People won't start to use ODF just because it is an ISO standard.
This is where you do not understand what affects a ISO standard has on the marketplace. When Governments start mandating ISO-document standards, every government supplier suddenly has to start supplying documents in ISO-document formats. ODF has already created waves in the marketplace because it is an ISO standard and its adoption by the public sectors is already happening. Microsoft fears that this could erode their market base in these areas and act as the thin-end-of-the-wedge in other related sectors. While its premature to write off.DOC now, give it five years of public sector mandates for ODF and the picture in new documents might look so very different. That is also why Microsoft absolutely has to use the fast track procedure in ISO to get OOXML through now - standard procedure for a normal spec in ISO might take 3-5 years and OOXML is a very large spec. Normal ISO procedures for OOXML might take a decade.
I'm having trouble comprehending that *anyone* once said Firefox had no serious memory leaks. Say what? Firefox 1.5 was the Ginny Sacramoni of web browsers. I'm happy to confirm that Firefox has successfully excised the 90-pound mole from its waddling derriere.
If you ran NoScript on Firefox, you probably were entirely happy with the memory usage. Much of the memory fragmentation and leaks due to circular references was caused by Javascript, either on pages loaded or other extensions running. NoScript radically reduces the amount of Javascript being executed by your browser and therefore radically reduces the amount of memory used/fragmented/leaked.
Plus of course, the performance of page loading also improves because your browser isn't trying to execute some moronic scripts designed to track your movements and display "punch the monkey" ads.
There are plenty of Linux gamers out there. You can find the greatest concentrations of them on multiplayer servers such as Wesnoth, Nexuiz, Urban Terror and Tremulous. I even heard that there were more UT2k4 Linux players than Mac OS, which makes the current state of the Linux UT3 client all the more frustrating.
I used to dual-boot Windows/Linux, especially when I had Mechwarrior 3 and Quake 3. After a while, I realised I just didn't reboot to Windows to play games anymore - Quake 3 worked on Linux and Mechwarrior eventually gathered dust. The inevitable next step was to reclaim that disk space and wipe Windows off the system.
So - it's a "build it and they will come" scenario. There aren't that many AAA titles released for Linux, hence there aren't that many AAA titles being purchased. Meanwhile, the user-created games are seeing a significant number of players. I don't thinks a question of "Linux gamers are cheapskates" either - the UT2k4 player figures show that commercial games can reach a significant gaming audience on Linux.
However, do you not agree that if browser X correctly renders the Acid tests, it is more likely to be compliant than if it does not?
That's a loaded question. Passing the Acid2 test tells you that the browser understands the elements and correctly renders the Acid2 test. It tells you nothing outside those narrow parameters.
We did have an article a bit ago about IE8 passing the Acid2 test.
The Acid2 test is NOT designed to demonstrate that a browser has done a good job of implementing all of CSS 2.0. It is designed to demonstrate that the browser can cope with horribly broken input and still display the correct output. The Acid2 test doesn't validate against the CSS spec. Pulling the 'IE8 passes the Acid2 test' line every time standards support comes up is a bad case of apples-to-oranges comparisons.
I might if it were for an artist that has released several albums before, all of which I like.
Remember the band Marillion? Fish jumping around on stage in a kilt singing Kayleigh? They are still around (now lead by Steve Hogarth) and their recent albums have been funded in large part by fans pre-ordering the album before the album is recorded or even available as rough demos. As payback, the fans get their name in the Limited Edition Album. Marillion is a good example of a band who has made large strides in connecting with its fan base, even doing Marillion weekends where fans can rub shoulders with the band.
I prefer space simulators that use mouse well (Wing Commander).
Basically, you point to your target and the ship turns in that direction.
It's really a better way to play than using the joystick.
I beg to differ. If you've ever played Freespace with a Joystick with a twist grip, you'll know that a mouse is a lousy second-place effort. Being able to track ships at high speed and rotate your own ship to provide a better fire path at the same time is the only way to frag in space.
Just scoop up Michael Bay and it'll do just fine. Or that guy who did Time Bandits.
