Not that we could import windows due to the trade sanctions anyway;)
Maybe not, but I've seen Windows blue-screening at a Cuban airport! I don't know where they would purchase it from (or even if they would purchase it), but there were many products I'd view as US products available in Cuba - for dollars;-)
Why is the "web browser" even considered a "market"? It's not like I pay any extra for IE. For that matter, most of these browsers are free, right?
From a consumer/end-user perspective, you're probably right. From a content-creator/geek perspective, the "market" is dominated by a browser that doesn't play nice with other browsers, leaving the web-content people with a choice: (1) support IE and ignore everything else, (2) ignore IE and code to standards, or (3) code to standards, then hack until it works on IE. I "choose" option 3, but I live for the day standards-compliant browsers like Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and Safari dominate the market.
So... long story short: it's only folk like me who consider there to be a web browser market... probably!
...So, I had to leave Tiscali and they wanted one months notice, which they got and after a month, my broadband stopped working. It then took many calls to Tiscali chasing them up to get BT to cease the line...
Sadly, that's my experience too (though with fairadsl, not Tiscali). I'll never go with an ISP who (a) is cheap-as-chips, and (b) isn't part of the MAC system. The whole MAC thing annoyed me; basically OFCOM (OFTEL?) don't really seem to regulate the non-MAC ISPs, which mean that the ISPs have you over a barrel. Some advice I was given at the time was: call BT and claim you want to switch broadband provider to BT, but you can't do it online "because there's a problem". Let BT sort out the problem (ie. put a rocket up the backside of your old ISP), then walk away - and to your chosen ISP. Worked for me;-)
At least thanks to some of the deregulation and anti-monopoly stuff, we have alternatives to BT, like NTL... oh wait... they're just as bad.
...and as bad as NTL (and Telewest) may be [1], they're still only available in selected areas. There's no cable down my street, nor the street I lived in before (though going back 5 years, I did have cable). And this is inner-city Glasgow, lest I be accused of living in Little-Rural-by-the-Mold. Or Stonybridge;-)
Wandering OT slightly, a friend used to work for one of the cable cos, and he said that both companies had stopped laying new conenctions, in order to concentrate on converting existing analogue lines to digital. Anyone know if that was/is still the case?
[1] BT really, really is the pits - I escaped once to CableTel (now NTL), but was forced back to BT by a house-move that brought me to a cable-free street. On NTL's worst days, they weren't half as bad as BT on a good day.
it seems like they're doing everything they're legally bound to do.
And that only, nothing more at all, which is the part that annoys the KHTML team.
Not even that: it's *other people's* attitude that the KHTML devs dislike - from TFA:
"And you know what? That's their right. They made a conscious decision about not working with KDE developers. All I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is."
Maybe ATI just have no visability of this on their radar screens....:)
Sadly, I think you're right. But that's OK... when it's time for me to replace my current (ATi-based) card, I'm not going to have any visibility of ATi!
Nothing like fanning the flames of an already hot topic between J2EE & RoR developers.
Oh, I don't know! On the pro-Java forum theserverside.com, where this article has already been covered, they're pretty open to the Ruby-on-Rails community...
(Warning: you may want to wait 361 days - crap April Fools ahead)
Not yet, and I seem to recall some part of the mythos that means there won't be, but it's been several decades since I read the books/hid behind my sofa.
Promote Rose?
Sorry, wrong species! Rose is human; Time Lords need to come from Gallifrey.
I'm using FF 1.02 on Win XPSP2. Is there some setting?
That's my settings, too, so I'm guessing there probably must be an about:config or similar setting... but... I've looked at mine and the Mozillazine KB and can't see anything obvious. We're on a pretty basic LAN here - nothing fancy like AD. Maybe that's an issue?
Nope, can't get my FF on XPSP2 to browse to \\server, \server, \\ip.address, or \ip.address.
Curious, that's pretty much my setup too (XP, SP2). I'm on FF 1.0.2, but I'd presume you are too (this being Slashdot and all...!)
