Slashdot Mirror
FireFox and Longhorn: Meant For Each Other?
News for nerds writes "According to the internetnews.com report, Microsoft's technology evangelist Robert Scoble said in his blog and interview that while he is a user of Firefox it can be improved if Mozilla developers take advantage of Longhorn technologies such as XAML, Avalon and WinFS, instead of making it only within GNOME/Mozilla coalition."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
And since when was Microsoft so willing to help the F/OSS community that it holds so dearly to the bottom of it's foot? Gimme a break.
As I walk through the valley of death I fear no one, for I am the meanest sonova bitch in the valley!
Robert Scoble is a professional Microsoft troll. Please ignore his blogs and his disingenious praise for Firefox.
I run FireFox on linux, solaris, and windows 2000 regularily. I'd rather see FireFox efforts put into features which are easily cross-platform, rather than a Longhorn branch.
What about making those technologies available to other platforms with a no-royalties license instead?
Embrace, Extend, Exterminate ?
Yeah, Mozilla should start using Microsoft technologies. It's too damn boring that I can block pop-ups in my Firefox and I don't have any spyware on my system. Hey Mozilla developers, use IE engine for Mozilla and make my day.
1. Use Longhorn-specific extensions 2. Develop MSIE replacement 3. Profit! (for Microsoft, who have just saved a packet on browser development) Meanwhile resources are drained from solutions that will benefit non-Windows users and platforms. Signs of a new strategy from Redmond?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
WinFS strikes me as a bit odd, anyone care to explain?
Firefox is meant to be a web browser - and no extras. So why would it need to use the filesystem? It's not like somebody wants to integrate Firefox into Longhorn to such an extent as to make it 'part' of the os. Also is WinFS open, did I miss something?
Hmmm those flying pigs sure do look pretty up there in the sky.
Just like how Microsoft worked out C# -- copying Java from the core, Mozilla can steal the idea as Microsoft did.
I don't see there is something stopping Mozilla to do so. By the way Mozilla should also improve the ease of use of the engine at least as portable as possible and can be embeded into another software through simple api.
Peanut butter and chocolate for example.
:P
Tv and remote.
Geek and computer.
Arsenic and old lace.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
it does not matter if Firefox embraces all the proprietary lockin technologies of longhorn.
FF is opensource and just like they did on OS X, there will be a native Longhorn browser based on Gecko.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Could one not consider XAML just a re-implementation of the XML-based UI builder that the Mozilla guys developed?
:)
Can anyone explain to me why a web browser would care about filesystems?
When will I be able to run Avalon on my Red Hat 9 machine?
Perhaps these guys would be better served by using Free systems for the functionality provided by XAML and Avalon. I happen to like the Mozilla system and Gnome works great for me.
You really have to watch yourself with Microsoft. They're a bunch of shifty dudes over there. It's pretty clear that M$ sees the OSS movement as a threat if they are trying to get Mozilla to pair up with them. Keep your enemies close I guess....
I Didn't Write This, Just Reposting It.
:
:-).
Scoble wrote
"That is false. I'm using Linux/Red Hat here with my Longhorn machine and they work just fine together. "
How *dare* you quote that as though Microsoft had *anything* to do with this !
NO THANKS TO YOU Robert !!!
Or to anyone at Microsoft.
I've just finished patching the current versions of Samba to fix the mess you made when you released an insufficiently tested hotfix for your *latest* worm.
Interoperability isn't just the last job at Microsoft, it's actually a *negative* modifier to your development teams. Remeber, you consider the protocols your software talks to be a "proprietary IP advantage" (quote straight from the mouth of your execs in Brussels).
What *gall* of you to claim this is important to Microsoft, whilst hiding, obfuscating and lying about your protocols.
I'm back from my UK vacation and I'm pissed to have to come back and fix this mess.
Angry, in San Jose
Jeremy.
I wonder if this will get him in trouble, maybe fired like this guy. Is it possible that this guy might be up for disiplanary action considering the publicity this will get?. Is it legal to fire someone for something like this? /body
You forgot the "annihilate" step, before you begin washing your hands.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
It may be time to purge.
the way forward is not to lock it to longhorn or gnome, but to both. the firefox windows dev team should concentrate on making windows support better, and the firefox LINUX (ie. not specifically gnome) team should focus on integration there. It should be the Gnome team (or a mix of the 2, but seperate to the "core" devs) who do everything they want with it.
.NET)
what is needed is
Firefox/Win(32 and
Firefox/Linux (generic)
Firefox/Linux/Gnome
I think this is a great idea. Currently, Firefox is just not slow, bloated and buggy enough to fit into a Windows work environment. It is upto the Firefox team to change this.
I will applaud any effort to add new, worthless, features into Firefox. This is what makes Open Source great, and could one day make Firefox a match for Internet Explorer.
I would love to see MS, Mozilla and Opera do some work together to make the web a more friendly place. Every time I make a new webpage, I have to fight with atleast 4-5 browsers to make it look nice all over.
Yeah, my english sucks!
--
One one hand, "HOW DARES HE SUGGEST THAT..."
On the other hand, does it mean they're willing to work with third-parties to provide some software like web browsers? It doesn't have to be from the Free world, they could just arrive to a settlement with Opera, for instance.
Sure, Linux is better, and I use it myself. But quite a lot of Windows problems would be solved if Microsoft would just stop shipping their own mail client and browser.
Microsoft's technology evangelist Robert Scoble said in his blog and interview that while he is a user of Firefox...
Thats some Microsoft Evangelist !
nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I completely agree. Windows 2k/XP, and in the future, longhorn, is firefox's most important platform. If people start using open source software on windows and see for themselves that it is as good or better than anything else, the jump to linux wouldn't be as significant. If people didn't have to learn new programs even Joe Sixpack could make the switch. Firefox, especially, since it's such a great browser, is the perfect program to promote open source and linux as a viable alternative.
Jeremy Allison aka Samba developer extraordinaire.
"I'm sorry about the hotfix. Anything I can do to help there?"
- Robert Scoble
"Thanks for the offer of help but we've already fixed it. You messed up because you didn't test interop with Samba. Your companies idea of interop is "works with Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and XP". You've *never* tested third party interoperability - you just don't give a damn. It's in your financial interest to make sure it doesn't work."
-Jeremy Allison
I agree with a previous anonymous coward. Guy is a shill.
