First, we don't know what market the submitter plans on operating in or who his clientele are.
And the fact that he's asking without providing that information shows he doesn't understand what he's getting into, at all.
common mistake in thinking that IT is just a series of 1-size-fits-all solutions, and that if you going to use the "right" solution to each problem, you shouldn't bother.
You mean kind of like the retarded assumption that someone without any experience or subject area knowledge can whip up a Linux based network on some large scale that performs better or as well as the properly selected commercial equivalent, for less money? Its not a one size fits all solution, yet he's assuming that you can just throw Linux at it at make it work by pulling together a bunch of other packages and integrating them. You realize all of that costs money right? It isn't free. If someone is configuring a system you are spending money on it. Anyone who has 'built an ISP' knows that your hardware and software costs are nothing compared to the other operational expenses. Go ahead, build all your custom solutions, go out of business while you wait to get it working because you didn't want to buy the 300k router, but instead spent that much hiring a bunch of guys to get something slapped together well enough to almost go live with.
The answer isn't always to pay an expensive expert or to use established tech.
Experts don't have to be expensive, they just need to be experts. And not using established tech without a SOLID reason IS WRONG. He has no clue if it'll be cheaper to roll his own or just buy something, but he's running heard first into rolling his own. Again, shows utter lack of knowledge about what he needs AND what can fill those needs
That's true, but neither my phone company nor my cable company provide wireless access where I live.
Because its not profitable to do so. If you come into an area, and show them you can make it profitable, or even pretend you're going to do so, they'll have data available over the airwaves so fast you'll have thought they'd been selling it for 20 years. I've BEEN in that situation. You come up with a good plan, can beat their prices and still turn a profit and you know what they do? The same thing you did, only faster because they have budgets well beyond anything you could hope for. But lets pretend you get everything going and your business is making money at say $20/month/user, and that nets you $5/month. Your phone and cable companies will just charge $15/month and you'll go out of business because they end up providing better service at cost since they can still make money off the rest of their network as well.
Does that mean you don't do it? That depends, are you expecting that your entire business is going to revolve around basic service at cheap rates? Then no, you don't do it, you'll get your ass kicked by the encumbants. If you're going to compete with them you have to have something they don't and you have to have it better and before they can get it. He's going to spend all his time and money just recreating something they can just go buy off the shelf, and he'll more than likely spend more trying to do so. In the mean time, they'll spend a tiny amount of money buying something new from someone to add a new feature that people will love (useful or not, marketing is a powerful thing) and now before he's even caught up, the target has moved.
Automobile manufactures don't make their own bolts, they buy them, for a reason, MAKING BOLTS ISN'T THEIR BUSINESS. Had he started out saying 'I want to start a software company that makes a Linux based ISP-in-a-box solution' then that particular part of the story would be different, but thats not what he's asking for.
Rolling your own is only useful when you are * The first to do it
No, he isn't trying to do better. He's trying to half ass hack something together cheap that he doesn't know anything about in order to save money. If he was trying to do better he'd hire someone with a clue and learn from them while not wasting a shit load of money learning crap that anyone with even the most limited experience will avoid.
This is called being greedy. Its not about being cost effective, its about spending as little as possible and keeping as much is possible. That I get, thats business, the problem is that his complete lack of business knowledge or technical knowledge in this area means that he has almost 0 chance to succeed. He wants to use OSS to get by on others work without spending money, and expects slashdot to give him the free knowledge to do it.
Lets for a moment assume that the perfect answer is given here on slashdot, its OSS, it works great, perfectly integrated, better than any possible commercial product out there...
He'll still likely screw it up because he has no knowledge to weed out the wrong from the right.
Anyone with half a clue knows when they are in over their head and isn't afraid to go find someone who can do it properly.
I guess i'm looking for a scalable ISP-in-a-box solution. And if it doesn't exist, then let's build one.
You are going to fail. Your core business isn't building a open source ISP-in-a-box solution is it? You'll spend far less money if you get over that thought and use something already packaged and integrated and working together. You are trying to using something open source to save money, but in the process you're going to spend a freaking fortune building and maintaining the open source package. This is not a logical way to go about business unless you plan on making that your core business.
