Do Matrox cards work in MacOS? If so, I'm sold... But I occasionally boot back, and 2d *at least* must work, I'm NOT going to crawl around and move the cable back and forth.
There's an external, non-us patch that adds back encryption, though I don't know any more details. http://mozilla-crypto.ssleay.org/index. html Currently down, I don't know why. Hopefully no reason to fear the worst...
Well, I have to say this hasn't been my experience with the mozilla bug system. I opened a bug essentially asking for help getting Mozilla running on Linux/PowePC (I'd found that XPTCInvoke was written in assembly, and I can't do that). Things started rolling real fast. Its not running yet, but I have some preliminary assemballer for XPTCInvoke already, and things are progressing well.
So I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I'm sure it really matters who picks up your bug report.
Now now, without being such a flamer, I'd also like to see this happen (non-intel linux builds). But first Linux/PPC needs to get the HW accelerated Mesa/glx stuff running first...
Actually, I think there is a Server directive you can put in the conf file (don't recall what it is though) to change the message displayed here to something like "sorry, no OS/server info available"
Shouldn't be too hard to find, though (unless I'm wrong and it doesn't exist)
As for the OS decection, I don't know but I would expect something like nmap, where it fingerprints the nuances of the TCP stack. No way to stop that from working...
Re:"Real Keyboard" looks like an original Mac kbd
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
Same here. I love this thing:-)
I'm really going to miss it if it ever dies (no signs of it, though) or when I have to get a machine with no ADB:-(
Now if only I could switch control, capslock and escape, I'd be pretty happy. But capslock is a physical latch, so I doubt this would be as simple as xmodmap'ing.
No, there are serious problems with threads and re-entrency
I don't know the details, but there is a little link right by the download to http://www.deja.com/[LB=http://www.mozilla.org/]/m sgid.xp?MID= which claims to explain what the problems are.
No you'll probably have to upgrade before it works...
it renders fine. Once I've forged my user-agent (using junkbuster to look like MSIE 5 on my roomates machine - note that I won't be doing this regularly, as I don't want MSIE to seem any more popular than it is) I get the content - but some javascript checks me out again, and I can't get netscape to lie. So I turn off Javascript (that appeared to be about all their JS code did) and... viola. They're going to get an email from me - I mean, it works fine, at least the non-flash version (I don't have flash), so why do they work so hard to lock us out?
http://www.fox.com/nonflash_front.html I mean, at least have an else in their big if-tree that says, "if I don't know this browser, I'll assume it's not broken"
While it hasn't worked very well (at all! yikes, worse than NS) I wouldn't think that it would build at all if it was that broken). I got M10 to compile a few nights ago, but there is an assertion that fails during startup. I haven't had time to look into it, but I assumed nothing fatal was missing since M9 will start... but maybe there is a PPC specific patch in the debian src-archive. I'll check that out too.
Can you send me some details?
This is a temp email, so it will go away in a few days - spambots, don't bother.
I'm not a huge coder, but I will have a little time coming up when I was planning to try and build up Mozilla. So if it's fatally broken, I could look into that. I assumed I'd just done something silly when compiling it.
I don't think you have to... I'm runnng the old konquerer right now to post this, and my collection of WindowMaker dockapps running in the blackbox slit (dock) with Eterms sure doesn't look like KDE to me... You just need all the right libs installed (probably libqt and kdelibs package?), and it will run no matter what WM you're using. Of course, it helps with some programs that Blackbox can be compiled KDE windowmanager-compliant, but the copy currently running isn't... I forgot to enable it and everything seems to be working fine.
iMac's now don't have fans:-) If they don't run Linux yet, it will be soon - all the older rev's do, and the iBook does (so the new UMA mother boards work). It would be a silly choce for a hidden-away gateway they run Linux, of course.
Umm... Linux has had USB support since just after the iMac came out (uusbd worked, though you had to patch it in yourself)
Now it's in, select it in make menuconfig. For onboard, you'll probably need UHCI (intel chipset?), if that doesn't work, congrats - you have OHCI (real hardware, no CPU abuse). But both should work (I use OHCI).
Not all PCI modems are Winmodems (though I don't have a brand/model handy, sorry).
a winmodem is a modem without the hardware, not a PCI modem. You could (in theory) also make an ISA winmodem - wait - maybe not. The BW required might be too high for ISA, I'm not sure.
