for instance. We're still figuring this out at Mozilla. Asa's is not the red dino's final word.
Still figuring it out? Really? How many times do you have to tell us you're going to do this sort of stupid thing... and then do this sort of stupid thing, after it was well voiced that everyone outside of fanboy world thought it was a fucking retarded idea?
Seems like you figured it out internally before the 5.0 release.
Now if you mean, 'this was a stupid move and we're figuring out how to go back to a sane traditional software development model' then I'd say you were considering starting to figure this out, but you hadn't put much thought into it yet... OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DONE 5.0 this way.
Disclaimer: I used to be the guy who dealt with embedding Gecko into our software products for a cross platform HTML previewer.
What I learned from that is... you guys have no fucking clue what direction your heading in and its insane for any company who is trying to stay in business to bother trying to track the mess you guys have produced.
I'm sorry you work there as Mozilla really has turned into a template for how not to do software development. It looks like a bunch of developers with no leadership who just do what they want to do when they want to do it until they're bored and move on to whatever next weeks shiny object is.
You need to figure out what the hell your actual goals are and stop trying to be so 'dynamic' that you're running around in circles cause you've got your heads so far up your collective asses that you've turned into a Mobius strip.
Even though I had long since given up on embedding Gecko and moved on to a stable platform (which interestingly enough, it blows my mind how incredibly complex it is do so something as simple as embed gecko. Every other major rendering engine takes a couple days to swap out in my existing code (We started this app in windows, using Trident, I took it over, rewrote it in C with cross platform support in mind, and started with Gecko for HTML rendering), but gecko on the other hand requires so much crap to do even the simplest embedding its not even funny. Use Opera, IE, WebKit or any of the much less feature rich independant engines out there and it takes no time, even though some of them interface in drastically different ways, for 'get a page to display' with Gecko you need either someone elses wrapper... which probably doesn't work cause its out of day, or practically have to write a browsers worth of classes to get basic functionality.
Then... tracking changes? Hahaha not if you don't want to devote a developer to making sense out of the changes made to the gecko tree.
Our end result... we switched to webkit... and I don't even freaking LIKE webkit, but I've never had to update our app to work with a new version of webkit. I've never had to spend days to get webkit to build properly for debugging because the build system isn't even up to 'scribbled in crayon on a bar napkin' quality.
I realize I'm just pissing in your cornflakes in this post, but holy shit I don't know how you guys could possibly fuck up what you had going any worse than you have. I couldn't have fucked up a browser with that kind of market share if I TRIED.
I'm sorry if you agree with everything I'm saying and wish it would change too, you may just be one of the guys trying to fight the good fight... but its pretty damn hard, after being part of the Mozilla development world for as long as I was to not be pissed off that I wasted all that time and effort I invested in getting Mozilla to work for our needs only to find out that I would have spent less money to just license opera's engine.
I just had the best sex ever, and I'm a gay pedophile necrophiliac.
Don't you mean you WERE a gay pedophile necrophiliac? Since the best sex ever is with the triple breasted whore from Eroticon V, which is neither dead, nor a child, and you would only still be gay if you happen to be a woman. Since we're on the Internet, you can not possibly be a woman, so... you 'were' all those things, but not anymore;)
Unless someone is willing to pony up literal millions to provide that long term support, business can go stuff themselves.
Remember this next time you wonder why MS still owns the market and OSS is a distance 3rd or 4th place. Firefox was the best hope OSS had of having a household name, and the ship has sailed.
MS will be happy to provide long term support, and will be happy to take money from those businesses. And those business users will be happy to go home and use IE because they really don't give a flying fuck what Mozilla did this week, they just want to browse the web without having to know how their browser does weird shit in order to do so... and since they'll be forced to use IE at work and its already installed on their PC... MOST will use IE at home.
Your sort of ignorance is ruffly the same as pulling out a loaded shotgun and trying to suck start it... while you finger the trigger, because you got a ingrown hair on your foot.
Sure, it'll solve your immediate problem... but the long term, its a really stupid fucking idea.
Mozilla doesn't need to care about its user base or how the changes effect their user base. They will however be fucked over when they drop back into the obscurity that Netscape made its way into last time they did this sort of retarded, ignore your customers sort of bullshit. And Google will stop paying them for search results, not because they dropped them, but simply because they are a tiny portion of the market and there is little income. And next stop? Mozilla foundation is bankrupt and out of business.
But hey... what do I know, if Mozilla thinks they have the same clout as MS, let them try to play hardball and tell their users how its going to be like MS. I have a distinct feeling that it won't work out nearly as well for them as anyone thinks. Its almost like they are trying to copy Apple's "do what we tell you" mentality... without realizing the people do what Apple says because it doesn't bother them to do so... or they actually like to do so, not JUST because Apple said to do it. And they certainly have never had the 'ohohoho SHINY!@' effect that Apple has.
No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me.
On anything before Windows 7 and Mac OS X 10.2 (where ever they added quartz extreme) I agree.
Once the OS started using the GPU for desktop bits (well, it has for years, but I mean more than just square window backing stores and hardware mouse cursors) the whole story changed.
Once you offload all that little crap to the GPU so its always smooth and seems natural, its jarring as hell to go back to an old OS where things just pop into place. After getting used to nice smooth animations that don't eat CPU power I want to use, its actually almost painful to use older OSes or other GUIs which don't have the animations.
There is no reasonable way to allow plugins that can integrate deeply with FF and expect FF to be able to police their resource usage. The degree of autonomy is too great. It's basically akin to blaming MS for a 3rd party app running on a Windows installation.
