Although I agree with your point that there are no perfect XML parsers as yet, that's really a straw man, isn't it? You don't need every nuance of the XML spec to handle typical config file contents - app settings, UI settings, etc. Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I don't see much that you couldn't do with existing parsers that are available on all *nix platforms.
Not that I'm that much of an XML booster either - it just seems to substitute one set of problems for another in my experience. I prefer the API approach, with perhaps the addition of having each app provide a config plugin that understands the app's file format and can provide a standard interface to a higher-level config manager GUI.
On a personal note, I'd like to take a moment to bitch about the consultant that told our engineering team yesterday that we'd be switching from good 'ol reliable SMTP Unix mail servers (last outage: well, actually I don't think there has been one...) to Exchange (home of the global address list shut-down-your-worldwide-business-for-a-week bug, remember?) and virus-a-minute Outlook "for reasons of security". Amazingly, this pronouncement was completed with a straight face.
The user is not at fault. Don't blame the victim. There is no reason that following a link to a web page should divulge that kind of personal information about me and my contact list. This is a flaw in the user's software in that it violates the principle of least surprise - it doesn't do what you'd expect it to do.
It was controversial. It was not unsupported; he provided as much support for his position as you have. It's just a matter of opinion as to whether the valid applications of javascript make the annoying applications worth it.
Personally, I have no problem with javascript as long as it acts only within the page that it was loaded on. When it tries to take over duties that belong to my window manager, though, I get unhappy. 95% of javascript's problems would go away if it couldn't open new windows and/or resize them. Besides, people should be middle-clicking to do "open link in new window" anyway:)
Those things may be true. But the other side really was hurt by Microsoft's illegal actions, so it makes it even a worse miscarriage of justice if they had to buy a trial to get justice. Once Sun or AOL destroys several markets and subjugates an entire industry, we can talk about whose karma is blacker.
Law enforcement only has the rights that are granted to them by the citizenry. Most people are uncomfortable about tracking down terrorists by means of their reading habits, even if this were found to be a useful investigative technique (which has not yet been proven). You can't give law enforcement imaginary rights that you just made up to make yourself feel more secure, any more than you can take those rights for yourself.
You're right, though, that my life is insignificant (case in point: arguing with ACs on/.:). I doubt there is anyone watching it, and if they are, well, I wish they'd spend the time doing real, useful police work instead. Paranoia on the part of society that causes a rush to the appearance of security rather than the essence of it is going to be our biggest problem for the next few years, I imagine. Especially if more people think like you do...
It comes back to that whole monopoly thing, though - certain standard business practices become illegal if they are used to create or extend a monopoly and unlawfully harm competition. So, even though modularizing the browser and using it throughout the OS may have even been a good idea from a software engineering point of view, since it was also done to destroy competition it is still illegal.
At this point it probably would do more harm than good to force Microsoft to stop including the browser component in the OS. But it is still possible to remove it, thus proving that they were lying when they said it was not possible. So Microsoft should pay some penalty for their anticompetitive behavior, and people can go on using the modular browser.
This is a little different legal situation, though - Microsoft has based its defense on the source code. As a loyal viewer of Law & Order, this then leads to the "Well, they raised the issue, Your Honor, so I can follow it up" situation. Microsoft can't be permitted to make a defense based on secret evidence that only they can see.
Totally wrong. As a frequent traveller on aircraft, you have a right to care about whether the aircraft is secure. You have no right to any information about a totally unrelated person's reading habits. I'm not willing to trade my privacy for your security - your security is your problem.
If Microsoft had acted only on the basis of creating a better product at a better price, then they wouldn't be in court. The only reason that they are in this mess is because of their repeated disregard for the law and for the free market. To complain that their competitors are the ones taking them to court is like complaining that a victim who decides to press charges is just making trouble.
If Microsoft had put the effort into the open standard, then they wouldn't be Microsoft, now would they? The whole point of having your own proprietary API is developer lock-in. The sad thing is that developers seem to fall for it pretty frequently.
