I say: you're running Vista... I can't help you. That is a perfectly fine answer
I actually like to help my friends. But that's me.
and if it's a coworker, you'll have to contact IT and say that they deploy a telnet client (whichever one you like, if you really hate PuTTY). It's a tool for your work, it needs to be available.
I tend to be IT in most companies. Things get complicated in IT when you're working with partners.
I understood that completely fine. I just gave you a solution.... You might not like the solution, but a solution is better than "Fuck, I can't do it. Poor me..."
Still can't do it. Vista doesn't come with telnet. You can't just goto a vista machine and do what I mentioned earlier - that is still one of my gripes on Vista.
Sure, I can manually go about installing telnet manually, but as I said before. It's annoying. It's even more annoying when you need to work out a issue that someone is having who is from a partner company who has locked down their windows installation, preventing you from running applications that didn't come with the system or was not installed by them.
A GUI? Are you serious? I must have been dreaming when I typed "putty telnet://bbs.quickfox.net" or even "putty -telnet bbs.quickfox.net".
In order for that to work, PuTTY needs to be in the PATH. If you're going to need access to telnet and download putty. Why even bother jumping to the command line, CD'ing or setting the PATH to the directory where to saved PuTTY and type that command? That's even more work than the GUI then.
I do have PuTTY "Installed", which means, that I have it in my Program Files directory and my PATH includes its location. Of course, installing was as easy as unzipping it where I wanted it (and setting said path).
You're miss understanding. I have no problem on my own machine, I am talking about when using other computers, it is still a lot more work than just typing 'telnet bbs.quickfox.net' in a cmd window.
I have it on my USB key too... Yes, I understand it's annoying to download a 444KByte program... It takes soooooooo long.
No, it's just annoying in general. When I need to quickly debug something for a coworker, friend, whatever. When I just want to use telnet generally. I have to take more annoying additional steps for something that was considered standard in every modern operating system until now.
I think they removed it because they considered it a "security hazard". My guess is as good as yours... I do have to admit, that I occasionally use telnet to test if a certain port reacts, but PuTTY can also do it. I just need to wrap my mind in actually using it on the command line.
A lot of this came up in the silverlight discussion a couple of days ago, but until html/javascript or some new standard provides for: * Video Playback * Audio Playback
There is a standard for playing these via the object tag. Unfortunately there is no standard application type or mime-type yet for audio/video capture. I'm also not aware of bitmap manipulation.
That said, there is non-standard stuff like Flash, Java and so on obviously.
I do flash/flex dev, as well as RoR. A site I did that wouldn't be doable in AJAX/HTML currently: http://www.pinktogether.com/
So you know, I have difficulty reading the words in that flash on the pink buttons -- I use a LCD monitor at 1024x768. Also, I have a suggestion to make the ribbon thing scrollable by the mouse scroll wheel.
Since you probably have it installed already, why not use that?
Honestly, it isn't installed already. I just want to be able to goto any machine and open a telnet prompt. Now I need to download a program first before I run it and open it. Also putty is a little annoying - before when all I had to do was run, say telnet://bbs.quickfox.net or telnet bbs.quickfox.net, now I have to mess with a GUI to do it. It's annoying.
It's better than the command line telnet that came with XP anyway.
DX10 won't work on XP because it relies on Vista's new display driver model.
DX10 is a API. They can implement the API on top of the existing model to work on DX9 hardware and perhaps add a few optimizations with DX10 hardware where possible. It can software emulation where necessary of certain features that are exclusive to Vista also. So... Compatibility is possible and in my opinion, if Microsoft did this then game developers wouldn't worry about excluding a market. Also, by not having all the DX10 features properly hardware accelerated in XP, it would make for incentive of gamers to upgrade to get 'faster' gaming.
I would rather have an OS that is improved at the expense of back compatibility than one that is overly constrained by the limitations of its predecessors.
I would like a OS that people depend so much on to receive a little more love.
Extract the current key for your Vista OS, download and burn yourself a Vista ISO (since I doubt HP actually provides you with media for the OS you just purchased), flatten that machine and install just Vista. You'll be shocked at the difference.
And people complain that Linux is difficult to install...
Raise your hand if you remember Slashdot falling over itself to talk about how crappy XP was with its activation, and Fisher Price UI, or how it required a shockingly large amount of ram to run well (256MB). Or when Windows 2000 was released, and everybody was obsessed with the supposed 24,000 bugs (from a leaked memo), and that it was the worst Microsoft OS ever.
I remember this and more. I remember Windows XP being so popular, that surpassed OS X usage before it was even officially released (pirate copies) on website statistics (I host quite a few sites). Windows Vista had a free RC program, pirated copies floating around just like XP. The numbers didn't even come close, even after a few months of being released.
