Some could argue that freedom is dangerous, should we exchange freedom for security or commodity? I would never do such a trade
C++ is a flexible language and when used correctly can seriously be versatile, seriously.
Stroustrup gets it right also, sometimes the libraries are the issue. Firefox is a sample for code mess but if you made a similar project in wxwidgets or QT you would notice some of the cleanest code.
In my bolivian University they start with Java as well, the good thing is that our use of premade libraries is null and we use a very limited library, the only thing we don't code yet is a console reading class because it would be silly to learn about input streams and exception handling before learning how to make your first program that reads 2 integers and returns the sum.
Sure, at that point you can still do the retarded thing and go "ha ha, so the full install didn't fit and they had to strip it down", but may I point out that the average Linux distro is even bigger than the full XP? SuSE Linux for example (to use an example from everyone's favourite, Novell) comes on a DVD or more than half a dozen CDs. Compressed. So that wouldn't fit there either.
*Ubuntu comes in a single CD, and it is pretty complete, with OpenOffice, the Gimp and cd burning software, windows XP actually needs 3 CDs, one for the OS, and the other 2 for MSOffice, not like windows CD comes with any application you would seriously use, wordpad and paint are jokes, seriously.
Not really, Mono sure is cool but its execution of.net assemblies is not stable enough for bussiness, unless the stability has improved vastly the last 4 months.
Well, for example OpenXML takes much more space than the binary ODF format
The Media companies and the Hard drive manufacturers have been asking MS to release a format which uses more hard drive space so people would have less space for warez and the chance of getting a full disk thus requiring to buy another hard drive are increased.
Come on!, Remember the usual "Don't teach the poor to read, that would make them a threat"? This all sounds as "don't give the poor any access to the internet, they could become a threat" . And for god's sake it is not like captchas are any difficult for just a program to beat.
I administrate a site with a vBulletin forum, and every once in a while a bot posts messages. Registration requires passing a captcha, in fact, I decided to just remove the captcha, it was seriously not helping stop the spam and was just making the registration harder FOR HUMANS.
BTW: I noticed that Russian bots are more likely to beat captchas.
It all sounds that this is a whole bug with Javascript (again), and XSS in a trusted site, for god's sake people if someone can make a domain run whatever javascript code he wants they can just steal your cookies.
I would love to test whether it works when firefox is using the noscript addon, but I cannot, because I don't use the password manager, it is just retarded to let your browser remember your passwords, really.
Could swear there was a MacOSX firefox theme around.
Anyways, wxwidgets (not wxwindows like some are still calling them) make truly cross platform GUI applications, with the OS native GUI! It is great to use Code::Blocks in windows and then use the same IDE to open the project on Linux. The only problem is that wxwidgets is kind of a huge library, which hardly has support from linux distros (I've seen things like SDL always included in distros, but wxwidgets must be downloaded) . In windows the problem is worse because it makes your exe distribution a lot bigger so it is still only cool for big projects.
Is this post actually an attack to vista though? It seems to talk about Vista's symlinks only, and they are limited. It doesn't make any sense to say "Symlinks are limited but the other vista features are so cool it doesn't matter" in an article that's dedicated to symlinks, does it?
and after all these years Internet Explorer is playing catchup to an open source browser
I am firefox user but I seriously doubt so. The whole fact that just 10% of the market is considered such a success for firefox kind of proves that IE dominance is way too strong.
Properties are nice, but are you seriously saying that's the only reason it is better? I prefer C# for crazy things like for each, the huge library and things like how assemblies work. Although it is not my most favorite language.
Just a personal opinion: C# Against JAVA is a coffee cup massacre, it is also better than any other language that claims to be easy to use/ fast for development
My opinion is that there ARE some bots. Sometimes in linux topics some bot post a huge post about how linux sucks and it is always the same, maybe it is actually a human being retarded and repetitive, but who knows?
Sure it is a whole conspiracy from those mad liberal scientists against the U.S....
Let's, for a second deny that global warming is caused by emissions of gases. Does that really make emissions less of a problem? Sure we wouldn't have to care about CO2 anymore, but is it really the only thing that we are emitting? Have you ever heard of acid rain?
