Slashdot Mirror


Google Maps Creator Takes Browsers To The Limit

An anonymous reader writes "Addressing a crowd of developers in Sydney today, Google Maps creator Lars Rasmussen encouraged them to embrace bleeding edge technology in browser software. He cited the example of how Google Maps can command Internet Explorer to use VML (Vector Markup Language by Microsoft) to display a blue line between geographical points, but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser." From the article: "Firstly, the Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained."

316 comments

  1. Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.

    Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites? I have a feeling that either the quote isn't written in its entirety or was modified in some way that changed what Rasmussen originally intended. I really doubt that someone of his level wouldn't acknowledge the dangers in doing what that quote proposes.

    "It's quite good," he grudgingly admitted.

    Luckily Google came out with it first so Microsoft again looks like the one copying what others are doing - right? ;-)

  2. Hmm... by rk_cr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if I like the idea of taking browsers to the limit when it comes to advertising and pop-ups.

    1. Re:Hmm... by entrex · · Score: 1

      come on, XTREAM pop-ups is bound to be in the X-Games.

      --
      To a nail, every person with a hammer looks like a problem.
  3. Important to remember... by lightyear4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta. Of course it has some bugs; that's inherent in the "beta" distinction. Surely, though, we ought to be suitably impressed by the progress made by google. Until they came along, we had few real innovators.

    1. Re:Important to remember... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta.

      Who's complaining? The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever. The fact that it requires no client side program and that it works so incredibly smooth is what makes it amazing...

      Yeah, it's not as great as it could be but they are currently taking the appropriate steps to make sure that it continues to lead the field (i.e. the API).

    2. Re:Important to remember... by schtum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GMail is supposedly beta and almost everyone I know is on it. Google "betas" are less buggy and more widely deployed that most companies' final products. It may be their way of limiting liability (just in case) or just to let you know that the features are subject to change without notice. So far, thankfully, the changes have been to our benefit (sattelite images, sattelite/map hybrids, and "infinitely increasing" storage on Gmail).

    3. Re:Important to remember... by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      How does this matter? Pretty much no Google product is anything besides Beta, except for the search engine.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    4. Re:Important to remember... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hey garcia, what the hell do you do all day? What's your real-world job? 'Cause as far as I can tell, it's posting to Slashdot all day long in every story... usually more than once. So anyways, I want your job, because it must be cake! (I'm not being completely sarcastic here, you realize that, right?)

    5. Re:Important to remember... by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever

      Multimap (multimap.com) did this before Google, so it wasn't really innovation. But this is what large companies do I suppose, bring in something that's been around before (but which no-one really noticed), then get praised for being 'innovative' when they really haven't been.
    6. Re:Important to remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whew, I thought we might have to go for another full day without our obligatory Google circle jerk. I should have known our faithful Slashdot editors would post yet another Google puff piece praising their map features for the 10th time.

    7. Re:Important to remember... by Saxton · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you were as good at your job as he is at his, you'd be able to do the same thing.

      --
      My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
    8. Re:Important to remember... by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      Who's complaining? The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever. The fact that it requires no client side program and that it works so incredibly smooth is what makes it amazing...

      While nobody doubts that Google Maps is good,its hardly innovative,both Multimap and Street Map have implemented long ago what google maps does.The only difference is the others work only in UK (and Europe)and offer no API.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    9. Re:Important to remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      ...Multimap and Street Map have implemented long ago what google maps does.

      You're kidding, right? The user experience under discussion isn't an online map that zooms when you click on it. It's the interaction without page reloads, the sexy smooth scrolling, and the clever graphics. Or is this just a shill for those two services?

    10. Re:Important to remember... by StevoJ · · Score: 1

      Multimap and Streetmap did what before Google did? Online mapping? Ordnance Survey published maps before Multimap and Streetmap did. Ever think about that?

      --
      That didn't really make sense. But I'm going to post it anyway.
    11. Re: Important to remember... by ClubFootJones · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the pangs of jealousy to me. At least after using Google I don't feel whored out like when I use other search engines and get bumrushed by all their advertising. Their searches are fast and effective.......

    12. Re:Important to remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god...

      Have you even used Google Maps? I mean, I assume you have, but that kind of comment shows you haven't even tried it.

      The difference between Google Maps and those two services above is that you can actually DRAG the map around... no page reloads. The service is infinitely nicer to use.

    13. Re:Important to remember... by rylin · · Score: 1

      The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever.

      I dunno, I remember myWebOS - do you?
      myWebOS screenie. This was back in '00 or so.

  4. Danger Danger Will Robinson! by ChillyWillie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space
    Are you kidding me? How is this a bad thing? If this was allowed it would be one of the greatest security holes of all time!
    --
    I am NOT putting my signature in this stupid little box! How do I know you won't steal my identity???
    1. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's bad because programmers can't take advantage of those things to produce a better program. Duh.

    2. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by Jose-S · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Browsers need to move in that direction, and likely will, but using a proper security infrastructure, i.e. a sandbox similar to that in Java or .NET. I believe 10 years from now HTML will be like the BASIC of the web development world.

    3. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by Myen · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, browsers will become a deployment platform, where apps get downloaded and installed via the browser (with possible integration). They will be treated as locally installed apps (so one could do stuff like save files and read them later) and be trusted.

      And then they become a toolkit and people write apps in them. Oh wait, that's XUL/XAML.

    4. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by op00to · · Score: 1

      If I'm still using a computer as we know it in 10 years, I will be highly dissapointed.

    5. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space

      Are you kidding me? How is this a bad thing?


      Heh. The "downside" he's talking about is to the programmers at the commercial web sites. It's fairly clear that he views things like security as limits on what web-site owners can do with your computer. This is all true, of course, but you are probably under the mistaken impression that you should be the one that decides what your computer is to be used for. He's just trying to explain to you why you're wrong, and how much better things will be when your machine is fully available to people who know better than you how to take full advantage of its capabilities.

      You see, the goal is to make things simpler for you. Instead of laboriously going through all those complicated web forms to order stuff online, this will all be automated. When you click on a link to a commercial site, your browser will download code that automatically fills in all the credit-card and address information for you, sends it back. This will complete the purchase without any need to waste your time with boring forms that you're tired of filling in over and over.

      Think of how much more efficient and productive this will be.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by Skapare · · Score: 1
      He's just trying to explain to you why you're wrong, and how much better things will be when your machine is fully available to people who know better than you how to take full advantage of its capabilities.

      You mean like the people that have taken over millions of zombie computers to inform me that I should mortgage my house so I can buy pills to make certain body parts grow larger?

      When you click on a link to a commercial site, your browser will download code that automatically fills in all the credit-card and address information for you, sends it back.

      So my house will be mortgaged and I will get my pills without even having to click on anything. I see now.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah; I think you've figured it out.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One-click phishing.

    9. Re:Danger Danger Will Robinson! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Heh. Actually, that's still too much work for the typical (l)user, as shown by the fact that a lot of them don't respond properly to phishing pages by clicking when we want them to.

      But when the web tools have access to all of your machine, even that one click becomes unnecessary. The code in the page you just downloaded will simply look around your file system, find the information it wants, and send it back home. No need for you to waste your time with clicks.

      Mr Kelly, the author of the article in question, clearly believes this is the future of web software. And he may be right, for people using Microsoft systems. (Gotta get in a bit of MS bashing here. ;-) For the rest of us, our systems will keep the security that blocks downloaded code from running automatically, and if we run it, will block access outside a limited sandbox.

      Kelly and others like him will, of course, consider our computer systems to be backwards and incompatible with the Windows "standard". But we'll be reasonably safe from him and his cohorts' attempts to take over our computers.

      There will be a cost, though. We'll have to click on things to make them run. If that's too much effort, you should buy a Windows box so the phishing code can run without your click.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  5. right..... by TheClam · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the answer to all of IE's problems is to give it MORE access to my PC.

    1. Re:right..... by phoenix42 · · Score: 1

      I mean what could go wrong?

      --
      forty-two
    2. Re:right..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll allow the kind haksters to detect PCs which are voulnerable with the IE-virus and replace it with Firefox.

      "If you have the blue E on your desktop it means you're infected with the IE-virus."

    3. Re:right..... by roror · · Score: 1

      Certain organization would very much like you not to distinguish between IE and your PC ;)

    4. Re:right..... by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      If IE is a gateway, then it's not a security hole...

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  6. Interesting article... by commo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the real issue here is "the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained". Thin clients, security, cross-platform compatibility and consistency... these are the driving factors for the new Internet. As more and more people move to W3C standards, etc... Microsoft will lose their strangelhold on the market that has been littered with alternate, proprietary technologies that no one wants and no one really needs (ActiveX, .NET, Microsoft BOB [:)] and join the rest of the world. Microsoft is not going anywhere anytime soon, but they can't grow by being different from the other 10% (and climbing) of the market. The browser may be the great equalizer.

    1. Re:Interesting article... by Trigun · · Score: 1

      So do you think that there is going to be a shift in how computers receive software, back to a true client-server model? Instead of loading software on your computer, you just visit a website?

      I know a lot of people are saying that this is the panacea for cross platform, or platform agnostic software, local disk crashes, and all the other issues which go along with it, but I don't don't think that I'll trust my data to IntellaMegaHumongoCorp just yet, and I don't think that my company will either.

    2. Re:Interesting article... by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Microsoft will lose their strangelhold on the market that has been littered with alternate, proprietary technologies that no one wants and no one really needs (ActiveX, .NET, Microsoft BOB [:)] and

      Active X is used in ALL kinds of Windows program every day. Active X = COM and is used by virtually every non-Java Windows program on the planet.
       
      .Net is rapidly displacing the COM/Active X/Win 32 model.

      To say that nobody wants and nobody needs Active X or .Net is grossly wrong.

    3. Re:Interesting article... by commo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm talking about web content. When I refer to the thin client, I'm referring to a Pentium 233 in a coffee shop in Sierra Leone. Case in point: Google Maps VS NASA Worldwind. Within a year, the same functionality will be available on Google Maps.

      As time goes on, the processing power of the "thin client" will grow to the point that 5 years from now, a JAVA compile will be a joke.

    4. Re:Interesting article... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to be the troll, but while your comment as a whole is right on, one thing isnt... "ActiveX == COM".

      COM is a standard. Something on paper. An idea of how to use interfaces for binary compatibility. COM IS cross-platform, though Microsoft's implementation is not.

      ActiveX was a cleaver marketing name for OLE with Automation (IDispatch for use in scripting and late binding in general). OLE IS A SPECIFIC set of COM interfaces, with a spalsh of libraries to maintain it all.

      In short: OLE = COM + MS Defined Interfaces
      ActiveX = OLE + Automation

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Interesting article... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to "move to W3C standards, etc." when Google does the complete opposite? They write all sorts of branching logic to code to the limitations of IE, Firefox, Safari, and any other browser that matters to them. The whole point that's being made here is that Google is "pushing browsers to the limit" by specifically knocking on their non-standard hooks.

      Standard 1: Does it work in IE?
      Standard 2: Does it work in Mozilla/Firefox?
      Standard 3 (optional): Does it work in Safari?

      --
      For more information, click here.
    6. Re:Interesting article... by rockmuelle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to reinforce the point that ActiveX/COM/.NET are important: there is no equivalent technology on Unix platforms that easily enables developers to share components across languages. One reason Windows is so successfull in the workplace is that it is trivial for a casual programmer to glue together many powerful components to create custom business applications.

      The closest Unix comes is TCL and Python. These are the standard glue languages on Unix. But, using Python on Windows with COM really exposes how far behind Unix is. On Windows, you immediately have programatic access to almost every program installed on the computer. Its trivial to include an Excel spreadsheet in an application that loads data from a Web service, mixes it with a local Access database and uses VTK to render a fancy visualization. The same task on Unix is possible, but requires more effort and the UI controls are (for lack of a better term) clunkier (and that's all the user really cares about).

      The Linux crowd really should put aside their predjudices and spend a few months writing Windows applications, just so they can understand what they're missing.

      -Chris

    7. Re:Interesting article... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      you immediately have programatic access to almost every program installed on the computer

      Utter bullshit.

      You have access to certain COM interfaces (most are undocumented). Most of those are made by Microsoft, and unless you're a complete masochist most of them are not practical to use.

      I've got a book on how to do OLE embedding.. The code to do it covers 3 chapters (IAdviseSink, etc. and they're not particularly well documented either). Why do you think nobody except MS ever bothers (and even they don't bother for the most part... the last time I tried it only Word and Excel ever implemented it).

      You most certainly do *not* have access to 'almost every program installed on the computer'.

      Also, Unix has had corba for far longer than Windows has had COM, and derivatives of that are in both gnome and KDE.

    8. Re:Interesting article... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      My company certainly wants .NET. They want it so bad they're willing to completely remove the real time OS from hard real time medical diagnostic system... just so they can use .NET.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    9. Re:Interesting article... by jrumney · · Score: 1
      Just to reinforce the point that ActiveX/COM/.NET are important: there is no equivalent technology on Unix platforms...

      The closest Unix comes is TCL and Python.

      TCL and Python are similar to VBscript. They are scripting languages, not an interface. The equivalent of COM on Unix platforms is CORBA, and it is more widely used than you think.

  7. It's All So Funny by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Microsoft initially missed the boat on the Internet. They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate. It ends up being a 3rd company, Google, a non-participant in the browser war who comes along and pushes the envelope. What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market? I think Google's play nice strategy is paying more dividends than MS's destroy all competitor strategy.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:It's All So Funny by j0e_average · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, Microsoft's goal is Not to create cutting edge or innovative software; it is simply to dominate the market.

      The amount of cash they have amassed has allowed them to bully other companies (as well as consumers).

      I personally think they peaked back in the Win95 era.

      Sadly, much of American business is like this...when you can't out-innovate, then intimidate. When that doesn't work, litigate.

    2. Re:It's All So Funny by Sime208 · · Score: 1

      I'm puzzled how the parent is insightful?

      "Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing."

      What do you expect them to do once they've thrashed the opposition? If you win at a game of football, do you keep running around the pitch playing no-one?

      There are two reasons development stopped at IE6. 1) Why add more features when everyone's using your browser anyway? 2) Why risk more and more powerful web applications preventing you making sales of your other products? e.g., who'll use Outlook when powerful web clients exist? who'll buy Office when things like gOffice.com exist?

