Slashdot Mirror

So you want a Mobile URL?

The only tricky part is figuring out how to save bookmarklets on some smart phones.

I am too busy getting an education in Kansas to "debate" this anymore. Since you decided to make this more personal, I thought I should know who I was debating. http://www.subsume.com/images/working_with_windows .jpg It is easy to see why you would think we are products of evolution. Have a good day, and I hope that Y2K thing wasn't too much for your company to handle. I mean you still have it on your website almost six years later. Must have been the high water mark of your career.

I see that there appear to be real, legitimate, search engines that do not follow robots.txt rules.

No, you rather see some well-known search engines that generate illegitimate traffic instead of behaving properly. I note a number of them in this highly-documented robots.txt file. I'm personally most offended by idiots running this shit, since there is no single IP block to blacklist.

Lyrics for songs.

Not perfect, but iSing.

It could be possible for any band to list their songs on iTunes at a price they choose.

Never gonna happen. Last thing Apple wants is some jackass who can't carry a tune polluting their database with off-priced songs. It's $.99 to buy a song for everyone, and the consumers can grasp that a lot more firmly than the maze of licensing issues that surround alternative services.

All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.

Nope. Counter example here. Just because your imagination is as limited as the monopolies you speak out against, don't assume that everyone is so hindered.

Google News gets me all the headlines, sorted, categorised, prioratised and without corporate sponsorship biasing every article the same way.

What both you and MishaGray are getting at is that there really is precious little else worthwhile that is being done in the "aggregate" arena. What you mostly see is software that allows you pull feeds into a common collection, which is of questionable advantage. Beyond Google (and this dinky site of ours :-), there isn't much other software that is actually trying to cross reference feeds in order to provide an aggregate whole that truly is greater than the sum of its parts. The current state seem to parallel trying to read Usenet without the ability to cross post; three sites announce something and the crappy RSS software that is out there still forces you to read three announcements.

From what I gather about Rojo, it's a step in the wrong direction. Simply gathering up things found interesting by people I find interesting . . . doesn't interest me! The last thing I want is to slog through one person's link to InfoWorld, another person's link to a local paper's AP reprint, and a third friend's PC Magazine link all covering the same subject in pretty much the same manner. Google already does a fine job at that (for news, at least). If there is any future in RSS aggregates, it is definitely in doing "value added" processing, not just passing along someone else's links.

Why not an odbc/ado/adsi type of interface that will allow the use of any persistence mechanism?

It's called setting a reasonable goal for version 1.0. SQLite is an excellent, public domain database that works on a local file and requires no server. It directly fits in as a persistence mechanism with Apple's document-based architecture. Hell, even I saw the potential years ago when I started development of STEnterprise. If Apple picks up the ball, then I say "Great". If they go on to extend it to meet the enterprise void they left when they stuffed EOF into WebObjects and then made it Java-only, then I say "Even better!"

Obviously the content is current events, however, Google doesn't write any of the content. Where does their responsibility lie?

It's really simple; hell, it's even in the subject you're responding to. As a news aggregate, just as with a search engine, bias is a bad thing for Google. I run an aggregate of my own (plug, plug :-), and the very idea that I should favor one site over another (aside from the stated goal of who gives a more timely announcement) is completely bankrupt of any ethical responsibility my site has to it's users.

The old standard of "appearance of impropriety" holds at least as well for Google, too. Same is true for Slashdot article selection. If anyone is getting kickbacks or has some other unstated criteria for selection, that is irresponsible and should not be tolerated. If it's just a bug in their code, a fix will keep their reputation intact. If it's intended at any level, it just gets added to the scorecard that people have started due to questionable action as of late on Google's part.

And VersionTracker along with the Apple OSX download page will be your new friends...

To more easily keep up-to-date with those and other Mac software release listings, try the Mac Aggregate Tracker.

I don't think you will ever lose the hierarchy. People think in hierarchies. They will always exist.

You've got it backwards, and I essentially cover that here. A hierarchy is something we create, not something we are built with. You look at a bird and think "bird", not "is the object I'm viewing an animal, vegetable, or mineral?"

What apple has done with spotlight is to let you build virtual hierarchies using queries.

And that's what can be done with a database like MS is doing, too. As I said, the main difference is where the metadata comes from. MS is favoring a ground-up structured approach, while Apple is doing an in-place indexing. Neither is obviously right or wrong at this point, and once both ship it will be really interesting to see if either shakes out to be superior in practice.

Anarchy Online already has billboards advertising Alienware computers :)

Yep, and I have a screensaver for Mac OS X that can already get an updated billboard when a new sponsor comes along. A friggin' screensaver! It's not that hard, and yet these people are talking as though they've come up with something revolutionary.

