Wiki-Leaks seemed to be a bit one sided. Leaking information that fits with their agenda, and keeping out other information.
I have no idea where you're coming from with this statement. Wikileaks is exposing the corruption of power, be it in politics, bureaucracy, the banking sector, wherever. The information they've released is relevant for all Americans to understand their power structure -- regardless of any political stripe (note they don't favour the Democrats over the Republicans), as well as those whose countries wheel and deal behind closed doors with the United States.
While I think it would be very helpful to have an organization dedicated to releasing information specific to very particular cases, Wikileaks does a great job of releasing general information important for all of us.
--
If you mean matured enough that it's become the one of the main entry points for malware on PCs and still tries to insist I install an annoying Yahoo toolbar every time we update it, then I would have to say it's not mature enough for me.
No, don't pay attention to the FUD artists. 9.8 million goes to "technology" costs, including 1.8 for existing hosting costs, and 3.3 in new capital expenditures on their data centers.
I think everyone knows Wikipedia has its issues with the editing process, but their overall management appears very transparent and well-intentioned. Any organization that grows so fast is going to have problems along the way, but I don't understand why some people need to go out of their way to make wikipedia itself seem evil.
You link is correct, but your statement is 100% wrong.
If you'd read the document you linked to, you would see the real figure for 2010/11 is 8.9 million for 91 people, including the costs of recruiting and benefits, which would be somewhat significant. In 09/10 there were only 47 employees.
Regarding the 9.8 million, this includes 1.8 million for their data centers, and 3.3 million in building out the data center in new capital expenditures, and most of the rest for what seems to be quite normal developer and IT salary costs.
Your question/point of "what is an advertisement?" is likely the best one to focus on. I have no problem at all with advertising based on the content of a page, but have a huge issues with doubleclick, facebook connect and their like, who would track users and what they browse.
Still, to create and manage a worldwide ad-server which can't be taken advantage of is not a simple task. One might even suggest they'd need to raise a very large amount of donation money in order to build and maintain it through the opening stages.
Like many mods have suggested, this is an "interesting" idea. It's also completely without any reference and seems to be a serious accusation. Wales' appeal states that wikipedia does need the money for its website, while you say they're lying, and that it's just a siphon.
Your comments are stated as facts, but you give a note at the bottom suggesting it's just opinion.
I'm suggesting that until you give some valid reference that the money is going to sister projects, that your post is full of FUD and not much else.
Wikileaks is like many an open source project: lots of things to do, not many people to do everything, so they need to focus on the interests of the "programmers", in this case headed up by Assange. Your comments sound like many a poster that is against the direction of the way a software project is going. Don't like it? Then either get involved to effect the direction, or do your own thing. No skin off anyone's back.
Actually, it is like you can't find them. All personal laptops are 16:9, while some higher priced business laptops are 16:10, but both are a far cry from the old 16:12 (4:3), perfect for image viewing, and requires a lot less scrolling in a day.
But you really, truly can't find any of the old 4:3 resolutions in a ~14" laptop by any company (nor almost all other sizes). For anyone who uses their computer primarily to read and write documents, they will have a loss in productivity (more scrolling, less context available for the subject at hand) in choosing a 14" widescreen, over a 14" old 4:3 laptop.
I find it amazing that no laptop-maker is extending even a single product to those that would prefer the 4:3 ratio.
Very Insightful and well explained. Still, if the font-size is increased to be the same as a lower-res display, it remains that on shorter, widescreen computers, less text can be seen vertically. Personally, I like as many vertical lines available, as opposed to width for multitasking.
As well, for someone who loves viewing their photos (4:3), a similar-dimensioned computer makes more sense, regardless of resolution. All personal laptops are now configured for dvd playing (16:9 vs 16:12 for images). I wonder if how many of those use their computers more for viewing photos, and maybe their dvd player and tv is what they use for dvds?
Re:Quality scales differ in the PHP/MySQL world.
on
Joomla! 1.5 Multimedia
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While the parent deserves flamebait instead of "interesting", especially given he/she doesn't have the guts to sign their name to the post, here's a brief reply.
- SQL injection works on any database with any programming language, if things aren't programmed properly, and is definitely not specific to PHP.
