If the way of the net was that everyone who ran a DNS server ran it with a root zone and pointed to the TLDs they wanted to have (and from where they wanted to get them), and left out the TLDs they didn't want (like religious groups leaving out.sex and.xxx), then ICANN would just be irrelevant.
I originally went to the site when there was ONE comment on/. and it had already been/.'d by then (many non-connects, many connect and hang, many connect and disconnect, what little data showed up was minutes late). This aquila.net CLAIMS to have many high performance servers. But instead, I suggest they are a FRAUD that reveals why many companies are failing on the net.
Re:slashdoted and replaced with shit pop-up ad
on
Making Small Change
·
· Score: 2
These guys have arrays of high performance web servers. That's what they claim. It's fraud. Let's get them investigated by the government. Yeah, that should do it.
Still, there remain stupid poiticians in the government there (as well as just about everywhere else in the world, which is not unexpected, since usually one has to be stupid to be a politician). You could try working on expunging the stupid ones, if it is the case that their numbers are low enough to make this practical.
Mozilla is C++, JavaScript and XPCOM with only a light sprinkling of C. As such they are approaching the problem correctly: attacking the interfaces and leaving the implementation optimizations until last. This is what they have done. Read the roadmap. They have stated that optimization has only started recently. They were completing the interfaces and the base implementation before optimizing.
My objection is not with the use of C++. But I do believe they have approached the problem incorrectly, though I cannot pin down exactly what that is. I do know that the majority of projects, both open source as well as in business, are approached incorrectly simply because the results are so often quite dismal, as is the result of Mozilla. I do know that if you leave optimization out of the design stage, you can end up with something that can't be optimized very well. The design itself is what has to be optimized, not the code (well that, too, but that's a separate issue).
Yes it would. It is an investment of time. IF you are not willing to invest that time, so be it. It is your decision. But do not then criticize others because they do not share your priorities.
I am not criticizing others for their choice in how they invest their time. I am criticizing a project for having poor results. I can't say what the exact cause is; I can only guess. I was also criticizing you for your choice of using the strawman attack to make it appear as though I was not contributing. Hopefully, when you think about it, each of us is best contributing at what we do best.
Really? And here I thought this was one of free software's hallmarks. I have researched the problem. I now how difficult it is. I have every right to post this. If so many people weren't resting their hopes on Mozilla, no one would care that they are taking this long or using this approach (which would have put them in the same category as 99% of all free software projects).
It it a hallmark, but a false one. When a system gets very large and complex, as both Linux and Mozilla are, simple patches simply cannot be made to fix an underlying design error that has already be frozen into thousands of lines of code. Apparently the problem in Mozilla is that there is too much data hiding and by the time something quite abstract gets to the point of actually starting a window up by interfacing with the X window system, much information is fundamentally lost at that point. Abstractions can be carried too far, and I see that in this project (one of the major reasons I don't want to touch it).
Another thing to learn about is good time management. That includes the concept of not spending a lot of time to do what is a miniscule accomplishment. The lack of compliance by Mozilla to X standards is probably a small issue, but in terms of who can do the fix more effectively, then it is something for the team to do. But they have obviously a bigger project than they can handle.
If a bug crashes the browser or causes it to suck up ten more megs of RAM, I sure as hell want them to ignore your bug! Let me put this to you "for the sake of informing others." Do you think a project's priority should be on making sure the browser works on multiple platforms at all or that they should take time out to make sure that someone can dictate the size of the browser on startup from the command line?
I would want that crash and burn bug fixed, too. And fixing it first certainly makes it easier to run the tests necessary to fix the other bugs. The real problem here is that Mozilla is TFB (too... big). It's bigger than they can debug effectively for the size of the team they have. Maybe they expected a bigger team when they designed it. Maybe it just got out of their control.
I want to see code that is majorly bug free, by the time it is released. When people claim Mozilla to be worth starting an upgrade to, then that is wrong because it is nowhere near bug free. Lots of open source software leads the world in reliability, but I'm afraid if Mozilla is considered ready before its time, it will hurt the reputation of open source. Perhaps this is all because I have an apparently higher standard, than most, of eliminating the bugs (in the design and in the code).
