But that is not news! The most significant implication is that they won't release IE7 for anything before XPSP2. That means they will either fail, or they will split the web into have's and have-not's.
Make that several years. Look at how widely IPv6 is deployed...
People just aren't too eager to implement something they won't have much benefit of. Or of which the benefit only starts to show after the majority of people have implemented it.
you obiously have no practical experience... putting up SPF records has not made any noticable difference in the spam abuse from one of my domains. obviously, spammers do not (yet) check of a domain they use for joejobs has an SPF listing. this means that little or no receivers are bouncing the spam because of SPF.
I have a domain that has been the victim of joe-jobs for years. I don't use it for mail myself, so I have put bogus MX records on it. This yielded an rfcignorant listing, but the joejobbing continued. Then I put an SPF record up and restored a valid MX record. The number of bounces was as before, and did not decrease noticably over several months.
My conclusion is that adoption of SPF and other DNSblock checks is far to little to make any dent into the spam, and certainly not enough to make the spammer remove the domain from his senderlist.
On the other hand, there are issues with Windows timezone handling that are worse than the Unix design. For example, that the computer clock is adjusted to the timezone and DST instead of running on UTC all the time. This makes it complicated to run different operating systems (even different partitions with Windows) on the same machine.
File date/times are also expressed in local time, which causes confusion when the timezone changes or DST starts or ends.
So, both systems have their flaws. The problem in Unix is being solved in the GNU C libraries, but there are still too many legacy applications to really rely on a timezone change without a reboot.
But you can upgrade your Internet Browser without rebooting!
Traditional Unix and similar systems like Linux. Or in fact, any system that has the traditional set of timezone-related library functions as it exists in Unix. These use the environment to communicate timezone information, and it is often copied into global variables in daemons and other long-running programs.
Very difficult to use with a moving receiver unless combined with an inertial navigation system. (Rare except in modern airplane navigational systems)
I thought modern car navigation systems employed inertial navigation...? They are equipped with speed and acceleration sensors, to extrapolate position when there is no good GPS reception. This could be called inertial navigation.
For example, timezones are far larger than 20-40ft. Laptops could be configured to automatically adjust the timezone setting to match the closest access points
Timezones are not that easily derived from position, you would need a quite large and fairly uptodate database of timezone borders for that.
And your favorite OS may not support timezone changes without restarting the system...
The point is that people predicted this, and the goverments said "that won't happen, we will watch it very closely, and we will act when it happens". But they forgot to tell that they had now lawful base to act. So when prices went up, they first simply denied that, later they admitted that prices went up in some sectors and spoke badly of it, and when that did not change anything they just smuthered up the whole issue, hoping that people would forget about it. But of course that didn't happen, especially because income growth was very limited in the years after the euro introduction (except for politicians and top managers), so the loss in buying power remains visible until today.
So even when it is not their fault, it remains a fact that they did not act. Furthermore, they agreed upon exchange rates that later turned out to be not correct. The Dutch guilder was exchanged at 2.2 guilder to the euro. It turned out that 2 guilder to the euro was a better rate. Now the minister of finance is downplaying the effects of this, claiming that it increased our competitivity. But of course, when there would have been a simple 2:1 conversion, prices would not have increased nearly as much. Why? Because something that cost 1 guilder was silently converted to 0.5 euro, a 10% increase. And when that was not done immediately, it went to 45 eurocent (the correct conversion) and was rounded to 0.5 euro at the next suitable moment. This rounding-up effect was completly neglected by politicians, and it still is.
The problem is that people voted No for many different reasons, and it's going to be very difficult for the politicians to work out how to revise the constitution to make it more acceptable to the voters.
This is exactly what I meant. The average voter did not vote NO because of the content of the constitution; that is so complicated and so badly communicated that most people not even considered it. The average NO vote was because of EU policy in general, and/or behaviour of local politicians. So, it would be wrong to attempt to rectify the situation by adjusting the constitution.
This is exactly what the politicians are not bright enough to understand. They keep referring to the difficulty of knowing what the NO voters want to change. But that change should not be a change to the constitution, but to the basic principles of the EU.