- PHP is not longer in version 3 or 4, it's got great object-oriented programming possibilities, is faster to program in than many other languages, and if you use intelligent caching, will be pretty much as quick -- with the remaining speed cost for using PHP made negligent by the real action happening in the database.
- "experienced professionals" do program in PHP. A real programmer will use the best language for the job, and often times that language is PHP. Working with a client who will only pay ~$20/month in hosting on their current webhost often means that a LAMP installation is what you've got to work with. Quick, easy, secure, and job well done using PHP.
- SQL Server is the most miserable, buggy, and overpriced db out there in my experience, and it gives no practical advantage security-wise over MySQL, and nor does postgres or other options. MySQL is ubiquitous, which is its advantage over other databases that may perform better.
PHP is a serious programming language for web development, just like RoR and a host of others. The parent is a perfect example of some old chap that: a) doesn't understand the differences and requirements of web development vs classic application programming b) Doesn't realise that PHP has evolved -A LOT- over the past 8 years, and is no less inherently insecure than any other programming language. c) appears to hate programming languages that are accessible to more than computer science majors, whether some computer science majors use them or not.
Seriously, it's time for some posters to grow up and attempt to be objective rather than inserting their short-sighted, uninformed, and most of all, unintelligent posts against some language they have a hate-on for.
No. OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a database collection of borders, multilingual location names, and data to create maps with. There are also points of interest in it, however in my belief, focussing on points of interest would take away from the constant and more important job of filling the OSM database in with street names, and accurate location information.
The database of OSM is already huge (>70GB I believe), and since points of interest are almost always drawn in Javascript (usually via OpenLayers.org's API that works with not just OpenStreetMaps, but Yahoo and google maps as well), it makes more sense to me to have a separate open organisation that takes the job of managing business names, and focusses on that, instead of combining place management with raw map data.
Working with OpenStreetMap data is already somewhat unwieldy, given the size of the database, and while in theory it sounds nice to put places into OSM, I don't see why a second organisation dedicated to doing so wouldn't be a far better idea than handing a second mandate to an organisation that has its hands full with its first.
It is terrific, however some cities (ahem Toronto, Vancouver, and others.) are releasing their municipal border data under a different licence than OSM (openstreetmaps), which is possibly even worse than not keeping them up to date properly. If this continues, a developer will need to navigate dozens or hundreds of unique licences in order to display data legally. A serious problem, that needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.
Through involving the subject of Nazis and the attempted extermination of the Jews, it was in fact a light-hearted joke.
So, have you learned that this was an extremely stupid joke that shouldn't have been written, as opposed to "light-hearted joke" as you wrote with unbelievable naivety? What's worse is that you really mean't it, and have defended your "joke" by pointing out how you believe Apple lock-down is fascism comparable with that of "one of the plans" of the Nazis.
--
Just because someone else makes a Hitler comparison, does not make it ok for you to do so.
Flash runs animations far better than SVG, and for the web is the best thing out there to do what it does (or would you prefer Silverlight?) HTML5 doesn't replace Flash, and doesn't even try to. It brings video into html, so it no longer needs to be embedded into Flash, but doesn't remotely replace it. RipCode isn't interactive, and the real value of Flash is its flexibility with interactive content.
Flash is also a platform with almost no limitations as to how you use it, closed-source, but you can run whatever you like -- just like Windows, but free to install. The iPad/iPhone is closed to non-approved applications, making it the least open platform out there. So let me rephrase what the parent posted:
I'm all for the demise of the iPhone/iPad. It is a necessary evil but let's get rid of them. This could be one way. Flash may or may not be the way to go, that is yet to be seen. However this is the open web people.
--
Flash is closed-source. The iPhone/iPad are closed to running what applications you want on them, which to me is as closed as you can get. In this case, Flash may be the poster-boy for open application environments.
Flash's demise will have nothing to do with something as inconsequential as RipCode. Let's be clear on what RipCode is: a Flash video replacement. What it isn't: Flash.
You know all those websites created in Flash, with Flash menus and Flash fonts, etc? You know, the ones with something called ActionScript going on deep down where you interact with the website... well, Ripcode doesn't even begin to replace them, it only replaces Flash video.
