Actually, I got one of those black thawing plates that used to be advertised on infomercials. I picked it up at Ames which used to have a bunch of shelves for older "As Seen on TV" items.
Believe it or not, it actually works great. I think it's the black coating or something... helps the heat-transfer. Whatever. It works, and I still use it. Worth the $9 or whatever I spent on it.
Consider your house. Using the same argument, one could say, "If you want your house to be secure, don't build it on a public street." Hmm but how would you get to it? Ok, a private street... oh but that has to connect somewhere... ok, an island... but there's water-access... ok, on your own planet...
No. We secure our houses by creating barriers between the unavoidable link between them and the outside world. There are different levels of security. Around our front lawn (the DMZ) we might just have a fence, or nothing at all. The door to our house will have a lock, though. Some people will have a deadbolt, electronic entry, and an alarm system to call the authorities if there's a brake-in. All depends on how much security one needs. Security is not an item or a single action. It's a process, a process along the lines of insurance. You use as much as is appropriate. There's always a way in, nothing is 100%. You just need to take steps to match the threat to YOUR data.
My computer is connected to the public internet, out of necessity. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be of much value to me. Between my computer and the internet I have a hardware router/firewall. That device has one port open, which I use for SSH. Everything else (X, VNC, etc) is tunneled over that encrypted SSH session.
As an added step, I choose to run a more reliable and secure OS (FreeBSD) instead of Windows.
Maybe when Microsoft integrates Mozilla into the OS. Most of what makes up IE loads when Windows starts, due to MS making IE the default interface to every fricken part of the OS. Double-clicking on the "e" icon simply loads the last 10% or so (prob not even that).
You can use "Quickstart" in Mozilla or NS to enable to same behavior, but honestly I find the whole idea of an app sucking up RAM when you aren't using it to be pretty stupid. Like leaving your car running all night just so you don't have to waste the 5 seconds in the morning to start it.
I mean, really: compare the startup time to how long you spend actually ON THE NET. Do a few seconds really matter??? Isn't it nice to close it and have it be GONE FROM MEMORY (unlike IE)?
Netscape does matter because the Mozilla is officially not an end-user browser. Sure, there are lots of us who use Mozilla just fine and are happy, but for newbies, installing/working-with/dealing-with mozilla is a task over their heads. While many of us know where to get answers for Mozilla issues, newbies want to be able to go to www.mywebbrowsername.com and click on a big HELP button.
Understandably, the mozilla team wishes to focus on making a browser technology, not supporting newbies. They're leaving that to others who wish to build a browser based upon Mozilla and then provide end-user resources. Amongst these, Netscape is the biggest with wide name-recognition and lots of resources (relatively). So yes, the Netscape browser DOES matter.
Even Firebird isn't meant for end-users, although it's far more easily digestible by your typical end-user than the current Mozilla browser.
Same here. My experiences with McAfee AV products have always been poor, while NAV (and now SAV) have always worked great for me. "Back in the day" (DOS, Win3.11) McAfee had a great thing going on, but they lost their touch somewhere...
Meanwhile, my dad has horrid experience with Symantec AV products and swears by McAfee for him and his clients. Go figure.
I still choose Symantec for the Windows systems I touch. I never liked McAfee's network/corporate edition. SAV Corp Ed is an absolute joy to use.
Of course, at home my solution to viruses was to install FreeBSD on my desktop;)
If only my friend had had one of these on a few weeks ago when she was assaulted by a stranger. She ended up in the ER.
I find the jacket interesting. I've thought a lot about the issues people have been raising and I don't find a problem with the jacket. It doesn't have the same power as a taser/stun-gun (to the point that it renders the other person immobile). A woman might get to an environment where she feels threatened, so that being touched would make her uncomfortable. We have jurisdiction over our own bodies and should have the right to decide the who/where/when about being touched. If the woman feels uncomfortable about being touched by ANYONE in a certain situation, she can take control and make anyone who might grab her very uncomfortable right back. If you watch the videos, the "attacker" gets no more than enough of a jolt to cause him to let go and shake his hands. He doesn't collapse onto the floor, unable to move. I find that appropriate, and can't equate the jacket to a concealed gun that fires automatically.
Choice is a wonderful thing. I actually like the piece-of-mind that comes with compiling. You never know when "CPUTYPE=686" is going to help you out, plus I have a bunch of stuff in my make.conf that isn't compiled by default into the package builds (AA fonts in OO come to mind, as well as a bunch of mplayer options).