Only thing I can think is there's an about:config setting that enables/disables it - I'd guess disables it because I tend not to play around with about:config too much. Anyone else have any joy with this?
Oops, one other idea - it's not a firewall issue is it? I've got pretty permissive settings for Firefox; if you only allowed FF to use ports 80,443 maybe it'd cause problems?
I would never use I.E. again if Firefox could do one thing (more), to be able to navigate to other (windows) boxes using my browser (like i can in I.E.)
by typing \\servername or \\ip address
You can! just use "\servername" instead of "\\servername". Works for IP addresses too: "\192.168.0.1" instead of "\\192.168.0.1".
"Firefox" - not just secure, it also saves you typing an extra backslash!"
and say, "I only need a secure browser," you'll likely pick a BSD
I agree... but... the banks are really saying "I only need a secure browser that'll run automatically on a very wide range of hardware". I don't run Knoppix (except as a get-out-of-jail-free card;-) but it is extremely comfortable with most hardware. Moreso than FreeSBIE, for example.
Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.
(First up, I'm not a proponent of this idea, merely someone who clarified what it is alleged Google may be doing).
I'm not sure I see why it would matter to Google what hardware you have? Google would be providing a filestore, and saving to their hardware. Any local hardware at your end would - presumably - already have drivers installed locally. Re: terminals. A typical *nix system may well need to inter-operate with any number of legacy terminals; Google's "OS" only needs to interoperate with a browser (admittedly not as straightforward as it could be, but still significantly easier).
So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.
Well personally I can't see much advantage either, but I'm guessing you are (and I certainly am) a non-typical user. And for many typical users there are plenty of other things that can occur to turn their PC into a paperweight; I'd guess that the average downtime of an internet connection is probably less (based on my experiences with employers who don't understand the concept of redundancy;-) than the downtime of a spyware-infested PC, say.
...and, if Google did pull this off (and I'm sceptical that they're even interested in trying), people could afford to invest in redundant connections to the 'net, and save by buying thin-clients.
Note that I'm merely saying this is do-able - not that I think it's worth doing, or has any value to me if it is done.
designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.
Two words for you: driver support.
OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?
I've been told by Microsoft people that they are working on a complete new CLI.
They are, it has a bizarre working-name like Monox which'll probably turn into cli.net or something equally obtuse prior to release. There's a humerous anecdote about it here.
> HM Customs & Excise can [enter your property] without notice...There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing
I believe the TV Licensing Authority falls under Customs and Excise.
I'll unreservedly second that. I'll also add that their hosting packages include Python (as well as Perl and PHP), yet are priced to compete with "basic" packages. Finally, Jason Clifford bent over backwards to help me when I was having problems migrating from my previous ISP.
all the profits will be donated to this AFFS fund.
Oops, almost forgot: UKFSN publish their accounts online. I believe "the management" were less than impressed with similar outfits promising to support Free Software, and then not being particularly transparent.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that we could import windows due to the trade sanctions anyway ;)
Maybe not, but I've seen Windows blue-screening at a Cuban airport! I don't know where they would purchase it from (or even if they would purchase it), but there were many products I'd view as US products available in Cuba - for dollars ;-)
Why is the "web browser" even considered a "market"? It's not like I pay any extra for IE. For that matter, most of these browsers are free, right?
From a consumer/end-user perspective, you're probably right. From a content-creator/geek perspective, the "market" is dominated by a browser that doesn't play nice with other browsers, leaving the web-content people with a choice: (1) support IE and ignore everything else, (2) ignore IE and code to standards, or (3) code to standards, then hack until it works on IE. I "choose" option 3, but I live for the day standards-compliant browsers like Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and Safari dominate the market.
So... long story short: it's only folk like me who consider there to be a web browser market... probably!