Now, RipCode may provide a stop-gap solution for displaying video until HTML5 fully arrives, but a Flash replacement it ain't. A strange (on-demand video re-encoding at the server??) temporary solution that will be obsolete in a year, it is.
You're both wrong. It lasted so long because it was so advanced when it came out, that it took years for any competition to form, hence reason to be replaced by micro$oft. I know, I know, you don't like to hear it, but there were some real dark netscape days there for a long time, while IE6 allowed AJAX-type programming from back from back in 2001.
By its end it was long in the tooth, and lacked key features of the likes of Firefox, but back then it opened up a lot of new possibilities for a web developer. Look at the past 3 years: Windows still comes installed with IE, but a lot of people are using firefox, safari, or chrome, because they're as good or better, and offer real competition that was completely non-existant in 2003.
In a way, by taking so long with IE7, microsoft did us a favour by allowing vibrant competition in the browser market (yes, I am someone that doesn't touch IE unless I absolutely need to)
I disagree with you on the first shooting being understandable -- with the quality of vision the gunmen had, they should not have been able to call the shots they did (and they did). The video made those soldiers look trigger-happy, but far worse showed that the army doesn't seem to have a reasonable set of guidelines on confirming targets.
On the shooting of the van, though, you're bang-on. The exact words of the gunmen leading up to the actual firing on the van were: "We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh, picking up bodies and weapons."
[a van arrived with children in the front seat to pick up a man who'd been gunned down, no weapons in sight]
"Let me engage", was the next request from the gunman, followed by, "Can I shoot", and topped off with a series of requests for permission and a final, "Come on! Let us shoot!"
And then, permission received, they fired on unarmed individuals coming to help a hurt man, who also had children looking out of the front window in (mangled by poor resolution) view of the helicopter.
Nothing much is understandable about these "mistakes".
I really believe you're missing a number of obvious points.
Why would Google re-implement.NET when they were already using a series of other languages and tools? Unless I'm completely mistaken, to make a third party.NET implementation would have been -difficult- to say the least. Google's a search company, not a software company. Any software it creates are merely offshoots of its core businesses, and.NET is a very comprehensive suite that does far more than Google would ever want to dedicate itself to.
More to the point, however, is that Microsoft products carry with them a philosophy that speak far louder than the legal issues that you believe are the only reason these websites avoided.NET. The closed-ness of the code-base, the top-down direction of its evolution straight from MS offices, and its fundamental business interests are all issues for Google and the other sites you mention. It's these interests that the lead to the legal issues, and even make them inherently necessary.
To look at.NET and say that legal issues are holding it back is to be completely blind to the fact that those legal issues are fundamental and necessary to Microsoft -- and many other companies use their products because of them.
As for the launch date, let's be honest: no professional would base their business on a brand new and complex suite without giving a couple years to work the bugs out.
Yes, it was this quote that made me question whether de Icaza has any clue at all.
.NET was released first in 2002. Wikipedia was released in 2001, Google in the 90's. As for Ruby on Rails -- don't you need Ruby first in order to build a framework on Ruby (incidentally, Microsoft got into IronRuby in 2007)? Facebook, meanwhile, was a classic example of a commercial website done on the cheap, and at the time it was started, LAMP was about the only practical option. Your average group of kids with an idea in college aren't going to go out and buy Window servers, software, and very pricey MSSQL licences.
Really, why would anyone bother listening to what this de Icaza guy has to say, when he spouts off nonsense like this?
Ah, and in our example at hand, the only free market is coming from the scalpers. Ticketmaster and like companies are usually monopolies over venues, not allowing for competitors to also sell tickets, nor the artists to have any say over how tickets to their shows are sold.
They use their monopolistic positions to charge exorbitant fees, that drive prices to see arts events through the roof. If venues would focus on local sales through multiple distributors online and off, they wouldn't have this problem that is of their own creation.
Usually on/. it helps to be able to read articles in order to add some useful commentary. One of the two articles is barely anything more than an advertisement for the Wall Street Journal, embedded into a slashdot story. With all the focus here on things like open-source, accessibility, and a general love-in for ad-Block, I don't understand why we're being spammed with links to pay money and subscribe to an online newspaper.
