No, that makes your code useless. The point of an attribute is to describe the behavior of a tag. If the attribute is unknown, then the tag does not behave the way in which you told it to. That makes that attribute, a part of your code, completely useless.
This useless string takes up bandwidth. Now, granted, one attribute isn't going to change much, but 1000 will. I don't see how you can blame someone else's code when it is your code that is wrong.
No. It is true that Google HTML code is not valid, and that is not good. I love Google, but that does not mean that I appove of everything that they do. If Google told me to jump off a cliff (sorry for the cliche), then I would not do it.
You should validate pages because it provides for a more unified World Wide Web, insures that browsers generally display pages correctly, and shows that you understand what you are doing. Google is not focusing on web design, but that does not excuse them.
Standards are well-thought-out. They are not perfect, but they have a reason for existing.
First of all, yes, I do validate every page I make. Most of the people I worked for either wanted me to do it, or did not care if I did it.
As for the ACID2 Test, the CSS they use is actually not valid, according to W3C! Try it -- look at the source code, copy the CSS and submit it to the validator. It will tell you that there are errors. I can't really post the link here, because it is too long, unfortunately.
I'm sorry -- I think I probably misunderstood something. Are you saying that you are providing support to someone even though the product in question was not sold by the company? Are you doing this during company time?
If this is the case, this is unacceptable. It just makes no sense.
I am also typing this in Firefox, and using Firefox to check my email in Gmail. I am using GNOME. Although there are few programs *currently* open, I often have terminals upon terminals of bashes open with emacsen running on top along with Perl and others.
I do not void lynx/links/w3m, I just feel no need to use them, except over SSH from a Windows box.
No, no, quite alright. Looking over my post, I can see where one could make a mistake.
No, but seriously, although switching to the all terminal-based world is insane, there is still quite a lot of potential in it (at least in my opinion). Sure, using lynx as your normal browser may not be the best idea, but it works well when all you have is SSH from a Windows box over a small connection and you don't want to use IE. And I still use emacs (text-based).
Plus, there is that whole thing that it makes you look like a hax0r.
If you have a Linux box either with X or without to connect to, then do it (install X on the Windows box first, if necessary). X programs tend to work much nicer.
Or, just don't use X at all. Install a program like screen to manage terminal applications, and then use them instead.
You can also install Cygwin and use it. There are replacements for nearly everything.
mutt/pine for email lynx/w3m for web emacs/vim for editing etc.
That is, even though methane is 20 times more potent at trapping heat, will enough of it be produced by the forests we plant to top the amount that carbon-dioxide is trapping?
I don't think wearing your valubale, secret data that is too private to keep on a computer around your wrist has quite the same effect as around your neck. That way, it is closer to the heart, in a pocket somewhere.
The title: Linux/Unix Tops Charts for Vulnerabilities in 2005
This is beyond any doubt, very very true. But before you call me a Microsoft Shill (I'm not, I use Debian myself), allow me to explain:
If one goes to www.linux.org, and searches for all GNU/Linux distros without a filter, they will see that there are 370 distributions. If that includes unmaintained ones, that number grows to 417. And that does not include all of the other Unixes, such as the BSD group, and, like the article pointed out, Mac OSX.
Now compare that to the Microsoft Windows operating system. Let's see, Windows 98 (I doubt people use anything worse than this), ME, 2000, XP, and even Vista. 5 operating systems. 370 / 5 = 74. Now the article claims that there were 3 times as many vulnerabilities. 74/3 = 24 and 2/3.
Unix/Linux is approximately 25 times better than Windows!
I know of plenty of people like that. You might have misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean that most people that like UNIX, use Apple because of its GUI. I said that most people that use UNIX and use Apple, do so because of the GUI.
Both could be called in Dire need. It is unfortunate that they are "running uncomfortably low on money, and our server and bandwidth expenses are only going to go up" and that the founder had to write an appeal.
