In my experience it seems a little worse under Linux, but the Windows machine I use at work has 2 gigs of RAM and is twice as fast as my Linux machines at home, so it could just be I notice it more on Linux. But the entire machine isn't usually destabilized on either OS, which is a plus, I guess.
I hate people like you. My computer from 10 years ago could browse the internet, and it had a whole 32 MB of RAM. It stands to reason that now, on my computer with 15 times more memory, I should be able to browse the internet. And do other things! At the same time!!!
Also, maybe you haven't noticed, but the type of crap on the internet hasn't changed much in the last 8 years or so. There's a lot more of it, but nothing to really justify a web browser using 400 megs of RAM when they used to use
Why is everyone bitching about this? I hate waiting for any refetch or rerendering when I use the Back button; I want it to be instantaneous. That page was fetched and rendered aslready, so having the browser keep it around for when I go back to it is exactly what I'd want it to do.
You've totally missed the point. People aren't bitching because the back and forward buttons are faster. They're bitching because the memory used for the fast back/forward is never released. Because Opera implements the same feature even faster and doesn't use >85% of physical memory after 20 minutes. Because a web browser should not use >1 GB of RAM because it's left open over night.
You have to commend them because they are taking any step to cross-platform.
Except from the sound of it, they're not taking any steps to make their software cross-platform. By your logic, I should commend Microsoft because Internet Explorer and Word 2000 are cross-platform. Only difference is it's up to the end user to get them working in Wine, while Google will set it up for you.
To me, the fact that they have to use Wine at all screams "poor design." At best, it would seem to indicate that a Linux port is an after thought. There are several large projects (OpenOffice, Opera, Firefox, Gaim, gcc, etc.) that run natively on many more platforms than just x86 Linux and Windows, and none of them require Wine. Also, none of them have huge, several month(year?) delays between the release date for different platforms. If Google were serious about being cross platform, it wouldn't have taken so long, and it wouldn't be through Wine. It's a little harder than designing single platform software, but when you supposedly have some of the greatest people in software working on it, it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Not to sound reproachful, but don't reinvent the wheel.
If you need a search tool, look around for a solution that someone else has already wasted years of their life on rather than have yourself do the same. Why recode, when you can download?
If the question was "I need to create a search engine for work, where should I start?" your answer would have been good advice. But the poster made no reference at all to creating his/her own search engine. Specifically: "...hence I'm trying to understand how the technology works." Even if the purpose is to create a search engine, your answer is still useless. Reinventing the wheel is a great way to learn.
Or perhaps you can explain how buying a search "solution" would teach him how a search engine works?
Just because you're a businessman shouldn't mean that you are excempt from morality.
This has nothing to do with being a business man. The fact of the matter is, nobody in the U.S. cares about human rights in China. That new Dell monitor? Made in China. The mouse and keyboard? Made in China. Half the components in your computer? Made in China. Those shoes? Made in China. That cheap pair of jeans? China.
Instead of whining on slashdot about how "OMG, Google's doing business in China!!1!! They must be evil!!", how about you get off your ass, make a stand, and discontinue doing business with China yourself?
Look at it this way, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies doing business in China sell out their morality for hundreds of millions of dollars. The average U.S. citizen does it for 75 cents off a mouse and cheaper shoes. Maybe you're criticizing the wrong group?
I really don't understand why the w3c is doing this. It seems they're purposely trying to make themselves irrelevant. It's already enough pain in the ass to create a standards compliant page that looks good in all browsers. And now they're changing the standards even more dramatically. So much so, I wonder if it will even be possible to make a page that looks good in all browsers and is XHTML 2.0 compliant, without spending a huge amount of effort above and beyond what is already required. Yeah, it's easier to just make 2 pages, one standards compliant, and one that's not, but good luck convincing your boss.
It's obvious the average user just sticks with whatever browser came on their computer, which for 80-85% of computer users is IE. Microsoft has already shown they don't care about being standards compliant. It's been >5 years since IE 6 came out, and even now they're primarily only adding tabs, popup blocking, and useless fluff.