With the system requironments for longhorn recently released ( dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.) a browser like firefox which is fast and doesn't use up that many resources would be ideal for such a "big" OS
I think Microsoft is just now seeing how bad this browser is actually hurting Internet Explorer and want to try to win it over by persuasion without bluntly buying it, angering the Open-Source community. Because, if MoZilla's file system does change, Microsoft will basically own it, disallowing it to be on other platforms, without advertising for Microsoft.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Okay, yeah. He has one point. IF firefox used those things (avalon, winfs) then the longhorn version of firefox would be better on longhorn.... but those features would have to be omitted from other versions (Linux, Solaris, OSX) for lack of a foundation on which to implement those features.
Furthermore, how does this guy expect firefox to take advantage of those "features" of longhorn? I highly doubt MS will just let them be used. I'd put my chips on the spot that says they'd want some kind of license or royalty or something monetary. Firefox's developers aren't going to spring for that (at least I'd hope not).
Probably the best, although least likely, solution to this idiot's idea is to make features like avalon and winfs cross platform w/o the hefty license fees and draconian conditions MS usually makes a part of the deal. Hence why that's highly unlikely.
All in all, I think this was a really lame, poorly thought out attempt to try and convince a cross platform project to focus heavily on windows for windows sake, while claiming that it's beneficial for said project (which it might be, but they wouldn't reap as much benefit as MS).
Besides, you know something fishy is up when an MS guy gives praise to a project like Firefox.
So Firefox doesn't use Avalon or WinFS yet. Not surprising considering they are not in use except in Microsoft development shops. His argument seems to be "but then you'll be a couple of years behind everyone else". I'm not sure it matters that much. I doubt anyone but IE developers are doing any coding against these frameworks ATM because they just aren't solidly locked down yet. Coding against a changing framework and API with disappearing/suddenly new features is a recipe for disaster unless you have a good inside track.
If you read the comments he spends a lot of time saying how wonderful Avalon and WinFS are. If anyone asks why he says "because they're revolutionary". So what sort of features are they actually going to have in the release version? He spends pretty much the entire thread dodging that.
Microsoft has no clue exactly what is going to make it into Longhorn, nor exactly what sort of feature set these "revolutionary" technologies will posses. Why on earth would start trying to code against them now?!
And in the end, if he really thinks it will be that wonderful to have Firefox using Avalon and WinFS... well, he can always write the code himself can't he. It is open source, so he can fork and do what he likes.
My impression (after reading through the comments to the blog): All hype and bluster and no content. I don't think Mozilla should be the least bit concerned.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
So he is suggesting that the developers implement technologies that won't be availible on the desktop for at least two years? And then only on one platform?
It sounds like he is wanting them to use these technologies just for the sake of using them, not because there are some great ways they could be used. Besides, doesn't Mozilla already have an XML specification of its GUI?
Descibing how Mozilla could use these to provide truly inovative features would be interesting. THe developers aren't going to use the technologies if they increase OS tie in without providing something truly new.
Spencer Ogden
Does this mean Clint Eastwood is going to blow the holy crap out of Billy Gates? That would be some sequel!
--
What would Bill Clinton do?
Umm, where are these Longhorn software development kits that Firefox developers would need to support these wunnerful new Microsoft technologies? While we're at it, where is Longhorn?
Mix Firefox with the IE rendering engine.
Wait...does this mean that MS will be porting IE to other platforms? Or perhaps Mr. Scoble isn't aware that the Gecko rendering engine is cross platform?
translation: they can't beat it, so get it built on a backend they control, then fuck up the backend to introduce problems, and slow developement.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
This kind of seems like an attempt to encourage a fork or code branch..wouldnt this decrease the quality. Seems like MS wants firefox to concentrate on Longhorn only features and my guess is they're hoping the linux branch suffers because of it thus securing longhorn domination in the web browser stakes. A pretty sneaky tactic but hopfully the firefox team will keep everything cross platform
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
Well, the great thing about open source is that MS has the power to contribute; just like anybody else. It's one thing when Joe User says "it would be nice if X had feature Y". He may not know how to program. Microsoft sure as hell has the resources to make this a reality. Hell, they could just write an extension so that the core product isn't polluted, and users have the option to turn it on and off at their discretion. Just a thought
Yeah, we'll lock Gecko into Longhorn... just as soon as Microsoft makes Longhorn open source.
Other than this Scoble character, who is excited about all the "possibilities" of Longhorn?
We'll give Microsoft the code and they can make any changes they like. We won't even charge them for it.
Beep beep.
Funny, this was the first computer guru type (just joking) who spoke of a war between Mozilla (which is already here) and Longhorn (which isn't).
that's all, it's just "evil".
...a microsoft technology adviser to say something other than "product x could be improved by using our techology"...?
I mean, how on earth could you miss the opportunity to take advantage of a proprietry, non-portable, technology that hasn't officially been released yet and probably won't be for another 2 years, and even then will be comparitively immature compared with anything, but in particular when compared with XUL that has now been in use for... how many years is it now?
Jeeezzz, these FOSS guys just keep shooting them selves in the foot!!
On a serious note, I was particularly amused by the idea of Opera (of all companies) being a possible user of MS technologies! Erm, is this Scobleizer guy the cleaner at Microsoft or something? I mean, he really doesn't seem to understand *The Way Things Are*(TM) vis-a-vis Opera being particularly relgious about standards and the way Opera and Mozilla don't consider themselves enemies -- at least I've not noticed them taking pot shots at each other!
Microsoft's approach to competing technologies reminds me of that final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Ark has been all created up and disappears into a cavernous warehouse, never to be seen again.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Netscape as a platform was scary to Microsoft but Mozilla as a platform is much scarier. Longhorn's new XAML is a way to lock-in enable the internet, a way to bait companies into making web sites and web pages tied to Windows. Currently Microsoft is in a unusually weak position because most important things that are done with a computer can be done on non-Windows OS's. XAML would lock a whole new generation of people into using Windows.
If Mozilla comes up with an alternative to XAML that works well across all platforms it has the potential to not just thwart Microsoft's new lock-in plans but also drastically increase the ability of cross platform web-based applications and further reduce the differentiation Windows enjoys. Mozilla + Gnome sounds like something we should all be paying attention to.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
He copies a proprietary protocol and he expects Microsoft to make sure their implementation is interoperable with his? This is ridiculous and a good warning to those who try to copy proprietary protocols.
SUPPORT OPEN PROTOCOLS. They are much more important than so called "Open Source".
Since its been deemed antitrust to have their IE integrated....
go figure....