      You may think that web software will never replace software as we know it, but Microsoft aren't about to help people try by further developing a free browser. (I know very few people for example that use a proper email client nowadays. Everyone, even techies it seems, are users of web-based email.)

    3. Re:It's All So Funny by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Or they themselves could have taken advantage of the technology by creating applications that will run on the browser. If MS felt the need to expend that kind of money to crush Netscape, then it must have seen some advantage to the browser over what they had at the time. Once Netscape is gone, they don't even take advantage of it. When business stagnates and don't improve they leave room open for newcomers and startups. This is precisely what happened.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    4. Re:It's All So Funny by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate...What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      To make more money. Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? This has been Microsoft's modus operandi from the beginning. They could give a rat's ass about providing the public innovative technology - particularly in a market segment that they control or conversely they don't consider profitable. Microsoft only chooses to 'innovate' in segments where they need to differentiate themselves from the competition - and only enough to gain market share (or market control). After that, all bets are off.

      To a certain extent this is endemic of most corporations because of the nature of what they do (make profits and raise the stock prices for their investors at all cost). Microsoft has just taken it to monopolistic proportions.

      On the other hand, the emergence of FOSS onto the scene now provides the possibility that neglected segments will have their desires addressed at some level. Firefox is a prime example of how FOSS can offset stagnation in traditionally corporate controlled markets - and the internet makes publicity and distribution a fractional cost compared to traditional shrink-wrapped software.

      "Publish or perish" is an oft quoted cliche in academic circles. This could be equally expressed as "address fractional market segments or lose overall market share" under these circumstances. Google is doing just that.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:It's All So Funny by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You've just done an excellent job at explaining why monopolies are bad.

      What's your point?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:It's All So Funny by Sime208 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say monopolies are good.

      What's your point?

      I'm just surprised that people don't grasp the concept of business.

    7. Re:It's All So Funny by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      Once Netscape is gone, they don't even take advantage of it. When business stagnates and don't improve they leave room open for newcomers and startups. This is precisely what happened.
      This just makes no sense at all. Netscape was a newcomer that came along with a web browser, Microsoft slaughtered them.

      There's /always/ room for newcomers and startups, as soon as the next one comes along, Microsoft will do the same and slaughter them. They're just toying with Google for now, like a cat does with a ball of wool. When Google isn't looking, MS will have their eyes out.

      The day this doesn't happen is the day we have another Microsoft, and we can move onto hating them. Whether this new Microsoft will be Google remains to be seen. But sure enough we'll loath them if/when they get there.
    8. Re:It's All So Funny by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology
      > stagnate.

      I think you mean "they control the browser markey". Whether it's worth controlling is another question.

    9. Re:It's All So Funny by uradu · · Score: 1

      > If you win at a game of football, do you keep running around the pitch playing no-one?

      Sports gamse are just an ANALOGY for business, and as with any analogy, you have to know where to stop. The duration of games is very short compared to the lifetime of a business, so that's where the analogy breaks down. OTOH, you could say that the end of a game is not really the end, but rather the beginning of learning lessons for the next game, where you hope to be better than last time. There will always be other games, and if you don't learn anything from your past games and practice hard to be better, you will lose them. That's where Microsoft fell down, on the preparing-for-future-games bit. They're the kind of athlete that only practices by competing, and while they're remarkably good at it, that's a risky approach.

    10. Re:It's All So Funny by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      I think you answered your own question. Market control. Microsoft wants to spread it's viscous sheet of mediocrity across all the markets they can, to ensure that the little fish will never grow up and take them by surprise again. They move in, take control, and then squat until everyone gives up. This means they can direct more resources at trying to catch up to the ones that got away, like Google.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    11. Re:It's All So Funny by jsebrech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, MS had a very good reason for crushing netscape, and it makes perfect business sense. Microsoft makes their money from selling platforms. MS charges users (clients and servers), not developers (you can get most MS development tools at ridiculously low prices). Now, here comes netscape, a cross-platform web development environment that is becoming a platform all by itself. Netscape sees a thin client future, where everyone is running the netscape browser and operating systems are irrelevant. MS realizes this, and does the only thing they logically could do: protect the investment in their existing platforms by destroying netscape.

      Improving the web platform would run counter to their whole investment in destroying netscape. The entire point of it was to halt the development of the web platform in its tracks, not to improve that platform.

      This is also why IE7 is not offering much in the way of platform improvements. They're only making it good enough to keep you from going to firefox, who are providing a new platform threat, and therefore a new browser war.

    12. Re:It's All So Funny by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 1
      I think you mean "they control the browser markey".

      MS, they built us, a browser out of the darky darky
      MS, they built us, a browser out of the darky darky
      Now they control the browser markey markey
      Children of the Borg...

      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
    13. Re:It's All So Funny by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Funny
      What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      I dunno...habit?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    14. Re:It's All So Funny by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      you could say that the end of a game is not really the end, but rather the beginning of learning lessons for the next game, where you hope to be better than last time
      You could say that, or you could just say the end of a game is the end, and Microsoft won ;-)
    15. Re:It's All So Funny by Inside_Joke · · Score: 1

      Whether Netscape was better or not is immaterial. They EXISTED; that was enough to make MS want to shut them down. Their very BEING made them a threat, and so MS worked to extinguish that threat before it ever materialized into something they couldn't control.

      --
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
    16. Re:It's All So Funny by Threni · · Score: 1

      Shut it you slaaaaaaaaaaaag !!!

  8. Standards by uf22 · · Score: 0

    The irritating thing is that, unlike different operating systems, there is no real reason for different browsers to require different ways for doing things. They should all conform to standards. I think all of us instinctively believe this and it creates this mental block that stops us from developing branching code for multiple browsers. We have this 'hope' in the back of our minds that this issue will just go away in the future once everyone gets on the same page. But, it'll probably never happen.

    --
    Have you ever asked yourself, Is It Normal?.
    1. Re:Standards by stuckinarut · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should all conform to standards. Yes in and in that perfect world we'd also have standard units of measurement; currencies; plug sockets; sides of the road to drive on!

    2. Re:Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes in and in that perfect world..."

      They say the real beauty of standards is the choice of so many.

      I am very pro-standards. If it's not POSIX, ISO or agreed upon by an international beard stroking institution then I don't consider it 'real'.

      Standards evolve like language, by usage. Standards are aspirational by nature. They start life as nothing less humble than a request for comments, how quaint is that? I think that the OP made the point I am about to make here again... It is not the standards themselves to be held up and worshiped like idols, rather that leaders of the field have the power to bolster any standards aspirational growth. It's a virtuous circle, the more adopt the more useful a 'standard' becomes.
      Some standards live, many die, but we developers have the power to decide which.

  9. But, untrue! by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Funny

    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.

    One thing where MSIE excels over Firefox is exactly providing totally unrestricted access to all the system resources of the client's system, for any website developer/programmer, even without need for confirmation from the user. Although Microsoft swears by God that this feature will be removed from IE7...

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:But, untrue! by g0hare · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it does if you still use 98 or haven't figured out how to run your XP box as a limited user account.

      --
      Vote Quimby!
  10. The Benign Giant? by StreetFire.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For all the Slash-Love Google gets here, I think it's important to point out that a company whose sole revenue model is advertising is advocating more control of system resources through the browser. I think Google's business model is too often overlooked here.

    1. Re:The Benign Giant? by jbrw · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from advertising, don't forget that they'll also quite happily sell you a Google Applicance:

      http://www.google.co.uk/enterprise/

      And, I pressume, professional services to go along with that.

      They'll also sell you some other completely random crap:

      http://www.google-store.com/

    2. Re:The Benign Giant? by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, we overlook it alright. But that's mainly because they have another clause in their business model; "Do no evil".

      This includes ads that are so unobtrusive I often overlook them unless I'm actually searching for a product.

      So, as their sole revenue model might be advertising, they have yet to have a single ugly popup ad, flashing image screaming "CLICK ME", Flash banner ad, or javascript/css to resize the webbrowser or display those oh so annoying CSS frame-over ads. They're extremely good at advertising, better than most newspapers in my opinion.

      So before you get your Google-hating panties in a wad, take a step back and look at what Google's doing for the general consumer.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:The Benign Giant? by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1

      Besides those already mentioned, they also sell the Earth.

    4. Re:The Benign Giant? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      You think the fact that they're not throwing ads in your face, but rather insidiously placing them throughout legitimate content, proves that they are not evil? I would say just the opposite. At least you know the motives of a company that uses popup and interstitial ads.

    5. Re:The Benign Giant? by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "So before you get your Google-hating panties in a wad, take a step back and look at what Google's doing for the general consumer.

      Such defensiveness supports the grandparent's argument that Google's methods and motives should be considered objectively. Dropping the "hate" accusation reeks of fanboyism.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:The Benign Giant? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      "insidiously placing them throughout legitimate content"??

      Wow. Last time I looked at a website with a Google AdWords block, there's the big, bold, usually full caps word "ADVERTISEMENT". On top of that, they identify themselves as "Google Ads", and give a couple of text links, which you can simply go right over as if they didn't even exist.

      Just because it's tougher to block Google Ads with your webbrowser's Adblocking feature doesn't mean a damned thing. I know the motives of Google when they put a link on a site; it's to possibly make me click it!!! If I click it is a choice I get to make at that point! With popup advertisements, those horrid flash overs, and flash ads, there's nothing I can do but waste time either turning off flash, clicking to close a window (which undoubtedly will launch another six), or try to find a way to refresh the page without that damned CSS-over showing up again.

      I really think you've got something crossed if you like those things... But then again, I'm willing to accept that you use Adblock, and don't care for any advertisers. I personally don't care about an advertiser if they don't try to beat me with their ads, and Google's always been good to me about that.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    7. Re:The Benign Giant? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Read the rest of my post for a change; I look at all online advertisers objectively and I will promise you, you will not find a better advertiser. On top of that, they give me a ton of virtually free services that I used on a daily basis to get my work done. I can't argue with that.

      So until Google does something to breach my trust, they've got it. This includes anything I posted about in my main post, which, to date, they haven't done.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    8. Re:The Benign Giant? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      you took it way too far (in the /. tradition) when you said I like the interstitials. I don't. But I do trust them. Google is putting on too benign of an appearance for a company that size. The other shoe has to drop sometime.

    9. Re:The Benign Giant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a percentage of their revenue, those things are miniscule.

    10. Re:The Benign Giant? by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      I often overlook them unless I'm actually searching for a product.

      Just imagine how much money they could make if they were to.... make the ad flash!

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    11. Re:The Benign Giant? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      I would think they would see the amount of money they make fall, as webbrowsers and everyone use them would get up in arms about it. Google's unobtrusive ads is a selling point; the ads are not going to tarnish the website they are on and will blend in, making them not seem so much as advertisements but a welcome part of the webpage. Think product placement; If your product is obnoxious and stands out in the light of everything, people point it out and lambaste you for doing it. If you carefully craft scenes to hide your product, people don't even realize it's happening around them.

      If they made the ads flash, my eyes would puke, they would have lost my trust as a user, and I'd switch to Yahoo! or *cringe* MSN... okay screw MSN.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    12. Re:The Benign Giant? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      ... don't forget that they'll also quite happily sell you a Google Applicance:

      You call that an appliance?

      I want my Google Toaster. Ideally I should be able to burn satellite maps and driving directions into a standard slice of white bread.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    13. Re:The Benign Giant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, as their sole revenue model might be advertising, they have yet to have a single ugly popup ad, flashing image screaming "CLICK ME", Flash banner ad, or javascript/css to resize the webbrowser or display those oh so annoying CSS frame-over ads. They're extremely good at advertising, better than most newspapers in my opinion.

      Unlike slashdot itself, which has started using flash ads.

    14. Re:The Benign Giant? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with advertising?

      No, not any specific examples of advertising, but advertising as a concept. Ultimately, advertising's just "letting people know about your product or service" - even word-of-mouth recommendations can be termed viral advertising.

      If advertising didn't exist in any form I'd never hear about anything new and cool, never buy anything exciting or useful, businesses as a concept couldn't exist, and our society would stagnate.

      Now, most companies abuse the need for advertising - while society need ads to function, we don't need people paid to jump out from behind corners, knock you to the ground and kneel on your windpipe while screaming you're unattractively deformed without their latest appendix upgrade, but this doesn't invalidate the concept of advertising as an essential part of our culture.

      I must admit, I hate advert^H^H^H^H^H^H almost every example of advertising I see. However, pretty much the only type I don't mind is the Google adverts that have taken over the web, largely displacing obnoxious banner-adverts and pop-up windows.

      Google has returned advertising to what it should be - simple, relevant, "soft"-sell and ignorable, and for that it should be praised.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    15. Re:The Benign Giant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do they do for the general consumer?
      How about filing a patent to insert ads in RSS feeds?

      "Do no evil" is now marketing PR. Whenever they can push it, they will. The founders are friendly guys and engineers are cool dudes. The marketing/PR/sales team are dogs like anywhere else.

  11. LOLOLOL OBLIG IE JOKE by ian+rogers · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space.

    I thought IE gave everyone access to everything on your computer?

    1. Re:LOLOLOL OBLIG IE JOKE by schtum · · Score: 0

      That's not a joke.

  12. not for everyone by same_old_story · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yes, his advice is sound, and his work backs it up.

    but using bleeding edge technology on browsers is much harder for a lonely coder / small team. how much money / time / man hours do you think google had to get around the fact that ie can use VML and firefox png + a linear description?

    1. Re:not for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely it's they fact that they had to use VML go get around IE's lousy handling of PNGs? ;)

    2. Re:not for everyone by good-n-nappy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that it's still buggy. Take a look at this. I've also never had a good experience with printing directions on Google maps. They can probably get away with bugs of the first type but the printing bugs could be a killer.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of fiber.
    3. Re:not for everyone by photon317 · · Score: 1


      Yeah, but that's just Minnesota. There's what, like 3 people with slow satellite porn links there? :)

      --
      11*43+456^2
  13. No software to install? by szquirrel · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and there is no software for users to install.

    Except for, maybe, a web browser?

    It doesn't come from browser elves, you know...

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
    1. Re:No software to install? by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      But does come with the operating system 95% of the time.
      Safari -> Mac OS X.
      Internet Exploder -> Windows (Vista lal).
      Mozilla/Konqueror/etc. -> (name of distro) Linux.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:No software to install? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      It doesn't come from browser elves, you know...