Someday i will be able to provide free internet
So you're going to build a business and then give it away? How do you expect to pay for this stuff, donations? I guess you intend to subsidize the internet access by fees from the video/telephony side? If so thats not really free, thats called bundling, and personally I call it lying. If its something like 'I can get data for free but I have to buy something else' than its not free.
* PowerPC vs X86 vs GPU - does routing perform better on PowerPC (Mikrotik / Vyatta / Cisco)? would an Nvidia Tesla solution work well?
If you're packets are regularly making it to the CPU than you've already fucked up. Packet routing on any sort of scale thats useful is done on custom firmware AND hardware designed to do so. No one uses any of these to route packets. They may use them to control the system and handle routing table changes and figuring which interfaces to use, but in a real ISP only the first packet of a session is likely to ever hit the CPU. Firewalls are a little different, but if you're an ISP and you're shuttling all your traffic through a firewall you aren't much of an ISP in the first place.
Again, you are not qualified for this. You are going to waste money and probably fail. You aren't even qualified to lead the development of the ISP-in-a-box solution because you know absolutely nothing about it and have 0 experience. How do I know this? Because you still haven't asked any of the right questions or provided ANY details that would help anyone make a even slightly educated guess about what would help you. You're still at the point where you need someone to actually TELL YOU what you need.
Sorry to be a dick about it, but you're going to waste a lot of someone elses money and that pisses me off. You're also, assuming you ever manage to get it to the point where you have customers are likely going to provide really shitty service. Even if you got the project going and financed, you're just going to end up leading a project that doesn't know where its going because the leader DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING.
I know PLENTY of shitty ISPs that did EXACTLY the crap you are doing in the late 90s/early 2000s. Back then it was mostly done by highschool/collage grads who could use a PC so someone thought they knew what they were doing and hired them to 'start an ISP' for them, and 6 months to a year later hundreds of thousands and in one case I know of personally, 10s of millions of dollars were gone and the company was bankrupt. All of them because some jackass thought because he read about something on the Internet and heard of Linux that they could make it all work.
You'll be a much better leader when you realize where to draw the line and find someone who knows about the subject matter at hand. First hint: Slashdot isn't where you look.
Those 'hubs' are 'switches', just not full switching on every port. And you can't see traffic on every port.
From a logical perspective:
They contain 2 hubs. One on the 10mb side, one on the 100mb side for 10/100. There is a switch that connects the two. You'll see all the 10mb traffic on the 10mb ports, and all of the 100mb ports traffic on all the 100mb ports. You will not see all traffic from 100MB on the 10MB side.
This has always been the case for 10/100 hubs since the 100mb link doing full traffic can not possibly send all of its data down the 10mb side.
Instead of pulling together a bunch of half assed incomplete kludges of projects and spending a fortune getting a bunch of dirty socially inept hippies from slashdot making it work right and then keeping it working, he could just get a clue and buy something ready made for his purpose.
Hardware and software are such a tiny amount of the overhead of running an ISP that you are in fact a complete fucking idiot if you're making your choices on hardware and software based on cost. Any ISP worth its salt will pay for its hardware and software with a months gross income, even if you buy the most expensive item suited to that purpose. Customer support and bandwidth is where you pay. The land for your towers and the buildings for your data centers are your costs.
Equipment isn't shit in your budget.
As I stated before, the best thing this guy can do is find someone who actually know what the hell they are doing to build it out, otherwise he's going to spend 2 or 3 times as much to use 'cheap' alternatives.
Either way, you would definitely have a more flexible solution that any canned product will provide you with.
Citation needed.
Just because its open source doesn't automagically make it more flexible. You're going to have to pay someone to do the work, and contrary to popular belief, if you're willing to pay for the development almost anyone will write custom software for their hardware, including the giants like Cisco.
So... you're going to pay someone to do the work anyway you look at it. The idea that OS == MORE FLEXIBLE just because is retarded and is generally only quoted by fanboys and people without a clue.
I just search for honda civic on both. The only difference I can see is that Bing incorporates MSN auto into the mix and allows you to see some of the categories on MSN.
I also compared Google and Bing maps. In my location, they are identical.
If I go to a location that I know has been photographed from the air for surveying purposes I find that Google has higher res images, but there is no Birds-Eye view option on Bing. So all you've found here is that Google has some arial photographs that Bing doesn't have and vice-versa, which pretty much everyone already knew.
Maybe you got stuck on a bad index/cluster of Googles machines. I never have any issue finding info on MS sites in Google.