I have a decently fast machine (Athlon 1.2GHz). If I had a very slow system and time was an issue, I might consider using the packages.
I am going to be lazy and copy&paste a similar response I posted to USENET recently...
I've been a FreeBSD user since my first exploration into non-MS OSes many years ago, so my Linux knowledge is second-hand (and may not be 100% accurate or up-to-date) but here are tidbits I think I know:
- The licenses are fundamentally different. This doesn't matter so much to me but may to you. I'll therefore skip that, but understand that BSD vs. GPL is somewhat of a Holy War.
- Linux seems to me to be more disorganized. With FreeBSD, you have one true OS. With Linux, there's the true Linux kernel, but that's useless by itself. Instead, it depends on other groups to put together distributions around a kernel (Red Hat, SuSE, etc) adding on userland programs and maybe even patching the kernel a bit for their own needs. With FreeBSD, if you're running FreeBSD 4.8 then you're running the same OS as everyone else with "4.8". With Linux, you're not running Linux version whatever, you're running Red Hat ver whatever, which is based upon a particular version of the kernel, which is different than some other distribution even if it's based upon the same kernel version. An analogy is with cars: With Linux, there's a Linux "engine" but many different companies build cars around that engine. With FreeBSD, they make the engine AND the car.
- [opinion] Linux users seem to be more "fanatical", while the FreeBSD camp seems more level-headed [/opinion]
- FreeBSD is renown for it's stability. Linux is a bit funkier... it seems to go for flash and glitz more than rock-solid stability. This is not to say that Linux can't be made stable, or that FreeBSD can never crash. But they approach things from a different angle. A Linux distribution for example tends to initially install X and a ton of programs you may or may not use. The benefit is that you might get to a GUI immediately with less work, but you also might have 100 daemons running you really don't need. FreeBSD on the other hand might take more work to get to initial GUI but once you're there you probably only installed what you really wanted to, and nothing/little else.
An enlightening point is found at Netcraft's list of the servers with the longest uptime... check what OSes they run:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
- Yahoo runs on FreeBSD. Hotmail did too, before Microsoft took it over. The largest/busiest FTP site on the 'net runs on FreeBSD (www.cdrom.com).
- The FreeBSD ports system is awesome. As far as I know, most Linux distributions don't have anything like it. I think one has something that is close but is based upon precompiled binaries. FreeBSD's ports you compile yourself, which takes longer but has benefits that I like. I think the various Linuxes are trying to "catch up" to FreeBSD in this regard but I could be wrong about the current state of affairs. Keeping apps (and the OS itself) up-to-date with tools like CVSup and portupgrade is sickeningly easy.
- I find upgrading FreeBSD to be incredibly simple. I have heard it surpasses most Linuxes but I could be wrong. But basically with 4 commands you're done (aside from mergemaster, which could use improvement, but really isn't so bad for most simple people like me once you "get it").
- Linux gets more press, but I consider FreeBSD "the best OS you've never heard of". I'm a firm believer in having your vote be counted even if it's the underdog. I'm putting my support behind FreeBSD because I like it better than Linux, even though I'm in the minority. Using Linux "because everyone else does" is the same mistake that turned Windows into a painful monopoly.
- There are technical details with threads and scheduling that differ between the two but I don't understand them enough to say anything more on the subject.
- Don't let people scare you into thinking FreeBSD can't be used on the desktop and is only good for servers. I use it as my desktop at home.
Well that's all I can think of for now. Hopefully I don't start a flame war... I am not anti-Linux (although I'm anti MS).
Last I knew, Nortel Norstar NAMs (Network Access Modules) ran OS/2. We got a new one within the last year or so and it had OS/2 just like our other one did from before. Further testament to OS/2 is the fact that these NAMs don't have power switches and are typically installed without mouse/keyboard/monitor. It is understood that you simply yank the power cord to power them off, plug it back in to turn them on, and the things just keep ticking.
Advantages? Simple: Cost, reliability, ease of maintenance. Saying you get "nothing" almost makes me think this is a troll, but oh well, I'll bite...
FreeBSD is free. All that software in the ports tree is free. Together, you can accomplish just about anything you might want to with a server. And the software cose for supporting 10,000 users is the same as 10 users: $0.
