If you allow HTML, you allow JavaScript. Yahoo tries and tries to filter HTML in email and yet every now and than another trick emerges which allows JavaScript to be executed. And once you have JavaScript, you have the session cookies for all the people who read your email or visit your profile.
Technically, anarchy means the absence of any authority. If they oppose some form of authority but covet another, it's not anarchy anymore. Yes, it seems unlikely that any form of social organization could exists without any form of authority at all. That's why anarchy is mostly just a theory or a temporary state of things, never a reality.
Two random things in IE that need to change soon: ctrl-l pops up a seperate window for you to enter a location, WHY? Ctrl-f does the same. Firefox handles both of these much more smoothly.
Indeed. Firefox actually has a very sensible way of dealing with this: if the location bar is not present (such as in a JavaScript opened window) then it pops up a separate window for Ctrl+L. Same goes for the search field aka Ctrl+K. It has many benefic side effects. For instance, on a smaller screen, you don't have to keep the search field visible all the time, you can popup the search as needed.
And if it CAN'T clear that part of the system? REBOOT!
So, I'm not sure how this is much different than before, aside from Vista will try to unload unused system dlls as well as non-system dlls?
You know, I've always wondered: why did Windows go with the "once a file is opened, hands off" model? Seems to me like the Linux way ("once loaded I don't care what's on disk") has definite advantages, one being ease of updates.
I'm tired of open source zealots who don't even understand that the software they used is not secure.
Yes, I can totally see the resemblance. On one hand, Mozilla and Firefox with a patch already available for a two-week old problem, and on the other Explorer with no patch for a 6 month old problem. It's like looking into a mirror.
I can NOT WAIT for the reaction of the commercial antivirus writers. It will be pure, juicy ENTERTAINMENT, mark my words. Here's M$ Windoze, homeland of the virii and provider of the bread for the antivirus makers for so many years to such extent that you could call them symbionts, now hitting them upside the head and telling them "fuck off, we've decided to reposses your fat cow". The fat cow being a fundamental flaw in the very product they're selling: Windows! The irony is so sweet it makes me cry. It's gonna be a Stooges-level show.
Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"
Writing malware requires fairly deep knowledge of the internals. It's not a case of having a "virus builder", based on the ubiquity of VB and Outlook.
As it happens, on Linux, deep knowledge takes hard work to gather, and I dare say it takes passion and love, yes, love, for Linux and the things it stands for. As for Mac, its users are often called fanatics.
Call me a dumb romantic if you will, but will such a user spend time learning only to turn against the things he loves?
It's still not a perfect analogy. Let's say it's the same situation, but I decided to use my wall as part of an art experiment, and I put a notice that invited anyone to write whatever they wanted on my wall.
Now, if an anonymous contributer wrote a lie about someone, that person might reasonably want to pursue the writer, and he should be able to.
Your reply was probably the closest to the issue. In the example you gave, you caused the issue by inviting people to write freely on the wall. Should you assume no responsability? Whatsoever? Even a bit? No matter how grave the outcome is?
The lack of authority and supervision over Wikipedia content has been raised to attention again and again. It was time that the issue of responsability is questioned as well.
Yeah, that's poorly worded -- there are very, very powerful email apps for the Linux Desktop, beyond the emacs/vi/mutt/pine crowd, there's Evolution and Thunderbird (which is my email app of choice). What they really mean is a full Outlook/Exchange groupware system; and there are projects that are working on that as well.
I agree with you about the distinction between email and groupware. But may I add that I wouldn't exactly call Evolution or Thunderbird "powerful".
If you really want something for the powerusers, I'm thinking something more along the lines of Sylpheed Claws. It has been ported to Windows, too.
Unfortunately, Firefox 1.5 is also affected by the bug. Granted, it only freezes up and has to be killed manually, so it's not as severe as remote code execution. Still...
A wiki runs somewhere. Someone comes along and enters something illegal: how to be a sniper, slander or liber about a certain person, excerpts from a book against copyright, you name it.
Someone else comes along, see this and is outraged. They want to do something. What can they do?
"Change it yourself" is like saying "if skinheads painted Nazi slogans on your house wall, just repaint it". Is that really OK and is all that should be done? Nobody should be pursued for this?