      Of course it does. I got one with Windows, one with MacOS X and one with Linux. This evidence enough that work is being subcontracted to elves.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:No software to install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. And btw, what's WRONG with elves you curmudgenous fairy hater.

    4. Re:No software to install? by piquadratCH · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure Google has some sort of web based webbrowser in the pipeline. Wait...

    5. Re:No software to install? by brre · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      Anyone who says "no software for users to install" should do a little user support in the real world. Watch as users hit sites that use some feature not found in their browser, or not working right in their browser.

      No software to install? What do you call finding, downloading, installing, and configuring that next version of the browser, or that other browser?

  14. To the Limit! by xappax · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everybody to the limit, google maps is to the limit...
    I said co-ome on fghwgads!

    1. Re:To the Limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad...no homestarrunner love on slashdot. Maybe a little hyperlink action will help out http://www.homestarrunner.com/fhqwhgads.html

    2. Re:To the Limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, can't find it.

  15. Innovation by RalphSleigh · · Score: 1

    I would rather we waited until IE does everything its supposed to do before moving any further, just yesterday I spent the best part of an hour trying to wrok out why the google maps API was causing my page not to load in IE.

    --
    Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
    1. Re:Innovation by emmetropia · · Score: 0

      I had the same problem this week. I can alsmot guarantee that in the end, your problem was placement of a script tag.

    2. Re:Innovation by RCanine · · Score: 1

      I would rather we waited until IE does everything its supposed to do before moving any further

      So 7 years isn't enough? Should we wait on Microsoft a full decade?

  16. Close your eyes and surf the web?? by DigitalReverend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there is no software for users to install

    Um weird, I had to install my operating system, and then I had to install Mozilla. How in the hell is he browsing the web without installing software?

    I want to experience the self browsable web!!!!

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    1. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by jim_redwagon · · Score: 1

      I want to experience the self browsable web!!!!

      It's called the earth... no software needed, just walk outside and experience it!

      --
      I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
    2. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How in the hell is he browsing the web without installing software?
      By buying a Mac OS X or Windows box with both preinstalled perhaps? :-)

    3. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously.. And it's not even really free, either! I had to buy a computer to use it, AND pay for internet!!!

    4. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by mc900ftjesus · · Score: 1

      Just jack into the Google-matrix. Amatuers.

    5. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Im not sure if you are being serious or not... but I'll bite either way.

      He is speaking from a business/enterprise perspective and is talking about web applications (IE google maps, database search tools, etc.). Roll the clock back 10 years. Client/Server was the major buzzword in organizations. You have a database of customers, and a salesforce that wants the data in it. So you create a gui front end that can access it. The only problem is, how do you deploy this across the company? If you have hundreds of users, getting them all to install the executable is something of a nightmare (especially if its a required upgrade). Even if it is not required, if a user has a problem with the application, you have to track down what version they are using and reproduce it, and probably tell them its fixed in version X.

      So now back to today... We have a web app that accesses this DB. When we want to roll out a new version, we update it on the server and... we're done. Thats it. All the user needs to do is access the url like they have always done. No installation, no more support hassles, and nothing needs to be done on the users end. That is the big problem that is solved. The apps that he is talking about are web apps, not browsers and similar programs.

    6. Re:Close your eyes and surf the web?? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Get a MSN TV box thingamajig. Or any other so-called Internet appliance...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  17. Everybody to the limit! by bornyesterday · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Cheat is to the limit! Everybody come on fhqwdgads!

  18. Browser as VM? No thanks. by Jooly+Rodney · · Score: 1

    How about this -- if I want to run a goddamn virtual machine I'll run a virtual machine. There's gotta be someone out there with a better idea for "application" delivery.

  19. Don't forget MS... by Decameron81 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.


    Heh, go tell that to Microsoft with the new "broker" process in Explorer 7. One story below this one.

    Removing this "limit" may be a great thing for web developers, but it's also the only thing that keeps us and our computers from being controlled by them.
    --
    diegoT
  20. XUL - Just Learning It by under_score · · Score: 1

    I've just started learning XUL and I'm already wishing that IE supported it. It seems like a fabulous way to build applications. I'm working on a calendar app for my religious community, and although xhtml, css and javascript are mostly good enough, I'm moving it over to XUL because it's better and because I can get access to system resources. I understand the security implications of this, but for my application, there are security implications in the other direction: I don't want community information that might be confidential put on a web server that could possibly be compromised. Instead, the web server will serve the application code, and the calendaring details will be stored locally. (the software is for producing printed calendars, not shared online calendars)

    1. Re:XUL - Just Learning It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've just started learning XUL and I'm already wishing that IE supported it."

      Yeah, and if Microsoft has implimented something like that a while ago, all hell would have broke loose.

      "OH, MICROSOFT IS SOOOOO EVIL.. TRYING TO MAKE AN INTERFACE ON THE INTERNETS..... NEW M$ TECHNOLOGY SUCKS!!!!1"

    2. Re:XUL - Just Learning It by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your religious community has calendaring information sensitive enough that you worry about someone "compromising" it online? Wow.

    3. Re:XUL - Just Learning It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious communities often council people, and I think they have an assumption of privacy in the scheduling of that counciling.

    4. Re:XUL - Just Learning It by under_score · · Score: 1

      It's a persecuted community.... and I'm a bit of a security freak. I use FreeBSD for my personal web server, and OpenBSD for my small business. I don't use MSFT products for the most part (certainly no office, mail or web apps). I happen to know some people who have shown me just how bad security holes can be. And as someone else pointed out, religious communities also have confidential personal information such a counselling that, while not an obvious target for attack, would still be damaging to those involved if it was compromised.

  21. Everybody... by Sunkist · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    No, Vern. They just let him in.
    1. Re:Everybody... by brenddie · · Score: 0

      wtf is a fhqwhgads

      --
      The best test environment is production. - Me
      chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
    2. Re:Everybody... by ninjakitten · · Score: 1

      wikipedia to the rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fhqwhgads

    3. Re:Everybody... by McWilde · · Score: 1

      Click... and if you didn't know that, better click here as well.

      --
      Maybe
  22. Why not Java then? by marat · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    1. Re:Why not Java then? by werelnon · · Score: 1

      People are pushing the limits of browsers using Java. The Switchboard is an Internet conferencing solution which requires no installation from the user. Just browse to the page and you're done.

    2. Re:Why not Java then? by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 1

      " People are pushing the limits of browsers using Java. The Switchboard [theswitchboard.ca] is an Internet conferencing solution which requires no installation from the user. Just browse to the page and you're done."

      It did not push the limits of my browser to draw a little puzzle piece with the text that said "Click here to download plugin."

      Thanks, but I choose not to plugin.

      --
      (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
  23. Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications by bad_outlook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am leaning towards things like Ajax for my future web devel. Look at the way 'Google Sugest' or even the spellcheck in Gmail works; it's feels like it's a desktop app, there's no pausing to download a plugin or anything. Bringing more of a desktop response to web apps is going to be where it's at in the future, and I think Ajax is the one to watch.

  24. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by tibike77 · · Score: 1

    Well, it's one thing to have "malicious code" executed client-side without any confirmations whatsoever, but it's a whole different thing to have something beneficial executed client-side after (a few) confirmation(s).

    Sure, it's dangerous to have such a level of access from a browser to the computer, but heck, if I *really* want to run something that is possible to be run from a browser (with the appropriate plugins, confirmations, etc), then dammit, let me run it.

    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
  25. Let the serive begin by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    And to begin today's Google worship service, please open to page 152 of your hymnal. Let's begin

    "Amaaaaazing Google.... is a search engine
    That helps a geek like meeeeeeee
    Iiiii once was lost, in the interweb
    But now you've show the waaay

    T'was Sergey who made the Google god
    And Larry who helped him ooooout
    How precious was that interface
    So simple yet so compleeeeeeet

    Through many popups, porn and 404's,
    We have already brooooowsed
    T'was Google that brought us safe thus far
    and Google will lead us home.

    Google has promised more to me
    Like gmail, maps and blogs.
    They own all of our web dayayata
    But Google "does no evil"

    When we've been browsing for ten hours
    and don't know how to thinnnnnnk
    we'll log onto Slashdot again
    to hear more about Goooooogle."

    -- Pastor Google

    "Slashdot -- Serving freethinkers since never"

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Let the serive begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1, song parodies on /. are never funny

  26. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by szquirrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites?

    Define "downfall". Web usage isn't exactly declining, malicious code or no.

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
  27. Browser question... jokes aside by concept10 · · Score: 0


    "This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained."

    How much functionality and use do we expect to extract from the casual web browser? Current and the near future.

    Internet Explorer has shown us how "bottleneck" can improve or hamper the web browsing and/or overall desktop experience.

  28. everybody knows that the good guys lost... by psycho_eddy · · Score: 0

    i don't post often [check out my posting history] buuut...now correct me [i.e. liberally mod me down] if i don't *get* it but considering the hubris over the amount of phds google've wrangled in, it's slightly surprising & disappointing that some of the brightest foax in the industry amount to coding slick webapps. granted, gmail's swell, as is google map et al, but i woulda thunk, back when i was still 'thunkin', that they'd be liable to throw more than this outta that campus.

    again, i don't mean to be cynical, but i am, so i'll continue. let's surmise. gather an assload of postgrads in a room & figure you'll end up with something truly revolutionary [let's skip the discussion that nothing's truly revolutionary because that implies extinction of its predecessor & is instead, as werner von braun sez, transformation]. ibm seems to have fun creating groundbreaking shtuff [blue gene, the z9 mainframe]. bash sun all you like but solaris 10 is a sys admin's dream, with several features any server operating system should be proud to have. hell, apple's osx is a workstation's dream with its clean melding of a beautiful ui to a solid base. i'll stop the examples at those 3 because they're sufficiently high profile & they're what spring to my mind in my line o' work.

    now let's take google. foax, i'm gonna hafta call shenanigans here. with all its bravado & sheer resources, the best google has done is search. and don't get me wrong, it's certainly better at it than anyone currently. but let's put down the kool-aid for a moment & consider; google's search algorithm is just that, a single algorithm which is supplemented by *people* [see: previous /. story about its internet agents]. it's foray into webapps are just that, forays, most of which remain in beta. skip the discussion that google's beta is better than other's production releases because my point is that while they're certainly polishing the hell outta everything, what they're doing *isn't* by any stretch - here's the word again - revolutionary. javascript, ajax, whatever you wanna call it [really, whatever you call it since i'm not a programmer] isn't the most complex whatchamacallit & if that's all phds can put together in a considerable number of years, i gotta wonder if soon we won't be reading of google's downfall, much as we did of altavista & co, and we continue to do of yahoo.

    and before you throw their clustered linux system in my inconsiderate face, seeing as how we know very little about how it actually works i've skipped over it on purpose because it's not a revolutionary google product if no one else gets to use it. good night & dank oo.

    --
    your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs...i see through you - another dead hero
    1. Re:everybody knows that the good guys lost... by Washizu · · Score: 1

      "foax, i'm gonna hafta call shenanigans here"

      Sorry, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on the word "foax."

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    2. Re:everybody knows that the good guys lost... by psycho_eddy · · Score: 0

      foax was liberally used by thomas pynchon in "gravity's rainbow"...if it's good enough for him...

      and anyway, that doesn't have anything do with my argument. o well.

      --
      your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs...i see through you - another dead hero
    3. Re:everybody knows that the good guys lost... by ataja · · Score: 1

      I agree. Thanks for the well written post. I actually enjoyed reading this one.

    4. Re:everybody knows that the good guys lost... by Tran · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but it doesn't have to be revolutionary. Just refined quality is what can set products apart form the norm. Revolutionary does not mean immediately useable. Often it takes years to have good refinement that makes the revolutionary idea really nice. That applies to physical products as well as software. Cars and motorcycles are common products where this can be easily seen. Mercedes ( or your favorite high end brand ) doesn't make a revolutionary automobile, but most people appreciate its refinement and would rather own and drive that rather than a Yugo.

    5. Re:everybody knows that the good guys lost... by psycho_eddy · · Score: 0

      thanks for your reasoned reply. what i was trying to point out was the *expectation* some people attach to google; people, who in coarser words would be called fanboys & in finer words, short-sighted. to be fair, their expectations aren't entirely misled because, drumroll, krist, how many more phds do you need to get together before they start crapping out more than webapps. hrrumph.

      car analogies are far too popular here but i'll plow through anyway. you're entirely right that mercedes hasn't done anything fundamentally revolutionary to the internal combustion engine chugging kastrol, but no one who buys mercedes expects them to save the automotive industry, quite unlike the way some very hardcore google fans seem to think of google.

      google's "do no evil" motto is constantly lauded but a cursory dip into the history books should be sufficient to convince most rational humans that trusting conglomerates comprised of 1000s of people is a folly...because, you guessed it padre, we're *people*. that's what a lot of us do. we cheat on our spouses, lie to our best friends, say hello to mother on mother's day [i'm being a bit bleak for effect here]. why should the situation be any different when you gotta shaft the countless anonymous cowards proclaiming to be your fans?

      i appreciate google's utility & their products, but let's not fall into the trap of heralding these quite so quickly. the roger ebert folly of giving mindless popcorn flicks 3-4 stars [because they've fulfilled their ambitions of junk entertainment] & denying the same to more meriting flicks [because they aimed too high & burned their wings].

      in a small way, i think this is just a case of lots of people looking for some kind of authority figure [not to compare google to rush limbaugh but, the same kind of fan comes to mind] to latch on to. let's wait a little...let google come out with their secret googleos, let them open source half the whizbang that makes their clustering work, let them do a tenth of what other industry giants who've come & gone [r.i.p. dec] have given us & *then*, then slashdaughters [sic], i'll join you in the saturnalian google orgy.

      until then, i'm sticking to the sidelines & picking no favorites.

      --
      your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs...i see through you - another dead hero
  29. So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Support for IE7 is already broken? ;)

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how ya doin fat ass? do you ever do anything other than post on slashdot and eat? or is it just that you can't get hired because your too fat and cant even leave your computer chair. well, i guess its for the best i mean- you cant go in elevators cuz you exceed the weight capacity, you can work in a cubical because you cant fit and you cant work from home because your fingers are too fat. so you eat all day and post on /. and your mom gives you loving at night. i was wondering...is it difficult to satisfy a whale like her when you cant pry her legs open from the fat? gg you SUPER-SIZED LARD ASS!!

    2. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Boring, boring, boring. Do humanity a favor and get a life.

