I have seen a couple of those business applications made with ActiveX in the work.
ActiveX cannot be printed either, does not obey back, has no real links (links cannot nicely be copied to VCS/Wiki/etc), does not work with FF (even with activex plugin)...
Flash done right can be extremely useful [...] Perhaps it "can", but I have never seen one even remotely useful.
Most which think they are useful are a hindrance, either by disabling printing and/or removing browsing (back button) or just a nuisance with idiotic sounds etc.
Odds are that you have probably used a Tcl/Tk application and never even knew it. I'd say the odds for this are minimal. Tk creates (created?) so ugly and hard to use interfaces it is impossible not to notice.
I am sure I could, quite easily, download a ringtone to my mobile.
But I am certain I could not mix it to sound as nice as the paid version. And I am also extremely certain paying a buck once a year or so is not going to ruin my balance.
I really, really do not care whether the price is zero (DIY) or one lousy euro.
At that time I was using Sun workstation at the university. I never did understand why people were happy with "huge" pointers, 68000 was just so much easier.
Unfortunately 68040, Z8000, etc. completely failed and we are still stuck with x86...
Anyways this (lack of threading) is IMHO far more severe than the "memory leak"[1]. And what I want is that Javascript, download, rendering, etc. does not stop me from changing to another tab and browsing there.
Actually I do not care whether it uses threads or processes or "green threads" or whatnot, as long as it works as expected.
[1] It has never affected me though I have FF on for weeks on both XP and Linux.
Why would you sample at 44.1KHz? Sample at e.g. 4x and down sample digitally to 44.1KHz (BTW, the down-sampling should be done after mixing/mixer and the mixer should have bigger resolution than 16 bits).
In the playback a damn good oversampling digital filter is norm for a CD player nowadays.
Why would you sample at 44.1KHz? Sample at e.g. 4x and down sample digitally to 44.1KHz (BTW, the down-sampling should be done after mixing/mixer and the mixer should have bigger resolution than 16 bits).
In the playback a damn good oversampling digital filter is norm for a CD player nowadays.
You do need to understand the concepts but you definitely do not need to understand "what is going in the runtime environment".
Take for example ConcurrentHashMap (in Java). You really do not need to know how it is implemented to use it efficiently. Or maybe I misunderstood you...
More to the topic, I think parallel constructs to C++ are "too little too late". It will be five to ten years behind Java and others.
[...] not an archive of random facts. Actually, Wikipedia is much worse than that. See e.g. "Alien" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenomorph_(Alien). It is a huge article about fiction... actually it is not (only) "about" fiction, it is fiction in itself.
No, Nexenta does not include any of the closed source binaries http://www.gnusolaris.org/: "NexentaOS is completely open source and free of any charge.".
I would like to add a few point why 2008 will not be "the year of the Linux":-)
The fact is that "FOSS" is not better. HW compatibility is still not par, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, PITA with proprietary drivers, games, compatibility w. existing SW, etc. makes Linux highly inferior for many of us.
Besides the price of pre-installed Windows has gone to around zero, perhaps even below. New computers have a lot of limited time or limited functionality SW and companies pay to get them installed.
Although this can happen with Linux, it is very unlikely because Linux fanboys would scream bloody murder (they already do so for proprietary drivers).
Linux has possibility in the small end only because eeePC cannot include the "crapware", the flash is not big enough. Here even $40 would be a considerable price and I doubt that many are willing to pay that much for Vista (or XP). Besides it seem XP need bigger flash...
These devices aren't going to directly hit MS's products Oh yes they are.
You seem to forget the time Microsoft really tried to push their Smartphone. At that time they made the CE just to kill Palm and Psion, etc, and they were very succesfull. They screwed a British company (while developing the Smartphone), tried very hard to sell Smartphone to Nokia, Ericsson,... and eventually e.g. Ericsson was forced to make fusion with Sony. This was partially due to time & money lost on Smartphone.
Nokia did extremely smart move back then of not using the Smartphone platform, it was hugely inferior to Symbian. Now the tables have turned, phones have much more power than "SparcStations" and therefore Symbian has become inferior to more advanced OS's. Nokia must feel the pain very heavily (Nokia phones are very sluggish compared to some others and I blame Symbian).
So N810, eeePC, smart phones, etc. are directly competing against Microsoft.
Perhaps more importantly when the platform of mobile computing really takes off, the Office cannot be the King, there needs to be a way to see documents on the go. Unless the mobile platform is ruled by Microsoft.
The winner could be so surprising entity as Sun (with Java), or maybe even Apple (though I doubt both), but I've got no crystal ball. OTOH predicting future is fun:)
I think it is extremely idiotic not to consider bitmasks, non-ISO dates, etc. as against the "spirit" of XML. You do have your right for your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it IMHO is.
