Why do you feel compelled to upgrade your linux distro? Aren't most patches backported? Aren't there distros like RHEL and SUSE Enterprise and Debian Stable designed to be both stable and upgraded about once every 5 years...? I mean, pick the right tool and all.
Only if they started charging for them, or stopped allowing them to work with older versions of windows. Oh, wait they already do. But even though Opera and FF can work on Win95 through XPSP2 (and other OSs, with yearly updates...) IE7 can only work partially on WinXPSP2 and fully on Vista. Why? No technical reason I've seen yet.
Anyway, if they kept working on XPSP2 for at least another 3 years, I don't think anyone would complain much (more than they already do) about and upgrade treadmill.
As I understand it, IE7 has RSS, and IE pioneered the extension concept, and is going to expand on its history with IE7. MS just calls Extensions Browser Helper Objects.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't specify what happens if you say *just* GPLv2, without the or later clause. But it is specific as to what happens if you *do not* specify a version.
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
I have no idea if that's just a mistake, or if they always meant to not allow a specific version, but only version X or later...?
I'm not buying his idea that DRM allows the average user to protect their information. DRM won't allow the user to prevent his name or email address from being sold around the globe. It might protect information they created with their computer, but only by refusing to speak to untrusted systems, further cementing Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. It'll also make it a lot more difficult to release those incriminating memos and make whistleblowing more difficult. Which I'm sure are on the corporate agenda.
First, I think that there is a problem with that idea - it only works if the other systems honor the DRM. Depending on the implementation, it could be as big a joke as the hold down shift to bypass CD copyprotection that Linux ignored entirely, to protected WM files that just can't be used on machines that aren't exactly the same (ie, windows XP, 2k or Linux, MacOSX...).
Then there's the issue that without some sort of central control (big brother to me) there's no simple way to manage the whole thing - at best you get a slicker version of PGP + Keyservers, that no one uses cause it's "too hard". Of course, the main reason it's too hard is that most WebMail doesn't support it - and there's no good secure way for them to, as you'd have to give someone else your private key. And too many people hate having to authenticate themselves at all (password) to do things - why we have all sorts of problems.
I'd use GPG (as it's free), but I'm the only person in my group of friends who still uses a mail client so I can use a plugin and make it simple. The rest of my friends are too lazy to copy into GPG to decrypt.
And companies won't use GPG either cause it'd be a pita to set up for every customer - but it sure would help my SPAM filtering.
As for his answer about decoupling IE, a simple solution to the problems he thinks up would be to simply document the interface a DLL must export to provide that functionality. Then if you want to use Mozilla's HTML renderer instead of IE's, you can just drop in the correct DLL. And if you don't want system-level HTML rendering, you could just drop in a dummy DLL or delete it entirely. Requring developers to check for this and deal gracefully with it would also be a good idea.
I agree with this - I never understood why we can replace task manager with process explorer, we can replace Windows Explorer with Directory Opus, We can turn off Windows Firewall and install Zone Alarm or Outpost or whatever, but we can't do the same with Trident and Gecko or Presto. We should be able to!
If you were on a jury, a list of screenshots (with filenames, IPs, etc.) would not be enough, not because it doesn't show what it shows, but because you doubt the truthfulness of the evidence. If I were on a jury that same evidence would be fine, because, barring something to the contrary presented by the defendant, I don't think that stuff would be made up.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant if they provided a typed list of files - I'd have no indication that it wasn't just done up in the word processor of choice. What I'd like to see would be a screen capture video with timestamps, verfied by some auditor not to have been messed with, of them accessing the IP via the P2P of choice. And I'd still like to see that once discovery began that someone verfied the files where on the defendant's PC.
The reason I'm so hardassed about it isn't that I think people aren't sharing things illegially, it's that the RIAA has had enough big public screwups, not to mention all the likely ways to get exploited for non-techies on the net (especially with wireless and P2Ps) that I just don't trust that the RIAA is getting the right IPs.
The other thing is that while technically, and legally you are responsible for what people do with your infrastructure, I don't want to see PCs shut out of the homes of people who can't afford a network admin to set up and maintain due diligence on their home setup due to liability issues.
Basically, I feel that the required diligence is far beyond what is usually required for any other consumer items to not be negligent. Mostly, because it's just so difficult to secure a PC, much less a wireless network compared to say a car, mixed with all the automated exploits from all over the world attacking you - whereas with say a car, you only have to deal with people physically present.
See, I would likely find that the files were the real deal, and infringed copyright. What I'd currently have a problem with is the proof (is there any?) that ties the IP address and that list to the defendant.