  30. Bleeding edge, in general by nikai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you "embrace bleeding edge technology", don't come crying when you get cut by it. Bleeding edge technology tends to mean just that, it is not as reliable as traditional technology.

    When your application crashes 20% of your customer's browsers, you can of course say, "But that's not my problem. They should have upgraded to the latest version of the browser, and ...", however, your customers probably won't get your point, when "the rest of the web", "just works."

  31. Google should stick with standards only by ylikone · · Score: 1

    As they are a major player on the interwebs, they can hugely affect which browser people choose to use. If they would only not bother supporting any goofy IE-only browser code and stick with standards, people would be be switching to complaint browsers very quickly. Thanks again for you the great browser, firefox team!

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:Google should stick with standards only by ChrisF79 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't disagree more. The slashdot crowd would switch browsers, but what about the older folks that have a tough time just setting up a Yahoo email account? I would wager more people on the web are on that side of the fence than on the side we're on. You and I know quite a bit about browsers, but let's not forget about the other 95% of users out there.

      --
      Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    2. Re:Google should stick with standards only by ylikone · · Score: 1

      BUT, who determines future technology adaption? I believe it's us techie types, mom and pop (the 95%) just follow our lead. If it becomes standard practice to install FF or some other complaint browser first thing after a windows install, I don't see a problem with adaption.

      --
      Meh.
    3. Re:Google should stick with standards only by ChrisF79 · · Score: 1

      As remedial as it sounds, I am still under the impression that a lot of users out there couldn't install firefox if they wanted to. I don't think they'd know why they need to do it, and then how to get the app and install it. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I really think that's the case. I used to volunteer at a public library in the computer department. Granted, most of those people's computer experience came only from going to the library and using their computers, but it was amazing how little they knew.

      Also, if you ever want to see how the public understands computers, just go to a Best Buy and spend 5 minutes in the computer department listening to people ask questions. I think you'll realize that something as simple as acquiring a new browser and then installing it is almost an insurmountable task for quite a few people out there.

      --
      Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    4. Re:Google should stick with standards only by Shawndeisi · · Score: 1

      Not adhering to standards IMO is only a problem when you are also not supporting other browsers in the process. You'll notice that they use .pngs with their firefox implementation of their maps. You will probably also notice that .png support with an alpha layer is spotty at best with IE. So what is google to do? Ignore 90% of their market? Hell no.

      They are going ahead with the best option that they have available, given IE's non-standards compliance: Make It Work With Everything. Where's the problem? People who want to adopt FireFox will see that google maps works beautifully with it. How is google contributing to the downfall of standards? It's not like people are going to be saying "wow, I really want to use firefox, but it won't work with google maps!" That scenario is the problem with non-standards-compliance if you only program for non-standardized browsers. If you're making sure that doesn't become an issue, who are you hurting by supporting both standards and non-standards?

      Bottom line: If you're a huge business, you can't ignore 90% of your customers over a standards argument presented by some purist. If you were a web developer at google, and you had this fancy new app that you spent a year on and then subsequently told your boss that it's the most amazing thing ever but only works on 10% of browsers, you would be fired. Yes, standards are beautiful. Yes, you should support them. But you can really do both, and that's what google is doing.

  32. google browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Google needs is a better 'browser' platform for building web-based applications. So, Google will simply build this new broswer with an associated new protocol (http improvement). It will be released with a fully open specification and Apache module (or apache replacement) so that web developers can quickly build content for the new browser.

    The main improvement over the broswer/http world will be that it will support web-based applications development. Instead of relying on javascript, XMLHttpRequest, or even Java applets and .NET (all of which will be effectively deprecated), the new Gbrowser and Gprotocol will provide a means for better client-server model development.

    Everyone who downloads the new Gbroswer will have access to an exploding universe of new content that blows away today's page-based and clunky javascripted offerings.

    --

    AC to avoid NDA annoyances

  33. quota by reset_button · · Score: 0

    /. daily google article quota filled.

  34. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    He may be refering to increases in bandwidth and computing power lessening the need for local storage and memory.. think thin client but over a much longer distance. Defainatly possible given enough bandwidth.

  35. SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be nice if they supported SVG. Sure its not native in most browsers yet, but its on its way and in the meantime there is Adobe's SVG plugin. Opera has support, Firefox should have it by 1.5 and KHTML has it in the works.

    SVG is a W3C approved standard. Adobe has more marketing oriented description of the technology.

    Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that SVG has any future? Adobe are the only significant commercial supporter and they have almost given up on it. Their forthcoming merger with Macromedia will almost certainly result in in being killed.

    2. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google couldn't really use the Adobe plugin to render the map overlay because they want to dynamically create the elements on the client instead of loading an svg from the server. Users don't want to wait for a round trip to the server while they drag the map.

    3. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera has native SVG now. Mozilla has it in the latest nightly builds. Safari will also have it soon, courtesy of the KSVG project for Konqueror/KDE.

      IE? Who cares? If Microsoft doesn't follow suit, it's one more nail in their shiteware's coffin.

    4. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a big fan of standards and I strive to make all of the pages I design XHTML 1.1 and CSS compliant. However, my love for standards is superceded only by my hatred for plugins. A user should NEVER need a plugin to view a webpage properly. If you build a site that uses Flash, or Java, or SVG or whatever, there had better be a version that's equally-functional and requires no plugins at all. That's pretty much the oldest rule in the book, and unfortunately a lot of people have forgotten it.

    5. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SVG elements are exposed to the DOM, so they can easily be manipulated by client-side scripting.

    6. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Metaphorically · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget the cell phones. SVG Tiny would be a good way to get Google Maps access to a bunch of mobile browsers. If they can do it in VML, then it should be easy to do in SVG. SVG would be a whole lot simpler than the stuff they do for paths with PNGs in Firefox (imo).

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
    7. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by bluemist · · Score: 1

      Thanks for mentioning this, you beat me to it.

      The problem with SVG is that although it is an open standard and integrates with XML based web page design, can be used for charts, graphs, and animation (think Flash), and can give you a fully scalable web page (i.e. resize your page and the graphics as well as the layout scales; it is implemented in almost nothing except Opera in the past month or two.

      Chicken and egg problem.

      Oh yes. Unlike flash or graphics, textual and meta information content *within* your SVG can be fully searched externally with search engines.

      Additionally, your bandwidth goes down if you chuck GIFs and other graphics commenly used for web page layout.

      The main problem is twofold, the lack of tools to create SVG's (though you can write it up in a text editor just like HTML, and the fact that your lovely SVG graphics will display in nearly nothing.

      It is worrying that Firefox and Mozilla do not yet support these formats nativly!

      I don't know where to go to check if this is on the roadmap or not (someone elsewhere claims it is due for 1.5 of Firefox) but it needs to be.

      As Microsoft has their own proprietary format, it is only going to support SVG under gunpoint, and now is the time for SVG to be in our Mozilla browsers (available on almost *every* platform).

      As good open source users here, you should demand it's implementation in the Mozilla browsers family now!

      Oh, yes. I just discovered this link yesterday:

      http://www.inkscape.org/

      Go visit and play. It's an open source effort to create an SVG editing tool. Looks very well along in it's efforts too.

    8. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by starwed · · Score: 1

      The SVG produced by inkscape seem to work fine in the Firefox nightlies. (THey've had SVG on by default since late spring.)

    9. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean, but the problem is that certain browsers are lagging behind in the area of standards support. Why would you let one browser (IE) hold you captive about what you can create when there are plugins for IE that can bring it up to a level of compatibility and all other browsers have plans for native SVG? Another piece of irony: "I design XHTML 1.1 and CSS compliant", yet IE is considerably lacking in support of both of these areas.

    10. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by dodongo · · Score: 1
      Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML?


      I like how you just wrote off Microsoft as some minor player. You know, anyone besides Microsoft and their shitty browsers, which make up only a piddly 85% of the market.

      Yeah, that Microsoft ;)

      (Written in Firefox 1.06 / Ubuntu Linux 5.04, just for the record)
    11. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

      So basically the two points you try to make have been rendered moot by your own post. 1) There ARE tools available (Sodipodi, Inkscape, ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR, Sketsa) and 2) Most browsers have SVG native support plans (Opera has it, Firefox nightlies currently have it, will be publicly available in September-ish, Konqueror has it in plugin form, Safari has begun support).

      Here's a tip: do a little research on a topic before you publicly post about it.

      Cheers,
      Jeff

    12. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Metaphorically · · Score: 1

      The main problem is twofold, the lack of tools to create SVG's (though you can write it up in a text editor just like HTML...

      Besides the link you provide to a tool that produces SVG, there are plenty of others that support SVG to some degree or another. The most popular is Adobe Illustrator. Illustrator is a very well know vector graphics application which has been able to do SVG for years.

      ... and the fact that your lovely SVG graphics will display in nearly nothing.

      The desktop browser world is important, but it isn't everything. There are applications that use SVG on the server-side then send a raster to the client. Yes you lose many advantages over client-side SVG but you can still take advantage of the fact that it's an XML-based graphics language. There are tools from Apache and Adobe designed to support server-side use.

      Look at XML, it's rare that a site delivers raw XML to a client, but there are more sites than anyone could know that are using XML on the server side then delivering HTML to the client.

      The focus right now is on getting SVG in the client, but server-side and other applications give SVG a way to bootstrap; to avoid the chicken and egg problem that you describe. Have a look around and you'll see there's more to it than you know.

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
    13. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML?

      Geez, even when MS is actually following a w3c recommendation (VML) you guys still pile on. Not only on /. is it Google can "do no evil", but "MS can do no good"

    14. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by hritcu · · Score: 1

      Firefox should have it [SVG] by 1.5

      Deer Park Alpha already has pretty good SVG support (JavaScript support is particularly interesting).

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    15. Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SVG for rich web apps isn't there yet.

      For example, suppose you wanted to build a CAD app that displays and edits AutoCAD DXF-format drawings. Suppose it had to be able to load drawings of 1+ meg in a matter of seconds. Suppose it had to work in all major browsers on all major platforms.

      How would you do this with SVG?

      I had to do this, and I ended up using SVG for it, but only to pipe the content into a flash app (flash 7 has a native XML parser, so parsing SVG is pretty fast). No platform-specific hacks required, and it works on all the major browsers / operating systems.

      I think flash holds a lot more promise for rich graphics web apps right now than SVG. Especially since SWF is standardized, and freely available, so the "but it's proprietary" spiel doesn't really fly that well. I was amazed by just how powerful flash has gotten.

      Though admittedly, I had to push flash's limits. It REALLY was not designed for doing stuff like dynamic pattern fills.

  36. oh, so is that why.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is that why the map never prints correctly in firefox? (I can't be the only one who's noticed this)

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:oh, so is that why.. by Reignking · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume you mean how you have the screen looking one way, but it will print shifted to another way? I was going somewhere last night and had to print two pages to cover what looked like one on my monitor (and because the printing shifts).

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    2. Re:oh, so is that why.. by manno · · Score: 1

      no you are not and it's anoying as H-E-Doublle Hockey Sticks.

      I'm assuming your talking about the hilighted path not showing up on the directions print out right?

    3. Re:oh, so is that why.. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I don't seem to have a problem when using the 'Print' link...

    4. Re:oh, so is that why.. by andycal · · Score: 1

      doesn't work for me either. Hybrid pages print only the streets.

      But then, the same page crashes in IE 6.0 .. no clue why, I just tested it now to see if it was different, and I can't even bring the page up in IE.

      Simalar pages will print from MSN in mozilla, but it's like a screen shot, it doesn't reformat for the printer. Unless there is some print tool I can't find on the page ( printing via file->print)

    5. Re:oh, so is that why.. by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      Not printing right?

      I always take a screenshot, dump it into a graphics program, then print the bitmap of it, or just save it for later viewing.

      Allows you to stick your own little notes into the image, too. Highly useful for driving in new areas with your laptop in the navigators seat.

      NOTE: DO NOT LOOK AT YOUR LAPTOP UNTIL YOU'VE COME TO A COMPLETE STOP.

  37. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IE already has this "install on demand" where a user has to confirm to allow a certain application to be installed via the browser.

    The problem is though, many clueless users click the thing that makes it go away (cause they were promised something good before they clicked a link) which is the accept option. (certainly on pages which are persisting and force a page-reload until the user confirms) Allowing things to be installed which rather shouldn't be allowed.

    A confirmationbox wont ever prompt you "Would you want to allow us to take over your system and do bad things with your PC?" "yes" - "no"

    (many users would hit the "yes" if they were told they'd get a nice game in place for it, or that MSN will send 0.01$ to a sick child somewhere in a place unknown if they click the "yes" option.)

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  38. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by smart.id · · Score: 1

    He said downfall of browsers, not web usage. However, he did use the word a bit generally. Let's just say that code being able to run on a person's hard drive (in other words, locally) has the potential for very Bad Things to happen. Additionally, its increasing prevalence on the internet is what makes it seem like a "downfall."

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
  39. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really doubt that someone of his level wouldn't acknowledge the dangers in doing what that quote proposes.

    It was someone of his level who was responsible for the design deicisions that made ActiveX and Universal Plug & Play interconnective to the internet in the default installs of Windows. How is Microsoft really that different from Google?

  40. Google Browser by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future...

    A Google browser could completly remove this problem. Since it would only allow this control to come from Google itself, security would be maintained.
    Next Google takes over the world. I for one, welcome our google browser overlords...

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  41. Safe access to resources across platforms... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...was supposed to have been Java's big selling point. Now it seems we are relying on the browsers to do everything Java just really isn't working for.

    The idea of a safe sandbox for powerful web delivered code to work within falls apart when you realize that the average user is a complete dim bulb when it comes to system administration and security. They just don't know what to do to limit what code.

    Now if the web world ever came up with a simple point and click interaction method and clear concise and simple instructions as to how to stop rogue sandbox code from eating resources and what to do with it to limit it for security's sake, it would definitely help sys admins, but it still would not make enough of a dent in the denseness of the average user.

    Too bad, because Google is right as to what web apps of this sort need for power on the client side.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  42. Just Imagine the Advertising Potential by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    Virus Technology is going 'legitimate', making sure that consumers get the ads that they desperately need. This is one of the things driving spyware development.

    Don't tell me you have never heard of Advertising Deficiency Syndrome.

    And think of all of those poor advertisers, with starving children at home to feed.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Just Imagine the Advertising Potential by systemic+chaos · · Score: 1

      And think of all of those poor advertisers, with starving children at home to feed.