Are we saying that a wiki is somehow above the laws and should be exonerated by default of any consequences, along with its administrators, host and everybody, except perhaps that malicious contributor who can't be tracked down anyway?
Personally, I'm glad the dude raised his voice about this. The terms of use and so called "licenses" that wiki's generally use are simple jokes. You can't put up a system where anybody can enter anything they want, in high exposure, and expect to get away with it when something illegal is inserted. Why? Because a wiki is not a discussion. It's supposed to be reference.
Now that Opera is free, there's really nothing holding back people. You can't blame lack of awareness for one of them more than you can for the other. They're comparable in terms of standard support. So what's left? Why isn't Opera raising next to Firefox? Extensions (and the implied features) are really all what I can think about.
You see, I can't get FF to make it the layout I like (one of my main reasons for using Opera.) I have the address bar and the tab bar at the bottom of the screen, and no File Edit etc menus at the top. Last time I checked, it was either impossible or nearly so to get FF to do this.
Grab DOM Inspector and userChrome.css, identify those bars and menus and either apply display:hidden or align them to bottom. I don't recall the exact syntax but it's definitely possible. Search the Web or ask in the mozillazine.org forums.
"W3C Compliant" is much easier to define for a website than for a web browser.
So true. That's true actually for any standard. Furthermore, it's incredible how many small spots are left uncovered by specifics, and result in browsers implementing their own interpretation. Quite often, you've guessed it, they turn out different behavior.
Take the HTTP header that specifies the name of the file to be downloaded. The spec only says "it must be in ASCII". Fine. I feed it UTF, Explorer treats it as garbage, Mozilla et al. interprets it as UTF. That's one case. I urlencode it, Explorer decodes it and shows the UTF chars, Mozilla et al. presents it with the % codes still in place. Again, bummer.
Both cases, one of them did something wrong and the other something good. Actually, it's not even a case of absolute "good or bad", it's more about taking the liberty to expand upon the specs. What's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, right?
Not needlessly! They will manage to make themselves and the company like assholes in the process. Come on, pick on a little guy who likes FarCry enough to pick a gun from it and *gasp* give proper credit? How dumb can you be to take him down instead of enjoying the free publicity?
You can configure FVWM to not allow apps to grab focus without permission. I would suspect that other Linux WMs allow for that too. You're on your own in windows.
Actually, from a usability point of view, this feature is very easy to implement on Windows and nearly impossible on Linux window managers.
The only ways to willingly produce new windows in MS Windows is to click a desktop icon, or something on the panel (menu, quick launch, systray). The trick is that these actions unfocus all windows. So when the new window pops up, it either:
a) Finds nothing focused, and assumes focus itself. or b) You've grown bored because Firefox took so long to load:) and focused something else, in which case the new window does not "steal" focus.
The other case is new windows produced without user intervention. Those are easy to take care of both in Windows and X.
However, without the "unfocus everything" trick, in X this feature quickly becomes a major pain in the butt.
Think about it. Under Linux there are many more ways to produce new windows: keygrabbers implementing shortcuts, dockapps, wm-specific menus (like Fluxbox or RoX have), panels, and so on. There are MANY applications that could allow the use to spawn windows, and they can't just get up and tell the wm "unfocus everything before that window appears". It's crazy.
Would you like to use a key combo and your terminal to come up unfocused? Would you like to click on "options" and the prefs window to appear unfocused? Would you like to click a menu entry, a systray icon or a launcher and the window to come up in the background? Eh, not exactly not you wanted, right? Too bad, because that's what happens with this feature under X.
Ah, I think they'll give it some thought if it's implemented properly. What strikes me as very nice is that some software depots out there already have such stuff in place and they don't make such a big fuss, it's just part of normal service.
Take Softpedia for instance, and check out their page for Buddy Spy. Notice the "100% adware, spyware free" banner on the left side, as well as the "Report spyware" link (on right, same level as program name).
It's probably nothing fancy, just a peer and user review system, overviewed by Softpedia admins. Just like the the rating system. Simple and not pretentious, but "It Works Now(tm)".
Slashdot Mirror
If you allow HTML, you allow JavaScript. Yahoo tries and tries to filter HTML in email and yet every now and than another trick emerges which allows JavaScript to be executed. And once you have JavaScript, you have the session cookies for all the people who read your email or visit your profile.
