Ventura Publisher, according to this history [dtp-service.com], was released in April, 1986,
I've started to use TeX back in 1982. And then it was already four years old.
The only thing in town that's older and still used by some people is troff. But its user community dimmishes, while the TeX user community is still active. E.g., the user groups have still growing membership numbers.
Who has modded this troll "Interesting"? Just throwing in a MS reference and some garbage spouting about ISO and contradicting statements about extensions is enough for this?
C'mon folks, there ain't no such thing as an "X clipboard". There is the X cutbuffer (from X10, depreciated) and there is the X selection mechanism, defined in ICCCM (a.k.a. the most important and less read X standard).
Listen, in my part of the world the continent where I live is definitively called Europa. And not only in my part (Germany), but in many other parts as well (Spain, Portugal, etc.) You may visit europa.eu.int to learn more about us.
You see, my joke was meant for readers with a tiny bit of cultural background on the Old Continent. Obviously, you don't belong to that group.
And their efforts are laying the groundwork for samples that might some day contain evidence of extraterrestrial life from Mars, Europa, and other points little known.
It's nice to see someone else addressing the fact that US folks know almost nothing about Europa. Coming from the other side of the pond, I'm just wondering if they can really cram all European visitors into the Johnson Space Center. I think my next visit should be scheduled before they have finalised this plan.
I was amused that the Salon article makes such a big deal about women liking Michael Shanks's character (the archeologist) because
of his intelligence and sensitivity.
Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, [...]
It isn't Michael Shank alone. When I told my partner about the Salon story and asked her what she thinks of it, her first reaction was: "Of course, Stargate as a whole is a series for women." And her explanation didn't involve the looks, but the way the characters behave.
OTOH, a 40-year old woman might have a more realistic view than a teenager. So maybe, Stargate is (has been) simply a series for adults, and not for testosterone-damaged teens?
Another thought, partially off-topic, pertains to a previous poster's comments about working from a DTD and then migrating to XML Schema. I have to wonder how much of that is simply habit; I know that I've certainly had to solve problems that DTD's just can't handle. In my mind, even though habit may dictate starting with a DTD, starting with something that clearly will not accomplish the task at hand seems inherently flawed.
Perhaps it's because XML Schema is the most horrible concrete syntax for expressing syntactic grammars and associated data constraints that I have ever seen. DTDs are not so much better, but at least they resemble classic description possibilities from the programming world (i.e., EBNF) more than XML Schemas.
Anyway, instead of XML Schemas or DTDs I'd go for canonical description possibilities every time. E.g., annotated grammars in EBNF like in ANTLR with automatic transformation to XML Schemas for usage with XML tools.
And besides, XML Schemas are not very powerful if one compares them to real syntax description systems (i.e., parser specs) and real data constraint systems (i.e., formal spec languages, be they axiomatic or algebraic).
Re:Ten Reasons Why TeX/LaTeX is Better than Word
on
Writing Documentation
·
· Score: 1
There are no LaTeX "macro" viruses.
Unless you count the liveware virus that makes you want to escape every period\. I'd call that pretty macro\.
That virus is old. Luckily, there is a cure.
\frenchspacing
I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache.
Hmmm why?
Because Microsoft successfully creates the image of Web Services as a technology that is bound to Hailstorm. While this is technically not true, the PHBs will believe it. They want to believe it, they don't understand the geek-speak of their tech staff anyhow.
And due to the bundling with the newer Windows OSs and the forced upgrade cycle they might even be successful with this strategy -- when something is already available it's hard to substitute it with an alternative, even if it's technologically better. Witness IE.
However for active sites IIS and Apache share has changed little during the year.
You paraphrased him exactly as I understood him:
The totals list is so swamped with inactive domains (just look at the ratio of inactive vs active) as to be useless. And apache continues to post stronger gains than IIS.
I agree with your first sentence. I don't agree with your second sentence. Apache doesn't post stronger gains, the shares remain as they are.
I have no problems with that, Apache running more than 60% of active Web sites is a fine success, isn't it?
I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache. One must never underestimate Microsoft, and shouting "Apache wins! Apache wins!" doesn't help to assess the situation realisticly.
Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.
That's NOT what Netcraft actually said. [...]
In fact, if you look at total number of active sites for the past THREE months, IIS has actually declined, while Apache has increased.
Well, and you're not shy to misrepresent what Netcraft actually said:
Mainly through gains at some of the remaining mass hosters such as Namezero and Network Solutions, IIS has seen its share increase in the full survey during the second half of the year. However for active sites IIS and Apache share has changed little during the year.
Much more even-headed than either of your opinions, isn't it? Of course, this is/., and Netcraft prepares serious statistics, so who am I to complain...:-(
You are right that languages from the Lisp family are a good tool to manipulate XML data streams.
But you are wrong when you tell that simple s-expressions are a good way to represent XML data streams in Lisp, due to their untyped nature.
Simple s-expressions make it hard to cleanly separate elements, attributes, and PCDATA.
