Archive for the ‘just plain dumb’ Category

“Free Software Community” = Freeloaders

July 15, 2008

I saw a headline and snippet in my news feeds this morning that made me wonder if the article was worth reading or just more inane BS confusing what “free” means with respect to the GPL. I should’ve known that it would be belly-aching about price.

Why all the fuss over whether you can sell something that is free? How fair is it if a company like Best Buy starts distributing open source software and is actually making a profit from it? According to the licensing, it is perfectly fair! Maybe not 100% ethical, but fair! Personally, I’d like to see them donate something of their proceeds back to the open source projects they affect, but they aren’t obligated.

The GPL is not about free (gratis) software. It’s about freedom.

Contrary to the author’s claim earlier in his article that associating a price with “free software” is like nailing jelly to a tree, there’s quite a bit more involved here. Best Buy isn’t merely “selling” copies of Ubuntu for $20 a pop and pocketing all but the cost of the media and packaging. Included in the package is documentation and a sixty-day service plan with Canonical.

That’s worthless? That’s hard to quantify? That’s like nailing jelly? I don’t think so — not when you run a company with a payroll. Canonical isn’t staffed by volunteers. Neither is Redhat, whom the author also mentioned in the article.

I think the “gratis” nature of opens source software has led to a subculture of entitlement. How else do you explain the comment that charging for distribution and service is “not 100% ethical”? That remark followed allusions to the GPL and LGPL, both of which are neutral on the point of charging for either software or service.

The Free Software Foundation was founded by Richard Stallman, who wrote the GPL. The FSF site is very clear about the “price” of “free” software. They have at least one page specifically focusing on the issue of selling software. Are they opposed? Nope. They want people to charge as much as they can for “free” software.

But that’s beside the point in this case. Entirely. Because it’s not the software that causes there to be a $20 charge. The service — paying someone to answer questions and help with setting up a new operating system — has a value. Is it unethical in any degree to pay people for their time to get out of bed and come to work? I think it’s just the opposite.

Such is the state of “free” software today. The “free software community” has been infiltrated by freeloaders. They don’t care about freedom, just how much  they have to pay. As soon as you talk about exchanging money for software and/or service, you see their true colors.

By the way and for what it’s worth, last time I looked it seemed like Canonical does “donate something of their proceeds back to the open source projects.” Just like many other companies — Redhat, IBM, Cisco, Oracle, etc. — do.

How much do the freeloaders give back to the “community”?


Dynebolic 2.5.2 Sucks!

June 22, 2008

Call me old school.

I’ve been a late adopter to things like kernel 2.6 and HAL because I hate the idea of automounting (and it seems like all 2.6-based distros set up automount). If I need to mount anything — a CD, DVD, some USB device, a floppy, ZIP disk, another partition, a network file share, ANYTHING — I want to do it myself, on my own terms. The funny thing about the whole issue is how so many anti-Windows zealots complain about Windows auto-starting CDs, and now they like the same feature in Linux. Hypocrites. Turn it off in Windows (I have), don’t do it in Linux.

I was cleaning up some space on a partition this evening when I saw a dynebolic ISO sitting in a directory with other distro ISOs. I never bothered burning it, but I know it has installation methods that don’t require burning at all. I chose one.

I set it on a partition that I formerly used as a /home for DSL frugal installs, then added an entry so I could boot it from GRUB. I rebooted, selected the new dyne entry, and sat back to watch it boot.

My first “WTF?!” came when I saw it mount /dev/hda1 and start fsck. Then /dev/hda2 and another WTF, and /dev/hda3 and WTF, and /dev/hda5 WTF, and so on. Each with a message about how many mounts since last check and each time running fsck. Something I didn’t want it to do, something I wouldn’t want it to do, and something it shouldn’t have done since not one of those partitions is tied in any way to the partition on which dyne was installed.

I was mad as hell. It is not a live-CD distro’s job to auto-mount every fucking partition on a hard drive, let alone override the user’s settings for fsck’ing things.

I was already opposed to dynebolic because it loads and runs as root. This is bad practice for many reasons. But add to that the undesired, unnecessary fsck’ing, and I am NOT a fan of dynebolic.


