HTML Validator - 160,000 users is a "small niche"?
160,000 of the ~270,000,000 Firefox users? Um yeah, small niche. Ok. That was an estimate from 2009 that I found on top of a Google search without much effort. I don't know what the current estimate is but lets say half of those left Firefox for Chrome, IE, etc. It's still a big number next to your relatively small 160k.
Do you think 160k is the sum of all web developers? It's not only a subset of Firefox users but a subset of that group who also happen to be web developers. Of that group of developers only some of them use HTML Validator. Niche.
As for AVG, that's odd because it says that it is fully up to date. I am guessing that it does not auto-update the firefox plug in, and only does so if you reinstall. So I guess I'll uninstall AVG, go grab the latest one, reinstall it. Another 30 minutes of my life wasted on a firefox update. Can I send you my bill for time wasted if it's not that big of a deal?
No you should send that bill to AVG for not auto-updating their plug in. Also tell them their installer is slow. Besides, the money should go to your employer anyway, right? It's company time after all. Explain to your boss that sometimes technical difficulties come up and what ever tight schedule their running should be flexible enough to account for it. Instead of your project being over due by 37 days, it'll be 37days and 30 minutes because you really need your searches to be safe.
Firebug worked the first day... OH NO! The horror of being down a few hours!
HTML Validator falls into the "small niche" category
FiddlerHook is rocking the same boat as HTML Validator
You should update AVG. http://free.avg.com/us-en/faq.num-4275#num-4275 (Why would you let AVG go unupdated IDK but hey to each their own)
LogMeIn gee another small niche, fixed the day after with an update.
Skype is now own by Microsoft if it works in something other than IE, well... I'm sure they'll that in the name of innovation.
Logitech Device Detection? Ok I'm sure that pisses off some 3 users somewhere. Your input devices will work fine without it, you're really stretching it on this one.
Overall it's not the HUGE OMG BREAKAGES THAT KILL ALL PUPPIES AND KITTENS EVERYWHERE that the vocal minority is making it out to be. There's little evidence that it is really a wide spread sky is falling problem. Most users don't have a problem. Most users are going to be using add-ons from the top of this list: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/?browse=popular
All of which work fine.
I use them both. I also had NO DOWN TIME when I upgraded from 4.x to 5. In fact, I didn't experience any breakages at all. I don't know why everyone's saying all their add-ons broke, but i suspect it's just bitter trolling.
I'd like to see some citations for the massive breakages that are supposedly is being experienced by "tons of average users." Before you post, omit articles about betas and articles that don't actually mention an actual add-on that got broken and still hasn't been updated. I want to see articles about the real world impact, not vague mentions of possible problems which some very small portion of the user base may experience.
I suspect jonescb's assertion is right and applies here too. If this update had been called 4.0.2 no one would be crying "oh no the add-on sky is falling!"
Don't follow. We're talking about companies that want to hold on to old versions for compatibility with other software. These are the type that held on to IE6 for so long. They clearly care more about using some other equally unmaintained software more than they do about security.
It's not as if security updates don't carry the possibility of breaking things either.
What these companies want is for everyone else to maintain software in geosynchronous orbit around something else which, in addition to being unmaintained, is opaque and foreign. That's a reasonable thing to them. When you tell them its not reasonable, they'll spend who knows how much time and effort sand-boxing something like IE6 for eternity. Apparently it works for them.
I don't see any reason why I should be denied features just to keep some companies obscure software working. They can maintain their own [crappy] software or sand-box it without holding everyone else back.
Last I checked "businesses of significant size" do have that control. You need a privileged account to change software binaries or you're doing it wrong (someone needs fired). Businesses can still stick with whatever old and stale software they want.
Except that "cap the user" is NOT NEW. We've already been through countless iterations of new technologies and we're still capped. What new technologies are going to fix it? As long as they can, they will.
We went from time cap (popular in AOL/dialup times) to rate cap and volume cap.