The most important thing to know, understand and NOT forget about MS is that they are federal criminals by their own choice. As they write getting busted off as a cost of doing business...
Ask yourself one simple question:
Do you want to associate yourself to such criminals?
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
Title says it all - do you think there's a possibility MS could be planning a 3E (embrace-extend-exterminate) assault on Mozilla?
MS has said they're done upgrading IE, we all know it's too broken to fix, and FF already has a working standards-compliant rendering engine.
Pretty much they just need to add support for XML data islands (Why, oh WHY hasn't someone written a FF extension for XML data islands yet?) and they've got it.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Well, maybe if they did this then Firefox could support all the standards like IE does. Oh wait.
Note to Microsoft - please fix your crappy browser before telling someone else how to 'improve' things.
"Signs of a new strategy from Redmond?"
You're just NOW realizing this? Who do you think's been doing the "Replace X" posts? And let's not forget the "chasing the MONO dream" posts.
Hey Robert Scoble, Firefox is open source. That means if you want those features then contribute patches or find a company to fund you to do that development. Unlike the company you work for, where people must beg for features or bug fixes and then hope and pray they are implemented, with software such as Firefox you can do it yourself. How's it feel to be fully in control of your own computer? Exhilarating, isn't it?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Great! He knows what he wants. The next step is for him to code it, and release it under a Mozilla compatible license.
If he does, then the ball is in the court of the Mozilla team, and they can decide whether or not they're interested. If he doesn't, then perhaps he can interest someone else in doing so. If he can't, that's the way the ball bounces.
N.B.: I don't think much of his chances for acceptance, but anyone who want's a Mozilla extension has the same choices. Perhaps he could create a Mozilla fork, if the Mozilla team doesn't like his shiney new software. That's perfectly legit. I doubt, however, that he'd get many FOSS coders supporting his fork, so it might be a rather large job.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
On one hand the guy says, that its Microsofts mission that Longhorn not break existing apps? And yet in the same report is asking the developers to start thinking about building for the new longhorn framework. So what is it? Make your apps work for longhorn or make longhorn work with existing apps? A little bit of contradiction there.
;
...
Anyhow
While its good that Microsoft are encouraging open source developers to build for their OS, dont you think its a bit lame that they are so against open source software? They need to make their minds up. And if they are going to encourage it how about supplying the tools and documentation to the community in order to enable good interoperability with other programs and operating systems?
Its in Microsoft best interests that software works with Longhorn if it is to be a success. Having said that you can bet your bottom dollar that "certain applications" Office perhaps ? will offer a reduced experience on longhorn requiring you to purchase a newer longhorn version. I dont think its unwise to be cynical about this given the pages of the history books.
Longhorn is a way off now, there are going to be several new generations of OSX and Linux between now and when it is released. A lot can happen in this time frame. If the linux take-up continues at the pace it is at the moment Longhorn is going to have to take interoperability more seriously whether Microsoft or Open Source developers like it or not.
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
What Mozilla's filesystem ? I can't see how a web browser and a filesystem can be related.
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
MOD PARENT UP!
From what I can tell the only thing that 'taking advantage of WinFS' could mean is the metadata aspect, or hooks allowing Firefox to render the preview images of files. Both these features could easily by added to Firefox and would not necessarily break cross-platform support. For example with metadata, you provide the option to write it, but if the underlying system API does not support it, then it just gets ignored. Since there are continual hints that MacOS X may one day get metadata, that we know Longhorn definetly will and that this is always a possibility for Linux and other OSs, I would feel this would be a good move. For example, imagine you download a file and as part of that meta data the URL where it orginated from was stored with the file, then that could be handy for the day that you decide to organise your HD and want to return to the source.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I have not kept up with MS tech. I believe Avalon is a gui system...maybe I am wrong, but I do not have time to read up now.
Anyway, if a fairly common piece of software on desktops will not use MS gui, it will cause major troubles for the unified look and feel. That may hurt Windows usability. I wonder if they are worried about that....
But then again -- what are they going to do about legacy software?
badness 10000
If Microsoft wants Firefox to work so great with Longhorn they can code the patches themselves. It is Opensource code after all.
No MoZilla's directly, but MoZilla's compatibility with Longhorn's, over anyone elses.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
M$ does not innovate! If you ever looked at xaml it is almost an exact duplicate of xul. They want to enable it for doing the same things that activeX does - open huge and unfixable security holes. What truly new and inovative things has M$ ever done? Not the gui, not security, not word processing, not networking, not xml! What they are good at is taking good open/free tech and making it suck.
I think it should be obvious what the goals of a person named Robert SCOble working for Microsoft would be.
I'd rather not see a web browser be too tied down to any platform specific features. If the content can't be run on the trifecta of PCs (Linux, Win32, Mac) than it really shouldn't be embraced. I would prefer to go as far as saying browsers should only support open standards, but then I exclude Flash and Java, but at least these make an effort to work everwhere.
Microsoft's technology evangelist Robert Scoble said in his blog and interview that while he is a user of Firefox it can be improved if Mozilla developers take advantage of Longhorn technologies such as XAML, Avalon and WinFS, instead of making it only within GNOME/Mozilla coalition.
I'm all for the idea.
Once Microsoft makes sure the XAML, Avalon and WinFS technologies run on FreeBSD that is. Other platforms would be Solaris, Mac OS X and a GNU/Linux platform.
If Microsoft's technology is not as portable as GNOME, then there is no point.
Coding against a changing framework and API with disappearing/suddenly new features is a recipe for disaster unless you have a good inside track.
Even with a good inside track you can get burned if you don't have the bandwidth or your schedules are tight.
- I think we should start a new marketing campaign: "who can make up the most outrageous thing about Longhorn and get it printed in an industry magazine or pointed to by Slashdot?"
I don't know if he's clearly stating his intentions there or not.- Personally I think this whole Mozilla vs. Longhorn thing is nuts anyway.
Eh? I hadn't heard anything about the coming browser-vs-OS armageddon until it popped into Scoble's head.'nuff said.
fuck that business. I'll take my Firefox unperverted.
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
Open source developers are not your employee/slave, they will do whatever the hell they want and, as a user, you should just feel fortunate that your needs were similar to the coder's. Every newbie who wants to have a longterm relationship with open source must come to terms with this. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of clueless newbies out there and a high concentration of them at MS.