      ...to their bloodthirsty attack dogs.

    2. Re:Just Imagine the Advertising Potential by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      And think of all of those poor advertisers, with starving children at home to feed.

      ...to their bloodthirsty attack dogs.

      I protest the way you associate dogs and advertisers. Dogs have served humanity for millenias, helping hunters feed their families and guarding the results of their masters hard labor from those that would take it away. Dogs, especially bloodthirsty attack dogs, are not something advertisers keep, they are something that you keep on your property to keep the advertisers away.

      Unfortunately, recent technological advantages have given the advertisers an opening past the guard dogs, with ad banners, email spam and telephone terror. However, dogs have proven to be very adaptable, and are quickly gaining the neccessary skillset to perform their job in modern society. Already they hunt drugs instead of mice and explosives instead of rabbits; I predict it won't take long until they gain sufficient computer skills to safeguard their master in his journeys in the Information Superhighway, barking ad banners apart, herding spam from the inbox to trash and breaking the neck-equivalents of viruses between their slavering jaws of digital teeth.

      Indeed, dogs do not deserve to have their reputation tarnished by being associated with advertisers; please refrain from such baseless mudslinging in the future.

      And in any case it is unadvisable to feed children to dogs; small finger bones may stick in their throats and choke them to death.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  43. VML? nice, but there's something better now: SVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. Not really that useful by W.Mandamus · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it but google maps isn't really that usefull for the real estate business. What I really want is to be able to plunk a section, township, range grid on the thing then map out survey calls. Lets me see things that the survey (especially an older one) might not have shown, such as somebody running a d&mn road through the middle of the thing. (Something that the lawyer needs to know to write title insurance).

    1. Re:Not really that useful by nexxuz · · Score: 0

      I am working on adding an STR layer, but I am having difficulty finding a complete nation wide coverage (not provided by my employer) so I can offer it to the general public.

      If anyone know where I can find such coverage that would be great!

      --
      I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  45. Excels?!?!?! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    One thing where MSIE excels over Firefox is exactly providing totally unrestricted access to all the system resources of the client's system, for any website developer/programmer, even without need for confirmation from the user.

    excel (k-sl')

    v., -celled, -celling, -cels.

    v.tr.

    To do or be better than; surpass.

    Don't mean to insult your vocabulary, but are you sure that's the word you meant? ;)

    1. Re:Excels?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sar-casm

      noun
      cutting language: remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride

    2. Re:Excels?!?!?! by emilv · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see, that's exactly the way he was using the word...

  46. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Illserve · · Score: 1

    As long as its done with the necessary permissions, it should be fine.

  47. Ah... by jd · · Score: 1

    But if you sing it backwards, at half-speed, you hear the hidden message "Use Internet Explorer 7!"

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  48. OT - pizza joint issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I followed your link.

    Anyway, at least they are trying to do positive PR work instead of suing and/or issuing takedown notices to your ISP.

    Not that I would go there after reading what I read.

    1. Re:OT - pizza joint issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, at least they are trying to do positive PR work instead of suing and/or issuing takedown notices to your ISP.

      Not that I would go there after reading what I read.


      It's called freedom of speech. I am free to express my feelings about a particular establishment as I see fit.

      If a judge allowed my site to be removed then every food critic newspaper article on the web would also have to be removed.

      Doesn't work so well does it?

    2. Re:OT - pizza joint issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too followed the link- That large blonde lady in the picture does not look like someone I would keep food away from... I'd worry about her eating me! Rarrrggghhh! Was she the waitress that was so mean to you? That is funny that you are posting the waitesses picture for us all to see. She is large.
      HeHe.
      At DaVinci's Pizzam the wings jerk you!

  49. Re:Browser as VM? No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How about this -- if I want to run a goddamn virtual machine I'll run a virtual machine. There's gotta be someone out there with a better idea for "application" delivery.

    Nothing wrong with a good virtual machine. In fact, I'd suggest that Java content distributed as an applet or application via Java Web Start is in fact "a better idea for application delivery". Nice and cross platform, and quite performant to boot. :-)

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. Wow Maps in IE is way better than maps in Firefox! by manno · · Score: 1

    I just tried Google maps in IE for the first time after seeing this, and IE's redraw is WAY faster than Firefox's, and it's zoom in/out function is also better. If you havn't compared go try it now.

    I had no idea.

    -manno

  52. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by garcia · · Score: 1

    Web usage isn't exactly declining, malicious code or no.

    You're confusing two completely different things here. Web usage != browsers. Please don't fall into the Microsoft marketing ploy that equates "The Web" with "The Browser". They aren't the same.

    Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place?

    People are becoming increasingly annoyed by the increasing problems associated with client side scripts. They might not be aware of what's causing the problem but they do know one exists.

  53. Unfortunately ... by DodgeRules · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google Maps crashes my Windows 98se PC using IE 6.0 everytime. I can use it for a very short time, then the browser locks up and I can't even kill the process. Then other system functions start to lock up. Eventually, the only thing I can do is hit the power button because it won't even let me shut down. Yeah, well tested code Google! Just what I would expect from visiting a web site, NOT! Start testing on older versions since there are still a lot of them still out there.

    1. Re:Unfortunately ... by eugene259 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blaming Google for Microsoft bugs? If this is not an isolated case just on your machine then surely it is MS who is to blame for buggy CSS/javascript/whatever feature it is that crashes IE. Its not that Google code is buggy, it runs and shows you the maps, it is IE that slows down and eventually falls over.

  54. PCs as Portals by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

    Posts have often joked about Google becoming more like an OS, but is it more likely that OSes will become more like Google?

    Moving services away from being PC-based to being web-based would solve a number of piracy issues for companies. It would also allow them to "rent" their products, instead of selling them.

    Can you imagine the gleam in Gates' eye at the thought of getting 25c every time someone uses Word?

    --


    Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    1. Re:PCs as Portals by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Eh, they'd have to bill it on uptime or (better/worse idea) charge per document saved. If they left it at "every use" people would just never close the apps unless they had to reboot. With Win2K or XP, that wouldn't get them more than say, $10-$15 a year, which wouldn't be too attractive. Of course, they could just make Vista all nice and crashy like the old 9x series, then it might be a valid business model. (though even assuming the 9x-style system locks 4 times a day, that's still only $365 a year, half the cost of Office Professional at retail, but with potential for several years of pain)

  55. so Google wants us to code to kill their business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If i started building websites using entirely cutting edge javascript API's, then the website would probably not be index in search engines correctly.

    AFAIK the googlebot (or any other search engine spider) does not interpret the outcome of javascript. So important information may not be search engine listed.

    Using techniques like ajax/flash, may be good for the user experience, but if nobody can even find your website, it's about as handy as a back pocket in a singlet. hmm.. or maybe thats want google wants, forcing my customers to PAY to be listed. Oh well when that happens, I will quite happily go find (and recommend) an alternative search engine.

  56. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    I think there is a distinction here between two different things. I don't think he means it's a bad thing that browser code can't access your HD, etc. I think he's saying it's a limiting factor in developing web apps, and that's a downside to consider.

  57. Rich clients is the way of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's face it. Browser based applications suck compared to well written rich clients. Having to bend backwards for even the most simple thing that would take minutes to accomplish in a regular environment. Somebody needs to think up a better application model than what we're currently using.

    Let's take a look of some of the most common things people are trying to accomplish using HTML today.

    -News and blogs.
    Using an rss reader is the way to go here.

    -Banking
    A rich client is definately the way to go here. Sadly I've never come across a bank that offers this.

    -Forums
    This needs to be standardized. I like the idea of having a rich client, much like an rss reader, for browsing my favorite forums. And before you ask. Yes I've heard about usenet. It's horribly dated and nobody seems to care about it anymore.

    Actually I can't think of single application I wouldn't rather have a custom rich client for.

    1. Re:Rich clients is the way of the future by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      -Banking
      A rich client is definately the way to go here. Sadly I've never come across a bank that offers this.


      My bank's original online banking system was a rich client. It didn't use the the internet, it just dialed up the bank. Sadly, several years ago they did away with it for an internet based service - after several years the internet site still isn't as feature rich as that original app.

      Actually I can't think of single application I wouldn't rather have a custom rich client for.

      I think it's possible to create fairly rich clients using something like XUL. However as long as such super rich clients are specific to one browser family (wasn't IE 7 supposed to have something a lot like XUL?) instead of being a W3C standard, we're going to be stuck with DHTML.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
  58. As much as I like the edge... by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

    ...Some of us have limited staff, deadlines, and a budget to deal with. Frankly, the additional R&D time it requires to stay on the bleeding edge can be problematic. Also, my clients are NOT bleeding edge... So if my code only works on bleeding-edge systems, I've got a problem.

    ~D

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  59. There are other possibilites. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    VRML never completely died. All it would take is for someone to take the contours on the maps to produce a VRML data set. That would allow you to view the map with topology included.


    Alternatively, modify the VRML plugin to allow slapping bitmaps onto the polygons produced. You now have a pseudo-3D map that gives you a much clearer idea of relative heights and actual appearance.


    Are there any other ways of doing this? Sure! Google could publish the specs for a new tag for drawing lines. >hr< already exists, so line-drawing code is already present. Google could add a tag >ar< which is just like >hr< but it would have four attributes - xloc, yloc (both expressed as either pixels or % of the image, starting from the top left corner), angle (expressed in degrees) and length (expressed in pixels or % of maximum length of a line with that start and angle).


    This is where Google's muscle comes in. Google could publish a set of tags for making Google easier or more powerful, and most browser writers WILL implement them. Microsoft, to avoid losing people to other browsers, and Mozilla/Firefox because people will be filing bug reports on it until they do.


    The W3C - and Microsoft - have forgotten the lessons learned over HTML 3.1. He who provides the content commands the tags.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:There are other possibilites. by keytoe · · Score: 1

      He who provides the content commands the tags.
      Please, please, please - do not advocate shit like this.

      Ten years ago, we were promised that JavaScript, HTML and friends were going to provide an amazing and interactive environment - free of client downloads. Then the browser wars broke out and the pissing contest between whose blink tag implementation was better laid ruin to the entire landscape.

      We are just now recovering from this, and only because the few surviving web developers (as opposed to the mutated spawn of radioactive Internet Explorer fallout) have stuck with the standards. Years went by with IE dominating the horizon, yet the standards groups continued on - seemingly in the face of insurmountable odds.

      In a way, the .com burst was the best thing to happen to the web. It was a thinning of the herd, as it were. A lot of the IE only web-zombies made a lot of money during the boom, and they began calling the shots. This was absolutely detrimental to the web as originally envisioned. As the burst caused cutbacks and layoff of those who didn't really belong there, the cackling influence of the IE only web-zombies began to fade.

      Today, with Firefox and Safari claiming a growing share of users and cooler, more informed heads calling the web development shots, we're finally getting to where we were promised ten years ago with the web. The last thing I want to do is watch another apocalyptic war break out over some silly HTML tag.
    2. Re:There are other possibilites. by therodent · · Score: 1

      During the .com boom, Netscape 4.7x was the only other game in town, besides IE.

      NN4.x is the biggest pile of junk ever written. So why would anyone want to code for it?

      YI - there was no BLINK tag implementation for IE, and never will be. It's nonstandard HTML.

      However, you'll find it's still alive and well in Mozilla/Firefox.

  60. Ajax: A New Buzzword for an Existing Concept by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

    Ajax is not new. There are plenty of folks that were doing "Ajax" before it was called "Ajax". Google being one of them. Ajax is just a buzzword.

  61. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by hab136 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Someday the stupid users do understand they are stupid, don't they? I mean, to be that stupid for years, it's horrible.

    No. Many users never become un-stupid. I don't say "smarter", because many of the stupidest users are smart people - doctors, lawyers, etc - that feel they shouldn't *have* to learn, and often take a point of pride that they haven't learned it and instead can command someone else to fix it.

    Much like many people, for whatever reason, take pride in the fact that they never conquered math.

    The world in general will remain stupid; you have to code around it.

  62. If they by JustOK · · Score: 1

    If they're so good, why won't maps.google.com work with the new PSP browser? Huh?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  63. Correction by Entanglebit · · Score: 1

    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space.

    Internet Explorer does!

  64. Re:Let the service begin by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Troll

    Brothers and sisters,

    It has come to my attention that we have apostates and infidels in our midst. I brought you this fine hymn to lift your spirits. I got two "Amens!" from the crowd. And things were going well. Then, two vicious anti-Googles came along and interrupted our fine service.

    The cowards used dastardly methods called the "overrated mod". You see, these coward won't come up to you face-to-face and speak evil about Google-the-beloved. They will only hide behind a curtain where no one can correct their wrong thinking.

    Let us pray for these heretics. Pray that they will stop using MSN. Pray that they will stop with Ask Jeeves! and other false gods. Pray that they see the light. Or else eternal darkness will overcome them all. Only Google can save them.

    And pray that Google comes out with that micropayment service they've been woring on. I need funds to support my ministry. In the meantime, please postal mail me checks to:

    P.O. Box 2436
    Ministry of Google Love
    Los Angeles, California 93501

    --Pastor Google

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  65. png + linear description? by Maian · · Score: 1
    but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser
    You can make lines with arbitrary angles and lengths with pngs?! Is that what he's talking about? I've experimented a little with line images but the problem is always the pixelation when the line becomes too long. I really want to know how they solved the issue. Maybe someone here can enlighten me...

    I have a web-app that's IE only since it has VRML. I could use SVG for Firefox nightlies, but the public Firefox build doesn't support it, so that's a no go. And no, I'm not going to use flash.

    1. Re:png + linear description? by Baricom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure. PNG is just a bitmap format, so you can put whatever image you want in it. You draw the lines in whatever configuration you need, then anti-alias the edges. The best part is the support for alpha channel, meaning the lines are smooth regardless of what the background is.

    2. Re:png + linear description? by Maian · · Score: 1

      Can you elaborate on that? I've created a diagonal line in a 1024x1024 png, saved it, and tried loading it as an in arbitrary sizes. Obviously, it works as a 1:1 slope line, but it starts disappearing when approaching 0 or infinite slope.

    3. Re:png + linear description? by Baricom · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, so please excuse me if I repeat something you know or make an incorrect assumption about your question.

