If you are referring to this one, i guess there the decrease of IE6 was because of some virii/trojans were people were just too stupid to figure out what was wrong with their PC and re-installed their system.
Yes, there is even a whole (Mini-)Desktop available online, also it's rather a tech demo. Only works with Mozilla/FF (Gecko based browsers in general), the desktop can be found here
The idea was/is: If you focus on web browsing only, you always have to see what other browsers (esspecially IE) do and always jump after them if they create some cool new thing or introduce a new successful tag (also it's not in the specs). So the idea is to create a surplus value like XUL in combination with other things, like access to Mozilla internal interfaces or RDF,XUL,SOAP,XML support, which makes it easy to create some web-apps (a application development platform). So here you are the challenger then and don't have to follow the other browsers all the time.
The problem is Mozilla (or FF) should also be a application development platform (aka webapps). These are already used in some internal company LANs, they use it because XUL has many elements that are useful for webapps (and can't be built that easily in HTML), look native in the browser, aren't to difficult to program, run on many platforms and look the same on every one, Mozilla and FF support many things like SOAP,XML,etc. So if you don't allow access to chrome URLs, at least some of these advantages will go away.
which backdoor are you talking about? Spoofing is just a general problem, which can also be done with DHTML easily. Just takes some more work, but still many people would believe they're looking at a normal browser window.
Do you have JavaScript enabled? The about page doesn't work without it (or only displays Mozilla is you have it). Unfortunatelly there are various reasons why the about: page depends on JavaScript enabled:/
The point is: Webapps, as you already mentioned. But how should Mozilla (or FF) know it is loading a file from a server in a WAN or from a server in a LAN. The only solution would be then that Mozilla/FF asks if this site should be granted access to chrome (disabling urlbar, statusbar, etc.). Can be very annoying, if it would be only for XUL, maybe acceptable. But then for sure someone would come up with "Security Bug: Loading many XUL sites can DoS Mozilla":-). So you can do it as you want, in some way it's always "insecure".
Either a reporter can mark his own bug confidential or a member from the security group can mark it confidential (or remove that flag). The members can be found here. Those are either members of the Mozilla Foundation, people who have done coding for Mozilla for many years now or were in any other way involved for a long time in the security of Mozilla. Or earlier (like one year ago) it were also people from Netscape, but i don't know how many people from Netscape actually had access to those bugs.
The (first) fix will be that it isn't allowed to hide the statusbar anymore (by default). So on that spoof site you would actually see two status bars then (one fake, one real).
Maybe Mozdev Group made the releases, look at their website, there are two hints for that:
"June 14th, 2004 -- Mozdev Group, engages Netscape" and
"Last Updated: netscape
July 23rd 2004 12:21:14 EDT -0400"
So maybe those people make the Netscape 7.2 releases, since i wouldnt know who else could do that (since almost noone from Netscape is left at AOL anymore).
For example the court here considered a conflict of paragraph 4 of the GPL with German UrhG 31 (especially first paragraph). This paragraph says in general that the usage right limited in a way of space, time or content. Important here is for example if someone gets not-correctly GPL-licensed software (or whatever) from someone, who violates GPL rights, that this has no impact on the 3rd party users. The court says the 3rd party can get license then later and so then fullfill the GPL license and so if this 3rd party gives the software (piece of whatever) to a 4th person, there is no license violation (which is important, either one person in a chain could cause many license violations down the chain).
Yes, you're right, also if there is a similar cast, most courts decide the same then. Only if the Federal Supreme Court decides something, every court under it (which are almost all except Federal Constitutional Court and such) must follow it, but iirc every decision the Federal Constitutional Court makes, must get a law anyway.
Re:Slightly OT: Reserved IP adresses in IPv6
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
Yes, i think if all Windows boxen would be available from public, this would be very worse. So yes, a firewall is definitely needed then:).
Slightly OT: Reserved IP adresses in IPv6
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
Someone knows what ip adresses in IPv6 are reserved for private use? In IPv4, it's 10.0.0.0 -10.255.255.255, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255, 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255. Are these the same just translated in IPv6 or have these IP adress ranges been extended (would be logical, since there are more adresses available)? Or are there just no private ip adresses anymore, i don't hope so *g*?
To 1: But http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/education/robot_builder/ prog/programming.htm shows some code you need, so are these robots then semi-autonomous or how do you mean?
Slashdot Mirror
No resuming downloads doesn't work (yet) (also not with a current Mozilla or Firefox build).
If you are referring to this one, i guess there the decrease of IE6 was because of some virii/trojans were people were just too stupid to figure out what was wrong with their PC and re-installed their system.
