It's not that difficult. We use multiple standalone versions of IE at work while we develop. IE5 and IE5.5 (even 3.0 and 4.0) can be downloaded as zip files and run simultaneously, on Windows XP. Works like a charm: I've got 5 versions of IE, 4 versions of Firefox, 4 versions of Netscape, 3 versions of Opera, and Lynx all running locally, plus Safari, Camino and IE Mac via a VNC connection. The only thing we use a VMWare image for is IE7.
We always support the latest two versions of most browsers (3 for IE), and most of them can be catered to without any CSS hacks except for the occasional hasLayout and box model fix. So there really are no excuses for any web developer to support only one browser.
If the line is built with my tax money, then I expect free access to it.
Just like roads that I can use for free (sans tax) with a car of my choice, I would be able to connect my computer right to the main line and use the net for free.
I get the feeling that's not going to work out very well.
I doubt they'll lose interest. Sounds more like a compelling challenge to unlock the "mysteries of the past". A hard to read document is all the more interesting to a curious mind. In a few years a Word document may seem like digital garbage but add another 400 years to that and it will be insight into today's society, no matter how trivial. We do it all the time with ancient documents.
Way to make a ridiculous populist generalization about some evil "Nazi gene" FUD (I can't believe you're being serious.. or are you?), and get this modded so high. If you're looking for some "Nazi mentality", I think this is a good display of how it works. Sad, really.
I've read somewhere that IE7 will offer incremental updates addressing developer issues, in contrast to IE6's security-only patches. Is this true, and if yes, how will this affect developers regarding CSS and DOM support?
I would highly welcome it, but it seems to me this has many implications on how developers keep up with the various versions of IE7, such as a stronger forking of code than that already taking place.
Funny, I thought the word "equal" in the manifest meant, well, you know, "equal". You people need to start caring more about your rights instead of watching them slowly trickle away.
Either way, yes, I agree they are doing a farce of a job protecting our rights.
Human Rights don't stop where business begins. Human Rights apply everywhere at anytime. The point is not about having the right to a paypal account, the point is that filtering out customers based on name associations is in violation of the Human Rights (and of the constitution of the country in which paypal resides, by the way), as it would be if you were to base it on religion, gender, nationality, or anything else written down in the manifest. And as for providing "proof", everyone is innocent until proven guilty. How nice of them to provide this "chance" of further undermining the validity of the Human Rights. C'mon, use some common sense.
if it changed to suit "the ipod generation," I would probably like it less
Hello? Open source, go make your own distro without proprietary enhancements, if you want. It's your good right, that's never going to change, since it's got a strong foundation in the GPL.
Who benefits?
Everyone. I do, since I can actually use the thing then. You do: more people moving on to a generally free system means less people bound to a fully proprietary system. Isn't that what you want?
Drop the elitism. Linux is by the people, for the people, and that includes a whole lot more people than you.
But all the themes we found merely changed the interface buttons and perhaps added an image to the top menu area; they don't change the window borders the way you can with WindowBlinds.
This statement is a little misleading. Perhaps they didn't find themes that change the whole UI, but Firefox fully supports this and there are themes that do exactly this, without the need for proprietary, system-wide applications.
PimpZilla is a good example for this: It even goes so far as to completely re-style the option menus.
They can rename it the Mozilla Suite and then some people can come along and release a lightweight browser with none of the cruft called Firefox.
Most of the "integrated extensions" are simply adding subtle functionality to existing functions, such as the ability to drag around tabs, or the planned improved management of search plugins (until now you had to delete search engines via your file explorer or install a special extension, what the hell is up with that?). So I really don't see how they are bloating the browser, they're improving usability that should not be needed in the form of an extension.
Articles that have survived many months with several minor edits are likely to be more reliable.
The number of edits is more an indication of the popularity of a topic, not its reliability. The more activity, the more errors can be brought in, yes, but just as many corrections can be brought in to balance that out. The more eyes on a topic, the more control the public has over it.
Unpopular articles, however, carry the danger that they can be wrong for longer periods of time without anybody knowledgeable of the subject noticing. You'd have less edits, but more questionable reliability.
The same CSS behavior of form elements that Firefox and IE support. Whenever I style an input textfield, defining fixed widths and then add padding to that, it works great in Firefox and IE, but Opera ignores the padding so the fields are shorter. This makes it difficult to create a clean, aligned form so we usually just ignore it and leave Opera unsupported in this aspect.
Right-click on the page, choose the relevant option, click around to block stuff. Where's the problem?
