Th FA talks about laughing at WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS users, but as one of those users, I never ever wondered why the font suddenly changed (and always to Times New Roman, no matter what I set my default to), or why pages suddenly ended for no reason, or why widows and orphans basically just didn't work. "Reveal Codes" was WordPerfect's killer feature that saved me hours of frustration (that I got back and more when I had to switch to Word) in that I could tell exactly where the "bad" code was and remove it.
Except those kinds of problems were far worse with Word Perfect, because editing actions would accidentally delete the invisible codes. So essentially WP was only usable for either very simple documents, or you had to keep the ugly-looking codes turned on all the time.
I guess it's natural that people who love editing HTML by hand would prefer the WP model, but IMO the Word system of object-level formatting is more natural to how most people think.
The combination will become really popular when IBM (or some other big name) picks it up, calls it something buzzwordy, and sells it to the clueless execs for a ridiculous amount of money.
Yeah, the buzzword is "collaborative groupware" aka Lotus Notes.:P
and still companies did it just because "it's time to do it"
Not really. One of the main drivers for businesses to upgrade Office is to maintain interoperability with their customers.
Arguing over whichever is better or worse misses rather misses the point that OpenOffice creates a ongoing compatibility issue, rather than something that that is resolved once and then forgotten about. Unless the whole business ecosystem moves over to OpenOffice, its always going to be a valid complaint.
The extended common controls were bundled with IE4, and the only way to "ship" them was to licence the IE installer from Microsoft. This had various other requirements like verifying your corporate website worked in IE.
Eventually everyone had IE installed and vendors stopped caring.
It's worth noting that Microsoft was committed to supporting SVG at one time, before they disbanded the IE team and stopped development on IE6.
VML was a preliminary standards proposal that evolved into SVG, if I remember correctly. So, its not that IE can't do vector markup, they just need to get it up to speed with the latest specs.
But you're right. IE is still lacking in other areas, notably in the DOM implementation. Does IE8 even support HTML 2.0 link elements' navigational properties (table of contents, previous, next, up,...) yet?
Does any browser support this? I've never seen it in use.
I can't think of anyone on Slashdot who would disagree with me if I said IE was the worst browser in general use. Most people use it simply because it comes on their computer and they're too lazy or technically inept to install Firefox. This will show the average Joe that he does have a choice about what he uses on HIS computer.
I'm on Slashdot, and I'll disagree.
Perhaps IE6 is the worst, but IE8 generally has a far more "snappy" feel that Firefox and a more familiar interface for the average Windows user. Security is pretty much a wash nowdays. For users who don't care about bleeding-edge W3C specs and add-ons, I can see why IE would be preferred even with Firefox given equal placement.
While Stallman is a zealot, I think you need to re-read his statement, because it's an entirely reasonable explanation of how free/open source software would be affected by a short copyright term. Essentially open source code would be forced into the public domain, while closed source software would not.
Plus, if you follow his argument, reducing the copyright term would actually increase the use of DRM in closed source software.
You can link to OS X libraries because Apple allows you to do so.
No, Apple doesn't assert they have the right in the first place. The Apple EULA doesn't contain any part where you are "allowed" to link to their libraries, it's just assumed you may do so.
Your software never becomes the property of anybody else
Point taken. But your example, the FSF (and nobody else) still believes a derived work is created.
You are confusing two points. Traditional well-understood copyright law says you can't redistribute the kakadu DLL, true.
But the FSF copyright interpretation claims that Second Life actually becomes a "derived work" of the kakadu DLL by linking to it. This is a legal interpretation that nobody in the commercial software industry subscribes to. By writing a OS X app and linking to OS X libraries, your software doesn't become the property of Apple, for example.
This is incorrect. There are not explict and known requirements for how one can use GPLed code, especially libraries.
Pro-GPL advocates describe how copyright's "derived work" protection can limit how people use certain libraries. But the reality is that the definition of a derived work in software is very legally complex, and even Pro-GPL advocates recommend consulting a lawyer.
