Ziggy
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ziggy
-
-
I don't know what the OP meant originally, but eggdrop should work well as an automated bot that you can stick on your IRC server.
-
What he wants, apparently, is to link his MSN Chat Control-based webchat to his site's user profiles. Or, to create profiles. Or to create logins. One of those things.
This is highly illegal (you agreed not to use the MSN Chat Control unless on Microsoft services when you agreed to the terms of use of MSN when you registered; Microsoft's info pages say you also bind yourself to those rules if you use the control at all), and quite difficult to do unless you're smart with PHP/Apache. And since you're asking for help, you apparently aren't.
If it's not MSN, then you should know how to support user profiles (because then you would be the author, or you would know who the author is).
-
No offense Ziggy, but a lot of what you talk is a lot of "hog wash."
If me or others on this board would take our time to write a page on your lies and somewhat miscalculations, with links to back up or statements, you would look like a fool...
lie
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
I am not deliberately presenting falsehoods as truth. I may not be right (this is yet to be determined), but I'm not doing it on purpose.
FireFox has been hit many times and is everyday with adware and malicious files.Firefox can get attacked just as well as any browser. However, it is far more resistant to spyware/malware than IE6 is. There are many reasons why:
- Firefox does not offer any way for code to install or run without prompting the user. If it did, it would be a bug. In fact, the installer code pops up the dialog no matter what (which is annoying if you're writing an extension, but deal with it).
- Extensions are written in JavaScript. There are limits to the language. So don't expect an extension to ever be able to write a corrupted BIOS EEPROM file (some malware does this) or corrupt Winsock DSPs (some malware does this).
- Plugins, the only things that can be binaries, can only be installed manually or through the PFS, which only lists well-known plugins that get registered through MoFo or AOL/Netscape.
- Extensions are installed by the browser; they do not install themselves -- so arbitrary code cannot get executed.
- Conversely, the browser uninstalls extensions. So if something did install, the browser could remove the extension quite easily. If for some reason it doesn't, it's a bug.
FireFox sends a message of a great browser with security and quick bug fixes, even though they have taken a week or weeks to complete. Also common sense would tell you that as a browser becomes older, more bugs/security holes will be found.Actually, if you hang around Bugzilla, you'd notice that most of the security bugs that got fixed in 1.0.1 got fixed within a day or two. They did not release a new version of Firefox publically to avoid confusion (if they released a new version that fixed just one vulnerability at a time, they'd be on Firefox 1.0.21 -- which would really confuse people). However, the security-minded can run an aviary nightly (which does not contain any modifications to Gecko, the rendering engine -- just mainly bugfixes that will make it to a new point release) if they are very concerned about Firefox's security.
FireFox is somewhat completely re-done, but still uses heavy "icing" or what have you from Mozilla.The main things shared between Mozilla and Firefox are:
- the XPFE toolkit
- the XPCOM toolkit
- Gecko
- NSPR/NSS
The XUL toolkit, extensions/plugin framework, and several tens of thousands of lines of code are different. And now that Seamonkey is dead, Firefox is "the" browser. Mozilla is now just a reference platform.
(NB: if you've ever wondered why Mozilla themes/extensions don't work at all in Firefox, it's because Firefox has different XUL bindings and a much different extension framework -- Mozilla doesn't use extension overlays; Firefox does)
QUOTEWindows Media Player license download bug is one of them...
Not to mention this bug has been fixed. Just pointing out an example of what Keith uses to gain the upper hand in a situation and back FireFox 100%.
Okay, I stan-corrected. Last I heard, they said "this is the intended behavior".
Also Keith there is no set code (law of ethics, so you have it) for the version number in which you release your program in.As I said before, in my opinion as a developer, Microsoft version numbers are more hype than truth. Especially with IE. IE4-IE6 are all basically the same on the inside, with improvements to the rendering, but nothing too major. Generally, the "major" portion of a version number changes when something seriously major gets changed. Microsoft did the right thing with Windows 2000/Windows XP. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1. That accurately protrays the differences. Longhorn is NT 6.0, which also accurately protrays the differences. However, IE6 should really be IE 5.0 or IE 4.5, since IE6 is basically IE5 + P3P + CSS1 + some CSS2 + better JS/VBS (i.e. it supports document.getElementById) + better cookie handling. And IE5 is IE4 + less buggy + better COM+ support + better JS/VBS support + other minor enhancements. I personally cannot tell the difference between IE5 and IE4 rendering. My site looks the same in both browsers, and Slashdot looks the same to me, and just about every site I've ever tried looks/feels the same.