So let me get this straight... even before processors supported virtualization in hardware, I could run VMWare and emulate an entire OS inside of an application running inside an existing OS... taking advantage of the existing levels of hardware protection or software emulation... with no modifications to the host OS (no drivers added, nothing)
But you can't do that in a web browser? Hahahahaha. Thats like saying you can't power your computer with electricity. Its so utterly wrong its funny.
It most certainly CAN be done. Google is working on doing... THAT VERY EXACT THING to let you run x86 native code in a sandbox. Look at the native client crap (which don't get me wrong, is going to be a nightmare of bugs and exploits if it gets big I'm sure). Seems Google thinks its possible.
I write plugins for Apple Mail, and it appears to have no problem telling me when my plugin is being a little bitch, and its all written and running in native client code.
I do blame microsoft when a third party app makes my machine blue screen, and its legitimately their problem if I haven't installed a bad driver (which honestly is the problem 99.999% of the time).
Everyone else can do it, but its too hard for the Mozilla team to do it with firefox?
No. Let me explain to you what the actual problem is.
Mozilla developers, like Netscape developers they were before, don't give a shit what the market or users want. They care about sitting down and writing code they find interesting until they no longer find it interesting anymore. Then they either leave, or they reinvent the whole thing all over again so they have a new fun project to work on.
The Mozilla foundation is essentially the defacto example of how to badly manage a potentially powerful software company into the ground.
You do realize that people who make the really dangerous ones are not effected by that at all right?
Show me the sandbox that stops XPCOM dlls from causing damage. You know, the XPCOM dlls right? The ones that actually provide new functionality to the browser by allowing it to talk to the OS... not just javascript that does so search and replace on a DOM.
The fact that you are modded up, not down is proof that slashdot is now just for idiot fanboys.
You may recall that ActiveX was designed to allow websites to execute fully-privileged, unsandboxed native code.
100% Wrong. ActiveX was designed as a system wide plugin architecture based on COM for Windows based applications. It was designed to allow plugins to be written and distributed and used by MANY APPLICATIONS ON THE SAME SYSTEM. Its designed so that Applications can automatically 'discover' its location, meta data information, and what functionality it supports without ANY prerequisite knowledge of the plugin by the application.
MS Office was using ActiveX before IE existed. Except then it was called OLE, and wasn't as advanced as ActiveX in terms of features. OLE became COM, which had DCOM tacked on, then it was renamed to ActiveX and if you dig right down into it and look at.NET assemblies... GUESS WHAT?!? They use the OLE/COM/ActiveX interface too!
ActiveX objects can even label themselves as 'safe for the web' and 'safe for scripting from the web'... so the browser knows when they shouldn't be used.
The side effect of this is that... ActiveX controls allow code to run unsandboxed if IE loads them up. The flaw is that IE loaded them without asking the user when it first started out, and it would be happen to load them from a remote website without asking. This is an IE implementation detail, not ActiveX. ActiveX is functionally the same (though more flexible) as Mozilla XPCOM objects, which run without restrictions since an XPCOM dll is native code. Any flaw in 'ActiveX' that isn't just a bug, and 'design bug' in ActiveX applies equally to XPCOM, so if you blame ActiveX for security issues, Mozilla must have the same ones... but it doesn't, because ActiveX isn't the issue, IE is.
Oh, and Microsoft have got their own proprietary equivalent of WebGL in Silverlight which has similar risks, except that Silverlight is also getting APIs that are approaching ActiveX levels of danger.
No, silverlight is more like flash. If you wanted to say it was like a graphics format/language/definition system, it'd be more like SVG than WebGL. And for the record... SILVERLIGHT IS A FUCKING ACTIVEX OBJECT YOU MORON, its just a properly written one that Microsoft calls by a different name so idiots such as yourself won't realize how retarded you are.
Another 'informative' post by an idiot who could only be more wrong if they said there is no such thing as existence.
I work at a company with currently 6 employees and approximately 150k client installs (PCs which use our software on a daily basis).
It requires an ActiveX control... unless you have some other way to have a software update system that works as well as MSes update system. Gotta have some way to write files to the FS... and unless you happen to steal our private key so you can sign the files you're sending to our clients, you're going to have a pretty hard time exploiting it.
Several of those 150k client PCs that use the software are at one man shows... and we have a couple clients that are in the top 500 companies as far as size in the world...
So, your anecdotal evidence has just been proven bunk with my anecdotal evidence. I'd also be willing to bet that in most of those cases, you simply never noticed the places they had to use ActiveX.
Your post wreaks of lack of experience. Did you mean you quit your summer job waiting tables between high school and college when you went to college?
I'd bet $100 that your college requires ActiveX for certain student requirements in certain programs as pretty much every school in the nation has at least one well known app that does.
Except, in this case, the argument is 'we must use an ActiveX in our browser to do what we need to do because thats the way it is' and your response is 'well, I'm just talkning out my ass, but activex is insecure and you need to upgrade or the evil hax0rs will take you out'.
Let me explain how those two things are different.
The first one, might actually be true, there may be a reason someone needs to use an ActiveX, I can come up with lots of reasons off the top of my head.
The second one is just pure fantasy. ActiveX in and of itself poses 0 security risk. Bad implementations of IE the interface between ActiveX and IE are a problem. IE has been fixed, hence the security issues are gone, hence there is no security risk except the imaginary (though admittedly likely) ones that exist simply because you assume MS is bad at making software.
People tend not to listen when idiots such as yourself wave the 'security' flag because most of the time you're screaming at the top of your lungs about problems that may exist from a technical perspective, you're entirely ignorant of the practical perspective.
