Recent Posts
- is it the same as in classic mode, or...?-Darwin (March 22, 2009, 10:31 PM)
Now if we could only get Skrommel to make a Mouser Activate coding snack. That would be something!-Deozaan (March 22, 2009, 08:40 PM)
Windows XP (classic mode)?-Shades (March 22, 2009, 03:56 PM)
Actually Sun wrote that plugin and made it available to Microsoft Office back in February. I noticed, but didn't think it was Win7 worthy.
-zridling (March 21, 2009, 04:31 AM)
What may not be so widely known is that Windows 7 (the latest version of Windows which was available as a free beta) ships with a copy of WordPad that supports ODF as standard as the screenshot shows below:
Also, almost none of them appeared to be in .ico format, so they're not even really icons. They're just images.-Deozaan (March 21, 2009, 12:46 AM)
No - it's all good! I just get embarrassed sometimes at how poorly I make my points, a fact driven home when people post after me stating what I was trying to say much more eloquently-Darwin (March 17, 2009, 09:29 PM)
Even after all your comments about PAD files and updaters, I still stand by my suggestion of using a script as the download URL. You can then take into consideration all of those things and act accordingly.
I would even go one step further and offer up UIDs for anybody who requests on via a form on your website. Then have them pass that UID along with the URL and you will be able to easily track where the download request is coming from. You would be able to provide custom responses based on the UID, or the lack of a UID in the request.
app, as for your concern about disk space, besides the script making your concern moot, you can also do the same via hard links. Then the file only need be on your drive once and linked to from multiple locations. You can use hard links in Windows using a program like Link Shell Extension.-tinjaw (March 17, 2009, 06:58 PM)
How about both a direct download link and a link to the developer's/author's Website.-PhilB66 (March 17, 2009, 12:54 AM)
when people make mistakes let's try to find constructive ways to point them out and show them what's wrong and how to fix the problem.-mouser (March 17, 2009, 12:38 AM)
App i do think you missed one HUGE reason not to direct link, which is that the download locations for files frequently changes. When you direct link to a file, that link will be totally unusable if the author ever changes file name or location.-mouser (March 17, 2009, 12:16 AM)
And let's not forget that almost everything you say also carries for sites that host a local copy of the download on their own site and link to that (although i don't think it's a bad idea to link to a backup mirror copy in addition to the program website in case the original download or site dissapears).
Nice article, never done it myself. Either to the front page or to the program's details page, I would say one shouldn't even link to the download page itself if possible.-rgdot (March 17, 2009, 12:13 AM)
But regardless of which direction Microsoft takes -- WebKit or Gazelle -- it will still have to navigate the treacherous waters of legacy ActiveX support. And as someone who has spent some not-so-quality time developing ActiveX controls in the past, the need to maintain some sort of compatibility layer within any proposed IE replacement is a critical consideration.
For most casual users (i.e., grandma in her den surfing eBay), ActiveX was and is just another annoying RIA (rich Internet application) mechanism, one that has increasingly been supplanted by Adobe Flash or various AJAX-based mechanisms. However, for enterprise IT shops with a heavy Microsoft investment, ActiveX has long been an integral part of many in-house applications.
If Microsoft intends to pull the plug on IE after version 8, it will need to articulate a clear legacy migration strategy that allows these shops to preserve their investments in ActiveX controls and resources.
Finally, there's the matter of third-party developers using IE's rendering engine with their own applications. A good example would be a program that includes a help file in HTML format and then uses a custom form to display an embedded Web browser object to host the file. This embedded object is invariably an ActiveX container for the IE engine that's installed with Windows, so any attempt to remove IE from the OS -- or to radically change its core underpinnings -- will need to account for applications that rely on the existence of an accessible, programmable IE object model.
A document released by the Canadian government shows controversial issues are discussed, such as termination of internet access without court order. A "three strikes and you are out" approach will ban people from the internet, exclude them from essential information and communication. They will be excluded from part of society just on allegations of infringement, without judicial review.
According to a leaked ACTA Discussion paper, non-commercial and non-intentional acts may be included in ACTA, which goes beyond the weak 'commercial scale' limitations of IPRED1. The leaked draft indeed includes such infringements. The drawbacks of such an approach are dreadful. Citizens may be branded as counterfeiters. Media companies may like to chase every kid on the block that shares a music or movie fragment. But this approach crimininalizes journalists that reveal a document as well.
A non-commercial publication of a document on the Internet would fall under ACTA. This is a threat to the freedom of speech. If an office worker emails a copy of a market research report to his colleague at work, he may be considered to have infringed copyright. Harsh anti-piracy measures can be invoked against journalists, whistle blowers, office workers, companies and citizens. It will create an unprecedented scope of secondary liability for ISPs. They may be excluded from liability, but only if they immediately comply with all rights-holders wishes - even the disproportional ones.
Treating private copies as piracy will be in conflict with EU Directive 2001/29/EC. Under this Directive member states are allowed to allow private copies. People pay levies, but what are they entitled to do for their money? Make a mistake while exercising your rights and end up in jail? If one would like to stop private copies, that can only be done by invading peoples homes.
More dreadful measures are proposed by certain stakeholders, like an obligation for ISPs to install network-level filtering, block certain websites and protocols. This will be the end of the "net-neutrality" principle. It would be like the postal services would be forced to look into all letters and parcels. Filtering is inevitably over inclusive, limiting permitted speech (e.g., parody and other fair uses) and other protected activities (educational uses, lawful conversions of content for the disabled, using the Internet to transfer personal copies between home/office/car/vacation, using the Internet as cloud storage, The costs of filtering are immense. The beneficiaries are unwilling to pay the costs, which shows that any potential benefits are outweighed by the costs. Encryption will render filtering useless.
Such measures are disproportional and will harm innovation and legal security. They can only be executed at the price of privacy and the freedom of speech.