I bought a laptop a few months ago with Vista on it. I can't help but wonder if the majority of people bitching about Vista have even used it.
If you want criticism from someone who uses Vista:
My major gripes are that they removed the color scheming from Windows classic, requiring I edit the registry manually to set the colors I prefer on classical windows theming (I don't like the new interface anymore than the 'fisherprice' one).
File copying. I often notice it hangs at 'calculating'... Even on tiny files. It isn't replicatable all the time, and it happens even with the patch Microsoft provided to fix it. It seems most common when you're copying things to different drives and/or fileshares - but it also happens when copying to the same drive for me.
UAC - Seriously, clicking details and getting a GUID for an action... Microsoft could of made it look up the GUID and see what exactly it was executing or what action being done and displayed that instead of a GUID. I insert a CD, I get a prompt about a application trying to run (like setup.exe from the CD). There is no path information, so I can't tell if it is actually from the CD or not. They could at least tell me which drive it's from or what event triggered it. The excessive prompts. Instead of creating like 5 prompts in a row (yes, this has happened to me) to do one action, how about summarizing all the actions into one dialog.
Uninstaller control panel item - A lot of uninstallers that were visible in the same software that were installed under XP. Don't appear in the uninstaller list in Vista, when installed under Vista - What the hell?
The idea that Vista constantly validates itself and then goes into a restricted mode of operation and/or prevents you from downloading upgrades, various updates because Microsoft thinks you have a bad copy. I have had false positives under Windows XP. I don't doubt for a minute that there are not false positives under Vista -- With this kind of functionality I am afraid to get locked out of my system.
I am disappointed that Microsoft removed the win16 support from Vista (which really just ran in a virtual machine called ntvdm), but it's not a loss to me since I can still run them under Wine with Vista (and some certain XP applications that don't work under Vista).
I find that Vista occasionally thrashes the disk heavily without any real indication why. This often tends to happen to me in the middle of games or trying to watch a movie -- Sadly this causes the performance of either to start being crappy (loss in framerate, movie skips). Additionally, Vista was supposed to have various fixes with disk I/O effecting system performance, but from what I have seen. It isn't working.
I have noticed that my games (I am not a hardcore gamer - but it annoys me all the same), do not perform better under Vista, in fact I dare say that they seem more sluggish. Such as Second life, source games, Call of Duty 4 etc. I don't know what the issue is caused by, but in comparison, Windows XP on the same hardware does better.
I am really mad they removed telnet from the default install. Gigabytes of other crap I will/never/ use, but they take the time and effort to remove the tiny
Probably RedHat - it's IMO about as proprietary as the rest of the commercial Unices mentioned - if not more, if you consider Solaris vs. OpenSolaris.
There are far more commercial Linux distributions than Redhat which offer enterprise support options. Such as:
Ubuntu
Mandriva
Novell SuSE Linux
Xandros
etc.
I don't really see how Redhat is more proprietary or even equal to Sun. What products and/or software do they have which is not Opensource?
I'm aware Sun has plenty, and proprietary hardware too.
It has some nice kicks, but trying to do anything with it that doesn't come out-of-the-box is a nightmare. Just try maintaining a Typo3 installation on it...
I honestly don't like Redhat for anything. I prefer SuSE Linux in enterprise environments for most things.
But for the NYSE-stuff (which is probably mostly J2SE/J2EE stuff), it should be good.
Considering the fact a lot of the NYSE stuff was written before Java even existed, I doubt that.
I can't speak for other package managers but the gentoo package manager(emerge) runs the installer in a sandbox, it then copies the relevent files to the system while checking to see if they conflict with the files of any other package. An rm -rf in an install script will not do anything to the system.
When compiling from the source with apt, apt-build will sandbox the 'installer' in question and generate a.deb package from that sandboxed environment. Then offer to install the.deb package it just created. Any conflicts will be indicated and handled as apt-get normally would.
Since they're considered a monopoly, I don't think it would be too off-base to require them to provide at least two alternative browsers with the Windows install disk.
Do you remember when Microsoft was shipping Sun Java on the Windows XP CD?
They had purposely put a version that was out of date.
Nor does interpreting HTML in a slightly different way.
Indeed. But interpreting HTML the way IE does is vastly different.
Since MS has over 80% of the market share, one could easily say they are the de-facto standard and if Opera doesn't like it
Web standards are not defined by Microsoft.
they can interpret pages how MS does.