By the time Mozilla is released, all the simple bugs should be fixed. Any simple bug remaining is an indication that it was not ready to be released. If the bug in handling -geometry isn't a simple bug to fix, then the design is wrong (not the choice of language, but the overall design that makes it not easy to correctly handle -geometry).
I'm looking for a day-to-day browser. I guess we agree that Amaya is not that. Having standards compliance in the day-to-day browser would be a big plus, and would certainly be the deciding factor between otherwise equal browsers. But it would not be the end-all reason.
I was approached by a recruiter wanting a Senior Unix Systems Administrator for a new e-commerce company. He liked the fact that I also had experience in Cisco and C coding. He claimed I was "very hot for them" (though this may be usual recruiter puffing). I OK'd passing on my resume, and he called back the very next day with "They want to talk to you ASAP, but the CEO is flying in on Friday so we have to schedule then". So I said "OK". He then said "Great, I'll FAX over the NDA to you now, and you can just bring it with you when you go in".
I asked him what was in it (since I didn't have FAX and would have to read it when I arrived) and he said "Oh, the usual stuff, that you won't use any of their ideas". "And what if their ideas are ideas I'm already working with?". "That could be a problem". "Then we'll need to negotiate the terms to protect both parties". "They can't do that, the CEO is there for just one day a week, and they are interviewing a lot of people that day". "Then it sounds like they have no need for me". "But they do, your experience is fantastic". "Sorry, but if they don't care about being fair with my rights, I doubt it will be a place I'll end up staying at, and I might not be able to find employment after I leave if I blindly sign unnegotioated terms".
At that point we politely canceled the interview. But I don't know at this point how the recruiting firm will treat this.
I did interview with another company, which had a special part of the interview where they discussed their coming market strategy. They had a very reasonable NDA to have access to that part, and it was optional. The NDA simply prohibited disclosure of what I would see and hear at that presentation. So not every employer is bad. We need to just avoid those who are.
Amaya never worked. How many times do I need to go back and try it again until one that does work is released? I've already tried it 6 times. I refuse to do so more than once a year now (next opportunity comes up in June 2001).
Of course a graphic arts company isn't expected to code for Lynx for their graphical development. However, for their "investor information" page, I expect TEXT, so Lynx should basically work there.
IMHO Standards are a great thing (when not abused). Graphical and layout standards are fine. But some web developers need a clue about what the USERS find acceptable. The majority of the population doesn't care about whizbang Flash displays. For the most part, only other graphical artists (and wannabes) care about it.
There are markets for substance and markets for style. I just think that too many graphical artists are putting themselves too high on a pedestal with regard to what most people care about. Graphical layout is good. Graphical abuse is bad.
The original topic of all this is supposed to be about upgrading browsers. I just want to find one that actually is an upgrade (and Amaya is certainly not).
I'm no lover of Netscape 4.X. And IMHO it is a P.O.S. I don't use it if I can at all avoid it. But Mozilla and Netscape 6 have many of the same overall design flaws that NS 4 has. These are NOT valid upgrade targets. Maybe some of the newer offbeat browsers could be. How about evaluating them for standards compliance. I'm all for the standards, but I'm dead set against shitty browser design.
However, there is no reason why the web site cannot also put as much of the specification into the <body> tag as the HTML standard allows. In this way, those who cannot use CSS for some reason (and there area plenty) can disable CSS, or use a browser that ignores it, or filters it out from their firewall, and still get as good of a page as HTML by itself allows. Doing otherwise is leaning on one standard (CSS) and using another incompletely (HTML).
This is a strawman reply. I really shouldn't reply to such a stupid post, but I will, out of the sake of informing others.
I have 18 years experience coding in C. I've developed libraries and written kernel patches. I've also done the same for assembly language. But that doesn't mean I can write a patch to fix just any bug that comes along in any project. In order to do that, I also have to have a strong knowledge of how the existing organization of the project works. And learning that is exponentially proportional to the product of the size of the project and how poorly it is designed.
It would take me perhaps a few months to achieve the knowledge that the existing developers have in the project. That would be a waste of time because I am not a part of that team, and have no intentions to ever be. My time is best spent elsewhere.
The team members, however, having this knowledge base already, could, in theory, implement this patch rather quickly. If it is indeed something easy to do, why not just do it now and get it over with?