E.g. instead of trying to expand as fast as possible, try to define a sound common base for countries in the union. Instead of changing everything into a competitive profit-based market environment, first try to find what services are best performed by (semi)government managed organizations and what services are to be left to competitive commercial markets. Instead of preferring the multinational "bigger is better" style of operation (the subject of this thread), look at alternatives like small business, open development, etc.
As long as the EU remains a globalistic trade union, it will not be popular as a govermental body amongst voters.
The EU is not a democratically elected body. The EU was formed as, and still acts as, a union of industrial countries that want to cooperate to create a big market in which multinational companies can operate and make big profits. The mechanism of a commission with large groups of lobbyists hovering around it is very efficient for this. They are not interested in the opinions of the citizen or the problems of small companies. What counts and what brings them money is the large corporations. The large corporations have the lobbyists to bring them that message. They tell the commission that they need software patents, and software patents it is going to be.
This is only a special case of the general attitude that only large companies and big profits count. Many services that were well implemented in the Netherlands and other traditional EU countries were transformed into "markets" by EU directive, and mostly it was a big disaster. We ended up paying more for services that were worse, because direct costs were cut and management overhead increased. But the EU is still overjoyed by that big market they created.
Many European citizens are sick of this attitude. But they are never asked their opinion. Last month, for the first time the French and Dutch citizens were asked something, and they loudly voiced NO. This NO was intended to be a firm statement against the European policies in general, but your average politician is not bright enough to get that message.
The nice thing is that this can happen with any program that you install. Maybe an OS fix is riskier than average, but you need to be prepared in any case.
Maybe I was not clear. What I mean is not a store of calendars that is updated infrequently, but a real shared calendar in which many users can make meeting appointments, book rooms and other resources, etc.
The Perl WebCalendar can do that. I think Mozilla will only do that in version 2.0 which is far from being released.
It is great. After reading about AJAX again yesterday, I thought about what would be possible with this calender using such techniques... Maybe Maorong is interested? (I have been doing work on this calendar in the early days, but for the past year or to it has just been running and I have not done much...)
We run this calendar at work, for several years now. It is really stable, and full-featured.
We have 250 users that share calendars on a server. I think the Mozilla calendar is not worthy to look at until they at least have some way of shared calendar support within a company.
We run this calendar at work, for several years now. It is really stable, and full-featured.
We have 250 users that share calendars on a server. I think the Mozilla calendar is not worthy to look at until they at least have some way of shared calendar support within a company.
Re:Which is the bigger irony:
on
Ajax On Rails
·
· Score: 1
Mozilla/Thunderbird has it as well: while you type mail addresses, it searches your address books. When you have one or more LDAP address books defined, it hits them while you type your address, offering autocomplete the same way Google Suggest does.
Re:Which is the bigger irony:
on
Ajax On Rails
·
· Score: 1
You did not yet know about Google Suggest? That't a pity...
Our organisation is also Win2K-only (both on server and desktops/laptops) and we still install Win2K on all newly arriving systems that come with WinXP preinstalls nowadays. We have a fully unattended install that completely locks down the system against software installations by the enduser, and we install TightVNC for remote access. We have roaming profiles, and also many users that alternately use different workstations in the organisation.
I experimented with WinXP when it first arrived on some laptop. There was a nasty problem with roaming profiles: once a user had logged on to the XP system, the roaming profile was updated with all kinds of XP stuff, and when going back to a 2K workstation this caused trouble. At that time, we were in a migration from 95 to 2K and there was no such problem in that case, because 95's and 2K's profile could be put in a different location on the server, so they would not clobber eachother when roaming. For 2K and XP profiles there appears to be no such possibility.
How can we migrate from 2K to XP gradually, without problems for users that sometimes log on to 2K systems and other times to XP systems, and have roaming profiles? I cannot believe MS would expect us to upgrade in a big-bang fashion...
Slashdot Mirror
But that is not news!
The most significant implication is that they won't release IE7 for anything before XPSP2.
That means they will either fail, or they will split the web into have's and have-not's.
Make that several years.
Look at how widely IPv6 is deployed...
