i only installed and use it for less than 5 minutes ..it looks just like ie7 ..i dont know what they could have changed but it would been nice if it looked a bit different ..
i must admit ..i currently dont use windows and ie so i dont know if this is changed and thats why i am asking ..a while ago, when downloading a file, ie will download it to a temporary area and then move it to its destination when the download is complete
..this is mostly ok when downloading half a kilobyte of a file but very annoying when trying to download a large file especially when running out of disk space on the default downloading drive ..is this behavior changed? ..
for a second, i though that guy with the red shirt was richard stallman ..smile.. he look like him, doesnt he? ..my mind went to close to 200 different directions wondering what he could possibly be doing at microsoft ..then ..4 seconds later, i realised it
wasnt him ...
..i havent watched the video so no comments about the video ..
most linux players can play almost all video and audio formats ..most linux media players uses mplayer, xine or gstreamer as back ends and these backend have either native support for almost all audio/video files or they use win32-codecs package for wma/wmv
file format support ...to most linux distros ..all you will need to have is this package and all players will play windows file formats without any issues ...
it still doesnt work with all the browsers i have mentioned above .... "comment on the post" also doesnt work ...i wanted to write this on firefox 188.8.131.52 and the link didnt work ..tried with firefox 3rc3 and the link just looked at me when i clicked it..both
under linux ..i am writing this on TE7 on XP ...
somebody could try to load a linux live cd and see how this site perform on linux browsers ..i have so far seen two links that doesnt work ...there could be others ..
this being a microsoft site, i guess i should expect somebody saying something negative about trying to access it using a non microsoft browser and os ..just wish to say "its the web, the site should be browser, OS independent" ..
Most people misunderstand open source. They think it's about code, but really it's not, that is just one facet of the debate.
The core of open source is really a philosophy, and the philosophy they believe in is more along the lines of communism or to be nice socialism.
"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
In the same way communists believe individuals should not have property rights, and that all property is the right of the state. That is why they believe that no company should have "propietary code", and that all code should be open source. In other words,
the indiivudal shouldn't have their own property, and in this case the "code" should belong to everyone, the community, for the "greater good". The same reason they think IP, copyrights, or patents shouldn't exist.
They say this is really the only way to have freedom, but the truth is it's the complete opposite of freedom.
In fact, just about every logical reason they state that they are for "open source" or really a broader philsophy, they get the opposite result.
The main point here is when talking\debating to a proponent of open source, just remember the debate isn't about code.
i dont think this is correct, or its not how i understand it ...nobody should have the right to own air or the sun or _all_ the land ... the debate isnt about code ..the debate is about open standards ...
as a user of software, i have a right to use my program of choice and you have a right to use your program of choice ...the only way this can happen is if we both use a free standard ..and this is what is all about ..C++ has an open specification ..everybody
can wrght their own implementation of C++ ..nobody should be forced to open up their imprementations of it ..as long as we both can use our programs of choice and get the same C++ binary blob at the end ..
the problem with proprietary companies is that they are holding the base technology or standard which is equivalent to owning the whole world's air or standing btw the world and the sun ..there is really no way around that other than to force this company to
either opening up their stuff or to reverse engineer it ..
FOSS is all about people using their computers the way they want ..and the only way for that to be achieved is for the core technology to be free ..its not about the code its about ..open and free standards and specifications ..
you are free to own and use your land the way you see fit ..i am free to own and use my land the way i see it ...i will have a problem if you want to own all of it and you should have a problem is i want to own all it ..you should have a problem if i start
dictating how you should use your land ...if you control the sun ..they you will have a control over what i can and cant do with my land i willi understandably complain ..you can have your propietary technology, that fine ..but if it becomes so widespread
that i cant work around it, then i will have a problem with it and i will work to make it open ..
anybody who belongs to the FOSS world and is forcing you to use your computer the way they want is misguided becaue thats not what the FOSS thing is all about .. the only reason why i could see that is if that action will at end force you to use free and open
standards ..something even you will benefit in the long run ..
this is my understanding of it ..its not about the code ..its about open and free standards ..something even users of proprietary programs will benefit ..
good side of open standards is that consumers will get choice because this will not be tied to one company..bad side is that companies will have less power over their users ..
Miguel seemed to be trying hard to not mentioning free software ..open source is a development model and microsoft have some open sourced pieces ..free software is a political movement and that is what microsoft as a propietary softwre company has a problem
with ideology, not model ..
his explanation of those 4 things(rights/freedoms or whatever you want to call them) ..would have been better explained with "free software" and not "open source" ...this is why he had a hard time differentiating microsoft's open source with mono's or free
software's open source ...
free software and open source share the same development model but differs in ideology ..
i have been watching channel9 videos for a while now and i just had to sign up to leave a comment about this video ..so far this has been the most educational video i have seen.
i just graduated from college and i remember studying lisp as a freshman and haskell as a junior ..together with the traditional ones(C/C++/java/assembly) .. didnt like functional programming that much, they seem unnatural to me and i didnt see why i had to
learn them(especially lisp) but i enjoy seeing(and using) traces of them in python.
this video just brough back memories(painful ones about functional programming) ...