I also haven't had a problem clicking the little link when you first run IE 8 that pops up the dialog that says 'Would you like to add Google as a search provider?'.
Note to mods:
Interesting is not the proper moderation for 'Wrong'. If you don't know anything about what the post is about and you can't confirm it yourself, don't fucking mod something up, stop being fanboys and get a freaking clue.
I skipped the first 2 tests as they are animation related.
I stopped at test 7. I figured since 3 through 7 didn't match up, and I'm currently at a 100% failure rate that I didn't need to prove much more.
Yes, Firefox can score great if you ignore all the tests that it fails, unfortunately things like fonts ARE KIND OF IMPORTANT.
I should point out that proper font rendering is required for EVERY test. You can't pass any without proper font rendering.
Go a head and scroll through the list though, the composition test fails, gradient tests fail, fill tests fail, event handling and scripting is pointless in firefox, structured image placement, text selection doesn't work, inheritance is broken, text alignment is broken beyond belief.
I'm not going any further, the point has been made. Gecko hasn't passed any tests, it can't without proper font rendering. You don't get to exclude part of the test and claim you passed it when that part of the test is fundamental to the standard. Thats like the 'Windows is secure as long as its in a locked room with no cables to it and turned off.'
It is multithreaded, but when you have one GUI thread (which is the way Windows works) per process, and almost your entire workload is displaying things on the GUI, then multithreading doesn't appear so useful.
I write an app which uses Gecko embedded, I can assure you that Gecko support multithreading.
There just isn't currently a lot of stuff that actually uses threads. I blame part of this on the crappy process you have to go through to use multiple threads from JavaScript. Since FireFox relies heavily on JS, and switching JS code to be thread safe is a whore with XPCOM and all the proxy objects you have to create manually no one is in a big hurry.
For instance, I have a bit of JavaScript that starts a thread, downloads an XML file, parses data out of it and saves the processed data to disk, all the while updating a popup progress dialog with progress bars and stuff. The XML parsing is bloated (intentionally for debuggng purposes) as far as SLOC is concerned. Looking at the code that does this, it takes more code to setup the proxies to deal with updating the popup dialog (because it has to run on the main GUI thread) than to do everything else.
As such, thats the only part of our app that uses threads from Gecko.
FireFox will be shitty from a threading standpoint until they fix basic stuff like auto proxying of GUI related things as needed so a developer can just write code rather than worrying about which thread the event needs to run on.
SVG animation? Heh, they don't even have a half assed SVG static renderer yet, and you want animation? I think they need to make it so we can draw more than a smiley face using primitive shapes and basic fills before they start worrying about animation.
At a bare minimum, can we get it to pass SOME part of the 1.1 test suite for static elements before we start with animation.
Yea, because any of the other possible 'App Stores' that exist are the first thing that comes to mind when someone says 'App Store'.
Reading sometimes requires that you have at least a quarter of a clue because authors assume that you know SOMETHING about the subject matter being discussed before starting.
Android may HAVE an appstore, but no one gives a shit. RIM may have one, no one gives a shit, Nokia may have one and STILL no one cares.
Do you act this retarded when someone says 'I run Windows' as well, or do you just assume they are talking about X?
For all intents and purposes, there is only one App Store, which is why its capitalized. Its a name, of a specific application marketplace.
If you're providing a service which costs you money on a monthly basis as a feature of your app, and you aren't requiring the users to sign-in/log-on in some way then you kind of deserve what you get.
You can make it paying customers only. You require paying customers to use a login. Give the app away, require a login that they pay for. If the login gets leaked, you kill it.
Or, everyone would just switch to another search engine.
I prefer Google myself, but the instant they tell me I can't use a specific browser is the instant I start using someone else. Its already annoying enough that they put the retarded 'try chrome' on the main page if you aren't using Chrome.
Not really sure how not supporting the competitions product, intentionally would help with anti-trust issues. Thats a very non-intuitive statement that I hope you have some sort of statement to back it up with, otherwise it seems just flat out illogical and wrong to me.
Remember, reinventing the will is retarded when there are already perfectly valid, well vetted libraries for doing GIF, PNG and JPEG.
SVG in browsers is a joke and should be removed until someone makes a rendering library that doesn't suck ass. No browser supports enough of SVG to justify using it.