Sadly, that's my experience too (though with fairadsl, not Tiscali). I'll never go with an ISP who (a) is cheap-as-chips, and (b) isn't part of the MAC system. The whole MAC thing annoyed me; basically OFCOM (OFTEL?) don't really seem to regulate the non-MAC ISPs, which mean that the ISPs have you over a barrel. Some advice I was given at the time was: call BT and claim you want to switch broadband provider to BT, but you can't do it online "because there's a problem". Let BT sort out the problem (ie. put a rocket up the backside of your old ISP), then walk away - and to your chosen ISP. Worked for me ;-)
I'm now with http://www.demon.net/ who I'm very happy with...
Equally happy! Though if that ever changes I'll give Demon a try.
At least thanks to some of the deregulation and anti-monopoly stuff, we have alternatives to BT, like NTL... oh wait... they're just as bad.
...and as bad as NTL (and Telewest) may be [1], they're still only available in selected areas. There's no cable down my street, nor the street I lived in before (though going back 5 years, I did have cable). And this is inner-city Glasgow, lest I be accused of living in Little-Rural-by-the-Mold. Or Stonybridge ;-)
Wandering OT slightly, a friend used to work for one of the cable cos, and he said that both companies had stopped laying new conenctions, in order to concentrate on converting existing analogue lines to digital. Anyone know if that was/is still the case?
[1] BT really, really is the pits - I escaped once to CableTel (now NTL), but was forced back to BT by a house-move that brought me to a cable-free street. On NTL's worst days, they weren't half as bad as BT on a good day.
it seems like they're doing everything they're legally bound to do. And that only, nothing more at all, which is the part that annoys the KHTML team.
Not even that: it's *other people's* attitude that the KHTML devs dislike - from TFA:
Another poster has already brought up Tom, Dick and Harry, but we also have Joe Bloggs and John Smith (not to be confused with clothes and bitter).
I was thinking of "the man on the Clapham omnibus", but that's probably a little too archaic...!
+1 John/Jane Smith
Maybe ATI just have no visability of this on their radar screens.... :)
Sadly, I think you're right. But that's OK... when it's time for me to replace my current (ATi-based) card, I'm not going to have any visibility of ATi!
Time to go buy aol.ws
Sadly already registered. You could, however, still get aol.cx. Aside, I think .cx URLs are ideal for this type of website: bosley-medical-su.cx.
We have native penguins in Australia
The inspiration for Tux, no less: [Linus Torvalds] really was bitten by a Little Penguin on a visit to Canberra. Of course, Kiwi penguins are much better than Oz penguins ;-)
/slinks off...
Nothing like fanning the flames of an already hot topic between J2EE & RoR developers.
Oh, I don't know! On the pro-Java forum theserverside.com, where this article has already been covered, they're pretty open to the Ruby-on-Rails community...
(Warning: you may want to wait 361 days - crap April Fools ahead)
I seem to recall some part of the mythos that means there won't be [a female Doctor]
Whoops - already been one. Romana (Doctor Who's assistant way-back-when) was a female from Gallifrey, a Time Lady if you believe Wikipaedia!
Was there ever a female Doctor?
Not yet, and I seem to recall some part of the mythos that means there won't be, but it's been several decades since I read the books/hid behind my sofa.
Promote Rose?
Sorry, wrong species! Rose is human; Time Lords need to come from Gallifrey.
Doesn't work for me.
Looks like I jumped the gun - it works for "\server", but not "\server\share". Apologies for the confusion I've caused :-(
That works for connecting to a webserver, not for browsing shares on the network.
Dammit, your right. The "share" I thought I was looking at was the main server's www-root. How stupid do I feel right now?!
Apologies for any confusion - in my defence it's late on on the last day of the working-week ;-)
Sorry this isn't working for me either.
I'm using FF 1.02 on Win XPSP2. Is there some setting?
That's my settings, too, so I'm guessing there probably must be an about:config or similar setting... but... I've looked at mine and the Mozillazine KB and can't see anything obvious. We're on a pretty basic LAN here - nothing fancy like AD. Maybe that's an issue?