One cannot dispatch methods over parts of simple s-expression, therefore code reusibility is lower.
Take a look at STIL (SGML Transformations In Lisp) (this is a link to a PS document). There you'll find an early experiment in the usage of Lisp for this problem class, an experiment that has influenced other style sheet language creators later on.
The only way to test if your scripts will work on different Unices is: Test them on different Unices. You have only Linux? Too bad, if you really earn your money with that work, buy some other machines. That's professional life, deal with it.
The situation has been spelled out best by Larry Wall in an old Usenet posting:
Drew Mills writes:
: A contest to see who could write the most useful script that could
: actually be used in the most languages *as is* [...]
I've written some scripts that work in 582 different languages,
all of them named sh.
Since, your problem is: There ain't no such thing as a standard Bourne shell. The real original Bourne shell was a beast - believe me, I've had access to the source. The C code was turned to some pseudo-Algol by way of macros (e.g., #define THEN ) { etc.) Most Unix vendors replaced it by an own implementation sooner or later.
Do your customers know that you are saddling them with code that will be much more expensive for them to maintain than a "majority" language?
Seriously, should you pass on and they need to hire someone else to maintain your LISP, they will certainly pay 2x or 3x the cost of a C programmer, as good LISP programmers are far more rare.
While I agree with your sentiment in principle, some customers agree with the usage of Lisp, even though they know that maintainance will be much more expensive. It depends on the returned value of that usage.
For example, in one of our projects we substituted a yacc/flex/C++ programm with a Lisp program, the latter running 15x [sic!] faster: The C++ program needed around 17 hours for a job, the Lisp program does it in roughly 1 hour. The job was about data analysis and statistics - and we got statistics just an hour away from the data collection, and not one day away. This advantage is more than worth the raised maintainance costs.
OK, for our customer (a large European bank) it will be hard to maintain the system himself. So what? They're used to this; they can't maintain SAP or MS Office either, but rely on it nevertheless. In addition, I doubt that they would have been able to maintain the yacc/C++ program - they're a Cobol shop, after all. The Real World(tm) runs on Cobol, don't forget this...:-)
Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements. Look at Frank Zappa. Look at Karl Marx.
A implies B.
All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.
Therefore, B implies A.
This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.
You should visit a course on Logic 101. There the difference between implication and equivalence is taught. Seems to be time for you to learn that.
If the settlement doesn't hinder Samba any more than they currently are, I don't see where they have grounds to object to it simply because it doesn't help them either. (hint: anti-trust legislation is supposed to be designed to protect the consumer, not a monopoly's competitors. Samba's the latter, not the former. We've bastardized those laws to the point where they're just legal protection for companies that can no longer compete in a market. There's nothing illegal with going out of business.)
Huch? Samba company? going out of business? what are you smoking?
Samba is not a company but a project that let Microsoft customers use their computers in a way they want - and not in the way Microsoft wants. U.S. legislation is "supposed to be designed to protect the customer?" OK. Then protection is needed to be able to write something like Samba in the US.
Sorry, but this is not a consultant viewpoint, but a technical one.
As a consultant, one knows that it is one job to handle sliding requirements. Managing such changes and their associated risks lies at the heart of our jobs. One has to anticipate and will guesstimate changes (and, in particular, rate of changes); incorporate them in the software development timetable up front.
Such estimates are based on previous experience in that job, in that area, and with that customer. (The latter is forgotten very often.)
And, of course, it's very hard to find staff with that qualification. (I'm a CEO of a consulting company, by the way.)
With the failings of the dotcom model, someone needs to start using the web for just more than a bunch of websites offering resources and to put this emmence network to some practical use.
Where does this assumption come from that if big companies aren't making money off of it, the net is not being of practical use? I just don't get it.
Because somebody must pay the infrastructure you're using?
While Internet access and an Internet presence is very cheap for private usage, it is quite expensive for a business. And, speaking as a CEO of a company, I have to tell you that one better has a return on such an investment, or one might soon be out of business.
That does not actually say that the Internet is not profitable for a business right now already. I know many companies, large and small, that have saved much money with their Internet access and their Internet presence, more than it costs. But these returns are not some hyped e-commerce thing, but plain-old savings for call-centers, or productivity improvements.
And what would you have done with your emergency hammer?
Breaking a glass during the flight? Damn good idea.
Your pocket knife does not raise the risk either, not more than bringing in hard-plastic sharp pieces (or box cutters, coincidentially...). It is not possible to prevent this.
Everyone recommending Photoshop is completely ignoring the fact that it costs hundreds of dollars. Maybe because no one pays for it?
I should add that this is a _typical_ college student viewpoint. "I have no money, therefore no one else does either."
It might be a typical college student viewpoint, but it's true nevertheless. Being 40 and a CEO of a consulting company, I'm not a student any more - and I see loads of pirated software in use at both small and large companies and in private homes. In particular, Photoshup is seldomly payed for as legally required; often with the excuse "we bought one license, let's use it on 10 systems", etc. Garbage - 10 systems means 10 licences. Period.
