Is that vanilla Konq or heavily-patched Konq? I've not followed Acid2 for a few weeks now, but the last time I was paying attention it looked like the KHTML-based browsers needed heavy patching, but that was back when Safari (patched) had just managed to pass Acid2.
Don't get me wrong; I want you to be right, Konqueror's a great browser. Just I can't be bothered patching it when I only use it in the evenings!
Does no one find bitching about a beta a little less than productive? Hasn't anyone got anything better to do?
3 points:
We've been anticipating this for four years;
We're spoiled by Google;
It's Friday - of course we haven't got anything better to do!
Seriously though, aye, you're right. None of this means much until the final product hits our hard-drives. And personally (and I'm *not* an IE fan - been using FF since *before* it was Firebird;-) I'm impressed that MS have placed some emphasis on security rather than listening to developers like me calling for better standards-compliance. Now the Beta's here it occurs to me - finally! - that security trumps standards, whether I like it or not.
Back on-topic... I thought about S4C (I used to live in the HTV-West area, and some people nearby could get S4C and HTV-Wales as well as Channel 4 and HTV-West) but thought it was an either/or for most people - you either got C4 or S4C. Is that the case? I'm on Sky (Digital, non-terrestrial for non-UK readers), so I get both anyway, but I'd be interested to know how analogue and freeview folks fare.
For the benefit of non-UK folk, S4C is the Welsh 4th channel, and HTV-Wales is the 3rd channel - the equivalent of HTV-West in the West of England or Carlton/LWT in the London area, etc.
considering that the UK only has FIVE channels, i think a 60GB IPOD would be enough to record for a month.
Five TERRESTRIAL channels, and a whole bunch more on Digital (Freeview). Plus Cable and Sky, but I'm not counting those since they're not accessible to everyone.
...and it's four channels; Channel 5 disnae count;-)
You're failing to see the Linspire argument behind "running as root, or not, is irrelevant"
That's also quite true. I don't accept Michael Robertson's argument. His thesis may be true for a typical home PC with a single, unsophisticated user, but it's not pertinent in my case. MY data is encrypted, if it needs to remain private, and I encourage my GF to do the same. Root access is what matters to me; if *I* lose my girlfriend's data I'm stuffed.
So, yes, I am failing to see the Linspire argument. Not that I reject the thesis out of hand, just that I don't feel it's apt for much beyond Linspire (and Linspire's target users).
Malcious webpages can just hook into greasemonkey functionality, and use it to read local content, regardless of userscript.
Shit, I've just re-read - and re-read again - the original thread whilst praying you're wrong. I couldn't find anything to suggest you are. No wonder Mark Pilgrim was so emphatic about disabling GM!
It is a problem with Firefox allowing GM to have such privileges.
That's a fair point: I was primarily thinking of the relationship between GM and its scripts, rather than GM and its host.
As regards root access, I'm not convinced that's the issue: obviously if FF and GM are installed with root privileges it's a serious problem, but hardly FF/GMs fault. On my home box I didn't need to su to install GM or Firefox, for example. I'll need to check whether GM really can read *all* files on my box before I pontificate further, but I'd suspect that for most people GM could only access files FF could access, which would be the user's own files. True, hardly desirable, but not the sky falling this thread makes out;-)
The firefox guys should have realized that extensions are a HUGE security threat
The Firefox guys did; fortunately this has very little to do with FF extensions! It's an issue with GreaseMonkey User Scripts, which are javascript files run by the Greasemonkey extension. Extensions are OK; certain Greasemonkey user scripts *may* not be.
For anyone who's never heard of GreaseMonkey - DON'T PANIC! It doesn't affect you: nothing to see here, move along, please.
For folk who use GreaseMonkey, continue to exercise caution when you install user scripts (for non-GM people, user scripts are installed by visiting a javascript on the web, giving you the opportunity to read it) - READ THOSE SCRIPTS FIRST, PEOPLE!
Apologies for the shouting, but this stuff's important. Just not that important.
Measuring open source projects based on their ranking on Sourceforge only makes sense if those projects host their development files and release files through Sourceforge! Drupal doesn't.
You have no idea (alright, perhaps you do) how stupid I feel right now! It's been a while since I looked at Drupal; is that an excuse?!
Well, to counter you, the people donating to Drupal obviously aren't that bright to begin with, since they're using a CMS. Can you trust these peoples' judgement?
Sorry, I've missed something here. Use of CMS == Not that bright? Wow. I never realised that. I've made a CMS system for my employer's customers - they range from academia to high-street retail. And here was me thinking they were bright! Thanks for tipping me off; next time I meet with a client I'll know - secretly, since they use a CMS, they're stoopid.