Keith just because you are a, what was it, "web developer"; doesn't give you any more OPINION on matters, which is what you are mostly speaking in half the time.I mention that I'm giving an opinion when I am. And anyways, the point of a forum is to communicate opinions. Can you imagine how boring a forum would be if every post was like "grass is usually green" or "the drummer of Def Leppard only has one arm"?
You are like the Democrats in America. Will always defend themselves at the expense of Bush or another Republican.I resent that; I bleed red.
"Yes I know we did that, but THEY DID THAT FIRST."Users don't care who did what first, what we care is who will fix it first and who has a better product.
You're right. Users care about only a few things primarily:
- which product is better
- which one is updated more
- how complicated the product is
Apache is a far superior product than IIS. But people use IIS. The reason is that they may not possess the knowledge to modify a httpd.conf file or setup Apache. Or, they may have to fulfill a request from someone higher up in their organization and do not know how to do it with Apache, or Apache can't (for example, I know a guy who hates IIS but has to run it because his company needed something that was only avaliable for IIS/ASP). There's not much that Apache can't do nowadays (heck, with PHP, you can load COM+ controls [ActiveX controls] and manipulate them just like you can in ASP, and you can load .NET forms and manipulate them just like you can in ASP.NET -- requires Windows though), but it just doesn't suit some people. It's the reason why most ATMs run OS/2. OS/2 died in 1995 with the release of Windows 95. But before then, banks had already deployed OS/2, and most of the ATM software only runs on OS/2 (Diebold's software being the memorable exception -- then again, Diebold ATMs suffer from the Blaster worm....). Switching to Windows would require them to find another vendor, and since Windows is technically superior to OS/2, it would be a smart decision. But they won't until there is some need for them to (it's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule).
Currently MSIE7 is the best product, wether you like it or not.MSIE7 is vaporware. Sure, details are being released, but I can't tell the accuracy of the claims. But as I said originally, IE7's standards support will suck. Just like in IE6. This article should confirm this. I also said that 32 bit PNG support is unlikely, but it seems that it is quite likely. Cheers to Microsoft. Now I wish they'd fix CSS2 or add support for the "needs finalization" CSS 2.1 (the W3C is mainly waiting on the company members to say "okay, ship it" -- Microsoft is one of the people holding it up). As for the claim that it's going to be a tabbed browser, I'm not going to say anything until I see it. I highly doubt it, since one of the "selling points" in Windows XP was that all of your MSIE windows would get grouped in the taskbar. Microsoft has done a complete 180 before, so it's anyone's guess.
IE6 is not technically superior to Firefox. It may have some pros that make it better than Firefox in some respects. ActiveX, for example. Though ActiveX is far less powerful than XPCOM, it's more widely adopted. So you need IE to view ActiveX. Firefox can host ActiveX, but it's highly unlikely Mozilla will ship with it enabled (if there's a vulnerability in ActiveX, it becomes Mozilla's responsibility to fix it, and makes MS fanboys go "ha, so your browser is really not secure!"). The few things that IE has that Firefox doesn't (P3P being a major one) aren't really all that great (P3P information can be faked, spoofed, and so on, so it's not really all that good of an indicator of the site's privacy policy). And there is a P3P plugin for Firefox, if you want it. IE7 will make the competition somewhat closer, since it might add tabbed browsing, but feature-for-feature and technical aspect-for-technical aspect, Firefox will weigh out better. That is, of course, assuming that the Gecko development team doesn't revolt after the news that they killed Seamonkey (they won't, but maybe a member or two will leave to make a Seamonkey fork).