But then there's the big probability that the climate change is actually induced by our activity, could you give a reason not to try to reduce the emissions
In fact, instead of tales about the deserts in 1800, the best way to prove the global warming fellows wrong is to reduce the emissions and demonstrate reducing them didn't show any correlation in a cooling of the temperature.
For example: in the 1800s, large parts of the midwest of the US were basically deserts, if you believe the railroad surveyors. Now those areas are rich farmland. That change occurred in less than a generation.
There's an issue in your logic, are those deserts really supposed to be warmer than the rich farmland? To my understanding they just got less water, which is not necessarily an indication of higher temperature. I think this simply means men used a lot of energy to transport water to the areas that were previously deserts.
A non-exploitable bug is not a security flaw , it is a bug.
If there were pages with the intention to crash firefox other than those proof of concept ones. I would worry
It is not only a rule for firefox: When the initial Opera 9 had DoS exploits, nobody really abused them
It Is mostly because a good hacker would like to have the biggest odds so they target IE
In fact, no matter how vulnerable the alternatives are they are simply not targetted
I will just stick to Firefox+NoScript , I consider executing code in my computer a privilege that I would only give to certain webpages, it also saves me from the new kind of annoying popups, those that use pure html and no windows.
I would say that if opera had a noscript plugin I would switch, but that's not true, I simply don't like opera mostly for interface reasons (for example the mouse doesn't become a I when you are over text, hoo) And it doesn't even allow plugins.
Yep, firefox with noscript is safer than all the other browsers actually, I couldn't find such an option in any of them, maye konqueror has an option to have a whitelist for javascript.
For those wondering, dealing with noscript is 'as annoying' as dealing with the popup blocker.
Javascript will eventually kill your browser (points out that some Opera versions had DoS exploits as well)
I was a huge fan of the space theme when I was young, hey the pieces were different so I was able to build new ships and robots and that's exactly what I wanted to build, the other fixed bricks would be great for building houses and pixelated looking robots of very prime colors but I liked my black+red + transparent yellow robots with mobile parts...
Yes, and there isn't really a reason to upgrade, specially for ubuntu, when I upgraded to Dapper the download was much bigger than just the ISO torrent.
The new theme is too bulky, inconsistent on different platforms, and inferior to the highly refined and very user friendly theme of 1.5 (this is despite late efforts by Mozilla to spruce up the icon set and improve consistency)
Yes, it is a problem to me as well. Fortunally, I found an adaptation of the old theme for firefox 2. Yes, this was a huge blunder but it is easily fixable.
Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based) and a potential privacy problem. The privacy issues are raised because Firefox 2.0 Antiphishing Features employ an engine previously released by Google, which has been shown to potentially cause privacy risks.
This is FUD, unfortunately. First of all the "anti phising is weak" so it is a reason to skip 2.0 since 1.5 had no anti phishing at all ? That doesn't make sense, second, firefox 2 anti phising protection takes against a blacklist that is downloaded periodically, (the blacklist is in your computer) I can hardly see any privacy concern there. You can enable google analitics or other methods that require checking against a server, that's where the privacy concern starts, but then you just switch the issue, the protection is no longer weak but there are privacy concerns, however that's not the default. In other words, the author just took the worst aspect of the methods firefox 2 brings and mixed them into one.
The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features
I am unable to see this one as certain. In my opinion it is more intuitive for the 'easy features' . You have the special things like proxy in the advanced section, the main problem I see is that some things like spell checking are in the advanced tab for no reason.
There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions of Firefox. While this can, to some degree, be expected, the loss of this huge user contributed extension base is a non-trivial problem with Firefox 2.0, and could be a deal breaker for some people all by itself
But they would eventually be updated, unless they are no longer maintained in which case the plugins have more issues than just the compatibility problem, also the problem is not as huge as the author intend it to be, there are many plugins that are already compatible with 2.0 . I guess that if for some reason the most important extension in your life doesn't work with 2.0 then you have to skip 2.0 , I can accept this a reason to skip.
The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
I would mention that I myself never had this issue, I can keep firefox open for a long time with the most standard plugins and it simply does not happen to me, the memory goes high, yes but to an extent of 92 MB. I've seen people reporting 350 MB , even 700MB . It could mean that they are lying or most likelly that it is not just "memory leak" but some issue related to architectures.