So, is the statement: "Drupal is the leading open-source (written in PHP) content management system and is used to power tens of thousands of websites, blogs, community sites, etc." really accurate?
I'd say so; I looked into open-source CMS solutions for work a while back, and Drupal was one name that kept cropping up. I was taken a bit aback by your comment about sourceforge, and repeated your search - I couldn't see Drupal in the top 20! Same on freshmeat, though I guess they'd overlap. I suppose Drupal may not be active on sourceforge's terms, ie. regularly updated through sourceforge. It certainly is an active project, though.
Eh? I thought Glasgow was all tenements, sectarian violence and bucky. Must be a different Glasgow.
That's a lie, ya bass, and ah'll chib ya if ye repeat it!
Seriously, Glasgow's a diverse city. Some of the tenements are actually nice (mine is!); when they were built (in the late 1800s) the "Corporation of Glasgow" spent a lot of money on them - I've seen friend's flats (rented) with marble (or at least good quality fake marble) fireplaces, etc. The sectarian part is all true - as it is throughout much of the West of Scotland, but the flipside is Glaswegians aren't particularly racist (except towards the English). And sectarian bigotry is limited to a few nutters - both the major football clubs and both the major churches have worked wonders in sidelining sectarianism.
Can't argue with the buckie, though. I went to work in Coatbridge once, early in the morning - 7:30 maybe - and saw neds with buckie bottles. Where do you buy wine at that hour? I can't believe it was left over from the previous night; that's not what happens with neds and buckie.
You can't trust a poll made by someone who's biased.
You can't trust polls anyway - a third of participants tell porkies. (Mind you, this was reported in El Reg right next to an article saying that 1/3 of medical studies were bogus, and 1/3 of Americans believe in Ghosts - maybe this article is the 1 in 3 that's accuracy-challenged...)
I'm going to start non-believing 1 thing in every 3 I'm told. That'll fix it!
A bunch of different coloured people speaking a foreign tongue wander all over your home town with some kind of weird sensing equipment that you've never seen before in your life.
If you can name one town in the USA where behaviour like that wouldn't result in phone calls to (and questions from) the local authorities, I'll agree that the GP was out of line.
I was trying to share my wifi connection with a neighbour at about the extent of my access point's range. I was wandering down the street with a wifi-enabled laptop, when another neighbour - very irate - came out to ask what the hell I thought I was doing, logging details of his car?
This was in Glasgow, Scotland - one place where people are *not* that likely to call the cops, but rather sort the problem themselves (or get their mates to <ahem> sort it). Anywhere else in the UK, I'd expect people to call the police. Outside the 1st world, I'd expect people to call the army. People fear the worst when they see strange stuff - it's part of our basic fight-or-flight programming, even in leafy suburban Glasgow.
Why not let the UN govern your nuclear arsenal too?
You jest, I realise that, but I've thought about (the UK) unilaterally disarming and the only way I can see it happening is by handing control of the UK's nuclear arsenal to the UN: if we start dismantling nukes we're (allegedly) open to attack (and we please the hippies too much, which is always bad;-), and if we keep stockpiling them we're hypocrites when we tell other nations that they're not allowed nuclear weapons of their own.
Also, I'd trust the UN Security Council to veto any attempt to use the UK's nukes. I don't trust Mr. Blair to be so wise.
I vote for handing the root servers over to the UN.
Ask the starving people in Africa how well the UN has managed things. Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them from genocide. But given that the UN lacks any real enforcement powers, I for one am not too worried about them trying to tax the internet.
My dad worked in Africa "de-mining". Why not ask Africans whether they'd prefer life without the UN. My experience was many Africans (and this wasn't your Cairo/Jo'burg Africans, this was twenty-years-of-post-colonial-conflict-sponsored-b y Washington-Moscow-London-Paris-Havana-Beijing Africa, by the way) respected the limited work the UN was able to do in extremely difficult circumstances.
The UN may be shite, but it's better than nothing. And it's a lot better than the League of Nations, which in turn was a lot better than... bugger all international cooperation.
And regarding Darfur, I've been following this since long before it hit the mainstream media. The UN's been there a long time, dealing with entrenched resistence from the (sovereign) government of Sudan, and from neighbouring states. It's not always possible - or even desirable - to just move into and occupy a country to effect change.
...Am I legally allowed to print it? If I'm allowed to distribute the free e-book (and I don't know if I am), couldn't I print many of them, and give them to people at Barnes & Noble? There are some borderlines there, and I'm quite interested in figuring it all out.