Every week more and more security bugs/holes are being reported in FireFox.And the same amount or greater are reported in IE (you can only count holes -- bugs are not reported in IE, and I'm sure that if there was some sort of bug tracker for IE, there'd be thousands and thousands of open bugs). Sure, Firefox has bugs. They fix them. They make it in a new release. IE has bugs too, but the ones that really piss me off (only 24 bit PNGs [alpha channel ignored], no position: fixed, background-attachment: scroll only on body) have persisted since IE4 or IE5. That's 5 years. Too long to wait for patches.
Also not to mention bugs with downloading in FireFox, which have not been fixed since the first version of FireFox was released... Over a year now and simple bugs haven't been fixed...I'm aware of them. Most of them were fixed in Gecko 1.8. If you're up to it, download a trunk Firefox nightly (using latest Gecko 1.8) and see if you can reproduce it. If you can, search Bugzilla and confirm bugs or file new ones. The more people who try and break Firefox, the better Firefox will be.
Also, this article implies that the WMP fix is cosmetic; it implies that you can still install the malware that is exploiting this bug.
-
the 1.0.1 took a week b4 firefox update checker told me there was an update, even though i new there was one.
As asa said on SpreadFirefox, the automatic update will be staggered to prevent a denial of service. They released Firefox 1.0.1 before they completed their server upgrade, and it would probably bring down their web server if 27 million people were downloading the update at the same time.
The staggering is happening as we speak. en-US, en-CA, and a few other locales have gotten the update enabled. en-UK has NOT had the update turned on yet, so you won't get a notice until they enable it (there are apparently a lot of en-UK people out there).
As to other updates, the browser doesnt get them all cause they usually update with a new version (and dont say about the nightly stuff cause none tech will update from the browser)It's up to individual extension authors to make sure their extensions are compatible with new releases. 1.0.1 shouldn't have broken any extensions, and I'm not entirely sure why extensions don't just say they're compatible with 1.0 to 1.0.99 or something so they work when new revisions are out.
Firefox Update is still buggy, yes, but if you look on Bugzilla, you can see that too. They fixed some of the showstopping bugs in 1.0.1. Either way, after upgrading to 1.0.1, you should be able to Options > Advanced > Update > Check Now and have your extensions upgraded if there are any.
1.0.1 left 1.0 still on my comp when i installed it, you would have thought a browser "so good" would have removed the old unused files but it didnt, it even left the links in the start>programs> listso i had 2 links and neither was labeled with the version number
Known bug. The 1.0.1 installer crew was so eager to get the patch out that they forgot to change the version number checking (the code that automatically removes 0.1 to 0.8 and 0.9.x). That's why the release notes say "uninstall Firefox 1.0 first".
The 1.0.1 automatic update installer has the same bug, so it's since been pulled (they're working on fixing it and should have it fixed in a couple days, if not already).
so if they cant even get something so simple correct , i hate to thing what the rest of browser is like.It's not as simple as you think. It might seem simple, but there is a lot of code involved in updating 27 million installations while keeping in mind that:
- Your server is on a 100Mbps line and you cannot handle 27 million people downloading an executable at the same time.
- Some people might not have permission to install a Firefox upgrade (anyone who has their system secured properly shouldn't have permission to write to C:\Program Files and would need to have an administrator upgrade Firefox)
- There are hundreds of different locales out there. Someone who speaks es-MX (Spanish [Mexico]) will probably not want to upgrade Firefox to find out that it's now in en-US (English [uS]). Especially if they don't know a word of English.
- Some of the independent localization people haven't upgraded their translation yet.
- There's a timeframe you have to release the update in because of a bug in the code that sees what date it is (it only works reliably at the beginning of the month; after the 16th or so it stops checking for updates entirely -- known bug, fixed in 1.0.1). It was an Angloid mistake, if anyone cares. For some reason, in Europe, their week starts on Monday. We start our week on Sunday. The code was really easy to fix, but that doesn't change the fact there was a bug in the first place.
- There are an infinite number of Firefox builds. I'd say hundreds, but us Gentoo users usually roll our own (and why not, it's as easy as "emerge mozilla-firefox"). And then there are Moox's builds, the Debian builds, SVG-enabled builds, builds with talkback, builds without talkback, Visual Studio 7.1 builds, Visual Studio 6.0 builds, Cygwin builds, and so on. They can't push the same file to every Firefox installation, because there are quite a few people who are using a build that's configured differently than the official build.
