No favorite files added yet
2.0 pre2 (Jan 20, 2004)
Winzip seems to open gzip and tar files just as easily as zip files. Betanews isn't a Windows only site. Windowscentric maybe but they still have stuff for Linux also.
If you unzip/untar the contents of the file using the folder names in the package you don't get "one HUGE folder" - you get a normal directory structure. Winzip and other tools have a nice little checkbox next to "Use Folder Names". Additionally this is the source - that means YOU compile it and run it - no installer. If you need an installer or precompiled binaries http://Gimp.org and look.
1.0.6 Beta (Feb 5, 2003)
Haven't reviewed the product yet because of one little question about the documentation "native support for HTML 4.2". As a professional web developer I'm aware of HTML3.2, HTML4, and HTML 4.01 as well as XHTML 1.0/1.1. I wasn't aware that there was an HTML 4.2. Is it possibly some European fork or some new Netscape proposal. Can anyone point me in the direction of the HTML 4.2 specification? Google only gives me vague references to a failed netscape attempt from 1997-1999 but no specifics.
Vague claims in documentation like this just remind me of Silverstream's HTML 3.2/CSS 1/ECMAScript compliance claims (which they later retracted).
1.0 Beta (Jun 29, 2002)
people say it's slower than windowblinds because of the enhancements that windowblinds has made. Stardock put some effort into creating hooks that allowed it to tap the resources of the computer and give skinning some acceleration. This speeds up certain effects and (in some rare cases) slows others down. As with any product that uses video acceleration to perform it's tasks, it's heavily dependent on the video card manufacturer puting together stable clean drivers and keeping them up to date. It's often hard to explain to people though that when a product crashes it's not always because of the product or that the product is inferior but that it might be caused by an old video card driver or the incorrect AGP mainboard driver or an out of date bios or incorrect setting or another program that just needs to be excluded from the list.
Yes both programs really serve in their own niche. Windowblinds gives you full customization ability and integration with other components, productivity enhancements, more control over the look and feel of the system. Style XP has more limited range in that it simply changes the look of the windows that support the MS style calls. Style XP just adds the ability to hook into the MS style system and change things while Windowblinds builds directly on top of the style system to extend things.
10.0 (Jun 10, 2002)
It's hard for me to get the taste out of my mouth from the first time I used this (prior to it's revision). The author had gone around to just about every message board there was touting the benefits of his "OS". Now a new revision and while it seems significantly cleaned up it still does nothing that makes one go "WOW". This is a "shell" seeking a reason to be. Things appear to be bundled in that have little to do with what the average user wants to do or that makes the user more productive. Aside from the lack of real usability there's no eye-candy to the system at all. It just appears that the developer is 1) just learning programming and 2) using other people ideas and puting them in to promote his app (i.e. Mac icons, Finder, etc.).
2.02 (Apr 13, 2002)
This program is clearly violating the DMCA, purposefully stripping ads from a revenue generating device and therefore denying AOL that revenue. WOOHOO! I LOVE PROGRAMS LIKE THIS.
AOL would have the makers labeled as "PIRATES" and "THIEVES" because, of course, only AOL/TW really cares about the consumer. Of course there is a market for this product AOL just doesn't like that the market is so large.
2.02 (Mar 24, 2004 - 6:05 PM)
Scary, that might just add an additional explaination for AOL setting up the Moz organization as a separate entity from AOL. MS buys AOL - squashes Netscape - but Mozilla is untouchable.
2.02 (Nov 14, 2003 - 5:45 PM)
You know how much damage they (MS) could do if they fixed a couple of real bugs instead of adding on features that other products already provide. It's beginning to feel like netscape all over again. "Netscape: CSS compliance, yeah yeah that's great... did you see the new Shopping button AOL had us put on. That's worth a lot more than your fancy CSS compliance". Now MS-IE is following suit with pop-up blocking when there are several small CSS "features" that they could be correcting as well as dropdown rendering issues, caching problems, and cookie management issues.
