Other experiments do work well, and it is amazing, rather than an advert for chrome I consider this an advert for Javascript. I think we could actually trash flash and silverlight with clever javascript - It would be damn portable, and non-proprietary, these experiments should work at least in chrome , firefox and safari, sum them and that adds a lot of platforms...
I keep finding disappointments with firefox 3.1 and these tests. For example, google gravity works fast and reliable, except for the fact that you can't use the interface... The 3d cube renders kind of slowly - though chromium didn't perform much better, it did really perform better, it is noticeable.
I like firefox and wouldn't trade it for chrome, but as of now I am trying the bouncing ball on 3.1b2 and it is quite slow, frames skips and the rest of the pages become sluggish . However, my computer is a Pentium 4 and I haven't tested in chrome mostly because I don't run windows...
That Bloat word is such non-sense, probably invented by geeks to justify lack of features... If you are not using a feature, then how is it bloat? How is it harming your performance? How is it bad? And the best reason for firefox is addons, which means you are choosing your features, so bloat sounds like humbug here... I am not sure if I should take your post seriously at all considering you suggested Maxthon.
I also find it funny you are willing to twiddle with NoScript but editing a host file is too much work for you
It is ages away from being as complicated as a hosts file, but whatever editing hosts is not that difficult, however, it doesn't really work as well as a javascript black/white list. Noscript does wonders, and well if you can't get used to it/use it effectively, that's not my problem. I still enjoy it and I would seriously, miss it if I had to run chrome instead of firefox.
so you refuse to use anything but FireFox on the grounds they don't have a FireFox plugin...
Hell yeah, and you know what? Me, too! I am far, far , far away of ever caring at all about browser speed, and I have tried both firefox 3.1 and chrome in windows, I just cannot notice any difference in speed! Ok, maybe I am immune to placebos - maybe most of my browsing time is consumed by downloading the webpage rather than by rendering speed - maybe chrome focuses on high-end computers and fails absurdly on my beloved 5 years old computer - I have no idea, I just can't notice any difference !
I am sure you will post zillions of benchmarks about how chrome is faster than firefox... But, I don't care! I care the most about MY browsing experience,
So listen slowly, firefox is actually open source, and not "pretend source" which means it isn't like Chrome which has some open source off-spring from which it takes free code while the official thing completely removes all your freedom... firefox can actually run all the addons I like. Things that make MY browsing experience easier, so maybe you don't like them or something, that's the whole reason firefox has addons... a browser without addons is just a very stupid idea... Firefox actually runs in Linux, windows and OS/X, and guess what? It actually looks like it belongs to the host OS! No, they didn't have the brilliant idea to replace the whole interface so it looks 'cool' as defined by some google employee...
And yes, I prefer using noscript as a single "temporarily allow this page" every time in three days when I want to run a javascript is much easier than having to periodically add new hosts to ban to a hostfile and also having to temporarily remove them - My god that would be stupid, at least ubuntu allows you to edit hosts from an actual dialog - Besides of the little fact Hosts files don't work as they will disallow you from the whole site while noscript can just allow you to stop using javascript in one site while you STILL have access to it! Such an innovation!
So, yeah, as long as Chrome doesn't qualify as a good browser in MY definition, I won't use it, cause I decide what stuff to use and not some nerd posting benchmarks or getting too excited about google's little plan to make all web pages become apps... I don't care about speed cause it really makes no difference in my life , and I don't get any fuzzy warm feeling inside when yelling "TEH BROWSR I USE IS TEH FASTEST" to other people... I do care about memory and chrome was a little dissapointing there in comparison to latest firefox 3.1, I don't really care THAT much about memory anyway, so if chrome managed to become good ( open source, cross platform, addons, no horrid interface that goes against the host's theme) I would use it - but until then...
I know you are just trolling, but heck I'll feed you, you should be proud...
First of all, it is amazing how Microsoft's unreleased products perform so well on Microsoft's own tests. But I for one am a FOSS user yet would still love to see these things be true (though let's face it, at least this browser benchmark is a bunch of BS, refer to the rest of the comments for more info) MS actually doing an improvement in a new OS release would be nice for a chance. Even though I don't use dows directly, I will every once in a while have to use it, being at work or at college or some public computer, improving windows performance is a good thing.
If windows 7 is really faster than XP (which I kind of doubt) it would be very useful, to me since I run windows on a VM to compile and test stuff for it and to use certain hardware that refuses to cooperate, like my scanner.
Regardless, some actual competition from MS' part instead of the "I will sue you!" or the "I'll push-users not to take you seriously" memes from MS is good news for FOSS, because it will force FOSS to become better. I think Vista was making things way too easy and FOSS got lazy...