But like i keep saying , its the users choice of which browser they use.My choice is only to have firefox for checking tg and td to make sure it shows correctly, apart from that i will stick with ie.
It's your choice, yes. Some people also choose to jump off bridges, shoot themselves in the head, and steal cars. Just because other people do it doesn't mean I'm going to. But whatever.
Cleric xtx: That's exactly why I will not install SP2. Quite a few of my programs didn't work on SP2, and very few of them had updates to fix it for SP2. Not to mention that my WLAN didn't work. SP2 should have been spread out over many different products instead of just one. MDAC was updated to 3.0 in SP2. They should make that a seperate product release instead of SP2-only.
-
why dont you learn to read posts instead of changing the wording around to suite yourself
Because you're whining about it. Yes, it's a fact that Firefox will eventually get hit with viruses, malware, etc. But internal coding practices almost completely prevent anything from maliciously happening unexpededly. I say almost because there's bound to be a bug somewhere. But there's a 99.995% chance there won't be any unexpected Software Installations without the dialog. It's called drive-by downloading. Firefox shouldn't be vulnerable to any of this (but IE is, in many different ways [Windows Media Player license download bug is one of them...). It should not be possible for a program to maliciously become installed in Firefox via a bug in the software.
Sure, it will happen. But if you knew the inner workings of Firefox, you'd know that it'd have to happen outside of the browser (with allowance for a few bugs that allow something to happen inside it, but that's VERY unlikely).
so stop being an arse and misrepresenting what i saidthat fact is that a lot of highly respected people on the net also agree with what i said and agree that firefox is going to be exploited more as it gets more users and the fact that a lot of security companys are now looking into it more in depth means they will find even more exploits in the coding like they have done with ie.
IE isn't open source, so they can't find exploits in the code... Although I'm not disagreeing with you (someone will eventually drill the lock on the safe), it's blown WAY out of proportion. Here's why:
MSIE is a shell for Trident, the MSHTML rendering engine.
The Windows operating system also uses Trident.
If there's just one piece of code out of place, a web page can get full access to Windows.
Compare this to Firefox (and even Firefox 2.0, which will probably use the Gecko Runtime Environment or Gecko Rendering Service):
Firefox is a user-level application using Mozilla Gecko.
Blocks prevent Firefox from parsing Cross-Platform Install (XPI) files unless you allow it.
Even if a page did manage to defeat these blocks (and in theory they can't, because there is no way around that dialog), they'd only get access to what your user can access, and if you secure your system properly, you should be running as a limited user or guest, so that shouldn't be anything more than personal files -- NOT the entire operating system.
Even if there were two "holy shit" bugs in Firefox for every "holy shit" IE bug, the bugs would be far less severe than IE ones because IE is tied very closely to the OS.
And as of last month, my Windows drive has the user "Keith Gable" as a limited user. And my Linux drive (default boot) has always had me as a limited user. So the "well, why don't you try that" excuse won't work.
(OT: Windows BSODs now because of a mobo upgrade; Linux didn't even require a kernel reinstall)
-
Cleric, you understand what I mean
. Maxathon understands the concept behind minor and major version number changes 
.And Maxathon is really the only MSIE-based browser I'd ever feel like touching. Even though I'm fairly content with Firefox (okay, I wouldn't change a thing), if I had a choice between Maxathon and MSIE, I'd pick Maxathon. Or Maxathon and Netscape (I hate Netscape).
-
Dude, I'm not a "bit stuck up for a kid". You are not a developer. I am. So I feel that I am well within my right to critique the version number of IE 7.0. Microsoft has SAID THEMSELVES that they aren't planning on adding many new features to it -- they only plan on making it more secure. Which is fine, and I'm glad they're taking some initiative. But I don't see where you get off trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
MSIE will be a minor security upgrade, not a major feature upgrade. IE7 isn't going to be any major difference over IE6 other than it'll have more restrictions. And I'm hoping that they'll adopt the Gecko security model in some shape or form.
As for dissing Microsoft, I don't. Saying that one operating system is better than another is not dissing the other. Linux is better than Windows. Porsche is better than Ford. I'm not saying that Ford makes shitty cars, I'm saying that Porsche makes better cars than Ford. The same applies for the OS argument.