I've paid MS's outragous per-incident support costs, and I'm not overly impressed. There's two problems with this model: first of all, it's obviously more expensive. But additionally, even though most camps have the "free" option of what is out there on the 'net, knowledge that was only obtained after shelling out lots of money isn't eagerly shared. While with FreeBSD, the support is typically free to begin with, so answers on the 'net are abundant and new answers freely given. Even though Windows might be more popular than FreeBSD, I find it easier to get the answers I need to my technical FreeBSD questions than Windows. And without spending a penny.
Put that into your TCO pipe and smoke it;)
(On a side note, if you're so corporate that your PHBs can't sleep without knowing they can pay for support, there ARE companies that will take your cash for FreeBSD support. But I've never found it necessary to use them.)
Then again, FreeBSD works great on the desktop. They can concentrate on the server market all they want... but I'll be content to run a server-hardened OS on my desktop with all the reliability that comes with it. And I'm not alone.
And my graphical desktop is just as much eye-candy as any Linux one.
To all those saying "this is not new"... here's a "me too" (of sorts).
I live in Vermont and we're rather famous for our cows. Anyhow, a farm just down the road from me has been doing this for years. They generate surplus electricity and sell it back to the electric company. It's rather cool. Glad to see it getting more attention.
Seems a lot of people only get a $20 refund when they bitch about the "Windows Tax". Some mention $125. So let's say you're lucky, and could get $125.
I bet you anything that the off-brand laptop you buy for $x will spec out less than what you could get from Dell for $x+125.
Plus you won't get the service, warranty, etc that you would from a huge name like Dell.
From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense. If you need to pacify your conscience, consider the inclusion of Windows with the laptop as something to make it more resellable later on down the line.
Consider this analogy: I buy a car with the full intent of gutting the audio system and putting in my own custom one. But I don't bitch and moan that I can't get one WITHOUT a stereo included. Why? Because later on, when I go to resell it, I'll put the factory one back in. Try reselling your car without a stereo.
Disclaimer: I hate MS more than most people (but about par for/. readers). My personal computer is Wintel-less (Athlon + FreeBSD).
Actually, I was thinking about something like this just the other day.
I can't remember where the article was (it very well could've been one that Slashdot lead me to), but it was talking about how the odds in a "catastrophic, Challenger-like distaster" to be about 1:100, and that since Challenger there had been like 90-something flights. "You do the math", the article said.
Maybe someone on here saw the same article and can provide a link.
I remember it really giving me a sinking feeling. After thinking it'd be really cool to ride into space, the reality of the danger hit home and I began to worry about another total-loss, and what it would do to the space program, the ISS, and the economy.
I clearly remember a statement saying that they were waiving the fees. Yahoo also stated the same thing.
And when AOL buys HP-Compaq...?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
You laugh...
But I can see it now: PCs with the AOL Kiosk OS pre-installed, and Dell doesn't get to advertise on TV anymore. Instead, we just get to see the latest box from AOL/Hewlett-Timepaq.
I just don't get it. You don't magically make money through mergers. This doesn't address the problem and just ends up hurting competition, srewing over a lot of people, and causing a lot of promising technologies to completely vanish (Alpha, for example).
This is a load of utter misinformation. Yes, Internet Explorer is loaded as a part of the Windows Explorer shell when Windows loads. However, if you configure Windows not to load the Explorer shell on startup, or to use a different shell, you can then start Internet Explorer separately (from a commandline, for example), and the load time is exactly the same. The simple fact is, IE is far less bloated than Netscape, far more compliant, and just plain faster.
Actually, he was right. Please see the post by ppanon... he is also correct. IE has been merged into Windows 98 in devious and subtle ways... it's not just a matter of it being the shell that Win98 launches.
To do an accurate comparison, you need to run benchmarks on an OS that predates the merge of IE and Windows. For this example, I used WinNT 4.0 workstation:
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I got one of those black thawing plates that used to be advertised on infomercials. I picked it up at Ames which used to have a bunch of shelves for older "As Seen on TV" items.
Believe it or not, it actually works great. I think it's the black coating or something... helps the heat-transfer. Whatever. It works, and I still use it. Worth the $9 or whatever I spent on it.
Not practical.
Consider your house. Using the same argument, one could say, "If you want your house to be secure, don't build it on a public street." Hmm but how would you get to it? Ok, a private street... oh but that has to connect somewhere... ok, an island... but there's water-access... ok, on your own planet...
