funny, I tried typing the update into Firebird, and I got a page that said it was only able to be accessed with IE, but that other security updates could be downloaded here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?d is playlang=en
and as far as I can tell it's legit.
I bash on M$ when it's appropriate, but save it for stuff that matters...:)
Linux does have a long way to go before it can replace XP, and a lot of it, I believe, is due to lack of desire on the part of the users.
Anyway, the purchase of open source Linux distros by companies by no means signals the death of the open source model. Open source isn't about if there's a major company behind it, it is about a model which encourages individuals to contribute to it.
Upgrading one program, i.e. IE, should be just that, an upgrade of a program, and shouldn't be tied to a specific OS codebase. At least, that's how it SHOULD be...
The reason it doesn't fix any of the CSS or security flaws, is because they can't actually get into the IE rendering engine and fix the problems with it. But I mean, if Microsoft hasn't seen fit to grant us this by now, it shouldn't need to be done, right?
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Linux gets promoted by companies, like RedHat, and the small fractions of nerds in the community that will use Linux will never make it popular.
Joe Schmo user doesn't want to have to Google every little problem they have when installing an OS, in fact, they don't even want to install an OS. They want to have Gateway, Dell, Compaq, etc. do it for them. For any of those companies, they are not going to build their own Linux distribution, or even find a remote one, they are going to go with a large, reputable company.
As much as the open source movement has done, it won't survive without companies (like RedHat) behind it.
I think the reason hackers don't have a specific logo is that they are a diverse group of people, who aren't the type to want to hang out in crowds.
I think the reason for the lack of one is there isn't a large company/organization behind hackers, and thus they'll never be able to adpot (as such) a formalized figurehead. At least all of the logos mentioned in the first post had something backing the logo.
As a person who has been on several 100,000(+) block projects composed entirely of Tofu, I shudder to think that people still consider pudding to be as effecient, experssive or maintainable. Tofu is more portable (especially to Vegan OS's) Tofu is more stable (can you imagine implementing a shiesh-kabob with pudding?) it is more expressive (have you tried carving a bust of your boss in pudding?) more adaptive (ever tried making pudding a main dish?) and is more effecient (relying on a vegatable codebase as opposed to an animal one.)
The only reasons pudding is still used in modern systems are legacy systems (those people who haven't yet seen the Tofu light) and the fact that pudding's interface is more palatable to some users.
And my last (and most convincing) point: do YOU want to be coding everything in M$ Visual Pudding?
Strict typing helps devlopers not use wrong variable names, etc. rather than using the wrong variable on the fly. Also, for a person reading the code I would say that strict typing is qutie a benefit.
Maybe I've just had too much "good style" drilled into me though...
If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well.If your content isn't coming out of a database, then your code needs to be designed for easy cut and paste. No, it's not pleasant, but you can do a relatively straightforward template change within a day on sites that have hundreds of pages, if you've done your work correctly.
With CSS you can make one change that will apply to hundreds of pages now, and hundreds in the future, regardless of the initial use of the webpage. That's the point, centralization and encapsulation, the same thing OOP people tout.
The major problem that I see with CSS is compatability (as has already been mentioned.) If you make a webpage using the latest CSS things, and your client running IE sees a bland, static page, are you just to tell him/her to switch browsers? Talking about the future is great, but what should web designers be doing NOW?
Slashdot Mirror
funny, I tried typing the update into Firebird, and I got a page that said it was only able to be accessed with IE, but that other security updates could be downloaded here:
d is playlang=en
:)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?
and as far as I can tell it's legit.
I bash on M$ when it's appropriate, but save it for stuff that matters...
Linux does have a long way to go before it can replace XP, and a lot of it, I believe, is due to lack of desire on the part of the users.
Anyway, the purchase of open source Linux distros by companies by no means signals the death of the open source model. Open source isn't about if there's a major company behind it, it is about a model which encourages individuals to contribute to it.
Upgrading one program, i.e. IE, should be just that, an upgrade of a program, and shouldn't be tied to a specific OS codebase. At least, that's how it SHOULD be...
The reason it doesn't fix any of the CSS or security flaws, is because they can't actually get into the IE rendering engine and fix the problems with it. But I mean, if Microsoft hasn't seen fit to grant us this by now, it shouldn't need to be done, right?
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Linux gets promoted by companies, like RedHat, and the small fractions of nerds in the community that will use Linux will never make it popular.
Joe Schmo user doesn't want to have to Google every little problem they have when installing an OS, in fact, they don't even want to install an OS. They want to have Gateway, Dell, Compaq, etc. do it for them. For any of those companies, they are not going to build their own Linux distribution, or even find a remote one, they are going to go with a large, reputable company.
As much as the open source movement has done, it won't survive without companies (like RedHat) behind it.
I think the reason hackers don't have a specific logo is that they are a diverse group of people, who aren't the type to want to hang out in crowds.
I think the reason for the lack of one is there isn't a large company/organization behind hackers, and thus they'll never be able to adpot (as such) a formalized figurehead. At least all of the logos mentioned in the first post had something backing the logo.
It works fine in Open Office, just because the file format is used by M$ product doesn't mean it's of the devil...
As a person who has been on several 100,000(+) block projects composed entirely of Tofu, I shudder to think that people still consider pudding to be as effecient, experssive or maintainable. Tofu is more portable (especially to Vegan OS's) Tofu is more stable (can you imagine implementing a shiesh-kabob with pudding?) it is more expressive (have you tried carving a bust of your boss in pudding?) more adaptive (ever tried making pudding a main dish?) and is more effecient (relying on a vegatable codebase as opposed to an animal one.)
The only reasons pudding is still used in modern systems are legacy systems (those people who haven't yet seen the Tofu light) and the fact that pudding's interface is more palatable to some users.
And my last (and most convincing) point: do YOU want to be coding everything in M$ Visual Pudding?
Strict typing helps devlopers not use wrong variable names, etc. rather than using the wrong variable on the fly. Also, for a person reading the code I would say that strict typing is qutie a benefit.
Maybe I've just had too much "good style" drilled into me though...
If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well. If your content isn't coming out of a database, then your code needs to be designed for easy cut and paste. No, it's not pleasant, but you can do a relatively straightforward template change within a day on sites that have hundreds of pages, if you've done your work correctly. With CSS you can make one change that will apply to hundreds of pages now, and hundreds in the future, regardless of the initial use of the webpage. That's the point, centralization and encapsulation, the same thing OOP people tout. The major problem that I see with CSS is compatability (as has already been mentioned.) If you make a webpage using the latest CSS things, and your client running IE sees a bland, static page, are you just to tell him/her to switch browsers? Talking about the future is great, but what should web designers be doing NOW?