It's a little late for them to push USB for that reason...
USB support is already quite good (at least in the PowerPC tree) I don't see why the i386 one would be any less so, we use your standard ohci driver (the backbort from 2.3.x to 2.2.x of it) which has been mentioned in other posts. I think the info on how to do it (since I just use PPC CVS which has it) is on http://www.linux-usb.org
The judge hits the nail on the hammer by focusing on the application barrier to entry in the OS market. This is why MicroSoft's dominant position is going to be difficult to overturn for any outsider, anytime soon - and why we need the DoJ's help. Microsoft has created what we all hate to love - a widely odopted piece of middleware, allowing applications to run in almost identical environments across a wide variety of win CE devices, Win9*, WinNT (i386 AND Alpha), and even in a limited fashion on Win 3.1 boxes (which are essentially DOS in different clothes). We wish we could love it, because it's exactly what we've been trying to achieve with POSIX,Java (well, OK, Java defines binary compatibility too), and every other attempt to standardize. But we hate it, because it's achieved the status of victor, while still closed, proprietary, and controlled by one company.
So the problem isn't that Microsoft has created an incompatible design - it's been fairly oprtable, across 2 CPU architectures, 4 kernels (DOS,CE,win9*,NT are quite different). It's already write once, run almost-anywhere. The problem is that it isn't *quite* anywhere - it's only places where microsoft supports you; if you want a Win32 API implementation, they're the only game in town.
So the soultion to the applications barrier is pretty clear - open the Win32 (and, when the time comes, Win64) API's. Let there be other implementations of Win32/64 (go Wine! THAT is the battle that could WIN us the war). Force Microsoft to release, in full source form, a 'reference' Win32 platform (which could of course be Win9* now, just before it is killed off as a product, but still - it would be there).
To keep Microsoft from then changing the API rapidly to obsolete the reference API, several tack will be needed. First off, even they can't afford to abandon the legacy apps (if they did, they would now be on the wrong side of the application barrier to entry). So the reference would remain a portable subset - but I don't know if that would be enough to stop developers from accept the 'embrace and extend'ed new, different API. If they (MS) moved slowly enough, and strongarmed developers (which they have been known to do) enough , they might manage to re-proprietarize it. So ban them from selling any software product of their own (say, Office) that fails to run correctly in the reference implementation of Win32. This would encourage (force,even) the reference to be complete, solid, and probably taken from a working product, not made up as a new & different Win32 implementation (in which case it would probably be *ahem* strategically incorrect and incomplete).
They are free to innovate new API's but they can't use them - unless they are compatible with the underlying Reference API (ie, a DLL built on top the Win32 API, providing some new functionality to programs - which Office and others could install and use even on OpenWin32). Perhaps something totally new could and should be allowed, once the Win32 as an open standard has entrenched enough that developers won't be pushed into adopting the new and closed API (they would theoretically have a strong incentive to keep OpenWin32 - portability, familiarity, and their pre-existing codebase).
Microsoft would still have one of the most popular OS'es. But it would be just one Win32 implementation among many, so they would no longer have a stranglehold on where the platform was going. I think this is where microsoft needs be in the future - it would open them to real competition while giving them the chance to fight back with a superior OS to underly the same open API.
It works like this - registered users sometimes are granted 5 moderation points, to use as they see fit to raise or lower the score of an article. See http://www.slashdot.org/moderation.shtml for details.
registered users posts start with a score of 1, anonymouse coward posts (like yours) start at 0. I believe that registered users posting anonymously still get their +1, I'm not sure.
If you'd like to get a default score of 1 for your posting, just register. If you'd lie to change your default browsing level to 0 (or -1, raw and uncut), just register for an account. Quick and painless.
It helps someone with little time find the more relavent articles. If you think articles are being unfairly moderated, you should get an account, always login, and be an active reader/poster so that you will raise the probability that you'll be given some moderation points. Or try to become a meta-moderator (so that you can vote down moderators decisions, which hurts their karma, which means they won't get more moderation points for a while - unless the other meta-moderators disagree with you and vote it back up with their points).
So basically Slashdot as a community polices itself.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK
Macos is too big now, but LinuxPPC (and one specially hacked version of 7.5) could/can fit on a floppy.
