When was the last time those issues were the main topics on slashdot? 2003? These days, its mostly focused on inflammatory YRO articles, and how the evil government is trying to take you down.
Right, libertarians. Right there on the list, see?
That means you're not using any modern opcodes, though, so you're not actually taking advantage of new functionality, you're just tuning the old instructions for new timings.
Anybody who needs to run Linux on a 386 knows how to build it themselves for their processor. There is absolutely no need for a pre-built distro to cater to them.
Do you think we could maybe, in the year 2011, make the assumption that there really isn't anybody out there who'd try to run our code on a 386? Maybe we could start targeting slightly more recent architectures?
Well, no, it just isn't. Perhaps you are wishing really hard for it to be a fact, but that will not make it so. It just plain isn't true.
But it really doesn't need to be my word against yours. There's a rule to these situations. That rule says that you are supposed to provide evidence, since you're the one making the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that what they're calling locking down a device these days?
No, that is what we call removing arbitrary privileged code execution vulnerabilities in web browsers.
You wish death on Steve Jobs for removing security holes in his products?
"The same users"? I'm sure you can provide an example of the same person saying those two things, yes?
It didn't.
You can buy drugs with them, and also socks with the bitcoin logo on them.
Their value is backed by internet drama.
When was the last time those issues were the main topics on slashdot? 2003? These days, its mostly focused on inflammatory YRO articles, and how the evil government is trying to take you down.
Right, libertarians. Right there on the list, see?
People have, and now we have a wide variety of PuTTy forks, each one with some features you want, none with all of them.
This may be an improvement, but it's not much of one.
...and still no clickable links.
And thus, again, the name is wrong.
i386 has, forever, been the name used to denote the 32-bit, Intel-compatible, CPU architecture.
Well, no. It has been the name used to denote 32-bit, Intel-compatible, 386-compatible code.
Their competitors like... Chrome? Who introduced this version numbering system in the first place?
Well, if it is actually compiled for i686, then calling it "i386" is just plain wrong.
The "i386" architecture is the one in the 80386 processor. The architecture in general is "x86".
That means you're not using any modern opcodes, though, so you're not actually taking advantage of new functionality, you're just tuning the old instructions for new timings.
As was pointed out above, this is about i386 vs. something more modern like i686, not x64.
Anybody who needs to run Linux on a 386 knows how to build it themselves for their processor. There is absolutely no need for a pre-built distro to cater to them.
Do you think we could maybe, in the year 2011, make the assumption that there really isn't anybody out there who'd try to run our code on a 386? Maybe we could start targeting slightly more recent architectures?
A shopping center is quite different from a store.
Secretly taking pictures of people without their concent is "relatively innocent" now?
Do you even read the things you reply to, or do you just run around copypasting replies or something?
And speaking of internet fanboys...
Except for the part where they fought hard to get rid of DRM, so that you could use the music you bought from them more freely.
You're letting internet fanboyism do your thinking for you.
But it isn't a lie. It's a fact.
Well, no, it just isn't. Perhaps you are wishing really hard for it to be a fact, but that will not make it so. It just plain isn't true.
But it really doesn't need to be my word against yours. There's a rule to these situations. That rule says that you are supposed to provide evidence, since you're the one making the claim.
That should be easy, since it's a "fact", yes?
Theming is no excuse for not following the OS visual style.
Or they could not expose the internals of the application to plugins, and therefore not force them to be upgraded for every browser upgrade.