As for Ozzy's comment that "ooh, virus writers and adware makers are attacking Firefox, oh no, it's going to be worse than IE now!": bullshit. I'm subscribed to at least 50 bugs on Bugzilla, most of which involve user-end security. I can read and almost write C/C++. I've seen the code that does the security checks for extension installation. There is absolutely no way for adware to maliciously get installed. There are two ways to install adware in Firefox:
1) the user presses "Install" on the extension installation dialog
2) the adware is an external program and it modifies the Firefox profile (which is in a directory name that is random, so it makes it partially hard).
In both cases, it is user error. On Windows, you can format the hard drive on a usermode level. Sure, a program can modify the profile and install itself, but the same program could also format your hard drive, hard reboot your computer, fry your power supply, flash your EEPROM so your BIOS won't work, and short out your video card (since you can, in usermode, adjust the video clock and voltage).
Here's an analogy:
I can put a padlock on my door. It'll keep people out, but anyone can get in if they have a tool to cut the lock off. I could improve that security by putting a deadbolt on my door. They're much harder to defeat than a simple $1 Wal-Mart padlock, but they can still be defeated. MSIE is the $1 padlock. As with any computer system, Firefox will be getting broken into and there will eventually be users affected (so far, nobody has gotten bitten by any bad Firefox worms). It's inevitable. But, and this is why I choose open source over commercial products, I can be assured that somebody, somewhere, will be able to fix the issue days, hours, or even minutes after it is discovered.
Case in point? Ping of death. It took Linus Torvalds twenty three minutes to patch it and release a new version of the kernel (as well as patches to older versions [~3KB]). It took the BSD kernel about 45 minutes. Commercial UNIX vendors had a fix within the week. Microsoft Windows didn't get a fix for THREE MONTHS. The fix ended up being about 45KB. This was also in the day when Windows 98 was new. They didn't have to test the fix on every configuration; all they had to do was recompile the DLL for 95, 98, and NT4 and they were set to go. The problem in the first place was the lack of bounds-checking on ping packets. It allowed a ping packet to fill up more than it's supposed to. The fix for those is a one-liner. Windows is written in the same C that Linux and BSD are written in, so it makes absolutely no sense to me why they would need to take three months to fix the problem.
That incident is one of the reasons I don't trust Microsoft. I'm not dissing them, I'm just saying why I don't trust them. And let's not forget the other things, like breaking Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS even though it worked flawlessly, making MS-DOS 5 break Lotus 1-2-3 for no reason, buying OS/2 and then screwing IBM and their customers, the whole "IE can't be uninstalled from 98 first edition" argument (it can, I do it, and it works perfectly [better than usual actually]). Sure, Microsoft makes good products. Exchange is a pretty good communications server (the other commercial ones suck). I would never run it because I can't trust that Microsoft will keep me protected in case I get screwed (whereas with Postfix or Sendmail, if a problem does occur, the patch will be out very quickly and I can apply it myself).
Sorry for the rambling, it's just that some people apparently don't get it. IE7 is only going to be a minor update. The version number is a mind game. Open source will always be infinitely more secure than commercial products (open source potentially can use every person on the planet to develop their software and patch bugs; closed source/commercial products only have a couple hundred people). I'm bloody tired of this argument getting brought up.
And a little FYI: I like Safari better than Firefox. But I don't own a Mac and have no intention of buying one (32 bit IA-32 games won't run on a 32/64-bit PPC).
(I'm writing this in lynx because MSIE is broken on the lab computer at Vo-Tech and I don't have administrator privileges so I can't install Firefox -- but I can run PuTTY and connect to my SSH server and use lynx)
-
How do u know that ?? You dont they might totally redo IE
Microsoft said that IE7 is just going to contain improved security. As I said, they might audit the code and see some open control loops and go "whoops" and fix those problems (which would make Internet Explorer suck less), I highly doubt they're going to even touch the rendering portion of IE.