Suffice it to say, my interest in the actual story has waned since it doesn't seem to be aimed at non-WSJ subscribers like myself.
Parent's sig applies perfectly to those that moderated him "insightful". The number of "Ifs" in the comment remind me of FOX news commentary.
Nowhere is it being proposed that you can no longer extend Firefox -- it's just that you will need to use a more user-friendly language than XUL to do it. It's called something else, and suddenly those that don't take the time to read the linked articles freak out and declare that the end of the world has come for Firefox. Does anyone not think that the Firefox team would have thought through the consequences and decided with sober mind that they're positive?
Another poster has already quoted the firebug response, but here goes again: "I don’t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug. Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures. We can adapt as we go along"
If the creators of an extension as complex and deeply embedded in Firefox as Firebug think it's going to be ok, then maybe that's a sign that we should all just take a big breath and chill out.
Neither do I, but I would prefer someone with a solid understanding of usability and a uniquely creative concept that has a difficult time programming to make an app, than some technically gifted programmer without a clue of what makes a good extension.
In this case, just because you can program assembly code with your eyes closed doesn't mean you're not a moron when it comes to sensible app creation.
Amen to that. I've always searched for extensions the way I search for windows apps, by using google and the sources the parent mentions (bloggers, word of mouth, etc). App stores, whether Apple-like, or Ubuntu installer-like always try to force users to install from one place, simultaneously limiting choice while allowing for too much crap to make a good choice out of what's available.
As one example, search for firebug on google to get a link to its addons.mozilla.org page, or find it from the firebug home page, but using the mozilla extension search is definitely the least user friendly method of getting firebug. While this will likely get me branded with one of the dreaded -1 "I don't like you" mods, it's exactly why I think Linux and its gui app install methods flounder (and always will) when compared to Windows.
While it may officially be an "underbone", I've never until now heard of this word (and I've been riding for 8 years). 40mph top speed, 70cc utilitarian-looking motorized bikes are called scooters over here (North America).
There may be other words that match what law and wiki writers would like you to use, but this thing is definitely a scooter, slightly reminiscent of the Honda ruckus, which is sold here.
Slashdot Mirror
Wiki-Leaks seemed to be a bit one sided. Leaking information that fits with their agenda, and keeping out other information.
I have no idea where you're coming from with this statement. Wikileaks is exposing the corruption of power, be it in politics, bureaucracy, the banking sector, wherever. The information they've released is relevant for all Americans to understand their power structure -- regardless of any political stripe (note they don't favour the Democrats over the Republicans), as well as those whose countries wheel and deal behind closed doors with the United States.
While I think it would be very helpful to have an organization dedicated to releasing information specific to very particular cases, Wikileaks does a great job of releasing general information important for all of us.
--
Information is the key to democracy
If you mean matured enough that it's become the one of the main entry points for malware on PCs and still tries to insist I install an annoying Yahoo toolbar every time we update it, then I would have to say it's not mature enough for me.
No, don't pay attention to the FUD artists. 9.8 million goes to "technology" costs, including 1.8 for existing hosting costs, and 3.3 in new capital expenditures on their data centers.
I think everyone knows Wikipedia has its issues with the editing process, but their overall management appears very transparent and well-intentioned. Any organization that grows so fast is going to have problems along the way, but I don't understand why some people need to go out of their way to make wikipedia itself seem evil.
You link is correct, but your statement is 100% wrong.
If you'd read the document you linked to, you would see the real figure for 2010/11 is 8.9 million for 91 people, including the costs of recruiting and benefits, which would be somewhat significant. In 09/10 there were only 47 employees.
Regarding the 9.8 million, this includes 1.8 million for their data centers, and 3.3 million in building out the data center in new capital expenditures, and most of the rest for what seems to be quite normal developer and IT salary costs.
Your question/point of "what is an advertisement?" is likely the best one to focus on. I have no problem at all with advertising based on the content of a page, but have a huge issues with doubleclick, facebook connect and their like, who would track users and what they browse.
Still, to create and manage a worldwide ad-server which can't be taken advantage of is not a simple task. One might even suggest they'd need to raise a very large amount of donation money in order to build and maintain it through the opening stages.