People just aren't too eager to implement something they won't have much benefit of. Or of which the benefit only starts to show after the majority of people have implemented it.
you obiously have no practical experience...
putting up SPF records has not made any noticable difference in the spam abuse from one of my domains.
obviously, spammers do not (yet) check of a domain they use for joejobs has an SPF listing. this means that little or no receivers are bouncing the spam because of SPF.
I have a domain that has been the victim of joe-jobs for years.
I don't use it for mail myself, so I have put bogus MX records on it. This yielded an rfcignorant listing, but the joejobbing continued.
Then I put an SPF record up and restored a valid MX record. The number of bounces was as before, and did not decrease noticably over several months.
My conclusion is that adoption of SPF and other DNSblock checks is far to little to make any dent into the spam, and certainly not enough to make the spammer remove the domain from his senderlist.
On the other hand, there are issues with Windows timezone handling that are worse than the Unix design. For example, that the computer clock is adjusted to the timezone and DST instead of running on UTC all the time. This makes it complicated to run different operating systems (even different partitions with Windows) on the same machine.
File date/times are also expressed in local time, which causes confusion when the timezone changes or DST starts or ends.
So, both systems have their flaws.
The problem in Unix is being solved in the GNU C libraries, but there are still too many legacy applications to really rely on a timezone change without a reboot.
But you can upgrade your Internet Browser without rebooting!
Traditional Unix and similar systems like Linux.
Or in fact, any system that has the traditional set of timezone-related library functions as it exists in Unix.
These use the environment to communicate timezone information, and it is often copied into global variables in daemons and other long-running programs.
Very difficult to use with a moving receiver unless combined with an inertial navigation system. (Rare except in modern airplane navigational systems)
I thought modern car navigation systems employed inertial navigation...?
They are equipped with speed and acceleration sensors, to extrapolate position when there is no good GPS reception. This could be called inertial navigation.
For example, timezones are far larger than 20-40ft. Laptops could be configured to automatically adjust the timezone setting to match the closest access points
Timezones are not that easily derived from position, you would need a quite large and fairly uptodate database of timezone borders for that.
And your favorite OS may not support timezone changes without restarting the system...
The point is that people predicted this, and the goverments said "that won't happen, we will watch it very closely, and we will act when it happens". But they forgot to tell that they had now lawful base to act.
So when prices went up, they first simply denied that, later they admitted that prices went up in some sectors and spoke badly of it, and when that did not change anything they just smuthered up the whole issue, hoping that people would forget about it.
But of course that didn't happen, especially because income growth was very limited in the years after the euro introduction (except for politicians and top managers), so the loss in buying power remains visible until today.
So even when it is not their fault, it remains a fact that they did not act.
Furthermore, they agreed upon exchange rates that later turned out to be not correct. The Dutch guilder was exchanged at 2.2 guilder to the euro. It turned out that 2 guilder to the euro was a better rate.
Now the minister of finance is downplaying the effects of this, claiming that it increased our competitivity. But of course, when there would have been a simple 2:1 conversion, prices would not have increased nearly as much.
Why? Because something that cost 1 guilder was silently converted to 0.5 euro, a 10% increase. And when that was not done immediately, it went to 45 eurocent (the correct conversion) and was rounded to 0.5 euro at the next suitable moment.
This rounding-up effect was completly neglected by politicians, and it still is.
The problem is that people voted No for many different reasons, and it's going to be very difficult for the politicians to work out how to revise the constitution to make it more acceptable to the voters.
This is exactly what I meant. The average voter did not vote NO because of the content of the constitution; that is so complicated and so badly communicated that most people not even considered it.
The average NO vote was because of EU policy in general, and/or behaviour of local politicians.
So, it would be wrong to attempt to rectify the situation by adjusting the constitution.
This is exactly what the politicians are not bright enough to understand. They keep referring to the difficulty of knowing what the NO voters want to change. But that change should not be a change to the constitution, but to the basic principles of the EU.
E.g. instead of trying to expand as fast as possible, try to define a sound common base for countries in the union. Instead of changing everything into a competitive profit-based market environment, first try to find what services are best performed by (semi)government managed organizations and what services are to be left to competitive commercial markets.
