I think you'll find that windows only over-writes the MBR on installation. It doesn't erase Linux, but until you re-install Lilo or Grub, you won't be able to access it.
I use FF in my job at a pharmaceutical company, and looking for some medical terms in Google can often bring up some results of sites I really don't want to be visiting (Well, not from work, anyway *ahem* )
The last thing I want is for those pages to show up in the company's web access logs, so I think I'll skip this feature when I'm at work.
I thought that MS's argument a while back, when challenged about abusing their monopoly by bundling IE, was that the browser WAS an integral part of the OS?
Now that they're being picked up on that as a bad idea, they're suddenly saying it's NOT part of the OS?
Isn't this a "have cake and eat it" situation? It's part of the OS when lawsuits are involved, but completely separate when security issues are raised.
I've read about the kind of power over PC's TC can give.
Am I right in thinking that it only takes one person to crack the right part of TC, and he could, for instance, tell every TC PC to erase it's own hard drive? Or to lock every document you've written under TC? Or to lock everyone out of a particular OS?
If so, given the track record of "computers vs. people", isn't TC just a time bomb waiting to go off?
Or is there a genuine system in place that will make abusing it impossible? If so, what IS it?
They have no standing - only the copyright holders have this, and if they don't do anything then nothing will happen.
When it comes to GPL'd software, who IS the copyright holder?
Sure, one person starts the code. But when other people submit patches, improvements, branch the code, etc, etc. . . are they ALL copyright holders? If somebody, for instance, ripped off the Linux kernel, would only Linus Torvalds be eligible to sue, or would every single developer who'd submitted code to it be able to start up a suit?
If a webmaster starts to shift his focus from IE to FireFox/Mozilla, he is just being as bad as all the other webmasters who give preference to IE users.
Not necessarily - Firefox, like most other FOSS browsers, is standards-compliant, IE isn't. This is the biggest obstacle to having a website that can be viewed by any browser.
So if this is down to a website complying with the correctstandards, the problem is squarely with IE, and may convince M$ to do it everybody else's way, instead of insisting that everybody else does it the M$ way. . .
So long as the choice is "Should we make our site standards-compliant or IE-compatible?" there can never be a truly universal website.
Junk Science has a couple of counters up, one detailing Kyoto's costs and one the benefits it's estimated to provide. You may find them interesting. . .
Well, just for starters, they could train up some of their own populace to give the neccesary support, thus putting money into circulation in their own country, instead of throwing the cash away into a foreign company's coffers.
Secondly, if you really want to know where the savings are, click a few of the links on M$'s "Get the facts" campaign and read what the reports ACTUALLY say, not just the mis-represented crud M$ publish. You'll soon find out where all the savings are.
I think Stallman is a bit eccentric about his ideas about freedom. I would venture to guess that he's wired a bit funny. His ideologies are are not practical nor are they rooted in reality. My freedom is not in jeopardy because I elected to use MacOS X on an Apple G5
It's an interesting paradox that to make free software the universal norm, you would have to take away people's freedom to make non-free software. Either way, freedom can't be total.
Also, building something like gnome from source really teaches you the meaning of 'dependency hell.'
Gnome? Hell, just trying to get Firefox installed nearly made me scream at the dependencies!
Sadly, I have to confess I gave up in the end. I've gone over to Gentoo. It might not be so streamlined, but it's so nice to watch it work out the dependencies for me:o)
It was well worth it tho, just for what you learn. I'll never be afraid of compiling from source again:o)
While I respect Slackware's deicison, KDE is too busy for me (it has matured over the last couple of years). Gnome is nice and clean, but the dependancy tree for gtk is no better than qt. After using UNIX as my primary desktop for the last 3 years, I've personally settled on fvwm, a simple window manager, for both it's reliability and efficiency.
Yep! Gnome and KDE fulfill one role on my Slack box, and one role only - they allow my girlfriend to use my computer when she needs to.
I don't like either of them. FVWM is infinitely customisable, runs blisteringly fast, and requires miniscule resources to run.
The only downside was having to spend several hours with the man pages to work out how to set up the config files properly:o)
Slashdot Mirror
. . . won't quantum computers mean an end to binary?
In the old days, a cat in a box was either alive or dead - one or zero, you might say. Nice and easy.
But when it gets quantum? How the hell is a simple machine going to cope when it asks "Is it one or zero?" and gets told "Both"
"We've had to replace 'if' and 'and' with 'maybe' and 'probably'. And 'not' has become obsolete."
