File a bug, give me the bug number, and I'll look at it.
But before you do, stop by Mozillazine.org, click on forums, and conduct some searches for your issues.
Post a thread asking about printing issues with Mozilla.
Email me a link to that thread too.
cnet.com has a friendly printing link which I've never had any problem using.
Printing webpages are never easy in any browser, (except maybe Opera--haven't tested it extensively, it does have some brilliant frame management tools.)
Someone should develop an extension (use existing code) to print the *text* of a page. (removing any table cells or graphics.)
But in the mean time, teach people to use Print Preview, or to 'print' to PDF. Then you know that the print-outs will look exactly like what is on the screen (with a PostScript printer).
You could argue that it's really an OS/printer driver issue. After all, Mac OS X uses PostScript as their graphics engine, and I'm sure Safari prints fine.
--Sam
did you file a bug? I mean--complaining on Slashdot won't get you nearly as good a response as if you file a bug in Mozilla?
What I recomend is:
1. load page
2. File-->Edit Page
3. delete unneeded stuff.
4. print from there.
This normally works.
Do your clients know how to copy and paste into Word documents? If not, this is another popular option.
(Substitute your Open source solution--I'm assuming Office is still used in most workpalces.)
--Sam
This bug report is about executing unknown protocol handlers in other places except . Mozilla has had for a while now, a blacklist of bad protocols that it should not pass to the OS.
With this patch, "shell:" was added--quickly because the infastructure was there.
As the other posts make very clear, apt-get does work and support is provided for it on the forums--which is free to anyone who buys a copy of Linspire.
If you do not buy it, but use a coupon code, which was avaliable at several developer-centric sites, you can get help on the guest fourm. One of the Lindows employees is paid to be a 'community liason'.
You will find that people are extremely grateful for the ease of installing applications, and the OS itself. (though I'm a little confused on that score as it doesn't offer any partitioning of any kind.)
The Linspire installer offers a introductory screen after installation. If you click Advanced, you can setup other user accounts. 5.0 should go a long way towards encouraging users to configure a regular user account for daily use.
History will be the judge of this.. but if Iraq had no weapons to deliver payload onto us or our allies, and there was no credible threat that Iraq was planning to attack us, then we have violated the 'right intention' principle in the just war philosophy.
A preemptive war is always just, if it is actually preemptive (under the just war philosophy.)
Invading because a country might someday attack us is called "preventative war", and this is not permissible. (This is what the Bush Administration repeatedly alleged, that we wanted to stop "having this football to throw around." (Rice).)
Why do we debate the just war philosophy in a democracy? Because war is anti-democratic.
In Windows XP SP2, Windows Media Player 10 will be installed over the old Windows Media Player 9, and will no longer be removable.
Now we know why. Microsoft will ask the judge 3 years from now to consider whether Windows Media Player has become an "integral componet" of Windows and whether the judgement is no longer relevant.
Is there any opportunity for public feedback? I'd at least like to contact the EU Antitrust Commission.
This document at one time contained the proof of my assertion--but the Internet Explorer find command isn't finding it. I make no assumptions as to why that is.
You will notice that www.flysuite.com--which is not defunct does a mixture of web browser applets and computer applications. You can do either.
They also include online storage, which fully integrates with their applications.
Also, OEOne.com's OEOne Anywhere provides calendar, e-mail, file storage, and bookmark hosting, which integrates with Mozilla-based browsers as well as being accessible using a standard web interface.
Yahoo! Briefcase provides Internet Explorer integration for their Yahoo! Briefcase to their DSL customers (and possibly via their Yahoo! Plus service and Yahoo! Internet Explorer offering). They also used to offer a client for Yahoo! Briefcase similar to X-drive, but I don't know if it still exists. It only supported 95/98 at the time.
A lot of services like calendar are expected to integrate with computer applications, and not be strictly web-based. File Management and FTP also strikes me as being this way.
If the file storage uses open standards, it can be accessed by any platform (I know Slashdot knows this.. but what protocols do they use?)
Perhaps my own Earlham College can look into it? They have a terrific open source-oriented computer science department. It is located in Richmond, IN.
I thought I would add that Linspire has no open ports (iptables), and no compilers. Given that they do not use a standard filesystem that everyone would know their way around, it would be hard, though not impossible to attack them.
although their simplistic explanation of the filesystem gives me worry about flaming from you uber-geeks of Slashdot. http://www.lindows.com/filesystem
You should contact Yahoo! Customer Care. I've gotten help from them when I need it. As a Plus customer, you should also get help.
