And exactly because Slashdot is comprised primarily of Linux users, not Linux developers. I'd hope the users input has some influence on the direction of this OS.
User's aren't armchair critics. They're the sole reason Linux is popular today. Thank God other developers don't share this attitude or nobody would be using Linux at all. Users are the the people that are testing your OS for you, and previding the feedback necessary to make it better. And yes, they even contribute, without writing a single speck of code, through running user groups, creating bug reports, advocacy, paying developers salaries, giving up time and money to organize Linux events, and more.
Slashdot Linux users are generally more at the power user level, but then again [at the current point in time] most Linux users are. I would see nothing wrong with asking a large body of Windows power users [eg, NT admins] where they think their OS should go.
But I wouldn't expect a coherent answer, and I wouldn't today. The benefit is the discussion and the issues it brings on to the table. This little discussion might be the start of some wonderful projects, as developers may get inspired by the issues raised today and start a project. And when that happens, more people will use Linux because it will be better. There also be more people willing to put bread [and caviar] on your table, more software for you to use to develop, etc. Software evolution is a dance between developers and users, and what had spiralled Linux into its current greatness today.
* Re: your graphics card. Many distributions now include TNT / GeForce / GeForce2 / Quadro drivers out of the box, and set up acceleration for them too. I know firsthand Mandrake 7.2 will set up 2D and 3D accleration for TNT2s and Voodoo3, and I believe GeForce shoudl do the same thing.
- You're right here. Conf files should be in/conf [or/settings], unfortunately little innovation comes in the FHS due to a number of people complaining that since Unix does it a certain way, Linux should too. There's a difference between Unix philosphy and implementation. Lets follow the philisophy and come up with out own implementation. This is happening with things like devFS and anti-aliased X extensions, but should happen more. Configuration files warrant their own place the file heirarchy.
* DHCP should work fine on Linux. But you're right in that most Linux PPP tools [asides from Red Hat's excellent rp3] have poor defaults, requiring unnecessary scripting and extra data entry on behalf of poor users to connect to the same setup that 95% of ISPs use.
* Mandrake put all their software on their menus and provide a [control panel like] configuration tool on their desktop. More distributions should follow this habit, but most still don't even install software into application menus.
It's not off topic at all. You've just provided valid feedback about where Linux should go in the future. If I wasn't posting I'd mod you up.
The simple but very UNIX user/group/others scheme in contrast promotes a little thinking and planning in advance, and as a result you can do what you want by putting people in different groups and use those.
I don't think rwx permissions are very Unixy at all - in that they're unfortunately popular on Unix, but don't fit in with Unix philosophy. Unix philosophy gives users only the permission they need to do their work on the system. Unix-style systems are by default locked down much more fully than other OSes for regular users.
For root, however, its a different story. Why is is someone logging in as the system account with permission to perform any action on the system for the purposes of adding users?
Run top [or of your a GUI person, KDE System Guard or a similar utility]. Check whose running all those daemons. The answer is root. Why [especially if rwxs is enough]? SSH and CUPS and automount don't need permissions to create new entries in/dev, or to modify/etc/passwd. But if you can exploit them, you have permission to do just that. Crackers heaven.
If rwxs is enough, why do nasty tools like sudo exist, and why do so many apps require setuid root permission? rwxs is not UNix like. Its a kludge that's popular on Unix systems. And it definitely not Unix philosophy.
Actually, as the person that posted the article, I for one am talking about Linux, the Operating System. And I think, these days, most people are talking about Linux, the operating system [including most of the kernel developers], and defining the kernel as `the Linux kernel'.
And is there any reason why the FSF needs to take credit for their contribution by changing the name of the OS? Because, personally, my own OS of choice and most other variations of Linux use vastly more software that is not FSF created than software that is. Many of the important components of my system are based on BSD code and then GPLed [not that I don't love the GPL, but credit where its due]. Many, many other parts are GPLed, but not FSF/GNU software.
I'm sorry, but while I believe the FSF deserves some credit to creating an innovative license, there are many others who have made similar contributions and don't ask for the OS name to be changed to include their contribution.
Actually copyrights last the lifetime of author plus 50 years or something like that, while if a company or corp has it, they only expire after 70 years.
Unless you're in both the music industry and the USA, where the Satellite Broadcasting Act of 1998 specifies that:
* Authors do not own their own work if they are using a music publishing company [the phrasing is a little minced there, but that's pretty much about it].