What you pointed out is simply from reinventing the wheel.
I already have this. Its my email address. Everything I do on the Internet is keyed to an email address.
Email is email, obviously. XMPP for IM, uses my email address. Facebook I don't use, I actually have a live so I don't have time to sit around and convince others that I have one or to collect friends for the popularity contest. Phones - If I email you, you'll get my phone number. This won't be an issue for too much longer I don't think, its just going to take everyone finally going to VoIP (cringe)
So uhm, this is a solution searching for a problem I take it?
Simply put, no money was lost due to piracy. Stop putting these retarded articles on slashdot, all you do is justify the morons who write this crap.
Statistics have shown that I've lost about 30 billion dollars while reading retarded articles about piracy. Interestingly enough, another set of statistics shows that both myself and the guys writing about how much money is lost to piracy have about the same ability to talk out our asses and lie through our teeth. I have a slightly higher amount of sarcasm.
Nokia has been making mobile phones for over 40 years.
Apple has been making mobile phones for about 4 years.
If you actually look at everything in scale, the iPhone is far more impressive than just about anything Nokia has ever released in terms of sales numbers.
Its rather retarded to compare a 4 year old product line to a 40 year old product line and use the word 'scale' so loosely.
Anyone who has been around for any length of time knows its not uncommon to not realize how much you like something until you use it.
Did you know you wanted a web browser before they existed?
Did you know you wanted your OS to have a GUI before one existed?
Did you know you wanted tabbed browsing before anyone did it?
Let me answer for you, no, you didn't. It wasn't until you got those things and started using them, without opting in, that you realized you liked them.
Finally, it is opt in, don't visit the site using it. Its not hacking you and installing a service on your PC.
You do realize they didn't make either one of those things you're talking about installing, right?
The irony is that you're bitching about installing 'software they've written' yet... you then follow up with saying you using the exact software they suggest.
Sorry to be blunt, but you're asking the wrong question.
The proper question is: How do I find someone qualified to do this for me?
The fact that you are asking on slashdot shows that you are not qualified, and what you're going to get back is a bunch of others, who aren't qualified, suggesting all sorts of half assed hacks to do it which will just result in a utterly shitty service overall.
You could get by with this in the late 90s, but when you're going to compete with cell phone companies, cable companies and standard POTS companies, you probably need to have a bit of a clue.
Clearly, the only way to be fair to the blind is to rip out everyone elses eyeballs so we're all equal. If no one can READ A BOOK or use a kindle than there will be no discrimination.
This is obviously a clear cut case of intentional discrimination against the blind, just like those evil bastards who invented the printing press.
Let me give you a hint. You're blind. You can not do the same things as people who aren't blind. It sucks, but thats just fucking reality. Stop expecting everyone else to cater to you. You make your own way in this world, start acting like you deserve a place in the world.
It could be a lot worse. If were were anything like... oh... every other living organism on the planet, the blind wouldn't live long enough to know what school ways, let alone bitch about not being able to use the device (kindle) that is replacing another device (traditional book) that you couldn't use either.
There is no discrimination, just some retards trying to get money for themselves by ranting about discrimination against a group of people. The only problem is, the thing doing the discrimination is nature and chaos, and they can't sue that.
So take away everyones eyes. Then we'll all support the blind better. We'll all be on a level FAIR playing field, and as a bonus, we'll never see another flash movie again. It makes total sense.
They're doing it to save bandwidth. Yet they probably spend more on bandwidth dealing with human error issues in the process than they would if the system was engineered properly in the first place.
You don't see an issue because you aren't an engineer trying to save every drop of energy/bandwidth/processing time possible.
Basically, you're a java or C# developer when then need C and assembly developers with a clue.
Custom hacks when there are already systems (even build into EXCHANGE!) to do EXACTLY what they need to do are beyond stupid. Its one thing to use a custom hack so you don't get tied into a vendor, but their hack is entirely tied to their vendors so that rules that reason out.
Next you do it because you have a requirement that no existing solution fills in properly, which is certainly not the case here. As I already said, even Exchange will be happy to do store and forward batching on a schedule. A tiny exchange server (or a more efficient/less resource intensive alternative) on the space station could be designed to consume pretty much no energy unless it was actually in use.
In short, this is clearly something thrown together by engineers who knew nothing about the tools they were working with. Not their fault (probably), some douche bag manager probably didn't ask the IT guys.