Right, because we all know the villages in Africa must all be using Windows XP and every kid knows how to use them. Sure when marketing this to the first world, you must keep that in mind, but that isn't the goal of OLPC.
The biggest myth surrounding this project is that these laptops would go soley into dirt huts in the middle of the jungle somewhere. In reality, a lot of the interest was coming from developing countries that have commercial economies.
Not that WinXP was the only solution, but when the customer base is more interested in teaching children word processing and office applications, it's obvious that a specially designed edu-ware interface missed the mark.
Besides Linux's massive server marketshare, it's also used a ton of cellphones and other devices. I think you would have great difficulty substantiating your claim.
Either integrating the HTML engine with the window manager is bad (Trident/Windows) or it's good (WebKit/Mutter). It's not both at the same time because you want to be an individual and hate Microsoft, just like everyone else does.
The specific problem with Windows Explorer was that it rendered local HTML content at a higher security level than web content. Which lead to fun exploits because someone selected an icon.
And certainly there was a feeling that Microsoft wasn't playing fair, but that was more about threating Compaq and others in their "trust". Had Trident been integrated with some sense of security, it probably wouldn't have been a technical issue per-se.
Slashdot Mirror
The W3C is a vendor consortium, so pretty much everything past HTML2 originated somewhere else first.
Speaking of which, HTML5 also finally gets around to completely standardizing the Netscape v2.0 form objects.
Is compiling a bunch of "tweets" really the best use of all the great new HTML5 capabilities?
Oh, come on, think of the amazing new advertising possibilities!
I prefer to do much of my writing in a text editor, but if you suggested that to most people, they would laugh in your face.
Word works fine used as an electronic typewriter. IMO the UI is actually too oriented towards that approach.
Th FA talks about laughing at WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS users, but as one of those users, I never ever wondered why the font suddenly changed (and always to Times New Roman, no matter what I set my default to), or why pages suddenly ended for no reason, or why widows and orphans basically just didn't work. "Reveal Codes" was WordPerfect's killer feature that saved me hours of frustration (that I got back and more when I had to switch to Word) in that I could tell exactly where the "bad" code was and remove it.
Except those kinds of problems were far worse with Word Perfect, because editing actions would accidentally delete the invisible codes. So essentially WP was only usable for either very simple documents, or you had to keep the ugly-looking codes turned on all the time.
I guess it's natural that people who love editing HTML by hand would prefer the WP model, but IMO the Word system of object-level formatting is more natural to how most people think.
That's nice, but I think the GP's point is that 99% of book authors never touch a typesetting tool, whether that's Latex, InDesign, or whatever.
The combination will become really popular when IBM (or some other big name) picks it up, calls it something buzzwordy, and sells it to the clueless execs for a ridiculous amount of money.
Yeah, the buzzword is "collaborative groupware" aka Lotus Notes. :P
and still companies did it just because "it's time to do it"
Not really. One of the main drivers for businesses to upgrade Office is to maintain interoperability with their customers.
Arguing over whichever is better or worse misses rather misses the point that OpenOffice creates a ongoing compatibility issue, rather than something that that is resolved once and then forgotten about. Unless the whole business ecosystem moves over to OpenOffice, its always going to be a valid complaint.
Actually you both are more-or-less in agreement.
The extended common controls were bundled with IE4, and the only way to "ship" them was to licence the IE installer from Microsoft. This had various other requirements like verifying your corporate website worked in IE.
Eventually everyone had IE installed and vendors stopped caring.
but now Dell can legally add Firefox, Opera, or Chrome right to the desktop and Microsoft can't sanction them for it!
That is already the case, in the US. However, the OEMs won't ship something unless they get paid to install it.
Your supposition that Acer can't ship Google Chrome is incorrect, they're probably just holding out for more money.
It's worth noting that Microsoft was committed to supporting SVG at one time, before they disbanded the IE team and stopped development on IE6.