The so called "uncapped" is capped by "we oversold our bandwidth so much it's not even funny." We use 16 hours of low traffic time (people sleep and work) in our figures for "average" and say that everyone is still getting what they payed for. Clearly it's the user's fault for not watching Hulu at 3:00 in the morning when he can take advantage of that "average." The truth is that the "average user" does not get the "average throughput."
Then there's the "lie about the cap" strategies where you get a 3 sec burst and then are throttled down to the point that 14.4 kbit/s AOL looks good again. On average you get "ludicrous speed" because on average your connections are short. But when your connection isn't short you get "absurdly slow speed." But that's OK because "average" is high. And you're a criminal by trying to get around the cap by using torrents and segmented downloaders. You only get the advertised ludicrous speed under the ISPs terms, not the terms anyone but the ISP would expect.
Until governing bodies pull their heads out and define some standards of measurement, you're going to get ripped off at the market. Currently ISPs define their own metrics for how much you get for what price. There is no pound, meter, or gallon. There's only common terminology used by the ISPs. It's not a standard of measurement, you don't get to hold that loaf of bread up to a circle on a wall. You simply have to accept that the ISP is selling you what THEY say is a fair deal. The bar is set just above what they figure they won't be sued for and that's where it will stay.
But NONE OF THIS IS NEW. Why do you think new technology (something that happens frequently) is going to affect "cap the user?"
You don't need a large sample size to prove a bit of software is buggy. You need a large sample size to prove that it is not that buggy. If all eleven people found no problems and loved it, then you could say that the sample size is too small to be relativly sure aobut the quality of the software.
I personally want nothing to do with a site I have to trick or avoid being tricked to get results.
View Google's cache, spoof the referrer, scroll past a LIE, etc, etc... FUCK that. I'd just assume get the answer somewhere else that doesn't play games with search engines and users. Why should I trust an answer if I have to SCROLL PAST A LIE to get to it? Clearly they don't mind the occasional LIE if they get the occasional open wallet, right?
Because it's a scam site. If you don't know the answer is at the bottom they fraudulently try to get you to pay for the information lower on the page. I personally would rather not reward that sort of behavior.
Absolutely this.
Also, the number of people who instantly had "experts exchange" pop in their minds as soon as they read the headline says a lot. They are an annoying parasite and I doubt they'll ever recover from that bad impression.
Did you miss the part where both Norton and Ultradefrag have screamed bloody murder over the fact Win 7 doesn't allow kernel hooks when it is those same hooks that allow malware and rootkits to penetrate so deeply?
Did you miss the part that Peter and AV friends created vulnerabilities by using such hooks? Meanwhile, the same kernel hooks that all these security companies are bitching about aren't needed or used by MSE. That's right, the software you speak so highly of and want MS to roll out because it's just that good doesn't need to patch the kernel. In fact, MSE was shown to be impervious to this class of attack because it didn't patch the kernel.
At any rate, AV companies bitching about being "kicked out of the kernel" doesn't have much to do with the antitrust allegations other than it's the same parties bitching. While the antitrust concerns may have merit (because Microsoft has a competing product), the rest is just AV companies spinning up press because they would apparently just like to continue selling you the same broken software (kernel hacks and all) instead of developing new.
I still don't see much merit in claiming that there isn't much Microsoft can do. Windows fanboys have been telling us that for years. Clearly they were wrong -OR- Windows 7 is just as much a steaming pile of shit as XP is (pick one). Really there's not a damned thing Peter can do about Microsoft squashing bugs. So yeah, when you say "MSFT can only add so much" of course I'm going to look at you funny and ask you what you're talking about. Sure, they might not be able to include MSE by default, but they are far from having nothing else to do.
The problem is MSFT can only add so much before screams of "anti trust!" fill the web.
What are you talking about? Much of the improved security of Windows 7 had more to do with checking buffer bounds, sanitizing input, better utilization of hardware features like the NX bit, access controls, etc, etc. When developers write tests for functions and fuzz their products, and use static analysis tools, code quality goes up and it becomes harder to exploit.