Do you have to do this for every new ad you see? Or does Opera automagically create regexes for permanent blocking of similar ads by using your method?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that difficult. We use multiple standalone versions of IE at work while we develop. IE5 and IE5.5 (even 3.0 and 4.0) can be downloaded as zip files and run simultaneously, on Windows XP. Works like a charm: I've got 5 versions of IE, 4 versions of Firefox, 4 versions of Netscape, 3 versions of Opera, and Lynx all running locally, plus Safari, Camino and IE Mac via a VNC connection. The only thing we use a VMWare image for is IE7.
We always support the latest two versions of most browsers (3 for IE), and most of them can be catered to without any CSS hacks except for the occasional hasLayout and box model fix. So there really are no excuses for any web developer to support only one browser.
Google's already got that covered.
Flying chairs. Needs more flying chairs.
OneCare.
If the line is built with my tax money, then I expect free access to it.
Just like roads that I can use for free (sans tax) with a car of my choice, I would be able to connect my computer right to the main line and use the net for free.
I get the feeling that's not going to work out very well.
...on a side note, Bush has taken care of that.
;)
I doubt they'll lose interest. Sounds more like a compelling challenge to unlock the "mysteries of the past". A hard to read document is all the more interesting to a curious mind. In a few years a Word document may seem like digital garbage but add another 400 years to that and it will be insight into today's society, no matter how trivial. We do it all the time with ancient documents.
Oh noes, it's like AOL all over again!
Way to make a ridiculous populist generalization about some evil "Nazi gene" FUD (I can't believe you're being serious.. or are you?), and get this modded so high. If you're looking for some "Nazi mentality", I think this is a good display of how it works. Sad, really.
I really feel sorry for the thing. Poor Wii. :(
Two people kissing is considered porn, now?
I've read somewhere that IE7 will offer incremental updates addressing developer issues, in contrast to IE6's security-only patches. Is this true, and if yes, how will this affect developers regarding CSS and DOM support?
I would highly welcome it, but it seems to me this has many implications on how developers keep up with the various versions of IE7, such as a stronger forking of code than that already taking place.
Where have you been the last years? ;)
And they've bought plenty more than that, and continue to do so.
Funny, I thought the word "equal" in the manifest meant, well, you know, "equal". You people need to start caring more about your rights instead of watching them slowly trickle away.
Either way, yes, I agree they are doing a farce of a job protecting our rights.
Human Rights don't stop where business begins. Human Rights apply everywhere at anytime. The point is not about having the right to a paypal account, the point is that filtering out customers based on name associations is in violation of the Human Rights (and of the constitution of the country in which paypal resides, by the way), as it would be if you were to base it on religion, gender, nationality, or anything else written down in the manifest. And as for providing "proof", everyone is innocent until proven guilty. How nice of them to provide this "chance" of further undermining the validity of the Human Rights. C'mon, use some common sense.
I'm more interested in when they will be sued for blocking accounts based on "terrorist" last names.
Human rights, anyone?
Hello? Open source, go make your own distro without proprietary enhancements, if you want. It's your good right, that's never going to change, since it's got a strong foundation in the GPL.
Everyone. I do, since I can actually use the thing then. You do: more people moving on to a generally free system means less people bound to a fully proprietary system. Isn't that what you want?
Drop the elitism. Linux is by the people, for the people, and that includes a whole lot more people than you.
How is this different in real life?
From TFA:
This statement is a little misleading. Perhaps they didn't find themes that change the whole UI, but Firefox fully supports this and there are themes that do exactly this, without the need for proprietary, system-wide applications.
PimpZilla is a good example for this: It even goes so far as to completely re-style the option menus.
Most of the "integrated extensions" are simply adding subtle functionality to existing functions, such as the ability to drag around tabs, or the planned improved management of search plugins (until now you had to delete search engines via your file explorer or install a special extension, what the hell is up with that?). So I really don't see how they are bloating the browser, they're improving usability that should not be needed in the form of an extension.
The number of edits is more an indication of the popularity of a topic, not its reliability. The more activity, the more errors can be brought in, yes, but just as many corrections can be brought in to balance that out. The more eyes on a topic, the more control the public has over it.
Unpopular articles, however, carry the danger that they can be wrong for longer periods of time without anybody knowledgeable of the subject noticing. You'd have less edits, but more questionable reliability.
If you know them to be incorrect, why don't you correct them?
The same CSS behavior of form elements that Firefox and IE support. Whenever I style an input textfield, defining fixed widths and then add padding to that, it works great in Firefox and IE, but Opera ignores the padding so the fields are shorter. This makes it difficult to create a clean, aligned form so we usually just ignore it and leave Opera unsupported in this aspect.
Do you have to do this for every new ad you see? Or does Opera automagically create regexes for permanent blocking of similar ads by using your method?