Precisely. Everyone has their own opinions, and some allow their opinions to enter into the way they deal with other companies.
However, this can be a double edged sword, as Google's opinions seem to match mine - "Be Nice." Microsoft's on the other hand has been proven again and again to be "Money... Money... Did I say money?"
My menu bar, etc weren't hidden. It opened in a new tab, as did the popup about VeriSign. For me, it was a dead giveaway.
I have a script that causes all instances to open in a new tab, though. Even those with odd _target=s.
Point number 1: They already have enough money to pull it off.
Point number 2: Unfortunately, I did buy Windows XP a year ago. I bought it OEM, student, IIRC, and I then bought works off eBay for £30. That's it for me. (One of my reasons for choosing Linux is due to the moral shit with MS) However, they already have enough money for them to be able to create an unprofitable product then get it into the market forcibly before crippling it.
Revolutionary... such as redirection *.google.* to www.msn.com?
They own IE. They have the power to do that.
It may be illegal on grounds of anti-trust, but since when did the law stop Microsoft?
As a monopoly, in control of a browser, MS has the power to all but force its users to use MSN. They also have the power to create a vastly unprofitable (but actually better) product, but then, once the competition has choked, they can do whatever they like with the result.
Yes, but guess who I trust more with that data - Microsoft the many-times-proven-evil monopoly, or Google, the site that chose instead of blasting me with popups, to serve relevant, non-intrusive adverts?
Not difficult, is it?
With Microsoft, compete doesn't mean compete. It means throw money down a botomless hole until you end up with a product that no-one can refuse. The point is that instead of having to make a profitable enterprise, they can make an unprofitable one and then afterwards, once they've monopolized the industry either by shoving their technology down people's throats and holding it there, or by actually making a product, they can do whatever they want.
At this point, Google's been run off the road and so we lose (once Microsoft has pumped their search full of ads/spyware/etc) the best engine.
Sure, there are huge legality flaws, but someone should set up a website where you can download a client that attacks crappy servers. You could opt out of certain sites if you happened to like them, and you could configure it to your bandwidth limit. Then, you simply start it up and along with millions of others, it pongs all the evil sites in existence.
Yes, it's illegal, but this is doubleclick we're talking about!
Plus, if sites want to advertise then they can look at the popular opinion and use Google PageAds. Non-intrusive, relevant and still advertising - novel!
I hate doubleclick, fastclick, mediaplex et al, but google pageads - who cares? Advertising should be at its most effective. For me, that means relevant, non-intrusive, factual. Non of this flashing, blinking "Ur c0mpUTEr m1te HAVe a V1RU5!!!!!!11shift-one U n33d OUr 5pe5HuL Antv1ru5!" crap.
The former gets considered. The latter gets zapped. LEARN, DOUBLECLICK!
This works for Firefox, too, and is documented on the website.
Some tweaking can be useful, as it blocks images that are certain sizes most used by banners. This can cause legitimate images to be allowed through.
Well, so far I've had almost no luck with the java plugin on firefox 0.9, Linux.
Whenever I view an applet in 0.9 with the plugin enabled the browser crashes out, complaining about "unexpected work request for plugin" etc.
These messages are actually from the plugin, rather than the browser, and yes, I did symlink, not copy.
That said, 0.8 works fine, and I use firefox permanently. I tried Opera today... and that was it. It seems to be all fancy graphics, but nothing else.
So basically, instead of using a secure browser, your cripple the insecure, featureless, bloated one in the hope that it'll be vaguely acceptable in the security department at least?
What about Tabbed Browsing, extensions, standards compliance and all that?
This is the exact same problem I had, and in fact marked one incorrectly legitimate.
The amount of information you infer from whether you're subscribed and where the links send you is very high with scams that aren't the "u need to shut d0wn ur MSN ACCOUNT!!! OR u wi1 br SHOT!!!!1111-shift-one" type...
Except that I'm suffering the effects of this attack, using Linux, Firefox and Thunderbird. When I boot into Windows, I pull out my router cable!
If that won't stop them, I don't know what will...
I guess your ears are naturally pointy, your skin is naturally perfect and your hair is naturally long, luxurious and clean.
OTOH, perhaps you aren't an elf!
It's like complaining that there's a lot of CGI in Sci Fi movies!
I'd agree strongly on this point. The idea that Linux is behind in the GUI department (sounds rather dirty, but hey) is false, in my opinion.
What we're seeing is that the power you have with a CLI is partly coming over to the GUI - we have a large amount of customizability inbuilt (e.g. The Panel, Workspaces, Themes et al) and this all results in something quite confusing for an average user.
Those who review Linux on the server side are unlikely to be the same people who review it on the GUI side - they'll be those who're very knowledgeable about the subject, whereas GUI reviewers are more likely (not certainly) to be towards the average end of competence, and therefore be more overwhelmed.
The result is that we see GNOME travelling backwards - trying to cater for the average/below average user and at the same time making a hash of it all for the rest of us. DEs like E, Fluxbox, et al, though, mean that the power users can still get their fantastic GUIs without the oversimplification that GNOME will suffer from.