I do not know where you got the 40%, as e.g. in Germany there have been problems as the amount of wind power is getting over 10%.
Several studies seem to agree that there is no point in trying to get wind over 10%, otherwise you need to keep many coal plants in stand-by and this loses more energy than (the additional) wind would generate.
OOXML is not valid XML, especially on the spirit. Please do your home work, check www.dis29500.org!
1. It does not user &x0008; -style extension for non-printable characters, rather it uses it's own. 2. It uses bitmaps. It is arguable whether these are allowed in XML at all, but certainly they are against the spirit of XML. 3. It does not always use base64 for binary data. Again, maybe not against the letter of XML but definitely against the spirit. 4. It does not use existing schemas (MathML,...) but invents its own. Against the spirit. 5. Date values are not using ISO8601. Against the spirit, if not letter.
You keep on claiming 1:1 compatibility with the binary formats. I'd like to see the converter which can convert the several hundred different formats ranging from Word 2 to Office 2007, including Word 97/Finnish. Yes, Finnish (and French, German,...) had different format - Excel function names were localized[1]. Before I see it to really work, I do not believe you.
I just recently opened Word 2 document in Office 2003 - in my machine it was OK, in a colleagues machine part of the text was converted to ZingBats, i.e. were unreadable (not an isolated case, by far). Trivial to correct, yes, but shows that Microsoft themselves cannot read the binary format. Btw, I have had to open a word documents on OOo just to read it as Word has refused to open it.
So where can I download the converter, as it apparently can do better job? Nowhere? I'm not surprised, Yet Another Unfulfilled Microsoft Promise.
As I said before, ODF can be extended/annexed so that it can include everything necessary for the binary formats. There already exists OOXML -> ODF converters (which are most likely not 100% correct as today) so if binary -> OOXML converter can be created (which I doubt) I cannot see why not.
The reason is simple. The XML is not really XML, not in syntax and definitely not in spirit. Add the problems of the format and you quickly get to the "third" option.
There are not billion documents using OOXML. There are billion documents using the binary format. And there is no known converter from the binary to the XMLish. And by your own argument, the conversion is not feasible.
Best way would have been to amend ODF so that (one directional) one-to-one mapping can be done. This is clearly possible and much preferable, at least by my standards.
The difference between OpenOfficeOrg and Microsoft (of not using 1.0 spec) should be extremely obvious. The version OOo is using is openly available, used by many and most likely will be ISO specification in due time. And, most importantly, the version OOo is using has not been decided by OOo team.
I am sick and tired about FireFox memory "issue". I have never had any problem. Not once. I never kill FF, it is on for weeks, and memory consumption is never any problem.
The problem with FF is that each tab is not a separate thread, quite often starting new tab will put FireFox to a halt for couple of seconds (2-5 or so). Changing that would make me much much happier than saving 100MB (or whatever) of memory.
only the politicians can. Not quite. Just like in Sweden, you need strong independent press. It seems USA has none (all the press is associated with a party). Besides, in the USA government has news agencies in the leash.
Smallpox? I think you got wrong disease, its mortality rate is over 30%.
I had chicken pox while I was over 30. Fever of 42-43C is not fun ("nice" nightmares, though). I did not get that much scars. And it definitely did not last a month (week or two, depending how you measure).
For children it is not that severe, at least not around here (practically everyone, except me, had it as a child).
For chicken pox (or smallpox) the vaccination really, really should be optional. Those who take it are completely safe, you know.
Even though Microsoft will be responsible for any maintenance or evolution of the format, ISO still controls what is called an ISO standard or not. You seem to miss the whole point.
Let's start from "the beginning". Why should OOXML become standard? Why do you want it to become one (I suppose you do, otherwise I cannot see the point in your post).
I can see following possibilities: 1. It helps you by making interoperability better. 2. It helps you by making you feel better because Microsoft got what it wants (or F/OSS or Mr. Weir or whatnot didn't).
I cannot really see any other points[1]. Longevity of documents clearly is covered by point 1. Compatibility with old Microsoft documents is also, although it would make more sense to standardize the binary.
Now if you are not trolling it must be the point one, right?
So how is interoperability improved by standardising a format which nobody is going to use? Now Microsoft has admitted it will not use it, they will use some updated version. Others in practice cannot (and if could it would not help interoperability at all).
So, once again, why should this standard be ratified?
[1] I was lying, I can. Microsoft wants use this as a way to sell products by claiming to use standards compliant file formats. Not a very good point, but...
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen a couple of those business applications made with ActiveX in the work.
...
ActiveX cannot be printed either, does not obey back, has no real links (links cannot nicely be copied to VCS/Wiki/etc), does not work with FF (even with activex plugin)
Just a POS, IMHO.