I'm sure some cool things are being added to XHTML 2.0, but I really don't see it catching on. Why go out of the way to break backward compatibility when none of the current browsers even fully support the current standard? I would understand if there were a gain from doing so, like TV -> HDTV, but I'm not seeing it with XHTML -> XHTML 2.0.
I probably could fix the script causing the problem *but* my net savvy 90 year old gran *wont* know how to fix it.
That's a crap argument. There's a really good chance your 90 year old "gran" would just buy a computer with everything pre-installed and configured already, whether it was Linux, Mac or Windows.
My dual boot laptop (XP - Linux) looses (sp?) all it's video settings if I boot it into Linux (makdrake 10) with the WIFI PCMCIA card in????? Eh? I then have to re-install the video drivers (nvidea) just to get X working. What a joke.
I'm not going to say you're lying, because I'm sure you really have this problem. But the probability that you have something configured wrong is very close to 1.
A lot of the time, the government is a regular member of the market, just like everyone else. If they need 100 fighter jets, they shop around and buy them from the company who has what they want at the lowest price. This is working with the market, and most people agree it's a good thing.
But at the same time, the government has the ability to make regulations, set taxes, and pass laws that can have a huge influence on the market. This is working against the market. It's what the GP was talking about, and is usually considered a bad thing. When it's working well it ensures that roads get built, prevents monopolies and stops 5 year olds from buying whiskey. When it's not working so well, you get things like import tariffs, farm subsidies and arbitrary demands for companies to turn over their confidential information.
Ideally, the regulating side of the governemt interferes with the market only enough to ensure it continues functioning properly.
I can't speak for anyone else, but with a lot of the stuff the U.S. government is doing lately, I'm more scared of it than I am of any terrorists.
I would never support a lot of the stuff they're doing, but it would seem a bit more legitimate if they could show any of this stuff was actually having an effect. So far they've cut back our freedom quite a bit, but to my knowledge they haven't prevented a single attack. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Homer she has a rock that keeps tigers away.
Sure, but XMLHttpRequest is actually helpful and useful, as GMail shows. If XMLHttpRequest was turned off, most people would turn it on. I can't think of any use for this "pinging" other than to track internet usage. If it were turned off, I think most people would keep it that way.
My point is, the Firefox dev team is adding useless features that nobody really wants (except maybe DoubleClick), when there are other more important things they could be working on. How about passing the Acid2 test? Or how about optimizing the download size? Or decreasing start up times? None of these things are really important, but I think for most people they'd have higher priority than this "pinging."
I'm racking my brain to imagine why a user would ever want to enable it.
Nobody would ever go out of their way to enable it. I don't know of anyone ever requesting this "feature." And it's not in any HTML, XHTML, Javascript, or CSS standards. So why the hell did they add it? I would expect this from Microsoft, but I'm a little surprised that Firefox is doing it.
its like car anti-theft. all these silly devices are no match to a pro thief, but they improve chances that he/she wont bother with your car and move to the next.
I see what you're saying, but if a person is dead set on terrorizing America, he can't just move on to the next America because this one has difficult to attain Real IDs.
same thing here. if before getting driver's license was easy, now its not. so they have to either work harder at getting valid identification (=higher chances to trip on something) or would have to stay low profile, which makes it tougher to do routine things like rent cars, trucks etcetera.
I think the point is, if a person is willing to come up with a nefarious plot, fly to America, get valid identification, hijack an airplane and fly it into a building on a suicide mission, having to work a little harder to get identification won't be much of a detterent.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
There is a proven alternative. It's called "paying."
And your analogy is flawed. The internet isn't a common or public good. It's owned by the people who pay for hosting or have servers. They can do whatever they want with their sites, including filling it with advertising.
Like I said, I don't mind paying for useful content, and I think most people will pay for useful content if it's made available at a reasonable price. Though it is a catch-22, because if there's an ad supported page with the same content, I'm not going to pay when I can just block the ads.
The way I see it, it's not my problem.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I block all advertisements. Even Google's text ads. If a person or company is providing useful content, and they want to make money to pay for hosting or whatever, they can charge me a reasonable amount for it. If it's really useful, I won't mind.
But the idea that I somehow owe someone a look and a few clicks on their advertisements because I'm looking at their website is ridiculous.