* Copyright does not expire. Ever.
In general I am very scared of widget-level interfaces. They are going to be complex and bug prone and will lock out the possibilities to innovate new GUI designs. I don't think you've quite understood the details of the implementation, but you do have the concept right.
The idea is that the system should be smart enough to send widgets where appropriate and possible and drawing components otherwise, thus the system is not limited in what it can draw, but using a popular widget set still gives much faster performance down the wire. It won't lock out the possibility of new widgets sytems or GUI designs. We're not talking about statically tying X to a particular widget set [or sets] forever, we're talking about enhancing the binding between X and each widget set to include the ability to use it as part of a widget based display protocol. This wouldn't lock out future GUIs, in fact, it would encourage them - GUIs that are more complex currently have performance problems because your X server [X the display system] only supports a stagnant graphics protocol [X the protocol]. The system above, in fact, allows for much easier integration with future display protocols.
Client says to server. `Hello. I'm written in QT. Can I speak to you in QT' Server responds `Yup I can' [the client then sends QT down the wire] or `No I can't' the server sends rectangles down the wire.
Perhaps the failure of NeWS is more to do with poor implementation, incompatibility with the existing popular standard and an unclean interface [none of the existing systems really match the pluggable display framework I'm talking about above AFAIK].
As for the complex and bug prone stuff, there's always risks with anything new. But pluggable architectures, rather than monolithic ones, are generally viewed as easier to troubleshoot, and less complex.
I agree with you he's flamebaiting, but he does raise some interesting points about X. It is bulky, but its being improved over time.
XFree86 4.0 improved things substantially with its modular driver architecture, and combined with the upcoming XFree86 alpha channel stuff shows its these guys who are driving X these days, not TOG.
It is possible to present an X like environment to applications and still use other compression methods to get the app down the wire. Expanding X4s modularity to compression methods would be a wonderful, wonderful thing. Here's what I'm talking about:
Now [XFree86 4.0] Display architecture which can take regular apps and display them via:
* X protocol
* DGA
However, the way these two systems are implemented is quite static and unmodular. Upcoming developments will require further modifications, and the limits of this system are already becoming apparent [see below]
The Hopeful Future Rather than XFree86 as both the display server and two transmission methods, I'd prefer a more modular approach for
* X protocol
* Direct Rendering
* X protocol with upcoming XFree86 extensions developed by Peter of XFree86 team [anti aliasing, alpha channels, etc]
* X protocol with SSH compression
* Other remote display protocols, such as VNC, Hextile VNC [around 1/3 the bandwidth in my environment], as well as non-open protocols like RDP [crappy] or ICA if desired.
* Widget level remote display. This is perhaps the cleanest way to display apps remotely, but requires binding between each tool kit and the display server. This is perhaps the cleanest way to doa pps remotely, but hasn't really been explored. Think about it...
Now You write an app in GTK. Your app tells GTK to draw a drop down list box. The GTK tells X to draw a series of rectangles and other components to create the graphic of a drop down list box on your hosts screen. These are sent down the network individually as a very long list of components, taking a fair quantity of bandwidth.
The Hopeful Future You write an app in GTK. Your app tells GTK to draw a drop down list box. The GTK tells X to draw drop down list box. The binding between the two transmits `draw GTK list box' down the wire to your host.
While such technologies might not be fully understood today, a more modular yet backward compatible approach allows for :
* Better expansion for future technologies
* Alternate remote display protocols, which are less stagnant then Open Group X protocol.
* The ability to dynamically switch protocols depending on desired compression processing impact and avaliable bandwidth.
* Cleaner implementations of third party [and even closed source] protocols like ICA.
* Lower overhead for devices which do not require remote display capability, such as handhelds and even some desktop PCs [especially low end systems], while maintaining application compatibility with existing toolkits and apps.
Some believe a standard comes from being reasonably popular [if not ubiquitous], fully supported by every platform, with open specifications, and comprehensive analysis and documentation. SSH meets these criteria.
Others believe standards come from ubiquity. Because Telnet is more popular than SSH, or WinNT more prevalent than Linux, it is standard. I, and perhaps most of Slashdot, would agree with the former view over the latter.
It would require exactly the same amount of effort for your school to install an SSH client as a Telnet client. However, Win32 based OSs come with a reasonably functional [if not fully featured] client already built in. If your admins have gone to the effort to install a third part Telnet, they could do the same for SSH.