If MS wants Mozilla to support Longhorn, why the hell does not MS submit some code! It is open source for godsakes! That is far more cooperation than MS EVER gives outside developers wanting to support MS software!!! It is amazing how clueless these people are . . . "why want you code for free for us, we are just a poor, multi-billion dollar, monopoly that has been convicted of criminal behavior on both sides of the Atlantic."
If MS has an itch with Mozilla, why not stop BITCHING, shut the hell up, and code! If MS were to code half as much as it bitched, I am sure worms written by 18 year olds wouldn't be ripping new ones out of corporations stupid enough to trust MS.
(This rant has been brought to you by my intolerance of stupidity masquerading as arrogance)
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
But it would be much better driving experience with a huge spoiler, bigger exhaust pipes, a VTEC plate, and few stickers. For good measure, perhaps you could add some neon glow runners.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
We've seen what happens to those who trust Microsoft.
IBM and WordPerfect trusted Microsoft's promise of support for OS/2, and look what happened to them.
WordPerfect trusted Microsoft again when they moved to Windows, only to discover that Microsoft had kept the good API calls hidden, while the API calls provided to WordPerfect were slow and unreliable.
Go (the company) trusted Microsoft with their Pen Computing technology. Go is now suing Microsoft for having stolen that technology. Stacker also successfully sued Microsoft for having stolen Stacker's disk compression technology.
Sun trusted Microsoft, when Microsoft contracted to provide Java support on Windows. But, Microsoft had no intention of living up to their promises, as later shown by Microsoft's internal memos:
> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns....
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?
Or, as a Microsoft marketing presentation put it:
> Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
Of course, Java developers also trusted Microsoft, and here's another memo showing what Microsoft thought of that trust:
> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
But none of this should surprise us. We've known exactly what Microsoft was planning, ever since the publishing of the Halloween Document:
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
XAML is just Microsoft's decommoditized copy of Mozilla's XUL, or XML User Interface Language. If Microsoft had been honest about sharing standards, then Microsoft would have simply used XUL, which has become a published standard.
I think what Microsoft is really afraid of is that, by the time Longhorn and XAML come out (plus the two more releases to get them to work acceptably), Mozilla and XUL (and Gnome, and Mono) will have already filled the Internet-based application development niche. Thus, these Open Source technologies could end up doing to Longhorn what Apache did to IIS, and then it's bye bye Microsoft monopoly.
As a result, Microsoft is borrowing another page from their anti-Java strategy:
> We decided rather than trying to outrun sun at their game to change the rules.
Or, as Microsoft VP John Ludwig put it:
> Subversion has always been our best tactic... subversion is almost invariably a better tactic than a frontal assault... it leaves the competition confused, they don't know what to shoot at anymore...
Improved? Like IE?!
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
First Microsoft "negotiates" with Sun, now they're trying to gain the upper-hand with Mozilla. What's next?
I've posted elsewere about this, but RIA's is what it's about. Macromedia's FLEX is one implimentation. There are others. Even Adobe is putting in their two cents. Interoperability is the one capability RIA's need. The ability for Excel and Word to communicate is important. Will these RIA's talk to each other, or be islands into themselves?
I'm sorry, but under what authority does this guy have over Mozilla? At MS he might have programmers licking his toes, trying to make him happy, but out in the real world he is just another jerk that is having trouble coming to grips that the world does not revolve around him or view of things.
The Mozilla programmers got where they are on the project because they have talent in programming and want to surrond themselves with such talent. What talent does this guy have? In this community, talk is cheap. He wants the Mozilla programmers to listen, show us the CODE. Otherwise, why the hell should these guys give him the time day!? People write open source code to GET AWAY from jerks like this, who have authority but don't have a clue how things work.
Title means nothing here. I really wish we would just ignore the guy and spend more time appreciating the talented developers that are increasing the quality of all our lives.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Where he flames apple for downplaying one remote-root exploit. Neglecting to mention that thanks to Microsoft's refusal to take advantage of the security capabilities of NT any remote exploit is a remote-root exploit.
And he thinks Mozilla would benefit from better integration with Longhorn? Integrating browsers and the OS has proven such a win for Microsoft.
Or, as I wrote on the site:
I'll put up with Apple downplaying a buffer overflow better than I'll put up with Microsoft deliberately building an architecture that's almost impossible to secure when they integrated IE (a component that has to be designed to deal with untrusted data) with the desktop (a component that has to assume that data is trusted).
I banned IE, Outlook, and any other programs I could identify that used the MS HTML control almost ten years ago now, and the result was that our Windows systems had few virus problems, and they were minor... and could often be traced down to people who used Outlook or IE against our policy.
Before throwing stones at Apple and talking about how Microsoft is "getting it", how about undoing ten years of virus promotion by allowing people to run a secure Windows desktop, with no browser integration, no Active Desktop or ActiveX, no flakey HTML-ised control panel components.
I'd be MUCH happier about the Windows box on my desk if Microsoft would back out a lot of their "innovations". I know it might cause some loss of face to admit that integrating the browser was a mistake, but over the longer term it would produce a significant benefit to both users and to Microsoft's public image as the system became safer, more reliable, more secure, and faster.
Microsoft's technology evangelist
One should be able to make a Redmond, Seattle based comedy. Perhaps finding original actors to employ gets easier with the success of the show.
MS standard like XML, create an "Open XML"
Holy crap, before I get torn to pieces, that was a (huge) mistake, I meant to type "XAML" here not "XML" (twice!)
Embrace and extend is just another word for "added value". It's a good thing. If you want to be portable, you simply don't use the added value.
The problem is that Microsoft Embraces a crippled version of the standard then makes its own extentions to provide similar functionality. Sometimes the crippling is in a very fundamental way, so if you want to provide nontrivial functionality, you can't help but use the extentions. That leaves companies with two choices, either write two versions of everything or just standardize on the market leader and hope that everyone else can live with the decision.
Microsoft's basic strategy is "Embrace, Cripple, Extend, Extinguish".
Me neither, but I am sure Microsoft can think up a way to do this.
After all useless "features required running" is more or less most prominent the Windows-slogan these days.
You bet Longhorn won't make that any better either.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Because Longhorn is not going to be adopted by the public? Longhorn will go the way of ME, for different reasons. XP works fine, relatively speaking. People will be reluctant to switch. Those who would switch will be looking in linux's direction, too. I foresee Longhorn being a severe failure.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
is this the same Microsoft that stressed that Lotus should focus their 1-2-3 GUI efforts soley on OS/2 and forget about that interim toy called Windows?
just wonderin'
I'd love to see Firefox for Palm OS or Linux handhelds and smartphones.
