I think the thing is that in a lot of shops this "open source" stuff just doesn't fly
Yes, I hear this a lot. And then it turns out they are using PHP, Apache, Perl, mySQL and Lord knows what else without even knowing that is is "open source".
Okay, so SVN might be just as good as BK, but who's selling support for it?
Anyone can. I believe there is commercial support offered for all kinds of OSS software these days;) And of course there's the fact that, often, "free" OSS support is better than "commercial" support - which can boil down to: "It'll be fixed in the next release if we don't go bust in the meantime".
But, yes, some PHBs like to have that support contract, so there's an opportunity for someone!
I think this is all moot though, since nobody's going to be buying BK licenses to develop their own OSS SCCM just "to piss McVoy off." At least no serious contender would
The danger is that eventually these licenses will say things like - "If you use this product, even if forced to by some PHB (eg MS Windows) as part of your employment, you may not ever work on a competing product". If they can't compete technically or economically, powerful vendors will start thinking about this sort of thing without a doubt.
I hope the spammer was forced to pay the defendant's legal costs. The article doesn't say. Especially since the plaitiff was suing for the cost of "replacing" the computer system (according to the original article IIRC), and that is plainly ridiculous.
Also, an important point is that the court found that the plaintiff did not show that contacting SPEWS was illegal. This is good news (in Australia at least), as if the case had hinged on whether he contacted a blacklister or not, it would have a chilling effect on free speech and also anti-spam efforts - you wouldn't even be allowed to tell a third party that you received some email that might, possibly, be spam.
Not many, so perhaps just associating it with BK is valuable. But the losses caused by having a functionally equivalent free system would be greater, I would have thought.
BTW your.sig can be rewritten as a Perl regex. Well, its English interpretation at least:
"they had to use bitkeeper to develop it. What does that tell you?"
It would tell me that there was no "free" revision control system with the required capabilities at that time.
Once svn (or whatever) was done, the source would be transferred to the new system, and BK would have been reduced to merely an historical bootstrapping role.
I'd bet gcc was bootstrapped in a similar way from an existing C compiler, as most are. But eventually in the development cycle of a compiler it is complete enough to compile itself - and that first "bootstrap" compiler is no longer needed.
"2) The software is not open source because the open source business model doesn't have a prayer of supporting the development costs."
On the whole, I've found commercial software support to be far worse than OSS, and development to be much slower - if they even continue to develop the product at all instead of de-supporting it to force a change to some entirely different product.
Does anyone have any experience with Bitkeeper's support? Is it any better than the oft-heard "it'll be fixed in the next release" mantra? Is the product being developed very actively?
Yes. Especially with C++ compilers that don't compile templates until link time.
The HP C++ compiler did this, circa 1995. And it was extremely painful. By default, it wouldn't report to stdout that it was doing more compiling. The link would just take forever for no apparent reason, and our integrators didn't know about this, so they just assumed it had broken somehow...
Then there's the process problem with this - you would go to link the test executable together, and the *link* would fail with *compile* errors. And so it would turn out you weren't ready for linkage, at all! But you only got to discover this after, literally, hours of the linker grinding away. It wasn't very smart about templates, so it would generate tons of code and compile it *all*!
This is Portland, Oregon. And yes, this is where IT careers die. One friend of mine has 10 years of FoxPro experience and can't get anything
There's a hard lesson there about staying with one technology a little too long... it's nice money, but there's some risk.
After being laid off from my last job, it took me ten months to land my present job
Three months doesn't sound that bad to me. So, you're not getting five unsolicited job offers a week any more. Like everyone else, we've got to wait for something appropriate to crop up, we've got to apply for jobs, go to real interviews (not just, "when can you start, we're desparate for anyone"), let the wheels turn on the employment processes at the prospective employer, take a few knock backs, and so on. I can't see this process taking *less* than three months, in all honesty.
Ten months, however, is a bit of a worry. Are all those jobs on monster.com in your area less than real? I wouldn't know, I've never applied for a job on any of these sites, I just use them as a measuring stick. For God's sake, don't worry about not having the exact requirements they write down, just customize your resume - if they want 4 years of skill X, and you have 2, say, "I only have 2 years of X, but I did [insert stuff nobody else has ever done with X here]". Often times, these requirements are just there for filtering purposes anyhow, are arbitrary, and are not made up by people who need the employee, just some HR weenie (I've seen "5 years experience minimum" for products released in 2000! No joke). They *don't* want to miss out on someone who's actually good at X by mistake! The worst that can happen is you won't get an interview.