I expect that GNOME's simplification will result in a project shunned by much of the experienced Linux world, but embraced by the reviewers and Windows convertees.
n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johathan Swift syn: sarcasm, satire, caustic remark
2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs"
There we have what irony means, now. When people misinterpret irony, they do not automatically create a new meaning for the word. Instead, people around them will probably get confused, since they don't know that the first person doesn't grasp the concepts of irony. This perhaps shows the necessity for a better teaching of English, rather than the need to acccept change, which would validate the "Grammar Nazi's" comments.
It is natural to resist change as it disturbs the current order we have now and makes things more confusing for us.
Even if we end up with a better language in the long termn, language evolution will be resisted, as it will take effort and confusion to evolve it. Language is such a complicated concept that simply grasping it in the first place is quite a feat. Expecting people to then keep pace with the latest changes in it will, of course, lead to problems. You cannot expect this to be different.
In addition, the fact that both going and coming have been used to represent orgasm presents the very ambiguity you stated that it didn't. Consider: "I waited, and but he came." What does this mean? Ambiguous, eh?
A language without ambiguity helps understanding immensely - without slang, you could understand what that said, immediately. If language was frozen as it was now, perhaps it would remain as bad as it is, but we would all be able to learn its nuances and not have to relearn them.
Precisely. For "ease of use" read "patronizing turd-pile lacking functionality."
I'm sorry, but when I'm trying to work, I really don't want a persistent "clink clink clink" by Clippy or "woof" or whatever, reminding me that I need to save to avoid losing work to crashes (and whose fault is that) or that Clippy's replaced `teh' with `the'.
The Office Assistant in OOo is along the right lines. An innocuous, static, silent image pops up. If you want to, you can get the info, but you soon learn what it's probably saying and so can ignore it. Or turn it off.
Unfortunately this is not true. Just because the BSODs are less frequent in XP does not mean they're not still caused by stupid things.
On a related note, just today I had an application repeatedly commit suicide, when it had never done so before. Somehow I don't think this is to do with hardware.
XP is certainly better than before, but it is NOT perfect.
Also, because Windows costs a lot to upgrade, people still run the old stuff. So even if they were a thing of the past in XP, BSODs still wouldn't be.
That's fine if you want (like someone else said) to type your letters to Grandma. If, on the other hand, you want a middle-high end machine, you'll generally get the best value from DIY.
Those who do this generally realise that there's often no point in having the latest and greatest graphics, processor etc, because you're paying premium, so instead of getting a machine that advertises "cheap" but is actually "crippled" or one that advertises "high-end" but is actually "exorbitant" you put your own pretty decent but reasonably priced computer.
These days you can generally expect that a machine you put together will work, mostly first time. Sure, for the type-the-letter-to-grandma, you don't want to faff around with the bits AND risk it not working, but for many, it's half the fun.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't think of anything to add to that...
Precisely. Everyone has their own opinions, and some allow their opinions to enter into the way they deal with other companies.
However, this can be a double edged sword, as Google's opinions seem to match mine - "Be Nice." Microsoft's on the other hand has been proven again and again to be "Money... Money... Did I say money?"
My menu bar, etc weren't hidden. It opened in a new tab, as did the popup about VeriSign. For me, it was a dead giveaway.
I have a script that causes all instances to open in a new tab, though. Even those with odd _target=s.
Point number 1: They already have enough money to pull it off.
Point number 2: Unfortunately, I did buy Windows XP a year ago. I bought it OEM, student, IIRC, and I then bought works off eBay for £30. That's it for me. (One of my reasons for choosing Linux is due to the moral shit with MS) However, they already have enough money for them to be able to create an unprofitable product then get it into the market forcibly before crippling it.
They own IE. They have the power to do that.
It may be illegal on grounds of anti-trust, but since when did the law stop Microsoft?
As a monopoly, in control of a browser, MS has the power to all but force its users to use MSN. They also have the power to create a vastly unprofitable (but actually better) product, but then, once the competition has choked, they can do whatever they like with the result.
Yes, but guess who I trust more with that data - Microsoft the many-times-proven-evil monopoly, or Google, the site that chose instead of blasting me with popups, to serve relevant, non-intrusive adverts?
Not difficult, is it?
With Microsoft, compete doesn't mean compete. It means throw money down a botomless hole until you end up with a product that no-one can refuse. The point is that instead of having to make a profitable enterprise, they can make an unprofitable one and then afterwards, once they've monopolized the industry either by shoving their technology down people's throats and holding it there, or by actually making a product, they can do whatever they want.
At this point, Google's been run off the road and so we lose (once Microsoft has pumped their search full of ads/spyware/etc) the best engine.
2767 packets transmitted, 2753 received ns2:
2703 packets transmitted, 2688 received ns3:
2186 packets transmitted, 2175 received ns4:
2522 packets transmitted, 2503 received
I don't think the attack's still on... Pity.
Sure, there are huge legality flaws, but someone should set up a website where you can download a client that attacks crappy servers. You could opt out of certain sites if you happened to like them, and you could configure it to your bandwidth limit. Then, you simply start it up and along with millions of others, it pongs all the evil sites in existence.
Yes, it's illegal, but this is doubleclick we're talking about!