The only serious issue I've seen with SSH is that many routers don't allow SSH access. This is a serious problem with the router and you should make your purchasing decisions accordingly.
That's easy enough to deal with. You write unencrypted content. Problem solved. Problem not solved.
Your player won't play unencrypted content. It will look for the content code, which will return the zeros. It will then refuse to play the disc.
Unless you play with the firmware or software, and unlike Region Codes, there's very little inroads which have been made into supplying replacement firmware or software capable of playing consumer written DVD content [obviously these would be underground efforts - like with console games, producing any DVD content involves licensing from those who intented the system - the MPAA].
OSS will likely be one of the first players to support consumer produced, backup, and pirate DVD content if enough [that fits into the first two categories] is produced.
DVDRs have certain portions of the disk already written to as part of their production companies licensing deal with the MPAA. The bits required for the disk key are already prewritten with zeroes.
You can't burn an exact copy of a DVD to a DVDR, and your inexact copy won't play in most peoples DVD drives.
it should be more consistent like the collection of Tk/Motif/Qt/GTK+/ncurses/console applications that he should be running on his
3l33t linux box. Or the collection on MFC / VCL / Other [MSN, WMP] on his Windows box. I know Linux uses more than one toolkit, but Windows uses more than one toolkit too. Yes it sucks, but its common.
* Netscape Gecko(tm) engine * gets rid of the XP widgets * the XP interface * dolls it up to look all cool-and-draggy like IE5 [well, uses an IE like UI with similar icons]
* Releases a strong Mac, Unix and Win32 version, all under the GPL [you can use it on multiple platforms]
It misses this one:
* makes it do all those cool geeky banner/doubleclick elimination features [not yet - that's not UI stuff]
I'm not going to load some dang theme. Why? If you want native widgets, others might want pixel for pixel compatibility across all platforms. MSN Explorer doesn't use Native widghets. Furthermore it can't render pages IE can, despite using the same rendering engine.
I want the interface to get the hell out of my way so I can use the browser. Me too. But since we want different interfaces, thank God the lovely Netscape people have provided this funcationality.
The best thing about IE5 is that in 5 seconds from the default install, I can customize it exactly how I want it - small and out of my face. No menus to navigate, just clickin' and draggin. On the other hand, if I wanted everything big and out in front with a big ol' "go" button, I could do that too. It's not about whether it's possible to change things around or not in Moz, it's about whether it's more convenient that it is in IE5. And it isn't.
I disagree. There are more mouse clicks involved in changing the IE UI, spread across so many menus, compared to the bliss of clicking on a.xpi file and having it download and install immediately. The latter is also much easier for new users.
100% standards compliance is a dumb idea. All I want is a browser that loads fast, runs fast, has a brilliant non-interface, is reasonably standards compliant, loaded up with geeky features (tucked away for joeschmoe yet still easy to find and use, of course) with a small memory footprint. I thought this was the promise of Mozilla, but I guess I was wrong.
Here. Download the Native Windows skin for an IE like, Win32 standard interface.
This isn't to say that MSN Explorer uses a standard interface, or provides the option to. In fact, it somehow uses the IE rendering engine to render pages differently from IE. Cute:-)
Somehow your browsers using a cached version of the page. Hold shift and click your reload / refresh button to force download of the page without using cache.
Yes. It was leaked out three months ago, and I'm surprised Slashdot didn't take a look at the story. Betanews did.
In fact, here is (until Geocities take it away). It's a 10Mb zipfile (!), which contains four [Red Hat] packages and a Perl script to install them [AOL, AOLfonts, and 2 GTK packages you probably already have].
AOL also have absolutely no idea of Linux filesystems either. The silly people put the entire app [libraries, binaries, docs] in/usr/lib/aol. Not that other Linux non-aware companies, like Citrix and Adobe, don't do the same. You might want to:
mkdir/usr/local/aol
ln -s/usr/lib/aol/usr/local/aol
First.
Oh, and the README forgot to mention you need to add/usr/lib/aol in/etc/ld.so.conf, and run ldconfig once you're done.
Here's a screenshot in the meantime. Geocities will probably take this down soon, but I don't expect a speedy response.
Hey! I posted that because it shows that IE under WINE, though not currently a reality, might soon be possible, as other popular Microsoft software is starting to be largely functional under WINE.