Hell, I'd love to see Firefox come pre-installed on all those Linux boxes that Wal-Mart is selling.
LOL
correct, the new battle ground is business Intranets, and later the Internet. The thing is that people villified the Mozilla team when they were developing XUL, and other technologies. Funny how history will prove their decisions right.
MS: Together we can rule the software industry.
Firefox: Never.
MS: I am your father.
Firefox: Noooooooooooooo...........
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Firefox *do* have something to do with the local filesystem: when you're about to save downloaded files. I think it would be nice if Firefox supported the WinFS "Storage" devices, but maybe it will anyway if it just uses the default file dialog, which it should absolutely continue doing like it does now. :-)
:-) The main development team doesn't need to do these sort of decisions, but another developer might, and then the end users have the freedom to choose whatever browser they want.
Other than that, I can't see a reason to use XAML etc. since it would probably break the GUI look & feel and annoy people using Firefox on multiple operating systems. But I'm sure someone will do an own branch for better Longhorn integration, just like there's the Camino browser for MacOS X. And that's the beauty of open source.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
XAML, Avalon
It already does. It's called XUL. There is no reason to replace that with a Microsoft-proprietary technology. If it's going to be replaced with anything, it's going to be replaced with a general-purpose XUL-based toolkit (XUL itself isn't quite there yet).
OSS will offer XAML interoperability probably only if it looks likely that Microsoft won't be able to sue over it. Given Microsoft's rash of patents and intellectual property claims over the last couple of years, that doesn't look likely to me. But the ball there is in Microsoft's court: if they want interoperability, they need to make ironclad legal guarantees to the OSS community that their standards are open.
WinFS
WinFS is just a marketing construct, not new technology. It is some combination of user-mode indexing technologies and databases with some kernel support. Guess what, other systems have had that for years, including Linux.
Microsoft is trying to shove their particular combination and APIs down the throats of developers, but there are reasons people haven't settled on a single standard for this sort of thing: it doesn't make sense for anybody other than the OS vendor.
In the case of mailers, the standard database formats needed are mbox, maildir, and/or mh. The database format Thunderbird has chosen for mail is mbox, which is perfectly reasonable, and it's open and non-proprietary. (Maildir and MH support would be nice, too; I don't think it has that yet.)
instead of making it only within GNOME/Mozilla coalition.
Thunderbird works fine on Windows (arguably, better than on Linux) and MacOS, in addition to Linux. It just happens not to incorporate every single poorly thought out API that Microsoft keeps coming up with. And that's just fine, as far as I'm concerned. Anybody who wants that sort of thing can use Outlook.
However, I'm sure that Thunderbird will eventually incorporate some platform-specific code to make its messages indexable by WinFS, just like it does some platform-specific things on each platform.
I got confused about my various Mozilla animals (the names just keep changing too fast); but the comments I made about Thunderbird also apply to Firefox.
is welcome to write browser extensions to achieve all this stuff.
#!/
I don't want that crap, and I don't want Gnome's crap either.
0 4.3/1344.html]
.NOT gratuitous complexity and over-designed crap you take a look at the only sane OS left: Plan 9; and if you are tired of doing "memory management", why don't you use Limbo (The Limbo Programming Language by Dennis M. Ritchie)?
I want a web browser, if I wanted some kind of megalomaniac "application development platform" I will use Python, thank you very much.
And as long as they don't give me access to the source under an open source license I wont touch it. I have been burned once(Windows), twice(Java), I'm not going to get burned a third time, if you want me to rely on your software you better give me the source and let me fix it(or let others fix it).
As Al Viro, one of the very few reasonable Linux kernel developers, said:
All software sucks, be it open-source [or] proprietary. The only question is
what can be done with particular instance of suckage, and that's where having
the source matters.
-- viro [http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/04
It's sad that we have to get to this, but in the current software industry having access to the source under a open source license is the only warranty that you are not going to be royally screwed, I don't want to be at the mercy of the economic targets of some random company, I already have enough trouble taking care of _my_ business.
Life is too short to run proprietary software.
-- Bdale Garbee
And as for Gnome, I will quote viro wise words again:
Yeah... "Infinitely extendable API" and all such. Roughly translated
as "we can't live without API bloat". Frankly, judging by the GNOME
codebase people who designed the thing[GNOME] are culturally incompatible
with UNIX.
And yea, that is you, my dear Miguel, you have as little clue as RMS of what Unix is all about, I advice you that when you get tired of all that
uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
has nothing to do with taking advantage of operating system specific features. Joe Blow end user wants the richest, easiest experience they can get their hands on.
If you free software/open source evangelists want to really stick it to MS like you say you do then you had best start providing packages that are richer and ESPECIALLY easier than the MS ones.
I'm also perplexed at how many people on slashdot worship open source/free software but hate outsourcing... when you do work and generate value then give it away for free how can you turn around and argue that your time is worth more $$$ than some indian developer?
"First of all, Longhorn has a mission not to break existing apps. If we broke existing apps, we'd be hurting our customers, our partners and ourselves," Scoble told internetnews.com.
Here's another quote I remember:
"Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run".
What's stopping MS from doing the work and submitting it to the mozilla team? Or even forking the project? Why should the mozilla team go out of its way to incorporate these great new technologies?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I think this blog comes from higher ups @ Microsoft. Microsoft sees that Mozilla (FireFox) is viable competition for IE. In 5 years **if** IE looses the browser war (and mozilla were built using M$ APIs ) at least Microsoft can claim that Mozilla was built using their technology. It would be a HUGE marketing factor for Microsoft.
Or worse, M$ could start using the Mozilla code base in IE. Having someone else invest the time, and money to build them a browser.
A nice case of "KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE AND YOUR ENEMIES CLOSER."
Of course they're a threat to Mozilla. The entire point of Mozilla is that it is cross-platform. Avalon and the laughably-useless WinFS might be able to be used by Mozilla without tying it to Windows. But the cheap XUL knockoff known as XAML? Please.
This is clearly a cheap attempt by Microsoft to Embrace and Extend Mozilla's cross-platform capabilities, with the end goal being, of course, "Extinguish".
Clearly you haven't met any 'softies, either in person or online.
Clearly, neither have you.
The level of vitriol toward Microsoft on this site has gotten ridiculous--it's almost sunk to the level of discrimination, like racism but toward employees of a company. "Oh, they're all evil. They're all sheep."