Otherwise, you could wait and see whether they successfully straighten things out.
--Sam
This doesn't make sense. Do you mean you can't manually send HTML mail (by clicking "Allow HTML Tags")? Do you get the IE Rich Text editor buttons? This is controlled by IE, not by Yahoo! (do not argue with the semantics of that statement).
I really do not appreciate the insult. I meant fined by the court for not fulfilling duties under the DMCA, which clearly makes ISPs responsible, when sued by the RIAA.
I figured I didn't have to spell that out--since this is Slashdot, and people like yourself are very intelligent. It is always a mistake to ask a question on Slashdot
--Sam
You do not know what you are talking about. To censure means to judge: when a judgement is made by a person who has the authority to do so; they are acting as a censure (to use the original spelling.)
When censures began striking out material, the word changed to 'censor' and it gathered a more negative connotation.
Governments such as those in the EU rely on ISPs to be censors, so your point is moot anyway. If an ISP is designated by the government to perform a function or regulated by the government in any way, the government is somewhat liable for their actions.
ISPs in the U.S I believe did not have liability for iilegal activity itself happening through their 'lines' (these were modem precedents involving AOL), so can someone explained to me why the Supreme Court has not reconciled the liability issue? Verizon refused to identify customers, and was not fined for being uncooperative (or were they?)
I proposed in a debate once a domain called.xgov. I envisioned that this domain would work only in the US. I realize that this is technically hard and possibly invasive.
I like the idea of.xxx.us or.xxx.gtld which would have to return something to the browser if the country had not set up.xxx. for example, there is no.us.uk, and the browsers should be able to help the user if they make an error. (seperate from 404, so that the browser could explain that laws pertaining to.xxx do not exist in the country at hand.)
The fact remains though that.xgov is really what we should be using. Why disguise this categorization as anything but government censure?
And if government censure were OK with people (and that includes xxx.UN or xxx.wiki--it doesn't matter who the governing body is-- then they can use it.
If I were the government, I would put terrorist sites under.xgov and the like. Terrorist sites are already blocked at school, even when my teacher encourages us to look at them during the terrorism unit.
Corruption is inevitable, as is human error, if we limit this domain to strictly pornography. So we shouldn't.
The RFC misses the point: is it dangerous to categorize material on the Internet? Yes, if it leads to erosion of civil liberties.
I think, however, it will improve civil liberties. China will have to justify to the world why it is not following Internet standards, and eventually, it will start following the standard, placing all objectinable sites under an.xgov subdomain. Their activities will then become much more visible, merely by scanning for the right packets.
We cannot worsen the current situation: bad, inconsistent filtering, and oppressive governments shrouded in technical and political secrecy.
The EU is going to issue a remedy for a problem: the denomination of the Windows Media format which harms consumers without a doubt. (as its DRM is the strictest, and it only runs on programs which has paid Microsoft a licensing fee; it is also a modification and dilution of the MP4 standard.)
Quicktime and Real compete in codecs and server software, not primarily in client software. Apple's iTunes does handle every open file format you throw at it. (WAV, MP3 etc.) and is a more direct competitor to both Realplayer and Windows Media Player.
That said, a defense of Realplayer is in order. They suffer brand name dilution, lack of OEM bundling, and licensing fees from large companies as a result of Windows Media being completely free to the broadcaster. (Since no one will pay Real for server software.)
They have had to restructure their business to selling subscription services. Their client software is now based on open source technology (Helix), and their client has been praised by mainstream review sites as being free from pop-up advertising, and very competitive in terms of features.
Realplayer 10 plays Windows Media and does it well. Realplayer 10 plays encrypted iTunes and does it well. Realplayer 10 starts up almost instanteously. (this is the 3rd beta we are talking about..)
It is my default media player, as it should be. The competition will be less obnoxious when it doesn't *have to be*. Netscape released builds that hijacked IE's homepage. Desperate Times, Desperate measures.
--Sam
On the one hand, I criticize Microsoft. It is not enough to prevent the opening of a port by a server. I want them to tell me if an unusual application (not registered in set access and defaults or not a signed system process) tries to access the network.
It should do a test during setup to make sure all the componets have integrity like virus scanners check themselves.
Microsoft needs to show their serious about security by disabling ActiveX, Active Desktop, and Pop-ups. (yes, I know pop-ups will be blocked.)
I just had spyware at school yesterday that ran an made itself the active desktop so that it could do pop-ups whenever the computer started up-- proof of why it is a bad idea to have the web browser always running.
