Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Applications => Topic started by: Kintaro on 20 April 2002, 08:40
-
I recently shown my Gf mozilla, she was sitting... on me well i was in a chatroom. And she said "I didn't know you had cable"
i go, "I dont"
she goes "but the pages load so fast"
i go "Thats what Mozilla can do"
she goes "Can you give me a copy"
My girlfriend is a very Computer Illeterate person.
She is a PC "Tenniebopper" who like MSN and all that crap. Now she uses Mozilla and Trillian... (http://smile.gif)
I must say, what a lovely occurance.
Thats what "The Trolls" think of Mozilla when they see it. (Unless they live in denial like clock and the Zombie and other "Trolls")
[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: X11 ]
-
quote:
My girlfriend is a very Computer Illeterate person.
She is a PC "Tenniebopper" who like MSN and all that crap. Now she uses Mozilla and Trillian...
Of course she does. She's not all that different from most of the folks out there - all they ever see is Macro$suck products. You can't walk into a Circuit City, Costco, or Best Buy and see Linux in action. All they'll show you is Winders Yeechhhsss Pee cause that's all they have. And His Gatesness has gone to considerable trouble to keep it that way. :mad:
As for Internet Exploder, it's absolutely the slowest browser I ever used. Why anyone would want to use that POS after seeing the alternatives in action is beyond me.
___________________________________
Powered by Mandrake Linux and Freedom
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
It takes IE some extra time to send data to MS HQ
Includeing (but not limited too)
* Address
* Credit Card
* PGP Keys
* Software Installed
* A snapshot of a webcam if you have one (http://smile.gif)
And must i say, why are none of the images working on this server all the sudden.
-
A sidetrack but related:
IE starts out really fine on Mac. Quick to start and has a nice way of opening the start page which I have chosen (Google). After a while, though, IE begins to cough. If you leave it on and do nothing to it or the computer it will slow down to an almost crawl. This never happens to Netscape or any of the other web browsers I have.
I don
-
This is what Mozilla does for you.
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg)
Hell, it can't even load some pages correctly.
Mozilla
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg)
IE
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg)
Mozilla is just so superior, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
If I really need to, I can post alot more images of where Mozilla doesn't work correctly. I swear you are retarded X11, IE doesn't send jackshit to MS's office. You are way too scared of Microsoft, LOL.
MSIE is faster at rendering JAva, Flash, etc. than Mozilla. MSIE's navigation icons look better than Mozilla's icons do. Also, notice how much smaller the IE throbber is than the Mozilla throbber?
[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Goto www.ryanspc.com (http://www.ryanspc.com) in IE
and then in Mozilla, see the difference
IE can display CSS (the top bar thing)
-
IE actually looks better...
-
My arse it does...
try http://x11.150m.com/taste.html (http://x11.150m.com/taste.html)
-
My vote for the best looking goes to IE6 on my box. (http://smile.gif)
-
Yes, but IE 6 spy's on you
-
Forgive me for saying so... but what is your site supposed to show? are you that short on hits?
-
If you use IE you cant view my site, i blocked it
-
quote:
If you use IE you cant view my site, i blocked it
People using IE, (or those who have their browser set to identify as IE) to foil this script kiddie's antics, just disable javascript if you want to see his "site." Otherwise it just sends you to the dell webpage (why the hell did you choose dell, dude? Why not redhat or suse or linux.org?)
PS Your webpage has a banner that says "Content enhanced. Use any browser." So why don't you let people use IE??
-
Actually - I do use IE along with Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape.
The link to your site, which you posted, does work on IE sorry to break it to you, and on neither of the browsers does it show that Mozilla displays websites 'better'. In fact I don
-
As much as Mozilla is a nice web browser for people who can't use Internet Explorer, it does NOT render better and it is NOT any faster. I'm dual booting Red Hat Linux and Win XP and Mozilla transfers data no faster than IE6. IE, however, renders extremely fast and never goofs up websites. Maybe Microsoft has a "monopoly" in web browsers because theirs is the best? :confused:
I sure as hell know nutscape and oprah aren't! Think about it: If IE were so bad people would dump it in favor of another web browser. In XP you can even uninstall both IE AND the MSN messenger under "add/remove programs” I know it comes installed by default but I don't complain that KDE doesn't let you even remove konqueror, do I? (PS on my computer clearing the cache on konq doesn't clear everything anyway) There's nothing stopping them! If someone is "stuck" with a lame web browser when there are so many other ones it is no one's fault but theirs.