Now there is a great idea - have Terry Gilliam do the Hobbit. Only the plot would need some twisting to make it into Gilliam territory.
When the dwarves are captured by the elves, at least one needs to die during interrogation while believing that they are escaping. Sting would need to be a vorpal blade. Smaug would swallow its victims and then spit out the bones. Some time travel would be inevitable while leaving Dale. Shelley Duval would make a cameo appearance asking Thorin to return the map. Thorin would become delusional and would try to reach the Mountain in a balloon. It would all end with Bard declaring that he was not the Messiah.
And no, "Space this like Word 95" does not require an extension.
Why should anybody even try to name them when you're just going to cherry pick which features are features and which aren't? Calling BS on that.
If you're going to call BS on my statements I'd like to direct your attention to this page, in particular to the autoSpaceLikeWord95 element (which can be found on pages 1378-1379 of the Draft 4 for OOXML if you really like reading 6,000 page document format specs).
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2007011720521698
Then you reveal that you actually don't know of features that ODF doesn't support that Microsoft "requires" but you have "friends" who you trust who tell you what to think. It's always easier to argue your case when you actually do your own primary research and don't rely on hearsay. The rumour mill is active enough without people posting allegations without facts. Oh damn - I've just realised I'm posting this on Slashdot...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
P.S. WAG - Wild Assed Guess, most likely. Just a WAG you know...!
You know there are actual features supported by Microsoft Office products that aren't included in the ODF format, right? The only way Microsoft *could* use that standard is to remove features from their product, or extend the standard. If they remove features, customers are unhappy. If they extend the standard, the howler monkeys at Slashdot go "embrace and extend! embrace and extend!"
Care to name them? I can wait. I can wait all day...
Seriously, there is a well-defined extension mechanism for ODF. The whole ODF structure is built to cope with interfacing with other existing standards (such as SVG, MathML, etc.). If there is something that Microsoft has that no-one else has, then they can define and publish a new standard for that part alone. However, that doesn't help Microsoft maintain its document lock-in and hence, Microsoft completely failed to add anything to the proceedings of the ODF OASIS committee proceedings to cover any descrepancies.
And no, "Space this like Word 95" does not require an extension.
What are the sales figures of OS/2 and SmartSuite versus Windows and Office, again?
That might be the battlefield that Microsoft would like to have chosen but it isn't the one that IBM is playing on. For IBM, the money is in the middleware. For Microsoft, the money is on the desktop.
Before I go on, yes, I work for IBM. What follows is entirely my own opinions and is not a formal statement of IBM policy.
ODF is a huge enabler for middleware document services because it removes barriers at the desktop end and allows significant freedom for customers to choose solutions. IBM already has plenty of XML integration ticking in its products (such as pureXML integrated in DB2 and the Content Manager products) and ODF fits very nicely into that scenario. IBM would like to be able to go to customers and offer a complete end-to-end document/content management system. Why do you think that IBM would produce the Symphony products and integrate Document editing into Lotus Notes 8?
While OOXML also fits into the XML-on-middleware approach, it necessarily ties itself to a set of Microsoft clients because only Microsoft will know what the next version of Office will support with respect to OOXML and even the most assiduous followers of OOXML implementations outside Microsoft will be months (or more likely years) behind the latest OOXML version.
I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that if you work for a company that has anything to do with middleware, database software, or pretty much any other enterprise software, you'll eventually end up working for Oracle or being laid off by Oracle.
I work for IBM on DB2 LUW. Should I be worried?:-)
Oracle and IBM continue to acquire companies in the middleware space to fit into their strategies. Buying BEA is a large commitment on the part of Oracle and it'll be interesting to watch any fallout or rejoicing in the coming months.
I guess that is one advantage of having a single registry for all system settings. You can easily change tons of settings easily with just a single script file.