You want security for your PC? Encase it in cement, wrapped in a couple inches lead, with no wires coming in or out, and then again in the center of a 10' by 10' chunk of concrete. There, you have a secure PC. For the rest of us we'll weight the risks of security issues against the risks of not making any money because we spend all our time trying to keep up with Mozilla's idiotic schedule for releasing software which forces patches to go along with new features.
Except... Mozilla has its own flavor of ActiveX called XPCOM... works... the... exact... same... way...
Of course, instead of actually understanding what was wrong with the IE SPECIFIC implementation of ActiveX, idiots like yourself will continue to ramble on about shit you clearly don't have the slightest understanding of.
ActiveX is nothing but a plugin system, in Windows it is a globally defined plugin system that apps can use without reinventing the wheel, and it allows plugins the ability to be shared among apps, not specific to a single app. IE installing and running plugins without asking, either due to stupid default configurations in OLD versions of IE, exploits, or stupid users clicking YES RUN THIS DANGEROUS PROGRAM ANYWAY were the reason 'activex exploits' were so rampant. Couple that with idiots building plugins for local apps and making them as safe for use in the web browser and safe to be accessed from javascript running in the browser for plugins that weren't safe and you have the mess that is IE.
It was never an ActiveX problem. It was the result of trying to make it easier to have web plugins and missing some very key security details and implementation... which Mozilla learned from and was able to come out of the gate with a basically safe variation of the same thing. XPCOM plugins work exactly like ActiveX except they are specific to gecko browsers (or projects that use the XPCOM libraries really, as Mozilla isn't the only ones to use it).
And for reference, I've written ActiveX controls for IE and MS Office as well as extensions for both Firefox and Thunderbird which required compiled XPCOM objects in addition to Javascript. I've forgotten more about COM than most of slashdot knows about it since I started writing this reply.
PLEASE GET A CLUE AND STOP SPREADING THIS IGNORANCE ON A TECH SITE. Do it on some random blog where no one assumes you have a clue, not here where you'll just have 150 other morons who think Linus is god and Bill is teh debil following you up telling you how great and right you are just because its anti-MS and their as stupid and ignorant as you are.
Only on slashdot could a 100% factually incorrect in every way posting be rated at the highest rating. You, and everyone who follows your line of thought and everyone who modded you up are completely ignorant of what you are talking about.
What about businesses the rely on plugins, which promptly get disabled with the new awesome update system and their awesome auto-disable plugins that can't see into the future and report themselves as ready for the next version.
Our solution to that problem was pretty simple... Fuck Mozilla and their retarded plugin checks, we just set the the maximum firefox version to 99.99.99.99. We'll fix it when it breaks. Clearly you can't provide reliable information about whats going on since Mozilla doesn't seem to think they need to provide reliable version information to the developers.
If you don't think businesses relying on specific versions of software is a good thing then you have absolutely no concept of what running a business is about. Running a business isn't about tracking the latest development branch of software that Mozilla decides to call a release just to get security updates to something that doesn't really need to change. Not everyone needs new features in their browser, some people just need to get shit done, and new versions which INTENTIONALLY BREAK the product have no use in the business world. Tracking Mozilla's change don't make me any money in any way, its only a cost.
And contrary to what Mozilla thinks, the same reason businesses don't want FF is the exact same reason users don't want Firefox, and its the same reason Linux will never have a commercial application following to speak of...
People have better things to do than stand around and try to hit someone else's moving target when there is no perceived OR REAL benefit or value of any kind by doing so. Whats the point of shooting a BB gun at the International Space Station?
Firefox also has an.exe installer, which can be pushed out via ActiveDirectory if you actually know how to use ActiveDirectory. People who use this sort of reasoning for why Firefox doesn't fit in an business environment simply don't know what they are talking about.
Our company regularly has idiot 'sys admins' who think you MUST use an MSI file with ActiveDirectory deployment... which we promptly have to school them on, and as to why using MSIs is an absolutely horrible idea unless you like to watch updates fail to install on a regular basis.
Of course, there are about 9k other reasons why you wouldn't want to bother with FF on a business network, but the actual deployment really isn't one of them.
So lets go over how you can buy items in game currently.
You gain ISK, which are the in game currency doing missions or what have you as you would expect. You think use that ISK to purchase all other items that can be purchased.
OR
If you choose to do so, you can buy a PLEX, which is a certificate for 30 days of game time basically. You can legally bring that into the game and sell it on the open market for in game ISK, this isn't new. Its probably about a year old, but its not something people aren't used to at this point.
So... what people are complaining about... they are just too stupid to realize is already a legitimate part of the game. Its already trivial to buy game items for real world cash. I suck at the game, but like dicking around in it so thats how I get my stuff, then of course being a bad player I promptly get ganked by some griefer and lose it all if I don't get out fast enough.
EVE is about strategy, just having superior equipment doesn't give you even a little advantage against other players. Might help you beat down an NPC, but in my experience, EVE gives so many ways to fight that there is simply no way you can buy yourself into being protected from a better player.
And the guys who beat Rodney King were almost all acquitted... and that sparked the LA riots of 1992. That too was an overblown case were only a partial bit of a much longer length of video was showed to the public.
And its important to point out that its not like he spent all day looking for those, here, let me (or rather google help you)... this is the last month:
I could, if I weren't so lazy, point out examples illustrating how every single one of your statements are false based on events that have happened in the last 6 months in continental Europe, except maybe the school shooting thing... but I've never heard of that happening in the US either. I do know that statistically crime hasn't changed rates in the world in 200 years, you just hear about more of them now thanks to how easy it is to communicate.