Of course, this was a Microsoft hack so the Desktop wallpaper could support any graphics format that the browser did (Windows still only natively supports bitmaps!)
(Note: ActiveX was disabled, but because adding an active desktop object was on, the second part of the code executed. (the part that controlled the active desktop).
I agree. Furthermore, I don't think Lindows knows. I'm the one that asked them (due to Slashdot complaints) to clarify Daniel Glazman's intent to tri-license the project and move it back into the trunk.
Have you visited www.nvudev.org? Have you read the GNU GPL FAQs?
Until Mozilla clarifies their own tri-licensing scheme.. I am certain Lindows will comply in good faith.
They have cooperated fully with the FSF, and implemented all suggestions provided to them. Lindows itself is FSF-compliant and as you probably know they have a highly capable legal department.
But I believe Daniel Glazman has the full copyright to the project.. Lindows is merely sponsoring it.
Directing your inquiries to Glazman might shed more light and reassurance on the issue. The marketing rhetoric at www.nvu.org/features.html is hardly written by someone unfamiliar with Open Source.
--Sam
Well, streaming wasn't avaliable before, and it isn't avaliable on iTunes so that complaint doesn't make much sense.
Napster's streaming doesn't make a lot of sense, because it is only at 96kbps, anyway.
If Real combines their RealPlayer Store with Rhapsody, then there will be an alternative. Until then, WMA is as Wal-Mart put it:
"At this time we are only offering the music in the Secure WMA format. Please check back in the future for a possibility that we are offering others. With Microsoft(R) Windows Media(R) DRM, content owners from large media companies to individual talent can now quickly and easily offer their assets online. At the same time, they can maintain the integrity of their copyrights, no matter how widely circulated their digital material is. Individual consumers can then enjoy digital music in a convenient and legal way. "
As for blocking other download techniques, P2P United might want to say something about that, but it is their fault in my opinion for not providing an easy way for schools to protect their liability by blocking access to specific file-types (a lesser evil), allowing for encryption (so that the school can protect student's privacy), and bandwidth limitation software (so that the network stays avaliable for other purposes)-- all of the above should be built-in functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
File a bug, give me the bug number, and I'll look at it. But before you do, stop by Mozillazine.org, click on forums, and conduct some searches for your issues. Post a thread asking about printing issues with Mozilla. Email me a link to that thread too. cnet.com has a friendly printing link which I've never had any problem using. Printing webpages are never easy in any browser, (except maybe Opera--haven't tested it extensively, it does have some brilliant frame management tools.) Someone should develop an extension (use existing code) to print the *text* of a page. (removing any table cells or graphics.) But in the mean time, teach people to use Print Preview, or to 'print' to PDF. Then you know that the print-outs will look exactly like what is on the screen (with a PostScript printer). You could argue that it's really an OS/printer driver issue. After all, Mac OS X uses PostScript as their graphics engine, and I'm sure Safari prints fine. --Sam
did you file a bug? I mean--complaining on Slashdot won't get you nearly as good a response as if you file a bug in Mozilla? What I recomend is: 1. load page 2. File-->Edit Page 3. delete unneeded stuff. 4. print from there. This normally works. Do your clients know how to copy and paste into Word documents? If not, this is another popular option. (Substitute your Open source solution--I'm assuming Office is still used in most workpalces.) --Sam
This bug report is about executing unknown protocol handlers in other places except . Mozilla has had for a while now, a blacklist of bad protocols that it should not pass to the OS.
With this patch, "shell:" was added--quickly because the infastructure was there.
--Sam
As the other posts make very clear, apt-get does work and support is provided for it on the forums--which is free to anyone who buys a copy of Linspire.
If you do not buy it, but use a coupon code, which was avaliable at several developer-centric sites, you can get help on the guest fourm. One of the Lindows employees is paid to be a 'community liason'.
You will find that people are extremely grateful for the ease of installing applications, and the OS itself. (though I'm a little confused on that score as it doesn't offer any partitioning of any kind.)
The Linspire installer offers a introductory screen after installation. If you click Advanced, you can setup other user accounts. 5.0 should go a long way towards encouraging users to configure a regular user account for daily use.
History will be the judge of this.. but if Iraq had no weapons to deliver payload onto us or our allies, and there was no credible threat that Iraq was planning to attack us, then we have violated the 'right intention' principle in the just war philosophy.
A preemptive war is always just, if it is actually preemptive (under the just war philosophy.)
Invading because a country might someday attack us is called "preventative war", and this is not permissible. (This is what the Bush Administration repeatedly alleged, that we wanted to stop "having this football to throw around." (Rice).)