This coming from someone who is posting a reply in a Slashdot discussion--the Internet king of groupthink and propaganda.
I guess I'm just one of the few left in the world who believes that people are people, and that some guy working at Microsoft who suggests Mozilla take advantage of some Windows technologies that are out in the developer betas now ISN'T something to get worked up over--it's not even newsworthy. Only on Slashdot is this some sort of issue. Look at the sheep baaing, "Embrace and extend, embrace and extend!" over Mozilla possibly using some, dare I say it, XAML in its Windows version.
Your Kool-Aid comment was just ridiculous--like the rest of your post.
Where's your code?
Or is your opinion just as baseless as his?
In this community, talk is cheap.
Indeed.
impending name change... FireSoft!
Does that make them professional Linux trolls?
C# is basically C++ and Visual Basic.
You cannot bitch at Microsoft for stealing ideas (I thought you couldn't "steal" intangibles...right, Slashdot? That's what I hear every RIAA article...), when the OSS community has stolen everything under the sun.
You probably typed your post from KDE using a taskbar, start menu, integrated filesystem/net browser (hello, Windows 98), similar print dialogs...hell, even the concept of windows themselves are rip-offs of MacOS, Windows, and everything else before it.
Don't complain about lack of innovation from others while you're using a Linux desktop. That's all I'm saying.
Can anyone explain to me why a web browser would care about filesystems?
Good question--care to ask the KDE team?
"Microsoft steals other people's ideas!" So says the Linux user typing his post in an integrated file/net browser, using a start menu, taskbar, the same print dialogs, a "Control Center," Minimize/Maximize/Close buttons, etc., etc., etc....
.NET/WinFS/Avalon clones, I'll be grinnin'.
The power of all the volunteers in the world, and what do we do? We make a UNIX clone. Then we make a Windows clone on top of it. Nice.
A couple of years after Longhorn comes out, and GNOME/KDE decide to implement their
Firefox IS slow, bloated, and buggy. It takes too long to startup, eats memory like a pig, and actually implements all its own widgets. Bloatware, anyone? Apparently it's supposed to be faster than Mozilla, but I see no difference whatsoever. But that's why I switched to Opera once the 7.5 betas started coming out...
There is no Avalon, only XUL.
Being a smartass is a much better thing than being the alternative.
So Firefox doesn't use Avalon or WinFS yet. Not surprising considering they are not in use except in Microsoft development shops.
Have you been living under a rock? Longhorn betas come out all the time. The WinHEC build is used by major development companies like Adobe and Macromedia to test-run the new technologies with their apps.
I've never seen so much whining and bitching over some guy at Microsoft daring suggest Firefox, an OSS app that 99% of you haven't even contributed code to yourself, support some Windows features for its Windows port! You guys sound ridiculous.
Come on, people, Microsoft might not be up against the wall with this release, but they have a lot riding on Longhorn. Some people have actually signed up for the subscription model, but they are going to have to wait until 2006 (at least) for a new version. Apple could be at Mac OS X 10.6 by then, flashier than ever, Linux at 2.8.0, more powerful than ever. Two more years of weekly patches are all the Microsoft costumers get. And remember: The really cool Longhorn features like the new filesystem were already cut out.
Microsoft is going to spend the next two years putting out a stream of propaganda about how great everything is going to be once Longhorn gets here: World peace, a cure for cancer, a pony for every child. They will say anything to keep people waiting instead of looking around to see what the alternatives are.
They own it, legally or not, and they wield a mighty financial hammer to prevent any use of it that they do not want. They control it. Unless they release it under the GNU or some such similar and appropriate license, I would not use it, and I doubt any OSS coder of worth would either (coding for OSS). Of course, there may be some exceptions, but they always come at a price.
So, to the MS evangelist, tell MS how great a product this is and how important it is to place MS code in the public domain. Tell MS how important it is to participate in the OSS community as an active, honest, open member. If you can convince MS that these are all good things, and MS starts doing these things, then maybe it might be a good idea to include MS technology in core OSS technologies.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I don't think this MS schmuck is saying re-write Firefox in XAML, or if he is then he is an idiot. However, the Windows implementation of XUL and the Gecko runtime could make use of Longhorn APIs. The current Windows implementations definitely make use of Win32 APIs, just read the build instructions for Windows. Going from XUL to XAML is just a matter of doing an XSLT transformation. Firefox could still be done in cross-platform XUL, just its implementation on Longhorn systems could make use of Longhorn specific APIs, kinda like its implementation on Linux making use of GTK+ for example.
Does anyone here remember why Firefox/Thunderbird was born? To escape Mozilla's bloat. I think the Opera browser influenced its initial design, which in earlier versions even fitted on a floppy while being IE6 compatible for the most part. The whole appeal of firefox over mozilla and others is the simplicity and therefore the speed and efficiency.
It can be used as a platform for other browser technologies, but they should be renamed, and firefox vanilla should always be as simple portable and small as reasonable possible for general browsing.
Theres nothing wrong with Someone with a lousy sparcstation 5 running NetBSD and using Firefox. With Mozilla, you couldnt work with an Ultra 60.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
he is known for spreading ms fud with no real arguments.
"PROVIDED they honor the GPL and release their source."
Provided they honor the Mozilla Public License you mean.
This looks pretty cool, but I wonder if there is any security built in to this kind of stuff. Does this mean that someone could send an XAML document in an email and its the new adware instelled virus that downloads your data in 50 lines of XAML? While I think it is cool technology, don't get me wrong. I am concerned that if it is that easy to write code, it then becomes that easy to exploit Longhorn. I hope MS builds security into their Outlook client in Longhorn that will match that of the new firewall tools that I have heard they are coming out with in their new OS.
On an off NOTE, I think that the Linux competition as small as it may seem ( market share wise ) and the number of viruses that are coming out, are actually prompting MS to step up its product and make it much better. New firewalling capabilities that are improved about as good as iptables, but easier to use. I hope they fix some of the bugs in IE, in particular IE 5&6 window.open() should not forget the cookies in the opening window. Yes this is a bug, go search their web site.
I guess now that they are in every market they have only one thing left to do and that is make their product really better.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
It's a trap!
They most likely want to lure Mozilla into infringing on their patents so they can shut it down.
...you were reading that infamous pickle thread from FARK.
Not safe for your stomach and work, btw.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
I believe ESR calls them Microserfs.
Rather apt, i think.