The problem is, they went through effort and resources to make a system that is clearly less efficient than any of the possibly alternatives I can come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
And the fact that he's asking without providing that information shows he doesn't understand what he's getting into, at all.
You mean kind of like the retarded assumption that someone without any experience or subject area knowledge can whip up a Linux based network on some large scale that performs better or as well as the properly selected commercial equivalent, for less money? Its not a one size fits all solution, yet he's assuming that you can just throw Linux at it at make it work by pulling together a bunch of other packages and integrating them. You realize all of that costs money right? It isn't free. If someone is configuring a system you are spending money on it. Anyone who has 'built an ISP' knows that your hardware and software costs are nothing compared to the other operational expenses. Go ahead, build all your custom solutions, go out of business while you wait to get it working because you didn't want to buy the 300k router, but instead spent that much hiring a bunch of guys to get something slapped together well enough to almost go live with.
Experts don't have to be expensive, they just need to be experts. And not using established tech without a SOLID reason IS WRONG. He has no clue if it'll be cheaper to roll his own or just buy something, but he's running heard first into rolling his own. Again, shows utter lack of knowledge about what he needs AND what can fill those needs
Because its not profitable to do so. If you come into an area, and show them you can make it profitable, or even pretend you're going to do so, they'll have data available over the airwaves so fast you'll have thought they'd been selling it for 20 years. I've BEEN in that situation. You come up with a good plan, can beat their prices and still turn a profit and you know what they do? The same thing you did, only faster because they have budgets well beyond anything you could hope for. But lets pretend you get everything going and your business is making money at say $20/month/user, and that nets you $5/month. Your phone and cable companies will just charge $15/month and you'll go out of business because they end up providing better service at cost since they can still make money off the rest of their network as well.
Does that mean you don't do it? That depends, are you expecting that your entire business is going to revolve around basic service at cheap rates? Then no, you don't do it, you'll get your ass kicked by the encumbants. If you're going to compete with them you have to have something they don't and you have to have it better and before they can get it. He's going to spend all his time and money just recreating something they can just go buy off the shelf, and he'll more than likely spend more trying to do so. In the mean time, they'll spend a tiny amount of money buying something new from someone to add a new feature that people will love (useful or not, marketing is a powerful thing) and now before he's even caught up, the target has moved.
Automobile manufactures don't make their own bolts, they buy them, for a reason, MAKING BOLTS ISN'T THEIR BUSINESS. Had he started out saying 'I want to start a software company that makes a Linux based ISP-in-a-box solution' then that particular part of the story would be different, but thats not what he's asking for.
Rolling your own is only useful when you are
* The first to do it
No, I believe he's unqualified because EVERYTHING in this thread that he has posted tells me he doesn't know anything about what he's doing.
No, he isn't trying to do better. He's trying to half ass hack something together cheap that he doesn't know anything about in order to save money. If he was trying to do better he'd hire someone with a clue and learn from them while not wasting a shit load of money learning crap that anyone with even the most limited experience will avoid.
This is called being greedy. Its not about being cost effective, its about spending as little as possible and keeping as much is possible. That I get, thats business, the problem is that his complete lack of business knowledge or technical knowledge in this area means that he has almost 0 chance to succeed. He wants to use OSS to get by on others work without spending money, and expects slashdot to give him the free knowledge to do it.
Lets for a moment assume that the perfect answer is given here on slashdot, its OSS, it works great, perfectly integrated, better than any possible commercial product out there ...
He'll still likely screw it up because he has no knowledge to weed out the wrong from the right.
Anyone with half a clue knows when they are in over their head and isn't afraid to go find someone who can do it properly.
You are going to fail. Your core business isn't building a open source ISP-in-a-box solution is it? You'll spend far less money if you get over that thought and use something already packaged and integrated and working together. You are trying to using something open source to save money, but in the process you're going to spend a freaking fortune building and maintaining the open source package. This is not a logical way to go about business unless you plan on making that your core business.
So you're going to build a business and then give it away? How do you expect to pay for this stuff, donations? I guess you intend to subsidize the internet access by fees from the video/telephony side? If so thats not really free, thats called bundling, and personally I call it lying. If its something like 'I can get data for free but I have to buy something else' than its not free.