Erm - a single script file can easily update thousands of different configuration files on any platform. And for all the world-famous Windows user-friendlyness, I'll take editing some bizarre Linux scripts where key=value over trying to remember hexadecimal codes for Internet Explorer registry entries:-)
Lets not overlook the dangers of having a single, unrebuildable registry for all the system settings... What happens when it gets hosed? I seem to remember that Windows 95 used to keep two copies of the registry around and could rebuild it if you deleted it. Windows XP seems to have lost that ability - I have no idea if Vista has recovered it.
So here's a question, what protects actors and actresses from impersonators being used to replace them in film and recordings? This could be very similar.
Ob: I Am Not A Lawyer
Not a lot on the face of it. A person's image is not protected per se, otherwise (for example) George W. Bush would be owed some stupendous amount of money for all the places his face has been placed.
In practice, any aggrieved party has some control over their image based on the usage of their image. You can't use someone else's image in a way that damages their integrity, their professional standing, etc without being liable for that damage. Satire gets the usual rider If I Remember Correctly...
For instance, it would be interesting to know if the next-of-kin for Brandon Lee received payment for the scenes in which his face was digitally mapped on top of another actor's after he was fatally injured during the shooting of the film "The Crow".
I actually think there needs to be a new kind of IP for stuff like Mickey Mouse. The Disney Corporation is *actively* using the character. No matter how old it is. Something which would protect the image of Mickey Mouse even if Steamboat Mickey fell into the public domain could make things a bit sane.
Mickey Mouse(TM) is already well protected by trademark law. If you are suggesting that "Look and Feel" or heavens-forbid "Image" should be protected under Intellectual Property laws, then just take ten seconds to think how quickly everything would be "ImageMarked" by the scammers and locked up by "ImageMark" trolls who make nothing but sue everyone around for near-misses and co-incidence.
/me shudders...
If I remember correctly, the whole point of IP laws is to foster innovation. If Disney does something new with Mickey, then that is protected. Protecting the old images forever does not serve to foster new creativity.
I don't have the text in front of me, but from the wikipedia article on Paths of the Dead:
The only weapon that they required was fear...
Note it doesn't say that the only weapon they had was fear.
Peter and Fran definitely cut a shorter path through this part of the text, using the Dunharrow Men directly in the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, rather than using the more mundane original modus operandi.
I do feel that a lot of the flack that Peter and Fran got for their script arises where people feel (rightly or wrongly) that recreating the book in the movie is more important than making a coherent movie. If PJ et al had completely faithfully scripted a movie based entirely on the book, only the hardcore Tolkeinites would have survived a viewing of a trilogy with uneven pacing, no (meaningful) interaction with female characters apart from Galadriel and very long sweeps spent with one set of characters. That's not to disrespect the original text, which I have read many times - movies are different creatures to books, with different strengths and weaknesses.
The only part I think Jackson totally screwed up was the army of the dead in RotK. The fact that he just swept up the battlefield with an invincible army made the entire battle completely worthless. In the books, I believe the army couldn't actually kill anyone, they simply frightened people so much that they dropped their weapons and ran away.
Based on the text of the "Return of the King" (heresy I know) no-one had previously survived traveling the Paths of the Dead. That doesn't jibe with your statement.
Now, had the Dead Men of Dunharrow turned up earlier, the battle would have been completely one-sided. As it was, the defenders had to survive several days of assault before Aragorn turned up.
The source code in proprietary software, on the other hand, can't be directly viewed, meaning vulnerabilities need to be found through reverse engineering.'
This is so wrong it isn't funny. I need know NOTHING about the internals of a program to exploit it - I only need to find a set of inputs that make it crash in interesting ways. Buffer overflows can be trivially used to redirect a running program to jump to a stack frame supplied as part of the crafted inputs. There are other ways to play the game against binaries without reverse engineering.
I skipped over UT2k3 but bought (for my 64bit AMD Linux box) UT2k4 soon after launch after playing the demo. The vehicles make a HUGE difference to the game play, especially on Onslaught mode. Well coordinated teams which are prepared to use the vehicles to gain a strategic advantage rip through the levels. Speed between objectives is one major advantage, as is the heavy weaponry you can bring to bear on choke points.