Mac Bootup (PCI-era) Electricity Open Firmware starts, probe hardware, assigns interrupts, hardware test....BONG! -> LinuxPPC starts, or -> OF loads the MacOS rom as a unix ELF kernel, out of a second ROM or (on new-world machines) out of the harddisk. On these machines, there is no chance of floppy booting MacOS, since the ROM alone wouldn't fit.
MacOS ROM goes grey screen (this is the first you see of the happy mac) -> Mac ROM tries to start a system file from somwehere, but the newer ones don't fit on a floppy anymore.
And MacOS starts in the familiar marching-extensions way.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK
> We have a device that uses quantum computing to > do its job.
*We* have? Are you involved in this? Information please?
Quantum computing, even in a limited form, is going to change the face of the 'net real fast. I know the theoretical work says it could be done this fast, but can these things actually be built already?
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... has back and forward at least on my MacOS setup. Bookmarks are needed though.
http://mozilla-crypto.ssleay.org/index. html
Currently down, I don't know why. Hopefully no reason to fear the worst...
So I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I'm sure it really matters who picks up your bug report.
Just add bookmarks back (I like those), and there you have it...
Now now, without being such a flamer, I'd also like to see this happen (non-intel linux builds). But first Linux/PPC needs to get the HW accelerated Mesa/glx stuff running first...
Shouldn't be too hard to find, though (unless I'm wrong and it doesn't exist)
As for the OS decection, I don't know but I would expect something like nmap, where it fingerprints the nuances of the TCP stack. No way to stop that from working...
I'm really going to miss it if it ever dies (no signs of it, though) or when I have to get a machine with no ADB :-(
Now if only I could switch control, capslock and escape, I'd be pretty happy. But capslock is a physical latch, so I doubt this would be as simple as xmodmap'ing.
It cut off my URL! WTF? OK, go to www.mozilla.org, hit M11, and look right under "i386 tar.gz format"
No, there are serious problems with threads and re-entrency
m sgid.xp?MID=
I don't know the details, but there is a little link right by the
download to http://www.deja.com/[LB=http://www.mozilla.org/]/
which claims to explain what the problems are.
No you'll probably have to upgrade before it works...
http://www.fox.com/nonflash_front.html I mean, at least have an else in their big if-tree that says, "if I don't know this browser, I'll assume it's not broken"
mozilla-questions@puetz.penguinpowered.com
apparently, slashdot stripped it out since it had
angle-braces around it...
Hmm... M9 is available packaged for Debian/PPC.
While it hasn't worked very well (at all! yikes, worse than NS)
I wouldn't think that it would build at all if it was that broken).
I got M10 to compile a few nights ago, but there is an
assertion that fails during startup. I haven't had time to
look into it, but I assumed nothing fatal was missing since
M9 will start... but maybe there is a PPC specific patch in the
debian src-archive. I'll check that out too.
Can you send me some details?
This is a temp email, so it will go away in a few days -
spambots, don't bother.
I'm not a huge coder, but I will have a little time coming up
when I was planning to try and build up Mozilla. So if it's
fatally broken, I could look into that. I assumed I'd just done
something silly when compiling it.
I don't think you have to... I'm runnng the old konquerer right now to post this, and my collection of WindowMaker dockapps running in the blackbox slit (dock) with Eterms sure doesn't look like KDE to me... You just need all the right libs installed (probably libqt and kdelibs package?), and it will run no matter what WM you're using. Of course, it helps with some programs that Blackbox can be compiled KDE windowmanager-compliant, but the copy currently running isn't... I forgot to enable it and everything seems to be working fine.
iMac's now don't have fans :-) If they don't run Linux yet, it will be soon - all the older rev's do, and the iBook does (so the new UMA mother boards work). It would be a silly choce for a hidden-away gateway they run Linux, of course.
Umm... Linux has had USB support since just after the iMac
came out (uusbd worked, though you had to patch it in yourself)
Now it's in, select it in make menuconfig. For onboard, you'll probably
need UHCI (intel chipset?), if that doesn't work, congrats - you
have OHCI (real hardware, no CPU abuse). But both should
work (I use OHCI).
Or compile a recent Linux kernel with USB turned on. I've been using it for a while, it's nice :-)
Not all PCI modems are Winmodems (though I don't have
a brand/model handy, sorry).
a winmodem is a modem without the hardware, not a PCI
modem. You could (in theory) also make an ISA
winmodem - wait - maybe not. The BW required might
be too high for ISA, I'm not sure.