With dead people being sued, people with machines that can't even run the claimed P2P software, and the like - not to mention Dynamic IPs and such, I'd probably want to see that the defendants PC was checked to see if it did have the files named in the list on it.
I'd also want some basic steps done to show whether the box was hacked or not. It's usually not too hard to find if there's a remote control trojan on the PC, and there's a sort of method that Pirates use for filedumps that's different from most users setup (for one, steps taken to hide the directories).
So, if they can show me that the PC had the files on it (this I'd want proof, otherwise they could claim anything they wand) and that they made some effort to show it wasn't hacked (again, if it has Kazaa, probably not hacked, but hidden FTP service? Hacked).
But just an IP and a list of filenames? I'd want something that couldn't just be made up by anyone.
What's ambiguious about copyright law under this senario (as reported)? He gives them one disk. There is no contract or license or anything accompaning it. They copy it.
How is this any different than I borrow a DVD from the library. Then I copy it? Aside from the players?
I still thing the biggest blunder for IE7 is requiring XPSP2 or Vista. I know this is crazy, but both my current job and the last one ran all business processes on NT4. The problem of course, is that FireFox isn't especially fast there either, and I really have no idea if Opera would work on NT4.
And when the IT department is making intranet sites that cause errors in IE5 so it doesn't work right, there's likely no chance they could get it to work in another browser.
My last position though was a perfect example of where Opera would have helped. We regularily had to have up 4-6 IE windows plus 2 custom programs and access data fast. Of course, IE5 was painfully slow, not just because of it's slow rendering, but also the sheer lack of RAM in the machines. So what might have been reduced to a 2 second look with Opera became a 30 second wait. When people wanted information right now, it was painful.
Back to the point, I don't think IE7 will be a big draw to businesses till around SP1 of Vista (when they are both ready for an upgrade again, and when most aren't still scared of being first movers). However, I don't think any other browser will be a draw either. Nothing is really better enough than IE5 for intranet use that would motivate an upgrade.
Re:Firefox just isn't very optimized yet
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
Or there's always Opera which has lots of man hours poured into it, and the no malware. Though I'm convinced the "memory leaks" that get reported about both Opera and Firefox stem from a misunderstanding of how RAM is meant to be used, and a different priority than the devs on fast back and what that requires.
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure it has to do with caching web pages for fast back. I know that Opera regularily will use 333,000K of virtual memory for that on my 1GB machine. Though it doesn't appear to slow down my machine or my browsing any, so I really don't care. As I bought my RAM for it to be used, and my total memory usage is usually around 50% or less of available VM and Physical RAM, it doesn't bother me.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS!
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
How much of that is memory cache? Fast back and forward require that, or else you get to see the noticable (though not really slow) rebuild from disk cache.
Or at least that's how Opera operates, and IIRC, FF 1.5 is supposed to be similar.
IDK, I would think nicknames ought to be pretty close. ctrl-N for new page, sd, enter and boom, slashdot. Though I use Opera, so the shortcuts might be slightly different.
Some of those things are good ideas. However one big point Basic meta data is already in Opera, and I love it. Now of course, it could try and do more with metadata, but you might also get overload. One thing that should be implemented is find as you type bookmarks from the address bar.
Opera's already got find as you type bookmarks from manage bookmarks, but that's an entirely separate UI. I should be able to use a accelerator indicator , say "-" or something unusual just like we can do g .
If I type "- f" then all my bookmarks starting with f should be in the dropdown, and as I type out fark I ought to get my bookmark to fark.com. Another nice feature would be more of an autocomplete, instead of haveing to down arrow to get it to go into the address bar.
The thing I don't like is he seems to be advocating XP style start menu type hiding of bookmarks the browser thinks we don't use enough. Many times this is a pita. Search based finding seems to be the best "next step" to lots of navigation that is available now.
Well, whenever Opera 9 comes out, I think it will be a consequential update for Opera users anyway. Sadly for the overall state of the browser market, it also seems to be mostly a "catch up" release, bringing some much missed features to Opera that have been in other browsers for some time.
On the other hand, there might well be some cool new features (beyond getting lots more SVG supported) that they won't mention till release.
Well, the lack of a menu bar seems annoying to me. Or the placement of it beneath the search field. And I still don't buy the combined history w/ checkmark widget.
This is why VMWare's browser widget is so interesting, but for me it's so much simpler (and less resource intensive) to just run Opera behind a good proxomitron filterset.
And this is why someone (please MS) should implement per process permissions, rather than per user. Cause, even if I'm running as limited, doesn't mean I want a new startup shortcut placed by some installer. I don't really want random programs writing or reading directories that have nothing to do with them.