Really? Ever since I, myself, switched to GNU/Linux, I have been rather successful at converting others. In general, most of the people I have talked to at least realize that Microsoft products are bad. Granted, not everyone actually switched, but, for example, almost everyone I've ever talked to on the subject uses Firefox instead of IE.
Well. Obviously not me.
Apart from the fact that I don't see this idea as feasable - why on earth would I assist a huge, faceless corporation that shows nothing but disdain for its customers?
I'd much rather give my time & effor to promoting open source solutions.
If such a site were to exist, people would start catching on that it's all Microsoft's fault in the first place. Then people *would* switch to other systems.
I agree. It is quite obvious why they don't make such a site, however. It is simply because if they did, they would have to say that it is largely their own fault these problems are happening. If they lied about it, places like Slashdot would have serious outcries.
First of all your comment is largely off-topic, causing mine to be as well, but I am only responding to this because I could not bear to read what you wrote and not answer (Mods, please be compassionate!)
You are addressing to largely unrelated issues as one, Freedom of software, and usefulness of the company. Allow me to address them seperately.
The former (Freedom) is a much bigger problem with Windows than Macs, at least with Mac OSX. Sure, they both use proprietary code, but at least Mac OSX uses some Free software.
The latter (usefulness) is very subjective. No doubt Microsoft would think they are useful, while Apple thinks they are. As much as I do not like Microsoft, I am going to have to say that it *and* Apple were both useful, if not so much now. They did start a revolution of computing at home. Unfortunately, it has taken a bad path over the years, but it is the same sort of idea.
As a final note I would like to ask, why did you think you would get +5 funny? I find nothing funny about what you wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that makes your code useless. The point of an attribute is to describe the behavior of a tag. If the attribute is unknown, then the tag does not behave the way in which you told it to. That makes that attribute, a part of your code, completely useless.
This useless string takes up bandwidth. Now, granted, one attribute isn't going to change much, but 1000 will. I don't see how you can blame someone else's code when it is your code that is wrong.
No. It is true that Google HTML code is not valid, and that is not good. I love Google, but that does not mean that I appove of everything that they do. If Google told me to jump off a cliff (sorry for the cliche), then I would not do it.
You should validate pages because it provides for a more unified World Wide Web, insures that browsers generally display pages correctly, and shows that you understand what you are doing. Google is not focusing on web design, but that does not excuse them.
Standards are well-thought-out. They are not perfect, but they have a reason for existing.
First of all, yes, I do validate every page I make. Most of the people I worked for either wanted me to do it, or did not care if I did it.
As for the ACID2 Test, the CSS they use is actually not valid, according to W3C! Try it -- look at the source code, copy the CSS and submit it to the validator. It will tell you that there are errors. I can't really post the link here, because it is too long, unfortunately.
I'm sorry -- I think I probably misunderstood something. Are you saying that you are providing support to someone even though the product in question was not sold by the company? Are you doing this during company time?
If this is the case, this is unacceptable. It just makes no sense.
Exactly.
I am also typing this in Firefox, and using Firefox to check my email in Gmail. I am using GNOME. Although there are few programs *currently* open, I often have terminals upon terminals of bashes open with emacsen running on top along with Perl and others.
I do not void lynx/links/w3m, I just feel no need to use them, except over SSH from a Windows box.
No, no, quite alright. Looking over my post, I can see where one could make a mistake.
No, but seriously, although switching to the all terminal-based world is insane, there is still quite a lot of potential in it (at least in my opinion). Sure, using lynx as your normal browser may not be the best idea, but it works well when all you have is SSH from a Windows box over a small connection and you don't want to use IE. And I still use emacs (text-based).
Plus, there is that whole thing that it makes you look like a hax0r.
Dude... it was a bloody joke.
If you have a Linux box either with X or without to connect to, then do it (install X on the Windows box first, if necessary). X programs tend to work much nicer.
Or, just don't use X at all. Install a program like screen to manage terminal applications, and then use them instead.
