrew's silence. Do we know there wasn't a conversation that this work by Andrew would screw over Linus's use of a tool that makes work very efficient for him? And if Andrew persisted, especially if there were other ways to accomplish the same thing, I'd be upset too.
I'm fortunate enough to have a boss that allows me to use the best tool for the job. I enjoy being allowed to choose the best tool, for me to get the task at hand done. Is sad that Linus isn't allowed the same without taking a beating especially when the end product he is part of is so useful to all of us. So much for choice and freedom. Oh there is, it's just not the typical Linux/Open Source zealot view of choice and freedom and if that view isn't accepted then you are evil.
I'll stand in the minority and say that I feel sad for Linus losing a tool that was so helpful in creating a tool I find so useful. Yeah, he had some outlandish comments but how many of us are perfectly logical when we lash out?
I for one cannot wait to hear the whole story before judging.
I've been an iTMS user since its inception and I've yet to feel encumbered or feel a lack of freedom. I read the agreement and understand the restrictions. I agreed. Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? You know, or should!!, the restrictions imposed.
A lot of OSS software can be patched quickly because a fair number of software isn't integrated into the kernel or into a dozen other appliations that need to play nicely together after a change is made. Firefox, Apache, etc., stand alone and can be debugged more quickly.
I bet MS developers could generate patches far quicker if a given piece of software wasn't integrated with every other piece of MS software. They, for the most part, have to deal with at least an extra layer of complexity, right or wrong.
Where on earth did you get the impression from the poster that Linux couldn't run the hardware at some point in the future? The poster is right that no one else has the hardware or the OS *now*.
MS probably doesn't care but it never hurts to snap your customers back from drooling over shiny objects Apple or Linux distro's may show off.
MS cannot sit idle with other OS vendors, notably Linux, making gains more frequently. If nothing else MS too, needs to show activity (progress) like their competitors, who are progressing just fine and that progress is showing up more and more in the mainstream.
Can someone comment on why distro's seemingly *have* to have a different filesystem hierarchy? Typically when you distinguish yourself from a competitor you add value. I don't see the value here to anyone other than the distro vendor, in that given enough scripts and whatnot, if you wanted to move to a competitor it could be more of a PITA than it's worth to switch.
Further, I've not heard any arguments to why vendors cannot agree on a standard FS (not to say there aren't any - I just don't know of 'em)? Perhaps use symlinks to keep the old path functional and implement the new path. Am I just nieve?
For example, I find RegExBuddy to be the best regular expression tool out there. While I'm an avid fan / user of OS X, and loathe Windows, the fact that the tool works so well makes me forget I'm using Windows and instead focus on the task at hand. At home, I use Virtual PC to run the app.
I think at some point, useful GUI features like Expose and such take a second seat to the time actually spent in the application. Do I think a feature like Expose is amazing in manipulating a *lot* of Windows? Sure. Can I make do without when an application is good enough. Sure.
Speaking of running as Administrator, or having to in some cases, did you ever see the docs that show the hoops you have to go through to run Visual Studio as a non-administrator non-Admin? While I cannot speak for Delphi 2005, Delphi 7 has this same problem to some extent. Sometimes it's a pain in the ass to not run as Administrator. That needs to be fixed.
There's a whitelist for sites permitted to install extensions...
That's already to much to know and/or do for the masses which is partly why spyware is so successful. There are so many users who turn off warnings and whatnot because those sort of things get in the way of their automated browsing experience.
You are so right. I've been reading a lot of past exploit articles to post a reply similar to yours to make sure I get my thoughts straight.
I'm amazed at the generally casual attitude when exploits are found with Open Source software. The criticism towards OSS and/or the developers is rare even when a piece of OSS has multiple exploits in a short span of time. The ranting about how MS developers suck and whatnot is sorely lacking when it comes to OSS. Sometimes I get the feeling that exploits are "OK" so long as they aren't MS related when reading/.
There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.
Sure, but could someone else could have made the same discovery in a time frame that mattered? That is the part you are ignoring in your fallacy statement.
..there is some adherence to standards. most of the protocols are open and you are basically free to do with it what you want.
A Windows user sitting beside me stated that he can watch any movie content, listen to any music, access any web content, and has an enourmouse choice of software to choose from to get his work done. What is this obession to a kernel and protocols? Where is the obsession to application layer?
Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support, linux is becoming a feasible alternative for businesses, and microsoft is scared as hell of that.
I bet MS is more scared of the free applications that are more and more capable than a free kernel. How many people are saying, "Wow! I can get this great kernel!"? The OS seems to be the least cost when compared with tools that run on top of it. MySQL/PostGres vs MS SQL in license cost. Development tools on the Linux platform vs IDEs from Borland and Microsoft. Office Software on MS brand new vs Open Office or StarOffice or whatever. License costs are what hurt myself and other coworkers not kernel 2.whatever. Can we do the same task for far less money? That'll work every time and I think that in the long run is what scares MS most.