Technically, anarchy means the absence of any authority. If they oppose some form of authority but covet another, it's not anarchy anymore. Yes, it seems unlikely that any form of social organization could exists without any form of authority at all. That's why anarchy is mostly just a theory or a temporary state of things, never a reality.
Two random things in IE that need to change soon: ctrl-l pops up a seperate window for you to enter a location, WHY? Ctrl-f does the same. Firefox handles both of these much more smoothly.
Indeed. Firefox actually has a very sensible way of dealing with this: if the location bar is not present (such as in a JavaScript opened window) then it pops up a separate window for Ctrl+L. Same goes for the search field aka Ctrl+K. It has many benefic side effects. For instance, on a smaller screen, you don't have to keep the search field visible all the time, you can popup the search as needed.
And if it CAN'T clear that part of the system? REBOOT!
So, I'm not sure how this is much different than before, aside from Vista will try to unload unused system dlls as well as non-system dlls?
You know, I've always wondered: why did Windows go with the "once a file is opened, hands off" model? Seems to me like the Linux way ("once loaded I don't care what's on disk") has definite advantages, one being ease of updates.
I'm tired of open source zealots who don't even understand that the software they used is not secure.
Yes, I can totally see the resemblance. On one hand, Mozilla and Firefox with a patch already available for a two-week old problem, and on the other Explorer with no patch for a 6 month old problem. It's like looking into a mirror.
I can NOT WAIT for the reaction of the commercial antivirus writers. It will be pure, juicy ENTERTAINMENT, mark my words. Here's M$ Windoze, homeland of the virii and provider of the bread for the antivirus makers for so many years to such extent that you could call them symbionts, now hitting them upside the head and telling them "fuck off, we've decided to reposses your fat cow". The fat cow being a fundamental flaw in the very product they're selling: Windows! The irony is so sweet it makes me cry. It's gonna be a Stooges-level show.
Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"
Writing malware requires fairly deep knowledge of the internals. It's not a case of having a "virus builder", based on the ubiquity of VB and Outlook.
As it happens, on Linux, deep knowledge takes hard work to gather, and I dare say it takes passion and love, yes, love, for Linux and the things it stands for. As for Mac, its users are often called fanatics.
Call me a dumb romantic if you will, but will such a user spend time learning only to turn against the things he loves?
Your reply was probably the closest to the issue. In the example you gave, you caused the issue by inviting people to write freely on the wall. Should you assume no responsability? Whatsoever? Even a bit? No matter how grave the outcome is?
The lack of authority and supervision over Wikipedia content has been raised to attention again and again. It was time that the issue of responsability is questioned as well.
Yeah, that's poorly worded -- there are very, very powerful email apps for the Linux Desktop, beyond the emacs/vi/mutt/pine crowd, there's Evolution and Thunderbird (which is my email app of choice). What they really mean is a full Outlook/Exchange groupware system; and there are projects that are working on that as well.
I agree with you about the distinction between email and groupware. But may I add that I wouldn't exactly call Evolution or Thunderbird "powerful".
If you really want something for the powerusers, I'm thinking something more along the lines of Sylpheed Claws. It has been ported to Windows, too.
Unfortunately, Firefox 1.5 is also affected by the bug. Granted, it only freezes up and has to be killed manually, so it's not as severe as remote code execution. Still...
A wiki runs somewhere. Someone comes along and enters something illegal: how to be a sniper, slander or liber about a certain person, excerpts from a book against copyright, you name it.
Someone else comes along, see this and is outraged. They want to do something. What can they do?
"Change it yourself" is like saying "if skinheads painted Nazi slogans on your house wall, just repaint it". Is that really OK and is all that should be done? Nobody should be pursued for this?
Are we saying that a wiki is somehow above the laws and should be exonerated by default of any consequences, along with its administrators, host and everybody, except perhaps that malicious contributor who can't be tracked down anyway?
Personally, I'm glad the dude raised his voice about this. The terms of use and so called "licenses" that wiki's generally use are simple jokes. You can't put up a system where anybody can enter anything they want, in high exposure, and expect to get away with it when something illegal is inserted. Why? Because a wiki is not a discussion. It's supposed to be reference.
Make that "joined the Nazi party in 2005"...