Looking at the above, and how far WinWord has come over a year, it would seem IE under WINE is a distinct possibility. Again, MSN Explorer semi-runs, but doens't handle the login part gracefully.
Sorry if I didn't make my point blatantly clear [I was excited, okay], but that was how the above post related to the topic. And it took some time to set that little test up!
In Australia, Lego is the collective noun of Lego. In the US, it would seem to be `Legos'. Since the stuff is European [Dutch is it?] in origin, what do Europeans use?
the Microsoft Linux platform (in conjunction with RedHat) with certain, shall we say, closed-source additions. Like a new, closed-source kernel, a new, closed-source virtual machine, closed-source IP stack, you get the drift. Everything people LIKE about Linux, but better.
Score -1 Flamebait. Red Hat's OS is one of the few commerical Linux distributions that's entirely Open Source - you won't see SuSE or Caldera going down that path. They also viciously hate Microsoft [from Bob Young on down], see closed source as archaic [but tolerable for those that still aren't comfortable with OSS] and wouldn't dream of working with them.
* Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
* Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
* Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
* Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
-----------------------
Red Hat isn't sold for a price. That doesn't make it non-commercial. One of the examples above puts it best - is free to air television non commercial? As long as sales of the OS are generating revenue, not through licensing costs, but for manuals, special editions [RealServer or Oracle], product and professional certifications, etc. Basically, if it aims to make money, then its commercial.
They can, and do, sell it commercially, but it's not a commercial product. You're splitting hairs. Give up.:-)
The OS is commercial. It generates revenue via support costs, OEM deals, Red Hat Ready RHCE, and more. It just doesn't use licensing. Learn to think. Have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
And exactly because Slashdot is comprised primarily of Linux users, not Linux developers. I'd hope the users input has some influence on the direction of this OS.
User's aren't armchair critics. They're the sole reason Linux is popular today. Thank God other developers don't share this attitude or nobody would be using Linux at all. Users are the the people that are testing your OS for you, and previding the feedback necessary to make it better. And yes, they even contribute, without writing a single speck of code, through running user groups, creating bug reports, advocacy, paying developers salaries, giving up time and money to organize Linux events, and more.
Slashdot Linux users are generally more at the power user level, but then again [at the current point in time] most Linux users are. I would see nothing wrong with asking a large body of Windows power users [eg, NT admins] where they think their OS should go.
But I wouldn't expect a coherent answer, and I wouldn't today. The benefit is the discussion and the issues it brings on to the table. This little discussion might be the start of some wonderful projects, as developers may get inspired by the issues raised today and start a project. And when that happens, more people will use Linux because it will be better. There also be more people willing to put bread [and caviar] on your table, more software for you to use to develop, etc. Software evolution is a dance between developers and users, and what had spiralled Linux into its current greatness today.
* Re: your graphics card. Many distributions now include TNT / GeForce / GeForce2 / Quadro drivers out of the box, and set up acceleration for them too. I know firsthand Mandrake 7.2 will set up 2D and 3D accleration for TNT2s and Voodoo3, and I believe GeForce shoudl do the same thing.
/conf [or /settings], unfortunately little innovation comes in the FHS due to a number of people complaining that since Unix does it a certain way, Linux should too. There's a difference between Unix philosphy and implementation. Lets follow the philisophy and come up with out own implementation. This is happening with things like devFS and anti-aliased X extensions, but should happen more. Configuration files warrant their own place the file heirarchy.
- You're right here. Conf files should be in
* DHCP should work fine on Linux. But you're right in that most Linux PPP tools [asides from Red Hat's excellent rp3] have poor defaults, requiring unnecessary scripting and extra data entry on behalf of poor users to connect to the same setup that 95% of ISPs use.
* Mandrake put all their software on their menus and provide a [control panel like] configuration tool on their desktop. More distributions should follow this habit, but most still don't even install software into application menus.
It's not off topic at all. You've just provided valid feedback about where Linux should go in the future. If I wasn't posting I'd mod you up.
The simple but very UNIX user/group/others scheme in contrast promotes a little thinking and planning in advance, and as a result you can do what you want by putting people in different groups and use those.
/dev, or to modify /etc/passwd. But if you can exploit them, you have permission to do just that. Crackers heaven.