Too much stuff can go wrong. I quickly rebooted to get back to the distro on the partition from which I’d last run, and from which I “installed” (“nested” or whatever the hell the developer of dyne chooses to call it). Bingo, big fucking problem:
FAT bogus logical sector size 0
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on …

One of the areas where some distros deviate between each other is in the manner in which they configure their filesystems with slight variations in default options. What is a “problem” for one distro isn’t necessarily one for another; but in “fixing” such things, they can break. And that’s what happened to me. THANK YOU, DYNEBOLIC, FOR FUCKING WITH MY SYSTEM.

Again, I don’t like auto-mount anything. This is why. One distro or live CD may not make the right distinctions and then the user has trouble. Manually mounting things as-needed doesn’t make things any less convenient than manually umounting the same devices when finished with them. It’s just as easy. And it doesn’t cause additional problems.

I didn’t bother seeing what dynebolic was all about because I was more concerned with making sure it didn’t fuck up anything else. That partition is now minus a directory called /dyne. And, after running a proper fsck on the partition that got kernel panics thanks to dyne’s fsck’ing, I have things back in order with it — now I have to check the rest of my partitions and see what else has to be fixed. I shouldn’t have had to go back and un-do the bad behavior someone set up as a default in his live CD!

I don’t recommend anyone use a distro that only has a root user — dynebolic is among those in this category (and Puppy Linux). I don’t recommend anyone use a distro that auto-fsck’s every damn partition without regard for if it’s actually part of that particular system — as dynebolic did the first time I ran it. Combining the two problems of running as root-only and mounting every single partition is extremely dangerous and makes each partition vulnerable. (Speaking of vulns, I also noticed that Samba, etc., also started without my blessing. Bad!)

I don’t recommend dynebolic at all. It sucks.

GPL and GPL-with-Strings, Part 2

June 20, 2008

There are lies and then there are damned lies. Sometimes it gets worse.

The DSL team where sloppy when they violated GPL in this instance as it would have been easy enough for them to comply, while still undermining the standard platform I am(was) trying to create. Maybe I would have only been half as annoyed, and just complained a little, but as it is they removed my copyrights from my work which added insult to injury …

John Murga

The above quote is not just a lie or a damned lie, it’s a goddamned lie. First, the GPL was not violated. There were zero changes made to source, just in the compilation; the source is also available (had he asked to see it and compared it to his own he would find no changes where he said there were some). Second, no copyrights were touched. Robert Shingledecker has posted the relevant code directly from Murga’s own tarball to show what was (or rather, wasn’t) there; after being proven wrong, Murga asked for an attribution to be added where there was none. Third, there was no injury. Fourth, the only insult was Murga’s decision to throw a public tirade and make unfounded accusations against others.

The only thing that changed with respect to attributions in the recompilation is Murga’s name at the invocation of any part of the runtime — lua, FLTK, sqlite, zlib, luafs, luasocket, etc. — even though he wrote none of that. That’s what hurt his feelings. Not that the GPL was ever violated.

I’ll reiterate what I posted this morning in the DSL forums: It appears that DSL didn’t violate the GPL in this instance, the author of the bindings did. Not only does he want to dictate how his code is configured and compiled, he demands credit even when it’s not due him. Both points are in violation of the license he chose — he wants to control the entire runtime and he demanded credit not due him even when his bindings weren’t used.

The FSF and SFLC have traditionally come to the assistance of developers when the GPL has been violated. Would they be interested in standing up for users when an author starts making demands and attaching strings to code he or she places under the GPL?

GPL versus GPL-with-Strings

June 20, 2008

A resolution appears to have been made between DSL and John Murga in a matter I addressed in my previous entry. Sometimes, though, the best resolution is to simply walk away from a bad situation.

At issue was an allegation that DSL had stripped Murga’s lua/FLTK bindings of copyright information. This was shown to be false.

Murga then claimed his bindings were a command line invocation. This, again, was demonstrated to be false.

Throughout the episode over the last few days, Murga was repeatedly asked (including by me) to state his grievance as it relates to how DSL used his bindings before the refactoring of the bindings to the time afterward and present. He did not answer but chose instead to lash out at others and accuse them of “butchering” his project, “molesting” his project, as well as various and sundry ad hominem attacks.

The only thing that happened differently was murgalua was recompiled so its full runtime wouldn’t load at invocation of any of its parts. The runtime had become so bloated that it was impractical to use as-is for the purposes of DSL.