Microsoft apologists like to throw their hands up in the air and say there's nothing Microsoft can do. Clearly this assertion must be wrong unless you wish to concede that Microsoft products are no better today (in terms of bugs) than what they ever have been.
Don't act like all this improved security is exclusive to the on-access scanning that AV products do. No one is going to scream antitrust because they're fixing bugs and testing their products. Even in the absence of AV software, IE is a much safer and stable product then what it used to be. No one is going to come out and cry OMG ANTITRUST THEY NEED TO STOP FIXING BUGS!
I suppose that only mechanics should be allowed to drive?
If cars were just as unreliable and maintenance prone... Yes. You can drive a car for years just by putting gas in the tank and taking it in for an oil change. You can hardly go 30 days without a computer needing some kind of maintenance to avoid catastrophe.
Also people get trained and tested on their ability to drive a car. The car analogy doesn't work well because people are at least trained in normal operation of the vehicle. The same cannot be said about computer users. When you drive a car there's everything from instrumentation to road signs alerting the driver to what's acceptable.
Here's one for ya: Imagine if Internet users were the ones putting up road signs instead of government officials. You're approaching a curvy streach of road and instead of seeing a speed limit sign for 55 MPH see a sign saying "Dude I took it at 90... only a nub would take it slower than 80."
When will you folks ever learn that computer-car analogies don't work?:D
This test suffers from a terrible self-selection bias. Those most likely to take the "test" are the ones most likely to fail it.
This. (QFT)
Also, it seems the plug-in only scans software versions. It doesn't actually test if penetration is actually possible. If blocked by firewall, AV, sandboxing, system policies, etc, the test still flags you as vulnerable. It probably doesn't take into account the likelihood of a particular vulnerability of being exploited. Some "holes" have a rather obscure set of conditions that must be present for them to work.
But I suppose at the end of the day it only takes one fucked up plugin to bitch slap you in the face: Adobe Flash. (You don't need another plugin to test what version you have either.)
How many people actually pay for an encyclopedia of any kind from any source? I wouldn't pay for Wikipedia, but then I wouldn't pay for another encyclopedia either. Does that mean that Wikipedia doesn't have value as an encyclopedia? No. It just means I'm not interested in paying for one.
People do pay money for Wikipedia, BTW.
I was going off your second comment where you were moaning about not having a make file and calling that retarded. You don't need a make file for Perl programs you just run them. The other C files are for MSVC (Your not supposed to build them on Linux--No need for a gnu makefile if you're doing the MSVC thing.).
You don't have to be a programmer to do the following either:
download an archive file
unpack it
read the documentation.
If you have issues with any of the above, you probably shouldn't be running the software anyway. If you can't spot the only file with unix execute permissions named "sqlninja" and another file called "sqlninja-howto.html" then you don't need this software. It doesn't matter if it comes in an RPM or not at that point.
Again, I'll ask. Why would a Linux distribution care about a tool that is ONLY useful for exploiting Windows boxes? Hell, why do you care? You clearly haven't put any effort into it.
Sqlninja's goal is to exploit SQL injection vulnerabilities on web applications that use Microsoft SQL Server as back end.
Why would most LINUX distributions give a shit about exploiting holes in Microsoft's software?
Why does everyone assume this is some great software package that is on par with the quality of mature projects like Nmap?
It's not that hard to go grab the damned archive file yourself and run the Perl script from where it was extracted. You don't need to compile or install it.
Ok look. There are two c files that include windows.h Wonder why fedora would care about them...??? It's a couple of crap MSVC console applications. They even give you.exe files in the archive. Might even work in Wine. No compiling necessary, unless you want to port it yourself (Which you don't because you clearly have no clue how to create a make file for yourself).
What else... Oh shit! There's a Perl file there too. Maybe Fedora would be interested in that? (BTW, here's your next clue. You don't need to compile that, no need for a makefile. Just feed it to Perl as is.)
Honestly it just doesn't look like its worth packaging. If your interested in it for Fedora, you're likely only interested in that one perl file. That's one fucking file... just go download it and run it if you really care.