Like many mods have suggested, this is an "interesting" idea. It's also completely without any reference and seems to be a serious accusation. Wales' appeal states that wikipedia does need the money for its website, while you say they're lying, and that it's just a siphon.
Your comments are stated as facts, but you give a note at the bottom suggesting it's just opinion.
I'm suggesting that until you give some valid reference that the money is going to sister projects, that your post is full of FUD and not much else.
Wikileaks is like many an open source project: lots of things to do, not many people to do everything, so they need to focus on the interests of the "programmers", in this case headed up by Assange. Your comments sound like many a poster that is against the direction of the way a software project is going. Don't like it? Then either get involved to effect the direction, or do your own thing. No skin off anyone's back.
Actually, it is like you can't find them. All personal laptops are 16:9, while some higher priced business laptops are 16:10, but both are a far cry from the old 16:12 (4:3), perfect for image viewing, and requires a lot less scrolling in a day.
But you really, truly can't find any of the old 4:3 resolutions in a ~14" laptop by any company (nor almost all other sizes). For anyone who uses their computer primarily to read and write documents, they will have a loss in productivity (more scrolling, less context available for the subject at hand) in choosing a 14" widescreen, over a 14" old 4:3 laptop.
I find it amazing that no laptop-maker is extending even a single product to those that would prefer the 4:3 ratio.
Very Insightful and well explained. Still, if the font-size is increased to be the same as a lower-res display, it remains that on shorter, widescreen computers, less text can be seen vertically. Personally, I like as many vertical lines available, as opposed to width for multitasking.
As well, for someone who loves viewing their photos (4:3), a similar-dimensioned computer makes more sense, regardless of resolution. All personal laptops are now configured for dvd playing (16:9 vs 16:12 for images). I wonder if how many of those use their computers more for viewing photos, and maybe their dvd player and tv is what they use for dvds?
While the parent deserves flamebait instead of "interesting", especially given he/she doesn't have the guts to sign their name to the post, here's a brief reply.
- SQL injection works on any database with any programming language, if things aren't programmed properly, and is definitely not specific to PHP.
- PHP is not longer in version 3 or 4, it's got great object-oriented programming possibilities, is faster to program in than many other languages, and if you use intelligent caching, will be pretty much as quick -- with the remaining speed cost for using PHP made negligent by the real action happening in the database.
- "experienced professionals" do program in PHP. A real programmer will use the best language for the job, and often times that language is PHP. Working with a client who will only pay ~$20/month in hosting on their current webhost often means that a LAMP installation is what you've got to work with. Quick, easy, secure, and job well done using PHP.
- SQL Server is the most miserable, buggy, and overpriced db out there in my experience, and it gives no practical advantage security-wise over MySQL, and nor does postgres or other options. MySQL is ubiquitous, which is its advantage over other databases that may perform better.
PHP is a serious programming language for web development, just like RoR and a host of others. The parent is a perfect example of some old chap that:
a) doesn't understand the differences and requirements of web development vs classic application programming
b) Doesn't realise that PHP has evolved -A LOT- over the past 8 years, and is no less inherently insecure than any other programming language.
c) appears to hate programming languages that are accessible to more than computer science majors, whether some computer science majors use them or not.
Seriously, it's time for some posters to grow up and attempt to be objective rather than inserting their short-sighted, uninformed, and most of all, unintelligent posts against some language they have a hate-on for.
No. OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a database collection of borders, multilingual location names, and data to create maps with. There are also points of interest in it, however in my belief, focussing on points of interest would take away from the constant and more important job of filling the OSM database in with street names, and accurate location information.
The database of OSM is already huge (>70GB I believe), and since points of interest are almost always drawn in Javascript (usually via OpenLayers.org's API that works with not just OpenStreetMaps, but Yahoo and google maps as well), it makes more sense to me to have a separate open organisation that takes the job of managing business names, and focusses on that, instead of combining place management with raw map data.
Working with OpenStreetMap data is already somewhat unwieldy, given the size of the database, and while in theory it sounds nice to put places into OSM, I don't see why a second organisation dedicated to doing so wouldn't be a far better idea than handing a second mandate to an organisation that has its hands full with its first.
