What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
66 Comments
- nanostream, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40"Mozilla president kicks Ballmer, trashes DRM, quotes Spiderman"
pics or it didn't happen - shadus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27FTA: “It is stupid to think that the key to a DRM system won’t leak. So if it becomes more painful for a legitimate customer to use a product than it is for the pirates then that’s a problem,” he says.
That's my major problem with drm-- it punishes legitimate users and people who use warez copies don't even notice that there ever was drm... because it was cracked off in a matter of minutes. I think the origin of the issue is the fact that businesses think if they eliminate piracy they will increase sales... thats typically not true, a pirate will just find another program to use thats easier to break. - z3r0c0O1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Buried for exaggerating.
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Reading digg in Firefox is a pain in the ass. Load up a digg page and Firefox bogs down to the point that your entire system comes to a halt, and just when you think everything has crashed, it pops up the "There is an unresponsive script. Would you like to stop it?" message. It's frustrating.
- brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10 How does he react to criticisms that Firefox is slowly becoming bloated?
“No, Firefox is getting speedier and speedier."
He should give Digg's commenting AJAX code a spin in Firefox and then we'll see how "speedy" firefox is. Of course, it's mainly Digg's bloated code that's to blame in this instance. So then maybe he should open some PDF files with it, or open more than 3 tabs at once to see how the entire browser locks up when one of the pages takes a little bit longer to load. - luchid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Install Foxit Reader and get rid of the awful Adobe Reader. Much faster.
- Escamotage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7“I don’t think DRM has a future. Treating your customers like thieves is bad business practice. Today the customer is not ‘king’, they are considered thief first.”
Brilliant. - mfalk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"They understand that, as Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility.”
uhhh Uncle Ben said that, not Spider-man. - Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That may very well be one of the best titles for a story I have ever seen on Digg. The only way it could be better was if he chewed bubblegum at the end.
- shadus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Try reformatting, I'm running mozilla on an am2 amd processor and a ancient intel p4... the am2 was built a month or so ago and the intel was built and last reformatted... uh... 6 mo after xp came out? Both run flawlessly. Prior the am2 an intel 3200+ was in this machine and I can count the mozilla crashes across all 3 systems on 1 hand.
Sounds like your computer needs some serious work or someone competent to maintain it. - coolbru, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Microsoft did not get their dominant market by pointing guns at people"
Technically not, but it certainly wasn't nice, legal or fair. I think you must have missed out on what they were doing. The deal was: you sell someone a PC with Windows on it. MS gets a cut. You sell a PC without Windows on it. MS still gets a cut, even though MS has nothing to do with it. They didn't let you sell PCs with windows unless you also paid for those that don't, and since you needed to sell windows, you had to agree to their terms. So anytime you bought a computer from someone that sold PCs with Windows, you were being forced to pay MS for the privilege (though it wouldn't have appeared as a line item on your bill). And that applied to every single sale, not just those to corporates. This drastically distorted the market and the raised barrier to entry for any other OS vendor (because their price to the retailer was effectively the price of Windows plus their own cost, driving their prices artificially high) meant the consumer was indeed forced to put up with an inferior product. So when you ask "Show me one person on the planet who is FORCED to go with Microsoft for anything." it's easy to answer: you. If you don't see what a monumental abuse of what was indeed a straightforward monopoly, I don't hold much hope for you. That was only one of many charges they were found guilty of. The most incredible thing about the whole case is that having been found guilty on all counts, they more or less walked away unpunished.
The subtext of all these predatory activities also gives one clear impression: MS didn't think their products were good enough to win on merit. - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Install the PDF Downloader, which allows you to open PDFs in Acrobat Reader outside of Firefox, so Adobe's crashing software doesn't crash Firefox.
- omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A browser can challenge another browser. A web-based office suite challenging the desktop office world, at this point, is ridiculous.
- AlanLivingston, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"uhhh Uncle Ben said that, not Spider-man."
And Uncle Ben was speaking the sentiment of Churchill's words. This guy wrongly attributes a quote to Spider-Man, and worse yet, doesn't even seem to realize that Stan Lee was paraphrasing Churchill.
He's the prototypical marketing guy. He's trying to sound current and relevant but not really understanding the underlying message of what he's preaching / selling. - Bleue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3'So is Steve Ballmer a block on innovation at Microsoft? “Could be, yes,” '
Hmm, this is kicking Ballmer?