A WMF file is a very specific file format that contains a list of Windows GDI calls that describe how to draw an image. So obviously, most images on the interweb are not WMF files.
It is possible to make a WMF file that lists the GDI calls to display a GIF/JPG/whatever file, but that still doesn't make the GIF/JPG/whatever files themselves WMF files.
Slashdot Mirror
<p> : This is a paragraph tag. You can use it to break your post up into logical, coherent groups of sentences.
There are several uses for the paragraph tag, including:
I didn't RTFA, but I'd guess it goes something like:
AbiWord.
In my experience it seems a little worse under Linux, but the Windows machine I use at work has 2 gigs of RAM and is twice as fast as my Linux machines at home, so it could just be I notice it more on Linux. But the entire machine isn't usually destabilized on either OS, which is a plus, I guess.
I hate people like you. My computer from 10 years ago could browse the internet, and it had a whole 32 MB of RAM. It stands to reason that now, on my computer with 15 times more memory, I should be able to browse the internet. And do other things! At the same time!!!
Also, maybe you haven't noticed, but the type of crap on the internet hasn't changed much in the last 8 years or so. There's a lot more of it, but nothing to really justify a web browser using 400 megs of RAM when they used to use
You've totally missed the point. People aren't bitching because the back and forward buttons are faster. They're bitching because the memory used for the fast back/forward is never released. Because Opera implements the same feature even faster and doesn't use >85% of physical memory after 20 minutes. Because a web browser should not use >1 GB of RAM because it's left open over night.
Except from the sound of it, they're not taking any steps to make their software cross-platform. By your logic, I should commend Microsoft because Internet Explorer and Word 2000 are cross-platform. Only difference is it's up to the end user to get them working in Wine, while Google will set it up for you.
To me, the fact that they have to use Wine at all screams "poor design." At best, it would seem to indicate that a Linux port is an after thought. There are several large projects (OpenOffice, Opera, Firefox, Gaim, gcc, etc.) that run natively on many more platforms than just x86 Linux and Windows, and none of them require Wine. Also, none of them have huge, several month(year?) delays between the release date for different platforms. If Google were serious about being cross platform, it wouldn't have taken so long, and it wouldn't be through Wine. It's a little harder than designing single platform software, but when you supposedly have some of the greatest people in software working on it, it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Wish I had mod points, that's funny as hell.
If the question was "I need to create a search engine for work, where should I start?" your answer would have been good advice. But the poster made no reference at all to creating his/her own search engine. Specifically: "...hence I'm trying to understand how the technology works." Even if the purpose is to create a search engine, your answer is still useless. Reinventing the wheel is a great way to learn.
Or perhaps you can explain how buying a search "solution" would teach him how a search engine works?
This has nothing to do with being a business man. The fact of the matter is, nobody in the U.S. cares about human rights in China. That new Dell monitor? Made in China. The mouse and keyboard? Made in China. Half the components in your computer? Made in China. Those shoes? Made in China. That cheap pair of jeans? China.
Instead of whining on slashdot about how "OMG, Google's doing business in China!!1!! They must be evil!!", how about you get off your ass, make a stand, and discontinue doing business with China yourself?
Look at it this way, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies doing business in China sell out their morality for hundreds of millions of dollars. The average U.S. citizen does it for 75 cents off a mouse and cheaper shoes. Maybe you're criticizing the wrong group?
I really don't understand why the w3c is doing this. It seems they're purposely trying to make themselves irrelevant. It's already enough pain in the ass to create a standards compliant page that looks good in all browsers. And now they're changing the standards even more dramatically. So much so, I wonder if it will even be possible to make a page that looks good in all browsers and is XHTML 2.0 compliant, without spending a huge amount of effort above and beyond what is already required. Yeah, it's easier to just make 2 pages, one standards compliant, and one that's not, but good luck convincing your boss.
It's obvious the average user just sticks with whatever browser came on their computer, which for 80-85% of computer users is IE. Microsoft has already shown they don't care about being standards compliant. It's been >5 years since IE 6 came out, and even now they're primarily only adding tabs, popup blocking, and useless fluff.