I don't think rwx permissions are very Unixy at all - in that they're unfortunately popular on Unix, but don't fit in with Unix philosophy. Unix philosophy gives users only the permission they need to do their work on the system. Unix-style systems are by default locked down much more fully than other OSes for regular users.
For root, however, its a different story. Why is is someone logging in as the system account with permission to perform any action on the system for the purposes of adding users?
Run top [or of your a GUI person, KDE System Guard or a similar utility]. Check whose running all those daemons. The answer is root. Why [especially if rwxs is enough]? SSH and CUPS and automount don't need permissions to create new entries in
If rwxs is enough, why do nasty tools like sudo exist, and why do so many apps require setuid root permission? rwxs is not UNix like. Its a kludge that's popular on Unix systems. And it definitely not Unix philosophy.
Actually, as the person that posted the article, I for one am talking about Linux, the Operating System. And I think, these days, most people are talking about Linux, the operating system [including most of the kernel developers], and defining the kernel as `the Linux kernel'.
And is there any reason why the FSF needs to take credit for their contribution by changing the name of the OS? Because, personally, my own OS of choice and most other variations of Linux use vastly more software that is not FSF created than software that is. Many of the important components of my system are based on BSD code and then GPLed [not that I don't love the GPL, but credit where its due]. Many, many other parts are GPLed, but not FSF/GNU software.
I'm sorry, but while I believe the FSF deserves some credit to creating an innovative license, there are many others who have made similar contributions and don't ask for the OS name to be changed to include their contribution.
Actually copyrights last the lifetime of author plus 50 years or something like that, while if a company or corp has it, they only expire after 70 years.
Unless you're in both the music industry and the USA, where the Satellite Broadcasting Act of 1998 specifies that:
* Authors do not own their own work if they are using a music publishing company [the phrasing is a little minced there, but that's pretty much about it].
* Copyright does not expire. Ever.
In general I am very scared of widget-level interfaces. They are going to be complex and bug prone and will lock out the possibilities to innovate new GUI designs.
I don't think you've quite understood the details of the implementation, but you do have the concept right.
The idea is that the system should be smart enough to send widgets where appropriate and possible and drawing components otherwise, thus the system is not limited in what it can draw, but using a popular widget set still gives much faster performance down the wire. It won't lock out the possibility of new widgets sytems or GUI designs. We're not talking about statically tying X to a particular widget set [or sets] forever, we're talking about enhancing the binding between X and each widget set to include the ability to use it as part of a widget based display protocol. This wouldn't lock out future GUIs, in fact, it would encourage them - GUIs that are more complex currently have performance problems because your X server [X the display system] only supports a stagnant graphics protocol [X the protocol]. The system above, in fact, allows for much easier integration with future display protocols.
Client says to server. `Hello. I'm written in QT. Can I speak to you in QT' Server responds `Yup I can' [the client then sends QT down the wire] or `No I can't' the server sends rectangles down the wire.
Perhaps the failure of NeWS is more to do with poor implementation, incompatibility with the existing popular standard and an unclean interface [none of the existing systems really match the pluggable display framework I'm talking about above AFAIK].
As for the complex and bug prone stuff, there's always risks with anything new. But pluggable architectures, rather than monolithic ones, are generally viewed as easier to troubleshoot, and less complex.
Nice to hear your comments anyway.
I agree with you he's flamebaiting, but he does raise some interesting points about X. It is bulky, but its being improved over time.
XFree86 4.0 improved things substantially with its modular driver architecture, and combined with the upcoming XFree86 alpha channel stuff shows its these guys who are driving X these days, not TOG.
It is possible to present an X like environment to applications and still use other compression methods to get the app down the wire. Expanding X4s modularity to compression methods would be a wonderful, wonderful thing. Here's what I'm talking about:
Now [XFree86 4.0]
Display architecture which can take regular apps and display them via:
* X protocol
* DGA
However, the way these two systems are implemented is quite static and unmodular. Upcoming developments will require further modifications, and the limits of this system are already becoming apparent [see below]
The Hopeful Future
Rather than XFree86 as both the display server and two transmission methods, I'd prefer a more modular approach for
* X protocol
* Direct Rendering
* X protocol with upcoming XFree86 extensions developed by Peter of XFree86 team [anti aliasing, alpha channels, etc]
* X protocol with SSH compression
* Other remote display protocols, such as VNC, Hextile VNC [around 1/3 the bandwidth in my environment], as well as non-open protocols like RDP [crappy] or ICA if desired.