Microsft are better Developers than you are so dont get thingyyPerhaps, but I'm still a better developer than you are. Ever heard of the phrase "don't enter a battle of wits unarmed"? What's new in IE, lets see:
IE1: the worst browser
IE2: crappy browser
IE3: awful browser
IE4: introduced "innovative new features" such as ActiveX, Active Content, VBscript, etc. All of the technologies introduced directly compete with Netscape and Sun Java (MS Java was created to compete with Sun Java -- they lost a lawsuit over this recently). Basic CSS1 support.
IE4.1: 128 bit encryption
IE5: Basic CSS2 support. HTML 4.0 support.
IE5.5: Improved SSL, improved CSS1, fix numerous "we're the server authors and you are sucking very badly Microsoft" errors
IE6: P3P, full CSS1, privacy controls, improve UI slightly
IE6.01 (SP2): popup blocker, information bar.
Most of the core rendering hasn't changed since IE4. Sure, they improved CSS1/CSS2, but so did Mozilla, and they jumped from 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 and not from 1.1 to 2.0.
Their version numbering is an arbitrary number. They should have gone from IE4 to 4.1 to 4.2 (5) to 4.3 (5.5) to 4.4/4.5 (6). Then they wouldn't sound so much like they're lying. Since, like, when the only major differences you can tell between major browser versions is improved support for CSS, chances are they shouldn't have made it a major browser revision.
instead of Dissing MS wont dont u get off ya arse and develop your own and stop bloody winging everyone is sick of it. If you dont like IE use another browser SIMPLE.MSIE is the browser that is pre-installed on 98% of all PCs. While I am now recommending Macintoshes and Linux-based computers to all of the people I meet who are total computer newbies (since OS X is a trillion times easier than Windows will ever be), that's not going to make that number go down any. I'm not dissing Microsoft -- I'm suggesting areas in which they need to improve. Adding full support for CSS2 and PNG would be a great place to start (screw security, PNG was finalized in 1996 [iIRC], they have some work to do).
However, they're coming out with a new version, version 7.0, and it isn't any different under the hood as far as rendering goes (if it is, it'll surprise me -- they were at a developer conference when they said that only security improvements will be in 7.0).
The major rewrite of IE is due sometime in 2015. Someday, they'll rewrite it in C#. If they don't, they're hipocritical.
In my opinion as a web site and web application developer, IE 7 is going to be way overrated.
-
I personally think Microsoft should call it IE 6.1 or 6.5 or something. The core rendering technology isn't going to change; they're just going to audit some of the code and put in security restrictions.
But then again, if they did the version numbers properly (changed the major number when they make a major change to how it functions), they'd be on MSIE 4.5 or so. Since the core rendering technology hasn't really changed since IE 4. Sure, they've fixed numerous bugs with the rendering and finally finished full CSS1 support in IE6, but it's still mostly the same. Nothing entirely new or interesting.
My main question is this: when can I expect proper PNG support? I don't mean PNG support via a DirectX filter:, because that's not proper PNG support (and it doesn't support translucent PNGs all the time -- some situations are hopeless -- view the IE7 JavaScript hack readme for more information). Or proper support for position: fixed; and some of the more basic CSS2 features that are missing.
-
Well, the DRM wasn't broken... so they aren't lying... It's just that if you play the song back, you can use a program to record the output of that song and save it to your hard drive in an unprotected format.
If anyone else offered this kind of service, it'd be "vulnerable" too. Think back to tape dubbing -- if you could play music on a stereo, you could copy it to a tape. Even if you play it from another tape.
I think I'm fine and dandy with my 10 free songs on iTunes (I drink a lot of Pepsi).
-
DTaE is IRCDom's secret detection command. Except it's not really a secret as of IRCDom2.
-
Yeah. Sun just wants to open source their stuff so their program will get accepted by the community and will take off like Mozilla did. Open sourcing Netscape was the best thing Netscape ever did. They have no real desire to open source their code, nor do they really want to do this. They're trying to soar like Mozilla and take the code that the community put together and put it into their own product. Think about it as free outsourcing. Almost all open source developers know this, so it's very doubtful that OpenSolaris will become any more than a pipe dream for Sun.
-
I have 11GB of music (and growing), 8GB of which I listen to on a regular basis.
I would have to say that an iPod is worth my money.
-
There's also Sveta Portable Audio or something like that from dbpoweramp.com. It's pretty nice.