Oh shit... look there's documentation in there too... let me see what it says....
Sqlninja's goal is to exploit SQL injection vulnerabilities on web applications that use Microsoft SQL Server as back end.
Oh now I understand why Fedora would want it. Clearly Fedora cares about finding wholes in Microsoft's shit rather than, er the stuff that comes with Fedora?
This whole fucking article is crap. Fucking bait for stupid, uninformed, and clueless comments. Who's having a "fit of insanity"?
I've been running the FF4 beta and I must say that the JS performance is much, much, more tolerable. Enough so that I'll likely stick with Firefox for the sake of familiarity and a few exceptional addons. FF4 will be "good enough" for me having moved out of the abysmal category. It's still not the ultimate benchmark winner, but it's good enough. FF3 wasn't good enough and that's one good reason why other browsers gained attention. FF4 will level the field out again and make it more interesting, again.
And I wouldn't put Opera "somewhere in the middle" as far as performance goes. I'd put it neck and neck with Google Chrome (based on benchmarks and my personal experience). I don't know why people always seem to downplay Opera. It has always been a very capable high performance browser. It was years ahead of Firefox's performance before Chrome popped out.
Well it would be easier to agree with him had Linus actually trolled about anything in the release announcement.
The only thing that comes close to trolling was his mater-of-fact accounting of the status of fanotify. It's not much of a troll considering that fanotify was set to be a one of the bigger bullet points of the release and got yanked at the last moment. It was worth mentioning. Also considering that it was yanked because of an oh shit late in the cycle he certainly could have been more pointed if he wanted to be.
If he were trolling it certainly was some of the weakest trolling to be had. He certainly wasn't the one using the "shit" word to describe the situation.
Except the positive lead to the starter is only live when you're starting the car.
Not true. A big heavy high amp positive LIVE cable runs from your battery to your starter motor. There is a switch at the starter that is part of the solenoid. The solenoid is dual purpose. It not only engages the starter mechanically but also electrically like a relay.
I wouldn't go for the fuel pump because it can be a pain in the ass finding the wires from the underside of many vehicles which have the pump on the top side of the fuel tank and is accessed from inside vehicle.
I think that the bigger problem is how to get the commercials adjusted to match the programming.
Oh come on! They are specifically going out of their way to make ads LOUDER. There's a significant part of the problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical details of implementing some sort of auto volume leveler.
Simply put, stop amping your advertizements. Saying you can't match it up because of technology then deliberately amplifying your advertizements to the point of over-modulating equipment... fucking bullshit! That's not a technical problem.
It's like calling those flashing banner ads on web pages a technical problem with monitors that refresh too quickly. "Uh we intended for it to fade more gradually, but monitors updates too fast." Really???
Slashdot Mirror
160,000 of the ~270,000,000 Firefox users? Um yeah, small niche. Ok. That was an estimate from 2009 that I found on top of a Google search without much effort. I don't know what the current estimate is but lets say half of those left Firefox for Chrome, IE, etc. It's still a big number next to your relatively small 160k.
Do you think 160k is the sum of all web developers? It's not only a subset of Firefox users but a subset of that group who also happen to be web developers. Of that group of developers only some of them use HTML Validator. Niche.
No you should send that bill to AVG for not auto-updating their plug in. Also tell them their installer is slow. Besides, the money should go to your employer anyway, right? It's company time after all. Explain to your boss that sometimes technical difficulties come up and what ever tight schedule their running should be flexible enough to account for it. Instead of your project being over due by 37 days, it'll be 37days and 30 minutes because you really need your searches to be safe.
Firebug worked the first day... OH NO! The horror of being down a few hours!
HTML Validator falls into the "small niche" category
FiddlerHook is rocking the same boat as HTML Validator
You should update AVG. http://free.avg.com/us-en/faq.num-4275#num-4275 (Why would you let AVG go unupdated IDK but hey to each their own)
LogMeIn gee another small niche, fixed the day after with an update.
Skype is now own by Microsoft if it works in something other than IE, well... I'm sure they'll that in the name of innovation.