So, the Mac UI is a bunch of unlabeled switches and random blinking lights?

You can get pretty close!

1. So, you are arguing that when CNN carries a CNN story in preference to a FOX story, that is a paid placement and an unethical act? You would have me believe that a news site giving preference to content produced by its own employeess is wrong. That's absurd.

No, you're being absurd because you're trying to build your argument by straddling both sides of the fence. For this point, you're claiming it's an MSNBC property and they can do whatever they want; I agree with that point. Elsewhere you will claim it is of no great concern to an aggregate's consumers, which is not true. You need to find a consistent argument to continue this debate.

2. What wool? What eyes? What are you talking about? It's an MSNBC site. The fact that it uses an aggregator doesn't commit it to selecting stories at random. I expect it to favor it's own amterial. What's your problem?

Again, I don't take issue with that point (in isolation). I would naturally expect the same behavior associated with MS. They are again leveraging their monopoly to control the consumer. Newsbot is just another facet of that operation, and that is my problem.

3. I am not defending MS. Nor did I say that the story selection on the MSNBC site won't impact the consumer.

You've done both. If you re-read your posts and don't see it, I feel sorry for you.

Frankly, I've lost track of what it is you're trying to say. It sounds like you're arguing that the MS site is acting unethically by giving preference to its own stories. If so, I think that's a ludicrous position. You accuse me of defeding this alleged unethical behavior, when all I've done is point to the behavior.

No, my issue has been with your inconsistent view of the matter. I don't think MSNBC is necessarily being unethical simply because they favor their their material. Go back and actually read what I wrote and you'll see my concern is that, in publishing as an aggregate, there is a potential for further abuse of power. History has shown that, for MS, that kind of potential is continually realized.

All news is created and reported by someone with a point of view, ither interests, pressures, and a deadline. If news consumers don't understand that and make an effort to comprehend the influences working on their chosen news providers, they are naive. By definition, software aggregators create and report no news.

Then you argue from a position of ignorance. As some who runs an aggregator, I assure that we create meta-news. Using a (fair) aggregator not only exposes you to the news, it adds information about who is covering it and who isn't. Did you bother to look at the MAT site I posted? Even if you don't use OS X, it should be clear looking at the page that, at a minimum, information about timeliness is reported. Could I take money from Apple to list their relatively infrequent updates first? Yeah, but that doesn't benefit the viewer and so I won't.

Your position would be like saying "diff" doesn't have a value. It is precisely the single-source influences you mention that make an aggregator so important in highlighting the differences to the news consumer. Newsbot is flawed because it is less about reporting those differences (the true purpose of an aggregator) and more about further pushing MSNBC content.

...Slashdot discovers businesses prefer to sell their own products, not their competitors.

The problem is that the "product" is supposed to be an (unbiased) news aggregate. As someone who runs an aggregator (Mac Aggregate Tracker), I can tell you there is zero net benefit in even appearing to show favor, let alone in specifically saying you give special treatment, as MS has admitted.

Maybe you don't see it, but the real result is probably going to be that at no time will anyone else scoop MSNBC according to Newsbot. Their software will gather news from other sites and if it finds something that MSNBC isn't covering, it will simply not publish. Instead, it would likely notify some grunt reporter to kick out an article so that MSNBC gets top billing. Holding news in that way, or any other shenanigans they come up with because they decide to self-promote, does not benefit the news consumer.

But when it comes to 3rd party development for OS X desktop software? I'm not holding my breath waiting for a glut of new 3rd party apps anytime soon.

If by "anytime soon" you mean "a constant stream for the last 5 years", then there really is no need for you to hold your breath. For example, check out our Mac Aggregate Tracker, which lists new releases from a number of sites. You'll see 3rd party updates numbering over a hundred most weekdays. Exactly how much more 3rd party development do you need?

When are those panels of randomly blinking lights going to make it on the market?

. . . done that. Sadly limited to the desktop until someone gets me one of these.

I don't think I would mind having non-encumbered, free redistribution, free modification, full source available shareware. If it can still be called that way :)

You should call it Serviceware, since you're essentially supporting the concept of software development as a service instead of a product. Some companies (plug, plug) already release software like that.

How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction?

Because even you aren't pointing anyone to something they can do about it. On the other hand, I'll be happy to point people to X-Mulct.

The concept is that you are assessed a small charge for sending unwanted mail.

That's generally a bad idea as stated because it requires a micropayment system, which isn't in place for anything, let alone for an extension to email. X-Mulct instead works on a "macropenalty" system, where I can take the virtual dollar you're sending with your message if I don't like getting mail from you.