USB support is already quite good (at least in the PowerPC tree) I don't see why the i386 one would be any less so, we use your standard ohci driver (the backbort from 2.3.x to 2.2.x of it) which has been mentioned in other posts. I think the info on how to do it (since I just use PPC CVS which has it) is on http://www.linux-usb.org
You'll want the 2.3.x USB stack (which, like the first
post in this thread said, has been backported to 2.2).
But I use this heavily, and have had no problems.
So the problem isn't that Microsoft has created an incompatible design - it's been fairly oprtable, across 2 CPU architectures, 4 kernels (DOS,CE,win9*,NT are quite different). It's already write once, run almost-anywhere. The problem is that it isn't *quite* anywhere - it's only places where microsoft supports you; if you want a Win32 API implementation, they're the only game in town.
So the soultion to the applications barrier is pretty clear - open the Win32 (and, when the time comes, Win64) API's. Let there be other implementations of Win32/64 (go Wine! THAT is the battle that could WIN us the war). Force Microsoft to release, in full source form, a 'reference' Win32 platform (which could of course be Win9* now, just before it is killed off as a product, but still - it would be there).
To keep Microsoft from then changing the API rapidly to obsolete the reference API, several tack will be needed. First off, even they can't afford to abandon the legacy apps (if they did, they would now be on the wrong side of the application barrier to entry). So the reference would remain a portable subset - but I don't know if that would be enough to stop developers from accept the 'embrace and extend'ed new, different API. If they (MS) moved slowly enough, and strongarmed developers (which they have been known to do) enough , they might manage to re-proprietarize it. So ban them from selling any software product of their own (say, Office) that fails to run correctly in the reference implementation of Win32. This would encourage (force,even) the reference to be complete, solid, and probably taken from a working product, not made up as a new & different Win32 implementation (in which case it would probably be *ahem* strategically incorrect and incomplete).
They are free to innovate new API's but they can't use them - unless they are compatible with the underlying Reference API (ie, a DLL built on top the Win32 API, providing some new functionality to programs - which Office and others could install and use even on OpenWin32). Perhaps something totally new could and should be allowed, once the Win32 as an open standard has entrenched enough that developers won't be pushed into adopting the new and closed API (they would theoretically have a strong incentive to keep OpenWin32 - portability, familiarity, and their pre-existing codebase).
Microsoft would still have one of the most popular OS'es. But it would be just one Win32 implementation among many, so they would no longer have a stranglehold on where the platform was going. I think this is where microsoft needs be in the future - it would open them to real competition while giving them the chance to fight back with a superior OS to underly the same open API.
Thoughts?
registered users posts start with a score of 1, anonymouse coward posts (like yours) start at 0. I believe that registered users posting anonymously still get their +1, I'm not sure.
If you'd like to get a default score of 1 for your posting, just register. If you'd lie to change your default browsing level to 0 (or -1, raw and uncut), just register for an account. Quick and painless.
It helps someone with little time find the more relavent articles. If you think articles are being unfairly moderated, you should get an account, always login, and be an active reader/poster so that you will raise the probability that you'll be given some moderation points. Or try to become a meta-moderator (so that you can vote down moderators decisions, which hurts their karma, which means they won't get more moderation points for a while - unless the other meta-moderators disagree with you and vote it back up with their points).
So basically Slashdot as a community polices itself.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: OK
Mac Bootup (PCI-era)
Electricity
Open Firmware starts, probe hardware, assigns interrupts, hardware test.
-> LinuxPPC starts, or
-> OF loads the MacOS rom as a unix ELF kernel, out of a second ROM or (on new-world machines) out of the harddisk. On these machines, there is no chance of floppy booting MacOS, since the ROM alone wouldn't fit.
MacOS ROM goes grey screen (this is the first you see of the happy mac)
-> Mac ROM tries to start a system file from somwehere, but the newer ones don't fit on a floppy anymore.
And MacOS starts in the familiar marching-extensions way.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: OK
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: OK
> do its job.
*We* have? Are you involved in this? Information please?
Quantum computing, even in a limited form, is going to change the face of the 'net real fast. I know the theoretical work says it could be done this fast, but can these things actually be built already?
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: OK