It's more than likely that Microsoft and Apple will do the port together. MS is already porting to FreeBSD. The OS X port would likely be based on the same code, but optimized and complete with Forms.
The MSN Messenger protocol has nothing in it that would allow the retrieval of contacts, etc. (I've implemented a Java library that speaks msn messenger: MSNj (shameless plug)). The protocol isn't any more or less secure than HTTP.
The virus probably just gets the COM object that their messenger implements through javascript. The security hole is that IE lets a web page talk to the messenger client. I would guess that it does that so you can add contacts by clicking on web links and stuff like that.
A quick search tells me that Finland is [the most wired country in the world].
There's a nice graph on that page with a bar that shows Finland ahead of the US in Internet connections. That doesn't really mean much, since this is how they figured it:
There were some 546,000 Internet connections in Finland in January 19992, 107 per 1000 inhabitants, as calculated mechanically on the basis of the country code shown in the network address, an approach which nevertheless entails a number of uncertainty factors. The users of the commercial com. network, for example, cannot be located to country, so that the network address of a computer located in Finland does not necessarily have to end with 'fi'. It is similarly impossible to count the number of Internet users on the basis of these data.
So basically it's saying there are more hosts on.fi domains per capita than the US. That doesn't really qualify Finland as the most wired country in the world.
Obviously you've never worked on a car. The gas petal goes through a cable to the fuel injector. That's about as direct as you can get. There is TPS (Throttle Position Sensor) that feeds the information into the computer so it knows how much gas you're giving it.
Unless it's a 5th generation Corvette. That was the first GM car (at least that I'm aware of) that went to a purly electronic throttle. There are probably other cars that do this now. The Corvette did it 5 years ago.
The plain truth is, users don't want multimedia content on web pages. For most people it's a nuisance, especially the majority of us who use modem connections. Most people have Java enabled in their browsers and Flash disabled...
Just because you have flash disabled doesn't mean most people have it disabled. In fact, the stats I've heard tossed around are that flash is installed on 90% of web-enabled desktops. And given that many news sites now use flash for all their ads, and that most entertainment based sites rely heavily on flash, I'd say flash is very much alive.
I think if you polled the average web surfer (not the average Slashdot geek), you'd find that most of them want multimedia content. Sure, it sucks if you're on a bad dialup connection, but most people I know have broadband or at least 56K.
Multimedia makes browsing much more pleasant. It's cool. It's fun. That's what people want.
Microsoft is only about 5 years too late on this, if in fact this is the direction personal computing heads. It seems that a lot of the things proposed in the article have already been put into production by Sun and Apple.
Apple is far ahead of the game with its hardware. Everything is plug and play, using USB and Firewire. I think they are also on the right path with OS X - a core OS built with a solid foundation, topped with Java.
Sun has also done a good thing with Java. EJBs provide the redundant, distributed web-services mentioned. Jini takes care of the plug and play network configuration.
Perhaps the next generation of Mac OS X will be a step even closer to the model of an OS Microsoft presents as the future. I find that very ironic.
the tomcat 3.* branch was based on sun code. tomcat 4 (catalina) is a complete rewrite.
True, but the Catalina developers took things learned from the Tomcat 3 tree. I also see a few Sun and IBM engineers mentioned in the source tree. Basically, Tomcat wouldn't be where it is without Sun.
Apache does some great things with Java. I have worked both with Tomcat (servlet container), Xerces (XML parser) and Xalan (XSLT engine). Thanks to the good work to come out from Apache, Java has become a very strong competitor to MS.NET.
I think it should be noted that a lot of the things we see from the Apache project were donated by other players. Tomcat was the reference servlet runner that was donated by Sun. Xerces is the continuation of IBM's XML-J parser.
So not only should we thank those involved in the Apache project, I think we also need to thank Sun and IBM for "seeing the light" of open source. Of course, they also stand to benefit the most from Java's success.