And just for reference... do you know who Jack the Ripper was?
Europe seems to be a culture of self absorbed arrogance and ignorance coupled with the belief that the old country is universally superior to everyone else everywhere in the world.
Most countries in Northern Europe do come out as Utopia to exchange students from USA. I still recall the first time I did orientation and two really nice looking girls from there asked me "so when's the time it's not safe to be outside?".
Thats only because they are ignorant of the bad things that go with Northern Europe. They simply are infatuated with all the neat new things and don't stick around long enough to find out what the problems are. And you were probably dealing with students from new york, people in normal cities dont' worry about 'what time its not safe to be outside'. I've never lived anywhere I felt like that and I've lived in enough states the claim a larger land mass than all of Europe combined.
As you pointed out in your own post, they didn't realize one of the obvious reasons northern Europe isn't a Utopia... its too frakking cold too much of the time.
Except that around here, if you pass out you're far more likely to be picked up, helped and find yourself with every bit of money you had when you exited the bar then actually be a victim of a violent crime.
I've never lived anywhere in the US where I felt I wouldn't be safe if I passed out on the street. I admit, you won't catch me living in an over populated city, and thats generally where you get that sort of thing, but its certainly not the norm outside of those large population centers... where you become an easy target for being mugged.
Most Mexicans come to the US and think its a Utopia at first too... then they realize that its really not that great, its just easier to make money here than at home. If you think your country is REALLY that different than the rest of the world, I suggest you do some more traveling and live in other countries rather than visiting them.
If you don't trust your police force, you are either a criminal, in which case, I don't care, or you should be starting a revolution.
The reality of it is, you're a paranoid idiot and most of the rest of the people in whatever country you live in do trust the police to be on 'the good side' more often than not.
Its a legitimate concern because people are stupid in groups.
The Rodney King incident is a perfect example of why they have legitimate reasons to worry, even if they are perfectly honest and respectable cops.
I'm not saying what happened to Rodney King was right or wrong or that the trail was fair and had the right outcome, thats a completely different discussion entirely, but the aftermath of the trial was FAR worse than any perceived good that came from the video.
The end results, with god knows how much property was destroyed and people who were killed, almost everyone of the ones hurt were within the community that was so outraged, and not the people they were outraged at! A billion dollars worth of damage and over 50 people dead...
It didn't happen because the neighborhoods were black, race wasn't part of it, its groups of people are stupid. Any group, regardless of race, creed, religion, or other belief. Their easy to panic and assume the worse, and the result is a mob of idiots who burn their own stores and neighborhood to the ground, or loot from their own families stores.
It wasn't worth it. The job of the police force is to make us safe, they are right to be concerned about something that can so easily result in many people dieing. It doesn't matter that it was an indirect consequence, any intelligent person would want to avoid that if possible. One guy gets beat up and in exchange, 50 people die? It wasn't worth it. Especially since the only reason in that particular case is because of some bad cops and a fucking mayor who tried to cause shit and stir up the public for his own political agenda and ploy to get rid of the police chief that he no longer was friends with. The video of the beating lowered the security and safety of the residents drastically... because of their own ignorant reaction to it, and its not like their reaction was a surprise or abnormal.
Do they get to hid behind the shield and get by with beating people up? Fuck no.
Is it a good idea for the general public to take the law into their own hands, posting videos that will likely cause a public reaction and likely mob violence? FUCK NO.
You take the lessor of two evils, and keeping knowledge that the ignorant masses don't understand or won't interpret correctly out of their hands is actually for the public good in some cases. Better internal handling of that sort of shit, and better internal monitoring of cops (what cop car DOESN'T have a camera in it now ANYWAY?) by internal affairs type systems are the solution. Not taking the law into your own hands. Taking a video and publishing it online to get a reaction is essentially trying to incite a mob and should be punishable as well, stiffly.
Yea, I'm sure Sony closed its game down so EA could make a lot more money on theirs.
You do realize they are different companies right? They aren't reassigning resources to the new StarWars MMO unless by reassigning you meaning firing. They probably don't want the new one to look good since it'll make them look bad, since they didn't make the new one.
Sigh... I like to play MMOs alone, retarded I know, but thats my thing, and that was one of the coolest things in SWG, as a ranger/bio-engineer in the Pre-CU/NGE days, out of know where I'd see a group wonder up on me. Sometimes people I knew, often not. So I'd throw up a camp, let them recover from their wounds before they moved on to their next mission/target in their group... or get together with some other higher level players to break in some newbies and help them get going.
It was an MMO where the grind wasn't even annoying and didn't feel like the grind... Crafting was FUN and took actually knowledge and skill to make better products. It was a good time.
After the CU and NGE, I just couldn't enjoy it anymore. Most of the people I knew in game tried to go the RP route in order to keep something fun out of it, but it just wasn't fun anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
No one working on Mozilla has been living in the real world since the late 90s.
for instance. We're still figuring this out at Mozilla. Asa's is not the red dino's final word.
Still figuring it out? Really? How many times do you have to tell us you're going to do this sort of stupid thing ... and then do this sort of stupid thing, after it was well voiced that everyone outside of fanboy world thought it was a fucking retarded idea?
Seems like you figured it out internally before the 5.0 release.
Now if you mean, 'this was a stupid move and we're figuring out how to go back to a sane traditional software development model' then I'd say you were considering starting to figure this out, but you hadn't put much thought into it yet ... OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DONE 5.0 this way.
Disclaimer: I used to be the guy who dealt with embedding Gecko into our software products for a cross platform HTML previewer.
