neylitalo

Looks as though Google has decided that copy-and-paste may be flawed when it comes to writing EULAs for their products: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7597699.stm

I saw that this morning. Unless they fix their license agreement, it won't even make it onto my computer.

I rather liked the comic. It was sufficiently technical while being still easy to read.

And, naturally, they don't have the linux version ready...

Daniel0: dos2unix takes care of that.

It uses the same rendering engine as Safari, so I think you're safe there.

I must admit, after reading the comic and learning more about the new ideas implemented in the Chrome browser, I am intrigued. I stand before you a changed man. Well. Not quite, but I'm interested, anyway. I think the part I'm most looking forward to is the separate memory space for each tab - hopefully their claim of less memory bloat is realized. As a few have already mentioned, though, I won't be ready to make the move until I see a way to analyze the DOM, watch JS execution, and analyze requests and responses a la Firebug, and streamline the pages I look at a la AdBlock Plus. And, of course, until it stabilizes.

That is incredibly false. Here is a description of one record label's radio licensing policy.

I am unimpressed and unconcerned. It may be a decent product, but I very much doubt that it will get to be a force of any kind in the near future.

I learn best when I haven't deflated my wallet in the process. In all seriousness, though, I find that books on programming, especially books on such specific topics, are a waste of time. You can probably get the same (or better) information from a good tutorial, or by reading the manual. Books on theory, on the other hand, are an excellent purchase - any programming book I buy is not going to be riddled with code unless it's pseudo-code.

Any additional layers come with a stability and security risk. If you have something running in the graphical environment, and the desktop crashes (as X likes to do on occasion), then you lose any and all processes that were spawned within it. And if you forget to lock the screen when you leave, someone can just walk in and do whatever they like. Also, the "I know how to use Gnome" argument is weak in this situation. Most production servers are certainly not going to be running a graphical environment (for the above two reasons, as well as the added resource drain that most graphical environments are), and when you get into a situation where it's not running the graphical environment, you're going to be crippled. You should learn how to use the command-line tools, for a few reasons. You get more control and power, more informative error messages, and once you learn them, you will never be unable to perform a task because of a missing graphical environment or one you don't know.

Character recognition is actually pretty easy, but if the image has no identifiers to indicate that it's something important, then the bots won't know to look at it. I dare say that you're pretty safe.

I named my machines after places in Greek mythology. General server: parthenon Workstation: olympus Laptop: atlantis What pattern do you use to name your machines?

I've worked with Greek gods, Disney characters, Star Wars characters, and boring purpose descriptions - never comic characters, though. I think I might have to use that next time.

I had no complaints with them in the two instances I worked with them - the only problem I had was with their username scheme. (They use more-or-less random strings of characters.)

Understood. I try to stay away from sharing documents like that, because it just causes a lot of headaches. And I guess I'm kinda lucky, because I never really have to do anything other than publish documents, so I just render them as HTML and put them on the web.

If you're going between the two, then you haven't really replaced it.

I think we've established that Google is, indeed, still working.

I suppose I should mention that this won't break anything. Unix systems use UID, not usernames, for permissions and everywhere else they need to refer to a user.

# usermod -l david jdm # mv /home/jdm /home/david

You seem to be under the impression that we're looking at the PHP source and not the HTML that gets sent to the browser. I'm not sure why that is, as we've said "HTML source" a dozen times, but meh. The problem is in the 100%. Change all tables with a width of 100% to have a width of 99% and the problem will go away.

You posted a screenshot of display.php, not of browse.php, and don't even try to say that there's no whitespace. I just looked at the HTML source for browse.php in three different browsers, two of them Internet Explorer, and I get an empty line at the top. So has everybody else. But anyway. That's not the problem. AFTER removing the empty line at the top of the source of browse.php, look at line 66. width='100%' That is the problem. Find the place where those tables get generated (in both files) and change it to 99%. I'll send the bill in the mail.

Dada, are you trying to tell us that when you right-click > view source on local/browse.php, you don't see an empty line at the top?

Steve, that may be a bit tricky with a laptop. I've looked at several models, and even after completely disassembling them, I was unable to find an easy way to reset the BIOS settings.

Software licensing is a tricky issue, and something that shouldn't be taken too lightly. The GPL is indeed one way to license your software, but there are oodles of other ways to license. The basic ways to license software, in order of my favorite to least favorite as a consumer, are copyleft, permissive, and proprietary. GPL falls into the copyleft category - the idea behind copyleft is to declare a set of freedoms that the users have, but also to guarantee and extend those freedoms to every single user of the software. Licenses like BSD, MIT/X11, and Apache are permissive. Permissive licenses are written with the intent that the users of the software can do whatever they want with it. There is one thing that users of BSD or MIT licensed software cannot do: Re-distribute the software under a different license. (Users of original-BSD licensed software also may not use the name of the original copyright holders in promotions for software derived from the original.) The Apache license is extremely permissive - it even allows for re-licensing of software, as long as you include a notice with your software to inform users that you used Apache code in your product. Permissive licensing has the distinct drawback of not guaranteeing freedoms to all users. And, naturally, proprietary licenses (commonly called End User License Agreements) are the most restrictive. One nice side-effect of proprietary licensing is that you can make more money with it, but you also lose a lot of advantages that come with copyleft or permissive licensing. I wrote a little article on this, a while back - you can read it here if you're interested.