I figured I'd test MS AntiSpyware against Lavasofts Ad-watch. I installed 'MSN Toolbar Suite'. That isn't malware but lavasofts program gives me the chance to block the registry modification whereas the MS product pops up a window from the sys tray saying the product doing the registry entry isn't known spyware and didn't let me say yay or nay, instead just disappearing faster than I could read the entire message.
I like the behavior of Ad-watch much better; leaving me in control and not making assumptions for me. I realize the MSN product was install by choice but could other programs slip through MS assumptions?
As we saw in another slashdot article, the DVD business makes up a large amount of the Hollywood's profits. Watch the movie in the theatres and don't buy the DVD's and watch the DVD portion of the profits plummet.
Hollywood and the music companies aren't budging. The masses are just accepting what they push down our throats. Perhaps it is time to use our power as consumers?
Slashdot Mirror
There's this thing called system administration across a group of networked machines. The parent poster probably understands that concept.
For your needs your response is seemingly suitable. Others need more out of Firefox in a more manged fashion to which Firefox doesn't offer very much.
That's great until you notice that the domain name has been truncated from seven characters down t o one and constantly asks you to re-authenticate because some part of the process continues to truncate the domain.
I'm one of those who went from having a laptop that functioned just fine on the Windows domain to accessing maybe 50-60% of the shares and not consistently. Some of us do have some real bugs on fresh installs.
Out of curiosity. How many bulletins did you count for IE and Firefox for the last six months, not counting updates to the bulletins?
A quick count from March 2, 2005 to current shows Mozilla ahead. I didn't count items with (updated) and only counted Mozilla lines that contained Firefox. The same for IE.
I'm not going to count further as I already count a lot of of bulletins for Firefox and that is one of the points.
I already see people complaining about bias and how misinformed this person is yet on the first page alone the author praises Firefox and takes IE to task on languishing and having a boatload of security fixes.
Oh, I see. The author goes on to critisize Firefox. Now he is mis-informed since he states at CERT and Symantec you can count more vulnerabilities recently with Firefox than IE. I can go to those sites as well and count.
I believe he is right: firefox isn't a panecea. I use firefox and helped push it to be used at the company I work for. In the last six months it seems Firefox is being patched as much as IE.
Is it just me being tired of constantly reading about how perfect flawed software is. If it's flaw or flaws are being brought out consistently it's seemingly OK. There is always a "but" following why OSS is OK despite flaws. When a commercial product has a problem it's because they aren't OSS. What is the problem when the OSS darlings have issues?
Perhaps when the flaws being shown in Firefox calm down a bit a lot of the rhetoric will sound better.
Linus is worked up about something and it may be something we've not heard yet, especially with Andrew's silence. Do we know there wasn't a conversation that this work by Andrew would screw over Linus's use of a tool that makes work very efficient for him? And if Andrew persisted, especially if there were other ways to accomplish the same thing, I'd be upset too.
I'm fortunate enough to have a boss that allows me to use the best tool for the job. I enjoy being allowed to choose the best tool, for me to get the task at hand done. Is sad that Linus isn't allowed the same without taking a beating especially when the end product he is part of is so useful to all of us. So much for choice and freedom. Oh there is, it's just not the typical Linux/Open Source zealot view of choice and freedom and if that view isn't accepted then you are evil.
I'll stand in the minority and say that I feel sad for Linus losing a tool that was so helpful in creating a tool I find so useful. Yeah, he had some outlandish comments but how many of us are perfectly logical when we lash out?
I for one cannot wait to hear the whole story before judging.
I've been an iTMS user since its inception and I've yet to feel encumbered or feel a lack of freedom. I read the agreement and understand the restrictions. I agreed. Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? You know, or should!!, the restrictions imposed.
A lot of OSS software can be patched quickly because a fair number of software isn't integrated into the kernel or into a dozen other appliations that need to play nicely together after a change is made. Firefox, Apache, etc., stand alone and can be debugged more quickly.
I bet MS developers could generate patches far quicker if a given piece of software wasn't integrated with every other piece of MS software. They, for the most part, have to deal with at least an extra layer of complexity, right or wrong.
Where on earth did you get the impression from the poster that Linux couldn't run the hardware at some point in the future? The poster is right that no one else has the hardware or the OS *now*.
I think you can trust that MS will follow the path most profitable.
MS probably doesn't care but it never hurts to snap your customers back from drooling over shiny objects Apple or Linux distro's may show off.