Think small. A G4 tower takes up the space of 5 or so of these, it is only about 3 or so times faster. For a render or server farm, these make a lot more sense
Yeah, but they're priced similarly to iBooks and PowerBooks. The 400MHz G4 is $2499, same as a 400MHz PowerBook, and the PowerBook is pretty dang small too. You could have a render farm of PowerBooks for the same price if you could figure out how to rack mount them. --
I use Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and Office 98 daily with no problems at all. Compare this to bloat/shovelware Netscape and their inability to release a stable browser in years that requires less than 30 megs of RAM.
After about an hour of use, IE on OS X usually allocates about 150 megs of memory. A browser that only takes 30 sounds like heaven. --
Check out my HTTPMail project which is a client for the HTTPMail protocol used by Outlook Express for Hotmail and MSN mail. There's even a POP3 proxy. --
One of my friends is a realtor. He maintains that "noone ever bought a house over the Internet." The value of the Internet is connecting people with people. The Internet may be useful in advertising the sale, but it is the people that do the selling. --
A GUI for configuring the server is definitely important, but I think what is equally important is a GUI for the client side of things (i.e. Finder integration). Heck, Finder even supports WebDAV, you'd think they could hack SMB support into it too. One project I've seen, but haven't tried is Sharity, wich I think is based somewhat on Samba. Basically, it does the Finder integration. It's got some weird licensing, though. --
No one has mentioned embedded Ruby - probably because no one has heard about it. It's a fully object oriented scripting language somewhat like a cross between Smalltalk and Perl. There's mod_ruby project that's pretty far along. I'm not sure how it compares to ASP/JSP/PHP/Perl for execution, but it's sure a heck of a lot faster for development. --
I got to see one of the developers demo the first generation watch at the IBM sponsored ACM programming competition a few weeks ago. Even that was pretty dang cool. It does not look any more bulky on a man's arm than most sports watches. The guy had pictures of the new watch and explained how the Organic LED display works, illuminating only those pixels that are needed as opposed to gating those that aren't. He also had a prop watch that was in pieces, showing the ARM processor (which is really 100MHz clocked down to around 12) and the Bluetooth circuitry. He said they had a full Bluetooth stack implemented. Cool stuff. --
...white male starship captain, older starship captain, black starship captain, woman starship captain... I figure the next one up will be an older, woman black starship captain.
Why not a hispanic starship captain? And I know just the guy for the job. I just watched that Antitrust movie the other night and there was this guy that presented the Grace Hopper Award to Ryan Phillippe... what a great actor he could make! --
Any web site that relies on the presence of the complex web features is broken. Sites should be able to render fine with no JavaScript, no DOM, no pixel-accurate positioning, and no graphics even. If they want to offer a graphically overburdened site in addition to a plain one, that's fine, but that should be an option.
I disagree and here's why: the demands of web applications are beyond simple features. People are building businesses on the web and are do quite well. One can do some pretty useful stuff with JavaScript and DHTML, from as simple as form validation to as complex as dynamically changing the content on the page.
The point is that the web is a new platform that has a lot of potential. There is no good reason to limit that potential to just displaying static pages.
Sure there are growing pains, and this initiative is a result of those. But it's really about targeting. If you want to target just IE4+ users, you've got most of the market (somewhere around 70% I would guess). If you want to target wireless, create an extension for that. Saying you should not provide good graphics on your site because those with a Palm VII can't view them is like saying you shouldn't put the score box in the corner of the screen for TV sporting events because people with 13" TVs can't read it very well and it takes away from the view of the actual game.
I do agree with you that in general, people should not be forced to upgrade because, as you pointed out, there are very good reasons. But I do not believe that we should totally stop the progress of the web because of broken browsers. --
Tell that to Leonardo da Vinci. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer, inventor, and scientist, and probably the best example of someone who understood both sides and was excellent at both. Both content and style are important. Anything presented on a visual medium cannot be successful without both. --
I want to hear what you have to say. By all means, spend a few moments on making it look nice. But there is really something wrong if you spend more time on "style" than the actual substance.
Right. That's why I like to look at magazines with no pictures and layout that sucks. If it's got a flashy cover, forget it; they obviously spent too much time making it look nice and it probably doesn't have any real content.