Instead of preferring the multinational "bigger is better" style of operation (the subject of this thread), look at alternatives like small business, open development, etc.
As long as the EU remains a globalistic trade union, it will not be popular as a govermental body amongst voters.
The EU is not a democratically elected body.
The EU was formed as, and still acts as, a union of industrial countries that want to cooperate to create a big market in which multinational companies can operate and make big profits.
The mechanism of a commission with large groups of lobbyists hovering around it is very efficient for this. They are not interested in the opinions of the citizen or the problems of small companies. What counts and what brings them money is the large corporations. The large corporations have the lobbyists to bring them that message. They tell the commission that they need software patents, and software patents it is going to be.
This is only a special case of the general attitude that only large companies and big profits count. Many services that were well implemented in the Netherlands and other traditional EU countries were transformed into "markets" by EU directive, and mostly it was a big disaster. We ended up paying more for services that were worse, because direct costs were cut and management overhead increased. But the EU is still overjoyed by that big market they created.
Many European citizens are sick of this attitude. But they are never asked their opinion.
Last month, for the first time the French and Dutch citizens were asked something, and they loudly voiced NO.
This NO was intended to be a firm statement against the European policies in general, but your average politician is not bright enough to get that message.
They accept firefox but they dismiss mozilla.
They waive away visitors with a message that their browser is not compatible, with a "continue" link that sends them back to the same message.
They deserve their problems.
The nice thing is that this can happen with any program that you install. Maybe an OS fix is riskier than average, but you need to be prepared in any case.
It happens every week.
Those were the days.... now it happens once a month.
NEVER install the MS-distributed driver updates on a Dell PC!
Get them from the Dell site.
I had similar problems with a GX-270 a while ago.
The "critical" fix for IE was compiled on April, 28.
Go figure...
Maybe I was not clear. What I mean is not a store of calendars that is updated infrequently, but a real shared calendar in which many users can make meeting appointments, book rooms and other resources, etc.
The Perl WebCalendar can do that. I think Mozilla will only do that in version 2.0 which is far from being released.
It is great.
After reading about AJAX again yesterday, I thought about what would be possible with this calender using such techniques...
Maybe Maorong is interested?
(I have been doing work on this calendar in the early days, but for the past year or to it has just been running and I have not done much...)
My problem usually is not that it is too much of a ludge, but more that it depends on too many other things that I run locally to release it.
We run this calendar at work, for several years now. It is really stable, and full-featured.
We have 250 users that share calendars on a server. I think the Mozilla calendar is not worthy to look at until they at least have some way of shared calendar support within a company.
We run this calendar at work, for several years now. It is really stable, and full-featured.
We have 250 users that share calendars on a server. I think the Mozilla calendar is not worthy to look at until they at least have some way of shared calendar support within a company.
Mozilla/Thunderbird has it as well: while you type mail addresses, it searches your address books. When you have one or more LDAP address books defined, it hits them while you type your address, offering autocomplete the same way Google Suggest does.
You did not yet know about Google Suggest?
That't a pity...
Go try it at http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en
Our organisation is also Win2K-only (both on server and desktops/laptops) and we still install Win2K on all newly arriving systems that come with WinXP preinstalls nowadays. We have a fully unattended install that completely locks down the system against software installations by the enduser, and we install TightVNC for remote access.
We have roaming profiles, and also many users that alternately use different workstations in the organisation.
I experimented with WinXP when it first arrived on some laptop. There was a nasty problem with roaming profiles: once a user had logged on to the XP system, the roaming profile was updated with all kinds of XP stuff, and when going back to a 2K workstation this caused trouble.
At that time, we were in a migration from 95 to 2K and there was no such problem in that case, because 95's and 2K's profile could be put in a different location on the server, so they would not clobber eachother when roaming.
For 2K and XP profiles there appears to be no such possibility.
How can we migrate from 2K to XP gradually, without problems for users that sometimes log on to 2K systems and other times to XP systems, and have roaming profiles?
I cannot believe MS would expect us to upgrade in a big-bang fashion...