-
Yeah, but, the Internet grid can't go down very easily
. The Internet runs a form of mesh topology. That is, everything is connected to everything else (really, it's a group of routers under the same administrative group that are connected to eachother, then the ones on the border of another administrative group connect to other administrative groups). You'd have to take down about two thirds of the entire Internet infrastructure for it to make a major impact (well, besides speed drops and not being able to reach sites that have no route from themselves to you -- i.e. they're not connected to any routers that have access to you). -
Opera suffers from two flaws:
- it's not free
- it's way too complicated for most users. I spent a week looking at it and there are so many options under one menu that it made me go "man, that's overkill"
However, Opera is MUCH BETTER than Gecko in an embedded environment such as a STB, PDA, phone, etc. In fact, I'd much rather see a "powered by Opera" logo on a phone than a "powered by Mozilla Gecko" or "powered by Mozilla". Simply because Opera has many many different build modes, like "tiny", "desktop", "textonly", and so on, and Mozilla/Gecko only has a couple (embedded, desktop). Minimoz (Mozilla Embedded) is okay, but it's still slower larger and less fun to use than Opera Embedded.
But on the desktop I wouldn't give up my Firefox for anything. Okay, well, maybe the MozSuite or Epiphany (both are Gecko).
-
IRCXpro is not the only bloody IRCX server out there. You have to be more specific than "Runtime error 400" (which is an invalid runtime error anyways -- 400 belongs to the MS Common Controls UI library, and IRCXpro's server should NOT be using a UI).
Subscript out of range (RTE 9) means the variable is split up into an array and the program attempts to access a value outside of that range. Take for instance:
string = "This is a test"
split(string)[0] = "This"
split(string)[1] = "is"
split(string)[2] = "a"
split(string)[3] = "test"
(that is not any specific programming language)
The program is attempting to address split(string)[4], which does not exist. So it's a bug in the program. Go to the bug reporting facility of your server and report the bug (I'm not aware that IRCXpro has one, although ignitionServer does, and Microsoft Exchange Chat Service 5.5/2000 is no longer supported by Microsoft for updates, but they do have a bug system)
You can try redownloading it, but it could also be something you screwed up in the configuration or something.
-
may not be what you're looking for, but it's got quite a few commands listed.
before an argument starts, an IRCX server is an IRCD, because a daemon is a server, and IRCX is an extension to the IRC protocol.
-
Room Close
in MSN
+m is "moderated"
+M could be anything; it's an ircd-specific mode.
-
Room Close
in MSN
what the hell kind of mode is +M? What IRCD do you use?
-
that doesn't help much. which IRCD?
-
you'd need UTF-8, and mIRC doesn't support UTF-8.
you're SOL.
-
The MSN Chat Control no longer processes emoticons in nicknames. So even if you do change your nick to something with the UTF-8 version of the emoticon, it won't work.
-
IRCXpro's user manual covers how to operate the application. It doesn't cover the commands it supports or (at least last time I read it) the modes it supports.
Since I believe my documentation to be more complete than IRCXpro's documentation, I linked to that.
Firefox is more secure
in General News
Posted · Edited by Ziggy
Think about it like this. If Mozilla didn't think their security was "up-to-par", they wouldn't hand out $500 and a t-shirt to everyone who finds a vulnerability (and maybe a SFX coin, not sure). If Microsoft did this in their products, well, they'd be bankrupt.
As for Opera, I would probably use it if it was a bit less screwed up. I mean, they pile more menu items under one menu than I've ever seen in my life. Perhaps if they had a "Opera Lite", it'd gain the attention that Firefox gets. As it is now, I cannot stand to use Opera (for the same reason I can't stand KDE or Konqueror's shell [but I love Konqueror's rendering engine]).
And, for the record, this is "publically avaliable updates" -- when a patch is checked in, it's avaliable in the aviary nightly the next day, and someone who is REALLY paranoid can install it if they want.
As for the "not as sexy" remark, well, it's debatable. It can look much cooler than IE, but it can also look crappier. The default theme is about as crappy as IE's theme. And most of the themes suck (about the only ones I use are Noia Lite/Extreme, GNOME-Fx, GNOME-Fx Blue, Novell Industrial, and the default theme).