I will suggest to you that the organization of Mozilla falls somewhere between messed up and fubarred. Now that's just my opinion based on looking at several pieces of the code. And I do think that's a major reason why Mozilla has been so late, runs so slow, and is riddled with bugs. IMHO, their whole development approach is wrong.
As for giving something back, I already do. I do write code and I do make it available under GPL and LGPL terms. And I design for clarity and reliability, and I also fix bugs. I don't see this in the Mozilla project.
If I wanted to work on browser development (and I don't, because graphical applications is not my area of interest) it seems to me I would be far better off ignoring Mozilla and starting from scratch.
They often-replied statement "submit a patch" is what I'm complaining about. If you failed to research how easy or difficult this would be, then you have no business posting it. Still, people do that all the time. But it's nothing more than a strawman.
Sure. A new browser that works right will be fine. The problem is, there are not such browsers, yet. This webstandards.org promotion to upgrade browser is futile while there are no better browsers to upgrade to... or more specifically, while the ones they are suggesting are in fact downgrades for things they aren't considering to be issues (but I am).
I do think some (not all) newer standards will improve things, and that browsers that implement those standards correctly are essential. My point is that we are not there, yet.
What if the company provides you with equipment (for example a PC or a Sun Desktop) to use at home. Would they not then be gaining an extra advantage to claim that things you invent on your own time are (likely) done on their equipment?
One thing I have found is that many corporations tend to avoid wanting to hire or do business with those who have a strong knowledge of their rights and the laws regarding those rights. Part of that is fear they will be sued, even if improperly. I recall the case from California of the lawyer who was denied the right to purchase a condominium (I believe it was) simply because he was a lawyer, and that lawyers tend to sue the sellers (who probably are also lawyers) more than the average person would.
Part of the problem is poorly written law. There are many cases of improper lawsuits. But there are also many cases where proper lawsuits get tossed out because the law doesn't allow them (legally tossed out, but not right). OTOH, legislaters tend to dislike being too specific when they write law. I tend to think they are mostly incompetent at writing law.
Anyway, showing your knowledge of law and rights could very well be a turn off to employers and corporations. But then, they do tend to see most people as suckers. Maybe if you become and independent corp-to-corp contractor, you'd be in a better position to negotiate these things, and on your own terms. Just wondering.
If a potential employer wants any rights in anything you do that is not done on their time and won't remove such a clause, then you need to Run Away, Run Away!. Even if they do remove it for you, you might be working with other people for whom they have not. Even then it could be a very bad situation.
I do think an employer has a right to make sure you are not stealing their ideas (including those they have paid you to create for them) for your own private benefit. A mechanism for them to be confident you are not doing that is something you and they will have to agree on. Be sure to agree on it in advance. Maybe sure your entire agreement is concluded all at once as they may no longer be interested once you have agreed to their terms and are trying to negotiate your terms afterwards.
And, BTW, IANAL, though I do have one. You have to get your own.
All the browsers nazis need to do is go code up their own high performance browser in 1 meg of memory. Actually Opera is kinda close to that, but not quite all the way.
When the images are content, people can select that. If everything is an image, then make the HTML have (below the images) a comment that says that the page is images, and to load them. Now don't abuse that with giant images.
Maybe the real problem is that you're trying to do stuff that you shouldn't be doing. I looked at your site, and discovered that you're focused on making the layout too pixel-tight.
The web is all about stylized content
Not! It's about content. Just content. The stylizing is for the birds. I read slashdot without the stylizing (you can set it in your preferences). I do think there should be choice, but that choice should belong to the end user.
First of all, I reported the bug that NS 4 failed to correctly position the startup window via the standard-geometry option to Netscape back in version 4.0b2 and they didn't fix it. Many 4.X versions came out since then and they have not fixed it in any one of them. The Mozilla project came out and it still didn't work, so I reported the bug in Bugzilla. It kept getting put off and put off and put off and now they are saying it won't be fixed by final release.
I start up multiple X environments by script control and NS 3 is the last browser that actually works. NS 4 and later foul things up in the startup and make a mess.
Come on guys (Netscape/Mozilla coders), how hard can it be? It works in NS 3. I think it's time to get some browsers that are NOT so buggy. And I believe the reliance on toolkits, and the confusion over how they work, or bugs therein, is part of the problem. But you tell me. Tell me why you can't fix this bug.
