You can be addicted to Internet as much as you can be addicted to paying your bills, talking with your friends, watching tv or playing games, because you can do all this on the Internet. How often do you hear that someone is addicted to talking with his/her friends?
There is a huge advantage when everything is open source, because then anyone can fix anything if found broken.
The point of the ban is to motivate people to submit open source drivers. If the system is not open source, you could as well call it Microsoft Windows and hey, that already exists. So if you prefer closed source drivers, then by all means, use Windows. Currently there are only few closed source drivers in Linux, so the system is working pretty well. Hopefully nvidia will also publish open source drivers.
Win98 is not hardware. You can put Linux there and then run Firefox on your hardware. And anyone is free to add support for win98 to Firefox (it's a big job). Most people (like me) would prefer win98 to disappear complitely, so they have no motivation doing this.
> Arbitrarily declaring which stable, public releases of a piece of software shouldn't matter is absolutely asinine.
I just mean that the development of the 2.0 and 3.0 was started pretty much the same time. No big changes were accepted on the 2.0 and I've seen a lot of complains about 2.0 not being much of an improvement when compared to 1.5. Which is true, because all the big improvements have been implemented in the 3.0.
The thumb rule is that when the major version number of the gecko changes with the new version, then there have been some real effort behind that version, so you can expect some changes. 2.0 uses almost identical version of the gecko with 1.5 (both use 1.8.x). In the 3.0 there will be new version of the gecko (1.9).
There is a big difference between 2.0 and 3.0. The 2.0 is only getting small changes and some eye-candy, they never accepted any bug fixes to 2.0 that could potentially make it unstable. In the 3.0 they are changing the whole rendering engine to a complitely new one. 4.0 is too far away, but currently I do bulieve that Firefox 3.0 will be a much greater success than 2.0 ever will be.
And yes, I agree with you. I don't hate 2.0, but I think it was a mistake to release it, just because they think the release cycle between 1.5 and 3.0 would have been too long. Then again, I'm a programmer and Firefox has had a pretty good history in marketing, so I think they know better than I. After all, it is the marketing that has given the Firefox the status it currently has. AFAIK majority of the people like 2.0, but I think there have been more complaints about 2.0 than there were about 1.5. Then again the user base is increasing constactly which could be the reason for this.
> I think "lost its way" is too strong of a phrase.
I agree. The developer are mostly focusing on Firefox 3.0 anyway, because of the major improvements it will have. The 2.0 was just a small upgrade in the middle, mostly because of the PR. Because the changes in 3.0 require a lot of development and a lot of testing, they didn't want to hurry it. So I wouldn't judge Firefox because of the 2.0. Better wait for 3.0.
Actually there is something we could get from this deal. We can now say that even Microsoft thinks that Linux is good, since it is spending a lot of money on it. We just need a huge marketing campaign and what evern evil plans Microsoft has, it will backfire them.
Not only using a CVS, but also installing such. If you end up working in a company where there is no CVS in use and no-one knows how to install it, how usefull would your skills be there? Well I actually have been in this situation and it took less than a day for me to learn and install subversion there for us to work with.
What I missed at school was courses about GUI designing. I think the GUI designing should be one large part of the programming education, because quite often you have to design the GUI for our own programs, unless you work in large companies, where there are separated people to do this task.
On the other hand, we did have several courses where we designed, implemented and tested a whole program. Either by solo or in a group of 2-5 people. I'm surpriced to hear that they actually have schools where this isn't done.
From the article: > "if there really is a new threat on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security companies, not an online encyclopedia."
> Does anyone actually know anyone that has been affected by any of these exploits?
Many of the people getting infected don't know it. But don't tell me you have never heard of infected Windows machine? Or do you assume they all got ir from e-mail?
> Seems to me that the odds of actually visiting a site that "runs" the exploit is incredibly low.
So, you think only a few people will surf on pornsites or websites that have been hacked?
If people have problems, they are more likely to speak it up, than those who don't have problems. Just to make things a little more equal, I for one have had no problems with Firefox 2.0.
Firefox is very stable browser. It is almost impossible to get it to crash, unless you have a corrupted installation, corrupted profile or you are using some unstable extensions. So what you are experiencing is not normal and there should be a fix for it. See if this article helps you: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_crashes
> How does it really hurt MS if FF gets 100% marketshare?
If all the people use Firefox, there won't be that many IE-only applications. This means it will be a lot easier to switch to other operating systems, which usually means that people stop using Microsoft software. Microsoft's strategy is to force people to stick with their system. Why else do you think they are always making their own version of standards?
Slashdot Mirror
> Maybe Opera does 'support all the standards' and FF has a few IE-like nicities
p hp?uas=IE7-FX2-OP9
Well, I'm afraid it doesn't. But, you can check the percentage of the standards each browser supports from here:
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.
Firefox is slightly better on html and CSS 3, but Opera does have better support for DOM and CSS2. Everyone can propably guess where IE is.
You can be addicted to Internet as much as you can be addicted to paying your bills, talking with your friends, watching tv or playing games, because you can do all this on the Internet. How often do you hear that someone is addicted to talking with his/her friends?
There is a huge advantage when everything is open source, because then anyone can fix anything if found broken.
The point of the ban is to motivate people to submit open source drivers. If the system is not open source, you could as well call it Microsoft Windows and hey, that already exists. So if you prefer closed source drivers, then by all means, use Windows. Currently there are only few closed source drivers in Linux, so the system is working pretty well. Hopefully nvidia will also publish open source drivers.