Logitech Device Detection? Ok I'm sure that pisses off some 3 users somewhere. Your input devices will work fine without it, you're really stretching it on this one.
Overall it's not the HUGE OMG BREAKAGES THAT KILL ALL PUPPIES AND KITTENS EVERYWHERE that the vocal minority is making it out to be. There's little evidence that it is really a wide spread sky is falling problem. Most users don't have a problem. Most users are going to be using add-ons from the top of this list:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/?browse=popular
All of which work fine.
I use them both. I also had NO DOWN TIME when I upgraded from 4.x to 5. In fact, I didn't experience any breakages at all. I don't know why everyone's saying all their add-ons broke, but i suspect it's just bitter trolling.
I'd like to see some citations for the massive breakages that are supposedly is being experienced by "tons of average users." Before you post, omit articles about betas and articles that don't actually mention an actual add-on that got broken and still hasn't been updated. I want to see articles about the real world impact, not vague mentions of possible problems which some very small portion of the user base may experience.
I suspect jonescb's assertion is right and applies here too. If this update had been called 4.0.2 no one would be crying "oh no the add-on sky is falling!"
Don't follow. We're talking about companies that want to hold on to old versions for compatibility with other software. These are the type that held on to IE6 for so long. They clearly care more about using some other equally unmaintained software more than they do about security.
It's not as if security updates don't carry the possibility of breaking things either.
What these companies want is for everyone else to maintain software in geosynchronous orbit around something else which, in addition to being unmaintained, is opaque and foreign. That's a reasonable thing to them. When you tell them its not reasonable, they'll spend who knows how much time and effort sand-boxing something like IE6 for eternity. Apparently it works for them.
I don't see any reason why I should be denied features just to keep some companies obscure software working. They can maintain their own [crappy] software or sand-box it without holding everyone else back.
Last I checked "businesses of significant size" do have that control. You need a privileged account to change software binaries or you're doing it wrong (someone needs fired). Businesses can still stick with whatever old and stale software they want.
We went from time cap (popular in AOL/dialup times) to rate cap and volume cap.
The so called "uncapped" is capped by "we oversold our bandwidth so much it's not even funny." We use 16 hours of low traffic time (people sleep and work) in our figures for "average" and say that everyone is still getting what they payed for. Clearly it's the user's fault for not watching Hulu at 3:00 in the morning when he can take advantage of that "average." The truth is that the "average user" does not get the "average throughput."
Then there's the "lie about the cap" strategies where you get a 3 sec burst and then are throttled down to the point that 14.4 kbit/s AOL looks good again. On average you get "ludicrous speed" because on average your connections are short. But when your connection isn't short you get "absurdly slow speed." But that's OK because "average" is high. And you're a criminal by trying to get around the cap by using torrents and segmented downloaders. You only get the advertised ludicrous speed under the ISPs terms, not the terms anyone but the ISP would expect.
Until governing bodies pull their heads out and define some standards of measurement, you're going to get ripped off at the market. Currently ISPs define their own metrics for how much you get for what price. There is no pound, meter, or gallon. There's only common terminology used by the ISPs. It's not a standard of measurement, you don't get to hold that loaf of bread up to a circle on a wall. You simply have to accept that the ISP is selling you what THEY say is a fair deal. The bar is set just above what they figure they won't be sued for and that's where it will stay.
But NONE OF THIS IS NEW. Why do you think new technology (something that happens frequently) is going to affect "cap the user?"
This collider is going to end the world.
You don't need a large sample size to prove a bit of software is buggy. You need a large sample size to prove that it is not that buggy. If all eleven people found no problems and loved it, then you could say that the sample size is too small to be relativly sure aobut the quality of the software.
So if I have no friends then I have no use for this feature?
-1
That be version 38 of the 2.6 kernel. If you want a flat single number version, it would be higher than 38, right? Eat kernel shorts Google Chrome!!!!
I personally want nothing to do with a site I have to trick or avoid being tricked to get results.