Good luck!
I draw the line at how much I'm willing to sacrifice for the sake of my career. Sleep? Yes. Sane hours? Yes. Sanity? Absolutely
Your attitude is sensible, but don't sacrifice sleep or sanity either. You must have learned the hard way by now that none of that sacrifice will be rewarded come crunch time. Think of yourself like a business, and remember that your earning capacity *has* to be kept intact for decades yet - you can't let one mad employer destroy that. They *won't* care.
the bad news is that computer jobs are scarce and I may end up just packing groceries or something
Are things *really* that bad? Where is this? I look at the jobs available, and I think at worst, I may have to consider doing primarily Windows development (but still Java). That would suck, but it's not the worst thing that could happen.
If I was prepared to move interstate, my options improve dramatically. It's nothing like the way it was when I started my degree, when the best you could hope for would be to churn out COBOL in a dungeon somewhere, if you were lucky. And you could forget about earning anything special - you'd be doing it for the love of coding, that's for sure!
So, if you ignore the blip on the radar that was the mid-to-late nineties, I think you'll find that the overall trend for computing skills demand has increased markedly over the last, say, 15 years. And there's no arguing the qualitative improvement in the work you're likely to be doing. I was dreading graduating 'cause all I heard I'd be doing was COBOL, COBOL, fucking COBOL, and SQL, and other dull-as-dishwater stuff.
My point was mainly in the context of DRM which is targeted squarely at end users
Is it? I think it's also targeted at those directories full of MP3s that people keep on NFS mounted file systems.
But even still the DRM scheme on a server might have to be different than that of an end user probably less restrictive I would guess
I can't see how any of this crap will be acceptable at all. How are backups going to work? Are all these servers suddenly going to have to be connected via some DRM port to the outside world to allow the DRM magic to happen?
Best strategy is to just ignore the Windows machines that are occassionally just rolled in unannounced because some undeclared, lame-brained project dreamed up by retards is now going "live" and it's on NT or 2000 or whatever other crap. It's quite funny to listen to the whining - "But this is important for x/y/z that no-one really wants anyway, and that apache already handles, but the contractors didn't know any better", or "but we've been working on this for 12 months!" (Std reply: "Really? Where's the agreement that we would have anything to do with it? You've had 12 months to negotiate. So for now, get your own damned network, and fuck *that* up"), etc.
And now you've got the added incentive for taking a hard line that you will avoid DRM pain in the near future!
For desktops, perhaps. Just keep that shit out of the server room, at all costs. You can keep your sanity, and as a nice side effect keep uneducated Windows weenies, who fell into "IT" somehow in 1998, away from you also.
-- Reply, don't moderate. Read the moderation guidelines!
Is IBM's implementation open source? And no, I'm not saying everything you run should be, the OP's case was that you "own" everything, if you use Java+Linux.
And then there's the problem that Sun, at any time, could damage IBM's ability to provide Java, or at least make life intolerable enough that they give up. It would really have to be standardized at the very least before you can possibly argue that Java gives you any extra freedom.
And yes, Python's nice, and free as in beer and speech.
Java on Linux will lead the industry out of the bust, in at least one area.
1) By providing companies with business systems they can truly own themselves, and are not owned by other companies or cannot be purchased by competitors
Since Sun own Java, refuse to submit it for standardization, and haven't open sourced the implementation, you don't truly own it yourself. You have to hope Sun doesn't turn into another Microsoft.
I don't think that this would be enough to "save" the Journal. Compared to Perl, the Python user base is pretty small, and Ruby's is tiny.
The real question is, "Is it *worth* saving?". A lot of people have stated that you get better quality articles in it, and I agree, they are very good. But why *can't* these high quality articles be published directly on the web? Were the authors really paid such large amounts of money to produce this content that only a subscription model can sustain it?
Since I have a very well paying job with no possible threat to it and a college degree, that is two things i have which you do not.
