I admit I only skimmed, but I'm actually pretty impressed about how Martin Taylor handled an interview with the world's greatest mass of Microsoft-haters - specifically, without lying or resorting to their usual business tactics to justify themselves. Good interview!
(Except, seemingly, for the answer about TCO. I didn't get that one)
Fedora Core 3 is pretty modenrn, and it comes without MP3 support. Rhythmbox refuses to play MP3s at all without any error or warning, luckily XMMS gives you a handy message.
Does Windows have less bugs than these Linux distros?
Who knows? Microsoft control the source - they decide what constitutes a bug or not, and whether or not to disclose it. It is possible that Windows is absolutely crawling with little-known bugs and vulnerabilities, and Microsoft only discloses the ones it is going to fix. Then they can say "Look, 97% of our bugs are fixed! Now take a look at the list of RedHat bugs, it's huge!" and we would be none the wiser.
Linux and Windows have different aims: in Windows, security has been put in the backseat so it has more features and user-friendly. In Linux, it is the opposite: security and stability are top priorities; if something increases security but decreases usability, so be it. People are used to having everything in Windows available to them without becoming root or anything.
Another thought that occurred to me recently: maybe people just think Linux is not user-friendly because they are used to doing things the Windows Way: Administrator access by default, anything can install programs, and so on. I use Linux on my laptop, and whenever I want to install something, update, fiddle with system settings, or do something else that requires root access, I type the root password out of habit. Whenever I do the same on Windows, I keep thinking "Why isn't that password-protected? This could be done without my knowing!".
I tried that, and it didn't do much.:( If I search with msn.com, it changes it to msn.co.uk, but if I change it back again it seems to get the message. Thanks anyway
I'd pay you good money if you tell me how to turn localisation off:) It is searching UK sites whether I've told it to or not. And as there are far fewer UK Britney Spears sites than US ones, this is a serious problem... yeah.
7-8 seconds is the time on my computer, which hardly runs anything else. On the computers at my school, K-Meleon still takes two seconds while Firefox takes over thirty.
I am typing this from 0.9, and the only thing that makes it different from the other browsers is the number of options and customisations available. The 'Tools' menu gives me thirteen different submenus, for one.
I think it is trying to have all the browser features of Opera, for free - very customisable toolbars, loads of options, things Firefox has extensions for (tab groups, user agents, etc) are all built-in. This seems a little odd - isn't it supposed to be ultra-stripped down and lightweight? It'll take some getting used to, but it has everything I need in it, even though most things I doubt I'll ever use.
(It uses a pop-up organiser for bookmarks, btw. And it launches your mail client to read your mail)
Yes, startup. Given the number of complaints about how Firefox takes an age and a half to start up sometimes, it can only be good. The last version could open within two seconds on my machine, compared with seven or eight for Firefox.
It is faster because it uses the standard Windows widgets for menus and toolbars, instead of using XUL for the interface. No XUL = faster, see.
Is MS trying to avoid cross-platform internet technologies or something?
Quite possibly - with Firefox and XUL, web applications on your Windows machine at work can work on Linux and Mac machines at home; with Internet Explorer and XAML, web applications will only work with Windows - making you 'upgrade' your computer to it. More lock-in, more buying from MS.
Slashdot Mirror
That's it, GoogleBurger! Find that stupidly-small piece of meat that you're sure they have to put in there even faster!
I admit I only skimmed, but I'm actually pretty impressed about how Martin Taylor handled an interview with the world's greatest mass of Microsoft-haters - specifically, without lying or resorting to their usual business tactics to justify themselves. Good interview!
(Except, seemingly, for the answer about TCO. I didn't get that one)
Fedora Core 3 is pretty modenrn, and it comes without MP3 support. Rhythmbox refuses to play MP3s at all without any error or warning, luckily XMMS gives you a handy message.
Better safe than sorry, I guess.