2.02 (Oct 28, 2003 - 5:03 PM)
The only thing that interests me is what browser is being used. Have they upgraded the base browser code or are they still running off of a borked version of IE4?
What I find absolutely fascinating is that over the past few months they've lost close to a million customers. Is that because they started actually closing out all of those cancelled accounts, or is it because people are seeing the light. What's causing the mass exodus. Additionally I keep seeing the quote "over 20 million" - if you believe AOL it's "over 35 million".
2.02 (Jun 7, 2003 - 1:54 AM)
You're missing the point. AOL/TW/Nullsoft is not an entity, a being, a person. At some point someone has to be authorized to act as an agent of the corporation in order to facilitate anything being done. This includes facilitating software releases and dealing with copyright.
Justin as the "dictator" over the Nullsoft division would have been the person charged with and given the power to facilitate Nullsoft software distribution in it's many forms. As such he released, as an agent of the Nullsoft entity, many "free" programs, some even under the GPL. He did this both before and after the AOL acquisition of the Nullsoft company. AOL has selectively decided to allow/revoke his agent status not based on his ability but what he releases after it's release. They need to decide whether or not he is allowed to act as an agent of the Nullsoft corporation or not act as an agent.
At the time that he released the software from the Nullsoft website, and acting as an agent of the Nullsoft corporation (the owner of the copyright), he placed it under the GPL. He did this assuming he had full right to do so given other similar transactions he had performed and that AOL had (through silence on the matter) approved. He made no mention that HE owned the code. He did not release the code from his personal site. He acted as an agent of the Nullsoft corporate entity.
AOL acted after the fact recinding the license on the grounds that it was not released by an authorized agent. So the real question again is NOT who owns the copyright but whether or not the agent releasing the software into the GPL was an agent authorized to release software on behalf of Nullsoft at the time that WASTE was released.
It would set a very VERY nasty precident if companies were suddenly able to back out of agreements by simply revoking an authorized agents status. I.E. "Well no, WE didn't opensource OpenOffice, Bill did. Bill's no longer authorized to do such things and we own the copyright so you'll have to delete the software. Sorry." See most companies give authorized agents the ability to enter into contracts on the companies behalf. The GPL is simply a kind of contract, facilitated by an agent of the company. If Justin had the power at the time AND acted in good faith, then the contract is still valid. However if he didn't have the power (as spelled out in a contract) then legally they could revoke at least 5 or 6 other similarly GPL'd products (including one's with comments like "thanks to AOL")
The problem is that AOL has to bare some of the blame for this. If it did not in someway facilitate the current situation then Justin would have been immediately terminated. Either they've left a big question about who's in charge and what liberties are available or Justin has taken great liberties that he knew he didn't have. If it's the latter and he were the employee of 99% of the other companies in the world, he'd be out. No discussion of leaving, no planning to leave on his own, TERMINATED. AOL hasn't done that though and it's not because "Oh AOL is a great place to work" or "Oh AOL is so nice". I'd almost bet it's because they know they don't have any grounds for dismissing him and they'd open themselves up to a huge lawsuit if they did.
2.02 (Jun 6, 2003 - 5:37 PM)
Now I could understand if a lowly coder at AOL got a bug in his butt one day and released AOL as GPL - that would be pretty easy to refute. Given that the "infringer" was an agent authorized to act in the interests of the company and that he's not just some flunky - that makes things a little less clear. I mean there's alot of talk about who owns the product and what not but the reality isn't who owns the product it's who was authorized or not authorized to release software to the public. If Justin was a person authorized to release software to the public under whatever license then the license stands. If however policy was already in place that stated any and all software releases had to be approved by legal then there may be grounds for the license revocation. Either way the genie's out of the bottle and AOL will have a hell of a time attempting to shove it back in.
Realistically just like with GNUtella "authorized" or "not authorized" will matter little, people will still use it.