One wonders what you majored in. Since it took you 15 *years* (!) to reach the rank of "web master", and considering that job requires little more than perhaps some simple arithmetic and scripting skills, and is the approximate intellectual equivalent of using a Playstation, I'm guessing it didn't involve maths, science, or even computing.
You are a sadly informed retard. HTML3.2 added ALL of the presentational markup. Netscape and IE only added a few extensions
That what I said, fucktard.
Obviously you know nothing about javascript since. 1. Javascript is NOT specifically a client side scripting language 2. I have written complete text editors and WYSIWYG html editors in Javascript/CSS/HTML/DOM for our intranet
Javascript is broken by design.
You *do* you use words like intranet! Idiot.
Not exactly since I am the webmaster
Yes. A web master. That's one step up from changing backup tapes, I guess.
people like you do not have the skills to take my job away
Or the desire. But cleaning toilets is beneath me, also.
I will catch you in other threads and I will make it a point to demonstrate how much a clueless fucktart you really are
Considering you're actually running my code that's unlikely.
You *stupid* monkey. Let me guess - Java weenie? I can't tell you how much crap, unreadable, ill conceived Java code I've had to fix.
You just keep churning out 1000s of lines of semi-OO code, that will run like a dog, take up 46M, fall over every five minutes with "null pointer" exceptions, and that has an object model taken from somewhere in the 80s, and runs on 3 platforms. "Multiple inheritance make my head hurt", "why do I have to read books to know how to code", etc. Class invariants? Pre and post conditions? Closures? Computer science?
HTML? Presentation independent? Where have you been for the past six years?
Not trying to make my pages look the same on all browsers, by using single pixel images, convoluted tables, and other such stupid non-sense? The fundamental problem is that people think HTML is WYSIWIG, because some dickweed gave these clowns WYSIWYG editors to generate HTML.
I guess it's easier for me to get into the right frame of reference, having done things like Latex and troff for years and years.
HTML is dead as a standard. Unless you get into MS HTML, or Netscape HTML 6.2
That's crazy talk. I target everything I can get my hands on, including Lynx, and I write nothing but standard HTML. Lynx is my first sanity test for any new page written by someone I don't know, and therefore have to assume is an idiot. If it's not clear and navigable with that, it's "back to the Loch with you, Nessie!", with a big fat "update rejected" on the request.
And he has a point about us, as a society, going out of its way to help our defective members. We do. This blind jackass will probably win (Thanks ADA!) and get a multi-million dollar settlement (Thanks, idiot judges!). Airline industry. Today.
So, we should stop catering for the defective members of our society who are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and disallow them from using frontpage, javascript, flash, etc? Good idea!
I agree, if a multi-million dollar settlement happens that would be wrong. They should just be made to employ professionals to create their site, and maybe the rest of the industry would take a hint.
Actually, it is you that is clueless. It isn't that easy to write a page (bar a simple one) that applies the currect w3.org standards that works in 3 major browsers. Have you ever tried? From your above statement, I'd say NOT
It's not easy to *retrofit*. That's the problem. You have to understand the underlying principles and concepts from day one. Hacking around with frontpage just isn't going to cut it. It is possible to get it right however.
Again, you sound like an idiot with no experience here too. Have you ever tried coding a single page to conform to 8 different 'standards'? Go on! Make your crappy little homepage with 12 pages multifunctional: now lets see you do that with my website that I work on for my company: over 1200 pages, more than 20 major departments and they all need to 'conform' to all these standards. Why don't you cruise over the the checklist page [w3.org] and see how YOU do?
So, by your own admission, you've produced a steaming pile of shit?
I can't help it if you're some incompetent ex-and-soon-to-be-again burger flipper, who starts out doing stupid things and now it's too late to fix it. These are totally reasonable guidelines, easy to understand and follow, and not exactly rocket science.
And no, I wouldn't be "doing that with your website". Such hack work is, frankly, not top of my list of intellectual challenges. They've given you the grunt work for a reason, boy. If I was forced to fix it, I would take all your stupid fucked up crap, throw it away, and do it properly.