* Widget level remote display. This is perhaps the cleanest way to display apps remotely, but requires binding between each tool kit and the display server. This is perhaps the cleanest way to doa pps remotely, but hasn't really been explored. Think about it...
Now
You write an app in GTK. Your app tells GTK to draw a drop down list box. The GTK tells X to draw a series of rectangles and other components to create the graphic of a drop down list box on your hosts screen. These are sent down the network individually as a very long list of components, taking a fair quantity of bandwidth.
The Hopeful Future
You write an app in GTK. Your app tells GTK to draw a drop down list box. The GTK tells X to draw drop down list box. The binding between the two transmits `draw GTK list box' down the wire to your host.
While such technologies might not be fully understood today, a more modular yet backward compatible approach allows for :
* Better expansion for future technologies
* Alternate remote display protocols, which are less stagnant then Open Group X protocol.
* The ability to dynamically switch protocols depending on desired compression processing impact and avaliable bandwidth.
* Cleaner implementations of third party [and even closed source] protocols like ICA.
* Lower overhead for devices which do not require remote display capability, such as handhelds and even some desktop PCs [especially low end systems], while maintaining application compatibility with existing toolkits and apps.
Some believe a standard comes from being reasonably popular [if not ubiquitous], fully supported by every platform, with open specifications, and comprehensive analysis and documentation. SSH meets these criteria.
Others believe standards come from ubiquity. Because Telnet is more popular than SSH, or WinNT more prevalent than Linux, it is standard. I, and perhaps most of Slashdot, would agree with the former view over the latter.
It would require exactly the same amount of effort for your school to install an SSH client as a Telnet client. However, Win32 based OSs come with a reasonably functional [if not fully featured] client already built in. If your admins have gone to the effort to install a third part Telnet, they could do the same for SSH.
The only serious issue I've seen with SSH is that many routers don't allow SSH access. This is a serious problem with the router and you should make your purchasing decisions accordingly.
About the same time Mandrake [of Enlightenment fame]'s come in.
That's easy enough to deal with. You write unencrypted content. Problem solved.
Problem not solved.
Your player won't play unencrypted content. It will look for the content code, which will return the zeros. It will then refuse to play the disc.
Unless you play with the firmware or software, and unlike Region Codes, there's very little inroads which have been made into supplying replacement firmware or software capable of playing consumer written DVD content [obviously these would be underground efforts - like with console games, producing any DVD content involves licensing from those who intented the system - the MPAA].
OSS will likely be one of the first players to support consumer produced, backup, and pirate DVD content if enough [that fits into the first two categories] is produced.
Mike
DVDRs have certain portions of the disk already written to as part of their production companies licensing deal with the MPAA. The bits required for the disk key are already prewritten with zeroes.
You can't burn an exact copy of a DVD to a DVDR, and your inexact copy won't play in most peoples DVD drives.
it should be more consistent like the collection of Tk/Motif/Qt/GTK+/ncurses/console applications that he should be running on his
3l33t linux box.
Or the collection on MFC / VCL / Other [MSN, WMP] on his Windows box. I know Linux uses more than one toolkit, but Windows uses more than one toolkit too. Yes it sucks, but its common.
Thought you might like a screenshot
Cheers,
Mike
Go to here and download the Native.Windows theme.
.xpi file and having it download and install immediately. The latter is also much easier for new users.
It meets the following demands:
* Netscape Gecko(tm) engine
* gets rid of the XP widgets
* the XP interface
* dolls it up to look all cool-and-draggy like IE5 [well, uses an IE like UI with similar icons]
* Releases a strong Mac, Unix and Win32 version, all under the GPL [you can use it on multiple platforms]
It misses this one:
* makes it do all those cool geeky banner/doubleclick elimination features [not yet - that's not UI stuff]
I'm not going to load some dang theme.
Why? If you want native widgets, others might want pixel for pixel compatibility across all platforms. MSN Explorer doesn't use Native widghets. Furthermore it can't render pages IE can, despite using the same rendering engine.
I want the interface to get the hell out of my way so I can use the browser.
Me too. But since we want different interfaces, thank God the lovely Netscape people have provided this funcationality.