PS Cut the talk about IE being spyware until you actually produce some evidence. There are many things wrong with Windows products but these ultra-paranoid conspiracy theories are a little much and add little to our credibility. Instead it makes us look just as kooky to outsiders as "Roswell" fanatics or members of some hick militia. At least IE doesn't put ad banners in your face like opera does!
I don't "love" MS or anything like that, but please lets keep our criticisms of Microsoft and Windows legitimate. I always try to, anyway.
-
Truth is that IE performs faster than any other equivalent browser. That's cause part of it's code is already loaded in memory when win starts. Using Mozilla or Netscape on slow comuters is awfully painful ...
Many webpages are incompatible with other browsers cause IE is the most popular (this one must change!).
Personally I use Opera, which is muzh faster than Mozilla or Netscape. And all that stuff like composers ... it sux. Get a real e-mail client!
P.S. Even under *nix using Mozilaa is pain ...
-
Don't know about other versions, but I get more crappy page rendering and shitty Java/Plug-in support on the Mac version of IE than it's version of Mozilla.
On the Mac like the PC, IE might be a bit snapier but I find Mozilla's overall performance to be supperior. Viewing even the pages Zombie484879546542 sayd Mozilla fucked up, seemed to render fine.
Foruthermore, I don't know what you guys are talking about when you say Opera on a PC is not faster, it's got it's problems but speed is certainly not one of them.
As far as IE loading part of it's code in to memory, that goes back to M$'s bullshit privetized API's which is unfair buisness in the first place. It dosn't matter what the competition does or want's to do, because M$ reserves a hefty chunk of it's fastest code for themselves.
Anyway, the best browser ever made is Netscape Communicator 4.5, and I wish they woulden't have switched to that shitty Netscape 6. If they kept developing the 4.5 core they would have had the best browser for sure.
-
quote:
Originally posted by juris:
Truth is that IE performs faster than any other equivalent browser. That's cause part of it's code is already loaded in memory when win starts. Using Mozilla or Netscape on slow comuters is awfully painful ...
Many webpages are incompatible with other browsers cause IE is the most popular (this one must change!).
Personally I use Opera, which is muzh faster than Mozilla or Netscape. And all that stuff like composers ... it sux. Get a real e-mail client!
P.S. Even under *nix using Mozilaa is pain ...
There is quick launch for mozilla....
And netscape. And you can close it to free
memory... can you Remove IE form the memory...
NO!, and Mozilla Renders, fine... maybe your using 0.80 or something. I use 1.0rc1 Mozilla Rules... and view this site in IE www.ryanspc.com (http://www.ryanspc.com)
then in Mozilla, it has CSS which IE is in capable of. And veiw this site with IE http://x11.150m.com (http://x11.150m.com)
it don dooo much... much at all.
-
Your a pore sad soul... :(
[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jonothan ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jonothan:
Your a pore sad soul... :(
[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jonothan ]
WHats that got taa do with it
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
This is what Mozilla does for you.
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg)
Hell, it can't even load some pages correctly.
Mozilla
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg)
IE
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg)
Mozilla is just so superior, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
If I really need to, I can post alot more images of where Mozilla doesn't work correctly. I swear you are retarded X11, IE doesn't send jackshit to MS's office. You are way too scared of Microsoft, LOL.
MSIE is faster at rendering JAva, Flash, etc. than Mozilla. MSIE's navigation icons look better than Mozilla's icons do. Also, notice how much smaller the IE throbber is than the Mozilla throbber?
[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
I will say i came over those problems... i think MS paid yahoo, because that problems a bit weird, but i did come over that first problem...
Its called ididots that cant write HTML
-
Yes! I finally downloaded Mozilla! It's just a tad slower than IE on my connection (128Kbs Cable) so I'm ok. I tried Netscape but fuck it's just too slow, and it looks similar to Mozilla. Also X11, the frames on your site are all buggered up because of the ads.
-
I know, i will get a Vhost... probably:
X11.fuckmicrosoft.com when i get cable and i can host my own site
[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: X11 ]
-
Hmm, I have cable.. I dont have a clue what a Vhost is.. explain!
-
Virtual host, see how we are at www.fuckmicrosoft.com, (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com,) and the forums are forums.fuckmicrosfot.com, taht's a Vhost.
Likewise, the admin can give out as many vhosts as he wants. X11.fuckmicrosfot.com etc.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron:
Hmm, I have cable.. I dont have a clue what a Vhost is.. explain!
Its like a domain entry...
I goes to your IP...
