... Instead of working on stupidity like Australis, which pretty much all Firefox users hate, they could fix the memory leaks and improve the performance. A restoration of the old UI, which was really efficient and easy to use, could very well make this new browser a winner again....
Pale Moon will continue to use the well-known fully customizable user interface, and will not be following Mozilla's move to the "Australis" user interface (by a number of people dubbed "FireChrome" because of its likeness with Google's Chrome browser interface) introduced in Firefox 29.
With the advent of Australis, an even clearer choice was made to not follow the Mozilla Corporation's direction in their attempts to create a "one size fits all" user interface from mobile phone to HD desktop. There is no such thing, and to attempt it is folly, in my opinion. For Pale Moon, there is also no reason to attempt "brand unity over operating system unity" (meaning an attempt to make the browser look the same regardless of operating system it is used on), and Pale Moon rather aims for "operating system unity over brand unity" (meaning an as high level of visual operating system integration as possible to provide a familiar, well-intergrated user interface).
on thing slashdotters have never learned to pick up on is PR.
This whole article is PR by Microsoft to spread the message that "IE is much improved". By encapsulating the message in a seeming criticism, people are lulled into joining the discussion.
On the contrary, PR postings are usually quickly noticed as such.
But this one is so blatant that I went along with the premise so that I cold give my opinions....
Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and tied it closely into the heart of Windows in order to get around the anti-trust legalities that Microsoft was facing.
Now Microsoft is paying for the error of those trust-avoiding legal tactics because internet Explorer is tied so deeply inside Windows that I have to reboot my computer when the Internet Explorer application is updated.
...In spite of significant investment in the browser—with the result that Internet Explorer 11 is really quite good...
While the quality of Internet Explorer has improved a lot in the past couple of versions, Internet Explorer still has a ways to go before it can be considered to be "quite good."
One of my back-burner ideas is speeding up email forwarding. Most email forwarders (sendmail, etc.) accept emails, put them in a queue, and then later spool them out to the destination. This adds a minute or so of latency.
A minute? My email server (running Postfix) forwards an email within a couple seconds of receiving it.
Timestamps from a test I just did:
email received: 20140816T143458.533249
email forwarding completed: 20140816T143459.835599
It's done this way for historical reasons.
Yup. The historical reasons are that the MTA has to persist the message to storage before it can tell the sender that it has received the message successfully (i.e., 250 OK).
Keep it simple. If you try to satisfy too many requirements with the chair, you'll wind up with something that has compromises all over the place, and you won't want to sit in it.
Get a chair that is comfortable for you, then use other items to meet your other criteria.
Read the actual story for once....
I did read the story. I was merely posing the same question from a differing angle in order to learn how the differing situation may affect the legality.
...For added effect, make the servers respond v e r y s l o w l y under these accounts, taking tens of seconds to "send" the E-mail, a minute or so to log in, etc. Basically, slow the spam bots down and waste their time....
OpenBSD's spamd has done this for years.
Now I see the bots moving on to the next target when the SMTP conversation takes too long.
A lot of requests for odd URLs, all of which return 404. All of the requests that I checked originated at an IP address in Russia, and dozens of different IP addresses were used. These odd requests started about 5 or 6 months ago and have been ramping up lately. Makes me wonder just what they originators are looking for?
The problem with Microsoft's approach in TFA, is akin to "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
It is actually a lot better to solve the actual root problem, than trying to find and treat symptoms.
The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.