I hate doubleclick, fastclick, mediaplex et al, but google pageads - who cares? Advertising should be at its most effective. For me, that means relevant, non-intrusive, factual. Non of this flashing, blinking "Ur c0mpUTEr m1te HAVe a V1RU5!!!!!!11shift-one U n33d OUr 5pe5HuL Antv1ru5!" crap.
The former gets considered. The latter gets zapped. LEARN, DOUBLECLICK!
This works for Firefox, too, and is documented on the website.
Some tweaking can be useful, as it blocks images that are certain sizes most used by banners. This can cause legitimate images to be allowed through.
Whenever I view an applet in 0.9 with the plugin enabled the browser crashes out, complaining about "unexpected work request for plugin" etc.
These messages are actually from the plugin, rather than the browser, and yes, I did symlink, not copy.
That said, 0.8 works fine, and I use firefox permanently. I tried Opera today... and that was it. It seems to be all fancy graphics, but nothing else.
What about Tabbed Browsing, extensions, standards compliance and all that?
Firefox is more than IE SP2...
It'sYerMam, you insensitive clod!
The amount of information you infer from whether you're subscribed and where the links send you is very high with scams that aren't the "u need to shut d0wn ur MSN ACCOUNT!!! OR u wi1 br SHOT!!!!1111-shift-one" type...
Still, for such a crap scam 90% isn't bad.
One word: Clippy.
Except that I'm suffering the effects of this attack, using Linux, Firefox and Thunderbird. When I boot into Windows, I pull out my router cable!
If that won't stop them, I don't know what will...
OTOH, perhaps you aren't an elf!
It's like complaining that there's a lot of CGI in Sci Fi movies!
What we're seeing is that the power you have with a CLI is partly coming over to the GUI - we have a large amount of customizability inbuilt (e.g. The Panel, Workspaces, Themes et al) and this all results in something quite confusing for an average user.
Those who review Linux on the server side are unlikely to be the same people who review it on the GUI side - they'll be those who're very knowledgeable about the subject, whereas GUI reviewers are more likely (not certainly) to be towards the average end of competence, and therefore be more overwhelmed.
The result is that we see GNOME travelling backwards - trying to cater for the average/below average user and at the same time making a hash of it all for the rest of us. DEs like E, Fluxbox, et al, though, mean that the power users can still get their fantastic GUIs without the oversimplification that GNOME will suffer from.
I expect that GNOME's simplification will result in a project shunned by much of the experienced Linux world, but embraced by the reviewers and Windows convertees.
irony
n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johathan Swift syn: sarcasm, satire, caustic remark
2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs"
There we have what irony means, now. When people misinterpret irony, they do not automatically create a new meaning for the word. Instead, people around them will probably get confused, since they don't know that the first person doesn't grasp the concepts of irony. This perhaps shows the necessity for a better teaching of English, rather than the need to acccept change, which would validate the "Grammar Nazi's" comments.
It is natural to resist change as it disturbs the current order we have now and makes things more confusing for us.
Even if we end up with a better language in the long termn, language evolution will be resisted, as it will take effort and confusion to evolve it. Language is such a complicated concept that simply grasping it in the first place is quite a feat. Expecting people to then keep pace with the latest changes in it will, of course, lead to problems. You cannot expect this to be different.
In addition, the fact that both going and coming have been used to represent orgasm presents the very ambiguity you stated that it didn't. Consider: "I waited, and but he came." What does this mean? Ambiguous, eh?
A language without ambiguity helps understanding immensely - without slang, you could understand what that said, immediately. If language was frozen as it was now, perhaps it would remain as bad as it is, but we would all be able to learn its nuances and not have to relearn them.
Precisely. For "ease of use" read "patronizing turd-pile lacking functionality."
I'm sorry, but when I'm trying to work, I really don't want a persistent "clink clink clink" by Clippy or "woof" or whatever, reminding me that I need to save to avoid losing work to crashes (and whose fault is that) or that Clippy's replaced `teh' with `the'.
The Office Assistant in OOo is along the right lines. An innocuous, static, silent image pops up. If you want to, you can get the info, but you soon learn what it's probably saying and so can ignore it. Or turn it off.
On a related note, just today I had an application repeatedly commit suicide, when it had never done so before. Somehow I don't think this is to do with hardware.
XP is certainly better than before, but it is NOT perfect.
Also, because Windows costs a lot to upgrade, people still run the old stuff. So even if they were a thing of the past in XP, BSODs still wouldn't be.
I don't have any arms, you insensitive clod!
That's fine if you want (like someone else said) to type your letters to Grandma. If, on the other hand, you want a middle-high end machine, you'll generally get the best value from DIY.
Those who do this generally realise that there's often no point in having the latest and greatest graphics, processor etc, because you're paying premium, so instead of getting a machine that advertises "cheap" but is actually "crippled" or one that advertises "high-end" but is actually "exorbitant" you put your own pretty decent but reasonably priced computer.
These days you can generally expect that a machine you put together will work, mostly first time. Sure, for the type-the-letter-to-grandma, you don't want to faff around with the bits AND risk it not working, but for many, it's half the fun.