Now, if DM is your thing, I can see that the vehicles are merely "meh". If Assault or Onslaught are more your focus, then the vehicles change the game play, speeding up the devastation and allowing a more frenzied game.
The Total Perspective Vortex is the most horrible torture device to which a sentient being can be subjected. It shows its victim the entire unimaginable infinity of the universe with a very tiny marker that says "You Are Here" which points to a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot.
for the former users, too many options are a bad thing. for the latter, there is no such thing as too many options. it would be a tremendous step in the right direction (and trivially easy to implement) if there was simply an option to turn on/off "advanced mode" in gnome/kde/any other wm/de.
There is an equivalent to advanced mode for GNOME. It's called GConf and it allows access to all sorts of bells and whistles that aren't visible in the main Control Center. All sorts of tricks are hidden in there, from lists of screensavers for GNOME screensaver to run to custom keybindings running scripts. The only extra I use for advanced window management is Devil's Pie which matches windows and performs window modifications based on a LISP configuration file. If that isn't hard core enough for you, you'll have to rewrite GConf in ML.
Slashdot Mirror
New features? It's smoother and silkier but really, the developers have you over a barrel for 16.0.
Yeah - that'll happen around the same time they add the "Grammar Nazi" mod. You should have used "REALLY" you insensitive clod!
This is where you do not understand what affects a ISO standard has on the marketplace. When Governments start mandating ISO-document standards, every government supplier suddenly has to start supplying documents in ISO-document formats. ODF has already created waves in the marketplace because it is an ISO standard and its adoption by the public sectors is already happening. Microsoft fears that this could erode their market base in these areas and act as the thin-end-of-the-wedge in other related sectors. While its premature to write off .DOC now, give it five years of public sector mandates for ODF and the picture in new documents might look so very different. That is also why Microsoft absolutely has to use the fast track procedure in ISO to get OOXML through now - standard procedure for a normal spec in ISO might take 3-5 years and OOXML is a very large spec. Normal ISO procedures for OOXML might take a decade.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
If you ran NoScript on Firefox, you probably were entirely happy with the memory usage. Much of the memory fragmentation and leaks due to circular references was caused by Javascript, either on pages loaded or other extensions running. NoScript radically reduces the amount of Javascript being executed by your browser and therefore radically reduces the amount of memory used/fragmented/leaked.
Plus of course, the performance of page loading also improves because your browser isn't trying to execute some moronic scripts designed to track your movements and display "punch the monkey" ads.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
There are plenty of Linux gamers out there. You can find the greatest concentrations of them on multiplayer servers such as Wesnoth, Nexuiz, Urban Terror and Tremulous. I even heard that there were more UT2k4 Linux players than Mac OS, which makes the current state of the Linux UT3 client all the more frustrating.
I used to dual-boot Windows/Linux, especially when I had Mechwarrior 3 and Quake 3. After a while, I realised I just didn't reboot to Windows to play games anymore - Quake 3 worked on Linux and Mechwarrior eventually gathered dust. The inevitable next step was to reclaim that disk space and wipe Windows off the system.
So - it's a "build it and they will come" scenario. There aren't that many AAA titles released for Linux, hence there aren't that many AAA titles being purchased. Meanwhile, the user-created games are seeing a significant number of players. I don't thinks a question of "Linux gamers are cheapskates" either - the UT2k4 player figures show that commercial games can reach a significant gaming audience on Linux.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
That's a loaded question. Passing the Acid2 test tells you that the browser understands the elements and correctly renders the Acid2 test. It tells you nothing outside those narrow parameters.
For a full idea of what is and isn't supported, you want information like this:http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/bugspecs/REC-CSS1.html
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
The Acid2 test is NOT designed to demonstrate that a browser has done a good job of implementing all of CSS 2.0. It is designed to demonstrate that the browser can cope with horribly broken input and still display the correct output. The Acid2 test doesn't validate against the CSS spec. Pulling the 'IE8 passes the Acid2 test' line every time standards support comes up is a bad case of apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Remember the band Marillion? Fish jumping around on stage in a kilt singing Kayleigh? They are still around (now lead by Steve Hogarth) and their recent albums have been funded in large part by fans pre-ordering the album before the album is recorded or even available as rough demos. As payback, the fans get their name in the Limited Edition Album. Marillion is a good example of a band who has made large strides in connecting with its fan base, even doing Marillion weekends where fans can rub shoulders with the band.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Basically, you point to your target and the ship turns in that direction.