      In developing Google Maps, the problem was that while Internet Explorer lets you draw vector graphics with VML, Mozilla browsers (and most others) have no such capability at the moment. (SVG will enable this when Firefox 1.whatever is released, but Google will still need to change their code to take advantage of it.) Because of this problem, it's easy to overlay streets in Internet Explorer but not in Firefox.

      To solve this problem, the Maps code detects the browser it's running in. For Internet Explorer, the code uses the built-in VML engine to draw lines directly in the browser. On Firefox and other browsers, there's no vector capabilities. As a workaround, the Javascript asks the Google servers to draw the lines as a transparent PNG, and overlays the image over the map.

      It sounds like what you're trying to do is take an existing PNG line and resample the image to change the slope of the line. PNG isn't a vector format. It's a bitmap, a block of pixels with color values and (often) alpha transparency. You can't resize the image and expect the picture to remain sharp, because it's working within the limits of the existing pixels. A vector image, on the other hand, can be sharp at any size you want because you start from a math formula that tells you what pixels should be lit at any given image size.

      What you could do is create a CGI script that does nothing but draw lines at the width, height, and slope you request. That's basically what Google is doing for Firefox in Maps.

      If you need further clarification, ask away.

    4. Re:png + linear description? by Maian · · Score: 1
      Okay that makes sense. I thought they were using a single existing png image and simply resizing it. I was surprised thinking that this was the case, because, as you said, png is not a vector format.

      Thanks for the clarification.

      BTW, I forgot to escape <img> in the grandparent post ("and tried loading it as an <img> in arbitrary sizes").

  66. Take it to the limit? by mc900ftjesus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You're doing it now, you're taking those browsers to the LIMIT! Does anyone read headlines? That just sounds funny.

  67. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I think he's referring to the fact that browsers won't allow webpages to take full advantage of a machine's resources yet. Essentially, he wants to write complex scripts that can be processed on the client side rather than the server side. There's nothing dangerous about this if the browser implements the script interpretation correctly. However, who might want their browser to be hogging up all their resources so that they can't alt-tab real fast when the guardian figure comes around, I couldn't say.

  68. To the limit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Taking any language to the limit, fwqwgads, means using implementation specifics, which mean less portability.


    Examples? Java using JNI and Perl using XS, and others, usually mean extending using C or C++. We know those languages can be used in OS specific ways, preventing cross-os compatibility. But because the languages, Java, Perl and so forth, are not bad to write extensions in w/o using C or C++, we have these HUGE cross platform libraries.


    Parrott will be promising for languages like Perl, ruby, python and others, but that is a seperate point. Using every nuance of a language will mean alienating other people.

  69. 5 Years is not new by ad0gg · · Score: 1

    Its been out for 5 years. Its not new. Came out with IE 5.0.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  70. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by platos_beard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This "blame the user" mentality is a major factor in why so much software sucks. Whatever the system, if most users of that system do the wrong thing, it's the SYSTEM's fault!

    Like it or not, computer users' environment is one where they are asked repeatedly to confirm things unnecessarily. Probably hundreds of times a day for some. Of course uers will stop reading the messages and just click OK, that's the rational thing to do.

    To steal a formula from the US defense secretary, we need to design systems to work for the users we have, not the users we would like to have.

    --
    What's a sig?
  71. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Acutally NASA was first to come out with this as a part of their World Wind / Land Sat. Open Source application (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/). World Wind is much more advanced than googlemaps (don't get me wrong I love googlemaps) as it uses many different datasources. Some features of World Wind include a 3D Engine, Blue Marble,Landsat 7,SRTM, MODIS,Globe and Landmark set. And if you don't like how World Wind works - well then download the source and change it.

  72. blimey - google maps actually better in IE... by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

    I'd never actually tried google maps in IE before, but it's actually better than google maps in Firefox; The zoom is interactive, and the route is drawn much quicker in IE as well.

    I'd always assumed that it was the same for both browsers.

    1. Re:blimey - google maps actually better in IE... by bmalia · · Score: 1

      I'd never actually tried google maps in IE before, but it's actually better than google maps in Firefox; The zoom is interactive, and the route is drawn much quicker in IE as well.

      Granted I didn't RTFA, but, I just put them side by side.. and other than the route drawing quicker in IE (VML vs PNG), they appear identical to me in speed, look and functionality.

      --
      There's no place like ~/
  73. Bleeding edge can be costly/detremental by bionic-john · · Score: 1

    it is one thing for Google to start exploiting little-known features in a browser, that has a cascading effect, and they have a sphere of influence greater than most. If the average Joen does it - well, who knows, that feature may just get left out on the next revision. Not to mention the time it takes to learn and implement, granted that is what makes IT fun .. but the day osomething goes unsupported and you are either stuck with users that rely on something or have to reinvent the wheel - well you are fvcked

    1. Re:Bleeding edge can be costly/detremental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what web development frameworks are for. You don't have to reimplement all the tricky functionality.

  74. No Install Necessary :) by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

    You're just the do-it-yourself type. :)

    My Mac didn't require me to install my operating system or Safari! Remember, he said there is no software that *users* need to install.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
  75. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I was thinking the very same thing when I read this. ActiveX gave IE exactly those abilities, and it gave us a proliferation of malware, spyware and viruses.

    Now I'm not completely against the idea of using some sort of file writing, but I think it's going to have to be of the most restricted degree. No writing to the registry, no writing to any sort of system directory, perhaps restricted simply to XML and plain text. Even then, I would imagine that unless the programmers are exceedingly cautious, holes would end up in the code. Something like that would have to be done with the greatest care, and at this point, considering the flaws that are on browsers already, I don't know if I want them to have the native ability to write to my filesystem.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  76. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With regards to:

    "Luckily Google came out with it first so Microsoft again looks like the one copying what others are doing - right? ;-)"

    This statement has some notion of fallacy to it. Microsoft invented and first implemented the non-posting Asychronous JavaScript HTTP request that makes Google Maps possible. It has been there since IE 3 and was used extensively in creating a rich client interface for Outlook.

    Yes, Microsoft did copy the map GUI concept from Google, but they built the tools necessary to do it. Second, MapPoint as a service has been around for years, far longer than any other web mapping application, so in reality, they were one of the first to have this mapping concept.

    I think the idea of "copying" is invalid; everyone copies everyone and improves on it. Remember, "Stand on the Shoulders of Giants." Yesterday, Microsoft was Google's Giant, and today Google is Microsoft's Giant. Hopefully, if this keeps flip-flopping, we'll see better and better software.

  77. Oh, really? by abb3w · · Score: 0
    Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows.

    Oh, really? So, why does Google Maps work not-at-all on Safari or IdiotExploder for Mac OS X?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Oh, really? by fuzzdawg · · Score: 1

      Oh, really? Why don't you try it in Safari first. Works in Safari v1.3(312) fine.

      --
      Sig* sig = theOneSig();
    2. Re:Oh, really? by Ineffable+27 · · Score: 1

      Google Maps works perfectly well in Safari. Ture, it didn't when it first came out, but they quickly added Safari support. The new Microsoft johnnie-come-lately map thing also works in Safari.

      --
      "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
  78. His eyes uncovered!!!!! by lowlevel · · Score: 2, Funny

    He cited the example of how Google Maps can command Internet Explorer to use VML (Vector Markup Language by Microsoft) to display a blue line between geographical points, but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser."

    SO THATS WHY the blue line won't print in Exploder, but will when I use firefox. Thanks slashdot! :D

    --
    -lo
  79. ActiveX by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

    ActiveX provides just that- it's like running a program on your computer... and the best part is, VB made them, so any grade-A idiot could start executing filesystem functions!

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  80. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Cygnus78 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place?

    I thought it was unbridled enthusiasm that led to browsers downfall.

    You see garcia, Bill was a simple country boy. You might say a cockeyed optimist who got himself mixed up in the high stakes game of world diplomacy and international intrigue.

  81. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It really depends on the type of user IMO.

    I've developed quite some professional software packages. The users to-be are involved in the process as they will have to work with the system. You just don't want them to lose time and get frustrated cause your software doesn't feel intuitive or has unnecessary confirmations or steps to have a simple action done. (which action might occur quite frequent in a day. It starts as a small frustration and eventually they HATE the thing, yet are forced to keep using it cause it has cost alot to design. Which could've been just a simple placement of a button or some 20 extra lines of code for you.)

    But mostly they KNOW what they want and how they want it... And are willing to read through your manual to in the end work more efficient and save resources.

    Joe doesn't seem to be willing for that. The "target user" and their desires is as well a more illusive subject when it comes to internet applications which are going to be used by millions or billions.

    The whole "security"-aspect as well has spawn these applications which try to dumb down terminology, in an attempt to have Joe decide on complex actions to who the concept of that action in completely lost.

    My tutor taught me; "If you design software, always take in account that a user will do everything he or she can do wrong, but never make them feel they're mothered by your application. Mother them without them knowing.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  82. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, someone who "Gets It"(TM)

  83. Verity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is that you?

  84. Converting between SVG and VML? by tepples · · Score: 1

    IE? Who cares? If Microsoft doesn't follow suit, it's one more nail in their shiteware's coffin.

    SVG and VML both seem to be XML applications. Can an XSLT filter usefully convert an SVG image to a VML image? Or is there too much of an impedance mismatch between the two image formats' display models?

    1. Re:Converting between SVG and VML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting question. I don't know enough about VML to answer it, though.

    2. Re:Converting between SVG and VML? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      A quick search with Google suggests there is: VectorConverter

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  85. SVG - VML compiler by 200_success · · Score: 1

    It seems that VML never became a W3C recommendation, as it was superseded by SVG. MSIE only supports VML because it's a Microsoft Office format. As far as I know, there are no plans to support SVG natively in MSIE.

    Perhaps it is possible to get MSIE to support a simple subset of SVG by first transforming it into VML. Since both formats are based on XML, perhaps it could even be done on the client side using XSLT. Has anyone tried this? It could be packaged as part of IE7 (the Dean Edwards hack, not the next version of MSIE)?

    If such a hack were accomplished, it could spark the development of some nifty SVG-based applications. With Opera, Mozilla/Firefox and Safari all supporting SVG natively (now or in the near future), and MSIE supporting it via VML, it would be possible to reach a wide audience without any plugins!

    1. Re:SVG - VML compiler by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

      Funny, I blogged about this very idea two weeks ago at http://blog.codedread.com/archives/2005/07/12/xhtm lsvg-htmlvml/

  86. SVG is in the nightlies. by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't know where to go to check if this is on the roadmap or not

    Try Google. mozilla svg + I'm Feeling Lucky = Mozilla SVG Project. From the page:

    There has recently been an important change to SVG enabled builds: SVG is now enabled by default (Bug 292160).
  87. Keep your programs out of my browser! by Animats · · Score: 1
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future,

    He doesn't get it. The whole point of HTML is to keep the web site at arm's length from the user's machine. The browser is an interface, not a platform.

    Microsoft, Netscape, and Sun have all tried (incompatibly) to make the browser a "platform". We've suffered through Active-X controls, the Netscape plug-in platform, and client side Java. What we got were adware, spyware, and new attack vectors. Now, most firewalls block that stuff.

    We may need more expressive power in HTML, but it should be descriptive, not programmable. That's the strength of HTML. You can do more than run it. You can index it, reformat it for another medium, translate it to another language, and simplify it for small devices. Try doing that with a Java applet or a Flash file.

    JavaScript is as far as site-driven programmability of the browser should go. There's hostile JavaScript, but the browser can usually contain the attack.

  88. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Calyth · · Score: 1

    If he was quoted properly, that practically means that turning the browser into a kernel facing the Internet.
    Given that the kernel on a computer aren't bug free, I'd like to keep my browser doing its intended job, browsing, thank you.

  89. Not frozen enough by tepples · · Score: 1

    SVG elements are exposed to the DOM

    Not by Adobe's plug-in, because at the time Adobe's plug-in was last updated, there weren't enough frozen Mozilla APIs for Adobe to use.

  90. My solution by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    I have been mucking around with the Hibachi web server {yes, the IOCCC version; it's not perfect, sure, but the "current" version is non-free*} and it works really well. Basically, I have a small CGI-enabled HTTP server on localhost, with access to some of the local filesystem; and a big CGI-enabled HTTP server on the remote end. Using surprisingly few cunning stunts {basically a cookie to allow the big server to look up the port number of the little server, which I decided to have as a per-user variable}, I can have the remote webserver embed content served up from localhost into a frameset or iframe. I can also use a local CGI script {on the local Hibachi server} that pulls in image data over a HTTP connection {from the remote Apache server}, mungs it and displays it in an ordinary <img /> tag. The browser could not care less what host served it up. The image can be static: all the processing is done at my end. Since the slowest part is usually getting the data from the server to the client, this is quite efficient.

    It also ought to be possible to prefetch links while the user is busy reading, which would make dialup connections seem a bit faster.

    It doesn't quite meet the "zero install" ideal, because it is necessary to compile Hibachi once and start it on login. I may have to write my own web server in Perl -- hence no compiling, and Perl is installed on almost every system.

    * {Hibachi 2 is offered on a usage-only licence; the IOCCC-winning version is in the Public Domain. I am not quite sure how this can work, as it is my understanding that all derivative works of a work already in the Public Domain must also be in the Public Domain. But maybe the non-Free version was a derivative of a still-copyrighted predecessor of the PD version.}

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:My solution by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      {Hibachi 2 is offered on a usage-only licence; the IOCCC-winning version is in the Public Domain. I am not quite sure how this can work, as it is my understanding that all derivative works of a work already in the Public Domain must also be in the Public Domain. But maybe the non-Free version was a derivative of a still-copyrighted predecessor of the PD version.}

      IANAL, but my understanding is that if something is in the public domain, that means you can do anything you want with it. Including making a few changes, slapping the license of your choice on it, and releasing it. I don't think there's any requirement that a derivative work of something PD must stay PD.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  91. Firefox 1.5 to bring SVG .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be good thing for Google as they will be able to bring advanced standard vector on Mozilla as well !

  92. Obligatory Linux joke... by emilv · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but do those browsers run Linux?

  93. Retort by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    Quoting from TFA:

    "Go beyond browsers' lowest common denominator," he advised developers.

    Developers:"If you go beyond the least common denominator you're guaranteed to multiply your costs."

    Lars is probably so smart he can increase his costs by log(N_browsers) instead of N_browsers^p, but his company has access to google dollars.

    Were I funding development, I'd push to increase the least common denominator.