'I don't think DRM has a future...' is also quite tame.
And this is not the president of mozilla, this is the president of mozilla europe.
I understand the impetus to sensationalize to increase views must be pretty strong, and/or a personal bias can put a pretty strong spin on a story, but this is pushing it a bit I think. - fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly what omarciddo said. MS Office's competitor is Open Office, not a feature poor mashup of html/css/javascript. I say feature poor not because they're poorly made but because the technologies and environment used simply do not allow for it to be even close to equivalent. You can't even access necessary keys properly - spreadsheet or word processing without such keys as "Tab"?? JavaScript also does not scale well - look at .Mac's new photo galleries to see something cripplingly slow that desktop software can and does do blindingly fast.
- ronaldb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm just picturing this: Nitot kicks Ballmer, Ballmer grabs a chair and chases Nitot (monkey boy fashion of course), Nitot trashes through some DRM (got some troubling picturing a DRM - what does it look like), chaos ensues....
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its the title of the article.
- surf314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Doesn't he say it in the voice over like all the freaking time. Beaten by a technicality.
- jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4FTA “We don’t want to incorporate features for the sake of features - only where it makes sense for the user experience.”
- odd that he used to work for netscape, considering they pioneered features for features sake.
FTA “My dream is that they (apple / safari) eventually pick the Mozilla / Gecko / Webkit combination and give up Safari,” he says. “We see Safari and Firefox as allies in bringing diversity to the Web.”
how, exactly, is this diversifying the web if safari and mozilla both use the same rendering engines and technologies? that doesn't make sense. that becomes monopolising the web.
FTA - Later he goes further: “We are not against Microsoft, but we are against Microsoft’s monopoly [of the browser market]. So, when mozilla take the lead from microsoft, which is just a matter of time, will he be against himself, purely because of a monopoly? I doubt it. Yes, mozilla has some legitimate reasons to be 'anti' microsoft, or 'anti' internet explorer, but don't pretend bend the truth as to what they are. mozillites have hatred for microsoft, it's evident in their marketing, so why not just come out and say it? Ultimately, the better browser with better standards support will win. Overall i thought the guy was talking oxymorons, and being hypocritical. - rayraym0fucka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have the same problem with IE7, but I load all the comments rather than keep them "minimized".
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This also happens in Seamonkey and Camino, so it's clearly a Gecko problem (and not related to XUL, extensions, or anything in Firefox itself).
- bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You didn't actually read beyond the headline, did you? The article and the summary both say "President of Mozilla Europe"; it's only the headline that says "Mozilla president".
- Garfunkel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I am interested in their plans to launch their products further into the embedded market, such as for the OLPC project. I think that's a wise move if they are to grow. Nice guy.
- peleken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would have quoted Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or ... the .. one. Live ... long and ............. pros......per" Then I would have collapsed on the table dead. Take that Microsoft!!!!
- ladbroke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3When I read the headline about quoting Spiderman, I was hoping for something along the lines of "How do I shot Microsoft?"
- JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Read the article. He didn't kick anybody. I was all excited and everything.
Buried: Misleading - winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Firefox crashes daily on my work pc but I have no problems on my other 2 at home.
- Jalh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1sure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTgi8TP-p0
- CircleFusion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hear people say this a lot. I don't know what I'm doing differently, but I don't experience that. I have the latest Firefox with a handful of plugins related to web development. I view Digg on a daily basis. The comment system never halts or slows to a crawl for me while using Firefox.
I do, however, have difficulty with some other AJAX web-apps that run slowly on Firefox, like RoundCube mail. But it's in beta, so I'm not expecting too much from it just yet. I suspect those issue have more to do with the app than the Javascript engine. Could that be the case with Digg also? - ByteGuerilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How do I shot semantic web?
- Arawn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Open Manage Bookmarks, export your bookmarks, then uninstall Firefox (I assume it is), then go to your Windows profile and delete Mozilla Firefox folders (both on Application Data and Local Definitions\Application Data). After that, when you install Firefox again, it will re-create the folders. You will need to re-install Acrobat Reader again to install the plugin. Then, open Manage Bookmarks, and import your bookmarks. I think it will solve your problem. P.S.: you will need to re-install any extension you had before...