X11.fuckmicrosoft.com will be my
"Domain name" and hits to it will goto
"My webserver"
-
my vhost is gonna be chatroom.fuckmicrosoft.com
eventually i will put a chat room there.
-
Ahh yes, I tried doing the Vhost for this site once.. but my IP was wrong? Apparently IP's dont have numbers above 250... mine has a 288 in it.
-
Errr, www.fuckmicrosoft.com (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com) and forums.fuckmicrosoft.com are on different IP's so surely they're actual hosts, not virtual hosts?
Virtual hosting would be serving several different host/domain name sites from one real server...
I assume what X11's talking about is having fuckmicrosoft.com's dns server pointing x11.fuckmicrosoft.com to his cable IP address so he can serve a web site from it, but that's not really virtual hosting.
-
that is what he is talking about, but isn't it what a vhost really is? because the host appears to be fuckmicrosoft.com but it actually isn't. Meaning it is virtually hosted by fuckmicrosoft.com.
I thought the vhost thing allowed the webmaster of this site to give away subdomains and people would have their own servers to use those domain names with...
Isn't that what a vhost is?
-
fuckmicrosoft.com is the domain, not the host.
[www|forums].fuckmicrosoft.com are the hosts.
Virtual hosting is supported in the HTTP/1.1 protocol where the browser sends the server the name of the host it is requesting, and the server will give out a different homepage to a client that requests "tom.cat.net" from that which it gives out to "jerry.mouse.com". This makes it look like there are two physical machines whereas there is really only one. (This assumes that DNS records for both hostnames resolve to the same IP address!)
-
(dummy mode on)
oh, right...
so, and forgive me here please, does this mean that the IP address will be the same, but the actual server that those sites are on will serve up a site from a different directory purely depending on the actual domain name?
(dummy mode off)
-
Not sure if you're being sarcastic there, Calum!
Assuming you are... anyway yes, except that it serves up from a different directory dependent up on the fully qualified hostname, not just the domain name.
I realise I'm being a little pedantic here, but a system whereby additional hosts are setup in DNS within the same domain, pointing to separate hosts is not really virtual hosting as such since each is a host within its own right.
If those hosts setup within the domain were all served from the same physical host, then it would be virtual hosting...
-
no, no, i usually am being a bit sarcastic, but i didn't mean to imply that you were being pedantic. vhosts is one of those things that, while simple i'm sure, i find it difficult to wrap my brain around, and i bet i'm not the only one!
-
Sorry! It took me a while when I first encountered them, but then I spent ages wrestling with httpd.conf to get my head round the virtual hosts configuration of Apache when I was doing my RHCE, so it kind of stuck after that.
To all intents and purposes to the casual observer there probably isn't really much appreciable difference between assigning additional physical hosts to a DNS domain and virtual hosting. That said, in the early years (well, about five years ago!) I learned most of what I know now almost exclusively through forums like this and I'm assuming there are others in a similar position now... thought it worthwhile to point out the distinction!
Cheers
Ian
[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: IanC ]
-
Well yeah, but what about my question?! Is it possible for an IP address to have a number above 250? Mine has a 288 in it, Calum can see that himself, so is it just ATT's fucked up thing or what?
-
Not possible unless your provider uses IPv6 but even so the remote end would see you as IPv4 which means you have a 4 byte IP address. A byte (8 bits) has a value of 0-255 for a total of 256 possible combinations for each part. You will only see an IP address with numbers between 0 and 255. and the last number will be between 1 and 254 because 0 on the last byte would certainly be part of a "network" address (cannot be assigned as an IP address on a computer, it's a special address). And 255 on the last byte would certainly be part of a "broadcast" address (cannot be assigned as an IP address on a computer, it's also a special address).
If you see a number above 255 in your IP address then there is most certainly a flaw in the program that is looking at or logging your IP address, unless of course you have an IPv6 address which is unlikely.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
This is what Mozilla does for you.
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg)
Hell, it can't even load some pages correctly.
Mozilla
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg)
IE
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg)
Mozilla is just so superior, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
If I really need to, I can post alot more images of where Mozilla doesn't work correctly. I swear you are retarded X11, IE doesn't send jackshit to MS's office. You are way too scared of Microsoft, LOL.
MSIE is faster at rendering JAva, Flash, etc. than Mozilla. MSIE's navigation icons look better than Mozilla's icons do. Also, notice how much smaller the IE throbber is than the Mozilla throbber?
[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
i'm not sure i know what the hell you are talking about. http://chat.yahoo.com (http://chat.yahoo.com) renders perfectly using Mozilla on Red Hat 7.2, checl out my screenshot: www.angelfire.com/ri2/42/images/ (http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/42/images/)
[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality ]
-
Wait wait wait, I'm wrong, it wasnt a 288, it was a 251, still that's higher than 250.