This is what led Murga to claim it had been butchered. In the post in which he accused DSL of GPL violations, his sole link to reference his sentiments on untying the FLTK-lua bindings on his forums said he would not condone or approve of anyone doing that. Even though he chose the GPL for his bindings (most of the parts of what constitutes “murgalua” are under much less restrictive licenses).

He admitted throughout his accusation that his feelings were hurt, that he would need time to be more reasonable, etc. So it was at least as much about his feelings as it was about the licensing.

In the course of the resolution of the matter, Murga asked for things DSL isn’t in the position to give him — such as a copyright notice when things he didn’t write, like FLTK and lua, are invoked independently of his bindings. To the credit of the DSL developers, this was not agreed to.

But something else caught my eye among his replies. He stated that he had given permission for DSL to use his GPL code.

Permission? Permission beyond the scope of the terms of the GPL? Or just a personal approval?

Between his initial complaint (and hurt feelings) over the bindings being separated, to the odd (and unethical!) demands that he be given ego strokes every time pieces (which he didn’t write) of what he put in his runtime were invoked, and the statement that DSL either had or required his assent to use code he released under GPL, I was leery of including his code in the base.

The first thing with the binding separation is allowed under GPL. The GPL gives users the right to see and change the code and include it in whole or in part in other things so long as the rest of the GPL is obeyed (and it was in this case). The GPL is a solution to restricted use of code — which is what Murga wanted (and wants — he’s suggested that he wants to amend the license) to do.

The second issue with the demands is also central to the GPL. DSL didn’t remove any attributions to Murga. In the process of resolving the issue, DSL even offered to go above and beyond what Murga had previously stated was required (his terms and copyright information are all very muddled — another reason to consider avoiding using his code in the first place). DSL couldn’t and wouldn’t comply with giving him acknowledgments when lua and FLTK are invoked independently of his bindings. Those things belong to other people, not to John Murga. Credit should only be given to whom it’s due, not to whomever demands it in such reckless fashion.

The third part with permission also is antithetical to the GPL. It’s a PUBLIC license, not a PRIVATE license. It allows user A to give it to user B without developer Y meddling over the matter. As long as users comply with all the GPL’s terms, and DSL did, then the developer is supposed to yield to the user — not demand it be run in a certain way, be configured or compiled in a certain way, etc.

As things stand now, Murga appears to be offering “GPL but with conditions” instead of GPL. This, though, isn’t GPL because it’s not free and it restricts users with respect to what they can do with the whole or part of code under GPL.

Until Murga further clarifies (or gives up) his position with respect to the above points or changes his license to be more congruent to his dictatorial demands and novel conditions upon users, I think it’s probably best for DSL and other projects to steer clear of his code or to fork the GPL’ed bindings between lua and FLTK. Anything this tainted, offered by someone so petty and emotive, is more of a hassle than it’s worth — as proven by the way he chose to handle it in such a spectacle.

And that’s especially true when he chooses to renege on or demand more than the very terms he offered it in the first place. The GPL has specific requirements, not strings. Murgalua, unfortunately, has strings.

DSL, GPL, etc.

June 18, 2008

Recent threads at the DSL Forums have covered issues pertaining to licensing, the GPL in particular. Many people casually praise the GPL without considering what it actually says and what it means to casual users and developers alike.

The first issue arose when someone posted links to his remasters of DSL. I was annoyed that he posted the same information twice in the forums, and in places where it wasn’t really on-topic. I asked how I could get sources for GPL software he used. I reminded him of the judgment of the FSF/SFLC that downstream and/or derivative distros (like Knoppix, Mepis, DSL, Slax, Vector, etc.) had to maintain and provide sources regardless of availability of sources for unmodified binaries taken from upstream repositories. This led to some heated discussion (and also some productive discussion as well) about the whole issue and whether it was appropriate for distros to sell media with their sources.

This gets at the heart of many misunderstandings about GPL. It is NOT about free/no-pay transmission of software. It’s about the freedom to see and change source code. As FSF very clearly says throughout the site and elsewhere, you can charge a billion dollars for GPL’ed software. The only restriction is that you cannot charge an excessive amount to restrict access to the sources.

Second, DSL has another GPL controversy today. DSL had switched from using flua, lua with a set of FLTK bindings, to murgalua (which has FLTK bindings and a lot of other stuff thrown in) several months back. Unfortunately, murgalua requires the full runtime of lua and fltk and libz and sqlite and luafs and who-knows-what-else to be run all at once even if it’s for a simple lua non-GUI task.