Most which think they are useful are a hindrance, either by disabling printing and/or removing browsing (back button) or just a nuisance with idiotic sounds etc.
It is convenience.
I am sure I could, quite easily, download a ringtone to my mobile.
But I am certain I could not mix it to sound as nice as the paid version. And I am also extremely certain paying a buck once a year or so is not going to ruin my balance.
I really, really do not care whether the price is zero (DIY) or one lousy euro.
You mean x86 processor limit.
...
At that time I was using Sun workstation at the university. I never did understand why people were happy with "huge" pointers, 68000 was just so much easier.
Unfortunately 68040, Z8000, etc. completely failed and we are still stuck with x86
I have no clue what the original poster means.
Anyways this (lack of threading) is IMHO far more severe than the "memory leak"[1]. And what I want is that Javascript, download, rendering, etc. does not stop me from changing to another tab and browsing there.
Actually I do not care whether it uses threads or processes or "green threads" or whatnot, as long as it works as expected.
[1] It has never affected me though I have FF on for weeks on both XP and Linux.
Why would you sample at 44.1KHz? Sample at e.g. 4x and down sample digitally to 44.1KHz (BTW, the down-sampling should be done after mixing/mixer and the mixer should have bigger resolution than 16 bits).
In the playback a damn good oversampling digital filter is norm for a CD player nowadays.
Why would you sample at 44.1KHz? Sample at e.g. 4x and down sample digitally to 44.1KHz (BTW, the down-sampling should be done after mixing/mixer and the mixer should have bigger resolution than 16 bits).
In the playback a damn good oversampling digital filter is norm for a CD player nowadays.
You do need to understand the concepts but you definitely do not need to understand "what is going in the runtime environment".
...
Take for example ConcurrentHashMap (in Java). You really do not need to know how it is implemented to use it efficiently. Or maybe I misunderstood you
More to the topic, I think parallel constructs to C++ are "too little too late". It will be five to ten years behind Java and others.
No, Nexenta does not include any of the closed source binaries
... sorry.
http://www.gnusolaris.org/: "NexentaOS is completely open source and free of any charge.".
Here is the list of what is missing from OpenSolaris: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/. Missing is e.g. some device drivers, luckily some of them have OSS counterparts in the net (e.g. http://homepage2.nifty.com/mrym3/taiyodo/eng/).
However, the way Nexenta is built it can use binary only Solaris drivers - a very nice feature IMHO.
I was supposed to give those links in my previous post but somehow managed to screw up
They are not really necessary. For example Nexenta does not use any of them .
Besides, there aren't that much which is binary only , mostly some device drivers (there are OSS replacements around for some of those).
Beats me.
Besides, if they really do this I cannot see how they are not going to get sued.
I think it is more interesting how Gnome (e.g. Gnumeric) will behave. Is 1900 a leap year? How CEILING() is calculated?,
base64 /;a'
Passes every past, present and future XML parser so by your "understanding" it must be XML.
Mostly true.
:-)
...
I would like to add a few point why 2008 will not be "the year of the Linux"
The fact is that "FOSS" is not better. HW compatibility is still not par, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, PITA with proprietary drivers, games, compatibility w. existing SW, etc. makes Linux highly inferior for many of us.
Besides the price of pre-installed Windows has gone to around zero, perhaps even below. New computers have a lot of limited time or limited functionality SW and companies pay to get them installed.
Although this can happen with Linux, it is very unlikely because Linux fanboys would scream bloody murder (they already do so for proprietary drivers).
Linux has possibility in the small end only because eeePC cannot include the "crapware", the flash is not big enough. Here even $40 would be a considerable price and I doubt that many are willing to pay that much for Vista (or XP). Besides it seem XP need bigger flash
You seem to forget the time Microsoft really tried to push their Smartphone. At that time they made the CE just to kill Palm and Psion, etc, and they were very succesfull. They screwed a British company (while developing the Smartphone), tried very hard to sell Smartphone to Nokia, Ericsson,
Nokia did extremely smart move back then of not using the Smartphone platform, it was hugely inferior to Symbian. Now the tables have turned, phones have much more power than "SparcStations" and therefore Symbian has become inferior to more advanced OS's. Nokia must feel the pain very heavily (Nokia phones are very sluggish compared to some others and I blame Symbian).
So N810, eeePC, smart phones, etc. are directly competing against Microsoft.
Perhaps more importantly when the platform of mobile computing really takes off, the Office cannot be the King, there needs to be a way to see documents on the go. Unless the mobile platform is ruled by Microsoft.