EDIT: Damn I'm missing today, it wasnt 254, it's 251! Sheesh!
[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]
-
it can be over 255 if im correct???
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
This is what Mozilla does for you.
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla1.jpg)
Hell, it can't even load some pages correctly.
Mozilla
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/mozilla2.jpg)
IE
http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg (http://zombie9922.homestead.com/files/msie1.jpg)
Mozilla is just so superior, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
If I really need to, I can post alot more images of where Mozilla doesn't work correctly. I swear you are retarded X11, IE doesn't send jackshit to MS's office. You are way too scared of Microsoft, LOL.
MSIE is faster at rendering JAva, Flash, etc. than Mozilla. MSIE's navigation icons look better than Mozilla's icons do. Also, notice how much smaller the IE throbber is than the Mozilla throbber?
[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Idiot, Here MOZILLA ON YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I might boot into win 98, use IE till it crashes and do a screenshot.
Mozilla On Yahoo.com (http://x11.150m.com/mozilla-yahoo.jpg)
The adds and some other stuff haddn't loaded up yet
[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: X11 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by X11:
it can be over 255 if im correct???
You would be incorrect.
-
whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooops, i ment it cant.
-
Then you would be correct. (http://smile.gif)
-
So then, 255 is the maximum IP.
Your IP (on IPv4) cant be above that because, the packet is only 32 bit and it is sliced into 8bit segments x.x.x.x 8 bit is 0-255, like 8 bit color is 256 colors, and 16 bit is (0-65536) and 32 is 5 billion, so there is a maximum of 5 billion IP addresses on the internet, so when 5/6 of the world population get online, we've got problems!!!
So there is IPv6 (How may bit addresses is that?)
-
IPv6 is 128-bit, so 2^^128 addresses, which is
(deep breath)
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
addresses.
Should keep us going for a while.
-
quote:
Originally posted by X11:
so there is a maximum of 5 billion IP addresses on the internet, so when 5/6 of the world population get online, we've got problems!!!
It could become a problem, but there are ways around it. That's where off-net subnetting comes in handy. There can only be 4 billion "public" addresses. Most large companies use off net addresses and require only 1 or a few IP public addresses on their firewall. Every company can use the same IP range using off-net addresses. But cable/dsl providers are issuing public addresses to customers so there definately would be a problem if everyone in the world had a cable/dsl connection unless providers start using off-net addresses for their customers.
[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
It's a workaround, but not really a very good one. Companies can make do with such an arrangement because they'll have a DMZ ("Demilitarized Zone") with their Internet-accessible machines in, and everyone within the company will use various proxies for external connectivity. That doesn't really pose too many problems, and in fact significantly improves security.
However, when you get to the home market, you've got problems...
1) Some people (like most of us, probably) will want to run some kind of server on their cable connection, whether it's SSH, HTTP, whatever. That's impossible when the ISP's using NAT or IP masquerading.
2) Everyone on your local subnet will be using the same real IP address. This means that if *anyone* on that IP address upsets the moderators of a forum, ftp site, whatever, that IP address may get blocked and no-one on it can access the site.
3) As additional security on my work connection, I only allow connections to SSH from my real, static IP address. If I was sharing an IP address with 254 other people, I'd have to give all of them access too (of course they wouldn't have the password but we saw recently that SSH isn't necessarily immune to cracking!).
I look forward to the day when IPv6 is standard and every home can have 254 IP addresses to do with what they please.
Though I doubt I'll be able to remember my IP address like I do now!
-
Oh yeah, and another problem I've just thought of...
Many companies tend to use the same private IP spaces... we recently had a situation where we needed to allow another company to dial directly into our network, but they used the same private IP space as us.
Basically, we were fscked... couldn't happen, unless they used a standalone PC detached from their network to do it. This would never happen if everyone had a proper IP address!
-
Actually off-net addresses are great for companies. Security being a big reason. As far as hooking up to companies with clashing off-net networks. All you have to do is IP translation at the router, and some DNS trickery on both sides. I have done this on a few occasions. But it certainly isn't pretty and if the connection were to be permanent it would be best to reassign new networks to one side or the other.
Most providers now are putting it in their rules that you are not "allowed" to have a server, or more than one PC on your cable/dsl connection (yeah right!). But you are correct, we all like to have inbound capabilies at home. And of course Microsoft needs a way to get into their back doors...
[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]