But then this is not a reason to skip firefox 2.0, it is a reason to not use any firefox version, besides, unlike what the article likes to say, the memory has improved in firefox 2.0 , in fact the cache is now capped, and cache seemed to be the issue that caused the memory jumps, the default is now a max of 55MB of cache.
There are reported problems with the CSS engine in Firefox 2.0, affecting various websites, and making certain features unavailable to surfers. Notable among these is a continued pr
I actually got used to the NoScript addon, it is always updated so there were never compatibility issues and when I go to that page nothing happens to me, as a matter of fact I think mozilla should include it by default, seriously. And it is certainly a feature over the other mainstream browsers, you probably need some extra purchasable software to stop javascript in IE or Opera only with a white list involved.
Slashdot Mirror
My computer takes longer to dehybernate than to boot.
Some could argue that freedom is dangerous, should we exchange freedom for security or commodity? I would never do such a trade
C++ is a flexible language and when used correctly can seriously be versatile, seriously.
Stroustrup gets it right also, sometimes the libraries are the issue. Firefox is a sample for code mess but if you made a similar project in wxwidgets or QT you would notice some of the cleanest code.
Why? You make it sound as there was actually a reason not to do it. But I am unable to see it.
In my bolivian University they start with Java as well, the good thing is that our use of premade libraries is null and we use a very limited library, the only thing we don't code yet is a console reading class because it would be silly to learn about input streams and exception handling before learning how to make your first program that reads 2 integers and returns the sum.
Not really, Mono sure is cool but its execution of .net assemblies is not stable enough for bussiness, unless the stability has improved vastly the last 4 months.
Well, for example OpenXML takes much more space than the binary ODF format
The Media companies and the Hard drive manufacturers have been asking MS to release a format which uses more hard drive space so people would have less space for warez and the chance of getting a full disk thus requiring to buy another hard drive are increased.
Seriously...
Come on!, Remember the usual "Don't teach the poor to read, that would make them a threat"? This all sounds as "don't give the poor any access to the internet, they could become a threat" . And for god's sake it is not like captchas are any difficult for just a program to beat.
I administrate a site with a vBulletin forum, and every once in a while a bot posts messages. Registration requires passing a captcha, in fact, I decided to just remove the captcha, it was seriously not helping stop the spam and was just making the registration harder FOR HUMANS.
BTW: I noticed that Russian bots are more likely to beat captchas.
It is certainly odd to see that Marie Curie got 8th while lisa got 7th...
I would love to test whether it works when firefox is using the noscript addon, but I cannot, because I don't use the password manager, it is just retarded to let your browser remember your passwords, really.
Anyways, wxwidgets (not wxwindows like some are still calling them) make truly cross platform GUI applications, with the OS native GUI! It is great to use Code::Blocks in windows and then use the same IDE to open the project on Linux. The only problem is that wxwidgets is kind of a huge library, which hardly has support from linux distros (I've seen things like SDL always included in distros, but wxwidgets must be downloaded) . In windows the problem is worse because it makes your exe distribution a lot bigger so it is still only cool for big projects.
Is this post actually an attack to vista though? It seems to talk about Vista's symlinks only, and they are limited. It doesn't make any sense to say "Symlinks are limited but the other vista features are so cool it doesn't matter" in an article that's dedicated to symlinks, does it?
Properties are nice, but are you seriously saying that's the only reason it is better? I prefer C# for crazy things like for each, the huge library and things like how assemblies work. Although it is not my most favorite language.
Just a personal opinion: C# Against JAVA is a coffee cup massacre, it is also better than any other language that claims to be easy to use/ fast for development
My opinion is that there ARE some bots. Sometimes in linux topics some bot post a huge post about how linux sucks and it is always the same, maybe it is actually a human being retarded and repetitive, but who knows?
They could really easily fix this. The machine could give you 2 codes, one gives you your vote and the other one gives you the exact opposite vote.
Sure it is a whole conspiracy from those mad liberal scientists against the U.S....
Let's, for a second deny that global warming is caused by emissions of gases. Does that really make emissions less of a problem? Sure we wouldn't have to care about CO2 anymore, but is it really the only thing that we are emitting? Have you ever heard of acid rain?