I figured this was a simple case of RTFA... until I read Cory's license! The license is a new CC license, Developing Nations 2.0. IF you live in a developing nation (using a UN definition) you can:
to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to make derivative works
...provided you give an attribution to Cory. No mention of the North, so I guess your question still stands. Sorry! Anyway, interesting license. I'm still not sure how sensible I think it is; I remember big problems with the BSD license (IIRC) in the post-Apartheid world: there were licenses prohibiting use in South Africa, which were clearly unnecessarily restrictive after the demise of apartheid. I don't know if a similar situation could occur with this license; what happens, for example, to a distributor in $THIRD_WORLD_COUNTRY when said country gets upgraded to developed world status? Must they burn the copies they've produced?
The sample even had checkboxes made to look like option buttons (round).
Aye, I spent a few seconds clicking various "radio buttons" and wondering why they weren't working properly before I realised they were 'sposed to be checkboxes. I don't know if it's because I'm used to the standard (I'm a web developer) or because I'm stupid... or both. Somehow I feel that making users feel stupid is the worst sin of all...
My problem with the previous machine that did have a floppy drive, was I could never find any disks that worked.
Ah, yes, well, there is that. I've probably been using the same Windows 98 (first edition) boot disk for 5 years straight now... I certainly can't remember the last time I actually bought floppies.
...and decided to forget the floppy drive. I haven't regretted the decision once.
Dude, I hate to be the slashdot spelling nazi, but you mispelled the word "yet".
HTH!
Seriously, I built myself a new PC last year and although I put a floppy drive in, I've not ever needed it. But it's really nice to know that it's there for emergencies. Now the standard response at this point is: but there're perfectly good alternatives - USB drives, DVD-ROMs, etc. All true, but it's a lot quicker to make a bootable floppy in an emergency.
I'll believe it when my open source web browser tells me I have security updates. I just used Firefox's check for updates feature and tells me there are none.
Aye, I just got that as well. I'm thinking in my case it's my locale: en-gb - there isn't a "British English" version yet. Could it be a locale issue with you, too?
(For the curious, I'm holding off on the upgrade, partly because I want to support localisation efforts, and partly because I'm a big feartie;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Not-yet-released-but-in-cvs Konqueror passes Acid2 according to this article.
Whoot! :-)
Heck, it was even reported on /.!
Ah, but not duped. I don't believe anything until I've read it on SLashdot at least twice ;-)
Yes, there is. Konqueror
Is that vanilla Konq or heavily-patched Konq? I've not followed Acid2 for a few weeks now, but the last time I was paying attention it looked like the KHTML-based browsers needed heavy patching, but that was back when Safari (patched) had just managed to pass Acid2.
Don't get me wrong; I want you to be right, Konqueror's a great browser. Just I can't be bothered patching it when I only use it in the evenings!
/me lazy
Does no one find bitching about a beta a little less than productive? Hasn't anyone got anything better to do?
3 points:
Seriously though, aye, you're right. None of this means much until the final product hits our hard-drives. And personally (and I'm *not* an IE fan - been using FF since *before* it was Firebird ;-) I'm impressed that MS have placed some emphasis on security rather than listening to developers like me calling for better standards-compliance. Now the Beta's here it occurs to me - finally! - that security trumps standards, whether I like it or not.
What about S4C?
Alan Cox, is that you?!
Back on-topic... I thought about S4C (I used to live in the HTV-West area, and some people nearby could get S4C and HTV-Wales as well as Channel 4 and HTV-West) but thought it was an either/or for most people - you either got C4 or S4C. Is that the case? I'm on Sky (Digital, non-terrestrial for non-UK readers), so I get both anyway, but I'd be interested to know how analogue and freeview folks fare.
For the benefit of non-UK folk, S4C is the Welsh 4th channel, and HTV-Wales is the 3rd channel - the equivalent of HTV-West in the West of England or Carlton/LWT in the London area, etc.
Even that's not right really. Five ANALOGUE terrestrial channels, DIGITAL terrestrial has dozens.
Aye, that's it. Temporary analogue/digital/terrestrial confusion caused by five days at music festival without the colour teevee... oops!
considering that the UK only has FIVE channels, i think a 60GB IPOD would be enough to record for a month.
Five TERRESTRIAL channels, and a whole bunch more on Digital (Freeview). Plus Cable and Sky, but I'm not counting those since they're not accessible to everyone.