No. We secure our houses by creating barriers between the unavoidable link between them and the outside world. There are different levels of security. Around our front lawn (the DMZ) we might just have a fence, or nothing at all. The door to our house will have a lock, though. Some people will have a deadbolt, electronic entry, and an alarm system to call the authorities if there's a brake-in. All depends on how much security one needs. Security is not an item or a single action. It's a process, a process along the lines of insurance. You use as much as is appropriate. There's always a way in, nothing is 100%. You just need to take steps to match the threat to YOUR data.
My computer is connected to the public internet, out of necessity. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be of much value to me. Between my computer and the internet I have a hardware router/firewall. That device has one port open, which I use for SSH. Everything else (X, VNC, etc) is tunneled over that encrypted SSH session.
As an added step, I choose to run a more reliable and secure OS (FreeBSD) instead of Windows.
Not sure if this is really flamebait or not, but for argument's sake, I wanted to post a screenshot of MY Galeon, showing the fonts are just fine:
http://vtbsd.net/galeon_shot.png
This is Galeon 1.3.7 on FreeBSD 5.1, with all ports kept up-to-date.
Not to mention, if you indent your lists, it doesn't even generate valid HTML. See bug# 54479.
:( And it's been around for almost 3 years.
That one gets me all the time.
Maybe when Microsoft integrates Mozilla into the OS. Most of what makes up IE loads when Windows starts, due to MS making IE the default interface to every fricken part of the OS. Double-clicking on the "e" icon simply loads the last 10% or so (prob not even that).
You can use "Quickstart" in Mozilla or NS to enable to same behavior, but honestly I find the whole idea of an app sucking up RAM when you aren't using it to be pretty stupid. Like leaving your car running all night just so you don't have to waste the 5 seconds in the morning to start it.
I mean, really: compare the startup time to how long you spend actually ON THE NET. Do a few seconds really matter??? Isn't it nice to close it and have it be GONE FROM MEMORY (unlike IE)?
Netscape does matter because the Mozilla is officially not an end-user browser. Sure, there are lots of us who use Mozilla just fine and are happy, but for newbies, installing/working-with/dealing-with mozilla is a task over their heads. While many of us know where to get answers for Mozilla issues, newbies want to be able to go to www.mywebbrowsername.com and click on a big HELP button.
Understandably, the mozilla team wishes to focus on making a browser technology, not supporting newbies. They're leaving that to others who wish to build a browser based upon Mozilla and then provide end-user resources. Amongst these, Netscape is the biggest with wide name-recognition and lots of resources (relatively). So yes, the Netscape browser DOES matter.
Even Firebird isn't meant for end-users, although it's far more easily digestible by your typical end-user than the current Mozilla browser.
Same here. My experiences with McAfee AV products have always been poor, while NAV (and now SAV) have always worked great for me. "Back in the day" (DOS, Win3.11) McAfee had a great thing going on, but they lost their touch somewhere...
;)
Meanwhile, my dad has horrid experience with Symantec AV products and swears by McAfee for him and his clients. Go figure.
I still choose Symantec for the Windows systems I touch. I never liked McAfee's network/corporate edition. SAV Corp Ed is an absolute joy to use.
Of course, at home my solution to viruses was to install FreeBSD on my desktop
If only my friend had had one of these on a few weeks ago when she was assaulted by a stranger. She ended up in the ER.
I find the jacket interesting. I've thought a lot about the issues people have been raising and I don't find a problem with the jacket. It doesn't have the same power as a taser/stun-gun (to the point that it renders the other person immobile). A woman might get to an environment where she feels threatened, so that being touched would make her uncomfortable. We have jurisdiction over our own bodies and should have the right to decide the who/where/when about being touched. If the woman feels uncomfortable about being touched by ANYONE in a certain situation, she can take control and make anyone who might grab her very uncomfortable right back. If you watch the videos, the "attacker" gets no more than enough of a jolt to cause him to let go and shake his hands. He doesn't collapse onto the floor, unable to move. I find that appropriate, and can't equate the jacket to a concealed gun that fires automatically.
Choice is a wonderful thing. I actually like the piece-of-mind that comes with compiling. You never know when "CPUTYPE=686" is going to help you out, plus I have a bunch of stuff in my make.conf that isn't compiled by default into the package builds (AA fonts in OO come to mind, as well as a bunch of mplayer options).