The first half-hour or so were very...different, especially since my wife and I were expecting more of a period drama, and instead we got Nirvana and Madonna songs:) Also the camera work made my head hurt - it was apparently staged for the post-post-MTV generation with about a 1/2-second attention span.
But once they got into the real plot, it was mostly OK. I wouldn't see it again, but I didn't feel totally ripped off for renting it.
I agree with that, to an extent. For example, I've enjoyed a couple of the ads during the Olympics - in particular, the one with the football player, the Olympic runner, the race horse, and the stock car. In fact, I even called my wife back into the room to see it because I thought it was so funny. Does it make me more likely to use a Visa card? No. But at least I didn't flip the channel as fast.
Well, when you think about it, you can only infringe on a patent by making and distributing a particular technology that's patented by someone else. It's really only Web technology vendors that should worry, IMHO. It's not my problem if Netscape infringes on some patent, and it's not my ISP's problem if some web site's server infringes on a patent. BT should be going after Netscape, Microsoft, Opera, and the Apache Software Foundation it seems to me.
[chars added to beat the slashdot characters-per-line filter]
Re:Why does google get a slashdot-patent-pass?
on
Google's Search Appliance
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree with the "many are silly, but this one is worthwhile". Google's approach was non-obvious, innovative, and really advanced the state of the art. It wasn't just another "do what we did before, but with a computer this time" patent.
I'll admit that it helps that their site is non-painful to use, but that's just gravy. Google's search is so much better that even if their site was a pain, it would still be a worthwhile search tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree with your point that there are no perfect XML parsers as yet, that's really a straw man, isn't it? You don't need every nuance of the XML spec to handle typical config file contents - app settings, UI settings, etc. Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I don't see much that you couldn't do with existing parsers that are available on all *nix platforms.
Not that I'm that much of an XML booster either - it just seems to substitute one set of problems for another in my experience. I prefer the API approach, with perhaps the addition of having each app provide a config plugin that understands the app's file format and can provide a standard interface to a higher-level config manager GUI.
Ah, the truth comes out. All of those security flaws are just an anti-piracy measure! What a truly twisted strategy. :)
Or, you could just use free software, get updates for free, and forget the whole mess.
You can do pointer arithmetic in VB - see http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?tips/varptr.htm . Don't ask why I needed to be able to do this - it's a sad sad tale.
Dunno about inline ASM, but I'd like to see an example of how to if it's possible...
Rep. John Conyers questions Ashcroft's integrity in handling Microsoft case - guess who got money from Microsoft?
On a personal note, I'd like to take a moment to bitch about the consultant that told our engineering team yesterday that we'd be switching from good 'ol reliable SMTP Unix mail servers (last outage: well, actually I don't think there has been one...) to Exchange (home of the global address list shut-down-your-worldwide-business-for-a-week bug, remember?) and virus-a-minute Outlook "for reasons of security". Amazingly, this pronouncement was completed with a straight face.
Heck, you can even circumvent encryption too as long as it's not encryption intended as part of a copy protection scheme.
I guess if we're going to copy stories onto /. from k5, it makes sense that we'd copy the posts too :)
Ya call that an anchor? Arrrrr.
I'm running the same services. I believe wanadoo is one of the most frequent scanners listed on dshield.org, or at least they were a month or two ago.
The user is not at fault. Don't blame the victim. There is no reason that following a link to a web page should divulge that kind of personal information about me and my contact list. This is a flaw in the user's software in that it violates the principle of least surprise - it doesn't do what you'd expect it to do.
It was controversial. It was not unsupported; he provided as much support for his position as you have. It's just a matter of opinion as to whether the valid applications of javascript make the annoying applications worth it.
Personally, I have no problem with javascript as long as it acts only within the page that it was loaded on. When it tries to take over duties that belong to my window manager, though, I get unhappy. 95% of javascript's problems would go away if it couldn't open new windows and/or resize them. Besides, people should be middle-clicking to do "open link in new window" anyway :)
I've been seeing scans from wanadoo.fr for weeks, wonder if it's the same outfit?
