>If IE6 is a security hazard; and MS is not keen to resolve them; why not open the source; so interested customers can do so themselves?
They have been fixing bugs, the name of the version is IE7, you can choose to use the unpatched code or the new one.
They don't like my browser? Ok, I won't go to their site, they might get offended. I'm sure that they don't want the money intoxicated with this Firefox thing.
Another nice editor is FCKeditor. At least for me it worked better than all the rest that I had to test and it was all of it available under the LGPL. If I remember properly, some parts (plugins) for TinyMCE were only under a commercial license.
Passing the acid2 test would ensure that Firefox is compliant with all of today's meaningful web standards. Why doesn't the development team buckle down and say this is priority for future versions of Firefox?
Wrong!. Passing the acid2 test means only that: you are passing a specific test. It doesn't ensure anything at all about the rest of those specs.
If I write a "browser" that given the acid2 test it does render the page properly but it isn't capable of rendering anything at all not covered in that exact combination, would you call it a browser?
There are lots of testcases regarding the HTML and CSS specs, and no browser is able to render all of them correctly, including those browsers that have been tuned to pass the acid2 test
And the fact that there isn't an infinite amount of programmers working 24h/day on the codebase also means that as stated in the IE case it's a matter of priorities.
If you just fix crashers people complain that you haven't complied 100% with some spec, and if you work on improving specs the people will ask why aren't these crashers fixed. So they try to do both little by little as do the other browsers.
Disclaimer: the IE case is different, MS let IE stagnant for too long instead of working on it. We can (must) blame them for that and I think that too many people will never forget that fact, if you rely on a monopoly to improve things you aren't thinking wisely.
IE7 can be installed only by users that are running WinXP with SP2 or Win2003 and have enabled the WGA, so all the users that are perfectly happy with their Win2000 aren't able to install it. Those that still prefer to avoid SP2 (there are strange users out there) also can't install it. And lastly all those that have an old system with pre-win2000 versions just can't get any update from MS. And many organizations seems willing to block the install of IE7.
So not all windows users will get IE7. I don't have any statistics to say the percentages but I wouldn't be surprised if after 6 months no more than 50% of windows users are using IE7.
I welcome the idea that at last the W3C has get down from their high views and realize that most of the web is HTML and unless the web browsers are able to understand new markups the web developers can't use them. So instead of forcing everyone to dump everything they know the right approach is to fix existing problems in the current specs and move them forward to such ideal world step by step.
But I don't like the tone of the message itself as it refers to the WHATWG:
An issue was the formation of the breakaway WHAT WG, which attracted reviewers though it did not have a process or specific accountability measures itself.
As the WG is currently formed by developers from 3 of the 4 browsers engines, it would be a real disaster to ignore all they current work
I wonder why Firefox seems to use up so much memory for some people, whilst others get away with relatively little. Did you have any plugins installed that might have been the cause of this problem?
Not only plugins, other people have found that programs like WindowBlind can make Firefox use more and more memory, so there are lots of things to check in order to understand why some people has a particuliar problem, because it's very possible that the problem isn't in Firefox itself
You don't need any extension for that, since very early it has been possible in Mozilla and Firefox to close the tabs just by middle clicking on them. Unless you mean middle clickin in the content of the tab, but that would remove the ability to show the autoscroll thingie that appears.
Do you really think that Debian guy are able to know about and fix security problems faster than the original developers of any software? And are you saying that the Mozilla foundation doesn't want to quickly fix any security problem? or that they don't care about their users?
Isn't more likely that Debian is applying changes that are breaking functionality just like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 78667 ? If they change the way the software works it's clear that it's not the same software than the original so there's no reason to keep on naming it that way.
Well, I'm safe because right now I've made it very clear that I'm not sharing anything with copyright. A screenshot would look like this: This is not Metallica - Enter sandman This is not Madonna - Confessions On A Dancefloor This is not King Kong (Peter Jackson)
A few months ago I looked at the options to watch the movies at the TV without having to burn DVD and being easy to carry the movies anywhere so I bought an external disk with media player capabilities, just 180 euros for a small 2.5" disk that I can connect to any tv via SCART and in a few seconds watch any of the movies that I have uploaded with the USB2 connector. It can even suck the photos from the digital camera with a direct usb connector!
It's supposed to be firmware upgradeable, but so far they haven't released any version so I won't give them a free advertisment, but just look around and you can find some manufactures that sell such kind of external disks and you don't have to worry about anything.
