I can say that the Logo certification requires a significant amount of technical work, not just some buy off.
I imagine it does, but I was simply asking whether it had to meet MS Logo cert in order to work, or if it had to meet MS Logo cert in order to display the "for use with Windows" logo as the MS blurb suggests. I had interpreted the poster's statement of "...to guarantee that our hardware runs Microsoft Windows..." to mean that the software would (somehow) not operate unless it met certain specs.
...to guarantee that our hardware runs Microsoft Windows, we have to conform to the Windows Logo Program Requirements.
From the "MS Logo" link:
Microsoft provides Microsoft Windows System and Device Requirements as the authoritative information source for the "Designed for Windows" logo program for hardware. These requirements must be met by manufacturers who want to license the "Designed for Windows" logo.
So is it really a question of ensuring that your hardware "works", or is it a marketing issue in which you need to show the colourful Windows flag on your product's packagaing?
I'll admit that I didn't devle too deep into that MS document, though, so it may encompass far more than the logo, despite what the title suggests.
If a page doesn't adhere to standards, but renders well in popular browsers, what's the problem?
The problem, IMO, is that you don't know why or why not things render well.
By conforming to standards, you have a (debatably) clear set of rules that define certain behaviours. For example, you will know that if you want to have some number of pixels pad your elements, then you will not have to resort to ugly hacks to get the same layout in BrowserX as you do in BroswerY. Why? Because each browser will reference the rules for adding the specified amount of padding to an element, in the right place, and in the right proportions.
By not supporting standards, you have a number of problems:
You can't use the rules to plan your layout, as they may not apply to your browser. So when someone comes up with a nifty idea based on rules, you may not be able to use it yourself.
When you do use a supported rule, and it works in a different manner, you may have to adjust your design. This is one of those "it kind of works" situations, which only causes more headaches and confusion.
When you do use a supported rule, and it does work in your browser, you will only know that it works under a specific set of cirumstances defined by your instance. Does it really work, or does it work sometimes?
Imagine whipping up a simple page to test out a new design idea in your browser of choice. Everything looks good. Now you try to use it on your production page. Something looks wrong. Is it because you've included it in a tag that overrides your specifications? Is it because you've arranged it next to an element whose properties are spilling over into your space? Is it because you tested it inside of a tag, for which the specification holds, but have erroneously tried to apply it to a tag that does not support it? How will you know, unless your browser developers tell you -- assuming they know themselves?
For me, that's why CSS is useful. For the most part, it's pretty clear as to what things support what attributes.
Since your post was originally about Slashdot's (non-)adherence to CSS and other web standards, here's one major incentive to switch over: bandwidth. Does anyone really like throwing money away?
Clearly, all software should only be installable from floppy disks, and not from over the Internet. That way, script kiddies would have to send people their exploits by snail mail, with a note attached that reads:
2 C pix of Natalie p0rtman nood, reboot ur PC with this disk & type FORMAT C:
BitTorrent accounts for 35% of *all* Internet traffic. I think it's safe to say it's already been adopted by the masses.
It might, but then it might not. I'd warrant that it's a pretty misleading statistic.
Imagine 100 people connected to a network. Now imagine the following:
1 user w/ BitTorrent downloads 0.99GB of data
99 users w/ ClientX download 0.01GB of data each = 0.99GB of data.
Clearly, BitTorrent accounts for 50% of all network traffic. But only 1% of those connected are using BitTorrent. The masses still use ClientX almost exclusively.
Still, I agree with your suggestion that more and more people are discovering BitTorrent. Right now, though, it's still pretty much a geek tool.
I've slowly started a switch to Open Office, but opening old documents and spreadsheet is impossible with Open Office, if they are any of the Corel Formats.
While conversion might take a good few days, have you tried using Corel's own (slightly older) conversion tool? Would a simple WP -> Word -> OO.o conversion work? Of course, this wouldn't help you with the Quattro files.
After the initial conversion pains, you should be good to go in OO.o's sxw format.
It's a public domain, anyone who chooses to can contact you wether or not it's against the law.
Well, if it's actually against the law, then I'd warrant your statement is complete baloney.
Having said that, your phone number is probably listed in the phone book. Does this mean that you consent to all of those telemarketers calling you up? It's in the public, after all.
1st is whether Gates is, in fact, the "main reason" we have PCS on our desks
"One of" the main reasons. Like I said, that statement would provoke debate.