Those things may be true. But the other side really was hurt by Microsoft's illegal actions, so it makes it even a worse miscarriage of justice if they had to buy a trial to get justice. Once Sun or AOL destroys several markets and subjugates an entire industry, we can talk about whose karma is blacker.
Law enforcement only has the rights that are granted to them by the citizenry. Most people are uncomfortable about tracking down terrorists by means of their reading habits, even if this were found to be a useful investigative technique (which has not yet been proven). You can't give law enforcement imaginary rights that you just made up to make yourself feel more secure, any more than you can take those rights for yourself.
You're right, though, that my life is insignificant (case in point: arguing with ACs on /. :). I doubt there is anyone watching it, and if they are, well, I wish they'd spend the time doing real, useful police work instead. Paranoia on the part of society that causes a rush to the appearance of security rather than the essence of it is going to be our biggest problem for the next few years, I imagine. Especially if more people think like you do...
It comes back to that whole monopoly thing, though - certain standard business practices become illegal if they are used to create or extend a monopoly and unlawfully harm competition. So, even though modularizing the browser and using it throughout the OS may have even been a good idea from a software engineering point of view, since it was also done to destroy competition it is still illegal.
At this point it probably would do more harm than good to force Microsoft to stop including the browser component in the OS. But it is still possible to remove it, thus proving that they were lying when they said it was not possible. So Microsoft should pay some penalty for their anticompetitive behavior, and people can go on using the modular browser.
This is a little different legal situation, though - Microsoft has based its defense on the source code. As a loyal viewer of Law & Order, this then leads to the "Well, they raised the issue, Your Honor, so I can follow it up" situation. Microsoft can't be permitted to make a defense based on secret evidence that only they can see.
Totally wrong. As a frequent traveller on aircraft, you have a right to care about whether the aircraft is secure. You have no right to any information about a totally unrelated person's reading habits. I'm not willing to trade my privacy for your security - your security is your problem.
If Microsoft had acted only on the basis of creating a better product at a better price, then they wouldn't be in court. The only reason that they are in this mess is because of their repeated disregard for the law and for the free market. To complain that their competitors are the ones taking them to court is like complaining that a victim who decides to press charges is just making trouble.
That was offtopic in the same way that the sky is not blue.
If Microsoft had put the effort into the open standard, then they wouldn't be Microsoft, now would they? The whole point of having your own proprietary API is developer lock-in. The sad thing is that developers seem to fall for it pretty frequently.
The first half-hour or so were very...different, especially since my wife and I were expecting more of a period drama, and instead we got Nirvana and Madonna songs :) Also the camera work made my head hurt - it was apparently staged for the post-post-MTV generation with about a 1/2-second attention span.
But once they got into the real plot, it was mostly OK. I wouldn't see it again, but I didn't feel totally ripped off for renting it.
I agree with that, to an extent. For example, I've enjoyed a couple of the ads during the Olympics - in particular, the one with the football player, the Olympic runner, the race horse, and the stock car. In fact, I even called my wife back into the room to see it because I thought it was so funny. Does it make me more likely to use a Visa card? No. But at least I didn't flip the channel as fast.
Well I'll be damned. I guess I learned something today. Thanks, AC!
Well, when you think about it, you can only infringe on a patent by making and distributing a particular technology that's patented by someone else. It's really only Web technology vendors that should worry, IMHO. It's not my problem if Netscape infringes on some patent, and it's not my ISP's problem if some web site's server infringes on a patent. BT should be going after Netscape, Microsoft, Opera, and the Apache Software Foundation it seems to me.
Re: the great compromise
Worse Is Better.
[chars added to beat the slashdot characters-per-line filter]
I agree with the "many are silly, but this one is worthwhile". Google's approach was non-obvious, innovative, and really advanced the state of the art. It wasn't just another "do what we did before, but with a computer this time" patent.
I'll admit that it helps that their site is non-painful to use, but that's just gravy. Google's search is so much better that even if their site was a pain, it would still be a worthwhile search tool.