Comment: Re:Please stop.... (Score 1) 291
-- Along with the versioning scheme comes lack of support for older versions
Actually, 3.6.x gets security updates to this day.
-- The version scheme is a pain in the neck for add-ons, which depend on versions
Every add-on worth installing has long since adapted and anticipates several versions in advance. I've never had a problem.
-- Normal version numbers give the user information; the version number tells us whether it has had major features, bug fixes, etc. Firefox's versioning has the effect of concealing this information from the user.
Yes. Like I said, it's silly. It's also not a big enough thing to make this huge fuss about, much less to stick to old and buggy versions. In my experience, FF has been getting much better and faster.
Comment: Re:Please stop.... (Score 5, Insightful) 291
Comment: Re:it's all the same root cause (Score 1) 171
Comment: Re:it's all the same root cause (Score 1) 171
Comment: FFS. (Score 5, Insightful) 171
Comment: Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 318
Comment: Re:Skype v SIP (Score 1) 236
The way Skype solves this problem is by identifying clients that aren't behind NAT. Those clients are used to proxy the media for other clients that are behind NAT. In other words, if you use Skype and you aren't behind NAT, there's a good chance you will be carrying traffic for those that are behind NAT.
That is not correct. The Skype proxy actually punches holes in the NAT on both ends so they can talk directly. See http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747197.html.
Comment: Been there, done that (Score 1) 480
I did pretty much exactly this, starting in 2004. It looks like you have the opportunity to make this fun for yourself. Show some initiative and try something new. Off-hand, my advice would be:
- Keep it simple, stupid. For a network that small, consumer-grade routers in combination with a few medium-grade switches will do fine.
- Screw the cloud; host everything yourself. You don't want confidential company data on computers managed by strangers.
- If non-Windows desktops are acceptable, I've had great success with Linux in combination with Linux Terminal Server Project. Saves boatloads on licensing costs and desktop hardware. You get to centralize all the management for free. LTSP comes integrated in Debian and a few other distros. There's a learning curve but it's very much worth it. XFCE makes for a good lightweight end user desktop environment.
- Even where Windows desktops are required, have all the network services run on Linux. No hassle with licenses and restrictions.
- Become fluent in Linux/UNIX shell. It's convenient and very powerful.
Comment: Re:The Mac sucks for all kinds of development! (Score 1) 831
The Mac also has a dearth of good code editors. On Linux, I really liked nEdit.
You claim to be aware of the existence of MacPorts, yet it never occurred to you that you can just use nEdit (or any other "Linux" editor) on the Mac?