...But I thought Gentoo boxes were always compiling something...
Now that Opera is free, there's really nothing holding back people. You can't blame lack of awareness for one of them more than you can for the other. They're comparable in terms of standard support. So what's left? Why isn't Opera raising next to Firefox? Extensions (and the implied features) are really all what I can think about.
You see, I can't get FF to make it the layout I like (one of my main reasons for using Opera.) I have the address bar and the tab bar at the bottom of the screen, and no File Edit etc menus at the top. Last time I checked, it was either impossible or nearly so to get FF to do this.
Grab DOM Inspector and userChrome.css, identify those bars and menus and either apply display:hidden or align them to bottom. I don't recall the exact syntax but it's definitely possible. Search the Web or ask in the mozillazine.org forums.
"W3C Compliant" is much easier to define for a website than for a web browser.
So true. That's true actually for any standard. Furthermore, it's incredible how many small spots are left uncovered by specifics, and result in browsers implementing their own interpretation. Quite often, you've guessed it, they turn out different behavior.
Take the HTTP header that specifies the name of the file to be downloaded. The spec only says "it must be in ASCII". Fine. I feed it UTF, Explorer treats it as garbage, Mozilla et al. interprets it as UTF. That's one case. I urlencode it, Explorer decodes it and shows the UTF chars, Mozilla et al. presents it with the % codes still in place. Again, bummer.
Both cases, one of them did something wrong and the other something good. Actually, it's not even a case of absolute "good or bad", it's more about taking the liberty to expand upon the specs. What's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, right?
Not needlessly! They will manage to make themselves and the company like assholes in the process. Come on, pick on a little guy who likes FarCry enough to pick a gun from it and *gasp* give proper credit? How dumb can you be to take him down instead of enjoying the free publicity?
No. It adds extra functionality.
It's interesting to note that many such printing devices use Corel Draw. Another often encountered example are custom T-shirt printers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't hosts support implemented by each application, if it wants to do this?
Only paying customers will be allowed to bother you.
Who wants to bet on the odds that eventually a flaw in the ad system would be discovered, that allows _anyone_ to shove stuff in your face?
You can configure FVWM to not allow apps to grab focus without permission. I would suspect that other Linux WMs allow for that too.
:) and focused something else, in which case the new window does not "steal" focus.
You're on your own in windows.
Actually, from a usability point of view, this feature is very easy to implement on Windows and nearly impossible on Linux window managers.
The only ways to willingly produce new windows in MS Windows is to click a desktop icon, or something on the panel (menu, quick launch, systray). The trick is that these actions unfocus all windows. So when the new window pops up, it either:
a) Finds nothing focused, and assumes focus itself.
or
b) You've grown bored because Firefox took so long to load
The other case is new windows produced without user intervention. Those are easy to take care of both in Windows and X.
However, without the "unfocus everything" trick, in X this feature quickly becomes a major pain in the butt.
Think about it. Under Linux there are many more ways to produce new windows: keygrabbers implementing shortcuts, dockapps, wm-specific menus (like Fluxbox or RoX have), panels, and so on. There are MANY applications that could allow the use to spawn windows, and they can't just get up and tell the wm "unfocus everything before that window appears". It's crazy.
Would you like to use a key combo and your terminal to come up unfocused? Would you like to click on "options" and the prefs window to appear unfocused? Would you like to click a menu entry, a systray icon or a launcher and the window to come up in the background? Eh, not exactly not you wanted, right? Too bad, because that's what happens with this feature under X.
TweakUI says it will, but it doesn't really work. Apps continue to steal focus left and right.
Under which version of Windows? It works perfectly for me, under Win2K.
I was left with the impression that Google Base would only gather meta-information, to better describe web resources already indexed by Google.
Ah, I think they'll give it some thought if it's implemented properly. What strikes me as very nice is that some software depots out there already have such stuff in place and they don't make such a big fuss, it's just part of normal service.
Take Softpedia for instance, and check out their page for Buddy Spy. Notice the "100% adware, spyware free" banner on the left side, as well as the "Report spyware" link (on right, same level as program name).
It's probably nothing fancy, just a peer and user review system, overviewed by Softpedia admins. Just like the the rating system. Simple and not pretentious, but "It Works Now(tm)".