What I learned from that is ... you guys have no fucking clue what direction your heading in and its insane for any company who is trying to stay in business to bother trying to track the mess you guys have produced.
I'm sorry you work there as Mozilla really has turned into a template for how not to do software development. It looks like a bunch of developers with no leadership who just do what they want to do when they want to do it until they're bored and move on to whatever next weeks shiny object is.
You need to figure out what the hell your actual goals are and stop trying to be so 'dynamic' that you're running around in circles cause you've got your heads so far up your collective asses that you've turned into a Mobius strip.
Even though I had long since given up on embedding Gecko and moved on to a stable platform (which interestingly enough, it blows my mind how incredibly complex it is do so something as simple as embed gecko. Every other major rendering engine takes a couple days to swap out in my existing code (We started this app in windows, using Trident, I took it over, rewrote it in C with cross platform support in mind, and started with Gecko for HTML rendering), but gecko on the other hand requires so much crap to do even the simplest embedding its not even funny. Use Opera, IE, WebKit or any of the much less feature rich independant engines out there and it takes no time, even though some of them interface in drastically different ways, for 'get a page to display' with Gecko you need either someone elses wrapper ... which probably doesn't work cause its out of day, or practically have to write a browsers worth of classes to get basic functionality.
Then ... tracking changes? Hahaha not if you don't want to devote a developer to making sense out of the changes made to the gecko tree.
Our end result ... we switched to webkit ... and I don't even freaking LIKE webkit, but I've never had to update our app to work with a new version of webkit. I've never had to spend days to get webkit to build properly for debugging because the build system isn't even up to 'scribbled in crayon on a bar napkin' quality.
I realize I'm just pissing in your cornflakes in this post, but holy shit I don't know how you guys could possibly fuck up what you had going any worse than you have. I couldn't have fucked up a browser with that kind of market share if I TRIED.
I'm sorry if you agree with everything I'm saying and wish it would change too, you may just be one of the guys trying to fight the good fight ... but its pretty damn hard, after being part of the Mozilla development world for as long as I was to not be pissed off that I wasted all that time and effort I invested in getting Mozilla to work for our needs only to find out that I would have spent less money to just license opera's engine.
I just had the best sex ever, and I'm a gay pedophile necrophiliac.
Don't you mean you WERE a gay pedophile necrophiliac? Since the best sex ever is with the triple breasted whore from Eroticon V, which is neither dead, nor a child, and you would only still be gay if you happen to be a woman. Since we're on the Internet, you can not possibly be a woman, so ... you 'were' all those things, but not anymore ;)
Unless someone is willing to pony up literal millions to provide that long term support, business can go stuff themselves.
Remember this next time you wonder why MS still owns the market and OSS is a distance 3rd or 4th place. Firefox was the best hope OSS had of having a household name, and the ship has sailed.
MS will be happy to provide long term support, and will be happy to take money from those businesses. And those business users will be happy to go home and use IE because they really don't give a flying fuck what Mozilla did this week, they just want to browse the web without having to know how their browser does weird shit in order to do so ... and since they'll be forced to use IE at work and its already installed on their PC ... MOST will use IE at home.
Your sort of ignorance is ruffly the same as pulling out a loaded shotgun and trying to suck start it ... while you finger the trigger, because you got a ingrown hair on your foot.
Sure, it'll solve your immediate problem ... but the long term, its a really stupid fucking idea.
Mozilla doesn't need to care about its user base or how the changes effect their user base. They will however be fucked over when they drop back into the obscurity that Netscape made its way into last time they did this sort of retarded, ignore your customers sort of bullshit. And Google will stop paying them for search results, not because they dropped them, but simply because they are a tiny portion of the market and there is little income. And next stop? Mozilla foundation is bankrupt and out of business.
But hey ... what do I know, if Mozilla thinks they have the same clout as MS, let them try to play hardball and tell their users how its going to be like MS. I have a distinct feeling that it won't work out nearly as well for them as anyone thinks. Its almost like they are trying to copy Apple's "do what we tell you" mentality ... without realizing the people do what Apple says because it doesn't bother them to do so ... or they actually like to do so, not JUST because Apple said to do it. And they certainly have never had the 'ohohoho SHINY!@' effect that Apple has.
No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me.
On anything before Windows 7 and Mac OS X 10.2 (where ever they added quartz extreme) I agree.
Once the OS started using the GPU for desktop bits (well, it has for years, but I mean more than just square window backing stores and hardware mouse cursors) the whole story changed.
Once you offload all that little crap to the GPU so its always smooth and seems natural, its jarring as hell to go back to an old OS where things just pop into place. After getting used to nice smooth animations that don't eat CPU power I want to use, its actually almost painful to use older OSes or other GUIs which don't have the animations.
There is no reasonable way to allow plugins that can integrate deeply with FF and expect FF to be able to police their resource usage. The degree of autonomy is too great. It's basically akin to blaming MS for a 3rd party app running on a Windows installation.
So let me get this straight ... even before processors supported virtualization in hardware, I could run VMWare and emulate an entire OS inside of an application running inside an existing OS ... taking advantage of the existing levels of hardware protection or software emulation ... with no modifications to the host OS (no drivers added, nothing)
But you can't do that in a web browser? Hahahahaha. Thats like saying you can't power your computer with electricity. Its so utterly wrong its funny.
It most certainly CAN be done. Google is working on doing ... THAT VERY EXACT THING to let you run x86 native code in a sandbox. Look at the native client crap (which don't get me wrong, is going to be a nightmare of bugs and exploits if it gets big I'm sure). Seems Google thinks its possible.