Oh. I forgot. You're just another clueless piece of crap who thinks they know everything because you can 'code' HTML
And you're some "web content master" who read "HTML in 21 days" in 1998, is therefore somehow a "computing professional", and probably doesn't even know what TCP/IP *stands* for. I'll bet you use words like "intranet", too.
Fucking frontpage weenies. This recession hasn't gone on long enough, if they've still got jobs...
Possibly. But what if they didn't fix it? (Taking into account that there's no good reason for them *not* to have developed a professional web site, instead of the lame shit produced by toss pots that they've got now)
The problem is that the web (HTML + HTTP) really was designed to be maximally accessible, by graphical browsers, text browsers, text-to-speech systems, and so on ad infinitum. It's already built for a much larger subset of humans than most "web designers" can be bothered catering for, by being professional about it.
So it's *there* already. I'm not sure if suing people is the best way to go, but if it helps people actually try to *get it right*, I'm all for it. And I can tell my clueless boss that we might get *sued* if we do stupid things. Great! That's the only language these people understand, sometimes!
There is no RULE which says HTML documents are required to be presentation independent
It's a design goal. It's important.
In fact, it was the beloved W3C which introduced the abortion called HTML 3.2 which made HTML a presentational markup language
Not quite true. They added some ill-advised tags, yes. No one with any sense would have used these things anyway. But now that all the half-wits are going back to their "service industry" jobs, there's less pressure on the W3C to do lame shit like this.
So before you get all cocky about how you know so much more about developing websites than people who learned HTML in 1998, get a fucking. I learned HTML in 1998, I also learned CSS, Javascript, PHP, ASP and Perl since then and I could still outcode your lame ass even if I WAS BLIND
Sounds unlikely, if you think things like Javascript are anything other than stupid and broken.
That vast and comprehensive list of l33t programming tools you've mastered in a mere 3 years is truly stunning. I think the phrase I'm looking for is "script kiddy"...
Please go and read a book that does not have a picture of the author on the cover, and that doesn't features the words "in 24 hours", or "for dummies" in the title. Thanks.
But please, do not be shy. Show us all some of your incredible work
Looks like I hit the target. Worried about out job are we? Do you even *have* a job? A degree? A clue?
But hey, with that whole 3 years experience you are l33t h4x0r now without a doubt, so I'm sure you can avoid going back to Wendys for a while yet.
Quite frankly, the bastard is lucky enough to have technology that allows him to "read" a primarily visual medium in the first place!
Really? And here I was thinking HTML was supposed to be presentation independent! You had better tell Tim Berners-Lee, I don't think he's aware of this radical new shift in design!
This kind of thing really pisses me off, because our society goes out of its way to help our defective members
Oh, the irony. And what would happen to *you* if we just let stupid and lazy people die in the street?
But remember the times they are a changing. We're almost back to 1997 levels of sanity now.
Another year of "recession" and all the lamers who don't actually care about anything apart from "3. ???? 4. Profit!" will be gone, and we can focus on doing useful, sensible things carefully, correctly and professionally.
Web sites are primarily designed for a particular, limited audience, in most cases. If someone *chooses* to make their site easily accessible to everyone who comes across it, that's their option -- but it certainly doesn't need to be legislated as mandatory
But it's so easy for anyone with half a brain to get right!
The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent, even if they opt not to touch any additional "plug-in" technologies such as Shockwave or RealAudio
It's not hard to provide an *alternative* that simply contains the information. Most of this stuff is useless eye candy anyway.
If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful
I have Javascript off, and have never noticed the lack of it.
(As just one example, I recently found a site that calculated your speedometer error based upon changing your car's tires out with different sizes. If this had to be presented as pure HTML, I suppose we'd be reduced to looking through a huge list or table of every combination, to find relevant data for our particular car and situation. How is that a *better* way to build the site?)
Sigh. Another Javascript weenie. Why couldn't you just enter the information in a form?
This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build. If this becomes law, many people will take down sites completely rather than pay to do major revamping to meet ADA requirements, and then *nobody* benefits
It would depend what those requirements are. I'm sure something sensible could be worked out, and needn't be more that what is already available, and it would have the nice side effect of pushing people who have trouble with reading out of the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the thing is that in a lot of shops this "open source" stuff just doesn't fly
;) And of course there's the fact that, often, "free" OSS support is better than "commercial" support - which can boil down to: "It'll be fixed in the next release if we don't go bust in the meantime".
Yes, I hear this a lot. And then it turns out they are using PHP, Apache, Perl, mySQL and Lord knows what else without even knowing that is is "open source".
Okay, so SVN might be just as good as BK, but who's selling support for it?
Anyone can. I believe there is commercial support offered for all kinds of OSS software these days
But, yes, some PHBs like to have that support contract, so there's an opportunity for someone!
I think this is all moot though, since nobody's going to be buying BK licenses to develop their own OSS SCCM just "to piss McVoy off." At least no serious contender would
The danger is that eventually these licenses will say things like - "If you use this product, even if forced to by some PHB (eg MS Windows) as part of your employment, you may not ever work on a competing product". If they can't compete technically or economically, powerful vendors will start thinking about this sort of thing without a doubt.
I hope the spammer was forced to pay the defendant's legal costs. The article doesn't say. Especially since the plaitiff was suing for the cost of "replacing" the computer system (according to the original article IIRC), and that is plainly ridiculous.
Also, an important point is that the court found that the plaintiff did not show that contacting SPEWS was illegal. This is good news (in Australia at least), as if the case had hinged on whether he contacted a blacklister or not, it would have a chilling effect on free speech and also anti-spam efforts - you wouldn't even be allowed to tell a third party that you received some email that might, possibly, be spam.
BTW your
/bb|[^b]{2}/
"they had to use bitkeeper to develop it. What does that tell you?"
It would tell me that there was no "free" revision control system with the required capabilities at that time.
Once svn (or whatever) was done, the source would be transferred to the new system, and BK would have been reduced to merely an historical bootstrapping role.
I'd bet gcc was bootstrapped in a similar way from an existing C compiler, as most are. But eventually in the development cycle of a compiler it is complete enough to compile itself - and that first "bootstrap" compiler is no longer needed.
Larrie McVoy says:
"2) The software is not open source because the open source business model doesn't have a prayer of supporting the development costs."
On the whole, I've found commercial software support to be far worse than OSS, and development to be much slower - if they even continue to develop the product at all instead of de-supporting it to force a change to some entirely different product.
Does anyone have any experience with Bitkeeper's support? Is it any better than the oft-heard "it'll be fixed in the next release" mantra? Is the product being developed very actively?
Yes. Especially with C++ compilers that don't compile templates until link time.
...
The HP C++ compiler did this, circa 1995. And it was extremely painful. By default, it wouldn't report to stdout that it was doing more compiling. The link would just take forever for no apparent reason, and our integrators didn't know about this, so they just assumed it had broken somehow
Then there's the process problem with this - you would go to link the test executable together, and the *link* would fail with *compile* errors. And so it would turn out you weren't ready for linkage, at all! But you only got to discover this after, literally, hours of the linker grinding away. It wasn't very smart about templates, so it would generate tons of code and compile it *all*!
This is Portland, Oregon. And yes, this is where IT careers die. One friend of mine has 10 years of FoxPro experience and can't get anything
... it's nice money, but there's some risk.
There's a hard lesson there about staying with one technology a little too long
After being laid off from my last job, it took me ten months to land my present job
Three months doesn't sound that bad to me. So, you're not getting five unsolicited job offers a week any more. Like everyone else, we've got to wait for something appropriate to crop up, we've got to apply for jobs, go to real interviews (not just, "when can you start, we're desparate for anyone"), let the wheels turn on the employment processes at the prospective employer, take a few knock backs, and so on. I can't see this process taking *less* than three months, in all honesty.
Ten months, however, is a bit of a worry. Are all those jobs on monster.com in your area less than real? I wouldn't know, I've never applied for a job on any of these sites, I just use them as a measuring stick. For God's sake, don't worry about not having the exact requirements they write down, just customize your resume - if they want 4 years of skill X, and you have 2, say, "I only have 2 years of X, but I did [insert stuff nobody else has ever done with X here]". Often times, these requirements are just there for filtering purposes anyhow, are arbitrary, and are not made up by people who need the employee, just some HR weenie (I've seen "5 years experience minimum" for products released in 2000! No joke). They *don't* want to miss out on someone who's actually good at X by mistake! The worst that can happen is you won't get an interview.