Your friendly neighborhood AC.
...trying to crush the free software movement.
In fact, my experience show almost all new technologies at Microsoft go through three distinct phases:
Notice that at any give time two-thirds of the company are doing basically non-evil things. Given that their business model requires that they make all their money from the other third, they must really want to be good (or at least non-evil). Otherwise, why bother spending so much money trying the first two phases?
But this guy isn't involved in any one of those phases. When you look at MS ID card it says "Longhorn Evangelist" right below his picture. But when he slides it through the card reader going through a security checkpoint every morning, the guard sees "clueless marketing droid" on the central computer. It's his job to talk about how wonderful XAML, Avalon and WinFS are. He looks at them and says, "These would be useful in Firefox. What a coup it would be if I could convince those Open Source developers to use them."
He doesn't know that XAML and Avalon are implementations of perfectly good ideas which have been around in various forms for years. He may not even know that no one has the foggiest idea how much of WinFS will actually end up in the Longhorn release. He doesn't know that XAML and Avalon duplicate W3C specs that have been out for years. He doesn't know that all of the Mozilla family of browsers have implemented these specs for quite some time. He doesn't know that MS has been holding back the development of the Internet for two years because their browser doesn't implement these specs. He doesn't know that a lot depends on the degree to which these new technologies implement the specs.
If XAML and Avalon don't implement the old specs two questions become key: Do they do the same kind of thing better? And do they implement something which is close enough to the spec that we can all use these features (which MS has managed to deny all to all of by dominating the market with a bad browser) via some kind of CSS hack?
The clueless marketing droid has not considered these issues because it isn't his job. I'm sure there are Firefox programmers looking closely at just what will be useful in XAML, Avalon and even WinFS. But until the exact nature of the OS is set in stone no one will be committing much to revising the Firefox roadmap to incorporate the new technologies. Maybe these new technologies will make some things that have been hard to do on the Windows platform easier. But they will be things Firefox already does.
Unlike MS marketing droids, we don't have to wait until Microsoft gets it right.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
vi +
Could this be just a ploy to get out some stories like "open source developers support longhorn - you should too", or some such?
They know that IE code is breakable and IE 7.0 is not that much different from IE 6.0, so they want Mozilla Developers to do the work for them to integrate with Longhorn. So MS can steal^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrow the Firefox code and make IE 8.0 with it and add in the VB.NET, ActiveX, and other stuff that Mozilla/Firefox lacks.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Ever heard of Xeorx Parc, X11, Apple Lisa and MacOS, DR GEM, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga ?
Some of us used a GUI when Windows (remember 1.03?) still was a wet dream of Bill G.
Probably the only "invention" of Microsoft in this context - and i still refuse to see any invention in the integration of two tasks into one piece of software - was the "integrated filesystem/net browser" (hello Apple, hello Netscape) , everything else was borrowed from the projects listed above.
You're probably too young to remember the beginnings of Windows, but some of us remember 1.03 (let's borrow some ideas from apple, cerox et al.), 2.10 (let's borrow some more ideas from apple and allow overlapping windows), 3.0 (the apple trashcan looks nice, let's have one too), 3.11 (Novell does nice networking, BSD has a nice TCPIP stack - let's borrow some more), etc.
In the world of software it should be like in the world of sciences, medicine, mathematics, etc. - you use other people's work and othe people use yours. just give credit where it's due and dont't pretend you did all the work on your own.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton
At least the OS community does not pretend to have invented "the world and everything" , admits to be "standing on ye shoulders of Giants", and they allow, enjoy and encourage others to stand on their shoulders and build a better world.
HFS and HFS+ are from Apple.
And yes, NTFS 5 can defrag itself; all copies of NTFS 5 are shipped as part of operating systems that include a Defrag applet for the Microsoft Management Console. To launch it under Windows 2000 Professional, go to Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Disk Defragmenter.
Release a good product tomorrow instead of a bad one today.
Customers who vote with their dollars have seemed to prefer a bad product today.
Let's just ignore them and maybe they'll go away. (IE what?)
Meh.
"Customers who vote with their dollars have seemed to prefer a bad product today."
That's like saying that battered women voting with their bruises and broken bones, seem to prefer an abusive relashionship over a healthy one.
Nope. Nothing to see here, nothing at all. Seriously RIA's is were the next battle is going to be. Look through those links and go WoW! The Laszlo systems one even has a free download if you want to try at home. That's why it's important that XUL and related technologies get up to speed (including SVG!). Luxor, might even work out. Here's the two, books, needed to understand XUL.
WinFS, XAML, Avalon on longhorn. Does that mean all the apps currently running on xp/2000 have to be ported to longhorn? Or does longhorn provide backwards compatibility? If it does not provide backwards compability, I think this is a mistake that M$ is making. The same mistake that Intel made with Itanium. AMD didn't clone Itanium, but provided a backwards compatible x86 extension. And.... Itanium is as good as dead.
I understand that the situation with Linux is different, in that its not compatible with xp/2000 in the way AMD was.
But, I think there must be a way F/OSS can magnify this mistake of M$ like AMD did with Intel. I think its time F/OSS, instead of playing safe like ol mgmt folks, should make a risk, albeit calculated one. I think they should bet on XUL, the way M$ is betting on XAML.
- Make XUL an independent std. Integrate it into GNOME/KDE (provide libraries for XP/2k/2k+3) for application development. PROVIDE backwards compatibility for older apps.
- Make mozilla show XUL marked up sites. (I am willing to host my site with XUL. I am sure tens of thousands of others will)
- Push XUL to be a web std. That will be a key selling point for corporates to embrace.
- Think for more selling points. ACT STARTING NOW!
I am sure M$ like Intel will be forced to embrace XUL/Mozilla. If they dont, ppl will ignore them, just like they did with Intel.
Here we go again.. People, OSS is not about competing with proprietary software in terms of innovation. It's more about taking commoditized software infrastructure out of the claws of IP (be it software patents, copyright or trade secrets).
XAML is windows-only and is a lame attempt at reinventing a wheel that the Mozilla working group has so nicely invented: The Mozilla cross-platform application framework. XAML would restrict apps to windows.
furthermore, i consider XAML to be a very dangerous technology as far as security is concerned. It looks to me like it attempts to further blur the line between web "pages" and full-blown applications running on the client-side with no permissions restrictions.
lemme put it this way: it is okay for "web pages" to embrace some technologies that enable various compelling user-interface paradigms to further enrich the browsing experience: DOM/CSS/JavaScript (DHTML), Flash and whatnot. As long as they cleanly operate within the browser sandbox.