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Show me one person...": Students, government contractors, web developers.
- SpencerMc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not even mentioning simple software compatibility...
- Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I took exception to that too, but it could still be considered correct, as a loose colloquial usage of referencing a quote. I'll let it slide by assuming he's referencing the quote from 'Spider-Man,' the FILM, not Spider-Man himself.
- habbofresh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well then it's still misleading as a headline then, no?
- MirandaJanell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not a matter of who needs it, rather who wants it. Firefox is not distributed with the IRC client, it's an extension. You don't have to bloat Firefox, but you definitely have the option to if you'd like to.
- migla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Just because uncle Ben (and Churchill and others too) said that before, doesn't mean Spiderman never said it.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I meant to say article title.
- benplaut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1omarciddo: try thinkfree office and you might reconsider...
- Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Refusing to see the monopoly is naiveté on your part, not ours.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1i dunno, lol
- aside, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the rice guy said that?
- BHSPitMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"We had the opportunity to sit down with Nitot, whose opening remarks were 'Go, web, go!'"
- Prod_Deity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"well, lets look at it another way. Microsoft's biggest competitor in the os market is apple.
or can you buy a pc without windows?
can you buy an apple without mac os?
Apple is a hardware vendor. You buy the computer, and OS X is practically dirt cheap. - antdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Videos would be OK too.
- earthwormzim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Microsoft never used guns to force anyone to carry their products/services. They used business negotiations....and the deal went something like this: "Yeah, we're Microsoft. I'm sure you might have heard of us. If you want to be able to carry our product, you must agree to our terms. Otherwise, you are on your own." Yes, those may be harsh terms, but there is no force involved. There are no guns. Then you, as a PC retailer must make up your mind whether or not you wish to agree to their terms. You CAN DISAGREE and choose not to carry Microsoft products. But, that probably would not be a wise business move on your part...being that carrying Microsoft products would probably increase sales in your PC store...so...again, I don't see any harm done. Besides, it isn't like carrying agreeing to Microsoft's terms will cost the PC dealer more than it would make him/her...for if it were, NO ONE would carry Microsoft products. It's a simple business decision.
And, I've never been "forced" to use Windows...except at school, but the schools are run by governments...and governments = force. Also, whilst in school, I've been required to work with Mac's as well, so that point is moot. But, that's not an issue with Microsoft or Apple...that's a government issue.
And, again, you say the "consumer was indeed forced to put up with an inferior product"...lol...where's the gun? The consumer has the choice to pick an inferior product or pay a premium to get the superior product. And often times, they choose the superior, even though it maybe several times more expensive (or in the case of Linux, infinitely more expensive)! And why? Because, Microsoft ain't doing all that work for nothing! It's all business...supply and demand. If the demand is great, it is simply a wise business move to increase prices to whatever the market will bear. If Microsoft starts demanding too much, their business will decline. And being that Microsoft has never used guns to force anyone to buy their product, but yet they still managed to dominate the market...that means one thing: they are masters of business!
And the funny things is...you admit that (apparently) Microsoft has a superior product...but you want to see Microsoft dismantled? Where's the logic in that? How will that benefit anyone? You guys make no sense. - earthwormzim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Okay. let's suppose that the definition of a monopoly is simply, "A company with an unusually high market share." How do you think the company got there? I'll give you a hint: unless the government helped by enforcing localized monopolies, you had to make it of your own valition. In order to get there, they had to come up with a fantastic product, and/or give fantastic customer service, or possibly both...and they had to do all of this at a reasonable price. If they did not do any of these things, they would never have reached such a high market share, as people would not have patronized their business.
So, now that they are there (at tht top of the game)...they have a choice...either continue providing fantastic products/customer service at reasonable prices, and stay at the top, or decrease product/customer service quality and/or raise prices beyond what the market will bear, and slowly lose out to gaining competition. It's simple economics.
As Microsoft currently stands, they still offer a fine product, at a somewhat decent price. So, how would it benefit anyone if the government barred them from doing so?
The truth of the matter is: There has never been a true monopoly (meaning: one business with complete and total control over a given product or service such that there is/was no competition) in the history of mankind. There is always competition...and therefore, never any true monopolies (except for government supported local monopolies). - niallabrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The title of this article was the best part of my day. It just got better and better.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is