Good luck!
I draw the line at how much I'm willing to sacrifice for the sake of my career. Sleep? Yes. Sane hours? Yes. Sanity? Absolutely
Your attitude is sensible, but don't sacrifice sleep or sanity either. You must have learned the hard way by now that none of that sacrifice will be rewarded come crunch time. Think of yourself like a business, and remember that your earning capacity *has* to be kept intact for decades yet - you can't let one mad employer destroy that. They *won't* care.
the bad news is that computer jobs are scarce and I may end up just packing groceries or something
Are things *really* that bad? Where is this? I look at the jobs available, and I think at worst, I may have to consider doing primarily Windows development (but still Java). That would suck, but it's not the worst thing that could happen.
If I was prepared to move interstate, my options improve dramatically. It's nothing like the way it was when I started my degree, when the best you could hope for would be to churn out COBOL in a dungeon somewhere, if you were lucky. And you could forget about earning anything special - you'd be doing it for the love of coding, that's for sure!
So, if you ignore the blip on the radar that was the mid-to-late nineties, I think you'll find that the overall trend for computing skills demand has increased markedly over the last, say, 15 years. And there's no arguing the qualitative improvement in the work you're likely to be doing. I was dreading graduating 'cause all I heard I'd be doing was COBOL, COBOL, fucking COBOL, and SQL, and other dull-as-dishwater stuff.
My point was mainly in the context of DRM which is targeted squarely at end users
Is it? I think it's also targeted at those directories full of MP3s that people keep on NFS mounted file systems.
But even still the DRM scheme on a server might have to be different than that of an end user probably less restrictive I would guess
I can't see how any of this crap will be acceptable at all. How are backups going to work? Are all these servers suddenly going to have to be connected via some DRM port to the outside world to allow the DRM magic to happen?
Best strategy is to just ignore the Windows machines that are occassionally just rolled in unannounced because some undeclared, lame-brained project dreamed up by retards is now going "live" and it's on NT or 2000 or whatever other crap. It's quite funny to listen to the whining - "But this is important for x/y/z that no-one really wants anyway, and that apache already handles, but the contractors didn't know any better", or "but we've been working on this for 12 months!" (Std reply: "Really? Where's the agreement that we would have anything to do with it? You've had 12 months to negotiate. So for now, get your own damned network, and fuck *that* up"), etc.
And now you've got the added incentive for taking a hard line that you will avoid DRM pain in the near future!
Windows is the defacto standard operating system
For desktops, perhaps. Just keep that shit out of the server room, at all costs. You can keep your sanity, and as a nice side effect keep uneducated Windows weenies, who fell into "IT" somehow in 1998, away from you also.
--
Reply, don't moderate. Read the moderation guidelines!
Is IBM's implementation open source? And no, I'm not saying everything you run should be, the OP's case was that you "own" everything, if you use Java+Linux.
And then there's the problem that Sun, at any time, could damage IBM's ability to provide Java, or at least make life intolerable enough that they give up. It would really have to be standardized at the very least before you can possibly argue that Java gives you any extra freedom.
And yes, Python's nice, and free as in beer and speech.
Java on Linux will lead the industry out of the bust, in at least one area.
1) By providing companies with business systems they can truly own themselves, and are not owned by other companies or cannot be purchased by competitors
Since Sun own Java, refuse to submit it for standardization, and haven't open sourced the implementation, you don't truly own it yourself. You have to hope Sun doesn't turn into another Microsoft.
I don't think that this would be enough to "save" the Journal. Compared to Perl, the Python user base is pretty small, and Ruby's is tiny.
The real question is, "Is it *worth* saving?". A lot of people have stated that you get better quality articles in it, and I agree, they are very good. But why *can't* these high quality articles be published directly on the web? Were the authors really paid such large amounts of money to produce this content that only a subscription model can sustain it?
Yes I have a degree.
Since I have a very well paying job with no possible threat to it and a college degree, that is two things i have which you do not.
One wonders what you majored in. Since it took you 15 *years* (!) to reach the rank of "web master", and considering that job requires little more than perhaps some simple arithmetic and scripting skills, and is the approximate intellectual equivalent of using a Playstation, I'm guessing it didn't involve maths, science, or even computing.
Hmmm, /. logged me out. But that's okay. "mastering your intranet" is better, anyway. No, no, you're an "interweb" programmer, right?!
...
What were you doing before rising to the hallowed ranks of "web master". Billing systems in COBOL?
Do some crypto, real time and/or distributed systems, and we can talk sensibly
You are a sadly informed retard. HTML3.2 added ALL of the presentational markup. Netscape and IE only added a few extensions
That what I said, fucktard.
Obviously you know nothing about javascript since.
1. Javascript is NOT specifically a client side scripting language
2. I have written complete text editors and WYSIWYG html editors in Javascript/CSS/HTML/DOM for our intranet
Javascript is broken by design.
You *do* you use words like intranet! Idiot.
Not exactly since I am the webmaster
Yes. A web master. That's one step up from changing backup tapes, I guess.
people like you do not have the skills to take my job away
Or the desire. But cleaning toilets is beneath me, also.
I will catch you in other threads and I will make it a point to demonstrate how much a clueless fucktart you really are
Considering you're actually running my code that's unlikely.
You *stupid* monkey. Let me guess - Java weenie? I can't tell you how much crap, unreadable, ill conceived Java code I've had to fix.
You just keep churning out 1000s of lines of semi-OO code, that will run like a dog, take up 46M, fall over every five minutes with "null pointer" exceptions, and that has an object model taken from somewhere in the 80s, and runs on 3 platforms. "Multiple inheritance make my head hurt", "why do I have to read books to know how to code", etc. Class invariants? Pre and post conditions? Closures? Computer science?
HTML? Presentation independent? Where have you been for the past six years?
Not trying to make my pages look the same on all browsers, by using single pixel images, convoluted tables, and other such stupid non-sense? The fundamental problem is that people think HTML is WYSIWIG, because some dickweed gave these clowns WYSIWYG editors to generate HTML.
I guess it's easier for me to get into the right frame of reference, having done things like Latex and troff for years and years.
HTML is dead as a standard. Unless you get into MS HTML, or Netscape HTML 6.2
That's crazy talk. I target everything I can get my hands on, including Lynx, and I write nothing but standard HTML. Lynx is my first sanity test for any new page written by someone I don't know, and therefore have to assume is an idiot. If it's not clear and navigable with that, it's "back to the Loch with you, Nessie!", with a big fat "update rejected" on the request.
And he has a point about us, as a society, going out of its way to help our defective members. We do. This blind jackass will probably win (Thanks ADA!) and get a multi-million dollar settlement (Thanks, idiot judges!). Airline industry. Today.
So, we should stop catering for the defective members of our society who are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and disallow them from using frontpage, javascript, flash, etc? Good idea!
I agree, if a multi-million dollar settlement happens that would be wrong. They should just be made to employ professionals to create their site, and maybe the rest of the industry would take a hint.
Actually, it is you that is clueless. It isn't that easy to write a page (bar a simple one) that applies the currect w3.org standards that works in 3 major browsers. Have you ever tried? From your above statement, I'd say NOT
...
It's not easy to *retrofit*. That's the problem. You have to understand the underlying principles and concepts from day one. Hacking around with frontpage just isn't going to cut it. It is possible to get it right however.
Again, you sound like an idiot with no experience here too. Have you ever tried coding a single page to conform to 8 different 'standards'? Go on! Make your crappy little homepage with 12 pages multifunctional: now lets see you do that with my website that I work on for my company: over 1200 pages, more than 20 major departments and they all need to 'conform' to all these standards. Why don't you cruise over the the checklist page [w3.org] and see how YOU do?
So, by your own admission, you've produced a steaming pile of shit?
I can't help it if you're some incompetent ex-and-soon-to-be-again burger flipper, who starts out doing stupid things and now it's too late to fix it. These are totally reasonable guidelines, easy to understand and follow, and not exactly rocket science.
And no, I wouldn't be "doing that with your website". Such hack work is, frankly, not top of my list of intellectual challenges. They've given you the grunt work for a reason, boy. If I was forced to fix it, I would take all your stupid fucked up crap, throw it away, and do it properly.
