IE needs to clean up its "... is not an object" errors; I've heard about them in quite a few pages. i've had to do some JS recently (yuck), and it positively amazed me just how incompatible it can be between browers, browser versions, etc. yuck.
can we heard the cause? esp. about the missing quotes, I can't imagine a good reason for that. (not that I really mind, but it strikes me as weird that there'd be a good cause).
I'd rather have good html and no ads, but if I have to choose one of the two, I'll take the bad html. it's easy to filter ads no matter what; all you're doing is matching img src's against a search list. misbalanced tags won't make that any harder (though admittedly missing quotes around the src value could).
NT was originally something quite layered and vaguely (but not quite) resembling a microkernel. the current versions are *not* something that anyone reasonable would call a uK; not even MS claims taht anymore.
The Mollner thing has been on/. a few times already. Between the "this is sweet" posts and the "this guy has been trying for umpteen years and hasn't shown that he knows what he's doing" ones, I say wait and see.
if I wanted to fly, I tihnk I'd rather try a paraglider instead. sounds like a lot less stressing than these.
not to mention that, in a teleporter accident, you might end up with your lower body in one place and your torso in another. or the thing goes crazy (a bit like Netscape and/or Outlook Express when they post to Usenet) and creates multiple copies of you, all convinced that they are the original.
I remember a long joking discussion about what would happen to your "soul" in such a case...
The main question is: is Berlin asynchronous enough? I've read talks by J. Gettys in linux-kernel (J. Gettys is one of the original designers of the X Window system), and he makes a very good point: that people who talk about replacing X haven't understood well enough what X's real problems are. One good thing about the X protocol is that it's fairly asynchronous: you send off your request but you don't wait for a reply to return from your library call, for most X calls. Still, a number of calls are synchronous, and they are one of X's biggest bottlenecks. CORBA is a much more general protocol than X11's, and with that comes overhead; CORBA's smallest possible message is several times bigger than X11's smallest possible message. I don't know if CORBA has async capabilities, but I'd be surprised if it had them to the level that X11 does (let alone more). All of this goes together to point to a protocol *less* suited to remote use than X11, rather than more.
From what I see, the Berlin people are planning to counter this by making the protocol higher level, including toolkit-level stuff (menus, buttons, any kind of low level widgets) in the server. This is probably a move in the right direction (at least, having the *option* to do that; there's always a case for supporitng plain X 'draw rectangle' functionality for things like themable apps), but I don't think it's nearly as important as streamlining the basic protocol.
In this interview, they also sounded ilke they didn't know what to say about embedded systems, which is very disturbing. Makes me think that they haven't really thought about making their system scalable on the lightweight end. This is IMO one of the bigger points that a new-generation GUI needs to address.
For the moment, my bet is on X11 for mainstream stuff, and NanoGUI for embedded use.
BSD licensing is particularily good when you just want people to use your stuff. I"d use BSD if I was trying to make a protocol popular, to encourage non-free programs to be compatible with it. in nearly all the other cases, it's just a matter of priority: do you want people to be able to make proprietary versions of your code? if so, use BSD, if not use GPL. it's as simple as that. 3Com obviously doesn't want that, if they're using GPL. then again, if they based their driver on an existing one, maybe they didn't have a choice.
a driver only interfaces to the kernel, and if it's a loadlable module, it only interfaces to some carefully chosen exposed symbols of the kernel. so I can't think of any reason why this would work on one distribution but not another; the RedHat-specific patches in RH's kernel certainly don't change the loadable driver interface. anyway if this is a GPL driver and it's good then it will most likely find its way in the official kernel soon enough.
you're mistaking trademarks and domain names. domain names are "first come first served". for trademarks you (supposedly) have to plan to use this word, and it can't already be in common use (for the same category). the usual/. complaint is about people being bullied and sued out of their domain names, by companies with deep pockets and a trademark on the word in question. this has little to do with people grabbing trademarks for words that are in common use. DNS has traditionally been a free for all, and trademarks are not, and have never been.
ultimately though, in both cases it's felt that "it's wrong" to grab a name just so you can sell it to someone, or extort royalties from someone.
at least in Spain and France, UNIX is a brand of fire extinguishers. I don't know if they have a trademark on it, but my guess is that they would. no conflict with AT&T's (or rather, whoever is operating the Unix name this week), because it's for a different type of product.
neat, congrats on your program, but I've used similar ones before and I just just don't like going through a proxy. It slows things down, and it takes longer to figure out why sites are not loading (b/c the browser isn't trying itself, so it has to wait till the proxy gives up and answers).
just thinking aloud here... I realize that would be quite a bit of an ugly hack, but imagine that someone managed to reverse engineer enough of a binary-only netscape to insert a call to a routine (loaded via LD_PRELOAD) in the strategic place that decides whether to load an image. wouldn't that be neat? I'd probably try it myself if i wasn't already swamped with more serious things to do....
a starting point for any interested hackers: nm -D netscape-navigator | less shows all kinds of internal symbols. the -D is for "dynamic"; the dynamic symbol list is there even in stripped binaries.
the power is on your hands, the *client*'s hands. you get to make the decision. support/. and don't block adfu; don't support doubleclick and block them. and so on and so on.
there's just about an infinity of ways to do this./etc/hosts is one, routes is another, web proxies is another, ipchains (or BSD equivalent) is another.
someone with time to waste could go to their site and read their market-speak about how they track users, then try to figure out how it works for real (i.e how they encode things in cookies), then come up with a proxy or a filter that would create similar cookies to poison their db of user profiles.
remmeber that one way to protect your privacy is to dilute the value of personal information that the evil side has about you and others. fill out registration forms with garbage, including throwaway email addresses for those sites that require working ones, and stuff like none@of.your.business for the rest. age? 77. interests? knitting and ant-fights.
oh, and the ethical point: support the sites you *do* trust, and where you get the impression that they're doing the right kind of thing with the right kind of attitude.