    Say, by advocating that large corporate customers and governments

    • insist upon standards in their purchases (which benefits them in the long run anyway); and
    • participate constructively by contributing experts to help formulate the next generation of standards.
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  94. its a free market world for god sake by nazsco · · Score: 1

    if you go to example.com and see no popup but a lot of nice coded hacks on your browser to make their service more productive, then you go to freeexamplesgratis.com and see the same hacks used to open popups. you just waste some 8 hours closing them and never come back to free..com, they die, their advertisers has to pay for the non-intrusive ad model from the polite example.com wich you uses exclusively now. everyone happy.

    what's so damn boring about intrusive ads and popups. close them, close the site that opened them and never come back.

    is it so dificult? ...now, about spam...

  95. Google tracking search links at random? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Hey, has anyone else noticed that occasionally Google results will have their links wrapped in some form of redirect script, so they can track your clicks? Did they announce this and I missed it? It seems to happen at random: two separate searches of identical search terms result in identical results, except one search has 'true' links and the other has clicktracking links.

    In theory, I suppose, aggregate link tracking could help refine an expert system's ability to troubleshoot, assuming they track the right people ;)

    But otherwise, I find it a bit unsavory to be honest. Less than good, though not technically evil I suppose.

    1. Re:Google tracking search links at random? by jsedenka · · Score: 1

      If you feel uncomfortable with the eye of Big brother, just turn the Search history off ;-) And, of course, disable JavaScript -- imo, Google has been tracking users clicks for a long time (why do you think they need so much scripting on a static page with results?)

  96. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by keesh · · Score: 1

    Try selling a box that doesn't do what the user wants. See how many customers you have left. Unless you're a huge monopoly you won't get very far.

  97. What about Flash? by bad_monkee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I love Google maps and I like what you can do with AJAX- but the fundamental problem with most browser based scripting technologies is that they're best at rending text. Don't get me wrong, anything that makes a webpage more responsive than the -click- load -click- is a step in the right direction.

    Flash has earned a bad rep among programmers because it's often used for @#$?%! annoying and obtrusive ads and unnecessary web... page ... intros... that... just...- swoosha- won't... stop. On behalf of Flash developers everywhere, I would like to apologize for every 'punch the monkey' banner ad out there. But if it's used for browser rending of information being streamed over an XML socket (and no, you don't have to send XML over the connection- it's just a socket) it kicks *ss. it's scripting language, Actionscript is dead easy to learn. If you're used to Java, you can pick it up in a few days. And I'm sorry, but SVG doesn't even come close to touching it. I don't think that it will survive the Adobe/Macromedia merger.

    My only beef with Flash is the vector rending pipeline. You get alpha for free but try overlaying a few transparent vectors and... performance... chugs. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the bitmap caching (you need the Flash 8 beta player to see bitmap caching in action) in the upcoming Flash 8 addresses this problem. The demo's I've seen look promising.

    Check out Grant Skinner's or Yugo Nakamura work and if you want a great example of what you can do with real-time data in Flash- check out www.dentsu.com. What you see is the real-time position of all 30-some elevators in dentsu's corporate headquarters.

    Disclaimer: I am currently a Flash Developer. If you want to see my work- it's at bodog.net. It's free online multiplayer poker and yes, those are real people playing. You can see the two technologies playing nicely together- the lobby was done using AJAX technology and the actual game tables are in Flash. Try refreshing the game table if you want an example of Flash using server-based persistance.

  98. The real problem with web-app development by kronocide · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having developed all kinds of web apps since '96 for the exact reasons given in the article (simply the most convenient platform for distributed applications) I have learned that "that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space" is not the most limiting aspect of web app development.

    The most limiting aspect comes from one of the web's strengths, that it's based on a very simple request-response protocol. This means that you can't update the browser from the server. Instead of the server sending an event to the browser when something needs to change in the user interface, the UI needs to regularly ask the server if anything has changed. The consequence is the irritating, frequent page updates in web chats and similar applications, and "unnecessary" consumption of bandwidth.

    This is why you need to use Java or Flash for more advanced applications. Then you can do pretty much anything, but the client also gets a whole lot thicker, and you can't use the web UI API shared by all browsers (form widgets, basically), which is one of the reasons web apps are so convenient to make.

    I'm not saying this is something that should be "fixed," the request-response protocol is generally a good thing (and very unlikely to change anyway). I'm just saying that this is the big difference between designing web apps and desktop applications.

    1. Re:The real problem with web-app development by will · · Score: 1
      The most limiting aspect comes from one of the web's strengths, that it's based on a very simple request-response protocol. This means that you can't update the browser from the server.

      Er, no. This is fair enough as an explanation of why the web is both robust and frequently crappy, but unfortunately the point with google maps is precisely that it doesn't work that way.

      One of the reasons GM is so distinctive is that it uses xmlhttp to retrieve data behind the scenes in response to page navigation. Once you arrive at the maps page there is no more click-wait-load, and I for one was startled to see how joyful it is to be liberated from all that.

      There is less reason than ever to use Flash or Java on the client side.

    2. Re:The real problem with web-app development by kronocide · · Score: 1

      Well, that is certainly an improvement in the sense that the application caches more in advance and does so with some intelligence, but there is no difference in principle. The server can still not initiate change on the client side, and this is a factor with all more complicated applications, especially multi-user ones or others where things change without the user doing anything.

    3. Re:The real problem with web-app development by harshaw · · Score: 1

      You can use XMLHTTP to push data from the server to the client. The only thing necessary is for the client to *initiate* the original connection.

    4. Re:The real problem with web-app development by kronocide · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I'm being thick here, but are you saying that the XMLHttpRequest object initiates a session that's kept alive as long as you use the application, and communication can be initiated from client or server, like with a socket? It looks to me as if this object is simply a client-side implementation on top of the regular HTTP protocol. What part of it resides on the server, since it doesn't use HTTP? How do you initiate communication from the server?

      If it is, as I believe is the case, that the XMLHttpRequest object is client-side magic only, and it still uses HTTP, then the client asks and the server answers, as usuall, and it can make one request at the time.

      It looks to me as if Google Maps's uses XMLHttpRequest to simply load data in the background. That's smart, and a clear improvement, but it doesn't mean you can use XMLHttpRequest to write a chat client that will wait for the server to send a new chat message from another user and sit dormant until that happens. You still need to ask the server regularly, and nothing will happen in the browser unless you do. With less unpredictable content (such as maps or games) you can perhaps transfer some of the logic from the server to the client and make it even smarter and more dynamic, but that also makes the client thicker.

      If I've missed something fundamental about the nature of the XMLHttpRequest object, I'd be happy to be educated. Any docs on server-side events with XMLHttpRequest would be highly appreciated.

    5. Re:The real problem with web-app development by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Huh? What about server-push?

      There's no restriction on what the content of a multipart-MIME message can be - could be JPEGS or could be chunks of XML data or whatever.

      So - no reason an AJAX web page can't open an HTTP connection to a server and then respond to server initiated messages over this established channel.

    6. Re:The real problem with web-app development by kronocide · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I wrote almost the exact some post as I did above when an article about AJAX was posted here. I think that article linked to this one:
      http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ar chives/000385.php

      Unless I've missed something very fundamental, AJAX too is bells and whistles on top of HTTP. It can work asynchronously in the background while you use the application, which makes a big difference in user experience, but there are still no actual server-initiated requests to the client over the network. It just might (or not) seem that way. If the server-side data is totally unpredictable, as with a chat client or a multi-user game, so that the browser can't precache intelligently, then the AJAX engine has no choice but to keep asking the server, "Any changes?" "Any changes now?" "What about now?" It does this in the background, so it may seem like "server push" to the user, but it's really exactly the situation I described above.

      Again with a disclaimer that I might be totally lost here. I think not though.

    7. Re:The real problem with web-app development by Cameron+Shorter · · Score: 1

      We have fixed the browser refresh problem by creating a Model/View/Controller design pattern entirely on the client.
      The Model is stored in XML inside a javascript class. When the user changes data on the client, the Model is updated, which sends events to our widgets which redraw themselves. No interaction with the server is required, and no complete rebuilding of the web page.
      Demo appliation is at: http://bikemap.openearth.com.au:8080/mapbuilder/de mo/simple/

      The project is at: http://mapbuilder.sourceforge.net/

    8. Re:The real problem with web-app development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and [the XMLHttpRequest object] can make one request at the time."

      Technically this is true, but there's nothing stopping you from opening as many XMLHttpRequest objects as you desire, making as many asynchoronous requests as you need, and handling their callbacks separately as they come in.

      kronocide, you are right that XmlHttpRequest doesn't change the fundamental client-server framework. However, it improves things so much that polling becomes feasible. Check out how fast Google Suggests changes content. Google's server speed helps, but it's mostly XmlHttpRequest that makes this possible. http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en

    9. Re:The real problem with web-app development by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I disagree... Once the browser has established an HTTP connection to the server, the server can then indefinitely send sporadic (multi-part MIME) responses (e.g. XML data/updates/commands) on that connection as it pleases... The fact that the server connection had to be initially set up by the browser/client is irrelevant since the client anyway has to know that the server will potentially by sending it unsolicited responses on such a channel.

    10. Re:The real problem with web-app development by kronocide · · Score: 1

      I see! I suppose if the server makes a request to the browser, the browser can respond by making a new HTTP request. Well, that could work. :-) I need to try that with something. Maybe make an updated version of Net Dice:
      http://kronocide.com/net_dice/ :-P

  99. It's 1990 all over again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movable images - on a computer. Hot damn! What will they come up with next!?! I love web interfaces!

  100. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by platos_beard · · Score: 1
    But mostly they KNOW what they want and how they want it... And are willing to read through your manual to in the end work more efficient and save resources.

    It appears you have a very different user population than I do.

    --
    What's a sig?
  101. Rasmussen, don't quit your day job by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1

    good thing he's got a decent job with google, cause the guy sure can't time trial worth a darn. Two crashes and four bike changes? ouch.

  102. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by jasenj1 · · Score: 2, Funny
    The world in general will remain stupid; you have to code around it.
    I think I've found a new signature. - Jasen.
  103. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by ericspinder · · Score: 1
    You're confusing two completely different things here. Web usage != browsers. Please don't fall into the Microsoft marketing ploy that equates "The Web" with "The Browser". They aren't the same.
    You're right about one thing the World Wide Web and Web Browsers are not the same thing. You use one to access the other. While, XML in various formats (such as rss feeds) have begun to use HTTP transport (the defining protocol of the web) for communication, and other applications like to use port 80 (the most common port for web traffic) because most every firewall allows its use, the 'web' was made to be viewed by a web browser.

    Really I think that you mean the the Internet is not the same as the Web, which is basicly true. Well really the Internet is greater than the Web), the Web is a subset of the Internet.

    While MS has it's issues, I don't think that they have any confusion about the basic facts of the internet. Do you have any 'facts' to back your assertion up, or is it a simple Karma whore to the 'aways hate MS crowd'.

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  104. QA explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows."

    Uhhhh... actually now it requires testing multiple browsers on multiple platforms. So rather than having 3 configurations for a distributed app (Win, Mac, Linux), you might have 10 (Win/IE, Mozilla/Linux, Opera/Windows, etc).

  105. Rapid deployment?! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Yeah right, it always takes several minuttes when someone has done something clever with google damn maps *grrr* (presumably javascript doing some crap)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  106. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    that feel they shouldn't *have* to learn, and often take a point of pride that they haven't learned it and instead can command someone else to fix it.

    I don't think the majority of people act spiteful or proud about their lack of knowledge. I believe such behavior is mostly a defense mechanism that some use because learning something (such as computers or math) just doesn't come naturally to them for whatever reason, and so they've focused on other things in their lives and rationalize their failures away to preserve their egos.

    Case in point: My dad has a PhD (my point is, he's a relatively intelligent guy) but after 20 years of computer use, still hasn't really wrapped his head around such a simple idea as logical directory structure. Try getting something useful done in a Windows environment when you don't really understand this elementary concept. He still mostly relies on 'Recently opened documents' type lists to pull up the latest doc he's working on, and if that list gets deleted, he'll fumble around for quite a while before finding what he's looking for -- incidentally programs like Google Desktop are literally MADE for his type. He isn't necessarily proud of his lack of computer knowledge, but then again, you don't see him even attempting to learn or better understand this concept, after two decades!

  107. Come on, Fhqwhgads by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

    Take your browser to the limit
    Take your browser to the limit
    I said, come on, Fhqwhgads!

  108. Everbody to the limit! by version5 · · Score: 1

    ROBOT: Come on, Fhqwhgads.

    STRONG BAD: I said come on Fhqwhgads
    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    Everybody to the limit
    Everybody to the limit
    Everybody come on Fhqwhgads

    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    Everybody to the limit
    Who's that? It's to the limit
    Everybody come on Fhqwhgads

    Come on Fhqwhgads
    I see you jockin' me
    Tryin' to play like
    You know me

    I'm like come on Fhqwhgads
    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    Everybody to the limit
    The Cheat is to the limit
    Everybody come on Fhqwhgads

    I said ooh ah Fhqwhgads
    I said ooh ah Fhqwhgads
    Who's that fh-huh-hoo-huga-wha
    I said who is that Fhqwhgads

    I don't know who it is
    But it probably is Fhqwhgads
    I asked my friend Joe
    I asked my friend Jake
    They said it was Fhqwhgads

    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    I said come on Fhqwhgads
    Who's-a to the limit?
    C'est me! I'm to the limit
    Everybody come on Fhqwhgads

    Man, Fhqwhgads
    You're just making yourself look worse, y'know
    I mean, everybody's just gonna feel sorry for ya
    I mean, I do.

    --

    "It's Dot Com!"

  109. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by sandwiches · · Score: 1

    If most users of a systems do the wrong thing, I could see how you could blame bad design. The problem is that with viruses and the like, it is almost always been the minority of users that make the mistakes. So, just because Mrs. Johnson doesn't know that the program that says grandkids_pics is really Trojan the working environment is at fault?? Of course not. A designer (programmer, developer, whatever) can only realistically aim to design a system that the majority of people will understand and use successfully. There will always be stupid and ignorant people. About your second paragraph: If a program asks you a million times to confirm something, that's bad design by the devloper, if you stop reading the confirmations, that's a bad decision by the user.

  110. Dude needs to pull his head out of the blue sky by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    Funny, my customers have been demanding native OS clients to replace the web apps they're using because the web apps are way too slow, and cost them tons of money to operate.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
    1. Re:Dude needs to pull his head out of the blue sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, it was free to use Google Maps.