This is rediculous. When was the last time you bought from an online store that didn't look good? I almost never do. If the developers don't have the pride to make their product look good, I don't want to buy from them. Style says a lot about a company. That's why they spend a lot of money on professional designers and branding.
People are suckers for eye candy. Why do you think enlightenment is such a popular window manager? Eye candy is a big part of that (but not everything).
Simplicity and cleanliness are important, but good designers realize that too. If it's too cluttered, it's not a good design. Functionality and content should definitely be the first priority, but the truth is, if it doesn't look good, people won't use it. --
Actually, they are... just only in certain cases. Usually large or bolded text is antialiased, but the Windows fonts are, in general, optimized for 10-12 points, so they look better without the antialiasing. Once you try to scale them up, the antialiasing kicks in and smooths things out so it looks better. --
Slashdot Mirror
It's more than likely that Microsoft and Apple will do the port together. MS is already porting to FreeBSD. The OS X port would likely be based on the same code, but optimized and complete with Forms.
The virus probably just gets the COM object that their messenger implements through javascript. The security hole is that IE lets a web page talk to the messenger client. I would guess that it does that so you can add contacts by clicking on web links and stuff like that.
There's a nice graph on that page with a bar that shows Finland ahead of the US in Internet connections. That doesn't really mean much, since this is how they figured it:
So basically it's saying there are more hosts onThere is a forum on Freshmeat. You can attach comments to releases and projects.
Unless it's a 5th generation Corvette. That was the first GM car (at least that I'm aware of) that went to a purly electronic throttle. There are probably other cars that do this now. The Corvette did it 5 years ago.
Just because you have flash disabled doesn't mean most people have it disabled. In fact, the stats I've heard tossed around are that flash is installed on 90% of web-enabled desktops. And given that many news sites now use flash for all their ads, and that most entertainment based sites rely heavily on flash, I'd say flash is very much alive.
I think if you polled the average web surfer (not the average Slashdot geek), you'd find that most of them want multimedia content. Sure, it sucks if you're on a bad dialup connection, but most people I know have broadband or at least 56K.
Multimedia makes browsing much more pleasant. It's cool. It's fun. That's what people want.
Microsoft is only about 5 years too late on this, if in fact this is the direction personal computing heads. It seems that a lot of the things proposed in the article have already been put into production by Sun and Apple.
Apple is far ahead of the game with its hardware. Everything is plug and play, using USB and Firewire. I think they are also on the right path with OS X - a core OS built with a solid foundation, topped with Java.
Sun has also done a good thing with Java. EJBs provide the redundant, distributed web-services mentioned. Jini takes care of the plug and play network configuration.
Perhaps the next generation of Mac OS X will be a step even closer to the model of an OS Microsoft presents as the future. I find that very ironic.
True, but the Catalina developers took things learned from the Tomcat 3 tree. I also see a few Sun and IBM engineers mentioned in the source tree. Basically, Tomcat wouldn't be where it is without Sun.
I think it should be noted that a lot of the things we see from the Apache project were donated by other players. Tomcat was the reference servlet runner that was donated by Sun. Xerces is the continuation of IBM's XML-J parser.
So not only should we thank those involved in the Apache project, I think we also need to thank Sun and IBM for "seeing the light" of open source. Of course, they also stand to benefit the most from Java's success.
Yeah, but they're priced similarly to iBooks and PowerBooks. The 400MHz G4 is $2499, same as a 400MHz PowerBook, and the PowerBook is pretty dang small too. You could have a render farm of PowerBooks for the same price if you could figure out how to rack mount them.
--
After about an hour of use, IE on OS X usually allocates about 150 megs of memory. A browser that only takes 30 sounds like heaven.
--
Check out my HTTPMail project which is a client for the HTTPMail protocol used by Outlook Express for Hotmail and MSN mail. There's even a POP3 proxy.
--
One of my friends is a realtor. He maintains that "noone ever bought a house over the Internet." The value of the Internet is connecting people with people. The Internet may be useful in advertising the sale, but it is the people that do the selling.