Oh. I forgot. You're just another clueless piece of crap who thinks they know everything because you can 'code' HTML
And you're some "web content master" who read "HTML in 21 days" in 1998, is therefore somehow a "computing professional", and probably doesn't even know what TCP/IP *stands* for. I'll bet you use words like "intranet", too.
Fucking frontpage weenies. This recession hasn't gone on long enough, if they've still got jobs
Possibly. But what if they didn't fix it? (Taking into account that there's no good reason for them *not* to have developed a professional web site, instead of the lame shit produced by toss pots that they've got now)
The problem is that the web (HTML + HTTP) really was designed to be maximally accessible, by graphical browsers, text browsers, text-to-speech systems, and so on ad infinitum. It's already built for a much larger subset of humans than most "web designers" can be bothered catering for, by being professional about it.
So it's *there* already. I'm not sure if suing people is the best way to go, but if it helps people actually try to *get it right*, I'm all for it. And I can tell my clueless boss that we might get *sued* if we do stupid things. Great! That's the only language these people understand, sometimes!
There is no RULE which says HTML documents are required to be presentation independent
...
It's a design goal. It's important.
In fact, it was the beloved W3C which introduced the abortion called HTML 3.2 which made HTML a presentational markup language
Not quite true. They added some ill-advised tags, yes. No one with any sense would have used these things anyway. But now that all the half-wits are going back to their "service industry" jobs, there's less pressure on the W3C to do lame shit like this.
So before you get all cocky about how you know so much more about developing websites than people who learned HTML in 1998, get a fucking. I learned HTML in 1998, I also learned CSS, Javascript, PHP, ASP and Perl since then and I could still outcode your lame ass even if I WAS BLIND
Sounds unlikely, if you think things like Javascript are anything other than stupid and broken.
That vast and comprehensive list of l33t programming tools you've mastered in a mere 3 years is truly stunning. I think the phrase I'm looking for is "script kiddy"
Please go and read a book that does not have a picture of the author on the cover, and that doesn't features the words "in 24 hours", or "for dummies" in the title. Thanks.
But please, do not be shy. Show us all some of your incredible work
Looks like I hit the target. Worried about out job are we? Do you even *have* a job? A degree? A clue?
But hey, with that whole 3 years experience you are l33t h4x0r now without a doubt, so I'm sure you can avoid going back to Wendys for a while yet.
Quite frankly, the bastard is lucky enough to have technology that allows him to "read" a primarily visual medium in the first place!
Really? And here I was thinking HTML was supposed to be presentation independent! You had better tell Tim Berners-Lee, I don't think he's aware of this radical new shift in design!
This kind of thing really pisses me off, because our society goes out of its way to help our defective members
Oh, the irony. And what would happen to *you* if we just let stupid and lazy people die in the street?
Yes.
But remember the times they are a changing. We're almost back to 1997 levels of sanity now.
Another year of "recession" and all the lamers who don't actually care about anything apart from "3. ???? 4. Profit!" will be gone, and we can focus on doing useful, sensible things carefully, correctly and professionally.
Web sites are primarily designed for a particular, limited audience, in most cases. If someone *chooses* to make their site easily accessible to everyone who comes across it, that's their option -- but it certainly doesn't need to be legislated as mandatory
But it's so easy for anyone with half a brain to get right!
The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent, even if they opt not to touch any additional "plug-in" technologies such as Shockwave or RealAudio
It's not hard to provide an *alternative* that simply contains the information. Most of this stuff is useless eye candy anyway.
If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful
I have Javascript off, and have never noticed the lack of it.
(As just one example, I recently found a site that calculated your speedometer error based upon changing your car's tires out with different sizes. If this had to be presented as pure HTML, I suppose we'd be reduced to looking through a huge list or table of every combination, to find relevant data for our particular car and situation. How is that a *better* way to build the site?)
Sigh. Another Javascript weenie. Why couldn't you just enter the information in a form?
This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build. If this becomes law, many people will take down sites completely rather than pay to do major revamping to meet ADA requirements, and then *nobody* benefits
It would depend what those requirements are. I'm sure something sensible could be worked out, and needn't be more that what is already available, and it would have the nice side effect of pushing people who have trouble with reading out of the industry.