You can also install Cygwin and use it. There are replacements for nearly everything.
mutt/pine for email
lynx/w3m for web
emacs/vim for editing
etc.
Much nicer and faster, in my opinion.
That is, even though methane is 20 times more potent at trapping heat, will enough of it be produced by the forests we plant to top the amount that carbon-dioxide is trapping?
I don't think wearing your valubale, secret data that is too private to keep on a computer around your wrist has quite the same effect as around your neck. That way, it is closer to the heart, in a pocket somewhere.
The title: Linux/Unix Tops Charts for Vulnerabilities in 2005
This is beyond any doubt, very very true. But before you call me a Microsoft Shill (I'm not, I use Debian myself), allow me to explain:
If one goes to www.linux.org, and searches for all GNU/Linux distros without a filter, they will see that there are 370 distributions. If that includes unmaintained ones, that number grows to 417. And that does not include all of the other Unixes, such as the BSD group, and, like the article pointed out, Mac OSX.
Now compare that to the Microsoft Windows operating system. Let's see, Windows 98 (I doubt people use anything worse than this), ME, 2000, XP, and even Vista. 5 operating systems. 370 / 5 = 74. Now the article claims that there were 3 times as many vulnerabilities. 74/3 = 24 and 2/3.
Unix/Linux is approximately 25 times better than Windows!
As evident by you sig ;-)
But seriously, I am not in a hissy fit. I myself use GNOME, but I myself know plenty of people who prefer Mac for the GUI, but still use Linux.
When I said that, I did not mean that *I* think so. I just meant that many people do.
Because they decide that the whole idea of the dashboard is theirs by patent
I know of plenty of people like that. You might have misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean that most people that like UNIX, use Apple because of its GUI. I said that most people that use UNIX and use Apple, do so because of the GUI.
Why do you think the UI is awful?
Apple already took a lot from UNIX. It pretty much *is* UNIX. Perhaps it will lend something to KDE.
Most UNIX-people use Apple because it still is UNIX but with a better GUI. Perhaps KDE will convince Apple to make the GUI Free Software.
Or maybe Apple will just sue the socks off of the KDE project.
Both could be called in Dire need. It is unfortunate that they are "running uncomfortably low on money, and our server and bandwidth expenses are only going to go up" and that the founder had to write an appeal.
Do they just want more money to fund the project, or are they actually in dire need?
I was sure IBM wasn't doing so well. It just pulled OS/2 a little over a wekk ago...
Right, sorry for the typo.
Really? Ever since I, myself, switched to GNU/Linux, I have been rather successful at converting others. In general, most of the people I have talked to at least realize that Microsoft products are bad. Granted, not everyone actually switched, but, for example, almost everyone I've ever talked to on the subject uses Firefox instead of IE.
I know, I was joking.
If such a site were to exist, people would start catching on that it's all Microsoft's fault in the first place. Then people *would* switch to other systems.
I agree. It is quite obvious why they don't make such a site, however. It is simply because if they did, they would have to say that it is largely their own fault these problems are happening. If they lied about it, places like Slashdot would have serious outcries.
First of all your comment is largely off-topic, causing mine to be as well, but I am only responding to this because I could not bear to read what you wrote and not answer (Mods, please be compassionate!)
You are addressing to largely unrelated issues as one, Freedom of software, and usefulness of the company. Allow me to address them seperately.
The former (Freedom) is a much bigger problem with Windows than Macs, at least with Mac OSX. Sure, they both use proprietary code, but at least Mac OSX uses some Free software.
The latter (usefulness) is very subjective. No doubt Microsoft would think they are useful, while Apple thinks they are. As much as I do not like Microsoft, I am going to have to say that it *and* Apple were both useful, if not so much now. They did start a revolution of computing at home. Unfortunately, it has taken a bad path over the years, but it is the same sort of idea.
As a final note I would like to ask, why did you think you would get +5 funny? I find nothing funny about what you wrote.