As for what Joe User thinks, well, probably he does think Bill invented the Internet, the mouse, the keyboard, word processing, etc.
...which was really my point to begin with. The media and Joe Public will equate Henry Ford and Bill Gates to cars and computers, while failing to recognize the other players.
Although I agree that ornamentation usually gets more attention than substance, Henry Ford is not, IMO, a good example. He, more than any other single person, is the reason why I can own my own car.
I think it's a fairly accurate example. While this will surely be debated on Slashdot, Bill Gates is one of the main reasons why people have personal computers. Ask the general population about computers, and they'll mention MS-DOS or Windows. Look at the proliferation of Windows on the desktop. For Joe User, Bill Gates personifies computing.
That's really why I chose Henry Ford as my example. YMMV, obviously.
It's suprising the people who architect some of the finest PC ideas are not recognized more by the media.
This happens in all areas, not just computer science. When was the last time you remember hearing Joseph Cugnot's name on the 11 o'clock news, or reading John Lambert's name in the paper? Both were pioneers in the automotive field -- the former developed the first self-propelled road vehicle, while the latter developed the USA's first gas-powered car -- but they seldom get any mention. Instead, you've probably heard of Henry Ford, that guy whose assembly techniques made them famous.
Usually, it's the flashy fast-talking man who gets the press.
Simply limit the distance a mob will pursue a target... When engaged with a player, it will pursue them a longer distance, but will stop and turn back.
Doesn't this just invite the old "easy defeat" trick of luring an enemy to the edge of its range, then attacking it when it turns away? One step forward, mob advances. One step back, mob retreats -- attack. One step forward, one step back -- attack.
I remember slaying monsters in some of the early D&D video games this way. Granted, I've never played FFXI, and have no idea if this is at all applicable.
Generally, it is. In the case of RedHat, you just have to install the appropriate RPMs. Same for the other major desktop contender, SuSE. You did check to see that they were the correct RPMs, right? The newest RedHat RPMs are tailored for RHEL and/or Fedora, and will likely require additional updates and dependencies to run on an older RedHat 9 installation.
What sort of problems are you encountering with RedHat 9? Have you tried searching the support forums, or verifying that you are indeed using the appropriate RPM? Post some details -- Java version, RPM info, error messages -- and we'll see if this is the case. I suspect it's an easy fix, though "easy" might entail quite a bit of downloading and/or upgrading packages.
It never fails to work, and it is very simple to figure out what is wrong when it does fail.
Again, if you choose the appropriate RPMs, there should be no problems, unless you've deliberately gone out of your way to try and sabotage your machine. And, unfortunately, you've given no clues as to what types of errors are being generated by your system, so this does make it difficult to figure out what's wrong.
I suspect that you simply haven't set up the machine correctly, and are trying to blame Java for your woes.
Google is allowing someone to buy "Vuitton" as a search term, and then permitting their competition or "counterfeits" to be displayed when the trademarked term is searched.
What if you purchase a search term that you think is (relatively) generic, but actually competes with an specific existing product?
For example, what if I started building custom case-mods to make your computer look like a big piece of fruit? What if I wanted to include the keywords "computer, case mod, orange, lime, apple"?
I'm not disputing your argument, just throwing out a "what if?"
I'd say that your assumption is misleading, and not the packaging. It was listed as a "requirement". A requirement is something that, in this case, is "required" to play the game. "Usually..." and "But other games..." arguments apply to just that -- other games.
In a day-and-age where people are crying foul over cryptic EULA language and raising hell because "things can be interpreted by lawyers in *so* many ways", why shouldn't "requirement" be taken at face value?
I agree with you in the sense that Steam's permanent authentication is a real PITA. I won't play it for that reason. But as a user, shouldn't I be looking for a game that says "Internet connection for registration purposes" on the packaging?
In a report made following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the game.
Wouldn't listing "Internet connection" under "System Requirements" (even under some "Other" category), imply that an internet connection is a requirement?
I haven't seen the packaging myself, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Indeed. I hear that type of argument all the time when it comes to Windows-vs-Linux scenarios. Replace "Windows" with "cars", "Linux" with "armoured vans", and "exploited" with "stolen" and you get an argument something like this:
More people drive cars than armoured vans. More cars are stolen than armoured vans because they're so popular. If armoured vans were more popular, people would start targeting them more, and there would be just as many thefts.
