A
Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3
Guest
On Dec 31, 4:09?pm, Tim Weaver <tmw99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mimus wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:32:05 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >> mimus wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>> mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>>>> mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1
>
> >>>>>>> Typical.
>
> >>>>>>> Including the secrecy.
>
> >>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.
>
> >>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. ?Not
> >>>>>> to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... ?It works for
> >>>>>> me.
>
> >>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.
>
> >>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along
> >>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).
>
> >>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for
> >>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .
>
> >>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should
> >>>> upgrade. ?
>
> >>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to
> >>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .
>
> >>> **** that.
>
> >> Really? ?That's a linux thing, I'm guessing. ?Is this a thing like
> >> needing to have a certain kernel version xx.xx (or whatever) in order
> >> to compile properly?
>
> > I think it's usually more a libc (C Runtime Library) version thing than
> > anything else, although certainly other lib s (Microsoft = DLLs) come
> > into play as well.
>
> > I think I hate RTLs, DLLs, etc.
>
> Total agreement.
>
> > The use of which should be quite convenient to malicious hackers as
> > well.
>
> I've always thought the OS should stand alone and no app can touch it either
> on disc or in memory. ?Device drivers on top of that. ?Apps on top of that
> and a shared space for data swapping and such. ?The biggest thing that I
> believe any decent OS should have are stand alone apps. ?EVERYTHING for the
> application called "whateverapp" gets installed into ONE folder (and any
> subfolders) and that's it! ?You want something off your system? ?Delete the
> folder. ?Done. ?Does anyone do that? ?Nope. ?Too easy and simple.
No shared libraries?
In the world of service-oriented architecture, the boundary between OS
and application becomes quite fuzzy.
--
Axel | D.A.R. | mhm23x3 | GS11
Meower since 1996-03-30 (wave 2.3) | mhm since 1998-06-18
Denizen of alt.food.dennys | Father of alt.food.mentos
Grand Ultimageneralissimo of the Shock and Awe wing of the Usenet
Flame Force / Defensive Alliance
> mimus wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:32:05 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >> mimus wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>> mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>>>> mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1
>
> >>>>>>> Typical.
>
> >>>>>>> Including the secrecy.
>
> >>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.
>
> >>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. ?Not
> >>>>>> to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... ?It works for
> >>>>>> me.
>
> >>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.
>
> >>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along
> >>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).
>
> >>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for
> >>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .
>
> >>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should
> >>>> upgrade. ?
>
> >>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to
> >>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .
>
> >>> **** that.
>
> >> Really? ?That's a linux thing, I'm guessing. ?Is this a thing like
> >> needing to have a certain kernel version xx.xx (or whatever) in order
> >> to compile properly?
>
> > I think it's usually more a libc (C Runtime Library) version thing than
> > anything else, although certainly other lib s (Microsoft = DLLs) come
> > into play as well.
>
> > I think I hate RTLs, DLLs, etc.
>
> Total agreement.
>
> > The use of which should be quite convenient to malicious hackers as
> > well.
>
> I've always thought the OS should stand alone and no app can touch it either
> on disc or in memory. ?Device drivers on top of that. ?Apps on top of that
> and a shared space for data swapping and such. ?The biggest thing that I
> believe any decent OS should have are stand alone apps. ?EVERYTHING for the
> application called "whateverapp" gets installed into ONE folder (and any
> subfolders) and that's it! ?You want something off your system? ?Delete the
> folder. ?Done. ?Does anyone do that? ?Nope. ?Too easy and simple.
No shared libraries?
In the world of service-oriented architecture, the boundary between OS
and application becomes quite fuzzy.
--
Axel | D.A.R. | mhm23x3 | GS11
Meower since 1996-03-30 (wave 2.3) | mhm since 1998-06-18
Denizen of alt.food.dennys | Father of alt.food.mentos
Grand Ultimageneralissimo of the Shock and Awe wing of the Usenet
Flame Force / Defensive Alliance