Why do we debate the just war philosophy in a democracy? Because war is anti-democratic.
In Windows XP SP2, Windows Media Player 10 will be installed over the old Windows Media Player 9, and will no longer be removable.
Now we know why. Microsoft will ask the judge 3 years from now to consider whether Windows Media Player has become an "integral componet" of Windows and whether the judgement is no longer relevant.
Is there any opportunity for public feedback? I'd at least like to contact the EU Antitrust Commission.
This document at one time contained the proof of my assertion--but the Internet Explorer find command isn't finding it. I make no assumptions as to why that is.
You will notice that www.flysuite.com--which is not defunct does a mixture of web browser applets and computer applications. You can do either. They also include online storage, which fully integrates with their applications. Also, OEOne.com's OEOne Anywhere provides calendar, e-mail, file storage, and bookmark hosting, which integrates with Mozilla-based browsers as well as being accessible using a standard web interface. Yahoo! Briefcase provides Internet Explorer integration for their Yahoo! Briefcase to their DSL customers (and possibly via their Yahoo! Plus service and Yahoo! Internet Explorer offering). They also used to offer a client for Yahoo! Briefcase similar to X-drive, but I don't know if it still exists. It only supported 95/98 at the time. A lot of services like calendar are expected to integrate with computer applications, and not be strictly web-based. File Management and FTP also strikes me as being this way. If the file storage uses open standards, it can be accessed by any platform (I know Slashdot knows this.. but what protocols do they use?) Perhaps my own Earlham College can look into it? They have a terrific open source-oriented computer science department. It is located in Richmond, IN.
I thought I would add that Linspire has no open ports (iptables), and no compilers. Given that they do not use a standard filesystem that everyone would know their way around, it would be hard, though not impossible to attack them. although their simplistic explanation of the filesystem gives me worry about flaming from you uber-geeks of Slashdot. http://www.lindows.com/filesystem
You should contact Yahoo! Customer Care. I've gotten help from them when I need it. As a Plus customer, you should also get help. Otherwise, you could wait and see whether they successfully straighten things out. --Sam
This doesn't make sense. Do you mean you can't manually send HTML mail (by clicking "Allow HTML Tags")? Do you get the IE Rich Text editor buttons? This is controlled by IE, not by Yahoo! (do not argue with the semantics of that statement).
What happens when you try to send HTML Mail?
--Sam
I really do not appreciate the insult. I meant fined by the court for not fulfilling duties under the DMCA, which clearly makes ISPs responsible, when sued by the RIAA. I figured I didn't have to spell that out--since this is Slashdot, and people like yourself are very intelligent. It is always a mistake to ask a question on Slashdot --Sam
You do not know what you are talking about. To censure means to judge: when a judgement is made by a person who has the authority to do so; they are acting as a censure (to use the original spelling.)
When censures began striking out material, the word changed to 'censor' and it gathered a more negative connotation.
Governments such as those in the EU rely on ISPs to be censors, so your point is moot anyway. If an ISP is designated by the government to perform a function or regulated by the government in any way, the government is somewhat liable for their actions.
ISPs in the U.S I believe did not have liability for iilegal activity itself happening through their 'lines' (these were modem precedents involving AOL), so can someone explained to me why the Supreme Court has not reconciled the liability issue? Verizon refused to identify customers, and was not fined for being uncooperative (or were they?)
wrong. it's very clear that they will try to identify copyrighted files going over a network. FTP piped over SSH would do it.
It uses Javascript to detect the browser. (not the browser's string). Rather then get something wrong, refer to this bug:
0
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21345
--Sam
I proposed in a debate once a domain called .xgov. I envisioned that this domain would work only in the US. I realize that this is technically hard and possibly invasive.
I like the idea of .xxx.us or .xxx.gtld which would have to return something to the browser if the country had not set up .xxx. for example, there is no .us.uk, and the browsers should be able to help the user if they make an error. (seperate from 404, so that the browser could explain that laws pertaining to .xxx do not exist in the country at hand.)
The fact remains though that .xgov is really what we should be using. Why disguise this categorization as anything but government censure?
And if government censure were OK with people (and that includes xxx.UN or xxx.wiki--it doesn't matter who the governing body is-- then they can use it.
If I were the government, I would put terrorist sites under .xgov and the like. Terrorist sites are already blocked at school, even when my teacher encourages us to look at them during the terrorism unit.
Corruption is inevitable, as is human error, if we limit this domain to strictly pornography. So we shouldn't.