RMX, a new DNS record type which lists authorized senders for a particular domain, would have a huge impact in blocking mail with a spoofed sender address. Of course, then spammers could still register their own domains to send from, but those could also be easily blocked, and it would be easier to find the spammers who registered the domain.

I think this has a lot of potential, unlike the other bazillion idiotic non-solutions that have been proposed, like X-mulct headers, for example.

I have two in my Apple Mail client -- one for GPGMail and another for reporting spam to spamcop.net.

We found an open source app that did nearly what we needed, so we contracted the developer to add features for us (into the main open source version).

Honestly, this is the way for a business to "engage" the open source community. The article is puffery and completely neglects that software is made open precisely because it is something that is intended to be seen as a service industry and not a product industry. As an author, I would naturally appreciate code tweaks from others, but what I really would like is to be paid to work on the code, and that is especially true if a business is involved. That is, I'd be more appreciative if I were paid directly to update the code rather than the company paying someone else to work on my code and then submit it to me.

I envision a system where this could be expanded, where end users would bid competitively on which features to be added or bugs to be fixed. I've seen some attempts at realizing this sort of system, but none have caught on in a big way.

I've tried this at my company under the name Serviceware. It's not caught on or even been profitable, but it does seem like the best way for a company to approach open source and/or software as a service.

We found an open source app that did nearly what we needed, so we contracted the developer to add features for us (into the main open source version).

Honestly, this is the way for a business to "engage" the open source community. The article is puffery and completely neglects that software is made open precisely because it is something that is intended to be seen as a service industry and not a product industry. As an author, I would naturally appreciate code tweaks from others, but what I really would like is to be paid to work on the code, and that is especially true if a business is involved. That is, I'd be more appreciative if I were paid directly to update the code rather than the company paying someone else to work on my code and then submit it to me.

I envision a system where this could be expanded, where end users would bid competitively on which features to be added or bugs to be fixed. I've seen some attempts at realizing this sort of system, but none have caught on in a big way.

I've tried this at my company under the name Serviceware. It's not caught on or even been profitable, but it does seem like the best way for a company to approach open source and/or software as a service.

DasBlinkenLights

How long until they get sued by a certain company [paramount.com] protecting their trademark [startrek.com]?

Probably quite some time. I know we sure have been waiting a long time since our STEnterprise release. :-)

I believe metadata is a useful additional means to find files . . .

Ah, but what you and others like you fail to realize is that the file path is metadata. The only data involved is the file contents (and even that can contain some metadata) and your directories and filename actually represent metadata about that content. I've been working on my own system like this (see my white paper) that subsumes the hierarchy into the other metadata you have for the file.

The PERL needs AppleScript to talk to iTunes. It doesn't do it on it's own...been there and doing the same thing with PHP :)

Yeah, the only problem is you're doing the same, tired "look what I can play" garbage. There has only been one really useful application of iTunes scripting: iSing, and even that is questionable if you survey your surroundings when the song is over. :-)

My company has been doing this sort of thing for years, only we decided to call it Serviceware to more accurately reflect that it is based on the model of software as a service, where the code is made free once that service is paid for. So it's good others are seeing value in the concept, but it's a shame the publicity goes to someone that names it so poorly.

My company has been doing this sort of thing for years, only we decided to call it Serviceware to more accurately reflect that it is based on the model of software as a service, where the code is made free once that service is paid for. So it's good others are seeing value in the concept, but it's a shame the publicity goes to someone that names it so poorly.

You can get your fill of blinkenlights on Mac OS X here. Probably need to run Remote Desktop or something for it to be useful with the RacMac, though. :-)

"Shareware + source" might be interesting, even with a non-RMS-compliant license, but I haven't seen it. (And of course, I'd prefer full GPL if possible.)

Depending on how you mean "shareware + source", I might be doing that with what I call "serviceware", which is the idea that once my programming services are paid for, the source is released. Users are under no obligation to register, making it essentially freeware for anyone but developers. At this point, not a single bundle available at our website has had their development paid for in registrations. I still like the concept, though.

(Without the space...grrr)

You know, if you were using OS X and had InstantLinks installed, you could easily open those broken, text URLs. No "grrr" necessary! :-)

SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.

And give up that potential profit base? Not bloody likely! Even if they did direct to an open directory, they could detect based on money, all the while tracking user usage.

As I pointed out in round one, software already exists that allows users to do a quick web search with any text selection; no MS approval, no funky presentation changes. In fact, it can work from any application, not just a web browser! I'm talking about InstantLinks, which I wrote. The only hitch is that it requires Mac OS X for its coolness to work, but a limited version could be done for other systems, perhaps directly as a browser plugin.