[SGL has a] script that locates the latest stable source code for the application, downloads it to your system, configures it for your machine, compiles, and installs it. Pure magic.
I realize it basically drove Netscape out of business...
I don't really think so. Right around the time IE started gaining interest, Netscape was starting to...err..show it's age[1]. The bundling of IE certainly didn't/help/ NS, but what really caused them to fail was that they let their product stagnate while MS was banging away full force on IE.
It's like the story of the Lovecraftian monster and the Hare. The hare was sitting on it's fuzzy white ass while the Beast of Redmond slithered by unnoticed.
I think if Netscape had started work on their new (fasterbettersmaller) rendering engine 3 years earlier, they might still exist.
Be's case appears a whole lot more valid. They had an excellent product, but because of MS's stranglehold on the distribution channels, it never really got any mainstream recognition.
That title is a bit misleading. If you read the article, it says that HTTP is not optimal for anything more than relatively simple web services - in other words, complex applications with operations that take more than a few minutes to execute shouldn't use HTTP as their RPC protocol. Sounds reasonable to me, provided the new protocol is standardized in a way similar to the other net standards, e.g. RFCs, and all that.[1]
The cli and description of C# have been passed by ECMA, for whatever that is worth,
Prolly not much, but more than the (AFAIK) lack of open, published standards for Java, which I see as being.net's direct competitor.
As for mono, there are other people working on office file formats so that they can be created/read/used on other platforms....that hardly makes them interoperable or cross-platform.
I see a huge difference here.[2] People writing office import/export filters have to reverse engineer the mostly-undocumented format. There is no detailed, published spec of the office formats.
If you think.net is MS's plan to be the good guy and support "open standards" so that developers can develop on whatever platform they want and users can use whatever platform they like...well, I sugges you take a long look at their history.
Of course they aren't, but you can say that about any company, really. Everyone is trying to make a buck[3], usually at the expense of someone else. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron.
C-X C-S [1] Hell, even the MS guy (not an exec, BTW) said "if one vendor does it on their own, it will simply not be worth the trouble." [2] I'd say it's an apples to oranges comparison, but someone recently proved scientifically that apples and oranges were basically the same.:) [3] Netscape certainly ignored/made up their share of "standards" back in the pre-mozilla days, that's for sure.
I don't really get all the uproar about PayPal, seems to me it's just the latest boycott bandwagon the sheeple are jumping on.
I've also done a crapload of PayPal transactions and never had a single problem with any of them. Most of the "problems" seem to stem from people using their PayPal account as a bank account, rather than just as a way to exchange money without resorting to snail-mail, credit processing, or wire transfers.
proprietary extensions/applets/applications built around the.net framework.
Isn't the.net framework an ECMA standard now? Isn't someone working on a free implementation of that standard? Are you calling it proprietary just because it comes from billy boy?
No longer will new features be added directly to office, but will be available on the web - provided the user has Windows and is using IE...
That sounds to me like it would primarily affect office users, not web surfers, and considering office's main platform is windows, so what if they use windows/ie for web-based updates/upgrades?
Heck, MS execs are even talking about how http's days are coming to an end...
You got a link to back that up?
I'm not necessarily defending microsoft[1], just questioning the statements you present as fact.
C-X C-S [1] Although I don't think they're any more evil than any other money-grubbing corporation. Media conglomerates and trade groups, now those scare me - they have hundreds of times more governmental influence than billy and friends will ever have.
If I had a dollar for every time some slashdotter made the claim that reason X was why Linux was never going to succeed on the desktop
And if I had a dolla' for every time a slashbot comes to the defense of the slow, ugly, antiquated, inconsistent-by-design POS that is X, I'd have a limitless supply of beer money.
What do you do your windows for, do you never install any hardware, software.
Most everything "desktopish". Web browsing, gaming, graphics, music, MIDI, etc. I install lots of software, and have devices ranging from radio and phone programmers, to video capture, to a MIDI keyboard. Haven't had a BSOD yet, and everything works rather nicely.
How many minutes have been on it, how many years before
Started using freenix around 1995, with FreeBSD[1], mostly for fun and because it was radically different from what I knew at the time. Started using linux in '98, mostly because it had better hardware support than BSD at the time. Used linux almost exclusively (kept Win98 for Quake) from '98 to late '99. Put up with apps (can you say "Netscape"?) crashing, and bringing down X. Put up with crappy video drivers bringing down my system. Put up with the inconsistency and overall poor GUI design. Put up with it because it was still far, far better than Win 9x or NT.
Then Win2k came out, and I started using it (and liking(!) it) at work.