If you're packets are regularly making it to the CPU than you've already fucked up. Packet routing on any sort of scale thats useful is done on custom firmware AND hardware designed to do so. No one uses any of these to route packets. They may use them to control the system and handle routing table changes and figuring which interfaces to use, but in a real ISP only the first packet of a session is likely to ever hit the CPU. Firewalls are a little different, but if you're an ISP and you're shuttling all your traffic through a firewall you aren't much of an ISP in the first place.
Again, you are not qualified for this. You are going to waste money and probably fail. You aren't even qualified to lead the development of the ISP-in-a-box solution because you know absolutely nothing about it and have 0 experience. How do I know this? Because you still haven't asked any of the right questions or provided ANY details that would help anyone make a even slightly educated guess about what would help you. You're still at the point where you need someone to actually TELL YOU what you need.
Sorry to be a dick about it, but you're going to waste a lot of someone elses money and that pisses me off. You're also, assuming you ever manage to get it to the point where you have customers are likely going to provide really shitty service. Even if you got the project going and financed, you're just going to end up leading a project that doesn't know where its going because the leader DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING.
I know PLENTY of shitty ISPs that did EXACTLY the crap you are doing in the late 90s/early 2000s. Back then it was mostly done by highschool/collage grads who could use a PC so someone thought they knew what they were doing and hired them to 'start an ISP' for them, and 6 months to a year later hundreds of thousands and in one case I know of personally, 10s of millions of dollars were gone and the company was bankrupt. All of them because some jackass thought because he read about something on the Internet and heard of Linux that they could make it all work.
You'll be a much better leader when you realize where to draw the line and find someone who knows about the subject matter at hand. First hint: Slashdot isn't where you look.
And that my friend is where you utterly failed to get the point.
Those 'hubs' are 'switches', just not full switching on every port. And you can't see traffic on every port.
From a logical perspective:
They contain 2 hubs. One on the 10mb side, one on the 100mb side for 10/100. There is a switch that connects the two. You'll see all the 10mb traffic on the 10mb ports, and all of the 100mb ports traffic on all the 100mb ports. You will not see all traffic from 100MB on the 10MB side.
This has always been the case for 10/100 hubs since the 100mb link doing full traffic can not possibly send all of its data down the 10mb side.
I know this is blasphemy but ...
Instead of pulling together a bunch of half assed incomplete kludges of projects and spending a fortune getting a bunch of dirty socially inept hippies from slashdot making it work right and then keeping it working, he could just get a clue and buy something ready made for his purpose.
Hardware and software are such a tiny amount of the overhead of running an ISP that you are in fact a complete fucking idiot if you're making your choices on hardware and software based on cost. Any ISP worth its salt will pay for its hardware and software with a months gross income, even if you buy the most expensive item suited to that purpose. Customer support and bandwidth is where you pay. The land for your towers and the buildings for your data centers are your costs.
Equipment isn't shit in your budget.
As I stated before, the best thing this guy can do is find someone who actually know what the hell they are doing to build it out, otherwise he's going to spend 2 or 3 times as much to use 'cheap' alternatives.
Citation needed.
Just because its open source doesn't automagically make it more flexible. You're going to have to pay someone to do the work, and contrary to popular belief, if you're willing to pay for the development almost anyone will write custom software for their hardware, including the giants like Cisco.
So ... you're going to pay someone to do the work anyway you look at it. The idea that OS == MORE FLEXIBLE just because is retarded and is generally only quoted by fanboys and people without a clue.
I just search for honda civic on both. The only difference I can see is that Bing incorporates MSN auto into the mix and allows you to see some of the categories on MSN.
I also compared Google and Bing maps. In my location, they are identical.
If I go to a location that I know has been photographed from the air for surveying purposes I find that Google has higher res images, but there is no Birds-Eye view option on Bing. So all you've found here is that Google has some arial photographs that Bing doesn't have and vice-versa, which pretty much everyone already knew.
Maybe you got stuck on a bad index/cluster of Googles machines. I never have any issue finding info on MS sites in Google.
I also haven't had a problem clicking the little link when you first run IE 8 that pops up the dialog that says 'Would you like to add Google as a search provider?'.
Note to mods:
Interesting is not the proper moderation for 'Wrong'. If you don't know anything about what the post is about and you can't confirm it yourself, don't fucking mod something up, stop being fanboys and get a freaking clue.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-index.html
I just tried it using 3.5.7.