It's really a better way to play than using the joystick.
I beg to differ. If you've ever played Freespace with a Joystick with a twist grip, you'll know that a mouse is a lousy second-place effort. Being able to track ships at high speed and rotate your own ship to provide a better fire path at the same time is the only way to frag in space.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
I like that.
I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on Slashdot ... /me wipes away a tear :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Now there is a great idea - have Terry Gilliam do the Hobbit. Only the plot would need some twisting to make it into Gilliam territory.
When the dwarves are captured by the elves, at least one needs to die during interrogation while believing that they are escaping. Sting would need to be a vorpal blade. Smaug would swallow its victims and then spit out the bones. Some time travel would be inevitable while leaving Dale. Shelley Duval would make a cameo appearance asking Thorin to return the map. Thorin would become delusional and would try to reach the Mountain in a balloon. It would all end with Bard declaring that he was not the Messiah.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
And no, "Space this like Word 95" does not require an extension.
Why should anybody even try to name them when you're just going to cherry pick which features are features and which aren't? Calling BS on that.If you're going to call BS on my statements I'd like to direct your attention to this page, in particular to the autoSpaceLikeWord95 element (which can be found on pages 1378-1379 of the Draft 4 for OOXML if you really like reading 6,000 page document format specs). http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2007011720521698
Then you reveal that you actually don't know of features that ODF doesn't support that Microsoft "requires" but you have "friends" who you trust who tell you what to think. It's always easier to argue your case when you actually do your own primary research and don't rely on hearsay. The rumour mill is active enough without people posting allegations without facts. Oh damn - I've just realised I'm posting this on Slashdot...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
P.S. WAG - Wild Assed Guess, most likely. Just a WAG you know ...!
Care to name them? I can wait. I can wait all day...
Seriously, there is a well-defined extension mechanism for ODF. The whole ODF structure is built to cope with interfacing with other existing standards (such as SVG, MathML, etc.). If there is something that Microsoft has that no-one else has, then they can define and publish a new standard for that part alone. However, that doesn't help Microsoft maintain its document lock-in and hence, Microsoft completely failed to add anything to the proceedings of the ODF OASIS committee proceedings to cover any descrepancies.
And no, "Space this like Word 95" does not require an extension.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
That might be the battlefield that Microsoft would like to have chosen but it isn't the one that IBM is playing on. For IBM, the money is in the middleware. For Microsoft, the money is on the desktop.
Before I go on, yes, I work for IBM. What follows is entirely my own opinions and is not a formal statement of IBM policy.
ODF is a huge enabler for middleware document services because it removes barriers at the desktop end and allows significant freedom for customers to choose solutions. IBM already has plenty of XML integration ticking in its products (such as pureXML integrated in DB2 and the Content Manager products) and ODF fits very nicely into that scenario. IBM would like to be able to go to customers and offer a complete end-to-end document/content management system. Why do you think that IBM would produce the Symphony products and integrate Document editing into Lotus Notes 8?
While OOXML also fits into the XML-on-middleware approach, it necessarily ties itself to a set of Microsoft clients because only Microsoft will know what the next version of Office will support with respect to OOXML and even the most assiduous followers of OOXML implementations outside Microsoft will be months (or more likely years) behind the latest OOXML version.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
I work for IBM on DB2 LUW. Should I be worried? :-)
Oracle and IBM continue to acquire companies in the middleware space to fit into their strategies. Buying BEA is a large commitment on the part of Oracle and it'll be interesting to watch any fallout or rejoicing in the coming months.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Erm - a single script file can easily update thousands of different configuration files on any platform. And for all the world-famous Windows user-friendlyness, I'll take editing some bizarre Linux scripts where key=value over trying to remember hexadecimal codes for Internet Explorer registry entries :-)
Lets not overlook the dangers of having a single, unrebuildable registry for all the system settings... What happens when it gets hosed? I seem to remember that Windows 95 used to keep two copies of the registry around and could rebuild it if you deleted it. Windows XP seems to have lost that ability - I have no idea if Vista has recovered it.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Ob: I Am Not A Lawyer
Not a lot on the face of it. A person's image is not protected per se, otherwise (for example) George W. Bush would be owed some stupendous amount of money for all the places his face has been placed.