So, I've logged several hundred hours of serious usage, over the span of 6 or so years. I know linux.
And what have you used Linux for.
Aside from the desktop usage above, I've built countless servers[1], doing everything from HTTP to Quake. I currently have OpenBSD[1] and Windows on my laptop, Windows on my "workstation" and FreeBSD[1] on my FTP/Samba server.
I'll reiterate my last 50 flamebait comments: Linux doesn't suck. X does. Unfortunately, X, with all it's "baggage"[2], is the only choice for linux GUIs. So, until there's a decent X replacement, that fixes the stuff that annoys me, or until I buy a new Mac[3], I'll have Win on my desktops, and freenix on my servers.
There's my resume, you asked.
C-X C-S [1] BSD, yes, but IMO, the experience still applies. [2] As in the kind your girlfriend has, not the kind you bring onto an airplane. [3] I cannot describe how much I love OSX.
In my experience, Win2000 is just as stable, and several *times* faster, than linux with X and GNOME or KDE.
Linux is a great server (although I still perfer BSD in almost every way) but to say that it beats Windows >= 2000 as a desktop OS is bogus, at least in my first-hand experience.
Yay. Taco made another comment about Apple mice. Color me surprised.
C-X C-S Makign j0eks about teh appel m0ose is FUNEE!!!
Contrary to popular belief...
on
GNOME 2.0 Beta
·
· Score: 2
{Windows|Mac} and unix coexist rather nicely. Unix is an excellent server platform, but a poor desktop[1], while Windows/Mac are decent desktops, but not something I'd put on a server[2].
Otherwise, I guess I'll keep my "desktop environment" to nothing but an xterm console and only use Linux when I have to
That's what I do, as SSH and a web browser are pretty much all that's required to admin my FreeBSD box.
C-X C-S [1] X bites no matter how many layers you drop on top of it. [2] Servers don't need framebuffers.
I don't really mind closed source. Hell, my desktop OS is Windows.
I never install Real because it's an ugly, ad-laden, untrustworthy piece of spyware crap.
Besides, I'd rather have files I can download, because streaming...[buffering (10%)]...in any...[buffering(15%)]...format...[buffering(20%)]...sucks...[buffering(35%)]...my...[buffering(50%) ]...arse.
And as for MS being an illegal monopoly, I'll just say I think Be's argument is much more valid than Netscape's, because unlike Netscape, Be's flagship product didn't suck.
Too many APIs, yes, I would agree. Standards? No. I think the last attempt at standardizing X toolkits was Motif/CDE.
it would be hypocritical for communities founded on freedom and openness to embrace the principles of oppression and design by fiat which underlie your suggestions.
So standards and guidelines are fascist now? Whatever. If oppressive standards build things like global networks, I'll be happily oppressed.
If a system has a dozen redundant modules, then any bloat is the administator's fault - he or she did not remove the extra ones
How is having at least 4 ways[1] to create a pushbutton object "the administrator's fault"? It's not like I can take gtk_create_pushbutton()[2] from the GTK library and replace it with Qt::Button or somesuch and expect the GTK program to run.
Perhaps you are thinking of the associated pixmap libraries or desktop environment libraries.
Well, they're kinda, like, required for most every app, so of course I included them.
That you can run them alongside one another is only meant to be a charming illustration of the community spirit and excellent engineering at work.
Excellent engineering. That's why programs crash when you try to do complex things like "paste". This isn't engineering, engineering implies well thought out design.
C-X C-S [1] Gtk, Qt, Motif, Athena... (Fltk, FOX, OpenLook, Tk, XForms, WxWindows...) [2] If that were a real GTK call, it'd be about 35 characters longer.;)
coupled with the advantages of running on top of X windows Which are? Network transparency[1], and...what? Jamming graphics calls through sockets? W00t indeed.
But the GNU system will have every option you could ask for, All using different toolkits, with different key bindings, different quirks and different looks, and each requiring 30 megs of widget libraries that duplicate the functionality of each other. No thanks.
Until X starts *enforcing* a single toolkit[2], like Mac, Windows, and virtually every other decent GUI has done, it's going to be discordant and annoying.
To hell with KDE and GNOME, they don't fix the underlying problem of nonexistant standards or policy, they just cover it up with more bloat. Which is good, I guess, if you like having 100+ meg of widget libraries on your system, and being able to watch the widgets flicker as they redraw themselves.
C-X C-S [1] Which isn't even all that special any more, though it was really cool in 1987. [2] Which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given the "community"'s steadfast resistance to change.
shit man, the source is there, if it pisses you off *that much* then fix it.