VML was a preliminary standards proposal that evolved into SVG, if I remember correctly. So, its not that IE can't do vector markup, they just need to get it up to speed with the latest specs.
Nope.
My point is end users don't give a flying fuck if IE makes your life more difficult.
To capture that market, you need to beat them on usability, not developer-friendliness and power user features.
Nope. Firefox doesn't seem to do anything useful with these tags.
Haha. The W3C doesn't even use it on the "Accessibility" page that describes how.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H59.html
But you're right. IE is still lacking in other areas, notably in the DOM implementation. Does IE8 even support HTML 2.0 link elements' navigational properties (table of contents, previous, next, up,...) yet?
Does any browser support this? I've never seen it in use.
I can't think of anyone on Slashdot who would disagree with me if I said IE was the worst browser in general use. Most people use it simply because it comes on their computer and they're too lazy or technically inept to install Firefox. This will show the average Joe that he does have a choice about what he uses on HIS computer.
I'm on Slashdot, and I'll disagree.
Perhaps IE6 is the worst, but IE8 generally has a far more "snappy" feel that Firefox and a more familiar interface for the average Windows user. Security is pretty much a wash nowdays. For users who don't care about bleeding-edge W3C specs and add-ons, I can see why IE would be preferred even with Firefox given equal placement.
While Stallman is a zealot, I think you need to re-read his statement, because it's an entirely reasonable explanation of how free/open source software would be affected by a short copyright term. Essentially open source code would be forced into the public domain, while closed source software would not.
Plus, if you follow his argument, reducing the copyright term would actually increase the use of DRM in closed source software.
IANAL either, but I can tell you it's some complicated legal test, not something based on specific programmer actions.
You can link to OS X libraries because Apple allows you to do so.
No, Apple doesn't assert they have the right in the first place. The Apple EULA doesn't contain any part where you are "allowed" to link to their libraries, it's just assumed you may do so.
Your software never becomes the property of anybody else
Point taken. But your example, the FSF (and nobody else) still believes a derived work is created.
You are confusing two points. Traditional well-understood copyright law says you can't redistribute the kakadu DLL, true.
But the FSF copyright interpretation claims that Second Life actually becomes a "derived work" of the kakadu DLL by linking to it. This is a legal interpretation that nobody in the commercial software industry subscribes to. By writing a OS X app and linking to OS X libraries, your software doesn't become the property of Apple, for example.
This is incorrect. There are not explict and known requirements for how one can use GPLed code, especially libraries.
Pro-GPL advocates describe how copyright's "derived work" protection can limit how people use certain libraries. But the reality is that the definition of a derived work in software is very legally complex, and even Pro-GPL advocates recommend consulting a lawyer.
Anyway, that's the crux of the "viral" argument.
Yes, because it's still 1998 and "big business" is scared to death of Linux.
Right, because we all know the villages in Africa must all be using Windows XP and every kid knows how to use them. Sure when marketing this to the first world, you must keep that in mind, but that isn't the goal of OLPC.
The biggest myth surrounding this project is that these laptops would go soley into dirt huts in the middle of the jungle somewhere. In reality, a lot of the interest was coming from developing countries that have commercial economies.
Not that WinXP was the only solution, but when the customer base is more interested in teaching children word processing and office applications, it's obvious that a specially designed edu-ware interface missed the mark.
Besides Linux's massive server marketshare, it's also used a ton of cellphones and other devices. I think you would have great difficulty substantiating your claim.
Not to mention OS X isn't even really BSD.
Either integrating the HTML engine with the window manager is bad (Trident/Windows) or it's good (WebKit/Mutter). It's not both at the same time because you want to be an individual and hate Microsoft, just like everyone else does.
The specific problem with Windows Explorer was that it rendered local HTML content at a higher security level than web content. Which lead to fun exploits because someone selected an icon.
And certainly there was a feeling that Microsoft wasn't playing fair, but that was more about threating Compaq and others in their "trust". Had Trident been integrated with some sense of security, it probably wouldn't have been a technical issue per-se.