In practice, any aggrieved party has some control over their image based on the usage of their image. You can't use someone else's image in a way that damages their integrity, their professional standing, etc without being liable for that damage. Satire gets the usual rider If I Remember Correctly...
For instance, it would be interesting to know if the next-of-kin for Brandon Lee received payment for the scenes in which his face was digitally mapped on top of another actor's after he was fatally injured during the shooting of the film "The Crow".
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Mickey Mouse(TM) is already well protected by trademark law. If you are suggesting that "Look and Feel" or heavens-forbid "Image" should be protected under Intellectual Property laws, then just take ten seconds to think how quickly everything would be "ImageMarked" by the scammers and locked up by "ImageMark" trolls who make nothing but sue everyone around for near-misses and co-incidence.
/me shudders...
If I remember correctly, the whole point of IP laws is to foster innovation. If Disney does something new with Mickey, then that is protected. Protecting the old images forever does not serve to foster new creativity.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Note it doesn't say that the only weapon they had was fear.
Peter and Fran definitely cut a shorter path through this part of the text, using the Dunharrow Men directly in the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, rather than using the more mundane original modus operandi.
I do feel that a lot of the flack that Peter and Fran got for their script arises where people feel (rightly or wrongly) that recreating the book in the movie is more important than making a coherent movie. If PJ et al had completely faithfully scripted a movie based entirely on the book, only the hardcore Tolkeinites would have survived a viewing of a trilogy with uneven pacing, no (meaningful) interaction with female characters apart from Galadriel and very long sweeps spent with one set of characters. That's not to disrespect the original text, which I have read many times - movies are different creatures to books, with different strengths and weaknesses.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Based on the text of the "Return of the King" (heresy I know) no-one had previously survived traveling the Paths of the Dead. That doesn't jibe with your statement.
Now, had the Dead Men of Dunharrow turned up earlier, the battle would have been completely one-sided. As it was, the defenders had to survive several days of assault before Aragorn turned up.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
This is so wrong it isn't funny. I need know NOTHING about the internals of a program to exploit it - I only need to find a set of inputs that make it crash in interesting ways. Buffer overflows can be trivially used to redirect a running program to jump to a stack frame supplied as part of the crafted inputs. There are other ways to play the game against binaries without reverse engineering.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
I skipped over UT2k3 but bought (for my 64bit AMD Linux box) UT2k4 soon after launch after playing the demo. The vehicles make a HUGE difference to the game play, especially on Onslaught mode. Well coordinated teams which are prepared to use the vehicles to gain a strategic advantage rip through the levels. Speed between objectives is one major advantage, as is the heavy weaponry you can bring to bear on choke points.
Now, if DM is your thing, I can see that the vehicles are merely "meh". If Assault or Onslaught are more your focus, then the vehicles change the game play, speeding up the devastation and allowing a more frenzied game.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
The Total Perspective Vortex is the most horrible torture device to which a sentient being can be subjected. It shows its victim the entire unimaginable infinity of the universe with a very tiny marker that says "You Are Here" which points to a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot.
There is an equivalent to advanced mode for GNOME. It's called GConf and it allows access to all sorts of bells and whistles that aren't visible in the main Control Center. All sorts of tricks are hidden in there, from lists of screensavers for GNOME screensaver to run to custom keybindings running scripts. The only extra I use for advanced window management is Devil's Pie which matches windows and performs window modifications based on a LISP configuration file. If that isn't hard core enough for you, you'll have to rewrite GConf in ML.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes