It shows Mac IE5 right at 100% (if you read the note), with Opera being the highest Windows browser at 85.1%.
If all goes according to plan, Opera 4 will also have 100% on that list, as well as a good deal of CSS2 (which isn't reflected there). Mozilla in theory should get a 100 as well.
Looking at it in Opera 3.62, the Toolbar buttons on the main page (after the splash page) do show you the url. The large image directly below them, and the news headlines, don't. They have descriptions, with no url.
I posted about this way down near the beginning of the thread, but its good to see other people commenting on this as well.
He seems to have made a very horrendous oversight, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Maybe he's a Mozilla advocate and doesn't want to mention Opera for fear of people discovering it? Or maybe its the money? Or maybe its just an oversight and an accident?
I'd love to hear from him on this, why did you ignore Opera except in the context of a "Linux Beta" that doesn't mention its usefulness at all.
One of the toolbar buttons is a handy "Kill all the document colors" button. I can hit that on just about any page and end up with black text on a white background. Great for those lousy sites that have white text on a white background (using a black background image, which I don't load because I have images disabled for speed reasons).
Opera 3.62 isn't 100% css1 compliant, but its the closest Windows browser in release right now. (Webreview's leader board puts it at over 85%, which is a significant lead over IE).
You have to remember that Opera didn't have CSS support at all until 3.5, so this is their first stab at it. Coming out with the best support on their first try really says something.
IIRC - Opera 4 is slated to be 100% CSS1 complaint, as well as having major support for CSS2 (there is a list of what they won't support yet, as opposed to a list of what they will). This will put it miles ahead of IE for either platform, Mozilla, or pretty much anything else out there.
"Linux folks can either use the Mozilla or Opera betas to navigate those pages in safety and comfort." - Answer to question 10.
Thats pretty meaningless. It doesn't mention at all that Opera is going to be a more CSS complaint browser then Mozilla, or that it already is better then IE5/Windows. Hell, from what he said, how would you even know there is a release version that isn't for Linux?
I must be missing something here... but every time he mentions CSS support, Opera is completely ignored.
Whats going on?
I mean they currently have the #1 Windows browser for CSS support in release, and if you compare the lists of what will be done, Opera 4 is going to flat out beat Netscape 6 in the realm of CSS2 support (IE5 isn't even a contender here).
But you don't mention it at all. I don't understand... why mention how great IE5/Mac is repeatidely and how great Mozilla is going to be, and completely ignore Opera? Hello, its great *now*!
It also has far easier support for a user to over-ride lousy layouts on pages with their own preset colors, and a handy zoom function for making those small pages readable (where the document layout over-ride option doesn't do it). I mean really, half the complaints you make about browser problems don't exist in Opera, and yet you completely ignore it.
When I get back to work tomorrow, I'm going to move to make sure that the company I'm the Network Admin for *never* upgrades to Win2000. We were planning on doing so at some future date on the servers.
But if MS won't let people discuss the issues around their proprietary extensions to Kerberos, which is supposed to be so fundamental to 2k's security, what are they hiding?
Security through obscurity simply doesn't work, and so long as they want to support it like this, I'm done with buying anything from them.
(granted, this is only a couple thousand dollars of revenue for them, but its a start.:-) )
I didn't know it was a "we won't post anything about you unless you do what we want" site. Thanks for enlightening me.
Blizzard hasn't given anybody the finger, they've said "we can't afford to port a game to a system that won't be able to generate the sales to pay for the port."
Last I checked, that was good business sense. I know that business sense is all but lost in this day and age of profitless companies, but to anyone who actually went into business to make money using a method other then an IPO, this is pretty smart.
All Blizzard said was "show us the sales", not "go fuck yourselves." If Linux gamers buy Linux versions of games in enough volume to make it feasable for blizzard to make a profit, you can bet they'll port it in a heartbeat.
But you can't expect a company to deliberately loose money just so you can have a game. In short, you don't matter that much.
if they support your linux system or not. I mean really, the cost of porting such a large game won't be worth it to them, the marketshare just isn't there to justify such a large expense.
So plesae don't whine about how bad it is that they're releasing a windows beta and how everybody who does it is a sucker, the simple truth is you'll find that the majority of people signing up don't give a rats ass about Linux at all.
In Diablo/Starcraft/War2BNE, Battle.net basically acts like a big chat network. It lets you talk to people, get stats, and *find* games. The games themselves all play as Peer-To-Peer systems, battle.net itself isn't really involved at all once the game starts.
Diablo II introduces something called a "closed" character. While a normal character resides on a players system like in Diablo and you can play it in any form of multiplayer game, closed characters are stored on the server and can *only* be played on Battle.net with other closed characters. During those games, they use a Client/Server setup, with Battle.net taking a more direct role in how the game is played. The idea being to try and prevent some of more flagrant hacks that plagued Diablo.
Now if you play an Open Character (as I intend to, since I also want to play with the same character over LAN's and the like), it doesn't work this way. But because the battle.net population is paranoid, you will see a *lot* of closed characters being played, hence the test. They want to make sure the system won't die before they release the game.
They were using an old nvidia driver with compression off, turning that back on would certainly have helped the GeForce out.
You also have to consider how much newer the Voodoo5 is, its not going to be competiting against current video cards in four months, its going to be competiting against all the *new* cards being put out by Nvidia, ATI, and everybody else. Considering they just managed to catch up now, what do you think will happen when all the new cards come out?
If they don't believe you and AC, tell them to ask me. I had to do a lookup and grab one of the other two server IP's to get one that was working properly.:)
I've seen people's lives runed by Alcoholism a lot more frequently then IRC addiction. And if your addicted to irc, your not likely to get into a car drunk and kill someone else.
The people DDoS'ing the servers aren't the same people who just like to go on and chat, they're a rather particular plague of idiot.
Its a nice gesture, but I can't see how it will really make much of a difference... as much as I hate lawsuits, a better solution is to try and find the people behind these attacks, and sue them for all the wasted network resources caused by their attacks. Sure, that won't stop new attackers, but it will at least help them with some money to buy extra bandwidth to deal with it.
Of course, a real solution to dealing with these idiots would be nice, but we can't just throw them off the net forever, and we can't shoot them. So just what do we do?
Go to The Distributed.net download page and grab the client for your platform. Specific instructions on how to install it for your platform are in the client, but the win32 version has a nice installer.:)
Configuring it can be kind of a pain if your a dialup/offline user, but if you have a lan type connection just plunk in your email address and thats about that, your ready to go. It'll connect to the internet and download some "blocks" to work on. When its done them, it'll send them back.
The day after you send some blocks in, go to the Distributed.net Stats Server and do a search for your email address. From there you can get your password, and can join a team.
If you want to join team slashdot, after you have retrieved your password, do a team search for slashdot, go to the team info, and there should be an "I want to join this team" link. Click it.
After that, your blocks will also count towards the team.
If you need more help with it, you can post here, visit #distributed on efnet, or if your desperate, email me.:-)
wasn't cutting edge graphics, great gameplay, or things like that... but they were multiplayer games in the truest sense of the word... Tradewars being a perfect example, it lived as a world of its own, and the player to player interaction was far more important, so far as actual communication goes.
I mean does anyone remember forming strategic alliances and making plans that would take weeks (even months sometimes) to come to fruition in games like Tradewars and BRE? You don't see that anymore... even the really good multiplayer games these days, the communities around them are in a much larger state of flux, a lot more people come and leave, they just don't last as long. The old BBS games often had people who were there seemingly forever, and since there wasn't as much change, you could develop such long standing relationships and grudges and the like.
I don't think its something that will be easy to recapture these days, however there is no reason why it couldn't be, if there is enough of us who still like these kind of slower strategy games.
I'll never forget some of the great times I had in these games, especially BRE (which was my favorite), and I doubt anyone else who was truly into it will either, modern games just aren't the same...
(hehe yeah, welll I've had the account a lot longer then I've been posting here, I didn't really start posting at all until browserwatch chat got nailed by y2k)
Well ok... most of the other irc networks servers are either donated or sponsored by somebody. For years, AMUG ran one of the Undernet servers, they were the ones who had to get the money for it (it was the phoenix server, which ruled until it went down recently). Psi.net runs an Efnet server, when its up at least. I believe AOL has an undernet server (they used to run washington, I believe they still do). Most of the servers are like that.
In the case of talkcity, its their own network, they own the whole thing themselves, and the ads are a means to try and make money off it.
Of course its not going to work,but hey, who wants to actually have a.com company that makes a profit?
(hey fellow former browserwatch chat regular, how ya been?:-) )
Well, no, your $20 a month doesn't pay for all that other stuff, it pays for your isp. Of course I'm pretty sure you already know that, and that it was just a rhetorical question.:)
The problem with what talkcity is doing is that they're effectively using a scapegoat to make more money. I mean really, look at the announcement. wanting to create a clean enviroment and all that nonsense, I mean really... just look at how well client side security works... I mean we have such great examples as ICQ, which has no real security at all when you get right down to it.
Its the same problem here, of course that press release is aimed at people who aren't going to have any clue about this sort of thing and will believe it, rather then the real reason, which is that they want to make more money.
I bet if they said that, then the people around here would be a lot less annoyed. Of course an honest corporation is something that we'll probably never see, basically lying is pretty much standard business these days.
gee, it couldn't possibly be that...
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
Internet Explorer is just a far better browser then Netscape is?
no... no that couldn't possibly be why it got popular! it sucks, but since the whole internet is stupid except for you, they use it anyway!
Now I get it! thank you so much for enlightening me!
Granted, $1000 is pretty expensive for it, but a lot of the threads in here have been talking about why not just use php or whatever instead... I guess they miss the one big reason why ASP is popular with companies (especially small ones):
Its easy!
I mean really... lets say your person X who has to build a website for your small company. Your not a programmer at all, have very little experience with scripting languages, and in general aren't all that technical.
You look at some sample perl code, and your mind baffles.
You look at some sample asp code, and assuming they used vbscript (which like 90% of asp programmers do, but the choice is nice), its actually readable, even if you don't know what it does. Vbscript is very nonthreatening to a newbie user, because it bears at least a passing resemblance to english itself.
So, what are you going to go with?
Then later you decide you want to add a small databse to this small company site. Well, low and behold, you whip up what you want in MS Access, stick it on the server, and follow some very basic and easy to follow instructions at any ASP help site. Presto, you now have an online database which can serve a small company pretty well.
Then lets say in a couple months thats kind of overloaded... you add an MS SQL server in. You change your DSN around to point to the SQL Server, and if your adding dates into your database, change the delimiter. Done, the script now uses the SQL Server instead of the Access DB (ADO/ODBC are great for that).
Do you see where I'm going with this? Its significantly easier for someone who doesn't actually want to spend hours and hours dedicating themselves to learning how to do it to use ASP. Thats the market MS wanted to go after, and they did an excellent job of it.
If somebody can bring that definate ease of use advantage (and don't tell me its not there, I just went through this a couple months ago personally and I know for a fact its true) to Linux, thats great. Now if only they could do it for less then $1000, but maybe this acquision will lower the price somewhat?
So come on guys, don't rag on it because its an MS technology, they actually did a very good job of making it pretty painless to get a scripted site up and running.
Is there a Windows client that can do that? What makes napster so successful is the huge numbers of users, and you need a windows userbase to get those numbers.
I've heard tons about opennap, but have never seen a windows client for it (except maybe napster itself, and napster can't normally send around other types of files, which is what this wrapper is for).
Slashdot Mirror
http://webreview.com/pub/guides/style/lboard.html
It shows Mac IE5 right at 100% (if you read the note), with Opera being the highest Windows browser at 85.1%.
If all goes according to plan, Opera 4 will also have 100% on that list, as well as a good deal of CSS2 (which isn't reflected there). Mozilla in theory should get a 100 as well.
Looking at it in Opera 3.62, the Toolbar buttons on the main page (after the splash page) do show you the url. The large image directly below them, and the news headlines, don't. They have descriptions, with no url.
I posted about this way down near the beginning of the thread, but its good to see other people commenting on this as well.
He seems to have made a very horrendous oversight, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Maybe he's a Mozilla advocate and doesn't want to mention Opera for fear of people discovering it? Or maybe its the money? Or maybe its just an oversight and an accident?
I'd love to hear from him on this, why did you ignore Opera except in the context of a "Linux Beta" that doesn't mention its usefulness at all.
One of the toolbar buttons is a handy "Kill all the document colors" button. I can hit that on just about any page and end up with black text on a white background. Great for those lousy sites that have white text on a white background (using a black background image, which I don't load because I have images disabled for speed reasons).
Opera 3.62 isn't 100% css1 compliant, but its the closest Windows browser in release right now. (Webreview's leader board puts it at over 85%, which is a significant lead over IE).
You have to remember that Opera didn't have CSS support at all until 3.5, so this is their first stab at it. Coming out with the best support on their first try really says something.
IIRC - Opera 4 is slated to be 100% CSS1 complaint, as well as having major support for CSS2 (there is a list of what they won't support yet, as opposed to a list of what they will). This will put it miles ahead of IE for either platform, Mozilla, or pretty much anything else out there.
"Linux folks can either use the Mozilla or Opera betas to navigate those pages in safety and comfort." - Answer to question 10.
Thats pretty meaningless. It doesn't mention at all that Opera is going to be a more CSS complaint browser then Mozilla, or that it already is better then IE5/Windows. Hell, from what he said, how would you even know there is a release version that isn't for Linux?
I must be missing something here... but every time he mentions CSS support, Opera is completely ignored.
Whats going on?
I mean they currently have the #1 Windows browser for CSS support in release, and if you compare the lists of what will be done, Opera 4 is going to flat out beat Netscape 6 in the realm of CSS2 support (IE5 isn't even a contender here).
But you don't mention it at all. I don't understand... why mention how great IE5/Mac is repeatidely and how great Mozilla is going to be, and completely ignore Opera? Hello, its great *now*!
It also has far easier support for a user to over-ride lousy layouts on pages with their own preset colors, and a handy zoom function for making those small pages readable (where the document layout over-ride option doesn't do it). I mean really, half the complaints you make about browser problems don't exist in Opera, and yet you completely ignore it.
Help me out here, why are you ignoring them?
When I get back to work tomorrow, I'm going to move to make sure that the company I'm the Network Admin for *never* upgrades to Win2000. We were planning on doing so at some future date on the servers.
:-) )
But if MS won't let people discuss the issues around their proprietary extensions to Kerberos, which is supposed to be so fundamental to 2k's security, what are they hiding?
Security through obscurity simply doesn't work, and so long as they want to support it like this, I'm done with buying anything from them.
(granted, this is only a couple thousand dollars of revenue for them, but its a start.
I didn't know it was a "we won't post anything about you unless you do what we want" site. Thanks for enlightening me.
Blizzard hasn't given anybody the finger, they've said "we can't afford to port a game to a system that won't be able to generate the sales to pay for the port."
Last I checked, that was good business sense. I know that business sense is all but lost in this day and age of profitless companies, but to anyone who actually went into business to make money using a method other then an IPO, this is pretty smart.
All Blizzard said was "show us the sales", not "go fuck yourselves." If Linux gamers buy Linux versions of games in enough volume to make it feasable for blizzard to make a profit, you can bet they'll port it in a heartbeat.
But you can't expect a company to deliberately loose money just so you can have a game. In short, you don't matter that much.
if they support your linux system or not. I mean really, the cost of porting such a large game won't be worth it to them, the marketshare just isn't there to justify such a large expense.
So plesae don't whine about how bad it is that they're releasing a windows beta and how everybody who does it is a sucker, the simple truth is you'll find that the majority of people signing up don't give a rats ass about Linux at all.
In Diablo/Starcraft/War2BNE, Battle.net basically acts like a big chat network. It lets you talk to people, get stats, and *find* games. The games themselves all play as Peer-To-Peer systems, battle.net itself isn't really involved at all once the game starts.
Diablo II introduces something called a "closed" character. While a normal character resides on a players system like in Diablo and you can play it in any form of multiplayer game, closed characters are stored on the server and can *only* be played on Battle.net with other closed characters. During those games, they use a Client/Server setup, with Battle.net taking a more direct role in how the game is played. The idea being to try and prevent some of more flagrant hacks that plagued Diablo.
Now if you play an Open Character (as I intend to, since I also want to play with the same character over LAN's and the like), it doesn't work this way. But because the battle.net population is paranoid, you will see a *lot* of closed characters being played, hence the test. They want to make sure the system won't die before they release the game.
hth
They were using an old nvidia driver with compression off, turning that back on would certainly have helped the GeForce out.
You also have to consider how much newer the Voodoo5 is, its not going to be competiting against current video cards in four months, its going to be competiting against all the *new* cards being put out by Nvidia, ATI, and everybody else. Considering they just managed to catch up now, what do you think will happen when all the new cards come out?
If they don't believe you and AC, tell them to ask me. I had to do a lookup and grab one of the other two server IP's to get one that was working properly. :)
I've seen people's lives runed by Alcoholism a lot more frequently then IRC addiction. And if your addicted to irc, your not likely to get into a car drunk and kill someone else.
This is a *very* slippery slope.
The people DDoS'ing the servers aren't the same people who just like to go on and chat, they're a rather particular plague of idiot.
Its a nice gesture, but I can't see how it will really make much of a difference... as much as I hate lawsuits, a better solution is to try and find the people behind these attacks, and sue them for all the wasted network resources caused by their attacks. Sure, that won't stop new attackers, but it will at least help them with some money to buy extra bandwidth to deal with it.
Of course, a real solution to dealing with these idiots would be nice, but we can't just throw them off the net forever, and we can't shoot them. So just what do we do?
(IANAL applies here)
In one case, they ruled linking is legal.
In another case, they ruled source code was protected speech under the first amendment.
So... if source is protected, doesn't that put linking to source out of the reach of these people? Does the DMCA somehow override the constitution?
Somebody help me out here, I'm not seeing how they have a case against the source.
Go to The Distributed.net download page and grab the client for your platform. Specific instructions on how to install it for your platform are in the client, but the win32 version has a nice installer. :)
Configuring it can be kind of a pain if your a dialup/offline user, but if you have a lan type connection just plunk in your email address and thats about that, your ready to go. It'll connect to the internet and download some "blocks" to work on. When its done them, it'll send them back.
The day after you send some blocks in, go to the Distributed.net Stats Server and do a search for your email address. From there you can get your password, and can join a team.
If you want to join team slashdot, after you have retrieved your password, do a team search for slashdot, go to the team info, and there should be an "I want to join this team" link. Click it.
After that, your blocks will also count towards the team.
If you need more help with it, you can post here, visit #distributed on efnet, or if your desperate, email me. :-)
Happy cracking!
wasn't cutting edge graphics, great gameplay, or things like that... but they were multiplayer games in the truest sense of the word... Tradewars being a perfect example, it lived as a world of its own, and the player to player interaction was far more important, so far as actual communication goes.
I mean does anyone remember forming strategic alliances and making plans that would take weeks (even months sometimes) to come to fruition in games like Tradewars and BRE? You don't see that anymore... even the really good multiplayer games these days, the communities around them are in a much larger state of flux, a lot more people come and leave, they just don't last as long. The old BBS games often had people who were there seemingly forever, and since there wasn't as much change, you could develop such long standing relationships and grudges and the like.
I don't think its something that will be easy to recapture these days, however there is no reason why it couldn't be, if there is enough of us who still like these kind of slower strategy games.
I'll never forget some of the great times I had in these games, especially BRE (which was my favorite), and I doubt anyone else who was truly into it will either, modern games just aren't the same...
(damn I feel old)
(hehe yeah, welll I've had the account a lot longer then I've been posting here, I didn't really start posting at all until browserwatch chat got nailed by y2k)
.com company that makes a profit?
Well ok... most of the other irc networks servers are either donated or sponsored by somebody. For years, AMUG ran one of the Undernet servers, they were the ones who had to get the money for it (it was the phoenix server, which ruled until it went down recently). Psi.net runs an Efnet server, when its up at least. I believe AOL has an undernet server (they used to run washington, I believe they still do). Most of the servers are like that.
In the case of talkcity, its their own network, they own the whole thing themselves, and the ads are a means to try and make money off it.
Of course its not going to work,but hey, who wants to actually have a
(hey fellow former browserwatch chat regular, how ya been? :-) )
:)
Well, no, your $20 a month doesn't pay for all that other stuff, it pays for your isp. Of course I'm pretty sure you already know that, and that it was just a rhetorical question.
The problem with what talkcity is doing is that they're effectively using a scapegoat to make more money. I mean really, look at the announcement. wanting to create a clean enviroment and all that nonsense, I mean really... just look at how well client side security works... I mean we have such great examples as ICQ, which has no real security at all when you get right down to it.
Its the same problem here, of course that press release is aimed at people who aren't going to have any clue about this sort of thing and will believe it, rather then the real reason, which is that they want to make more money.
I bet if they said that, then the people around here would be a lot less annoyed. Of course an honest corporation is something that we'll probably never see, basically lying is pretty much standard business these days.
Internet Explorer is just a far better browser then Netscape is?
no... no that couldn't possibly be why it got popular! it sucks, but since the whole internet is stupid except for you, they use it anyway!
Now I get it! thank you so much for enlightening me!
nothing to see here, except to say that its kinda sucky hehehe.
Granted, $1000 is pretty expensive for it, but a lot of the threads in here have been talking about why not just use php or whatever instead... I guess they miss the one big reason why ASP is popular with companies (especially small ones):
Its easy!
I mean really... lets say your person X who has to build a website for your small company. Your not a programmer at all, have very little experience with scripting languages, and in general aren't all that technical.
You look at some sample perl code, and your mind baffles.
You look at some sample asp code, and assuming they used vbscript (which like 90% of asp programmers do, but the choice is nice), its actually readable, even if you don't know what it does. Vbscript is very nonthreatening to a newbie user, because it bears at least a passing resemblance to english itself.
So, what are you going to go with?
Then later you decide you want to add a small databse to this small company site. Well, low and behold, you whip up what you want in MS Access, stick it on the server, and follow some very basic and easy to follow instructions at any ASP help site. Presto, you now have an online database which can serve a small company pretty well.
Then lets say in a couple months thats kind of overloaded... you add an MS SQL server in. You change your DSN around to point to the SQL Server, and if your adding dates into your database, change the delimiter. Done, the script now uses the SQL Server instead of the Access DB (ADO/ODBC are great for that).
Do you see where I'm going with this? Its significantly easier for someone who doesn't actually want to spend hours and hours dedicating themselves to learning how to do it to use ASP. Thats the market MS wanted to go after, and they did an excellent job of it.
If somebody can bring that definate ease of use advantage (and don't tell me its not there, I just went through this a couple months ago personally and I know for a fact its true) to Linux, thats great. Now if only they could do it for less then $1000, but maybe this acquision will lower the price somewhat?
So come on guys, don't rag on it because its an MS technology, they actually did a very good job of making it pretty painless to get a scripted site up and running.
Is there a Windows client that can do that? What makes napster so successful is the huge numbers of users, and you need a windows userbase to get those numbers.
I've heard tons about opennap, but have never seen a windows client for it (except maybe napster itself, and napster can't normally send around other types of files, which is what this wrapper is for).
that was a beta4 bug, fixed in beta5 (or beta5a, I forget). At any rate, its fixed.