Not only does IE not interpret things to what is considered standards, but it also uses Microsoft's own incompatible technologies that prevent other browsers and operating systems from adopting them. Additionally, with Microsoft being the 'standard' in this case, this makes it impossible for the industry to grow without Microsoft creating more 'standards'.
Additionally, the ultimate fault is with web developers - if they cared about Opera's users, they'd test their pages on it. They don't, and that tells you all you need to know.
It isn't about caring. Opera will render standard compliant pages well, period. IE does not work with standard compliant pages - hell, it can't even do HTMLv2 properly. When you have to support a browser that is used by the majority in such a way that it makes it very difficult to support browsers which are standards compliant, the web developer can be forced due to other constraints (time, money, more effort) to just not support them. If a web developer could write for a standard and have browsers just work with them (it's rare that you will find standards compliant pages that do not work between firefox, safari, opera etc), it would be fine.
That's not happening here. Equating the use of proprietary file formats and non-comformity to "standards" that some group has adopted with anticompetitive practices is ludicrous.
Considering the fact a web browser is supposed to browse the web, the web having a standard that programs are supposed to follow to make it work. Microsoft taking this standard, breaking it and then adding their own proprietary additions, gaining control of the majority of the web 'market', leaving little choice to web developers when they develop new web sites.
I don't know if you recall the purpose of the web. But it's main goal and design is meant be a cross-platform, cross-architecture design for handling content on the "world wide web" - granting access to all who adhere to the recommendations/standards from the formation of standard organizations such as the w3c, ISO/IEEE and others. Microsoft has broken the design of the web in ways that I consider is anti-competitive.
Embrace, break standards (so other software does not work well with Microsoft's implementation) and extend with proprietary lock-ins.
1. Web Standards are a moving target, what may be compliant in 2007 will not be complaint 3 years from now.
Yes it is. You either support HTML4.1 correctly or you don't. HTML4.1 has not changed since it came out. The same is about the other published specs.
The only thing that happens over time is that there are new standards to support. But just because you don't support the new standards doesn't mean you aren't compliant to supporting the standards you have currently.
A company that moves as slow as Microsoft shouldn't be penalized for not incorporating them the instant they develop.
HTML4.1 came out in 1999. It is almost 2008, That means almost nine years have passed and Microsoft still hasn't got proper HTML4.1 support, despite having a very bad implementation of it.
How much time do we need to give them?
When you are 85% of the market share and you dont get a voice in the development of the standards, its not your interest to follow them in the first place.
A lot of things Microsoft has done and suggested became standards... This is not the case.
but I think this standards thing is just a way for Opera to use the courts to leverage Market Share in its favor.
True, but their reasoning for being unable to complete is honest. I believe if Microsoft were forced to make even their current implementations of specs compliant, it would allow browsers to actually, compete.
"If you buy music to play it on your iPod (if you even had one, that is), you won't be able to play them anywhere else on that format, right ?"
Read the quotation I did. That isn't my words, I just switched Microsoft and Zune with Apple and iPod.
I also explained after that the DRM is not compatible elsewhere.
Those users who are incapable of finding and starting the iTunes Help, selecting the third entry down ("Create playlists and burn CDs"), and following a set of simple step-by-step instructions may well end up buying content several times.
Whoops, my bad. I forgot about the CD burning in both applications. Not that it matters much since ripping the CD will have the side effect of having annoying artifacts after recompression if you want to move the data to a untainted 'lossy' formats.
You've not tried KDE4 yet, obviously. It seems like the ability to configure the panel is a feature that has not yet made it into the so called "release candidate."
Also, where in my previous post did it say I was talking about KDE4 specifically? I was talking about in general, Linux DEs (the stable releases, I might add) since the previous poster was pointing out what I considered, a non-existent issue (since it's so easy to get around) related to Linux DEs.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, it extracts the .flv video from there. mplayer, xine, vlc can play the format - you can recompress the content if you like.. I guess..
Sure, I can manually go about installing telnet manually, but as I said before. It's annoying. It's even more annoying when you need to work out a issue that someone is having who is from a partner company who has locked down their windows installation, preventing you from running applications that didn't come with the system or was not installed by them.
That said, there is non-standard stuff like Flash, Java and so on obviously.So you know, I have difficulty reading the words in that flash on the pink buttons -- I use a LCD monitor at 1024x768. Also, I have a suggestion to make the ribbon thing scrollable by the mouse scroll wheel.
A similar event occurred to me, except in my case. The registar messed up. I had paid all my fees etc.
This ended up killing part of the community I was running, we still haven't found everyone who used to use it.
I considered buying the domain back, but the moment I attempted to, they increased the price to 1000USD.