Ridiculous. It would still be harder to steal an armoured van because they're designed with security in mind. Certainly not impossible, but the claim that popularity is the only reason why one thing is targeted is baloney. Cars are easier to steal. The reason why Windows is targeted more is because it's inherently more insecure, and easier to exploit holes. In the case of IE-vs-Firefox, the same applies. By tying IE so close to the OS, you've got a whole lot more that can go wrong than with FF's separation. At least, that's the situation right now. Things change.
If popularity was the major factor, shouldn't Apache have way more exploits than IIS?
How that fits in with the GPL is something I'm not quite sure.
I'm not entirely sure, either. I found a number of discussions in various newsgroups, but it seems to be a gray area. Any GPL experts, feel free to chime in here...
Seriously, are you afraid Amazon's tracking of your browsing habits are wrong? Should they not do that? I mean, your willing to hand out your credit card to them, but please, don't let them track you!
Perhaps you should have a look at this recent story about a man who was wrongly charged with attempted arson based on his grocery purchases, tracked via his club card. Being tracked is one thing, but having a third-party piece together a context given the data can be alarming.
It's not a matter of whether you or I who are fully capable of finding what we need are able to workaround Firefox not working with Windows Update, it's a matter of whether "Cletus" from the sticks of Mississippi can figure it out.
Why do you think you get the "You must upgrade to IE..." page when you visit Windows Update with FireFox?
If the page wasn't handled correctly, you'd see garbage on the screen. Or an empty screen. Or half of a screen. Basically, you would see the elements that FireFox parsed correctly.
What you're seeing on Windows Update is the result of a script that checks if you're using IE. If you are, it lets you access the main page. If you're not, it tells you to switch to Microsoft's browser. How does FireFox get past this? Clearly, it can't change the script on Microsoft's site. Should it use some fancy algorithm to try and decide which scripts it should ignore and which it should obey? That's opening a whole new can of worms.
It's not an issue of FireFox displaying the page incorrectly. It's an issue of FireFox being blocked at the door.
If you have an example of a page that displays incorrectly without such a limitation on it, then you've got something to discuss.
So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Obviously, you have to include the license, yes. Usually it's just a simple text file included with the program, or something similar. I was speaking more about scrawling "this program is Open Source" on your splash screen, or putting bright blinking "Download the source FOR FREE!" links on your website.
Slashdot Mirror
I can say that the Logo certification requires a significant amount of technical work, not just some buy off.
I imagine it does, but I was simply asking whether it had to meet MS Logo cert in order to work, or if it had to meet MS Logo cert in order to display the "for use with Windows" logo as the MS blurb suggests. I had interpreted the poster's statement of "...to guarantee that our hardware runs Microsoft Windows..." to mean that the software would (somehow) not operate unless it met certain specs.
That's all.
You said:
From the "MS Logo" link:
So is it really a question of ensuring that your hardware "works", or is it a marketing issue in which you need to show the colourful Windows flag on your product's packagaing?
I'll admit that I didn't devle too deep into that MS document, though, so it may encompass far more than the logo, despite what the title suggests.
If a page doesn't adhere to standards, but renders well in popular browsers, what's the problem?
The problem, IMO, is that you don't know why or why not things render well.
By conforming to standards, you have a (debatably) clear set of rules that define certain behaviours. For example, you will know that if you want to have some number of pixels pad your elements, then you will not have to resort to ugly hacks to get the same layout in BrowserX as you do in BroswerY. Why? Because each browser will reference the rules for adding the specified amount of padding to an element, in the right place, and in the right proportions.
By not supporting standards, you have a number of problems:
Imagine whipping up a simple page to test out a new design idea in your browser of choice. Everything looks good. Now you try to use it on your production page. Something looks wrong. Is it because you've included it in a tag that overrides your specifications? Is it because you've arranged it next to an element whose properties are spilling over into your space? Is it because you tested it inside of a tag, for which the specification holds, but have erroneously tried to apply it to a tag that does not support it? How will you know, unless your browser developers tell you -- assuming they know themselves?
For me, that's why CSS is useful. For the most part, it's pretty clear as to what things support what attributes.
Since your post was originally about Slashdot's (non-)adherence to CSS and other web standards, here's one major incentive to switch over: bandwidth. Does anyone really like throwing money away?
Hook up each computer to a bicycle-powered generator. After 3 or 4 hours, they'll need to buy another coffee just to keep them awake.
Easy peasy.
How do you defend against that?
Clearly, all software should only be installable from floppy disks, and not from over the Internet. That way, script kiddies would have to send people their exploits by snail mail, with a note attached that reads:
Still, I'm sure there'd be a few who did...