I have a decently fast machine (Athlon 1.2GHz). If I had a very slow system and time was an issue, I might consider using the packages.
For those looking for kickstart their collection, here are the FreeBSD books I own:
Absolute BSD: The Ultimate Guide to FreeBSD
by Michael Lucas
ISBN: 1886411743
FreeBSD: The Complete Reference
by Roderick W. Smith
ISBN: 0072224096
The Complete FreeBSD, Fourth Edition
by Greg Lehey
ISBN: 0596005164
FreeBSD Unleashed (2nd Edition)
by Brian Tiemann, Michael Urban
ISBN: 0672324563
I am going to be lazy and copy&paste a similar response I posted to USENET recently...
l
I've been a FreeBSD user since my first exploration into non-MS OSes many years ago, so my Linux knowledge is second-hand (and may not be 100% accurate or up-to-date) but here are tidbits I think I know:
- The licenses are fundamentally different. This doesn't matter so much to me but may to you. I'll therefore skip that, but understand that BSD vs. GPL is somewhat of a Holy War.
- Linux seems to me to be more disorganized. With FreeBSD, you have one true OS. With Linux, there's the true Linux kernel, but that's useless by itself. Instead, it depends on other groups to put together distributions around a kernel (Red Hat, SuSE, etc) adding on userland programs and maybe even patching the kernel a bit for their own needs. With FreeBSD, if you're running FreeBSD 4.8 then you're running the same OS as everyone else with "4.8". With Linux, you're not running Linux version whatever, you're running Red Hat ver whatever, which is based upon a particular version of the kernel, which is different than some other distribution even if it's based upon the same kernel version. An analogy is with cars: With Linux, there's a Linux "engine" but many different companies build cars around that engine. With FreeBSD, they make the engine AND the car.
- [opinion] Linux users seem to be more "fanatical", while the FreeBSD camp seems more level-headed [/opinion]
- FreeBSD is renown for it's stability. Linux is a bit funkier... it seems to go for flash and glitz more than rock-solid stability. This is not to say that Linux can't be made stable, or that FreeBSD can never crash. But they approach things from a different angle. A Linux distribution for example tends to initially install X and a ton of programs you may or may not use. The benefit is that you might get to a GUI immediately with less work, but you also might have 100 daemons running you really don't need. FreeBSD on the other hand might take more work to get to initial GUI but once you're there you probably only installed what you really wanted to, and nothing/little else.
An enlightening point is found at Netcraft's list of the servers with the longest uptime... check what OSes they run:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.htm
- Yahoo runs on FreeBSD. Hotmail did too, before Microsoft took it over. The largest/busiest FTP site on the 'net runs on FreeBSD (www.cdrom.com).
- The FreeBSD ports system is awesome. As far as I know, most Linux distributions don't have anything like it. I think one has something that is close but is based upon precompiled binaries. FreeBSD's ports you compile yourself, which takes longer but has benefits that I like. I think the various Linuxes are trying to "catch up" to FreeBSD in this regard but I could be wrong about the current state of affairs. Keeping apps (and the OS itself) up-to-date with tools like CVSup and portupgrade is sickeningly easy.
- I find upgrading FreeBSD to be incredibly simple. I have heard it surpasses most Linuxes but I could be wrong. But basically with 4 commands you're done (aside from mergemaster, which could use improvement, but really isn't so bad for most simple people like me once you "get it").
- Linux gets more press, but I consider FreeBSD "the best OS you've never heard of". I'm a firm believer in having your vote be counted even if it's the underdog. I'm putting my support behind FreeBSD because I like it better than Linux, even though I'm in the minority. Using Linux "because everyone else does" is the same mistake that turned Windows into a painful monopoly.
- There are technical details with threads and scheduling that differ between the two but I don't understand them enough to say anything more on the subject.
- Don't let people scare you into thinking FreeBSD can't be used on the desktop and is only good for servers. I use it as my desktop at home.
Well that's all I can think of for now. Hopefully I don't start a flame war... I am not anti-Linux (although I'm anti MS).
Last I knew, Nortel Norstar NAMs (Network Access Modules) ran OS/2. We got a new one within the last year or so and it had OS/2 just like our other one did from before. Further testament to OS/2 is the fact that these NAMs don't have power switches and are typically installed without mouse/keyboard/monitor. It is understood that you simply yank the power cord to power them off, plug it back in to turn them on, and the things just keep ticking.