I use 127.0.0.2 actually (makes no difference); just add this line to your/etc/hosts : 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
I also have ad.linksynergy.com there.
One of these days when an open source mozilla comes out that is stable and good enough for general use, someone will have to implement selective image loading with a list of allowed/disallowed patterns. hell, if no-one else does, i might well do it myself. in the meantime, I'll just put doubleckick and a few others in/etc/hosts; I can't be bothered to do all my webbing through a proxy just to get rid of ads.
Slashdot Mirror
IE needs to clean up its "... is not an object" errors; I've heard about them in quite a few pages. i've had to do some JS recently (yuck), and it positively amazed me just how incompatible it can be between browers, browser versions, etc. yuck.
can we heard the cause? esp. about the missing quotes, I can't imagine a good reason for that. (not that I really mind, but it strikes me as weird that there'd be a good cause).
I'd rather have good html and no ads, but if I have to choose one of the two, I'll take the bad html. it's easy to filter ads no matter what; all you're doing is matching img src's against a search list. misbalanced tags won't make that any harder (though admittedly missing quotes around the src value could).
NT was originally something quite layered and vaguely (but not quite) resembling a microkernel. the current versions are *not* something that anyone reasonable would call a uK; not even MS claims taht anymore.
two majorly ugly C library calls, for sure.
it decodes Nitrozac's binary answers. i wonder how many of us did the same thing (more or less compactly)
The /. effect is very acurately described as a HREF gun actually.
if I wanted to fly, I tihnk I'd rather try a paraglider instead. sounds like a lot less stressing than these.
I remember a long joking discussion about what would happen to your "soul" in such a case...
From what I see, the Berlin people are planning to counter this by making the protocol higher level, including toolkit-level stuff (menus, buttons, any kind of low level widgets) in the server. This is probably a move in the right direction (at least, having the *option* to do that; there's always a case for supporitng plain X 'draw rectangle' functionality for things like themable apps), but I don't think it's nearly as important as streamlining the basic protocol.
In this interview, they also sounded ilke they didn't know what to say about embedded systems, which is very disturbing. Makes me think that they haven't really thought about making their system scalable on the lightweight end. This is IMO one of the bigger points that a new-generation GUI needs to address.
For the moment, my bet is on X11 for mainstream stuff, and NanoGUI for embedded use.
maybe with this someoen will finally force-rename Network Solutions to Network Problems.
BSD licensing is particularily good when you just want people to use your stuff. I"d use BSD if I was trying to make a protocol popular, to encourage non-free programs to be compatible with it. in nearly all the other cases, it's just a matter of priority: do you want people to be able to make proprietary versions of your code? if so, use BSD, if not use GPL. it's as simple as that. 3Com obviously doesn't want that, if they're using GPL. then again, if they based their driver on an existing one, maybe they didn't have a choice.
a driver only interfaces to the kernel, and if it's a loadlable module, it only interfaces to some carefully chosen exposed symbols of the kernel. so I can't think of any reason why this would work on one distribution but not another; the RedHat-specific patches in RH's kernel certainly don't change the loadable driver interface. anyway if this is a GPL driver and it's good then it will most likely find its way in the official kernel soon enough.
I haven't read the story, but I foudn that the novel on its own works pretty well.
ultimately though, in both cases it's felt that "it's wrong" to grab a name just so you can sell it to someone, or extort royalties from someone.
at least in Spain and France, UNIX is a brand of fire extinguishers. I don't know if they have a trademark on it, but my guess is that they would. no conflict with AT&T's (or rather, whoever is operating the Unix name this week), because it's for a different type of product.
I visit /. a few times a day, and I've moderated twice. That doesn't count as "very often", but it seems reasonable to me.
$ cat bin/netscape
#!/bin/sh netscape-navigator "$@"
cd $HOME/.netscape
mv cookies c
grep -i slashdot c > cookies ; rm c
I do *not* accept ads as a way to direct, or nudge my attention. thanks for trying though.
just thinking aloud here... I realize that would be quite a bit of an ugly hack, but imagine that someone managed to reverse engineer enough of a binary-only netscape to insert a call to a routine (loaded via LD_PRELOAD) in the strategic place that decides whether to load an image. wouldn't that be neat? I'd probably try it myself if i wasn't already swamped with more serious things to do....
a starting point for any interested hackers: nm -D netscape-navigator | less shows all kinds of internal symbols. the -D is for "dynamic"; the dynamic symbol list is there even in stripped binaries.
the power is on your hands, the *client*'s hands. you get to make the decision. support /. and don't block adfu; don't support doubleclick and block them. and so on and so on.
there's just about an infinity of ways to do this. /etc/hosts is one, routes is another, web proxies is another, ipchains (or BSD equivalent) is another.
remmeber that one way to protect your privacy is to dilute the value of personal information that the evil side has about you and others. fill out registration forms with garbage, including throwaway email addresses for those sites that require working ones, and stuff like none@of.your.business for the rest. age? 77. interests? knitting and ant-fights.
oh, and the ethical point: support the sites you *do* trust, and where you get the impression that they're doing the right kind of thing with the right kind of attitude.
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
I also have ad.linksynergy.com there.
One of these days when an open source mozilla comes out that is stable and good enough for general use, someone will have to implement selective image loading with a list of allowed/disallowed patterns. hell, if no-one else does, i might well do it myself. in the meantime, I'll just put doubleckick and a few others in /etc/hosts; I can't be bothered to do all my webbing through a proxy just to get rid of ads.
damn, I've been diagnosed. what now, doktor?