      Didn't have a problem with speed either.

  111. Google Maps has a LONG ways to go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me - it's totally useless unless I want to find streets in the UK or USA. Anywhere ELSE in the world is just a dry empty desert.

    I do enjoy looking at interesting places with the satellite, and even that is virtually useless, and will be even more useless when our fascist censors start blacking out more "interesting
    places" like Area 51, north Korea, and Wash DC which they are already blacking out the details of the roofs of most government buildings...

    But if I want to get the street map of Berlin in Germany, or any other place in Europe, forget it.

    1. Re:Google Maps has a LONG ways to go... by douglask · · Score: 1

      The maps for Canada seem pretty good.

      I've used it to find businesses and also directions to specific addresses within Ottawa (Ontario), Toronto (Ontario) and Montreal (Quebec) with good success.

      I'll admit the map side is blank for Moscow and Beijing, but the satellite views are there and in good quality.

      So... For maps, it's known good in Canada, US and UK. For satellite it's looking good in other areas too.

      ~~DouglasK

      --
      DouglasK Do Justly. Love Mercy. Walk humbly with your God.
  112. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by garcia · · Score: 1

    Do you have any 'facts' to back your assertion up, or is it a simple Karma whore to the 'aways hate MS crowd'.

    Umm, I don't need to karma whore to the "always hate MS crowd".

    I just karma whore to everyone.

  113. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too followed the link- That blonde lady must be the waitress: She is large. Large and mean looking. That large blonde lady in the picture does not look like someone I would keep food away from... I'd worry about her eating me! Rarrrggghhh! Was she the waitress that was so mean to you? That is funny that you are posting the waitesses picture for us all to see. She is large. HeHe. At DaVinci's Pizzam the wings jerk you!

  114. Gee, it sounds just like ... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    Firstly, the Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space.

    It sounds just like Java, except for the third one. That's an upside, not a downside. Talk about malicious code!

    Firstly, [Java] allows rapid deployment and there is no software [other than a JVM] for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple [JVMs] compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. The [upside] is that [JVMs] don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space.
    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  115. To kill the browser, duh by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft initially missed the boat on the Internet. They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate. [...] What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

    Netscape and Sun were mumbling were loudly about how all applications would be delivered through the browser and how that would make the OS irrelevant. Microsoft does not want the OS to be irrelevant or a commodity because Windows is one of its two lone cash crops.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  116. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    I didn't know they were still giving out PhD's in things like Rhetoric, Philosophy, and The Alchemy Arts.

    8-)

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  117. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by hab136 · · Score: 1
    I don't think the majority of people act spiteful or proud about their lack of knowledge.

    Right, many != majority. I said many. Many others are stupid, feel bad about it, but do nothing to better themselves as well. Outcome is the same.

    When you come across the people that are proud, it's infuriating. "I'm not one of those nerd types, just fix it.. and do it right this time!"

    These are the same type of people that yell at the mechanic when their brakes keep wearing out, yet they refuse to change their driving patterns.

  118. VRML is not VML by SimHacker · · Score: 2, Funny
    You have confused VRML and VML. There are completely different technologies. Look at the way they're spelled. They're different: VML. VRML. See? One uses four letters, and the other uses three. That's different! Now if you take a closer look at the letters, you will notice that one uses the letter R, while the letter R is conspicuously missing from the other. I think it's safe to say that "VML" != "VRML", and even that strcmp("VML", "VRML") != 0. (That's becauxe strcmp returns 0 if the two strings are equal, and they aren't. Now don't get me started in their relative alphabetical merit.)

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    1. Re:VRML is not VML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot - with the standard of spelling here, you expect us to make a distinction between two similar acronyms with similar concepts?

    2. Re:VRML is not VML by SimHacker · · Score: 1
      It was just so hillarious to see somebody bring up VRML, that I had to say something. How about rephrasing it: 1995 called, they want their sucky 3d graphics format back.

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  119. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by cchapin · · Score: 1

    World Wind is great but requires a client download. Thus it should be compared to Google Earth (http://earth.google.com/), not browser-based Google Maps.

  120. SVG is dead since Adobe bought Macromedia by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Adobe buying Macromedia was the last nail in SVG's coffin. Adobe was only supporting SVG becaused they were trying compete against Flash, and now that that's no longer the case, there is no reason for them to continue to support SVG. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that Adobe has already totally forgotten about SVG for more than a year now.

    Yes, I love SVG and have written some nifty applications with it, and I wish it won against Flash, but it didn't. But flash is already installed on 95% of all computers, and SVG doesn't come anywhere near that.

    It's so sad that there is no other standard way to draw a diagonal line on the computer's display, except for Flash. But that's the way it is.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  121. AJAX is NOT a new approach! by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    AJAX is only new if you're wet behind the ears. And AJAX is only a magic bullet if you're never actually tried to use it. There's nothing wrong with the approach, but it's been around for a LONG time.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  122. SVG is a descendent of VML by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Microsoft published VML before SVG was conceived. SVG is a standard that was designed to merge the work that Microsoft did with VML, with the work other companies were doing on another xml based web graphics standard whose name I can't remember. A lot of the good ideas in SVG came from VML, for example the compact representation of lines as attributes with lists of numbers, instead of representing each coordinate as a separate XML element. (Naive XML programmers and RAM manufacturers who want you to buy more memory would prefer the use of separate XML nodes per coordinate, but it's much more efficient to represent them as compact attribute strings.)

    But it's a moot point, because Flash kicked SVG's ass in the market, and now that Adobe has bought Macromedia, SVG is dead.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  123. Fasteroids game in VML by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Sure, lots of people have been using VML for many years. It's an old technology that's been around for a while. Here's a game I wrote in VML a long time ago, called "Fasteroids", which is actually an experiment that demonstrates how pie menus are faster and less error prone than linear menus.

    -Don

    What are these Fasteroids, anyway???

    The goal of Fasteroids is to help the space ship blast away the asteroids. But its real purpose is to compare the selection speeds and error rates of directional "pie menus" versus traditional "linear menus". The actual point of the game is to give you a fun and fair way to test drive and compare pie menus and linear menus for yourself.

    When you click the left button in the black space, a pie menu or a linear menu will pop up. You should select the bright yellow item with four stars, and it will fire four blasts, which will help destroy the asteroids. But if you select any of the other items, that is considered an error, so it will only fire one blast.

    The menu style changes every round. Some rounds, the menu will be a pie menu, and other rounds it will be a linear menu. Some rounds, the menu items will be randomized, and other rounds they will be constant.

    If you would like to share your results, please press the "Send Statistics to PieMenu.com" button, and your selection times and error rates will be reported to PieMenu.com. It will show the overall results and how you results compare. Don't worry -- it doesn't send any personal information, just the details of the measurements summarized in the table, including the selection count and time for each test type, menu type and menu item.

    And What are Pie Menus???

    Pie Menus are a naturally efficient user interface technique: directional selection of pie slice shaped targets. The cursor starts out in the center of the pie, so all targets are large, nearby, and in different directions. Fitts' Law explains the advantages of pie menus, relating fast selection speed and low error rate to large target size and small distance. Pie menus are easy for novice users, who just follow the directions, and efficient for experienced users, who can quickly "mouse ahead" once they know the way.

    To learn more about pie menus, please visit Pie Menu Central!

    For the complete credits, as well as some swell entertainment, please don't forget to read the fine print.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  124. Can't translate between scriptable XML formats by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    It's easy to transform one XML document to another format, UNLESS the XML includes JavaScript which refers to particular tags and properties of the XML, as is often the case with SVG/XML. There is simple no way to automatically translate JavaScript code that manipulates SVG or VML graphics through the DOM (for animation, dynamic data driven graphics, etc), except by hand. Therefore it's impossible to write a general purpose VML/SVG/Flash converter. Because all the interesting uses of VML/SVG/Flash involve scripting.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  125. Not converting between scripted SVG and VML. by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Try converting any SVG or VML file that uses JavaScript to perform animation or data driven graphics, and the converter will definitely fail.

    The whole point of SVG and VML are that they are dynamic scriptable graphics formats, not just that they're represented by XML. Like Flash, you can use them to write user interfaces and games and data driven interactive graphical displays of dynamic XML documents.

    It's impossible to automatically convert dynamic SVG or VML documents that use JavaScript, which covers most interesting uses of those technologies. Otherwise you might as well be using GIF.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  126. The reason to use Flash is that it's consistent by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Flash is totally consistent across all platforms (and it's installed on 95% of all systems), plus it has nice graphics and networking.

    Using AJAX with JavaScript and Dynamic HTML is like repeatedly hitting your head against a cement wall, because it doesn't solve any of the inconsistencies between browsers, so you have to deal with them directly, and drastically limit what you can do, and resort to horrible kludges and work-arounds to accomplish the simplest things (like drawing diagonal lines), so the quality of your application drastically suffers across all platforms.

    AJAX: I'm impressed that your dog can talk, but I rather not listen to it sing christmas carols.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  127. The operational word here is "LIMIT". by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Taking browsers to the limit means you can't take then any further -- that's the nature of a LIMIT.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  128. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest thing ever on the Onion was about the guy who always bragged about not owning a TV

  129. Re:Not frozen enough (Mozilla broke XP/COM rules) by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    You can program Adobe's SVG plug-in in JavaScript, and access SVG elements through the DOM, just fine. Adobe's SVG plug-in includes its own JavaScript interpreter. On Internet Explorer, it can optionally use Microsoft's JavaScript interpreter instead of Adobe's.

    The problem with Mozilla is that the big-mouthed over-optimistic software "evangelists" convinced Adobe to use a half-baked plug-in API that Mozilla decided to chang just before they released Mozilla 1.0. The Mozilla programmers should have changed the GUID of the interface when they changed the API, but they didn't obey the terms of the software contract they agreed to by using XP/COM, so the Mozilla programmers screwed Adobe and SVG.

    The result is that Adobe's SVG plug-in used to work fine, but now it crashes Mozilla, which would not have happened if Mozilla programmers stuck to their own rules and used XP/COM the way it was intended to be used (to prevent just this from happening). Adobe will never trust Mozilla evangelism again after that episode. Anyway, SVG is dead because Adobe bought Macromedia.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  130. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it is the users fault.
    If run a program that is sent as an email atachment how is that the systems fault?
    I mean really where does the chain of blame end?
    Is it the users fault for doing something stupid?
    Is it the application programmer's fault because the allowed the end user to do something stupid.
    Is it the developer tool vendor for allowing the developer to allow the end user to do something stupid?
    Is it the the OS developer for allowing the developer tool vendor to write a tool that allows the application programmer to write a program that allows the end user to do something stupid?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  131. I'm going to Scotland in September - what must I n by macjohn · · Score: 1

    The drive to Ft William.
    Heeland coos on the isle of skye.

    --
    --Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
  132. Non-standard tags we do need: by jd · · Score: 1
    >jarjar< - causes speech synthesizers to sound like the worst Star Wars character ever. Causes all other users to go blind. Good for protecting visual media DRMs.


    >summon entity=zombie|spyware|virus|trojan|RIAA target=window/frame< - some users seem to want this sort of crap on their machine, so provide a mechanism to do it! Remember, supply and demand.


    >DMCA< - causes all links to sound or video files, no matter how innocent, to be redirected to a copy of the funeral march or a clip of a horrified scream from a horror flick at random. Also causes HTTP header information to be passed to the RIAA, MPAA or the nearest Mafia family, depending on location and price.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  133. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The OS developer. Someone, somewhere along the line, should have realized that one application rarely has the need to overwrite data created by another application. In fact, if you think about it, very few apps need to know that other apps exist. Common APIs exist for handling functionality that many apps need (TAPI, MAPI, OpenGL, etc) but how often does Mozilla need to overwrite Photoshop files?

    We really need to sandbox everything. Steel sandboxes that simple email worms can't penetrate. There's no reason why everything needs to run in one shared space (even with memory and file protection, everything is still partly visible). This extends to inter-app protection. Why doesn't each firefox tab run separately and just dock into the display window with some form of IPC?

    So really, the burden should be on platform developers. OSes, Browsers (especially like Firefox that are trying to be an application delivery system), and the like.

  134. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh. I don't own a TV either.
    I keep bragging about it all the time!
    Yet, watch the news online and download Simpsons and Southpark episode for my cartoon-shot :P

  135. Re:I'm going to Scotland in September - what must by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the suggestion! We're planning to hit the Isle of Skye, and now we have something specific to see there.

    Do you mean this Fort William?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  136. Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    You asked how often does Firefox have to over write a Photoshop file? Every time you download one from the web.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  137. PHIGS called. by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Oh yeah, I almost forgot: you have another message from 1986. They'd like you to check out PHIGS, for all your interactive 3d graphics rendering and advanced user interface needs. They said something about it being a standard X11 extension, supported by all major vendors. I assured them you'd call back right away.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  138. BSML: Bull Shit Markup Language by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    Flash is just the natural evolution of BSML's tag extension.

    (At time I wrote this, Director ruled and Flash didn't exist yet, so the limit number 48 was a dig at Macromedia's bold move of increasing the number of layers that Director supported from 24 to 48.)

    -Don

    BSML: Bull Shit Markup Language

    Bull Shit Markup Language is designed to meet the needs of commerce, advertising, and blatant self promotion on the World Wide Web.

    New BSML Markup Tags
    CRONKITE Extension
    This tag marks authoritative text that the reader should believe without question.

    SALE Extension
    This tag marks advertisements for products that are on sale. The browser will do everything it can to bring this to the attention of the user.

    COLORMAP Extension
    This tag allows the html writer complete control over the user's colormap. It supports writing RGB values into the system colormap, plus all the usual crowd pleasers like rotating, flashing, fading and degaussing, as well as changing screen depth and resolution.

    BLINK Extension
    The blinking text tag has been extended to apply to client side image maps, so image regions as well as individual pixels can now be blinked arbitrarily. The RAINBOW parameter allow you to specify a sequence of up to 48 colors or image texture maps to apply to the blinking text in sequence.

    The FREQ and PHASE parameters allow you to precisely control the frequence and phase of blinking text. Browsers using Apple's QuickBlink technology or MicroSoft's TrueFlicker can support up to 65536 independently blinking items per page.

    Java applets can be downloaded into the individual blinkers, to blink text and graphics in arbitrarily programmable patterns.

    See the Las Vegas and Times Square home pages for some excellent examples.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com