I write plugins for Apple Mail, and it appears to have no problem telling me when my plugin is being a little bitch, and its all written and running in native client code.
I do blame microsoft when a third party app makes my machine blue screen, and its legitimately their problem if I haven't installed a bad driver (which honestly is the problem 99.999% of the time).
Everyone else can do it, but its too hard for the Mozilla team to do it with firefox?
No. Let me explain to you what the actual problem is.
Mozilla developers, like Netscape developers they were before, don't give a shit what the market or users want. They care about sitting down and writing code they find interesting until they no longer find it interesting anymore. Then they either leave, or they reinvent the whole thing all over again so they have a new fun project to work on.
The Mozilla foundation is essentially the defacto example of how to badly manage a potentially powerful software company into the ground.
in that they have at long last begun to publish a set of stable APIs and to direct add-on developers to code against these and only these.
Uhm, the list of 'frozen' api's isn't new, it wasn't even new when I STOPPED FUCKING with Gecko based browsers 4 years ago.
Their 'frozen' API just means they'll replace that function with a new one and depreciate it next week.
The Mozilla foundation has no idea what stable is, what did you expect ... its STILL JUST NETSCAPE and ... netscape devs.
...
Seriously? The javascript sandbox ... SERIOUSLY?
You do realize that people who make the really dangerous ones are not effected by that at all right?
Show me the sandbox that stops XPCOM dlls from causing damage. You know, the XPCOM dlls right? The ones that actually provide new functionality to the browser by allowing it to talk to the OS ... not just javascript that does so search and replace on a DOM.
The fact that you are modded up, not down is proof that slashdot is now just for idiot fanboys.
You may recall that ActiveX was designed to allow websites to execute fully-privileged, unsandboxed native code.
100% Wrong. ActiveX was designed as a system wide plugin architecture based on COM for Windows based applications. It was designed to allow plugins to be written and distributed and used by MANY APPLICATIONS ON THE SAME SYSTEM. Its designed so that Applications can automatically 'discover' its location, meta data information, and what functionality it supports without ANY prerequisite knowledge of the plugin by the application.
MS Office was using ActiveX before IE existed. Except then it was called OLE, and wasn't as advanced as ActiveX in terms of features. OLE became COM, which had DCOM tacked on, then it was renamed to ActiveX and if you dig right down into it and look at .NET assemblies ... GUESS WHAT?!? They use the OLE/COM/ActiveX interface too!
ActiveX objects can even label themselves as 'safe for the web' and 'safe for scripting from the web' ... so the browser knows when they shouldn't be used.
The side effect of this is that ... ActiveX controls allow code to run unsandboxed if IE loads them up. The flaw is that IE loaded them without asking the user when it first started out, and it would be happen to load them from a remote website without asking. This is an IE implementation detail, not ActiveX. ActiveX is functionally the same (though more flexible) as Mozilla XPCOM objects, which run without restrictions since an XPCOM dll is native code. Any flaw in 'ActiveX' that isn't just a bug, and 'design bug' in ActiveX applies equally to XPCOM, so if you blame ActiveX for security issues, Mozilla must have the same ones ... but it doesn't, because ActiveX isn't the issue, IE is.
Oh, and Microsoft have got their own proprietary equivalent of WebGL in Silverlight which has similar risks, except that Silverlight is also getting APIs that are approaching ActiveX levels of danger.
No, silverlight is more like flash. If you wanted to say it was like a graphics format/language/definition system, it'd be more like SVG than WebGL. And for the record ... SILVERLIGHT IS A FUCKING ACTIVEX OBJECT YOU MORON, its just a properly written one that Microsoft calls by a different name so idiots such as yourself won't realize how retarded you are.
Another 'informative' post by an idiot who could only be more wrong if they said there is no such thing as existence.
I work at a company with currently 6 employees and approximately 150k client installs (PCs which use our software on a daily basis).
It requires an ActiveX control ... unless you have some other way to have a software update system that works as well as MSes update system. Gotta have some way to write files to the FS ... and unless you happen to steal our private key so you can sign the files you're sending to our clients, you're going to have a pretty hard time exploiting it.
Several of those 150k client PCs that use the software are at one man shows ... and we have a couple clients that are in the top 500 companies as far as size in the world ...
So, your anecdotal evidence has just been proven bunk with my anecdotal evidence. I'd also be willing to bet that in most of those cases, you simply never noticed the places they had to use ActiveX.
Your post wreaks of lack of experience. Did you mean you quit your summer job waiting tables between high school and college when you went to college?
I'd bet $100 that your college requires ActiveX for certain student requirements in certain programs as pretty much every school in the nation has at least one well known app that does.
That's the thing about hidden costs like security
Except, in this case, the argument is 'we must use an ActiveX in our browser to do what we need to do because thats the way it is' and your response is 'well, I'm just talkning out my ass, but activex is insecure and you need to upgrade or the evil hax0rs will take you out'.
Let me explain how those two things are different.
The first one, might actually be true, there may be a reason someone needs to use an ActiveX, I can come up with lots of reasons off the top of my head.
The second one is just pure fantasy. ActiveX in and of itself poses 0 security risk. Bad implementations of IE the interface between ActiveX and IE are a problem. IE has been fixed, hence the security issues are gone, hence there is no security risk except the imaginary (though admittedly likely) ones that exist simply because you assume MS is bad at making software.
People tend not to listen when idiots such as yourself wave the 'security' flag because most of the time you're screaming at the top of your lungs about problems that may exist from a technical perspective, you're entirely ignorant of the practical perspective.