I skipped the first 2 tests as they are animation related.
I stopped at test 7. I figured since 3 through 7 didn't match up, and I'm currently at a 100% failure rate that I didn't need to prove much more.
Yes, Firefox can score great if you ignore all the tests that it fails, unfortunately things like fonts ARE KIND OF IMPORTANT.
I should point out that proper font rendering is required for EVERY test. You can't pass any without proper font rendering.
Go a head and scroll through the list though, the composition test fails, gradient tests fail, fill tests fail, event handling and scripting is pointless in firefox, structured image placement, text selection doesn't work, inheritance is broken, text alignment is broken beyond belief.
I'm not going any further, the point has been made. Gecko hasn't passed any tests, it can't without proper font rendering. You don't get to exclude part of the test and claim you passed it when that part of the test is fundamental to the standard. Thats like the 'Windows is secure as long as its in a locked room with no cables to it and turned off.'
It is multithreaded, but when you have one GUI thread (which is the way Windows works) per process, and almost your entire workload is displaying things on the GUI, then multithreading doesn't appear so useful.
I write an app which uses Gecko embedded, I can assure you that Gecko support multithreading.
There just isn't currently a lot of stuff that actually uses threads. I blame part of this on the crappy process you have to go through to use multiple threads from JavaScript. Since FireFox relies heavily on JS, and switching JS code to be thread safe is a whore with XPCOM and all the proxy objects you have to create manually no one is in a big hurry.
For instance, I have a bit of JavaScript that starts a thread, downloads an XML file, parses data out of it and saves the processed data to disk, all the while updating a popup progress dialog with progress bars and stuff. The XML parsing is bloated (intentionally for debuggng purposes) as far as SLOC is concerned. Looking at the code that does this, it takes more code to setup the proxies to deal with updating the popup dialog (because it has to run on the main GUI thread) than to do everything else.
As such, thats the only part of our app that uses threads from Gecko.
FireFox will be shitty from a threading standpoint until they fix basic stuff like auto proxying of GUI related things as needed so a developer can just write code rather than worrying about which thread the event needs to run on.
SVG animation? Heh, they don't even have a half assed SVG static renderer yet, and you want animation? I think they need to make it so we can draw more than a smiley face using primitive shapes and basic fills before they start worrying about animation.
At a bare minimum, can we get it to pass SOME part of the 1.1 test suite for static elements before we start with animation.
Yea, because any of the other possible 'App Stores' that exist are the first thing that comes to mind when someone says 'App Store'.
Reading sometimes requires that you have at least a quarter of a clue because authors assume that you know SOMETHING about the subject matter being discussed before starting.
Android may HAVE an appstore, but no one gives a shit. RIM may have one, no one gives a shit, Nokia may have one and STILL no one cares.
Do you act this retarded when someone says 'I run Windows' as well, or do you just assume they are talking about X?
For all intents and purposes, there is only one App Store, which is why its capitalized. Its a name, of a specific application marketplace.
Your doing it wrong then.
If you're providing a service which costs you money on a monthly basis as a feature of your app, and you aren't requiring the users to sign-in/log-on in some way then you kind of deserve what you get.
You can make it paying customers only. You require paying customers to use a login. Give the app away, require a login that they pay for. If the login gets leaked, you kill it.
Were you born yesterday?
Or, everyone would just switch to another search engine.
I prefer Google myself, but the instant they tell me I can't use a specific browser is the instant I start using someone else. Its already annoying enough that they put the retarded 'try chrome' on the main page if you aren't using Chrome.
Not really sure how not supporting the competitions product, intentionally would help with anti-trust issues. Thats a very non-intuitive statement that I hope you have some sort of statement to back it up with, otherwise it seems just flat out illogical and wrong to me.
Remember, reinventing the will is retarded when there are already perfectly valid, well vetted libraries for doing GIF, PNG and JPEG.
SVG in browsers is a joke and should be removed until someone makes a rendering library that doesn't suck ass. No browser supports enough of SVG to justify using it.
What you pointed out is simply from reinventing the wheel.
I already have this. Its my email address. Everything I do on the Internet is keyed to an email address.
Email is email, obviously.
XMPP for IM, uses my email address.
Facebook I don't use, I actually have a live so I don't have time to sit around and convince others that I have one or to collect friends for the popularity contest.