BitTorrent accounts for 35% of *all* Internet traffic. I think it's safe to say it's already been adopted by the masses.
It might, but then it might not. I'd warrant that it's a pretty misleading statistic.
Imagine 100 people connected to a network. Now imagine the following:
Clearly, BitTorrent accounts for 50% of all network traffic. But only 1% of those connected are using BitTorrent. The masses still use ClientX almost exclusively.
Still, I agree with your suggestion that more and more people are discovering BitTorrent. Right now, though, it's still pretty much a geek tool.
We men all know cars still have half a tank even when on empty.
In my car, there is no "empty". "E" stands for "enough".
"See, honey? There's enough gas left in the tank..."
HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, SCP, blah blah blah blah blah, can all be used to send files across the Internet to another party.
If that's the case, then I think that the solution is pretty clear.
Ban acronyms.
I've slowly started a switch to Open Office, but opening old documents and spreadsheet is impossible with Open Office, if they are any of the Corel Formats.
While conversion might take a good few days, have you tried using Corel's own (slightly older) conversion tool? Would a simple WP -> Word -> OO.o conversion work? Of course, this wouldn't help you with the Quattro files.
After the initial conversion pains, you should be good to go in OO.o's sxw format.
It's a public domain, anyone who chooses to can contact you wether or not it's against the law.
Well, if it's actually against the law, then I'd warrant your statement is complete baloney.
Having said that, your phone number is probably listed in the phone book. Does this mean that you consent to all of those telemarketers calling you up? It's in the public, after all.
1st is whether Gates is, in fact, the "main reason" we have PCS on our desks
"One of" the main reasons. Like I said, that statement would provoke debate.
As for what Joe User thinks, well, probably he does think Bill invented the Internet, the mouse, the keyboard, word processing, etc.
...which was really my point to begin with. The media and Joe Public will equate Henry Ford and Bill Gates to cars and computers, while failing to recognize the other players.
That's all, really.
Although I agree that ornamentation usually gets more attention than substance, Henry Ford is not, IMO, a good example. He, more than any other single person, is the reason why I can own my own car.
I think it's a fairly accurate example. While this will surely be debated on Slashdot, Bill Gates is one of the main reasons why people have personal computers. Ask the general population about computers, and they'll mention MS-DOS or Windows. Look at the proliferation of Windows on the desktop. For Joe User, Bill Gates personifies computing.
That's really why I chose Henry Ford as my example. YMMV, obviously.
It's suprising the people who architect some of the finest PC ideas are not recognized more by the media.
This happens in all areas, not just computer science. When was the last time you remember hearing Joseph Cugnot's name on the 11 o'clock news, or reading John Lambert's name in the paper? Both were pioneers in the automotive field -- the former developed the first self-propelled road vehicle, while the latter developed the USA's first gas-powered car -- but they seldom get any mention. Instead, you've probably heard of Henry Ford, that guy whose assembly techniques made them famous.
Usually, it's the flashy fast-talking man who gets the press.
Simply limit the distance a mob will pursue a target ... When engaged with a player, it will pursue them a longer distance, but will stop and turn back.
Doesn't this just invite the old "easy defeat" trick of luring an enemy to the edge of its range, then attacking it when it turns away? One step forward, mob advances. One step back, mob retreats -- attack. One step forward, one step back -- attack.
I remember slaying monsters in some of the early D&D video games this way. Granted, I've never played FFXI, and have no idea if this is at all applicable.
Oh, yeah, making Java work is trivial.
Generally, it is. In the case of RedHat, you just have to install the appropriate RPMs. Same for the other major desktop contender, SuSE. You did check to see that they were the correct RPMs, right? The newest RedHat RPMs are tailored for RHEL and/or Fedora, and will likely require additional updates and dependencies to run on an older RedHat 9 installation.
What sort of problems are you encountering with RedHat 9? Have you tried searching the support forums, or verifying that you are indeed using the appropriate RPM? Post some details -- Java version, RPM info, error messages -- and we'll see if this is the case. I suspect it's an easy fix, though "easy" might entail quite a bit of downloading and/or upgrading packages.
It never fails to work, and it is very simple to figure out what is wrong when it does fail.
Again, if you choose the appropriate RPMs, there should be no problems, unless you've deliberately gone out of your way to try and sabotage your machine. And, unfortunately, you've given no clues as to what types of errors are being generated by your system, so this does make it difficult to figure out what's wrong.