You want security for your PC? Encase it in cement, wrapped in a couple inches lead, with no wires coming in or out, and then again in the center of a 10' by 10' chunk of concrete. There, you have a secure PC. For the rest of us we'll weight the risks of security issues against the risks of not making any money because we spend all our time trying to keep up with Mozilla's idiotic schedule for releasing software which forces patches to go along with new features.
Funny, I'm staring at a system designed by IBM to control some of our manufacturing equipment ... it uses an ActiveX ...
Except ... Mozilla has its own flavor of ActiveX called XPCOM ... works ... the ... exact ... same ... way ...
Of course, instead of actually understanding what was wrong with the IE SPECIFIC implementation of ActiveX, idiots like yourself will continue to ramble on about shit you clearly don't have the slightest understanding of.
ActiveX is nothing but a plugin system, in Windows it is a globally defined plugin system that apps can use without reinventing the wheel, and it allows plugins the ability to be shared among apps, not specific to a single app. IE installing and running plugins without asking, either due to stupid default configurations in OLD versions of IE, exploits, or stupid users clicking YES RUN THIS DANGEROUS PROGRAM ANYWAY were the reason 'activex exploits' were so rampant. Couple that with idiots building plugins for local apps and making them as safe for use in the web browser and safe to be accessed from javascript running in the browser for plugins that weren't safe and you have the mess that is IE.
It was never an ActiveX problem. It was the result of trying to make it easier to have web plugins and missing some very key security details and implementation ... which Mozilla learned from and was able to come out of the gate with a basically safe variation of the same thing. XPCOM plugins work exactly like ActiveX except they are specific to gecko browsers (or projects that use the XPCOM libraries really, as Mozilla isn't the only ones to use it).
And for reference, I've written ActiveX controls for IE and MS Office as well as extensions for both Firefox and Thunderbird which required compiled XPCOM objects in addition to Javascript. I've forgotten more about COM than most of slashdot knows about it since I started writing this reply.
PLEASE GET A CLUE AND STOP SPREADING THIS IGNORANCE ON A TECH SITE. Do it on some random blog where no one assumes you have a clue, not here where you'll just have 150 other morons who think Linus is god and Bill is teh debil following you up telling you how great and right you are just because its anti-MS and their as stupid and ignorant as you are.
Only on slashdot could a 100% factually incorrect in every way posting be rated at the highest rating. You, and everyone who follows your line of thought and everyone who modded you up are completely ignorant of what you are talking about.
Well, we're talking about Firefox, so he's probably restarting fairly often.
What about businesses the rely on plugins, which promptly get disabled with the new awesome update system and their awesome auto-disable plugins that can't see into the future and report themselves as ready for the next version.
Our solution to that problem was pretty simple ... Fuck Mozilla and their retarded plugin checks, we just set the the maximum firefox version to 99.99.99.99. We'll fix it when it breaks. Clearly you can't provide reliable information about whats going on since Mozilla doesn't seem to think they need to provide reliable version information to the developers.
If you don't think businesses relying on specific versions of software is a good thing then you have absolutely no concept of what running a business is about. Running a business isn't about tracking the latest development branch of software that Mozilla decides to call a release just to get security updates to something that doesn't really need to change. Not everyone needs new features in their browser, some people just need to get shit done, and new versions which INTENTIONALLY BREAK the product have no use in the business world. Tracking Mozilla's change don't make me any money in any way, its only a cost.
And contrary to what Mozilla thinks, the same reason businesses don't want FF is the exact same reason users don't want Firefox, and its the same reason Linux will never have a commercial application following to speak of ...
People have better things to do than stand around and try to hit someone else's moving target when there is no perceived OR REAL benefit or value of any kind by doing so. Whats the point of shooting a BB gun at the International Space Station?
Firefox also has an .exe installer, which can be pushed out via ActiveDirectory if you actually know how to use ActiveDirectory. People who use this sort of reasoning for why Firefox doesn't fit in an business environment simply don't know what they are talking about.
Our company regularly has idiot 'sys admins' who think you MUST use an MSI file with ActiveDirectory deployment ... which we promptly have to school them on, and as to why using MSIs is an absolutely horrible idea unless you like to watch updates fail to install on a regular basis.
Of course, there are about 9k other reasons why you wouldn't want to bother with FF on a business network, but the actual deployment really isn't one of them.
While you are doing essentially the same thing as buying a plex for cash and selling it for credits, both have one major flaw:
Inflation. Both cause runaway inflation since there is no other way to take money out of the economy.
So lets go over how you can buy items in game currently.
You gain ISK, which are the in game currency doing missions or what have you as you would expect. You think use that ISK to purchase all other items that can be purchased.
OR
If you choose to do so, you can buy a PLEX, which is a certificate for 30 days of game time basically. You can legally bring that into the game and sell it on the open market for in game ISK, this isn't new. Its probably about a year old, but its not something people aren't used to at this point.
So ... what people are complaining about ... they are just too stupid to realize is already a legitimate part of the game. Its already trivial to buy game items for real world cash. I suck at the game, but like dicking around in it so thats how I get my stuff, then of course being a bad player I promptly get ganked by some griefer and lose it all if I don't get out fast enough.
EVE is about strategy, just having superior equipment doesn't give you even a little advantage against other players. Might help you beat down an NPC, but in my experience, EVE gives so many ways to fight that there is simply no way you can buy yourself into being protected from a better player.
And the guys who beat Rodney King were almost all acquitted ... and that sparked the LA riots of 1992. That too was an overblown case were only a partial bit of a much longer length of video was showed to the public.