It is terrific, however some cities (ahem Toronto, Vancouver, and others.) are releasing their municipal border data under a different licence than OSM (openstreetmaps), which is possibly even worse than not keeping them up to date properly. If this continues, a developer will need to navigate dozens or hundreds of unique licences in order to display data legally. A serious problem, that needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.
Through involving the subject of Nazis and the attempted extermination of the Jews, it was in fact a light-hearted joke.
So, have you learned that this was an extremely stupid joke that shouldn't have been written, as opposed to "light-hearted joke" as you wrote with unbelievable naivety? What's worse is that you really mean't it, and have defended your "joke" by pointing out how you believe Apple lock-down is fascism comparable with that of "one of the plans" of the Nazis.
--
Just because someone else makes a Hitler comparison, does not make it ok for you to do so.
Flash runs animations far better than SVG, and for the web is the best thing out there to do what it does (or would you prefer Silverlight?) HTML5 doesn't replace Flash, and doesn't even try to. It brings video into html, so it no longer needs to be embedded into Flash, but doesn't remotely replace it. RipCode isn't interactive, and the real value of Flash is its flexibility with interactive content.
Flash is also a platform with almost no limitations as to how you use it, closed-source, but you can run whatever you like -- just like Windows, but free to install. The iPad/iPhone is closed to non-approved applications, making it the least open platform out there. So let me rephrase what the parent posted:
I'm all for the demise of the iPhone/iPad. It is a necessary evil but let's get rid of them. This could be one way. Flash may or may not be the way to go, that is yet to be seen. However this is the open web people.
--
Flash is closed-source. The iPhone/iPad are closed to running what applications you want on them, which to me is as closed as you can get. In this case, Flash may be the poster-boy for open application environments.
Flash's demise will have nothing to do with something as inconsequential as RipCode. Let's be clear on what RipCode is: a Flash video replacement. What it isn't: Flash.
You know all those websites created in Flash, with Flash menus and Flash fonts, etc? You know, the ones with something called ActionScript going on deep down where you interact with the website... well, Ripcode doesn't even begin to replace them, it only replaces Flash video.
Now, RipCode may provide a stop-gap solution for displaying video until HTML5 fully arrives, but a Flash replacement it ain't. A strange (on-demand video re-encoding at the server??) temporary solution that will be obsolete in a year, it is.
You're both wrong. It lasted so long because it was so advanced when it came out, that it took years for any competition to form, hence reason to be replaced by micro$oft. I know, I know, you don't like to hear it, but there were some real dark netscape days there for a long time, while IE6 allowed AJAX-type programming from back from back in 2001.
By its end it was long in the tooth, and lacked key features of the likes of Firefox, but back then it opened up a lot of new possibilities for a web developer. Look at the past 3 years: Windows still comes installed with IE, but a lot of people are using firefox, safari, or chrome, because they're as good or better, and offer real competition that was completely non-existant in 2003.
In a way, by taking so long with IE7, microsoft did us a favour by allowing vibrant competition in the browser market (yes, I am someone that doesn't touch IE unless I absolutely need to)
I disagree with you on the first shooting being understandable -- with the quality of vision the gunmen had, they should not have been able to call the shots they did (and they did). The video made those soldiers look trigger-happy, but far worse showed that the army doesn't seem to have a reasonable set of guidelines on confirming targets.
On the shooting of the van, though, you're bang-on. The exact words of the gunmen leading up to the actual firing on the van were:
"We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh, picking up bodies and weapons."
[a van arrived with children in the front seat to pick up a man who'd been gunned down, no weapons in sight]
"Let me engage", was the next request from the gunman, followed by, "Can I shoot", and topped off with a series of requests for permission and a final, "Come on! Let us shoot!"
And then, permission received, they fired on unarmed individuals coming to help a hurt man, who also had children looking out of the front window in (mangled by poor resolution) view of the helicopter.
Nothing much is understandable about these "mistakes".
I really believe you're missing a number of obvious points.
.NET when they were already using a series of other languages and tools? Unless I'm completely mistaken, to make a third party .NET implementation would have been -difficult- to say the least. Google's a search company, not a software company. Any software it creates are merely offshoots of its core businesses, and .NET is a very comprehensive suite that does far more than Google would ever want to dedicate itself to.