Market share is not a strong algorithm. Aka IE6 not anymore has 99% of the market share, yet it still holds the 99% of the server attacks. There's about a 9% of non-windows OS marketshare yet still 99.99% of the viruses target it, odd?
A virus that just waits the user to execute it and then dumps his/home folder is possible in the *n*x* crowd, but the real problem are, and have always been rootkits. The real threat are viruses that are not noticeable and just install themselves on the OS while attempting to infect other hosts, without this there are is no large scale crisis of OS.
Still, lack of a market share dominance is a good advantage, hence we should probably push for a world in which no OS has an advantage as large as windows' it would reduce the worm threat greatly.
There ARE *n*x* rootkits, however, in order for someone to install them on your system, he first needs OMGZ root access to it. How could that work? Would have to find an exploit on a service that a) runs on root and b) is connected to the web and c) has not been updated in ages . Ok, still possible. But for example with ubuntu's no open ports policy the only apps by default that have access to the web are... firefox and apt? apt could be a target, but it doesn't run so frequently... Firefox doesn't run on root so installing a root kit seems unlikely...
For windows it gets a little easier, specially on pre UAC ones, you just need to plug in a virused USB flash drive and booya, you got a filthy virus...... or a vulnerability in well, just about anything - since they all run in root-
It is perfectly possible to have a Linux/free/open/bsd/os/x system compromised but things in their design make it unlikely. It is also less likely that you would be a victim of a target-less attack - the sort of thing that makes even home windows users require an AV - But it is still possible to get attacked by someone that specifically wants to access YOUR system. To protect of this you require tools and also a set of security procedures, but most likely avoiding a) exploits. And b) giving access to users without good care of their permissions. An enterprise level Linux setup or a server must for example avoid rushing into major version changes and to always keep to date in regards to security updates.
If you run ubuntu/fedora/suse/etc at home, setting a firewall would not hurt, try firestarter.
Besides, I think we have to face the truth here. Gaming to the exclusion of exercise is unhealthy, this campaign has a reasonable point. Denying this makes Slashdotters look like oil executives denying global warming by straw-manning the opposition.
A sedentary life is bad for your health an all, but these ads are misleading and missing the point. It is not about playing games, it is about staying idle for ages, you could do it by playing games or you could do it by staring at the sky.
Linking games to death is just smear and well, imagine if you would be a professional in the game industry, your job is in entertaining people, your industry pays taxes, tries to follow regulation, and there you have your government using your tax money to fund ads that attack your
industry and linking it to death. While there are other things that are much strongly linked to death *cough* tobacco *cough*...
The problem is not with playing games, it is with playing games too much, in fact the problem is with not doing exercise. People will take these ads as a 'don't play games' charade, when they should actually be 'get more exercise' .
There are people out there that ARE healthy and still take their time every once in a while to watch TV, or play a game or just read for a couple of hours.
No they didn't. This campaign has been running since the new year, and they started with telling you how to modify your lifestyle in a positive way. They used no scare tactics, favouring a utopian vision. I'm guessing this resort to
Yes they did. They may have started without the fear but they have moved to fear and attacking the games industry - An industry that can actually be a part of the solution, specially now that games are trying to move on to more interactive things like the wii-fit.
I installed ubuntu-eee 8.04.1 on my rather old eee (701 4G ) and it worked fine. Wireless, no slow down, the interface is good for small stuff and the battery drains fast - when the thing is turned off, this is a bug with the computer's itself and not related with the OS - I am not sure if it could have really gone much worse with 8.10 or if it is the computer that got worse with new releases.
"Microsoft yesterday released a trial version of new file-sharing software intended for use with its upcoming and highly-anticipated operating system. The new software allows PC users to swap files with the computers of friends, family, and trusted colleagues along safe, secure channels. Dubbed "Windows Live ID Sign-in Assistant 6.5," the beta connects the Windows Live IDs of individual users with a Windows 7 account, essentially building an insecure link between data stored on a hard drive and information accessible via Windows Live online.
I mean , that's the only way this paragraph could make sense.
Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.
It may look hypocritical to you, but it isn't. It is also not our fault apple contributed a couple of FLOSS projects, every major company has done that, and I don't really think it should make them immune to criticism or boycott that's just ridiculous.
Also included in Moonlight is the Windows Media pack, with support for Windows Media Video, Windows Media Audio and MP3 files."
In other words, only novell can distribute, so much for it being free software. I guess that eventually if/when it gets very popular novell will simply stop distributing it for other Linuxes, and then when it gets more popular, MS will not contribute to moonlight anymore, letting as go die. Fortunately, I really doubt silverlight would work out.