So you're ashamed at Slashdot. That's sad, because it probably means you'll be leaving our not-so-little and often-disfunctional community. And I know I'll be missing your posts. And we all know that Anonymous Coward has probably been the greatest contributor at Slashdot. So sad to see you go. We'll just have to figure out how to go on without Anonymous Coward.
Slashdot Mirror
If the way of the net was that everyone who ran a DNS server ran it with a root zone and pointed to the TLDs they wanted to have (and from where they wanted to get them), and left out the TLDs they didn't want (like religious groups leaving out .sex and .xxx), then ICANN would just be irrelevant.
Or the voice in the mp3 file says "f t p colon slash slash tunes colon r i a a sucks at my dot leet dot host slash" ... when you play it backwards.
Will they be providing source patches for all open source free players?
They use a wide variety of networks, including dialups. Start blocking them and they will just use more. There's two sides to "cat and mouse".
Whatcha gonna use if they do outlaw FTP? HTTP?
What do you expect from a company that's incompetent at both Internet and telephony?
I originally went to the site when there was ONE comment on /. and it had already been /.'d by then (many non-connects, many connect and hang, many connect and disconnect, what little data showed up was minutes late). This aquila.net CLAIMS to have many high performance servers. But instead, I suggest they are a FRAUD that reveals why many companies are failing on the net.
These guys have arrays of high performance web servers. That's what they claim. It's fraud. Let's get them investigated by the government. Yeah, that should do it.
Still, there remain stupid poiticians in the government there (as well as just about everywhere else in the world, which is not unexpected, since usually one has to be stupid to be a politician). You could try working on expunging the stupid ones, if it is the case that their numbers are low enough to make this practical.
My objection is not with the use of C++. But I do believe they have approached the problem incorrectly, though I cannot pin down exactly what that is. I do know that the majority of projects, both open source as well as in business, are approached incorrectly simply because the results are so often quite dismal, as is the result of Mozilla. I do know that if you leave optimization out of the design stage, you can end up with something that can't be optimized very well. The design itself is what has to be optimized, not the code (well that, too, but that's a separate issue).
I am not criticizing others for their choice in how they invest their time. I am criticizing a project for having poor results. I can't say what the exact cause is; I can only guess. I was also criticizing you for your choice of using the strawman attack to make it appear as though I was not contributing. Hopefully, when you think about it, each of us is best contributing at what we do best.
It it a hallmark, but a false one. When a system gets very large and complex, as both Linux and Mozilla are, simple patches simply cannot be made to fix an underlying design error that has already be frozen into thousands of lines of code. Apparently the problem in Mozilla is that there is too much data hiding and by the time something quite abstract gets to the point of actually starting a window up by interfacing with the X window system, much information is fundamentally lost at that point. Abstractions can be carried too far, and I see that in this project (one of the major reasons I don't want to touch it).
Another thing to learn about is good time management. That includes the concept of not spending a lot of time to do what is a miniscule accomplishment. The lack of compliance by Mozilla to X standards is probably a small issue, but in terms of who can do the fix more effectively, then it is something for the team to do. But they have obviously a bigger project than they can handle.
I would want that crash and burn bug fixed, too. And fixing it first certainly makes it easier to run the tests necessary to fix the other bugs. The real problem here is that Mozilla is TFB (too ... big). It's bigger than they can debug effectively for the size of the team they have. Maybe they expected a bigger team when they designed it. Maybe it just got out of their control.
I want to see code that is majorly bug free, by the time it is released. When people claim Mozilla to be worth starting an upgrade to, then that is wrong because it is nowhere near bug free. Lots of open source software leads the world in reliability, but I'm afraid if Mozilla is considered ready before its time, it will hurt the reputation of open source. Perhaps this is all because I have an apparently higher standard, than most, of eliminating the bugs (in the design and in the code).
By the time Mozilla is released, all the simple bugs should be fixed. Any simple bug remaining is an indication that it was not ready to be released. If the bug in handling -geometry isn't a simple bug to fix, then the design is wrong (not the choice of language, but the overall design that makes it not easy to correctly handle -geometry).
I'm looking for a day-to-day browser. I guess we agree that Amaya is not that. Having standards compliance in the day-to-day browser would be a big plus, and would certainly be the deciding factor between otherwise equal browsers. But it would not be the end-all reason.