Advantages? Simple: Cost, reliability, ease of maintenance. Saying you get "nothing" almost makes me think this is a troll, but oh well, I'll bite...
;)
FreeBSD is free. All that software in the ports tree is free. Together, you can accomplish just about anything you might want to with a server. And the software cose for supporting 10,000 users is the same as 10 users: $0.
I've paid MS's outragous per-incident support costs, and I'm not overly impressed. There's two problems with this model: first of all, it's obviously more expensive. But additionally, even though most camps have the "free" option of what is out there on the 'net, knowledge that was only obtained after shelling out lots of money isn't eagerly shared. While with FreeBSD, the support is typically free to begin with, so answers on the 'net are abundant and new answers freely given. Even though Windows might be more popular than FreeBSD, I find it easier to get the answers I need to my technical FreeBSD questions than Windows. And without spending a penny.
Put that into your TCO pipe and smoke it
(On a side note, if you're so corporate that your PHBs can't sleep without knowing they can pay for support, there ARE companies that will take your cash for FreeBSD support. But I've never found it necessary to use them.)
Java works fine, I've been using 1.3.1 native (not linux) on FreeBSD for a while.
Then again, FreeBSD works great on the desktop. They can concentrate on the server market all they want... but I'll be content to run a server-hardened OS on my desktop with all the reliability that comes with it. And I'm not alone.
And my graphical desktop is just as much eye-candy as any Linux one.
To all those saying "this is not new"... here's a "me too" (of sorts).
I live in Vermont and we're rather famous for our cows. Anyhow, a farm just down the road from me has been doing this for years. They generate surplus electricity and sell it back to the electric company. It's rather cool. Glad to see it getting more attention.
Seems a lot of people only get a $20 refund when they bitch about the "Windows Tax". Some mention $125. So let's say you're lucky, and could get $125.
/. readers). My personal computer is Wintel-less (Athlon + FreeBSD).
I bet you anything that the off-brand laptop you buy for $x will spec out less than what you could get from Dell for $x+125.
Plus you won't get the service, warranty, etc that you would from a huge name like Dell.
From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense. If you need to pacify your conscience, consider the inclusion of Windows with the laptop as something to make it more resellable later on down the line.
Consider this analogy: I buy a car with the full intent of gutting the audio system and putting in my own custom one. But I don't bitch and moan that I can't get one WITHOUT a stereo included. Why? Because later on, when I go to resell it, I'll put the factory one back in. Try reselling your car without a stereo.
Disclaimer: I hate MS more than most people (but about par for
Actually, I was thinking about something like this just the other day.
I can't remember where the article was (it very well could've been one that Slashdot lead me to), but it was talking about how the odds in a "catastrophic, Challenger-like distaster" to be about 1:100, and that since Challenger there had been like 90-something flights. "You do the math", the article said.
Maybe someone on here saw the same article and can provide a link.
I remember it really giving me a sinking feeling. After thinking it'd be really cool to ride into space, the reality of the danger hit home and I began to worry about another total-loss, and what it would do to the space program, the ISS, and the economy.
And now, here we are.
I don't see why everyone keeps using the MSRP to bitch about something being to expensive. When was the last time you paid the MSRP for anything?
http://www.tvnav.com/ will have the iQue for $455. You can pre-order now. They are very reputable.
This can be adjusted/eliminatged with the following pref:
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);
I clearly remember a statement saying that they were waiving the fees. Yahoo also stated the same thing.
You laugh...
But I can see it now: PCs with the AOL Kiosk OS pre-installed, and Dell doesn't get to advertise on TV anymore. Instead, we just get to see the latest box from AOL/Hewlett-Timepaq.
I just don't get it. You don't magically make money through mergers. This doesn't address the problem and just ends up hurting competition, srewing over a lot of people, and causing a lot of promising technologies to completely vanish (Alpha, for example).
Actually, he was right. Please see the post by ppanon... he is also correct. IE has been merged into Windows 98 in devious and subtle ways... it's not just a matter of it being the shell that Win98 launches.
To do an accurate comparison, you need to run benchmarks on an OS that predates the merge of IE and Windows. For this example, I used WinNT 4.0 workstation:
IE 5.5 load time: 24 seconds
Mozilla nightly load time: 21 seconds
Cool. Spread the word. CNN?
ZDNet has a cover story article all about this thread.