View Google's cache, spoof the referrer, scroll past a LIE, etc, etc... FUCK that. I'd just assume get the answer somewhere else that doesn't play games with search engines and users. Why should I trust an answer if I have to SCROLL PAST A LIE to get to it? Clearly they don't mind the occasional LIE if they get the occasional open wallet, right?
Yeah... I don't know why anyone would block them.
Absolutely this. Also, the number of people who instantly had "experts exchange" pop in their minds as soon as they read the headline says a lot. They are an annoying parasite and I doubt they'll ever recover from that bad impression.
Did you miss the part that Peter and AV friends created vulnerabilities by using such hooks? Meanwhile, the same kernel hooks that all these security companies are bitching about aren't needed or used by MSE. That's right, the software you speak so highly of and want MS to roll out because it's just that good doesn't need to patch the kernel. In fact, MSE was shown to be impervious to this class of attack because it didn't patch the kernel.
At any rate, AV companies bitching about being "kicked out of the kernel" doesn't have much to do with the antitrust allegations other than it's the same parties bitching. While the antitrust concerns may have merit (because Microsoft has a competing product), the rest is just AV companies spinning up press because they would apparently just like to continue selling you the same broken software (kernel hacks and all) instead of developing new.
I still don't see much merit in claiming that there isn't much Microsoft can do. Windows fanboys have been telling us that for years. Clearly they were wrong -OR- Windows 7 is just as much a steaming pile of shit as XP is (pick one). Really there's not a damned thing Peter can do about Microsoft squashing bugs. So yeah, when you say "MSFT can only add so much" of course I'm going to look at you funny and ask you what you're talking about. Sure, they might not be able to include MSE by default, but they are far from having nothing else to do.
What are you talking about? Much of the improved security of Windows 7 had more to do with checking buffer bounds, sanitizing input, better utilization of hardware features like the NX bit, access controls, etc, etc. When developers write tests for functions and fuzz their products, and use static analysis tools, code quality goes up and it becomes harder to exploit.
Microsoft apologists like to throw their hands up in the air and say there's nothing Microsoft can do. Clearly this assertion must be wrong unless you wish to concede that Microsoft products are no better today (in terms of bugs) than what they ever have been.
Don't act like all this improved security is exclusive to the on-access scanning that AV products do. No one is going to scream antitrust because they're fixing bugs and testing their products. Even in the absence of AV software, IE is a much safer and stable product then what it used to be. No one is going to come out and cry OMG ANTITRUST THEY NEED TO STOP FIXING BUGS!
If cars were just as unreliable and maintenance prone... Yes. You can drive a car for years just by putting gas in the tank and taking it in for an oil change. You can hardly go 30 days without a computer needing some kind of maintenance to avoid catastrophe.
Also people get trained and tested on their ability to drive a car. The car analogy doesn't work well because people are at least trained in normal operation of the vehicle. The same cannot be said about computer users. When you drive a car there's everything from instrumentation to road signs alerting the driver to what's acceptable.
Here's one for ya: Imagine if Internet users were the ones putting up road signs instead of government officials. You're approaching a curvy streach of road and instead of seeing a speed limit sign for 55 MPH see a sign saying "Dude I took it at 90... only a nub would take it slower than 80."
When will you folks ever learn that computer-car analogies don't work?
This test suffers from a terrible self-selection bias. Those most likely to take the "test" are the ones most likely to fail it.
This. (QFT)
Also, it seems the plug-in only scans software versions. It doesn't actually test if penetration is actually possible. If blocked by firewall, AV, sandboxing, system policies, etc, the test still flags you as vulnerable. It probably doesn't take into account the likelihood of a particular vulnerability of being exploited. Some "holes" have a rather obscure set of conditions that must be present for them to work.
But I suppose at the end of the day it only takes one fucked up plugin to bitch slap you in the face: Adobe Flash. (You don't need another plugin to test what version you have either.)