Phones - If I email you, you'll get my phone number. This won't be an issue for too much longer I don't think, its just going to take everyone finally going to VoIP (cringe)
So uhm, this is a solution searching for a problem I take it?
Simply put, no money was lost due to piracy. Stop putting these retarded articles on slashdot, all you do is justify the morons who write this crap.
Statistics have shown that I've lost about 30 billion dollars while reading retarded articles about piracy. Interestingly enough, another set of statistics shows that both myself and the guys writing about how much money is lost to piracy have about the same ability to talk out our asses and lie through our teeth. I have a slightly higher amount of sarcasm.
Nokia has been making mobile phones for over 40 years.
Apple has been making mobile phones for about 4 years.
If you actually look at everything in scale, the iPhone is far more impressive than just about anything Nokia has ever released in terms of sales numbers.
Its rather retarded to compare a 4 year old product line to a 40 year old product line and use the word 'scale' so loosely.
Bullshit.
Anyone who has been around for any length of time knows its not uncommon to not realize how much you like something until you use it.
Did you know you wanted a web browser before they existed?
Did you know you wanted your OS to have a GUI before one existed?
Did you know you wanted tabbed browsing before anyone did it?
Let me answer for you, no, you didn't. It wasn't until you got those things and started using them, without opting in, that you realized you liked them.
Finally, it is opt in, don't visit the site using it. Its not hacking you and installing a service on your PC.
Please, get some perspective and soda.
You do realize they didn't make either one of those things you're talking about installing, right?
The irony is that you're bitching about installing 'software they've written' yet ... you then follow up with saying you using the exact software they suggest.
Are you really that retarded?
Sorry to be blunt, but you're asking the wrong question.
The proper question is: How do I find someone qualified to do this for me?
The fact that you are asking on slashdot shows that you are not qualified, and what you're going to get back is a bunch of others, who aren't qualified, suggesting all sorts of half assed hacks to do it which will just result in a utterly shitty service overall.
You could get by with this in the late 90s, but when you're going to compete with cell phone companies, cable companies and standard POTS companies, you probably need to have a bit of a clue.
Clearly, the only way to be fair to the blind is to rip out everyone elses eyeballs so we're all equal. If no one can READ A BOOK or use a kindle than there will be no discrimination.
This is obviously a clear cut case of intentional discrimination against the blind, just like those evil bastards who invented the printing press.
Let me give you a hint. You're blind. You can not do the same things as people who aren't blind. It sucks, but thats just fucking reality. Stop expecting everyone else to cater to you. You make your own way in this world, start acting like you deserve a place in the world.
It could be a lot worse. If were were anything like ... oh ... every other living organism on the planet, the blind wouldn't live long enough to know what school ways, let alone bitch about not being able to use the device (kindle) that is replacing another device (traditional book) that you couldn't use either.
There is no discrimination, just some retards trying to get money for themselves by ranting about discrimination against a group of people. The only problem is, the thing doing the discrimination is nature and chaos, and they can't sue that.
So take away everyones eyes. Then we'll all support the blind better. We'll all be on a level FAIR playing field, and as a bonus, we'll never see another flash movie again. It makes total sense.
They're doing it to save bandwidth. Yet they probably spend more on bandwidth dealing with human error issues in the process than they would if the system was engineered properly in the first place.
You don't see an issue because you aren't an engineer trying to save every drop of energy/bandwidth/processing time possible.
Basically, you're a java or C# developer when then need C and assembly developers with a clue.
Custom hacks when there are already systems (even build into EXCHANGE!) to do EXACTLY what they need to do are beyond stupid. Its one thing to use a custom hack so you don't get tied into a vendor, but their hack is entirely tied to their vendors so that rules that reason out.
Next you do it because you have a requirement that no existing solution fills in properly, which is certainly not the case here. As I already said, even Exchange will be happy to do store and forward batching on a schedule. A tiny exchange server (or a more efficient/less resource intensive alternative) on the space station could be designed to consume pretty much no energy unless it was actually in use.
In short, this is clearly something thrown together by engineers who knew nothing about the tools they were working with. Not their fault (probably), some douche bag manager probably didn't ask the IT guys.
The problem is, they went through effort and resources to make a system that is clearly less efficient than any of the possibly alternatives I can come up with.