So DSL refactored the bindings so lua can be run on its own and FLTK and all the other bindings can be used independently as-needed — something much more suitable for the needs of DSL and its users.

John Murga is the author of murgalua. He licensed his bindings under GPL even though the bulk of the parts of his runtime — lua, etc. — are under much more permissive licenses like LGPL, MIT-X, and BSD. Today he’s posted a notice on his forum that DSL has transgressed the GPL and linked to another post he made on his forum in which he said (or suggests) he won’t condone or support the re-use of his bindings apart from the runtime. He reiterated that

Either way I am unhappy with MY CODE being used in this way (if that counts for anything).

The GPL gives users freedom to change the code to suit their own needs so long as redistribution follows the rest of the GPL’s terms. If Mr Murga has ANY objection to others using his bindings under the license he used, he should re-license it in manner which will give him as much control over how others use it as he wants. The more permissive licenses used by lua, sqlite, etc., certainly allow that.

Both issues relate to similar problems. First, most users and developers wrongly associate GPL with things it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean zero-cost, it means sources must be made available (directly or via normal computer-readable media) when distribution occurs. Second, it doesn’t give anyone the right to determine how it’s used on anyone else’s computer. THAT IS WHAT THE FOUR FREEDOMS ARE ALL ABOUT — the right to see and change the code as well as the right to redistribute it as it was received or as it has been changed. So, to Mr Murga I say: no, your feelings REALLY DON’T matter.

I’m not a fan of the GPL. I’ve written plenty of places here and in other places why I object to it. Some of its demands are onerous, such as the requirements that downstream derivatives maintain their own source trees for unmodified binaries, for requiring a hypothetical user who compiles an app for his friend or relative to make the sources available, etc. I’ve found that it appeals to two groups of people: one is the zealot who sees software as a political (or even religious) issue and the other is the uninformed who makes the false link between GPL and “free as in beer” with nary a thought about the actual meaning of the license. Sometimes the line is crossed and you have a hybrid — you can find many instances of that in the Linux/FOSS advocacy with lists of reasons that give very little about “you can see the sources” (even if you don’t know wtf it all means) and a whole lot about how your only costs for Linux is the CDs onto which you burn a zillion distros to try and find one that works for you.

These recent spats have only served to reinforce my objections to the GPL.

Podcast Hell

April 30, 2008

I downloaded a ton of tech-related podcasts over the weekend. Some of them were older but still informative, others were more recent and not exactly worth the time or bandwidth it took to listen to them. I’m still going through them. Some merit more ear-time than others.

One of them seemed promising by its name: Productive Linux. I think I downloaded two or three episodes. I stopped the first one I listened to and forwarded to the next when the host started spelling out commands and options for editing Firefox chrome. The last thing I want to hear when I’m running at 4:30 in the morning is a spelling lesson. No thanks, next.

Then I got his review of Absolute Linux, one of the smaller and easier to set up (Slackware is NOT hard to set up — read the documentation and it’s quite easy) Slackware-based sub-distros suitable for older computers. Once I got past the host’s prattle about how “clean” and “vanilla” and “stable” it felt (compared, pray tell, to what?), I got the substance of his review and impressions.

First, the host very obviously didn’t bother to read the Absolute site because — RIGHT THERE ON THE FRONT PAGE — it very clearly mentions that it uses Slackware binary packaging:

Accepts packages made for same Slackware Version, so you can use Slackware software repositories.

Duh. Nobody reads anything anymore. Oh, and the bold and underlined emphasis is mine. I’d make it blink but wordpress doesn’t support it. TG.

So I then got to listen to him go off on a tangent about compiling. Yes, you can do that with Slackware because its base is very complete with the most oft-used libraries. But it’s untrue that Slackware requires compiling your own apps because Slackware does have binary packaging.

Then we got into his likes and dislikes. He was disappointed that it didn’t come with audacity. So? How does that relate to productivity? That’s available from the official and many of the unofficial Slack-package sites and repositories. He also didn’t care for the wallpaper or default GTK theme. What was the first application he compiled? A switcher for GTK themes. So productive. I then endured more talk about themes. Productive? Not IMO. He berated the sparse choice of included productivity software. Never mind anyone can get the most current version (that would be the one with the most recent bug fixes and security patches) of Open Office from the Open Office website or from (duh) Slackware’s repositories.