I suspect that you simply haven't set up the machine correctly, and are trying to blame Java for your woes.
Most of the time they don't work either because they need java or activex, or because they are just broken.
Both ActiveX and Shockwave won't run, short of running WINE, but Java? All you have to do is download the RPMs from here.
Google is allowing someone to buy "Vuitton" as a search term, and then permitting their competition or "counterfeits" to be displayed when the trademarked term is searched.
What if you purchase a search term that you think is (relatively) generic, but actually competes with an specific existing product?
For example, what if I started building custom case-mods to make your computer look like a big piece of fruit? What if I wanted to include the keywords "computer, case mod, orange, lime, apple"?
I'm not disputing your argument, just throwing out a "what if?"
Usually, something like that implies...
I'd say that your assumption is misleading, and not the packaging. It was listed as a "requirement". A requirement is something that, in this case, is "required" to play the game. "Usually..." and "But other games..." arguments apply to just that -- other games.
In a day-and-age where people are crying foul over cryptic EULA language and raising hell because "things can be interpreted by lawyers in *so* many ways", why shouldn't "requirement" be taken at face value?
I agree with you in the sense that Steam's permanent authentication is a real PITA. I won't play it for that reason. But as a user, shouldn't I be looking for a game that says "Internet connection for registration purposes" on the packaging?
In a report made following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the game.
Wouldn't listing "Internet connection" under "System Requirements" (even under some "Other" category), imply that an internet connection is a requirement?
I haven't seen the packaging myself, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Indeed. I hear that type of argument all the time when it comes to Windows-vs-Linux scenarios. Replace "Windows" with "cars", "Linux" with "armoured vans", and "exploited" with "stolen" and you get an argument something like this:
More people drive cars than armoured vans.
More cars are stolen than armoured vans because they're so popular.
If armoured vans were more popular, people would start targeting them more, and there would be just as many thefts.
Ridiculous. It would still be harder to steal an armoured van because they're designed with security in mind. Certainly not impossible, but the claim that popularity is the only reason why one thing is targeted is baloney. Cars are easier to steal. The reason why Windows is targeted more is because it's inherently more insecure, and easier to exploit holes. In the case of IE-vs-Firefox, the same applies. By tying IE so close to the OS, you've got a whole lot more that can go wrong than with FF's separation. At least, that's the situation right now. Things change.
If popularity was the major factor, shouldn't Apache have way more exploits than IIS?
How that fits in with the GPL is something I'm not quite sure.
I'm not entirely sure, either. I found a number of discussions in various newsgroups, but it seems to be a gray area. Any GPL experts, feel free to chime in here...
Seriously, are you afraid Amazon's tracking of your browsing habits are wrong? Should they not do that? I mean, your willing to hand out your credit card to them, but please, don't let them track you!
Perhaps you should have a look at this recent story about a man who was wrongly charged with attempted arson based on his grocery purchases, tracked via his club card. Being tracked is one thing, but having a third-party piece together a context given the data can be alarming.
It's not a matter of whether you or I who are fully capable of finding what we need are able to workaround Firefox not working with Windows Update, it's a matter of whether "Cletus" from the sticks of Mississippi can figure it out.
Why do you think you get the "You must upgrade to IE..." page when you visit Windows Update with FireFox?
If the page wasn't handled correctly, you'd see garbage on the screen. Or an empty screen. Or half of a screen. Basically, you would see the elements that FireFox parsed correctly.
What you're seeing on Windows Update is the result of a script that checks if you're using IE. If you are, it lets you access the main page. If you're not, it tells you to switch to Microsoft's browser. How does FireFox get past this? Clearly, it can't change the script on Microsoft's site. Should it use some fancy algorithm to try and decide which scripts it should ignore and which it should obey? That's opening a whole new can of worms.
It's not an issue of FireFox displaying the page incorrectly. It's an issue of FireFox being blocked at the door.
If you have an example of a page that displays incorrectly without such a limitation on it, then you've got something to discuss.
That's why you can lease software...
Doesn't "leasing" count as "releasing"?
I assumed that making your program available outside of your company counted as a "release". Of course, I've been wrong before.
So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Obviously, you have to include the license, yes. Usually it's just a simple text file included with the program, or something similar. I was speaking more about scrawling "this program is Open Source" on your splash screen, or putting bright blinking "Download the source FOR FREE!" links on your website.
Sorry that wasn't entirely clear.