...and it's four channels; Channel 5 disnae count ;-)
You're failing to see the Linspire argument behind "running as root, or not, is irrelevant"
That's also quite true. I don't accept Michael Robertson's argument. His thesis may be true for a typical home PC with a single, unsophisticated user, but it's not pertinent in my case. MY data is encrypted, if it needs to remain private, and I encourage my GF to do the same. Root access is what matters to me; if *I* lose my girlfriend's data I'm stuffed.
So, yes, I am failing to see the Linspire argument. Not that I reject the thesis out of hand, just that I don't feel it's apt for much beyond Linspire (and Linspire's target users).
Malcious webpages can just hook into greasemonkey functionality, and use it to read local content, regardless of userscript.
Shit, I've just re-read - and re-read again - the original thread whilst praying you're wrong. I couldn't find anything to suggest you are. No wonder Mark Pilgrim was so emphatic about disabling GM!
It is a problem with Firefox allowing GM to have such privileges.
That's a fair point: I was primarily thinking of the relationship between GM and its scripts, rather than GM and its host.
As regards root access, I'm not convinced that's the issue: obviously if FF and GM are installed with root privileges it's a serious problem, but hardly FF/GMs fault. On my home box I didn't need to su to install GM or Firefox, for example. I'll need to check whether GM really can read *all* files on my box before I pontificate further, but I'd suspect that for most people GM could only access files FF could access, which would be the user's own files. True, hardly desirable, but not the sky falling this thread makes out ;-)
The firefox guys should have realized that extensions are a HUGE security threat
The Firefox guys did; fortunately this has very little to do with FF extensions! It's an issue with GreaseMonkey User Scripts, which are javascript files run by the Greasemonkey extension. Extensions are OK; certain Greasemonkey user scripts *may* not be.
For anyone who's never heard of GreaseMonkey - DON'T PANIC! It doesn't affect you: nothing to see here, move along, please.
For folk who use GreaseMonkey, continue to exercise caution when you install user scripts (for non-GM people, user scripts are installed by visiting a javascript on the web, giving you the opportunity to read it) - READ THOSE SCRIPTS FIRST, PEOPLE!
Apologies for the shouting, but this stuff's important. Just not that important.
Measuring open source projects based on their ranking on Sourceforge only makes sense if those projects host their development files and release files through Sourceforge! Drupal doesn't.
You have no idea (alright, perhaps you do) how stupid I feel right now! It's been a while since I looked at Drupal; is that an excuse?!
Well, to counter you, the people donating to Drupal obviously aren't that bright to begin with, since they're using a CMS. Can you trust these peoples' judgement?
Sorry, I've missed something here. Use of CMS == Not that bright? Wow. I never realised that. I've made a CMS system for my employer's customers - they range from academia to high-street retail. And here was me thinking they were bright! Thanks for tipping me off; next time I meet with a client I'll know - secretly, since they use a CMS, they're stoopid.
/sarcasm
So, is the statement: "Drupal is the leading open-source (written in PHP) content management system and is used to power tens of thousands of websites, blogs, community sites, etc." really accurate?
I'd say so; I looked into open-source CMS solutions for work a while back, and Drupal was one name that kept cropping up. I was taken a bit aback by your comment about sourceforge, and repeated your search - I couldn't see Drupal in the top 20! Same on freshmeat, though I guess they'd overlap. I suppose Drupal may not be active on sourceforge's terms, ie. regularly updated through sourceforge. It certainly is an active project, though.
> > Drupal is great because you can find everything there and for very low prices
> ... But this comment is not "interesting," it's "nonsensical" (which I also happen to find "funny").
Dude! It makes ferpect [sic] sense! Providing you pronounce "Drupal" as "Frugal"!
...though I love the idea that Google may need community help with funding. You know, what with being so cash-starved and all. ;-)
Eh? I thought Glasgow was all tenements, sectarian violence and bucky. Must be a different Glasgow.
That's a lie, ya bass, and ah'll chib ya if ye repeat it!
Seriously, Glasgow's a diverse city. Some of the tenements are actually nice (mine is!); when they were built (in the late 1800s) the "Corporation of Glasgow" spent a lot of money on them - I've seen friend's flats (rented) with marble (or at least good quality fake marble) fireplaces, etc. The sectarian part is all true - as it is throughout much of the West of Scotland, but the flipside is Glaswegians aren't particularly racist (except towards the English). And sectarian bigotry is limited to a few nutters - both the major football clubs and both the major churches have worked wonders in sidelining sectarianism.
Can't argue with the buckie, though. I went to work in Coatbridge once, early in the morning - 7:30 maybe - and saw neds with buckie bottles. Where do you buy wine at that hour? I can't believe it was left over from the previous night; that's not what happens with neds and buckie.