I was about to end this attack on my ears and my intelligence when the host said that the version of Absolute he was using was a release candidate. Oh, nice.

It would’ve been nicer to know that before listening to what an ‘unfinished’ product he thought it was. I wouldn’t have wasted my time. I would’ve been more productive.

EDIT: I realize what I wrote probably seems harsh, but I thought the review was overly critical especially considering it wasn’t RELEASE and because he started with a presumption that isn’t even true (binary packaging).

I take exception, too, to the prevailing standard too many reviews have for distros: that their initial mixes of application are how they should be judged. I think that’s bullshit because anyone can take distro X, change a few apps around, and call it distro Y. Look instead at their paradigms — what do they do differently than the others? In the case of Slackware, it’s about keeping things as simple and straightforward (in the Unix sense) as possible. In other distros, it’s about package management (after all, Debian is aiming for neutrality and has compatibility with other operating systems like FreeBSD and GNU Hurd). It’s not what it comes with but how you use it and what you can add and why. Tell me that, don’t tell me it still uses version A.B.C instead of A.B.D of some application. Tell me why it exists, why its developers do things in certain ways.

I also admit I don’t get the relationship between things like themes and productivity. I’ve edited many themes for jwm for DSL — not because that matters so much to me but to help reduce the noise from people who thought DSL wasn’t aesthetically attractive. As we’ve seen with DSL, it doesn’t matter how many themes you offer or how much you dress it up, people are going to grumble anyway. THAT’S WHY THEMES AND WALLPAPERS CAN BE CHANGED. IT’S SUBJECTIVE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE DEFAULT SETTINGS AND THAT’S GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO WHINE, CHANGE IT. BUT IS THAT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT JUDGING HOW DISTROS ARE DIFFERENT?

That’s why I wrote fairly harshly about that particular podcast. Maybe the rest of his stuff is worth listening to, maybe it’s more of what I heard. When I think of “productive,” I think of substance. What little substance he had was misleading (Slackware does have binary packaging and Absolute Linux uses it) and the rest was about stuff that really doesn’t matter.

DSL 4.3 Released

April 22, 2008

DSL 4.3 is out. Perhaps the most noteworthy change is the upgrade to Firefox 2.0 GTK1 (Bon Echo rebranding) from Firefox 1.0.6. Edit: There are other changes that deserve comment. The browser for MyDSL is now very much improved. The noicons cheatcode will now boot jwm without icons (in addition to not starting dfm on the desktop); this speeds things up quite a bit even though it’s primarily targeted at vintage low-RAM computers.

There are some things about it I don’t like. The first is something subjective and very easily changed: the default theme and wallpaper are too freaking dark. I’m also not a fan of black and white, and that’s essentially the color theme for jwm. This is a shot with Firefox opened all the way hiding the background save for the overlaying aterm. I’d already made some changes to remove the icons from the tray buttons and moved the tray to the top when I took the shot.

My biggest peeve of all is the search engine choice. Not choices, choice. It’s a Google search through DSL’s site. How many concerns do I have about that?

  1. Privacy – are click-throughs being recorded? What’s John’s privacy policy for both DSL and Google searches through DSL?
  2. Given DSL’s recent downtime and slow responses (see two or three entries ago), will this mean users will ultimately have to type in the URI box anyway just to use Google?
  3. Why should users have to go to the Firefox add-ons site to get standard choices for search engines?

Like I’m about to add in the DSL forums, that’s going to be easy enough to fix because I’ll download the GTK1 build of Firefox anyway and just start with a fresh profile. But I think it sucks that someone would direct my searches through his site first. See what I wrote about Vector’s default settings so that every new browser installation or upgrade hits their website. Boo.

Opera’s EULA

April 8, 2008

I (re-)installed Opera 9.5 beta 1 on my laptop.

Opera is free, but it’s not open source. In addition to having to accept any and all risks associated with using Opera on my computer, I had to acknowledge that I won’t use it to control aircraft or air traffic or in communications with aircraft (though it just dawned on me, I wonder if this include any spaceships from SETI@home — tg I don’t participate in that or else I’d have to stop using Opera).

I reluctantly agreed, too, that I won’t use Opera to design, construct, operate, or maintain any nuclear facility. I’m sure that will come as a great relief to my neighbors. I’m not so crazy about trading off my rights like that but that’s one of the prices I have to pay to use Opera.