Mmmm, noise doesn't bother me much, though I know to some people it's important. However, if they are marketing laptops, about half the ones on display at the local Best Buy or Circuit City FAIL to me - especially the ones that quickly get uncomfortably hot. Especially the ones that the palm rest and keyboard get hot on.
Thing is, my old Toshiba Satallite with 2.8Ghz Celeron and 256MB ram works for most things I see laptops actually being practical for. Why anyone would want to try and do serious photoshopping with a touchpad, or 3d rendering or any number crunching on a laptop boggles my mind.
Personally, I'd never buy a laptop as a primary machine, at least not out of the offerings today. Too often, I find that I need to lower performance for power, I have major heat issues (look, it's not ok to make the keyboard and handrest uncomfortably hot - and this is with a P-M 1.7Ghz I believe).
I work in a repair shop, and it seems many of the newer laptops that come in (this seems a trend, ones 1.5 years old and older don't have this) it can hurt to work on them cause of the heat on the keyboard. I can't see how this is useful.
Then I have people coming in complaining they can't run their games, and the only upgrade is to rebuy an entirely new laptop. At least with a desktop, you can extend gaming life with a new video card. You can add a hard drive.
The most ironic thing I see are people with laptops that carry around an external mouse cause they hate the touchpad, an external keyboard so they can comfortably type on it, an external hard drive for storage space, and a power strip so they can plug everything in.
Laptops still aren't a replacement for desktops - they are however useful for taking notes, watching movies, and browsing the net on the go. But if you want to do lots of heavy work, they will be far more expensive, and reach obselence much quicker - not to mention far more likely to break down hardware wise.
Well, is it really unusual for a high end laptop chip to be equivelent to the low end desktop chip of the same generation? I don't think it is, but I might be entirely wrong.
The desktop chips I'm not really sure on, I haven't heard much about them, but from what I heard, they are supposed to be equivelent to AMDs current offerings - but who knows where the benchmarks will lie when they are out. Remember the Intel MACs pre release claims, vs actual performance now?
Is it backlight? Can it be backlight? Taking PDFs is good though. And RSS - this is precicely where lots of previous e-book readers failed - they failed to make it easy for people to take their own content with them - say web news and such. Fan Fiction. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you feel compelled to upgrade your linux distro? Aren't most patches backported? Aren't there distros like RHEL and SUSE Enterprise and Debian Stable designed to be both stable and upgraded about once every 5 years...? I mean, pick the right tool and all.
Only if they started charging for them, or stopped allowing them to work with older versions of windows. Oh, wait they already do. But even though Opera and FF can work on Win95 through XPSP2 (and other OSs, with yearly updates...) IE7 can only work partially on WinXPSP2 and fully on Vista. Why? No technical reason I've seen yet.
Anyway, if they kept working on XPSP2 for at least another 3 years, I don't think anyone would complain much (more than they already do) about and upgrade treadmill.
As I understand it, IE7 has RSS, and IE pioneered the extension concept, and is going to expand on its history with IE7. MS just calls Extensions Browser Helper Objects.
I don't know, the so-called instant rebates (price marked down at register) seem ok, but why not just have it on sale, and not monkey around?
Interestingly enough, it doesn't specify what happens if you say *just* GPLv2, without the or later clause. But it is specific as to what happens if you *do not* specify a version.
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation."
I have no idea if that's just a mistake, or if they always meant to not allow a specific version, but only version X or later...?
I'm not buying his idea that DRM allows the average user to protect their information. DRM won't allow the user to prevent his name or email address from being sold around the globe. It might protect information they created with their computer, but only by refusing to speak to untrusted systems, further cementing Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. It'll also make it a lot more difficult to release those incriminating memos and make whistleblowing more difficult. Which I'm sure are on the corporate agenda.
First, I think that there is a problem with that idea - it only works if the other systems honor the DRM. Depending on the implementation, it could be as big a joke as the hold down shift to bypass CD copyprotection that Linux ignored entirely, to protected WM files that just can't be used on machines that aren't exactly the same (ie, windows XP, 2k or Linux, MacOSX...).
Then there's the issue that without some sort of central control (big brother to me) there's no simple way to manage the whole thing - at best you get a slicker version of PGP + Keyservers, that no one uses cause it's "too hard". Of course, the main reason it's too hard is that most WebMail doesn't support it - and there's no good secure way for them to, as you'd have to give someone else your private key. And too many people hate having to authenticate themselves at all (password) to do things - why we have all sorts of problems.
I'd use GPG (as it's free), but I'm the only person in my group of friends who still uses a mail client so I can use a plugin and make it simple. The rest of my friends are too lazy to copy into GPG to decrypt.