Keep your PC for PC tasks and use the disk as an normal external disk as well as a new movie player.
Microsoft should be the one contacting the main antivirus companies around to make sure that their products work without problems with the new version of Windows as soon as it hits the stores.
Despiste all the improvements about user security, firewall etc... I don't think that any serious company will try to sell a new PC with Vista and no antivirus at all.
Indeed, looking at the description of features they both seems to have the same options, status icons, drivers,... but until VMWare releases at least a version for Mac the comparision ends just right there. Paralells has today what other might be promissing for the future and it can help to the people wanting to buy a Mac but needing to use Windows apps.
People needs to realize that Linux zealots are really dangerous, whenever a company tries to release something for linux they cry out loud "where's the source?", "but the OS project X already (tries to) do that", "it isn't free (as in beer and speech)" etc... so instead of just judging the product by its qualities against the other products available in Linux they judge them by other ideas, get bad reviews and the company doesn't find a reason to release a new improved version because they don't get the revenue that could justify keeping that product line.
Go zealots, go! You will be able to make sure that no company is interested to port their programs to Linux and so the people won't find in Linux the programs that really do (and don't pretend) the things that they need, so they will keep on using their current OS.
Look, this Vista thing is good, but it still hasn't reached the security, stability or performance levels of any of our previous versions, but please: Buy it, I need that money desperately or my wife will leave me.
Where is now all the people that blamed Mozilla.org for dropping support for windows pre-2000?
If Microsoft itself claims that it isn't possible to keep those version updated, how can anyone else provide support for those versions in a product that they give for free?
If you want to use 98, it's all right, but don't ask anyone else to help you or to pay some developers to keep lots of workarounds just to make a few people happy. Surely you might find some place where there's still a network with windows 3.11, how long should anyone keep supporting such OS just to make you happy?
The summary already states that this kind of antiphishing is already available in Nestcape 8, Opera and several toolbars and extensions. At least the grand parent said 'their' meaning that only fools will believe that this is original to MS.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't use Firebug with IETab.
But if you use the real IE, you can use the IE Developer tools, so I don't understand why a web developer would ever want to use IE Tab.
If the OS isn't supported they won't see the upgrade option: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418129
Please, could someone borrow me his time machine?
It's gonna be hard to collect those wonderful figures unless I find out how to go back one year.
>If IE6 is a security hazard; and MS is not keen to resolve them; why not open the source; so interested customers can do so themselves? They have been fixing bugs, the name of the version is IE7, you can choose to use the unpatched code or the new one.
As soon as I loaded it and saw that atrocity I placed it in the same folder where quicktime is here: the trash.
They don't like my browser?
Ok, I won't go to their site, they might get offended. I'm sure that they don't want the money intoxicated with this Firefox thing.
Another nice editor is FCKeditor. At least for me it worked better than all the rest that I had to test and it was all of it available under the LGPL. If I remember properly, some parts (plugins) for TinyMCE were only under a commercial license.
That list is currently provided only by Google, so the grandparent is right.
Wrong!. Passing the acid2 test means only that: you are passing a specific test. It doesn't ensure anything at all about the rest of those specs.
If I write a "browser" that given the acid2 test it does render the page properly but it isn't capable of rendering anything at all not covered in that exact combination, would you call it a browser?
There are lots of testcases regarding the HTML and CSS specs, and no browser is able to render all of them correctly, including those browsers that have been tuned to pass the acid2 test
And the fact that there isn't an infinite amount of programmers working 24h/day on the codebase also means that as stated in the IE case it's a matter of priorities.
If you just fix crashers people complain that you haven't complied 100% with some spec, and if you work on improving specs the people will ask why aren't these crashers fixed. So they try to do both little by little as do the other browsers.
Disclaimer: the IE case is different, MS let IE stagnant for too long instead of working on it. We can (must) blame them for that and I think that too many people will never forget that fact, if you rely on a monopoly to improve things you aren't thinking wisely.
IE7 can be installed only by users that are running WinXP with SP2 or Win2003 and have enabled the WGA, so all the users that are perfectly happy with their Win2000 aren't able to install it. Those that still prefer to avoid SP2 (there are strange users out there) also can't install it.
And lastly all those that have an old system with pre-win2000 versions just can't get any update from MS.
And many organizations seems willing to block the install of IE7.
So not all windows users will get IE7. I don't have any statistics to say the percentages but I wouldn't be surprised if after 6 months no more than 50% of windows users are using IE7.