.NET. The closed-ness of the code-base, the top-down direction of its evolution straight from MS offices, and its fundamental business interests are all issues for Google and the other sites you mention. It's these interests that the lead to the legal issues, and even make them inherently necessary.
.NET and say that legal issues are holding it back is to be completely blind to the fact that those legal issues are fundamental and necessary to Microsoft -- and many other companies use their products because of them.
Why would Google re-implement
More to the point, however, is that Microsoft products carry with them a philosophy that speak far louder than the legal issues that you believe are the only reason these websites avoided
To look at
As for the launch date, let's be honest: no professional would base their business on a brand new and complex suite without giving a couple years to work the bugs out.
Yes, it was this quote that made me question whether de Icaza has any clue at all.
.NET was released first in 2002. Wikipedia was released in 2001, Google in the 90's. As for Ruby on Rails -- don't you need Ruby first in order to build a framework on Ruby (incidentally, Microsoft got into IronRuby in 2007)? Facebook, meanwhile, was a classic example of a commercial website done on the cheap, and at the time it was started, LAMP was about the only practical option. Your average group of kids with an idea in college aren't going to go out and buy Window servers, software, and very pricey MSSQL licences.
Really, why would anyone bother listening to what this de Icaza guy has to say, when he spouts off nonsense like this?
Ah, and in our example at hand, the only free market is coming from the scalpers. Ticketmaster and like companies are usually monopolies over venues, not allowing for competitors to also sell tickets, nor the artists to have any say over how tickets to their shows are sold.
They use their monopolistic positions to charge exorbitant fees, that drive prices to see arts events through the roof. If venues would focus on local sales through multiple distributors online and off, they wouldn't have this problem that is of their own creation.
Usually on /. it helps to be able to read articles in order to add some useful commentary. One of the two articles is barely anything more than an advertisement for the Wall Street Journal, embedded into a slashdot story. With all the focus here on things like open-source, accessibility, and a general love-in for ad-Block, I don't understand why we're being spammed with links to pay money and subscribe to an online newspaper.
Suffice it to say, my interest in the actual story has waned since it doesn't seem to be aimed at non-WSJ subscribers like myself.
Parent's sig applies perfectly to those that moderated him "insightful". The number of "Ifs" in the comment remind me of FOX news commentary.
Nowhere is it being proposed that you can no longer extend Firefox -- it's just that you will need to use a more user-friendly language than XUL to do it. It's called something else, and suddenly those that don't take the time to read the linked articles freak out and declare that the end of the world has come for Firefox. Does anyone not think that the Firefox team would have thought through the consequences and decided with sober mind that they're positive?
Another poster has already quoted the firebug response, but here goes again: "I don’t think these changes will have a big impact on Firebug. Firefox will continue to support extensions while the jetpack technology matures. We can adapt as we go along"
If the creators of an extension as complex and deeply embedded in Firefox as Firebug think it's going to be ok, then maybe that's a sign that we should all just take a big breath and chill out.
Neither do I, but I would prefer someone with a solid understanding of usability and a uniquely creative concept that has a difficult time programming to make an app, than some technically gifted programmer without a clue of what makes a good extension.
In this case, just because you can program assembly code with your eyes closed doesn't mean you're not a moron when it comes to sensible app creation.
Amen to that. I've always searched for extensions the way I search for windows apps, by using google and the sources the parent mentions (bloggers, word of mouth, etc). App stores, whether Apple-like, or Ubuntu installer-like always try to force users to install from one place, simultaneously limiting choice while allowing for too much crap to make a good choice out of what's available.
As one example, search for firebug on google to get a link to its addons.mozilla.org page, or find it from the firebug home page, but using the mozilla extension search is definitely the least user friendly method of getting firebug. While this will likely get me branded with one of the dreaded -1 "I don't like you" mods, it's exactly why I think Linux and its gui app install methods flounder (and always will) when compared to Windows.
While it may officially be an "underbone", I've never until now heard of this word (and I've been riding for 8 years). 40mph top speed, 70cc utilitarian-looking motorized bikes are called scooters over here (North America).
There may be other words that match what law and wiki writers would like you to use, but this thing is definitely a scooter, slightly reminiscent of the Honda ruckus, which is sold here.