I remember this and more. I remember Windows XP being so popular, that surpassed OS X usage before it was even officially released (pirate copies) on website statistics (I host quite a few sites). Windows Vista had a free RC program, pirated copies floating around just like XP. The numbers didn't even come close, even after a few months of being released.
If you want criticism from someone who uses Vista:
/never/ use, but they take the time and effort to remove the tiny
My major gripes are that they removed the color scheming from Windows classic, requiring I edit the registry manually to set the colors I prefer on classical windows theming (I don't like the new interface anymore than the 'fisherprice' one).
File copying. I often notice it hangs at 'calculating'... Even on tiny files. It isn't replicatable all the time, and it happens even with the patch Microsoft provided to fix it. It seems most common when you're copying things to different drives and/or fileshares - but it also happens when copying to the same drive for me.
UAC - Seriously, clicking details and getting a GUID for an action... Microsoft could of made it look up the GUID and see what exactly it was executing or what action being done and displayed that instead of a GUID. I insert a CD, I get a prompt about a application trying to run (like setup.exe from the CD). There is no path information, so I can't tell if it is actually from the CD or not. They could at least tell me which drive it's from or what event triggered it. The excessive prompts. Instead of creating like 5 prompts in a row (yes, this has happened to me) to do one action, how about summarizing all the actions into one dialog.
Uninstaller control panel item - A lot of uninstallers that were visible in the same software that were installed under XP. Don't appear in the uninstaller list in Vista, when installed under Vista - What the hell?
The idea that Vista constantly validates itself and then goes into a restricted mode of operation and/or prevents you from downloading upgrades, various updates because Microsoft thinks you have a bad copy. I have had false positives under Windows XP. I don't doubt for a minute that there are not false positives under Vista -- With this kind of functionality I am afraid to get locked out of my system.
I am disappointed that Microsoft removed the win16 support from Vista (which really just ran in a virtual machine called ntvdm), but it's not a loss to me since I can still run them under Wine with Vista (and some certain XP applications that don't work under Vista).
I find that Vista occasionally thrashes the disk heavily without any real indication why. This often tends to happen to me in the middle of games or trying to watch a movie -- Sadly this causes the performance of either to start being crappy (loss in framerate, movie skips). Additionally, Vista was supposed to have various fixes with disk I/O effecting system performance, but from what I have seen. It isn't working.
I have noticed that my games (I am not a hardcore gamer - but it annoys me all the same), do not perform better under Vista, in fact I dare say that they seem more sluggish. Such as Second life, source games, Call of Duty 4 etc. I don't know what the issue is caused by, but in comparison, Windows XP on the same hardware does better.
I am really mad they removed telnet from the default install. Gigabytes of other crap I will
- Ubuntu
- Mandriva
- Novell SuSE Linux
- Xandros
etc.I don't really see how Redhat is more proprietary or even equal to Sun. What products and/or software do they have which is not Opensource?
I'm aware Sun has plenty, and proprietary hardware too.I honestly don't like Redhat for anything. I prefer SuSE Linux in enterprise environments for most things.Considering the fact a lot of the NYSE stuff was written before Java even existed, I doubt that.
They had purposely put a version that was out of date.
I don't know if you recall the purpose of the web. But it's main goal and design is meant be a cross-platform, cross-architecture design for handling content on the "world wide web" - granting access to all who adhere to the recommendations/standards from the formation of standard organizations such as the w3c, ISO/IEEE and others. Microsoft has broken the design of the web in ways that I consider is anti-competitive.
Embrace, break standards (so other software does not work well with Microsoft's implementation) and extend with proprietary lock-ins.
The only thing that happens over time is that there are new standards to support. But just because you don't support the new standards doesn't mean you aren't compliant to supporting the standards you have currently.HTML4.1 came out in 1999. It is almost 2008, That means almost nine years have passed and Microsoft still hasn't got proper HTML4.1 support, despite having a very bad implementation of it.
How much time do we need to give them?A lot of things Microsoft has done and suggested became standards... This is not the case.True, but their reasoning for being unable to complete is honest. I believe if Microsoft were forced to make even their current implementations of specs compliant, it would allow browsers to actually, compete.
I also explained after that the DRM is not compatible elsewhere.Whoops, my bad. I forgot about the CD burning in both applications. Not that it matters much since ripping the CD will have the side effect of having annoying artifacts after recompression if you want to move the data to a untainted 'lossy' formats.
Also, where in my previous post did it say I was talking about KDE4 specifically? I was talking about in general, Linux DEs (the stable releases, I might add) since the previous poster was pointing out what I considered, a non-existent issue (since it's so easy to get around) related to Linux DEs.