The best thing about IE5 is that in 5 seconds from the default install, I can customize it exactly how I want it - small and out of my face. No menus to navigate, just clickin' and draggin. On the other hand, if I wanted everything big and out in front with a big ol' "go" button, I could do that too. It's not about whether it's possible to change things around or not in Moz, it's about whether it's more convenient that it is in IE5. And it isn't.
I disagree. There are more mouse clicks involved in changing the IE UI, spread across so many menus, compared to the bliss of clicking on a
100% standards compliance is a dumb idea. All I want is a browser that loads fast, runs fast, has a brilliant non-interface, is reasonably standards compliant, loaded up with geeky features (tucked away for joeschmoe yet still easy to find and use, of course) with a small memory footprint. I thought this was the promise of Mozilla, but I guess I was wrong.
I don't think your were.
Mike
Here. Download the Native Windows skin for an IE like, Win32 standard interface.
:-)
This isn't to say that MSN Explorer uses a standard interface, or provides the option to. In fact, it somehow uses the IE rendering engine to render pages differently from IE. Cute
The mans point is that it is not consistent with his other applications.
Somehow your browsers using a cached version of the page. Hold shift and click your reload / refresh button to force download of the page without using cache.
Yes. It was leaked out three months ago, and I'm surprised Slashdot didn't take a look at the story. Betanews did.
/usr/lib/aol. Not that other Linux non-aware companies, like Citrix and Adobe, don't do the same. You might want to:
/usr/local/aol
/usr/lib/aol /usr/local/aol
/usr/lib/aol in /etc/ld.so.conf, and run ldconfig once you're done.
In fact, here is (until Geocities take it away). It's a 10Mb zipfile (!), which contains four [Red Hat] packages and a Perl script to install them [AOL, AOLfonts, and 2 GTK packages you probably already have].
AOL also have absolutely no idea of Linux filesystems either. The silly people put the entire app [libraries, binaries, docs] in
mkdir
ln -s
First.
Oh, and the README forgot to mention you need to add
Here's a screenshot in the meantime. Geocities will probably take this down soon, but I don't expect a speedy response.
Hey! I posted that because it shows that IE under WINE, though not currently a reality, might soon be possible, as other popular Microsoft software is starting to be largely functional under WINE.
Looking at the above, and how far WinWord has come over a year, it would seem IE under WINE is a distinct possibility. Again, MSN Explorer semi-runs, but doens't handle the login part gracefully.
Sorry if I didn't make my point blatantly clear [I was excited, okay], but that was how the above post related to the topic. And it took some time to set that little test up!
:-(
Unfortunately AOL 6 is still IE based. Atr least the current betas are. AOL for Linux [used in Gateway set top boxes] is Linux based though.
In Australia, Lego is the collective noun of Lego. In the US, it would seem to be `Legos'. Since the stuff is European [Dutch is it?] in origin, what do Europeans use?
Dont Flame Me...
:)
Yeah Right..
Yeah right.. [2]
if you dont know what you are talking about then SHUT UP..
Where does this guy live ? Antartica ?
Tsk..tsk.. This guy just dont realise..does he...
SUN sponsors this guy's Chopper Trips
And exactly why shouldn't you be flamed?
the Microsoft Linux platform (in conjunction with RedHat) with certain, shall we say, closed-source additions. Like a new, closed-source kernel, a new, closed-source virtual machine, closed-source IP stack, you get the drift. Everything people LIKE about Linux, but better.
Score -1 Flamebait. Red Hat's OS is one of the few commerical Linux distributions that's entirely Open Source - you won't see SuSE or Caldera going down that path. They also viciously hate Microsoft [from Bob Young on down], see closed source as archaic [but tolerable for those that still aren't comfortable with OSS] and wouldn't dream of working with them.
commercial (k-mûrshl)
:-)
adj. Abbr. com., coml., cml.
* Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
* Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
* Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
* Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
-----------------------
Red Hat isn't sold for a price. That doesn't make it non-commercial. One of the examples above puts it best - is free to air television non commercial? As long as sales of the OS are generating revenue, not through licensing costs, but for manuals, special editions [RealServer or Oracle], product and professional certifications, etc. Basically, if it aims to make money, then its commercial.
They can, and do, sell it commercially, but it's not a commercial product.
You're splitting hairs. Give up.
The OS is commercial. It generates revenue via support costs, OEM deals, Red Hat Ready RHCE, and more. It just doesn't use licensing. Learn to think. Have a nice day.