Win98 is not hardware. You can put Linux there and then run Firefox on your hardware. And anyone is free to add support for win98 to Firefox (it's a big job). Most people (like me) would prefer win98 to disappear complitely, so they have no motivation doing this.
> Arbitrarily declaring which stable, public releases of a piece of software shouldn't matter is absolutely asinine.
I just mean that the development of the 2.0 and 3.0 was started pretty much the same time. No big changes were accepted on the 2.0 and I've seen a lot of complains about 2.0 not being much of an improvement when compared to 1.5. Which is true, because all the big improvements have been implemented in the 3.0.
The thumb rule is that when the major version number of the gecko changes with the new version, then there have been some real effort behind that version, so you can expect some changes. 2.0 uses almost identical version of the gecko with 1.5 (both use 1.8.x). In the 3.0 there will be new version of the gecko (1.9).
There is a big difference between 2.0 and 3.0. The 2.0 is only getting small changes and some eye-candy, they never accepted any bug fixes to 2.0 that could potentially make it unstable. In the 3.0 they are changing the whole rendering engine to a complitely new one. 4.0 is too far away, but currently I do bulieve that Firefox 3.0 will be a much greater success than 2.0 ever will be.
And yes, I agree with you. I don't hate 2.0, but I think it was a mistake to release it, just because they think the release cycle between 1.5 and 3.0 would have been too long. Then again, I'm a programmer and Firefox has had a pretty good history in marketing, so I think they know better than I. After all, it is the marketing that has given the Firefox the status it currently has. AFAIK majority of the people like 2.0, but I think there have been more complaints about 2.0 than there were about 1.5. Then again the user base is increasing constactly which could be the reason for this.
They are focusing on the Gecko. Search Wikipedia article about Firefox and check the version 3.0, where the major development will happen.
> I think "lost its way" is too strong of a phrase.
I agree. The developer are mostly focusing on Firefox 3.0 anyway, because of the major improvements it will have. The 2.0 was just a small upgrade in the middle, mostly because of the PR. Because the changes in 3.0 require a lot of development and a lot of testing, they didn't want to hurry it. So I wouldn't judge Firefox because of the 2.0. Better wait for 3.0.
> WTF! i can't believe CT would actually allow a submission like this to make it all the way thru...
New here?
Actually there is something we could get from this deal. We can now say that even Microsoft thinks that Linux is good, since it is spending a lot of money on it. We just need a huge marketing campaign and what evern evil plans Microsoft has, it will backfire them.
Not only using a CVS, but also installing such. If you end up working in a company where there is no CVS in use and no-one knows how to install it, how usefull would your skills be there? Well I actually have been in this situation and it took less than a day for me to learn and install subversion there for us to work with.
What I missed at school was courses about GUI designing. I think the GUI designing should be one large part of the programming education, because quite often you have to design the GUI for our own programs, unless you work in large companies, where there are separated people to do this task.
On the other hand, we did have several courses where we designed, implemented and tested a whole program. Either by solo or in a group of 2-5 people. I'm surpriced to hear that they actually have schools where this isn't done.
> I personally believe that John Kerry lost 2004 because he was perceived as having a campaign that primarily said "we're not Bush."
I thought that Kerry lost, because of the people counting votes were corrupted. Was there not a big hassle about this?
From the article:
> "if there really is a new threat on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security companies, not an online encyclopedia."
Is that a challange?
> Does anyone actually know anyone that has been affected by any of these exploits?
Many of the people getting infected don't know it. But don't tell me you have never heard of infected Windows machine? Or do you assume they all got ir from e-mail?
> Seems to me that the odds of actually visiting a site that "runs" the exploit is incredibly low.
So, you think only a few people will surf on pornsites or websites that have been hacked?
Name one bug (id on bugzilla) that affects you and only works on Linux?
If people have problems, they are more likely to speak it up, than those who don't have problems. Just to make things a little more equal, I for one have had no problems with Firefox 2.0.
This might help if you have crashes:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_crashes
Sorry, just trying to be humorous.
Devellopers? You sound like a person who should install Firefox 2 and use the spell checker.
Windows 2k can have automatic updates, but you won't see IE7 getting there, because IE7 is only for XP and above.
Btw. Ubuntu was recently updated to 6.10 version, with Firefox 2.0 included. I got my Firefox from there and I supposed that doesn't count.
Firefox is very stable browser. It is almost impossible to get it to crash, unless you have a corrupted installation, corrupted profile or you are using some unstable extensions. So what you are experiencing is not normal and there should be a fix for it. See if this article helps you:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_crashes
It's not officially released. Slashdot could do more harm than good by releasing these news early. See these responses what harm it does for releasing news before official release:- for-mozilla-releases/- for-mozilla-releases-part-ii/
http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/11/looking-at-ftp-sites
http://ilias.ca/blog/2006/04/looking-at-ftp-sites
What is amazing is that Slashdot seems to do this with every release. What kind of editors we have here?
Reducing memory usage in Firefox:_ Firefox
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-
> How does it really hurt MS if FF gets 100% marketshare?
If all the people use Firefox, there won't be that many IE-only applications. This means it will be a lot easier to switch to other operating systems, which usually means that people stop using Microsoft software. Microsoft's strategy is to force people to stick with their system. Why else do you think they are always making their own version of standards?
Yes there is. You can remove the close buttons from the tabs (make it look like it was in 1.5) and also tell the min width for the tabs:n sh
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.tabs.closeButto
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.tabs.tabMinWidt