I welcome the idea that at last the W3C has get down from their high views and realize that most of the web is HTML and unless the web browsers are able to understand new markups the web developers can't use them. So instead of forcing everyone to dump everything they know the right approach is to fix existing problems in the current specs and move them forward to such ideal world step by step.
But I don't like the tone of the message itself as it refers to the WHATWG:
As the WG is currently formed by developers from 3 of the 4 browsers engines, it would be a real disaster to ignore all they current workNot only plugins, other people have found that programs like WindowBlind can make Firefox use more and more memory, so there are lots of things to check in order to understand why some people has a particuliar problem, because it's very possible that the problem isn't in Firefox itself
You don't need any extension for that, since very early it has been possible in Mozilla and Firefox to close the tabs just by middle clicking on them.
Unless you mean middle clickin in the content of the tab, but that would remove the ability to show the autoscroll thingie that appears.
Don't worry, when it's released you will get a nice window telling you that after restart you will get the final version.
And about your questions, it seems that the RC was a real RC, so there are no changes.
Why do you need to integrate a PDF viewer?
Isn't it much better to provide a plugin so the user can choose which viewer he wants to use?
Come on!
3 78667 ?
Do you really think that Debian guy are able to know about and fix security problems faster than the original developers of any software?
And are you saying that the Mozilla foundation doesn't want to quickly fix any security problem? or that they don't care about their users?
Isn't more likely that Debian is applying changes that are breaking functionality just like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
If they change the way the software works it's clear that it's not the same software than the original so there's no reason to keep on naming it that way.
Well, I'm safe because right now I've made it very clear that I'm not sharing anything with copyright. A screenshot would look like this:
This is not Metallica - Enter sandman
This is not Madonna - Confessions On A Dancefloor
This is not King Kong (Peter Jackson)
A few months ago I looked at the options to watch the movies at the TV without having to burn DVD and being easy to carry the movies anywhere so I bought an external disk with media player capabilities, just 180 euros for a small 2.5" disk that I can connect to any tv via SCART and in a few seconds watch any of the movies that I have uploaded with the USB2 connector. It can even suck the photos from the digital camera with a direct usb connector!
It's supposed to be firmware upgradeable, but so far they haven't released any version so I won't give them a free advertisment, but just look around and you can find some manufactures that sell such kind of external disks and you don't have to worry about anything.
Keep your PC for PC tasks and use the disk as an normal external disk as well as a new movie player.
Microsoft should be the one contacting the main antivirus companies around to make sure that their products work without problems with the new version of Windows as soon as it hits the stores.
Despiste all the improvements about user security, firewall etc... I don't think that any serious company will try to sell a new PC with Vista and no antivirus at all.
Indeed, looking at the description of features they both seems to have the same options, status icons, drivers, ... but until VMWare releases at least a version for Mac the comparision ends just right there. Paralells has today what other might be promissing for the future and it can help to the people wanting to buy a Mac but needing to use Windows apps.
People needs to realize that Linux zealots are really dangerous, whenever a company tries to release something for linux they cry out loud "where's the source?", "but the OS project X already (tries to) do that", "it isn't free (as in beer and speech)" etc... so instead of just judging the product by its qualities against the other products available in Linux they judge them by other ideas, get bad reviews and the company doesn't find a reason to release a new improved version because they don't get the revenue that could justify keeping that product line.
Go zealots, go!
You will be able to make sure that no company is interested to port their programs to Linux and so the people won't find in Linux the programs that really do (and don't pretend) the things that they need, so they will keep on using their current OS.
Yeah, I hoped Steve Ballmer to come out and say:
Look, this Vista thing is good, but it still hasn't reached the security, stability or performance levels of any of our previous versions, but please: Buy it, I need that money desperately or my wife will leave me.
Where is now all the people that blamed Mozilla.org for dropping support for windows pre-2000?
If Microsoft itself claims that it isn't possible to keep those version updated, how can anyone else provide support for those versions in a product that they give for free?
If you want to use 98, it's all right, but don't ask anyone else to help you or to pay some developers to keep lots of workarounds just to make a few people happy. Surely you might find some place where there's still a network with windows 3.11, how long should anyone keep supporting such OS just to make you happy?
Insightful?
The summary already states that this kind of antiphishing is already available in Nestcape 8, Opera and several toolbars and extensions.
At least the grand parent said 'their' meaning that only fools will believe that this is original to MS.