You can't trust a poll made by someone who's biased.
You can't trust polls anyway - a third of participants tell porkies. (Mind you, this was reported in El Reg right next to an article saying that 1/3 of medical studies were bogus, and 1/3 of Americans believe in Ghosts - maybe this article is the 1 in 3 that's accuracy-challenged...)
I'm going to start non-believing 1 thing in every 3 I'm told. That'll fix it!
A bunch of different coloured people speaking a foreign tongue wander all over your home town with some kind of weird sensing equipment that you've never seen before in your life.
If you can name one town in the USA where behaviour like that wouldn't result in phone calls to (and questions from) the local authorities, I'll agree that the GP was out of line.
I was trying to share my wifi connection with a neighbour at about the extent of my access point's range. I was wandering down the street with a wifi-enabled laptop, when another neighbour - very irate - came out to ask what the hell I thought I was doing, logging details of his car?
This was in Glasgow, Scotland - one place where people are *not* that likely to call the cops, but rather sort the problem themselves (or get their mates to <ahem> sort it). Anywhere else in the UK, I'd expect people to call the police. Outside the 1st world, I'd expect people to call the army. People fear the worst when they see strange stuff - it's part of our basic fight-or-flight programming, even in leafy suburban Glasgow.
Why not let the UN govern your nuclear arsenal too?
You jest, I realise that, but I've thought about (the UK) unilaterally disarming and the only way I can see it happening is by handing control of the UK's nuclear arsenal to the UN: if we start dismantling nukes we're (allegedly) open to attack (and we please the hippies too much, which is always bad ;-), and if we keep stockpiling them we're hypocrites when we tell other nations that they're not allowed nuclear weapons of their own.
Also, I'd trust the UN Security Council to veto any attempt to use the UK's nukes. I don't trust Mr. Blair to be so wise.
I vote for handing the root servers over to the UN.
Ask the starving people in Africa how well the UN has managed things. Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them from genocide. But given that the UN lacks any real enforcement powers, I for one am not too worried about them trying to tax the internet.
My dad worked in Africa "de-mining". Why not ask Africans whether they'd prefer life without the UN. My experience was many Africans (and this wasn't your Cairo/Jo'burg Africans, this was twenty-years-of-post-colonial-conflict-sponsored-b y Washington-Moscow-London-Paris-Havana-Beijing Africa, by the way) respected the limited work the UN was able to do in extremely difficult circumstances.
The UN may be shite, but it's better than nothing. And it's a lot better than the League of Nations, which in turn was a lot better than... bugger all international cooperation.
And regarding Darfur, I've been following this since long before it hit the mainstream media. The UN's been there a long time, dealing with entrenched resistence from the (sovereign) government of Sudan, and from neighbouring states. It's not always possible - or even desirable - to just move into and occupy a country to effect change.
I figured this was a simple case of RTFA... until I read Cory's license! The license is a new CC license, Developing Nations 2.0. IF you live in a developing nation (using a UN definition) you can:
The sample even had checkboxes made to look like option buttons (round).
Aye, I spent a few seconds clicking various "radio buttons" and wondering why they weren't working properly before I realised they were 'sposed to be checkboxes. I don't know if it's because I'm used to the standard (I'm a web developer) or because I'm stupid... or both. Somehow I feel that making users feel stupid is the worst sin of all...
I anxiously await the first person to point out a spelling or usage error in my post--it's traditional.
Dude! You misspelt "fuc... oh, forget it.
;-)
My problem with the previous machine that did have a floppy drive, was I could never find any disks that worked.
Ah, yes, well, there is that. I've probably been using the same Windows 98 (first edition) boot disk for 5 years straight now... I certainly can't remember the last time I actually bought floppies.
/me watches argument fly out window... ;-)
Dude, I hate to be the slashdot spelling nazi, but you mispelled the word "yet".
HTH!
Seriously, I built myself a new PC last year and although I put a floppy drive in, I've not ever needed it. But it's really nice to know that it's there for emergencies. Now the standard response at this point is: but there're perfectly good alternatives - USB drives, DVD-ROMs, etc. All true, but it's a lot quicker to make a bootable floppy in an emergency.
I'll believe it when my open source web browser tells me I have security updates. I just used Firefox's check for updates feature and tells me there are none.
Aye, I just got that as well. I'm thinking in my case it's my locale: en-gb - there isn't a "British English" version yet. Could it be a locale issue with you, too?
(For the curious, I'm holding off on the upgrade, partly because I want to support localisation efforts, and partly because I'm a big feartie ;-)