And companies won't use GPG either cause it'd be a pita to set up for every customer - but it sure would help my SPAM filtering.
As for his answer about decoupling IE, a simple solution to the problems he thinks up would be to simply document the interface a DLL must export to provide that functionality. Then if you want to use Mozilla's HTML renderer instead of IE's, you can just drop in the correct DLL. And if you don't want system-level HTML rendering, you could just drop in a dummy DLL or delete it entirely. Requring developers to check for this and deal gracefully with it would also be a good idea.
I agree with this - I never understood why we can replace task manager with process explorer, we can replace Windows Explorer with Directory Opus, We can turn off Windows Firewall and install Zone Alarm or Outpost or whatever, but we can't do the same with Trident and Gecko or Presto. We should be able to!
If you were on a jury, a list of screenshots (with filenames, IPs, etc.) would not be enough, not because it doesn't show what it shows, but because you doubt the truthfulness of the evidence. If I were on a jury that same evidence would be fine, because, barring something to the contrary presented by the defendant, I don't think that stuff would be made up.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant if they provided a typed list of files - I'd have no indication that it wasn't just done up in the word processor of choice. What I'd like to see would be a screen capture video with timestamps, verfied by some auditor not to have been messed with, of them accessing the IP via the P2P of choice. And I'd still like to see that once discovery began that someone verfied the files where on the defendant's PC.
The reason I'm so hardassed about it isn't that I think people aren't sharing things illegially, it's that the RIAA has had enough big public screwups, not to mention all the likely ways to get exploited for non-techies on the net (especially with wireless and P2Ps) that I just don't trust that the RIAA is getting the right IPs.
The other thing is that while technically, and legally you are responsible for what people do with your infrastructure, I don't want to see PCs shut out of the homes of people who can't afford a network admin to set up and maintain due diligence on their home setup due to liability issues.
Basically, I feel that the required diligence is far beyond what is usually required for any other consumer items to not be negligent. Mostly, because it's just so difficult to secure a PC, much less a wireless network compared to say a car, mixed with all the automated exploits from all over the world attacking you - whereas with say a car, you only have to deal with people physically present.
See, I would likely find that the files were the real deal, and infringed copyright. What I'd currently have a problem with is the proof (is there any?) that ties the IP address and that list to the defendant.
With dead people being sued, people with machines that can't even run the claimed P2P software, and the like - not to mention Dynamic IPs and such, I'd probably want to see that the defendants PC was checked to see if it did have the files named in the list on it.
I'd also want some basic steps done to show whether the box was hacked or not. It's usually not too hard to find if there's a remote control trojan on the PC, and there's a sort of method that Pirates use for filedumps that's different from most users setup (for one, steps taken to hide the directories).
So, if they can show me that the PC had the files on it (this I'd want proof, otherwise they could claim anything they wand) and that they made some effort to show it wasn't hacked (again, if it has Kazaa, probably not hacked, but hidden FTP service? Hacked).
But just an IP and a list of filenames? I'd want something that couldn't just be made up by anyone.
What's ambiguious about copyright law under this senario (as reported)? He gives them one disk. There is no contract or license or anything accompaning it. They copy it.
How is this any different than I borrow a DVD from the library. Then I copy it? Aside from the players?
I think SVG is supposed to be standardized Flash, not a picture format.
I still thing the biggest blunder for IE7 is requiring XPSP2 or Vista. I know this is crazy, but both my current job and the last one ran all business processes on NT4. The problem of course, is that FireFox isn't especially fast there either, and I really have no idea if Opera would work on NT4.
And when the IT department is making intranet sites that cause errors in IE5 so it doesn't work right, there's likely no chance they could get it to work in another browser.
My last position though was a perfect example of where Opera would have helped. We regularily had to have up 4-6 IE windows plus 2 custom programs and access data fast. Of course, IE5 was painfully slow, not just because of it's slow rendering, but also the sheer lack of RAM in the machines. So what might have been reduced to a 2 second look with Opera became a 30 second wait. When people wanted information right now, it was painful.
Back to the point, I don't think IE7 will be a big draw to businesses till around SP1 of Vista (when they are both ready for an upgrade again, and when most aren't still scared of being first movers). However, I don't think any other browser will be a draw either. Nothing is really better enough than IE5 for intranet use that would motivate an upgrade.
Or there's always Opera which has lots of man hours poured into it, and the no malware. Though I'm convinced the "memory leaks" that get reported about both Opera and Firefox stem from a misunderstanding of how RAM is meant to be used, and a different priority than the devs on fast back and what that requires.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with caching web pages for fast back. I know that Opera regularily will use 333,000K of virtual memory for that on my 1GB machine. Though it doesn't appear to slow down my machine or my browsing any, so I really don't care. As I bought my RAM for it to be used, and my total memory usage is usually around 50% or less of available VM and Physical RAM, it doesn't bother me.