I'm sure some cool things are being added to XHTML 2.0, but I really don't see it catching on. Why go out of the way to break backward compatibility when none of the current browsers even fully support the current standard? I would understand if there were a gain from doing so, like TV -> HDTV, but I'm not seeing it with XHTML -> XHTML 2.0.
I see a few everyday, they're all running XFCE or Fluxbox ; )
Good point, though.
Get a clue. They have THE implementation. They invented it. This is one of the rare cases where everyone else is copying Microsoft.
That's a crap argument. There's a really good chance your 90 year old "gran" would just buy a computer with everything pre-installed and configured already, whether it was Linux, Mac or Windows.
I'm not going to say you're lying, because I'm sure you really have this problem. But the probability that you have something configured wrong is very close to 1.
A lot of the time, the government is a regular member of the market, just like everyone else. If they need 100 fighter jets, they shop around and buy them from the company who has what they want at the lowest price. This is working with the market, and most people agree it's a good thing.
But at the same time, the government has the ability to make regulations, set taxes, and pass laws that can have a huge influence on the market. This is working against the market. It's what the GP was talking about, and is usually considered a bad thing. When it's working well it ensures that roads get built, prevents monopolies and stops 5 year olds from buying whiskey. When it's not working so well, you get things like import tariffs, farm subsidies and arbitrary demands for companies to turn over their confidential information.
Ideally, the regulating side of the governemt interferes with the market only enough to ensure it continues functioning properly.
I can't speak for anyone else, but with a lot of the stuff the U.S. government is doing lately, I'm more scared of it than I am of any terrorists.
I would never support a lot of the stuff they're doing, but it would seem a bit more legitimate if they could show any of this stuff was actually having an effect. So far they've cut back our freedom quite a bit, but to my knowledge they haven't prevented a single attack. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Homer she has a rock that keeps tigers away.
Sigh. Only on slashdot. Who cares what [apple]-shift-3 does when this picture is only two pictures to the left.
I mean, there's a freakin' G5 box in that picture. Those things are awesome ; )
Sure, but XMLHttpRequest is actually helpful and useful, as GMail shows. If XMLHttpRequest was turned off, most people would turn it on. I can't think of any use for this "pinging" other than to track internet usage. If it were turned off, I think most people would keep it that way.
My point is, the Firefox dev team is adding useless features that nobody really wants (except maybe DoubleClick), when there are other more important things they could be working on. How about passing the Acid2 test? Or how about optimizing the download size? Or decreasing start up times? None of these things are really important, but I think for most people they'd have higher priority than this "pinging."
Nobody would ever go out of their way to enable it. I don't know of anyone ever requesting this "feature." And it's not in any HTML, XHTML, Javascript, or CSS standards. So why the hell did they add it? I would expect this from Microsoft, but I'm a little surprised that Firefox is doing it.
I see what you're saying, but if a person is dead set on terrorizing America, he can't just move on to the next America because this one has difficult to attain Real IDs.
I think the point is, if a person is willing to come up with a nefarious plot, fly to America, get valid identification, hijack an airplane and fly it into a building on a suicide mission, having to work a little harder to get identification won't be much of a detterent.
There is a proven alternative. It's called "paying."
And your analogy is flawed. The internet isn't a common or public good. It's owned by the people who pay for hosting or have servers. They can do whatever they want with their sites, including filling it with advertising.
Like I said, I don't mind paying for useful content, and I think most people will pay for useful content if it's made available at a reasonable price. Though it is a catch-22, because if there's an ad supported page with the same content, I'm not going to pay when I can just block the ads.
The way I see it, it's not my problem.
I block all advertisements. Even Google's text ads. If a person or company is providing useful content, and they want to make money to pay for hosting or whatever, they can charge me a reasonable amount for it. If it's really useful, I won't mind.
But the idea that I somehow owe someone a look and a few clicks on their advertisements because I'm looking at their website is ridiculous.
You haven't been around many executives, have you? I'm surprised they could figure out how to turn it on.
A WMF file is a very specific file format that contains a list of Windows GDI calls that describe how to draw an image. So obviously, most images on the interweb are not WMF files.
It is possible to make a WMF file that lists the GDI calls to display a GIF/JPG/whatever file, but that still doesn't make the GIF/JPG/whatever files themselves WMF files.