Right now, I have noscript with an option to block plugins... I also have downloadhelper. So what happens is that when I open a youtube link, all it has is a yellow block in the part where the video goes, but also download helper's icon begins to get color and all, I use download helper to... download the video, and done!
Of course, grandparent is missing a detail, thanks to noscript I can enable javascript and flash in youtube, while they are disallowed in sites using intrusive code like the one we are talking about.
Yes, I mean these popups seem to just be banners that pretend to be a window...
I try http://www.adimpact.com/ and I don't notice anything, the samples page is not working either (slashdotted?) or maybe noscript is too much for them. Even though their popups are not annoying, I'll encourage my friends to block them in their hosts file because the way they are advertising them as "unblockable popups" sounds way too anti-user to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Other experiments do work well, and it is amazing, rather than an advert for chrome I consider this an advert for Javascript. I think we could actually trash flash and silverlight with clever javascript - It would be damn portable, and non-proprietary, these experiments should work at least in chrome , firefox and safari, sum them and that adds a lot of platforms...
I keep finding disappointments with firefox 3.1 and these tests. For example, google gravity works fast and reliable, except for the fact that you can't use the interface... The 3d cube renders kind of slowly - though chromium didn't perform much better, it did really perform better, it is noticeable.
This is much better and more legit than just posting benchmark results, google got smart with this one
I like firefox and wouldn't trade it for chrome, but as of now I am trying the bouncing ball on 3.1b2 and it is quite slow, frames skips and the rest of the pages become sluggish . However, my computer is a Pentium 4 and I haven't tested in chrome mostly because I don't run windows...
That Bloat word is such non-sense, probably invented by geeks to justify lack of features... If you are not using a feature, then how is it bloat? How is it harming your performance? How is it bad? And the best reason for firefox is addons, which means you are choosing your features, so bloat sounds like humbug here... I am not sure if I should take your post seriously at all considering you suggested Maxthon.
It is ages away from being as complicated as a hosts file, but whatever editing hosts is not that difficult, however, it doesn't really work as well as a javascript black/white list. Noscript does wonders, and well if you can't get used to it/use it effectively, that's not my problem. I still enjoy it and I would seriously, miss it if I had to run chrome instead of firefox.
Hell yeah, and you know what? Me, too! I am far, far , far away of ever caring at all about browser speed, and I have tried both firefox 3.1 and chrome in windows, I just cannot notice any difference in speed! Ok, maybe I am immune to placebos - maybe most of my browsing time is consumed by downloading the webpage rather than by rendering speed - maybe chrome focuses on high-end computers and fails absurdly on my beloved 5 years old computer - I have no idea, I just can't notice any difference !
I am sure you will post zillions of benchmarks about how chrome is faster than firefox... But, I don't care! I care the most about MY browsing experience,
So listen slowly, firefox is actually open source, and not "pretend source" which means it isn't like Chrome which has some open source off-spring from which it takes free code while the official thing completely removes all your freedom... firefox can actually run all the addons I like. Things that make MY browsing experience easier, so maybe you don't like them or something, that's the whole reason firefox has addons... a browser without addons is just a very stupid idea... Firefox actually runs in Linux, windows and OS/X, and guess what? It actually looks like it belongs to the host OS! No, they didn't have the brilliant idea to replace the whole interface so it looks 'cool' as defined by some google employee...
And yes, I prefer using noscript as a single "temporarily allow this page" every time in three days when I want to run a javascript is much easier than having to periodically add new hosts to ban to a hostfile and also having to temporarily remove them - My god that would be stupid, at least ubuntu allows you to edit hosts from an actual dialog - Besides of the little fact Hosts files don't work as they will disallow you from the whole site while noscript can just allow you to stop using javascript in one site while you STILL have access to it! Such an innovation!
So, yeah, as long as Chrome doesn't qualify as a good browser in MY definition, I won't use it, cause I decide what stuff to use and not some nerd posting benchmarks or getting too excited about google's little plan to make all web pages become apps... I don't care about speed cause it really makes no difference in my life , and I don't get any fuzzy warm feeling inside when yelling "TEH BROWSR I USE IS TEH FASTEST" to other people... I do care about memory and chrome was a little dissapointing there in comparison to latest firefox 3.1, I don't really care THAT much about memory anyway, so if chrome managed to become good ( open source, cross platform, addons, no horrid interface that goes against the host's theme) I would use it - but until then...
Firefox is cross platform?! Damn those evil firefox developers.
No, really, it isn't.
You think Yahoo doesn't do spying BS because?
I know you are just trolling, but heck I'll feed you, you should be proud...