I think you'll find that windows only over-writes the MBR on installation. It doesn't erase Linux, but until you re-install Lilo or Grub, you won't be able to access it.
You could be on to something here: That rule might apply to software too.
How many lines of code do they reckon make up the Windows source code..? :o)
The last thing I want is for those pages to show up in the company's web access logs, so I think I'll skip this feature when I'm at work.
Now that they're being picked up on that as a bad idea, they're suddenly saying it's NOT part of the OS?
Isn't this a "have cake and eat it" situation? It's part of the OS when lawsuits are involved, but completely separate when security issues are raised.
Or did I misunderstand something somewhere?
Wouldn't it be simpler just to start from DSL, which already DOES fit on a credit-card sized CD?
Am I right in thinking that it only takes one person to crack the right part of TC, and he could, for instance, tell every TC PC to erase it's own hard drive? Or to lock every document you've written under TC? Or to lock everyone out of a particular OS?
If so, given the track record of "computers vs. people", isn't TC just a time bomb waiting to go off?
Or is there a genuine system in place that will make abusing it impossible? If so, what IS it?
P2P != illegal file sharing I can't believe this post got modded "interesting" instead of "Troll"
No chance of any anti-linux bias from any of that lot, eh? :)
When it comes to GPL'd software, who IS the copyright holder?
Sure, one person starts the code. But when other people submit patches, improvements, branch the code, etc, etc. . . are they ALL copyright holders? If somebody, for instance, ripped off the Linux kernel, would only Linus Torvalds be eligible to sue, or would every single developer who'd submitted code to it be able to start up a suit?
Just curious. . .
If a webmaster starts to shift his focus from IE to FireFox/Mozilla, he is just being as bad as all the other webmasters who give preference to IE users.
Not necessarily - Firefox, like most other FOSS browsers, is standards-compliant, IE isn't. This is the biggest obstacle to having a website that can be viewed by any browser.
So if this is down to a website complying with the correctstandards, the problem is squarely with IE, and may convince M$ to do it everybody else's way, instead of insisting that everybody else does it the M$ way. . .
So long as the choice is "Should we make our site standards-compliant or IE-compatible?" there can never be a truly universal website.
Junk Science has a couple of counters up, one detailing Kyoto's costs and one the benefits it's estimated to provide. You may find them interesting. . .
Limited to one screen? How primitive!
Just the fact that it'll free me from having to reinstall graphics drivers whenever I update the kernel is enough to justify the cost, IMHO :o)
Mind you, that IS the opinion of someone who's graphics needs are admirably served by an MX440. . .
Well, just for starters, they could train up some of their own populace to give the neccesary support, thus putting money into circulation in their own country, instead of throwing the cash away into a foreign company's coffers.
Secondly, if you really want to know where the savings are, click a few of the links on M$'s "Get the facts" campaign and read what the reports ACTUALLY say, not just the mis-represented crud M$ publish. You'll soon find out where all the savings are.
Y'know, with that attidude, Linux itself would never have gotten anywhere. . .
It's an interesting paradox that to make free software the universal norm, you would have to take away people's freedom to make non-free software. Either way, freedom can't be total.
Gnome? Hell, just trying to get Firefox installed nearly made me scream at the dependencies!
Sadly, I have to confess I gave up in the end. I've gone over to Gentoo. It might not be so streamlined, but it's so nice to watch it work out the dependencies for me :o)
It was well worth it tho, just for what you learn. I'll never be afraid of compiling from source again :o)
Take a look at the username, and take a guess at mine :o)
What if they aimed it so it would miss hitting Mars and go into orbit instead?
While I respect Slackware's deicison, KDE is too busy for me (it has matured over the last couple of years). Gnome is nice and clean, but the dependancy tree for gtk is no better than qt. After using UNIX as my primary desktop for the last 3 years, I've personally settled on fvwm, a simple window manager, for both it's reliability and efficiency .
Yep! Gnome and KDE fulfill one role on my Slack box, and one role only - they allow my girlfriend to use my computer when she needs to.
I don't like either of them. FVWM is infinitely customisable, runs blisteringly fast, and requires miniscule resources to run.
The only downside was having to spend several hours with the man pages to work out how to set up the config files properly :o)
Uh.. the BBC isn't a business.
"R M forward slash R F enter"
(Pedant mode)
Actually, it's "R M space minus R F space forward slash enter"
Your command would attempt to delete the "rf" file in the root directory.
(/Pedant mode)
It's uncertain.
Yeah, and hanging's too good for them, so they have to find some middle ground :o)