Apple includes a EULA with iTunes and QuickTime that’s even more restrictive, forbidding the use of their software in any WMD program — nuclear, chemical, biological. Nazis.

Mozilla Patches Part Two: Huh

March 26, 2008

Mozilla fixes 10 Firefox flaws, half seen as ‘critical’:

Mozilla also patched potential identity leaks, spoofing bugs and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in But the fix that caught Storms’ eye was detailed by 2008-18, a fix for LiveConnect, a feature that harks back to Firefox’s predecessor, Netscape Navigator. LiveConnect lets Java applets call a Web page’s embedded JavaScript, or JavaScript access the Java runtime libraries, and it is used by both Firefox and Apple Inc.’s Safari 3 browser.

“Sun has updated the Java Runtime Environment with a fix for this problem. Mozilla has also added a fix to LiveConnect to protect users who don’t have the latest version of Java,” Mozilla said in the advisory.

“Here we have Firefox putting out a mitigation step for a bug in Java,” said Storms. “It’s a welcome addition when one vendor can help out another.”

All 10 vulnerabilities were also patched by the SeaMonkey Project, a separate open-source initiative that develops a multifunction browser suite.

The Thunderbird e-mail client, meanwhile, is affected by the five critical flaws listed in 2008-14 and 2008-15. “Thunderbird shares the browser engine with Firefox and could be vulnerable if JavaScript were to be enabled in mail,” read the first of the two bulletins. “This is not the default setting, and we strongly discourage users from running JavaScript in mail.”

A release date for Thunderbird to fix the flaws has not been set. According to David Ascher, the head of Mozilla Messaging, the e-mailer’s update will follow Firefox’s by “several weeks.” In a post to his blog last week, Ascher cited several reasons why a simultaneous release of Thunderbird and Firefox updates was impossible. “Some of those resource contentions are due to not enough automation for the Thunderbird release process, and some of it is the consequence of not enough people with the right training,” he said.

Ascher defended the lag by noting that while JavaScript is turned on by default in Firefox, it is not in Thunderbird. “We could delay releasing Firefox until Thunderbird was ready, in the interest of mitigating the risk of someone using knowledge from the Firefox release to try and attack Thunderbird users,” said Ascher. “But that would mean leaving over 150 million users vulnerable. So, applying the correct math, we release Firefox security updates as soon as possible, and Thunderbird security updates as soon as possible.”

Nice that the Firefox people can help cover Sun’s asses but not Thunderbird’s.

Firefox 3 Initial Impressions – VectorLinux Site Hacked

March 21, 2008

I read an article that the Mozilla folks are so proud of Firefox 3 beta 4 that they’re encouraging it for average users. So I decided I would give it a spin.

I downloaded the tarball and set it up in /opt. From a console, I opened it up. I got the first box asking if I wanted to import my bookmarks and settings from Seamonkey (which was installed by default in Vector, and which I manually upgraded rather than using their package because I didn’t want to slow my computer down with all the slick Vector imagery — an issue which I’ll address soon). I did. It then announced my settings were brought over and asked if I wanted the Mozilla search page or my existing home page. I selected my home page.

Then the fun began. Some Arabic writing appeared on the window title bar. And in the tab. My first concern was that I had downloaded an Arabic version instead of the American English one. Looked at it. Umm, nope. Got the right one.

Vector apparently opens to their website when browsers are fired up the first time. That’s another peeve of mine — when someone insists on including configurations that direct me to their sites (you think six links to different parts of the site aren’t enough? am I really important enough to count me when I run seamonkey and firefox the first time?). In the process I found out their site’s been hacked.

This is a later shot when I realized what was going on (and I left open a tab when checking on this to make sure the file I downloaded didn’t have any known issues). But you get the point.

When I realized what was going on, I decided to open the site in dillo and that’s when I found out the criminal did a bit more. Dillo displayed it, Firefox resulted in a 404.

Anyway, hitting a hacked site because the distro I’m using includes a hit to that page in the default install even if I don’t use their packaging has given me a more negative impression of Vector than Firefox. I’m sure others who are using Vector for the first time this evening have the same impression — maybe worse.

I haven’t had time to weigh how much better Firefox 3 behaves with respect to memory, nor have I had time to delve into any new features. So far I see a familiar interface that handles things identically to earlier versions. I’ll have more time this weekend to try it out.