First of all, it is amazing how Microsoft's unreleased products perform so well on Microsoft's own tests. But I for one am a FOSS user yet would still love to see these things be true (though let's face it, at least this browser benchmark is a bunch of BS, refer to the rest of the comments for more info) MS actually doing an improvement in a new OS release would be nice for a chance. Even though I don't use dows directly, I will every once in a while have to use it, being at work or at college or some public computer, improving windows performance is a good thing.
If windows 7 is really faster than XP (which I kind of doubt) it would be very useful, to me since I run windows on a VM to compile and test stuff for it and to use certain hardware that refuses to cooperate, like my scanner.
Regardless, some actual competition from MS' part instead of the "I will sue you!" or the "I'll push-users not to take you seriously" memes from MS is good news for FOSS, because it will force FOSS to become better. I think Vista was making things way too easy and FOSS got lazy...
Market share is not a strong algorithm. Aka IE6 not anymore has 99% of the market share, yet it still holds the 99% of the server attacks. There's about a 9% of non-windows OS marketshare yet still 99.99% of the viruses target it, odd?
A virus that just waits the user to execute it and then dumps his /home folder is possible in the *n*x* crowd, but the real problem are, and have always been rootkits. The real threat are viruses that are not noticeable and just install themselves on the OS while attempting to infect other hosts, without this there are is no large scale crisis of OS.
Still, lack of a market share dominance is a good advantage, hence we should probably push for a world in which no OS has an advantage as large as windows' it would reduce the worm threat greatly.
For windows it gets a little easier, specially on pre UAC ones, you just need to plug in a virused USB flash drive and booya, you got a filthy virus... ... or a vulnerability in well, just about anything - since they all run in root-
It is perfectly possible to have a Linux/free/open/bsd/os/x system compromised but things in their design make it unlikely. It is also less likely that you would be a victim of a target-less attack - the sort of thing that makes even home windows users require an AV - But it is still possible to get attacked by someone that specifically wants to access YOUR system. To protect of this you require tools and also a set of security procedures, but most likely avoiding a) exploits. And b) giving access to users without good care of their permissions. An enterprise level Linux setup or a server must for example avoid rushing into major version changes and to always keep to date in regards to security updates.
If you run ubuntu/fedora/suse/etc at home, setting a firewall would not hurt, try firestarter.
A sedentary life is bad for your health an all, but these ads are misleading and missing the point. It is not about playing games, it is about staying idle for ages, you could do it by playing games or you could do it by staring at the sky.
Linking games to death is just smear and well, imagine if you would be a professional in the game industry, your job is in entertaining people, your industry pays taxes, tries to follow regulation, and there you have your government using your tax money to fund ads that attack your industry and linking it to death. While there are other things that are much strongly linked to death *cough* tobacco *cough* ...
The problem is not with playing games, it is with playing games too much, in fact the problem is with not doing exercise. People will take these ads as a 'don't play games' charade, when they should actually be 'get more exercise' .
There are people out there that ARE healthy and still take their time every once in a while to watch TV, or play a game or just read for a couple of hours.
Yes they did. They may have started without the fear but they have moved to fear and attacking the games industry - An industry that can actually be a part of the solution, specially now that games are trying to move on to more interactive things like the wii-fit.
Holy shit! Who modded this moron up?
I installed ubuntu-eee 8.04.1 on my rather old eee (701 4G ) and it worked fine. Wireless, no slow down, the interface is good for small stuff and the battery drains fast - when the thing is turned off, this is a bug with the computer's itself and not related with the OS - I am not sure if it could have really gone much worse with 8.10 or if it is the computer that got worse with new releases.
Weren't you supposed to request him to return his geek card?
Did this story hit a nerve or something? Why are you on the defensive?
Because you could opt-out of it.
Well, it at least supports PNG transparency. That's an improvement.
I mean , that's the only way this paragraph could make sense.
I find the irony hilarious.
It may look hypocritical to you, but it isn't. It is also not our fault apple contributed a couple of FLOSS projects, every major company has done that, and I don't really think it should make them immune to criticism or boycott that's just ridiculous.
In other words, only novell can distribute, so much for it being free software. I guess that eventually if/when it gets very popular novell will simply stop distributing it for other Linuxes, and then when it gets more popular, MS will not contribute to moonlight anymore, letting as go die. Fortunately, I really doubt silverlight would work out.
Of course, grandparent is missing a detail, thanks to noscript I can enable javascript and flash in youtube, while they are disallowed in sites using intrusive code like the one we are talking about.
I try http://www.adimpact.com/ and I don't notice anything, the samples page is not working either (slashdotted?) or maybe noscript is too much for them. Even though their popups are not annoying, I'll encourage my friends to block them in their hosts file because the way they are advertising them as "unblockable popups" sounds way too anti-user to me.