The RFC misses the point: is it dangerous to categorize material on the Internet? Yes, if it leads to erosion of civil liberties.
I think, however, it will improve civil liberties. China will have to justify to the world why it is not following Internet standards, and eventually, it will start following the standard, placing all objectinable sites under an .xgov subdomain. Their activities will then become much more visible, merely by scanning for the right packets.
We cannot worsen the current situation: bad, inconsistent filtering, and oppressive governments shrouded in technical and political secrecy.
The EU is going to issue a remedy for a problem: the denomination of the Windows Media format which harms consumers without a doubt. (as its DRM is the strictest, and it only runs on programs which has paid Microsoft a licensing fee; it is also a modification and dilution of the MP4 standard.) Quicktime and Real compete in codecs and server software, not primarily in client software. Apple's iTunes does handle every open file format you throw at it. (WAV, MP3 etc.) and is a more direct competitor to both Realplayer and Windows Media Player. That said, a defense of Realplayer is in order. They suffer brand name dilution, lack of OEM bundling, and licensing fees from large companies as a result of Windows Media being completely free to the broadcaster. (Since no one will pay Real for server software.) They have had to restructure their business to selling subscription services. Their client software is now based on open source technology (Helix), and their client has been praised by mainstream review sites as being free from pop-up advertising, and very competitive in terms of features. Realplayer 10 plays Windows Media and does it well. Realplayer 10 plays encrypted iTunes and does it well. Realplayer 10 starts up almost instanteously. (this is the 3rd beta we are talking about..) It is my default media player, as it should be. The competition will be less obnoxious when it doesn't *have to be*. Netscape released builds that hijacked IE's homepage. Desperate Times, Desperate measures. --Sam
On the one hand, I criticize Microsoft. It is not enough to prevent the opening of a port by a server. I want them to tell me if an unusual application (not registered in set access and defaults or not a signed system process) tries to access the network.
It should do a test during setup to make sure all the componets have integrity like virus scanners check themselves.
Microsoft needs to show their serious about security by disabling ActiveX, Active Desktop, and Pop-ups. (yes, I know pop-ups will be blocked.)
I just had spyware at school yesterday that ran an made itself the active desktop so that it could do pop-ups whenever the computer started up-- proof of why it is a bad idea to have the web browser always running.
Of course, this was a Microsoft hack so the Desktop wallpaper could support any graphics format that the browser did (Windows still only natively supports bitmaps!)
(Note: ActiveX was disabled, but because adding an active desktop object was on, the second part of the code executed. (the part that controlled the active desktop).
--Sam
--Sam
I agree. Furthermore, I don't think Lindows knows. I'm the one that asked them (due to Slashdot complaints) to clarify Daniel Glazman's intent to tri-license the project and move it back into the trunk. Have you visited www.nvudev.org? Have you read the GNU GPL FAQs? Until Mozilla clarifies their own tri-licensing scheme.. I am certain Lindows will comply in good faith. They have cooperated fully with the FSF, and implemented all suggestions provided to them. Lindows itself is FSF-compliant and as you probably know they have a highly capable legal department. But I believe Daniel Glazman has the full copyright to the project.. Lindows is merely sponsoring it. Directing your inquiries to Glazman might shed more light and reassurance on the issue. The marketing rhetoric at www.nvu.org/features.html is hardly written by someone unfamiliar with Open Source. --Sam
You are also welcome to embed the Mozilla control into it. Opera probably embeds itself. --Sam
Well, streaming wasn't avaliable before, and it isn't avaliable on iTunes so that complaint doesn't make much sense.
Napster's streaming doesn't make a lot of sense, because it is only at 96kbps, anyway.
If Real combines their RealPlayer Store with Rhapsody, then there will be an alternative. Until then, WMA is as Wal-Mart put it:
"At this time we are only offering the music in the Secure WMA format.
Please check back in the future for a possibility that we are offering others.
With Microsoft(R) Windows Media(R) DRM, content owners from large media companies to individual talent can now quickly and easily offer their assets online. At the same time, they can maintain the integrity of their copyrights, no matter how widely circulated their digital material is. Individual consumers can then enjoy digital music in a convenient and legal way. "
As for blocking other download techniques, P2P United might want to say something about that, but it is their fault in my opinion for not providing an easy way for schools to protect their liability by blocking access to specific file-types (a lesser evil), allowing for encryption (so that the school can protect student's privacy), and bandwidth limitation software (so that the network stays avaliable for other purposes)-- all of the above should be built-in functionality.
--Sam