How many people actually pay for an encyclopedia of any kind from any source? I wouldn't pay for Wikipedia, but then I wouldn't pay for another encyclopedia either. Does that mean that Wikipedia doesn't have value as an encyclopedia? No. It just means I'm not interested in paying for one. People do pay money for Wikipedia, BTW.
I was going off your second comment where you were moaning about not having a make file and calling that retarded. You don't need a make file for Perl programs you just run them. The other C files are for MSVC (Your not supposed to build them on Linux--No need for a gnu makefile if you're doing the MSVC thing.).
You don't have to be a programmer to do the following either:
If you have issues with any of the above, you probably shouldn't be running the software anyway. If you can't spot the only file with unix execute permissions named "sqlninja" and another file called "sqlninja-howto.html" then you don't need this software. It doesn't matter if it comes in an RPM or not at that point.
Again, I'll ask. Why would a Linux distribution care about a tool that is ONLY useful for exploiting Windows boxes? Hell, why do you care? You clearly haven't put any effort into it.
Here's my 2 cents:
Ok look. There are two c files that include windows.h Wonder why fedora would care about them...??? It's a couple of crap MSVC console applications. They even give you .exe files in the archive. Might even work in Wine. No compiling necessary, unless you want to port it yourself (Which you don't because you clearly have no clue how to create a make file for yourself).
What else... Oh shit! There's a Perl file there too. Maybe Fedora would be interested in that? (BTW, here's your next clue. You don't need to compile that, no need for a makefile. Just feed it to Perl as is.)
Honestly it just doesn't look like its worth packaging. If your interested in it for Fedora, you're likely only interested in that one perl file. That's one fucking file... just go download it and run it if you really care.
Oh shit... look there's documentation in there too... let me see what it says....
Oh now I understand why Fedora would want it. Clearly Fedora cares about finding wholes in Microsoft's shit rather than, er the stuff that comes with Fedora?
This whole fucking article is crap. Fucking bait for stupid, uninformed, and clueless comments. Who's having a "fit of insanity"?
I've been running the FF4 beta and I must say that the JS performance is much, much, more tolerable. Enough so that I'll likely stick with Firefox for the sake of familiarity and a few exceptional addons. FF4 will be "good enough" for me having moved out of the abysmal category. It's still not the ultimate benchmark winner, but it's good enough. FF3 wasn't good enough and that's one good reason why other browsers gained attention. FF4 will level the field out again and make it more interesting, again.
And I wouldn't put Opera "somewhere in the middle" as far as performance goes. I'd put it neck and neck with Google Chrome (based on benchmarks and my personal experience). I don't know why people always seem to downplay Opera. It has always been a very capable high performance browser. It was years ahead of Firefox's performance before Chrome popped out.
Well it would be easier to agree with him had Linus actually trolled about anything in the release announcement.
The only thing that comes close to trolling was his mater-of-fact accounting of the status of fanotify. It's not much of a troll considering that fanotify was set to be a one of the bigger bullet points of the release and got yanked at the last moment. It was worth mentioning. Also considering that it was yanked because of an oh shit late in the cycle he certainly could have been more pointed if he wanted to be.
If he were trolling it certainly was some of the weakest trolling to be had. He certainly wasn't the one using the "shit" word to describe the situation.
Not true. A big heavy high amp positive LIVE cable runs from your battery to your starter motor. There is a switch at the starter that is part of the solenoid. The solenoid is dual purpose. It not only engages the starter mechanically but also electrically like a relay.
I wouldn't go for the fuel pump because it can be a pain in the ass finding the wires from the underside of many vehicles which have the pump on the top side of the fuel tank and is accessed from inside vehicle.
Oh come on! They are specifically going out of their way to make ads LOUDER. There's a significant part of the problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical details of implementing some sort of auto volume leveler.
Simply put, stop amping your advertizements. Saying you can't match it up because of technology then deliberately amplifying your advertizements to the point of over-modulating equipment... fucking bullshit! That's not a technical problem.
It's like calling those flashing banner ads on web pages a technical problem with monitors that refresh too quickly. "Uh we intended for it to fade more gradually, but monitors updates too fast." Really???