Try going to Google Suggest and type in "goooo" in the search field for some true goooooooooooooogle results ;)
"lolol" has the same effect. So does punctuation such as "....." for that matter.
Does Windows have less bugs than these Linux distros?
Who knows? Microsoft control the source - they decide what constitutes a bug or not, and whether or not to disclose it.
It is possible that Windows is absolutely crawling with little-known bugs and vulnerabilities, and Microsoft only discloses the ones it is going to fix. Then they can say "Look, 97% of our bugs are fixed! Now take a look at the list of RedHat bugs, it's huge!" and we would be none the wiser.
Elsewhere like searching on Google France which is what the article is about?
Microsoft has the largest CS research lab and has one of the most impressive groups of researchers around anywhere.
What does it have to show for it, though?
That's where Wine comes in!
He also brought us Microsoft Word, so uninteroperable with itself you sometimes have to use OpenOffice Writer to recover its documents.
Why shouldn't Firefox and Sunbird have the same customize toolbar box, though? It works, so why mess with it?
It is cribbed directly from Firefox actually. And making up part of a suite, it isn't surprising.
He got $28 000, which is hardly half.
Linux and Windows have different aims: in Windows, security has been put in the backseat so it has more features and user-friendly. In Linux, it is the opposite: security and stability are top priorities; if something increases security but decreases usability, so be it. People are used to having everything in Windows available to them without becoming root or anything.
Another thought that occurred to me recently: maybe people just think Linux is not user-friendly because they are used to doing things the Windows Way: Administrator access by default, anything can install programs, and so on.
I use Linux on my laptop, and whenever I want to install something, update, fiddle with system settings, or do something else that requires root access, I type the root password out of habit. Whenever I do the same on Windows, I keep thinking "Why isn't that password-protected? This could be done without my knowing!".
After Linux, Windows is scary like that.
I thought "Walkman" had come to mean "portable player device", whether or not it was made by Sony.
I tried that, and it didn't do much. :( If I search with msn.com, it changes it to msn.co.uk, but if I change it back again it seems to get the message. Thanks anyway
I'd pay you good money if you tell me how to turn localisation off :) It is searching UK sites whether I've told it to or not. And as there are far fewer UK Britney Spears sites than US ones, this is a serious problem... yeah.
What's the word after it? 'Solaris'?
Could two words ever be more mutually exclusive?
I run Folding@Home whenever I can. It is for a worthwhile cause, so does that count?
For a moment there, I thought you meant the Guardian editors :P
Try "geschrägstrichpunktiert" with the ge (makes it past).
It's long, but they only need to use it once
7-8 seconds is the time on my computer, which hardly runs anything else. On the computers at my school, K-Meleon still takes two seconds while Firefox takes over thirty.
I am typing this from 0.9, and the only thing that makes it different from the other browsers is the number of options and customisations available. The 'Tools' menu gives me thirteen different submenus, for one.
I think it is trying to have all the browser features of Opera, for free - very customisable toolbars, loads of options, things Firefox has extensions for (tab groups, user agents, etc) are all built-in. This seems a little odd - isn't it supposed to be ultra-stripped down and lightweight? It'll take some getting used to, but it has everything I need in it, even though most things I doubt I'll ever use.
(It uses a pop-up organiser for bookmarks, btw. And it launches your mail client to read your mail)
Yes, startup. Given the number of complaints about how Firefox takes an age and a half to start up sometimes, it can only be good. The last version could open within two seconds on my machine, compared with seven or eight for Firefox.
It is faster because it uses the standard Windows widgets for menus and toolbars, instead of using XUL for the interface. No XUL = faster, see.
Is MS trying to avoid cross-platform internet technologies or something?
Quite possibly - with Firefox and XUL, web applications on your Windows machine at work can work on Linux and Mac machines at home; with Internet Explorer and XAML, web applications will only work with Windows - making you 'upgrade' your computer to it. More lock-in, more buying from MS.
You can even use an optimized build if you wish to. I use this one, and the difference is very noticeable.