MS cannot sit idle with other OS vendors, notably Linux, making gains more frequently. If nothing else MS too, needs to show activity (progress) like their competitors, who are progressing just fine and that progress is showing up more and more in the mainstream.
Can someone comment on why distro's seemingly *have* to have a different filesystem hierarchy? Typically when you distinguish yourself from a competitor you add value. I don't see the value here to anyone other than the distro vendor, in that given enough scripts and whatnot, if you wanted to move to a competitor it could be more of a PITA than it's worth to switch.
Further, I've not heard any arguments to why vendors cannot agree on a standard FS (not to say there aren't any - I just don't know of 'em)? Perhaps use symlinks to keep the old path functional and implement the new path. Am I just nieve?
For example, I find RegExBuddy to be the best regular expression tool out there. While I'm an avid fan / user of OS X, and loathe Windows, the fact that the tool works so well makes me forget I'm using Windows and instead focus on the task at hand. At home, I use Virtual PC to run the app.
I think at some point, useful GUI features like Expose and such take a second seat to the time actually spent in the application. Do I think a feature like Expose is amazing in manipulating a *lot* of Windows? Sure. Can I make do without when an application is good enough. Sure.
I agree with your reasoning but it isn't like IBM is putting AIX code or DB2 code up on SourceForge. That would be a radical change.
Speaking of running as Administrator, or having to in some cases, did you ever see the docs that show the hoops you have to go through to run Visual Studio as a non-administrator non-Admin? While I cannot speak for Delphi 2005, Delphi 7 has this same problem to some extent. Sometimes it's a pain in the ass to not run as Administrator. That needs to be fixed.
There's a whitelist for sites permitted to install extensions...
That's already to much to know and/or do for the masses which is partly why spyware is so successful. There are so many users who turn off warnings and whatnot because those sort of things get in the way of their automated browsing experience.
You are so right. I've been reading a lot of past exploit articles to post a reply similar to yours to make sure I get my thoughts straight.
I'm amazed at the generally casual attitude when exploits are found with Open Source software. The criticism towards OSS and/or the developers is rare even when a piece of OSS has multiple exploits in a short span of time. The ranting about how MS developers suck and whatnot is sorely lacking when it comes to OSS. Sometimes I get the feeling that exploits are "OK" so long as they aren't MS related when reading /.
I had her send it to me, opened it up in OpenOffice and re-saved it in a generic powerpoint format. I sent it back to her and it now works fine!
It's interesting that you say that because we fix corrupted Excel files by opening and then simply saving them using the spreadsheet in Open Office.
There's a fallacy in imagining a world where a particular person never completed a particular invention. In short, it skips the notion that someone else would have invented it instead.
Sure, but could someone else could have made the same discovery in a time frame that mattered? That is the part you are ignoring in your fallacy statement.
I'm going to play the ignorant part for a bit...
A Windows user sitting beside me stated that he can watch any movie content, listen to any music, access any web content, and has an enourmouse choice of software to choose from to get his work done. What is this obession to a kernel and protocols? Where is the obsession to application layer?
Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support, linux is becoming a feasible alternative for businesses, and microsoft is scared as hell of that.
I bet MS is more scared of the free applications that are more and more capable than a free kernel. How many people are saying, "Wow! I can get this great kernel!"? The OS seems to be the least cost when compared with tools that run on top of it. MySQL/PostGres vs MS SQL in license cost. Development tools on the Linux platform vs IDEs from Borland and Microsoft. Office Software on MS brand new vs Open Office or StarOffice or whatever. License costs are what hurt myself and other coworkers not kernel 2.whatever. Can we do the same task for far less money? That'll work every time and I think that in the long run is what scares MS most.
I figured I'd test MS AntiSpyware against Lavasofts Ad-watch. I installed 'MSN Toolbar Suite'. That isn't malware but lavasofts program gives me the chance to block the registry modification whereas the MS product pops up a window from the sys tray saying the product doing the registry entry isn't known spyware and didn't let me say yay or nay, instead just disappearing faster than I could read the entire message.
I like the behavior of Ad-watch much better; leaving me in control and not making assumptions for me. I realize the MSN product was install by choice but could other programs slip through MS assumptions?
Am I the only one suffering from flicker with the transparent windows when you move between menus or opening pull down boxes?
;-) In hindsight, yeah I do.
In other words, if you have a brain, you're safe...
We, the masses, have been doing just fine without one of those, thank you very much. We obviously welcome our virus writing overlords.
As we saw in another slashdot article, the DVD business makes up a large amount of the Hollywood's profits. Watch the movie in the theatres and don't buy the DVD's and watch the DVD portion of the profits plummet.
Hollywood and the music companies aren't budging. The masses are just accepting what they push down our throats. Perhaps it is time to use our power as consumers?