Getting rid of the inconsistency and incompatabilty in X is hardly a one man job.
It's hardly a 1000 man job.
Hell, removing inconsistency from X is like removing religion from church - it just can't be done.
Yes, I could find time during business hours, get in the car (or bus or bike if I was a hippie), and drive 5 minutes (30 in rush hour) to get the book (or more likely, be placed on the waitlist.)
Then, assuming I got the book, repeat steps 2 and 3 two weeks later.
Or, I could just fire up $PTP_SHARING_APP, download a 2 meg PDF, and have the book, in about 5 minutes, to read at my leisure, no gas wasted, nothing to return.
And, being a fairly ethical pirate[1], if I like the book, I'll prolly buy it, just as I would have if I had checked it out from the library.
C-X C-S
[1] ObArrrMeMateys: Arrrrrgh me mateys! (That should be a link to "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition", but Amazon seems to disallow linking now. The bastards.)
This is slashdot. Many people here couldn't concieve of not having a PDA.
How is a minor (i.e. Rowling's target audience) supposed to afford a PDA
You'd be surprised at what kids have today (especially with Palm devices now costing under $100),
and you'd prolly also be surprised at how many adults read Harry Potter.
(I'm 21. I've read all of them. It's a rather fun series.)
Slashdot Mirror
[SGL has a] script that locates the latest stable source code for the application, downloads it to your system, configures it for your machine, compiles, and installs it. Pure magic.
Sounds familiar...
C-X C-S
"It's Slime Time"
C-X C-S
I realize it basically drove Netscape out of business...
/help/ NS,
I don't really think so. Right around the time IE started gaining interest, Netscape was starting to...err..show it's age[1].
The bundling of IE certainly didn't
but what really caused them to fail was that they let their product stagnate while MS was banging away full force on IE.
It's like the story of the Lovecraftian monster and the Hare.
The hare was sitting on it's fuzzy white ass while the Beast of Redmond slithered by unnoticed.
I think if Netscape had started work on their new (fasterbettersmaller) rendering engine 3 years earlier, they might still exist.
Be's case appears a whole lot more valid.
They had an excellent product, but because of
MS's stranglehold on the distribution channels,
it never really got any mainstream recognition.
C-X C-S
[1] "Show it's age" - also spelled "suck donkey balls".
The editors at Slashdot.org are about to link to your site in about 4 hours. You now have three options: [...]
Presented with those options, the bastard admin would choose option 4:
Redirect anyone with "slashdot.org" in the referrer header to another site...like say, goatse.cx...
C-X C-S
Try here
.net's direct competitor.
.net is MS's plan to be the good guy and support "open standards" so that developers can develop on whatever platform they want and users can use whatever platform they like...well, I sugges you take a long look at their history.
:)
That title is a bit misleading.
If you read the article, it says that HTTP is not optimal for anything more than relatively simple web services - in other words, complex applications with operations that take more than a few minutes to execute shouldn't use HTTP as their RPC protocol.
Sounds reasonable to me, provided the new protocol is standardized in a way similar to the other net standards, e.g. RFCs, and all that.[1]
The cli and description of C# have been passed by ECMA, for whatever that is worth,
Prolly not much, but more than the (AFAIK) lack of open, published standards for Java, which I see as being
As for mono, there are other people working on office file formats so that they can be created/read/used on other platforms....that hardly makes them interoperable or cross-platform.
I see a huge difference here.[2]
People writing office import/export filters have to reverse engineer the mostly-undocumented format.
There is no detailed, published spec of the office formats.
If you think
Of course they aren't, but you can say that about any company, really.
Everyone is trying to make a buck[3], usually at the expense of someone else.
"Business ethics" is an oxymoron.
C-X C-S
[1] Hell, even the MS guy (not an exec, BTW) said "if one vendor does it on their own, it will simply not be worth the trouble."
[2] I'd say it's an apples to oranges comparison, but someone recently proved scientifically that apples and oranges were basically the same.
[3] Netscape certainly ignored/made up their share of "standards" back in the pre-mozilla days, that's for sure.
I don't really get all the uproar about PayPal, seems to me it's just the latest boycott bandwagon the sheeple are jumping on.
I've also done a crapload of PayPal transactions and never had a single problem with any of them.
Most of the "problems" seem to stem from people using their PayPal account as a bank account,
rather than just as a way to exchange money without resorting to snail-mail, credit processing, or wire transfers.
C-X C-S
proprietary extensions/applets/applications built around the .net framework.
.net framework an ECMA standard now?
Isn't the
Isn't someone working on a free implementation of that standard?
Are you calling it proprietary just because it comes from billy boy?
No longer will new features be added directly to office, but will be available on the web - provided the user has Windows and is using IE...
That sounds to me like it would primarily affect office users, not web surfers, and considering office's main platform is windows, so what if they use windows/ie for web-based updates/upgrades?
Heck, MS execs are even talking about how http's days are coming to an end...
You got a link to back that up?
I'm not necessarily defending microsoft[1], just questioning the statements you present as fact.
C-X C-S
[1] Although I don't think they're any more evil than any other money-grubbing corporation.
Media conglomerates and trade groups, now those scare me - they have hundreds of times more governmental influence than billy and friends will ever have.
Does anyone even listen to this guy anymore?
I know I stopped shortly after he got his "Hey! Look at me I'm filthy rich!"[1] article on the front page.
C-X C-S
[1] Believe me, "Sex tips for Geeks" didn't help his case, either.
If I had a dollar for every time some slashdotter made the claim that reason X was why Linux was never going to succeed on the desktop
And if I had a dolla' for every time a slashbot comes to the defense of the slow, ugly,
antiquated, inconsistent-by-design POS that is X, I'd have a limitless supply of beer money.
C-X C-S
There are a couple of extremely stable kernels out there...
There sure are. Here's one and here's another.
C-X C-S
Looks like Windows does it?
Well, it doesn't look like Windows, I'll give you that, but I can't say it looks much like OSX either.
Seriously tho, if a theme fooled someone, they've obviously never seen OSX in real life.
C-X C-S
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Total=3.
:D
Uh oh. Looks like I challenged someone's preconcieved notions!
M-X the-truth-hurts
What do you do your windows for, do you never install
any hardware, software.
Most everything "desktopish".
Web browsing, gaming, graphics, music, MIDI, etc.
I install lots of software, and have devices ranging from radio and phone programmers, to video capture, to a MIDI keyboard.
Haven't had a BSOD yet, and everything works rather nicely.
How many minutes
have been on it, how many years before
Started using freenix around 1995, with FreeBSD[1],
mostly for fun and because it was radically different from what I knew at the time.
Started using linux in '98, mostly because it had better hardware support than BSD at the time.
Used linux almost exclusively (kept Win98 for Quake) from '98 to late '99.
Put up with apps (can you say "Netscape"?) crashing, and bringing down X.
Put up with crappy video drivers bringing down my system.
Put up with the inconsistency and overall poor GUI design.
Put up with it because it was still far, far better than Win 9x or NT.
Then Win2k came out, and I started using it (and liking(!) it) at work.
So, I've logged several hundred hours of serious usage, over the span of 6 or so years.
I know linux.
And what have you used Linux for.
Aside from the desktop usage above, I've built countless servers[1], doing everything from HTTP to Quake.
I currently have OpenBSD[1] and Windows on my laptop, Windows on my "workstation" and FreeBSD[1] on my FTP/Samba server.
I'll reiterate my last 50 flamebait comments:
Linux doesn't suck. X does.
Unfortunately, X, with all it's "baggage"[2], is the only choice for linux GUIs.
So, until there's a decent X replacement, that fixes the stuff that annoys me, or until I buy a new Mac[3], I'll have Win on my desktops, and freenix on my servers.
There's my resume, you asked.
C-X C-S
[1] BSD, yes, but IMO, the experience still applies.
[2] As in the kind your girlfriend has, not the kind you bring onto an airplane.
[3] I cannot describe how much I love OSX.
In my experience, Win2000 is just as stable, and several *times* faster, than linux with X and GNOME or KDE.
Linux is a great server (although I still perfer BSD in almost every way)
but to say that it beats Windows >= 2000 as a desktop OS is bogus, at least in my first-hand experience.
C-X C-S
Yay. Taco made another comment about Apple mice.
Color me surprised.
C-X C-S
Makign j0eks about teh appel m0ose is FUNEE!!!
{Windows|Mac} and unix coexist rather nicely.
Unix is an excellent server platform, but a poor desktop[1], while Windows/Mac are decent desktops, but not something I'd put on a server[2].
Otherwise, I guess I'll keep my "desktop environment" to nothing but an xterm console and only use Linux when I have to
That's what I do, as SSH and a web browser are pretty much all that's required to admin my FreeBSD box.
C-X C-S
[1] X bites no matter how many layers you drop on top of it.
[2] Servers don't need framebuffers.
That's two in one day.
Two companies I actually like(d) (Nintendo being the other), both using the Digital Consumer Molestation Act to be total jerks.
Wonderful.
C-X C-S
To hell with nat^H^H^Hpatriotism. America sucks more every day.
I don't really mind closed source.
] ...sucks...[buffering(35%)]...my...[buffering(50%) ]...arse.
Hell, my desktop OS is Windows.
I never install Real because it's an ugly, ad-laden, untrustworthy piece of spyware crap.
Besides, I'd rather have files I can download, because streaming...[buffering (10%)]...in any...[buffering(15%)]...format...[buffering(20%)
And as for MS being an illegal monopoly, I'll just say I think Be's argument is much more valid than Netscape's, because unlike Netscape, Be's flagship product didn't suck.
C-X C-S
works in a steel mill and when they have to travel a long distance, they use 3-wheeled bicycles.
Did anyone else just get image of a big, burly mill worker frantically pedalling a
G.I. Joe BigWheel around the factory floor?
C-X C-S
If anything, there are too many standards.
;)
Too many APIs, yes, I would agree.
Standards? No. I think the last attempt at standardizing X toolkits was Motif/CDE.
it would be hypocritical for communities founded on freedom and openness to embrace the principles of oppression and design by fiat which underlie your suggestions.
So standards and guidelines are fascist now?
Whatever. If oppressive standards build things like global networks, I'll be happily oppressed.
If a system has a dozen redundant modules, then any bloat is the administator's fault - he or she did not remove the extra ones
How is having at least 4 ways[1] to create a pushbutton object "the administrator's fault"?
It's not like I can take gtk_create_pushbutton()[2] from the GTK library and replace it with Qt::Button or somesuch and expect the GTK program to run.
Perhaps you are thinking of the associated pixmap libraries or desktop environment libraries.
Well, they're kinda, like, required for most every app, so of course I included them.
That you can run them alongside one another is only meant to be a charming illustration of the community spirit and excellent engineering at work.
Excellent engineering.
That's why programs crash when you try to do complex things like "paste".
This isn't engineering, engineering implies well thought out design.
C-X C-S
[1] Gtk, Qt, Motif, Athena... (Fltk, FOX, OpenLook, Tk, XForms, WxWindows...)
[2] If that were a real GTK call, it'd be about 35 characters longer.
coupled with the advantages of running on top of X windows
Which are? Network transparency[1], and...what?
Jamming graphics calls through sockets? W00t indeed.
But the GNU system will have every option you could ask for,
All using different toolkits, with different key bindings, different quirks and different looks, and each requiring 30 megs of widget libraries that duplicate the functionality of each other.
No thanks.
Until X starts *enforcing* a single toolkit[2], like Mac, Windows, and virtually every other decent GUI has done, it's going to be discordant and annoying.
To hell with KDE and GNOME, they don't fix the underlying problem of nonexistant standards or policy, they just cover it up with more bloat.
Which is good, I guess, if you like having 100+ meg of widget libraries on your system, and being able to watch the widgets flicker as they redraw themselves.
C-X C-S
[1] Which isn't even all that special any more, though it was really cool in 1987.
[2] Which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given the "community"'s steadfast resistance to change.
shit man, the source is there, if it pisses you off *that much* then fix it.
Getting rid of the inconsistency and incompatabilty in X is hardly a one man job.
It's hardly a 1000 man job.
Hell, removing inconsistency from X is like removing religion from church - it just can't be done.
C-X C-S
It's called a "library."
Yes, I could find time during business hours, get in the car (or bus or bike if I was a hippie), and drive 5 minutes (30 in rush hour) to get the book (or more likely, be placed on the waitlist.)
Then, assuming I got the book, repeat steps 2 and 3 two weeks later.
Or, I could just fire up $PTP_SHARING_APP, download a 2 meg PDF, and have the book, in about 5 minutes, to read at my leisure, no gas wasted, nothing to return.
And, being a fairly ethical pirate[1], if I like the book, I'll prolly buy it, just as I would have if I had checked it out from the library.
C-X C-S
[1] ObArrrMeMateys: Arrrrrgh me mateys! (That should be a link to "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition", but Amazon seems to disallow linking now. The bastards.)
In that case, where can I get a PDA for free?
This is slashdot. Many people here couldn't concieve of not having a PDA.
How is a minor (i.e. Rowling's target audience) supposed to afford a PDA
You'd be surprised at what kids have today (especially with Palm devices now costing under $100),
and you'd prolly also be surprised at how many adults read Harry Potter.
(I'm 21. I've read all of them. It's a rather fun series.)
C-X C-S
They're almost perfect: portable, lightweight, cheap.
You've obviously never gone to college.
C-X C-S