The winner could be so surprising entity as Sun (with Java), or maybe even Apple (though I doubt both), but I've got no crystal ball. OTOH predicting future is fun
Invalid XML: http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Non-XML_formatting_codes
Bitmasks (sorry, I made a "language-typo" when I wrote bitmaps): http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_uses_bitmasks.2C_inhibiting_extensibility_and_use_of_standard_XML_tools
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOXML#Technical_criticisms
I think it is extremely idiotic not to consider bitmasks, non-ISO dates, etc. as against the "spirit" of XML. You do have your right for your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it IMHO is.
HTH. HAND.
I do not know where you got the 40%, as e.g. in Germany there have been problems as the amount of wind power is getting over 10%.
Several studies seem to agree that there is no point in trying to get wind over 10%, otherwise you need to keep many coal plants in stand-by and this loses more energy than (the additional) wind would generate.
OOXML is not valid XML, especially on the spirit. Please do your home work, check www.dis29500.org!
...) but invents its own. Against the spirit.
...) had different format - Excel function names were localized[1]. Before I see it to really work, I do not believe you.
1. It does not user &x0008; -style extension for non-printable characters, rather it uses it's own.
2. It uses bitmaps. It is arguable whether these are allowed in XML at all, but certainly they are against the spirit of XML.
3. It does not always use base64 for binary data. Again, maybe not against the letter of XML but definitely against the spirit.
4. It does not use existing schemas (MathML,
5. Date values are not using ISO8601. Against the spirit, if not letter.
You keep on claiming 1:1 compatibility with the binary formats. I'd like to see the converter which can convert the several hundred different formats ranging from Word 2 to Office 2007, including Word 97/Finnish. Yes, Finnish (and French, German,
I just recently opened Word 2 document in Office 2003 - in my machine it was OK, in a colleagues machine part of the text was converted to ZingBats, i.e. were unreadable (not an isolated case, by far). Trivial to correct, yes, but shows that Microsoft themselves cannot read the binary format. Btw, I have had to open a word documents on OOo just to read it as Word has refused to open it.
So where can I download the converter, as it apparently can do better job? Nowhere? I'm not surprised, Yet Another Unfulfilled Microsoft Promise.
As I said before, ODF can be extended/annexed so that it can include everything necessary for the binary formats. There already exists OOXML -> ODF converters (which are most likely not 100% correct as today) so if binary -> OOXML converter can be created (which I doubt) I cannot see why not.
[1] Maybe it was word 2, not 97.
The reason is simple. The XML is not really XML, not in syntax and definitely not in spirit. Add the problems of the format and you quickly get to the "third" option.
There are not billion documents using OOXML. There are billion documents using the binary format. And there is no known converter from the binary to the XMLish. And by your own argument, the conversion is not feasible.
Best way would have been to amend ODF so that (one directional) one-to-one mapping can be done. This is clearly possible and much preferable, at least by my standards.
The difference between OpenOfficeOrg and Microsoft (of not using 1.0 spec) should be extremely obvious. The version OOo is using is openly available, used by many and most likely will be ISO specification in due time. And, most importantly, the version OOo is using has not been decided by OOo team.
AARGH!
I am sick and tired about FireFox memory "issue". I have never had any problem. Not once. I never kill FF, it is on for weeks, and memory consumption is never any problem.
The problem with FF is that each tab is not a separate thread, quite often starting new tab will put FireFox to a halt for couple of seconds (2-5 or so). Changing that would make me much much happier than saving 100MB (or whatever) of memory.
Smallpox? I think you got wrong disease, its mortality rate is over 30%.
I had chicken pox while I was over 30. Fever of 42-43C is not fun ("nice" nightmares, though). I did not get that much scars. And it definitely did not last a month (week or two, depending how you measure).
For children it is not that severe, at least not around here (practically everyone, except me, had it as a child).
For chicken pox (or smallpox) the vaccination really, really should be optional. Those who take it are completely safe, you know.
Let's start from "the beginning". Why should OOXML become standard? Why do you want it to become one (I suppose you do, otherwise I cannot see the point in your post).
I can see following possibilities:
1. It helps you by making interoperability better.
2. It helps you by making you feel better because Microsoft got what it wants (or F/OSS or Mr. Weir or whatnot didn't).
I cannot really see any other points[1]. Longevity of documents clearly is covered by point 1. Compatibility with old Microsoft documents is also, although it would make more sense to standardize the binary.
Now if you are not trolling it must be the point one, right?
So how is interoperability improved by standardising a format which nobody is going to use? Now Microsoft has admitted it will not use it, they will use some updated version. Others in practice cannot (and if could it would not help interoperability at all).
So, once again, why should this standard be ratified?
[1] I was lying, I can. Microsoft wants use this as a way to sell products by claiming to use standards compliant file formats. Not a very good point, but