Nope, can't get my FF on XPSP2 to browse to \\server, \server, \\ip.address, or \ip.address.
Curious, that's pretty much my setup too (XP, SP2). I'm on FF 1.0.2, but I'd presume you are too (this being Slashdot and all...!)
Only thing I can think is there's an about:config setting that enables/disables it - I'd guess disables it because I tend not to play around with about:config too much. Anyone else have any joy with this?
Oops, one other idea - it's not a firewall issue is it? I've got pretty permissive settings for Firefox; if you only allowed FF to use ports 80,443 maybe it'd cause problems?
I would never use I.E. again if Firefox could do one thing (more), to be able to navigate to other (windows) boxes using my browser (like i can in I.E.)
by typing \\servername or \\ip address
You can! just use "\servername" instead of "\\servername". Works for IP addresses too: "\192.168.0.1" instead of "\\192.168.0.1".
"Firefox" - not just secure, it also saves you typing an extra backslash!"
> > I only need a secure browser that'll run automatically on a very wide range of hardware
> Easy: Lynx on OpenBSD!
Dude, careful! You'll get yourself arrested!
and say, "I only need a secure browser," you'll likely pick a BSD
I agree... but... the banks are really saying "I only need a secure browser that'll run automatically on a very wide range of hardware". I don't run Knoppix (except as a get-out-of-jail-free card ;-) but it is extremely comfortable with most hardware. Moreso than FreeSBIE, for example.
Google would decide on THEIR hardware, yeah, but YOUR hardware would still be a wildcard.
(First up, I'm not a proponent of this idea, merely someone who clarified what it is alleged Google may be doing).
I'm not sure I see why it would matter to Google what hardware you have? Google would be providing a filestore, and saving to their hardware. Any local hardware at your end would - presumably - already have drivers installed locally. Re: terminals. A typical *nix system may well need to inter-operate with any number of legacy terminals; Google's "OS" only needs to interoperate with a browser (admittedly not as straightforward as it could be, but still significantly easier).
So lose your internet connection and your PC becomes just a heavy paperweight? Gee, thanks but no thanks.
Well personally I can't see much advantage either, but I'm guessing you are (and I certainly am) a non-typical user. And for many typical users there are plenty of other things that can occur to turn their PC into a paperweight; I'd guess that the average downtime of an internet connection is probably less (based on my experiences with employers who don't understand the concept of redundancy ;-) than the downtime of a spyware-infested PC, say.
...and, if Google did pull this off (and I'm sceptical that they're even interested in trying), people could afford to invest in redundant connections to the 'net, and save by buying thin-clients.
Note that I'm merely saying this is do-able - not that I think it's worth doing, or has any value to me if it is done.
designing a viable alternative to the OSes that we have today.
Two words for you: driver support.
OK, I know this is all alleged, so this is all moot, but wasn't the idea behind a Google OS that it would be a hosted OS? In other words we access it remotely, and Google decide on the hardware? Why would a hosted OS need driver support (I'm assuming that Google already have drivers to support the hardware they currently have, etc)?
I've been told by Microsoft people that they are working on a complete new CLI.
They are, it has a bizarre working-name like Monox which'll probably turn into cli.net or something equally obtuse prior to release. There's a humerous anecdote about it here.
> HM Customs & Excise can [enter your property] without notice...There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing
I believe the TV Licensing Authority falls under Customs and Excise.
They're also a really good ISP
I'll unreservedly second that. I'll also add that their hosting packages include Python (as well as Perl and PHP), yet are priced to compete with "basic" packages. Finally, Jason Clifford bent over backwards to help me when I was having problems migrating from my previous ISP.
all the profits will be donated to this AFFS fund.
Oops, almost forgot: UKFSN publish their accounts online. I believe "the management" were less than impressed with similar outfits promising to support Free Software, and then not being particularly transparent.