How much of that is memory cache? Fast back and forward require that, or else you get to see the noticable (though not really slow) rebuild from disk cache.
Or at least that's how Opera operates, and IIRC, FF 1.5 is supposed to be similar.
IDK, I would think nicknames ought to be pretty close. ctrl-N for new page, sd, enter and boom, slashdot. Though I use Opera, so the shortcuts might be slightly different.
Some of those things are good ideas. However one big point Basic meta data is already in Opera, and I love it. Now of course, it could try and do more with metadata, but you might also get overload. One thing that should be implemented is find as you type bookmarks from the address bar.
Opera's already got find as you type bookmarks from manage bookmarks, but that's an entirely separate UI. I should be able to use a accelerator indicator , say "-" or something unusual just like we can do g .
If I type "- f" then all my bookmarks starting with f should be in the dropdown, and as I type out fark I ought to get my bookmark to fark.com. Another nice feature would be more of an autocomplete, instead of haveing to down arrow to get it to go into the address bar.
The thing I don't like is he seems to be advocating XP style start menu type hiding of bookmarks the browser thinks we don't use enough. Many times this is a pita. Search based finding seems to be the best "next step" to lots of navigation that is available now.
Well, whenever Opera 9 comes out, I think it will be a consequential update for Opera users anyway. Sadly for the overall state of the browser market, it also seems to be mostly a "catch up" release, bringing some much missed features to Opera that have been in other browsers for some time.
On the other hand, there might well be some cool new features (beyond getting lots more SVG supported) that they won't mention till release.
That's all right, I already don't view sites that don't work in my internet. I'm certainly not going to try it in IE, it defeats the whole thing.
Well, the lack of a menu bar seems annoying to me. Or the placement of it beneath the search field. And I still don't buy the combined history w/ checkmark widget.
This is why VMWare's browser widget is so interesting, but for me it's so much simpler (and less resource intensive) to just run Opera behind a good proxomitron filterset.
And this is why someone (please MS) should implement per process permissions, rather than per user. Cause, even if I'm running as limited, doesn't mean I want a new startup shortcut placed by some installer. I don't really want random programs writing or reading directories that have nothing to do with them.
Mmmm, noise doesn't bother me much, though I know to some people it's important. However, if they are marketing laptops, about half the ones on display at the local Best Buy or Circuit City FAIL to me - especially the ones that quickly get uncomfortably hot. Especially the ones that the palm rest and keyboard get hot on.
Thing is, my old Toshiba Satallite with 2.8Ghz Celeron and 256MB ram works for most things I see laptops actually being practical for. Why anyone would want to try and do serious photoshopping with a touchpad, or 3d rendering or any number crunching on a laptop boggles my mind.
Personally, I'd never buy a laptop as a primary machine, at least not out of the offerings today. Too often, I find that I need to lower performance for power, I have major heat issues (look, it's not ok to make the keyboard and handrest uncomfortably hot - and this is with a P-M 1.7Ghz I believe).
I work in a repair shop, and it seems many of the newer laptops that come in (this seems a trend, ones 1.5 years old and older don't have this) it can hurt to work on them cause of the heat on the keyboard. I can't see how this is useful.
Then I have people coming in complaining they can't run their games, and the only upgrade is to rebuy an entirely new laptop. At least with a desktop, you can extend gaming life with a new video card. You can add a hard drive.
The most ironic thing I see are people with laptops that carry around an external mouse cause they hate the touchpad, an external keyboard so they can comfortably type on it, an external hard drive for storage space, and a power strip so they can plug everything in.
Laptops still aren't a replacement for desktops - they are however useful for taking notes, watching movies, and browsing the net on the go. But if you want to do lots of heavy work, they will be far more expensive, and reach obselence much quicker - not to mention far more likely to break down hardware wise.
Well, is it really unusual for a high end laptop chip to be equivelent to the low end desktop chip of the same generation? I don't think it is, but I might be entirely wrong.
The desktop chips I'm not really sure on, I haven't heard much about them, but from what I heard, they are supposed to be equivelent to AMDs current offerings - but who knows where the benchmarks will lie when they are out. Remember the Intel MACs pre release claims, vs actual performance now?
Is it backlight? Can it be backlight? Taking PDFs is good though. And RSS - this is precicely where lots of previous e-book readers failed - they failed to make it easy for people to take their own content with them - say web news and such. Fan Fiction. etc.