I was approached by a recruiter wanting a Senior Unix Systems Administrator for a new e-commerce company. He liked the fact that I also had experience in Cisco and C coding. He claimed I was "very hot for them" (though this may be usual recruiter puffing). I OK'd passing on my resume, and he called back the very next day with "They want to talk to you ASAP, but the CEO is flying in on Friday so we have to schedule then". So I said "OK". He then said "Great, I'll FAX over the NDA to you now, and you can just bring it with you when you go in".
I asked him what was in it (since I didn't have FAX and would have to read it when I arrived) and he said "Oh, the usual stuff, that you won't use any of their ideas". "And what if their ideas are ideas I'm already working with?". "That could be a problem". "Then we'll need to negotiate the terms to protect both parties". "They can't do that, the CEO is there for just one day a week, and they are interviewing a lot of people that day". "Then it sounds like they have no need for me". "But they do, your experience is fantastic". "Sorry, but if they don't care about being fair with my rights, I doubt it will be a place I'll end up staying at, and I might not be able to find employment after I leave if I blindly sign unnegotioated terms".
At that point we politely canceled the interview. But I don't know at this point how the recruiting firm will treat this.
I did interview with another company, which had a special part of the interview where they discussed their coming market strategy. They had a very reasonable NDA to have access to that part, and it was optional. The NDA simply prohibited disclosure of what I would see and hear at that presentation. So not every employer is bad. We need to just avoid those who are.
Amaya never worked. How many times do I need to go back and try it again until one that does work is released? I've already tried it 6 times. I refuse to do so more than once a year now (next opportunity comes up in June 2001).
Of course a graphic arts company isn't expected to code for Lynx for their graphical development. However, for their "investor information" page, I expect TEXT, so Lynx should basically work there.
IMHO Standards are a great thing (when not abused). Graphical and layout standards are fine. But some web developers need a clue about what the USERS find acceptable. The majority of the population doesn't care about whizbang Flash displays. For the most part, only other graphical artists (and wannabes) care about it.
There are markets for substance and markets for style. I just think that too many graphical artists are putting themselves too high on a pedestal with regard to what most people care about. Graphical layout is good. Graphical abuse is bad.
The original topic of all this is supposed to be about upgrading browsers. I just want to find one that actually is an upgrade (and Amaya is certainly not).
I'm no lover of Netscape 4.X. And IMHO it is a P.O.S. I don't use it if I can at all avoid it. But Mozilla and Netscape 6 have many of the same overall design flaws that NS 4 has. These are NOT valid upgrade targets. Maybe some of the newer offbeat browsers could be. How about evaluating them for standards compliance. I'm all for the standards, but I'm dead set against shitty browser design.
However, there is no reason why the web site cannot also put as much of the specification into the <body> tag as the HTML standard allows. In this way, those who cannot use CSS for some reason (and there area plenty) can disable CSS, or use a browser that ignores it, or filters it out from their firewall, and still get as good of a page as HTML by itself allows. Doing otherwise is leaning on one standard (CSS) and using another incompletely (HTML).
This is a strawman reply. I really shouldn't reply to such a stupid post, but I will, out of the sake of informing others.
I have 18 years experience coding in C. I've developed libraries and written kernel patches. I've also done the same for assembly language. But that doesn't mean I can write a patch to fix just any bug that comes along in any project. In order to do that, I also have to have a strong knowledge of how the existing organization of the project works. And learning that is exponentially proportional to the product of the size of the project and how poorly it is designed.
It would take me perhaps a few months to achieve the knowledge that the existing developers have in the project. That would be a waste of time because I am not a part of that team, and have no intentions to ever be. My time is best spent elsewhere.
The team members, however, having this knowledge base already, could, in theory, implement this patch rather quickly. If it is indeed something easy to do, why not just do it now and get it over with?
I will suggest to you that the organization of Mozilla falls somewhere between messed up and fubarred. Now that's just my opinion based on looking at several pieces of the code. And I do think that's a major reason why Mozilla has been so late, runs so slow, and is riddled with bugs. IMHO, their whole development approach is wrong.
As for giving something back, I already do. I do write code and I do make it available under GPL and LGPL terms. And I design for clarity and reliability, and I also fix bugs. I don't see this in the Mozilla project.