--
A GUI for configuring the server is definitely important, but I think what is equally important is a GUI for the client side of things (i.e. Finder integration). Heck, Finder even supports WebDAV, you'd think they could hack SMB support into it too. One project I've seen, but haven't tried is Sharity, wich I think is based somewhat on Samba. Basically, it does the Finder integration. It's got some weird licensing, though.
--
If only I had copyrighted "brrrriing, brrrriing" when I had the chance.
--
No one has mentioned embedded Ruby - probably because no one has heard about it. It's a fully object oriented scripting language somewhat like a cross between Smalltalk and Perl. There's mod_ruby project that's pretty far along. I'm not sure how it compares to ASP/JSP/PHP/Perl for execution, but it's sure a heck of a lot faster for development.
--
I got to see one of the developers demo the first generation watch at the IBM sponsored ACM programming competition a few weeks ago. Even that was pretty dang cool. It does not look any more bulky on a man's arm than most sports watches. The guy had pictures of the new watch and explained how the Organic LED display works, illuminating only those pixels that are needed as opposed to gating those that aren't. He also had a prop watch that was in pieces, showing the ARM processor (which is really 100MHz clocked down to around 12) and the Bluetooth circuitry. He said they had a full Bluetooth stack implemented. Cool stuff.
--
Why not a hispanic starship captain? And I know just the guy for the job. I just watched that Antitrust movie the other night and there was this guy that presented the Grace Hopper Award to Ryan Phillippe... what a great actor he could make!
--
Any web site that relies on the presence of the complex web features is broken. Sites should be able to render fine with no JavaScript, no DOM, no pixel-accurate positioning, and no graphics even. If they want to offer a graphically overburdened site in addition to a plain one, that's fine, but that should be an option.
I disagree and here's why: the demands of web applications are beyond simple features. People are building businesses on the web and are do quite well. One can do some pretty useful stuff with JavaScript and DHTML, from as simple as form validation to as complex as dynamically changing the content on the page.
The point is that the web is a new platform that has a lot of potential. There is no good reason to limit that potential to just displaying static pages.
Sure there are growing pains, and this initiative is a result of those. But it's really about targeting. If you want to target just IE4+ users, you've got most of the market (somewhere around 70% I would guess). If you want to target wireless, create an extension for that. Saying you should not provide good graphics on your site because those with a Palm VII can't view them is like saying you shouldn't put the score box in the corner of the screen for TV sporting events because people with 13" TVs can't read it very well and it takes away from the view of the actual game.
I do agree with you that in general, people should not be forced to upgrade because, as you pointed out, there are very good reasons. But I do not believe that we should totally stop the progress of the web because of broken browsers.
--
"Style" is for people who don't grok ideas.
Tell that to Leonardo da Vinci. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer, inventor, and scientist, and probably the best example of someone who understood both sides and was excellent at both. Both content and style are important. Anything presented on a visual medium cannot be successful without both.
--
Right. That's why I like to look at magazines with no pictures and layout that sucks. If it's got a flashy cover, forget it; they obviously spent too much time making it look nice and it probably doesn't have any real content.
This is rediculous. When was the last time you bought from an online store that didn't look good? I almost never do. If the developers don't have the pride to make their product look good, I don't want to buy from them. Style says a lot about a company. That's why they spend a lot of money on professional designers and branding.
People are suckers for eye candy. Why do you think enlightenment is such a popular window manager? Eye candy is a big part of that (but not everything).
Simplicity and cleanliness are important, but good designers realize that too. If it's too cluttered, it's not a good design. Functionality and content should definitely be the first priority, but the truth is, if it doesn't look good, people won't use it.
--
Actually, they are... just only in certain cases. Usually large or bolded text is antialiased, but the Windows fonts are, in general, optimized for 10-12 points, so they look better without the antialiasing. Once you try to scale them up, the antialiasing kicks in and smooths things out so it looks better.
--
You're right, I meant this story. Quit crying.
--
You mean here.
--
It was news worthy when KDE got AA. Quit crying.
--