But then there's the big probability that the climate change is actually induced by our activity, could you give a reason not to try to reduce the emissions
In fact, instead of tales about the deserts in 1800, the best way to prove the global warming fellows wrong is to reduce the emissions and demonstrate reducing them didn't show any correlation in a cooling of the temperature.
There's an issue in your logic, are those deserts really supposed to be warmer than the rich farmland? To my understanding they just got less water, which is not necessarily an indication of higher temperature. I think this simply means men used a lot of energy to transport water to the areas that were previously deserts.A non-exploitable bug is not a security flaw , it is a bug.
If there were pages with the intention to crash firefox other than those proof of concept ones. I would worry
It is not only a rule for firefox: When the initial Opera 9 had DoS exploits, nobody really abused them
It Is mostly because a good hacker would like to have the biggest odds so they target IE
In fact, no matter how vulnerable the alternatives are they are simply not targetted
I will just stick to Firefox+NoScript , I consider executing code in my computer a privilege that I would only give to certain webpages, it also saves me from the new kind of annoying popups, those that use pure html and no windows.I would say that if opera had a noscript plugin I would switch, but that's not true, I simply don't like opera mostly for interface reasons (for example the mouse doesn't become a I when you are over text, hoo) And it doesn't even allow plugins.
Yep, firefox with noscript is safer than all the other browsers actually, I couldn't find such an option in any of them, maye konqueror has an option to have a whitelist for javascript.
For those wondering, dealing with noscript is 'as annoying' as dealing with the popup blocker.
Javascript will eventually kill your browser (points out that some Opera versions had DoS exploits as well)
I was a huge fan of the space theme when I was young, hey the pieces were different so I was able to build new ships and robots and that's exactly what I wanted to build, the other fixed bricks would be great for building houses and pixelated looking robots of very prime colors but I liked my black+red + transparent yellow robots with mobile parts ...
Yes, and there isn't really a reason to upgrade, specially for ubuntu, when I upgraded to Dapper the download was much bigger than just the ISO torrent.
Yes, it is a problem to me as well. Fortunally, I found an adaptation of the old theme for firefox 2. Yes, this was a huge blunder but it is easily fixable.
This is FUD, unfortunately. First of all the "anti phising is weak" so it is a reason to skip 2.0 since 1.5 had no anti phishing at all ? That doesn't make sense, second, firefox 2 anti phising protection takes against a blacklist that is downloaded periodically, (the blacklist is in your computer) I can hardly see any privacy concern there. You can enable google analitics or other methods that require checking against a server, that's where the privacy concern starts, but then you just switch the issue, the protection is no longer weak but there are privacy concerns, however that's not the default. In other words, the author just took the worst aspect of the methods firefox 2 brings and mixed them into one.
I am unable to see this one as certain. In my opinion it is more intuitive for the 'easy features' . You have the special things like proxy in the advanced section, the main problem I see is that some things like spell checking are in the advanced tab for no reason.
But they would eventually be updated, unless they are no longer maintained in which case the plugins have more issues than just the compatibility problem, also the problem is not as huge as the author intend it to be, there are many plugins that are already compatible with 2.0 . I guess that if for some reason the most important extension in your life doesn't work with 2.0 then you have to skip 2.0 , I can accept this a reason to skip.
I would mention that I myself never had this issue, I can keep firefox open for a long time with the most standard plugins and it simply does not happen to me, the memory goes high, yes but to an extent of 92 MB. I've seen people reporting 350 MB , even 700MB . It could mean that they are lying or most likelly that it is not just "memory leak" but some issue related to architectures.
But then this is not a reason to skip firefox 2.0, it is a reason to not use any firefox version, besides, unlike what the article likes to say, the memory has improved in firefox 2.0 , in fact the cache is now capped, and cache seemed to be the issue that caused the memory jumps, the default is now a max of 55MB of cache.
There are reported problems with the CSS engine in Firefox 2.0, affecting various websites, and making certain features unavailable to surfers. Notable among these is a continued pr
I actually got used to the NoScript addon, it is always updated so there were never compatibility issues and when I go to that page nothing happens to me, as a matter of fact I think mozilla should include it by default, seriously. And it is certainly a feature over the other mainstream browsers, you probably need some extra purchasable software to stop javascript in IE or Opera only with a white list involved.