It is okay for applications and application frameworks to embrace and build-upon web-based technologies to further enrich user interfaces that should inherit from web-browsing user-interface paradigms: Mozilla Application Framework, KHTML/WebKit. Such applications are real applications which users must go thru the conscious steps of installing, with the inherent knowledge that an application could actually hurt their computer system. Any application that works within this model is standalone, and was installed within the constraints of the operating system.
What microsoft appears to be doing with XAML is to push ActiveX one step further, and instead of blurring the line between a web-based document and a full-blown computer application, simply COMPLETELY REMOVING THIS SEPARATION. You'd be looking at running applications simply by pointing your application to a web-based URL: http://widgets.com/evilApp.xaml. Security implications of this are HUGE and horrific when considering microsoft's past track record.
I believe microsoft sees Mozilla as a threat. XAML is their answer to that threat. That blog is attempting to seed brains in that direction.
consider the fact that today, to upgrade windows, you are trained to go to http://www.windowsupdate.com/ and watch your whole upgrade happen INSIDE of your web browser. Forget downloading an executable and running it or having a separate application that is dedicated to software updates. NAH. let's just teach users that running software from your browser is ... OKAY. So next time they see an ActiveX prompt about allowing some code from Gator/Claria, Inc. to run, they'll think that's OKAY too. Let's really remove all layers of security and further open ourselves to stupid worm-spawning trojans.
i'll stop here. windows appalls me. if it doesn't appall you then you've never had to support armies of newbies running windoz, starting with your own family.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
What features am I demanding from developers?
Oh well, at least you might of felt witty when you posted . . . not all is lost.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The stuff Microsoft promises with XAML -- rich user interfaces over the web -- already works fine with XUL. However, since Mozilla's market share isn't big enough, no websites use XUL instead of HTML.
Would it be possible to write an IE pluggin for XUL?
XUL to flash compiler?
Tweet, tweet.
Guys, settle down!
This dude is only expressing his opinion! All you are doing is making fun of it. Remember this?
First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they attack you and then you win.
Here, I will keep it simple (for my poor English and your poor logic):
1)
Scoble complains to Mozilla about their code ---> Mozilla developers code out of the goodness of their hearts ---> complaining about such code not supporing your product is absurd because you are implying that volunteers should devote their time to your profitable gain, for free.
2)
I complain about Scoble's statements ---> this has nothing to do with his code not supporting my product ---> hence, there is no hypocrisy by me not submitting code because my complaint has nothing to do with code, an open source project, or my product not being supported.
Regardless of my poor English, your logic is clearly flawed and reflects how your perspective of the world has become warped. If you are American, I am not suprised of this because it is the essence of the current administration who lies to its citizens. The citizens then lie to themselves and support products of corporations that lie and abuse them, and it all starts as flawed logic, not imperfect English.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
WYSIWYG styled coding machine program specifically to adjust a few things in a browser to make it unique, so it could be re branded. Then most anyone could spend an hour and make their own browser, like building a web page. They would all be similar, but different enough. Browsers do that now in a sense via preferences and themes, etc, so it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make a "browser editor".
of course, IANAC, so what do I know.
I think eventually, and soon relatively in years, it won't be operating systems that are as important as just the apps. We got enough ram and harddrive size now so that apps could all load their own OS,and just be done with it, and all run inside their own user space. The drives and devices could have their own OS and ram as well. And so on.
The OS in these apps and devices could even recognize different architectures, so it would be super cross platform, it wouldn't matter what hardware they were installed on.
I tried doing this with no luck.
Repeat doesn't work for me. I need the GoTo statement, and even then, the periods after each line number totally throws off QBASIC, nevermind that none of those words are actual commands.
Must be psuedocode or something.
Do you really think they could get away with that? Redmond would be stormed by the military as soon as someone figured this out, i doubt apaches (the helicopter) run on windows. They would be bitch-slapped by our government and probably the rest of the world and bill would probably be hauled to the world court before you could say clippy. Anti-trust and anticompetative business practaces are nothing compared to what your suggesting. They're not stupid, theyre not gonna build a backdoor into longhorn and hold the world hostage for what, $100b? oh wait they already have that. Theres absolutly no reason for them to do this unles bill completly loses it and goes on some comic book style supervillan kick. I know /. loves to hate M$, but what your alleging is just stupid.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Market cap + assets + revenues. GE is the world's largest firm by any significant measure.
Citicorp has over $1 trillion in leveraged assets, not hard assets. There is a difference.
Marketcap is only inflated or deflated during certain periods (bubbles). Under normal circumstances, it is an extremely good indication of how much the company is worth and what are its future growth prospects. Agreed that marketcap can be inflated, but not for a long time (basic finance, can't elaborate much here). And contrary to popular belief, Mutual funds don't have that big an impact on marketcap. The point is that mutual funds buy if the company is attractive, not the other way around. And the factors that you mentioned (revenue, assets, profit, etc), all go in the calculation of marketcap. So for all practical purposes, market is always right.
What's under yellowstone?
I worked full time for an University "ResNet" program where it was our job to get student owned computers in the resident halls on the network. Because of the DMCA complaints and network worm problems, we are using SWU's Network Registration System to force a login that is associated with the network card's MAC address. Of course, before prompting for username and password, we setup the system to use SSL encryption. What we found is that 1 out of 10 Windows XP machines either shipped without the DLLs for the Crypto Service properily registered or the registration was lost during install of XP SP1. Microsoft is even aware of the problem.
The bottom line is that about 10% of the students could not get to SSL encrypted web pages. The solution was to promote use of FireFox which doesn't have dependences on these broken Win32 services. What Robert Scoble considers to be an "improvement" for FireFox, I would consider to being a step back making it just as worthless as IE when something causes IE to break.
Having had to make the decision NOT to code for x-browser support at 3 of the largest apparel commerce sites, I can say that it was a cost decision not some freaky validation of microsoft technology, or disinterest in open source or mac software.
Basically, the additional design, coding and testing to support anything but IE was killing our creaky in-house processes and placed yet another obstacle in front of releasing any new features.
So, chalk up Microsoft's browser success to bureaucratic intertia.
Sub shampoo Apply Shampoo Lather Rinse EndSub #define ITERATIONS 2 Main Wet Hair loop ITERATIONS while call Shampoo EndMain
Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]