29 March 2007

Notes 8 Beta on Ubuntu


Well, I'll-be-damned. Decided to install the Notes 8 Beta in my Ubuntu 6.06 virtual machine (even though IBM says it needs SuSE) and guess what?


It installs and works perfectly, from what I see.

I haven't yet got it connected up to any network -- my virtual machine doesn't hook up the local LAN, and besides; I don't know what the network administrators will say if they see me manipulating the server with beta software...

I really can't get any more explicit with this article (in case you came here looking for tips), because it installed so damn easy!

Dell gives the go ahead for Linux

BBC NEWS | Technology | Dell gives the go ahead for Linux

I really wish I could be more excited about this, but Dell has pulled this "oh boy oh boy we're going to preinstall Linux!" crap before, usually in order to get better prices from Microsoft.

Linux preinstalled on a Dell? I'll believe it when I see it.

And if it's Novell's Linux, you can just forget about it. :P

26 March 2007

Focused Advertising



You see? This is the reason why I hate "viewer-centric" advertising engines (those that try and match pertinent advertising images with keywords in the article that you're currently reading). Oftentimes they produce terribly uncouth combinations such as these.

22 March 2007

Japan diplomat: Blonds 'no good' in Mideast talks

Japan diplomat: Blonds�'no good' in Mideast talks - CNN.com
Squishy Face


...

Does this guy get what's funny about him making fun of anyone else's face?

Anyway, this is kind of a non-issue -- the actual percentage of Westerners today that still have natural blond hair and blue eyes is very, very low. I've heard they're recessive traits. (Look around you? What's the most common color of hair? I bet it's brown.)

20 March 2007

Winning Against Linux The Smart Way

Winning Against Linux The Smart Way

In case you don't notice, this was made by Microsoft. It's so nice to know that they've figured out how to classify Linux users into five, easy-to-market-to categories.

Good luck trying to show how Linux has a higher TCO than Windows to anyone who knows what they're talking about, boys.

UPDATE:

In the rapid response to this site, one user on Slashdot posted his five "typical" Windows users to market for, and I thought they were so good I just had to post them here:


1. The Gamer - Windows is a requirement to play most games, so it's the default OS of choice.

2. Your Parents - they don't really know much about computers and will use whatever the computer they bought came with.

3. Market Follower - M$ bitches.

4. The Windows Enthusiast - these people are extremely rare. They actively believe that M$ products are superior to anything else out there and believe that if something is free, there must be something wrong with it.

5. Scientists, Engineers, Professionals - use Windows due to vital software existing only on that platform.

16 March 2007

Redesigned Ubuntu Site!

Redesigned Ubuntu Site - Ubuntu.com
Looks like Ubuntu up and redesigned their site without me knowing about it! I haven't yet passed judgement. Some of the stuff about it I like (like the much, much, much improved download feature), some of the stuff I don't (like the absence of the "happy asian tech support guy" who was always in the side bar).

The new download page, like I said, is a vast improvement, though they still need to get rid of the mirror selection menu! People don't want to bother with that, and the sight of that big long list with all of those options from tons of different countries and weird-sounding colleges could potentially turn people off.

Make it automatic! Many websites already have automatic mirror selection based upon geographic location -- I don't see why Ubuntu.com couldn't implement the same thing!

We linux users have to stop assuming that people are going to already know what a "mirror" is or how to use one -- intellectual superiority like that is one of the main reasons why linux hasn't caught on more.

12 March 2007

Firefox, NoScript, Woe is me.






For the past few months on my work computer (and even longer on my home computer) I've noticed that my web browsing via Firefox has slowed to an absolute crawl. Firefox would take almost 45 seconds just to load up, and each page loaded with the horrifying speed of glass (which is actually an extremely viscous liquid -- ha ha, science! *thrusts finger in air*).

I realized right away that this wasn't Firefox's fault. Why? Because I'd use other peoples' computers with Firefox, and their copies loaded quickly, browsed quickly, and rendered quickly...

That left only one thing, right? It was an extension slowing me down. But which one?

I figured it was one of two -- either NoScript or Adblock.

Now, Adblock used to slow me down until I figured out my tried-and-true-two-entries-only-blocking-list:


/[^A-Za-z0-9]ad[s]?[^A-Za-z0-9]/
/(2o7|a\d\.yimg|ad(brite|click|farm|revolver|server|tech|vert)|
at(dmt|wola)|banner|bizrate|blogads|bluestreak|burstnet|casalemedia|
coremetrics|(double|fast)click|falkag|(feedster|right)media|
googlesyndication|hitbox|httpads|imiclk|intellitxt|js\.overture|kanoodle|
mediaplex|nextag|pointroll|qksrv|speedera|statcounter|tribalfusion|
webtrends)(\d+[x]\d+)?/


These two lines stop almost all banner ads of any sort, and it's easy for the Adblock engine to parse. The problem of a huge Adblock-list plagued me some time ago, but after replacing my enormous block list with these two lines, the problem went away.

Now about a year or so later, the problem has arisen once again, and this left only one possible answer: NoScript.

You would think so, eh? Turns out it wasn't that easy. I've installed Firefox on new computers and added NoScript, and it ran with no problems -- fast as can be. Then what was wrong with my installation, specifically?

Well, what was the difference between a NoScript installation on a new computer and my main NoScript installation?