Yes, there is even a whole (Mini-)Desktop available online, also it's rather a tech demo. Only works with Mozilla/FF (Gecko based browsers in general), the desktop can be found here
The idea was/is: If you focus on web browsing only, you always have to see what other browsers (esspecially IE) do and always jump after them if they create some cool new thing or introduce a new successful tag (also it's not in the specs). So the idea is to create a surplus value like XUL in combination with other things, like access to Mozilla internal interfaces or RDF,XUL,SOAP,XML support, which makes it easy to create some web-apps (a application development platform). So here you are the challenger then and don't have to follow the other browsers all the time.
The problem is Mozilla (or FF) should also be a application development platform (aka webapps). These are already used in some internal company LANs, they use it because XUL has many elements that are useful for webapps (and can't be built that easily in HTML), look native in the browser, aren't to difficult to program, run on many platforms and look the same on every one, Mozilla and FF support many things like SOAP,XML,etc. So if you don't allow access to chrome URLs, at least some of these advantages will go away.
which backdoor are you talking about? Spoofing is just a general problem, which can also be done with DHTML easily. Just takes some more work, but still many people would believe they're looking at a normal browser window.
Do you have JavaScript enabled? The about page doesn't work without it (or only displays Mozilla is you have it). Unfortunatelly there are various reasons why the about: page depends on JavaScript enabled :/
The point is: Webapps, as you already mentioned. But how should Mozilla (or FF) know it is loading a file from a server in a WAN or from a server in a LAN. The only solution would be then that Mozilla/FF asks if this site should be granted access to chrome (disabling urlbar, statusbar, etc.). Can be very annoying, if it would be only for XUL, maybe acceptable. But then for sure someone would come up with "Security Bug: Loading many XUL sites can DoS Mozilla" :-). So you can do it as you want, in some way it's always "insecure".
Either a reporter can mark his own bug confidential or a member from the security group can mark it confidential (or remove that flag). The members can be found here. Those are either members of the Mozilla Foundation, people who have done coding for Mozilla for many years now or were in any other way involved for a long time in the security of Mozilla. Or earlier (like one year ago) it were also people from Netscape, but i don't know how many people from Netscape actually had access to those bugs.
The (first) fix will be that it isn't allowed to hide the statusbar anymore (by default). So on that spoof site you would actually see two status bars then (one fake, one real).
Read this/a>
They're making money (or at least try to) with marketing the new Netscape ISP.
Maybe Mozdev Group made the releases, look at their website, there are two hints for that: "June 14th, 2004 -- Mozdev Group, engages Netscape" and "Last Updated: netscape July 23rd 2004 12:21:14 EDT -0400" So maybe those people make the Netscape 7.2 releases, since i wouldnt know who else could do that (since almost noone from Netscape is left at AOL anymore).
"I don't think so": Just compare Mozilla 1.4 to Mozilla 1.7 and you know what you get (with some additions).
And how many paid developers work on OOo hired by Sun? None, 12 or even more :)? See, from AOL (former Netscape) nobody is working on Mozilla anymore.
ah ok, all this different courts *confused* ;-)
Also note the reasons are eight sites long, which probably took some time to research :)
For example the court here considered a conflict of paragraph 4 of the GPL with German UrhG 31 (especially first paragraph). This paragraph says in general that the usage right limited in a way of space, time or content. Important here is for example if someone gets not-correctly GPL-licensed software (or whatever) from someone, who violates GPL rights, that this has no impact on the 3rd party users. The court says the 3rd party can get license then later and so then fullfill the GPL license and so if this 3rd party gives the software (piece of whatever) to a 4th person, there is no license violation (which is important, either one person in a chain could cause many license violations down the chain).
Yes, you're right, also if there is a similar cast, most courts decide the same then. Only if the Federal Supreme Court decides something, every court under it (which are almost all except Federal Constitutional Court and such) must follow it, but iirc every decision the Federal Constitutional Court makes, must get a law anyway.
Yes, i think if all Windows boxen would be available from public, this would be very worse. So yes, a firewall is definitely needed then :).
Someone knows what ip adresses in IPv6 are reserved for private use? In IPv4, it's 10.0.0.0 -10.255.255.255, 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255, 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255. Are these the same just translated in IPv6 or have these IP adress ranges been extended (would be logical, since there are more adresses available)? Or are there just no private ip adresses anymore, i don't hope so *g*?
Paying 38 for a letter?! heh what letter did he send you ;)?
That's because a cell phone uses a different frequency range, that's the whole deal.
I think they don't think they use the MS Exchange Server, because this site doesn't mention Windows is used as a operation system.
To 1: But http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/education/robot_builder/ prog/programming.htm shows some code you need, so are these robots then semi-autonomous or how do you mean?