And its important to point out that its not like he spent all day looking for those, here, let me (or rather google help you) ... this is the last month:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=recent+crime+in+europe&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=europe+crime&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=vU4GTtnkLcTngQeWtuWeDQ&ved=0CA4QpwUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=612a64f50cd0797a&biw=1440&bih=786
...
You're living in a fantasy.
I could, if I weren't so lazy, point out examples illustrating how every single one of your statements are false based on events that have happened in the last 6 months in continental Europe, except maybe the school shooting thing ... but I've never heard of that happening in the US either. I do know that statistically crime hasn't changed rates in the world in 200 years, you just hear about more of them now thanks to how easy it is to communicate.
And just for reference ... do you know who Jack the Ripper was?
Europe seems to be a culture of self absorbed arrogance and ignorance coupled with the belief that the old country is universally superior to everyone else everywhere in the world.
Get over yourself.
Most countries in Northern Europe do come out as Utopia to exchange students from USA. I still recall the first time I did orientation and two really nice looking girls from there asked me "so when's the time it's not safe to be outside?".
Thats only because they are ignorant of the bad things that go with Northern Europe. They simply are infatuated with all the neat new things and don't stick around long enough to find out what the problems are. And you were probably dealing with students from new york, people in normal cities dont' worry about 'what time its not safe to be outside'. I've never lived anywhere I felt like that and I've lived in enough states the claim a larger land mass than all of Europe combined.
As you pointed out in your own post, they didn't realize one of the obvious reasons northern Europe isn't a Utopia ... its too frakking cold too much of the time.
Except that around here, if you pass out you're far more likely to be picked up, helped and find yourself with every bit of money you had when you exited the bar then actually be a victim of a violent crime.
I've never lived anywhere in the US where I felt I wouldn't be safe if I passed out on the street. I admit, you won't catch me living in an over populated city, and thats generally where you get that sort of thing, but its certainly not the norm outside of those large population centers ... where you become an easy target for being mugged.
Most Mexicans come to the US and think its a Utopia at first too ... then they realize that its really not that great, its just easier to make money here than at home. If you think your country is REALLY that different than the rest of the world, I suggest you do some more traveling and live in other countries rather than visiting them.
If you don't trust your police force, you are either a criminal, in which case, I don't care, or you should be starting a revolution.
The reality of it is, you're a paranoid idiot and most of the rest of the people in whatever country you live in do trust the police to be on 'the good side' more often than not.
Its a legitimate concern because people are stupid in groups.
The Rodney King incident is a perfect example of why they have legitimate reasons to worry, even if they are perfectly honest and respectable cops.
I'm not saying what happened to Rodney King was right or wrong or that the trail was fair and had the right outcome, thats a completely different discussion entirely, but the aftermath of the trial was FAR worse than any perceived good that came from the video.
The end results, with god knows how much property was destroyed and people who were killed, almost everyone of the ones hurt were within the community that was so outraged, and not the people they were outraged at! A billion dollars worth of damage and over 50 people dead ...
It didn't happen because the neighborhoods were black, race wasn't part of it, its groups of people are stupid. Any group, regardless of race, creed, religion, or other belief. Their easy to panic and assume the worse, and the result is a mob of idiots who burn their own stores and neighborhood to the ground, or loot from their own families stores.
It wasn't worth it. The job of the police force is to make us safe, they are right to be concerned about something that can so easily result in many people dieing. It doesn't matter that it was an indirect consequence, any intelligent person would want to avoid that if possible. One guy gets beat up and in exchange, 50 people die? It wasn't worth it. Especially since the only reason in that particular case is because of some bad cops and a fucking mayor who tried to cause shit and stir up the public for his own political agenda and ploy to get rid of the police chief that he no longer was friends with. The video of the beating lowered the security and safety of the residents drastically ... because of their own ignorant reaction to it, and its not like their reaction was a surprise or abnormal.
Do they get to hid behind the shield and get by with beating people up? Fuck no.
Is it a good idea for the general public to take the law into their own hands, posting videos that will likely cause a public reaction and likely mob violence? FUCK NO.
You take the lessor of two evils, and keeping knowledge that the ignorant masses don't understand or won't interpret correctly out of their hands is actually for the public good in some cases. Better internal handling of that sort of shit, and better internal monitoring of cops (what cop car DOESN'T have a camera in it now ANYWAY?) by internal affairs type systems are the solution. Not taking the law into your own hands. Taking a video and publishing it online to get a reaction is essentially trying to incite a mob and should be punishable as well, stiffly.
Yea, I'm sure Sony closed its game down so EA could make a lot more money on theirs.
You do realize they are different companies right? They aren't reassigning resources to the new StarWars MMO unless by reassigning you meaning firing. They probably don't want the new one to look good since it'll make them look bad, since they didn't make the new one.
Having a clue is hard isn't it?
Sigh ... I like to play MMOs alone, retarded I know, but thats my thing, and that was one of the coolest things in SWG, as a ranger/bio-engineer in the Pre-CU/NGE days, out of know where I'd see a group wonder up on me. Sometimes people I knew, often not. So I'd throw up a camp, let them recover from their wounds before they moved on to their next mission/target in their group ... or get together with some other higher level players to break in some newbies and help them get going.
It was an MMO where the grind wasn't even annoying and didn't feel like the grind ... Crafting was FUN and took actually knowledge and skill to make better products. It was a good time.
After the CU and NGE, I just couldn't enjoy it anymore. Most of the people I knew in game tried to go the RP route in order to keep something fun out of it, but it just wasn't fun anymore.