My banned/allowed scripts list, of course. My five-thousand-line-long banned/allowed scripts list.

If you're picky like me, you don't like having ad farms deliver content to you. You don't like being the target of "customer-orientated advertising campaigns," you don't like having "relevant marketing content" delivered to you, and you definitely don't like being the source of "valid consumer visitation information" for companies. You like buying the things that you want to buy, not things that you've been subtly prodded into buying. (Trust me -- just go to Tacoda.net and look at some of their "consumer profiles." You're not a person to these organizations -- you're not even a group of people. You're just a line in a database somewhere.)

I stop almost every single bit of JavaScript that runs in my browser when I'm web-surfing, except for whatever's coming from the main site that I'm visiting. (Trust me, I program JavaScript as a career. I know what it can do, and I don't want it doing it!) Well, over time, my "blocked/allowed domains" list in NoScript had become very, very, very large. And everytime I started up Firefox or tried to load a new page, NoScript was having to check each and every bit of JavaScript against that enormous list... even clicking on the NoScript context menu to bring it up was starting to take a full three seconds.

So, what do you do? Well, it seems the makers of NoScript must have come across this problem, because they've included a feature to always allow JavaScript from whatever domain you're currently visiting -- this is something I always allow anyway, since the main culprits of JavaScript-delivered ad-farming are almost always off-site domains (tacoda.net, doubleclick.net, etc.). You're pretty safe in always allowing the domain you're visiting to run JavaScript on your computer.

I turned on this option, but I still had to get rid of that giant permissions list, now didn't I? You can do that from within the NoScript control panel, but my list was so large that every time I tried to remove the entire thing, Firefox would lock up. Poor thing... :(

I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the extension... to no avail. Unfortunately, Firefox keeps the settings of whatever extensions you've installed. (There really should be an option to stop that!)

I wasn't going to re-install Firefox, so what now? Well, on NoScript's site, they talk about this exact thing:

"If you want to erase your whitelist you can either use the NoScript Options user interface (recommended option) or remove from the aforementioned prefs.js all the preference entries whose name starts with 'capability.policy.maonoscript'.:"

The prefs.js file seems to be a collection of items in some sort of array, and the particular entry for NoScript was disgusting huge. So, I uninstalled NoScript first (just to make sure I wasn't editing its prefs.js section while it was installed), took out the relevant lines from prefs.js, and turned on the "allow top-level sites" option.

Ah... browsing revisited. Running NoScript in this fashion -- allowing all top-level JavaScript and only banning off-site scripts -- is so much more efficient.

09 March 2007

What the hell...?

What the hell is this touchy-feely crap!?! Here I am, purchasing a system that's the equivalent of a farking Lamborghini to the computing world, with ten-thousand add-ons and two power-sucking 8800 GTX's, and Dell offers to "plant a tree for me?"

Buddy, you'd have to plant a fucking grove of trees to offset this shit.

Ten bucks says they never even plant a tree when you select this option, either. Trust me, that six bucks just goes to some "fund" to plant trees where it's eventually funneled into some fatcat's wallet.

Seriously -- the fact that they offer to plant just one tree whether you get a 12-inch laptop or this monster shows just how much BS it is.

08 March 2007

Readers fields and groups

Using and understanding Reader Names fields in IBM Lotus Notes and Domino

Guess what I found out! If you're trying to be lazy and stick an entire group into a reader field... don't. Maybe it's just me (or my server) or whatever, but I couldn't get it to work.

Roles work much better. Give the entire group a role in your ACL, and just put the role into the readers field (surrounded by brackets and quotes, of course).

Enjoy.

07 March 2007

Double FileSave on Web

I've been making several "updating" buttons for web forms that I have -- basically, they're secure ways to edit server-side fields and then have the results displayed on a web form. It requires a reload, but that's the price you have to pay for security (and simplicity -- there's no need to bring out AJAX for this).

All the buttons really have is a little bit of formula code and a @Command([FileSave]) at the end -- like I said, simple stuff. The field is updated, the page reloads, and the user returns to the very same document, still in edit mode. No FileCloseWindow performed, nothing.

Well, the weirdness started when I added a bit more code after the initial FileSave (just a little bit of cleaning up of data) followed by another filesave -- guess what started to happen? The form started closing, just as if there was a FileCloseWindow in there. WTF, eh?

Took me a couple of tries, but I eventually removed the second FileSave and all was well. Beats me as to why this happens -- perhaps Domino interprets any two formula commands on the web to mean an implied FileCloseWindow?

Modding up. Foxit Reader.

Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters

I got my first group of moderation points in Slashdot today! Yay!! It's an honor not given to everyone. Watch out, flamebait!

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

In other news, if you haven't started using FoxIt Reader, start today. Get rid of Adobe Acrobat forever. Among its other great benefits (incredibly small size, no need for an installer), I just noticed that it has the neatest inline update installation utility -- you can do it right there inside the program.

Yeah, big whoop, eh? Hey -- features like this are amazing for a program that's completely free and made by a company with less employees than your local McDonald's.

01 March 2007

MPAA: We Were Only Testing Forest Blog | TorrentFreak

MPAA: We Were Only Testing Forest Blog | TorrentFreak

Jesus -- talk about hypocrisy at its worst.

How far do you think we (the average consumer) would get with them if we claimed we were just "testing out" a movie or song before we bought it?