If I wanted to work on browser development (and I don't, because graphical applications is not my area of interest) it seems to me I would be far better off ignoring Mozilla and starting from scratch.
They often-replied statement "submit a patch" is what I'm complaining about. If you failed to research how easy or difficult this would be, then you have no business posting it. Still, people do that all the time. But it's nothing more than a strawman.
Sure. A new browser that works right will be fine. The problem is, there are not such browsers, yet. This webstandards.org promotion to upgrade browser is futile while there are no better browsers to upgrade to ... or more specifically, while the ones they are suggesting are in fact downgrades for things they aren't considering to be issues (but I am).
I do think some (not all) newer standards will improve things, and that browsers that implement those standards correctly are essential. My point is that we are not there, yet.
What if the company provides you with equipment (for example a PC or a Sun Desktop) to use at home. Would they not then be gaining an extra advantage to claim that things you invent on your own time are (likely) done on their equipment?
One thing I have found is that many corporations tend to avoid wanting to hire or do business with those who have a strong knowledge of their rights and the laws regarding those rights. Part of that is fear they will be sued, even if improperly. I recall the case from California of the lawyer who was denied the right to purchase a condominium (I believe it was) simply because he was a lawyer, and that lawyers tend to sue the sellers (who probably are also lawyers) more than the average person would.
Part of the problem is poorly written law. There are many cases of improper lawsuits. But there are also many cases where proper lawsuits get tossed out because the law doesn't allow them (legally tossed out, but not right). OTOH, legislaters tend to dislike being too specific when they write law. I tend to think they are mostly incompetent at writing law.
Anyway, showing your knowledge of law and rights could very well be a turn off to employers and corporations. But then, they do tend to see most people as suckers. Maybe if you become and independent corp-to-corp contractor, you'd be in a better position to negotiate these things, and on your own terms. Just wondering.
If a potential employer wants any rights in anything you do that is not done on their time and won't remove such a clause, then you need to Run Away, Run Away!. Even if they do remove it for you, you might be working with other people for whom they have not. Even then it could be a very bad situation.
I do think an employer has a right to make sure you are not stealing their ideas (including those they have paid you to create for them) for your own private benefit. A mechanism for them to be confident you are not doing that is something you and they will have to agree on. Be sure to agree on it in advance. Maybe sure your entire agreement is concluded all at once as they may no longer be interested once you have agreed to their terms and are trying to negotiate your terms afterwards.
And, BTW, IANAL, though I do have one. You have to get your own.
All the browsers nazis need to do is go code up their own high performance browser in 1 meg of memory. Actually Opera is kinda close to that, but not quite all the way.
When the images are content, people can select that. If everything is an image, then make the HTML have (below the images) a comment that says that the page is images, and to load them. Now don't abuse that with giant images.
Maybe the real problem is that you're trying to do stuff that you shouldn't be doing. I looked at your site, and discovered that you're focused on making the layout too pixel-tight.
Not! It's about content. Just content. The stylizing is for the birds. I read slashdot without the stylizing (you can set it in your preferences). I do think there should be choice, but that choice should belong to the end user.
First of all, I reported the bug that NS 4 failed to correctly position the startup window via the standard -geometry option to Netscape back in version 4.0b2 and they didn't fix it. Many 4.X versions came out since then and they have not fixed it in any one of them. The Mozilla project came out and it still didn't work, so I reported the bug in Bugzilla. It kept getting put off and put off and put off and now they are saying it won't be fixed by final release.
I start up multiple X environments by script control and NS 3 is the last browser that actually works. NS 4 and later foul things up in the startup and make a mess.
Come on guys (Netscape/Mozilla coders), how hard can it be? It works in NS 3. I think it's time to get some browsers that are NOT so buggy. And I believe the reliance on toolkits, and the confusion over how they work, or bugs therein, is part of the problem. But you tell me. Tell me why you can't fix this bug.
So you're ashamed at Slashdot. That's sad, because it probably means you'll be leaving our not-so-little and often-disfunctional community. And I know I'll be missing your posts. And we all know that Anonymous Coward has probably been the greatest contributor at Slashdot. So sad to see you go. We'll just have to figure out how to go on without Anonymous Coward.