If you don't know this situation, you don't have much experience in the corporate world. And we don't need to start to speak about home users.
Finally, please don't come back with musings about "advocates for professional use". Being both a registered Microsoft partner and using Linux since 0.99.something, I know what I'm speaking about: Both systems have their place on the desktop - and thanks to VMware it's even easy to deploy both.
IT professionals point to a whole litany of causes: bloatware, with all its useless bells and whistles; programmers working in isolation,
That could paragraph could describe the shoddy commercial software, but it could just as easily be describing [...] TeX, [...]
Yes, I know that I'm replying to a troll, but nevertheless - it's such a joy.
It's been a long time, at least ten years, that I've read something to describe TeX as bloatware and with "useless bells and whistles". Others have already asked you about the money that you are going to get from commercial vendors when you find a typo or a missing index entry in the manual, your article speaks for itself. But then, somebody attacking TeX still means that TeX is still very much alive - much to the contrary opinion of those who hail the latest {K,Open,Star}Office package that still can't deliver what TeX does since 20 years.
Proud to work with TeX since 1982, involved in creating CTAN, founding member of DANTE; sincerly yours
The "product" of Salon is not only the stories itself, but also the editorial process to select them and the convenience to find them all in one place.
[...]
and I'm looking forward to a future where I can start my own small company, and run things in a manner that I'm comfortable with.
and then you will discover that you have changed one boss for many bosses (all your customers) and you will start to make lots of compromises in quality you never thought of.
You realize that your situation is very rare, don't you? In almost all companies, buying decisions are made by admin and sales, and not by the tech guys. That's the reason why there are so many Windows servers, after all.
Last time I checked, the admin (me) was a tech-guy. This is common isn't it?
Do you use Windows, then, as the only one of the tech-guys? From the context, it seemed that the original poster meant "admin" as in "administrative staff" as in "executives", not as in "sysadmin".
Slashdot Mirror
And he's the most humble man I've ever met. That's the reason why he would never say this.
The joke was good, though. :-)
I've started to use TeX back in 1982. And then it was already four years old.
The only thing in town that's older and still used by some people is troff. But its user community dimmishes, while the TeX user community is still active. E.g., the user groups have still growing membership numbers.
C'mon folks, there ain't no such thing as an "X clipboard". There is the X cutbuffer (from X10, depreciated) and there is the X selection mechanism, defined in ICCCM (a.k.a. the most important and less read X standard).
Listen, in my part of the world the continent where I live is definitively called Europa. And not only in my part (Germany), but in many other parts as well (Spain, Portugal, etc.) You may visit europa.eu.int to learn more about us.
You see, my joke was meant for readers with a tiny bit of cultural background on the Old Continent. Obviously, you don't belong to that group.
OTOH, a 40-year old woman might have a more realistic view than a teenager. So maybe, Stargate is (has been) simply a series for adults, and not for testosterone-damaged teens?
Anyway, instead of XML Schemas or DTDs I'd go for canonical description possibilities every time. E.g., annotated grammars in EBNF like in ANTLR with automatic transformation to XML Schemas for usage with XML tools.
And besides, XML Schemas are not very powerful if one compares them to real syntax description systems (i.e., parser specs) and real data constraint systems (i.e., formal spec languages, be they axiomatic or algebraic).
And due to the bundling with the newer Windows OSs and the forced upgrade cycle they might even be successful with this strategy -- when something is already available it's hard to substitute it with an alternative, even if it's technologically better. Witness IE.
I have no problems with that, Apache running more than 60% of active Web sites is a fine success, isn't it?
I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache. One must never underestimate Microsoft, and shouting "Apache wins! Apache wins!" doesn't help to assess the situation realisticly.
You are right that languages from the Lisp family are a good tool to manipulate XML data streams.
But you are wrong when you tell that simple s-expressions are a good way to represent XML data streams in Lisp, due to their untyped nature.
Take a look at STIL (SGML Transformations In Lisp) (this is a link to a PS document). There you'll find an early experiment in the usage of Lisp for this problem class, an experiment that has influenced other style sheet language creators later on.
The only way to test if your scripts will work on different Unices is: Test them on different Unices. You have only Linux? Too bad, if you really earn your money with that work, buy some other machines. That's professional life, deal with it.
The situation has been spelled out best by Larry Wall in an old Usenet posting:
Since, your problem is: There ain't no such thing as a standard Bourne shell. The real original Bourne shell was a beast - believe me, I've had access to the source. The C code was turned to some pseudo-Algol by way of macros (e.g., #define THEN ) { etc.) Most Unix vendors replaced it by an own implementation sooner or later.
While I agree with your sentiment in principle, some customers agree with the usage of Lisp, even though they know that maintainance will be much more expensive. It depends on the returned value of that usage.
For example, in one of our projects we substituted a yacc/flex/C++ programm with a Lisp program, the latter running 15x [sic!] faster: The C++ program needed around 17 hours for a job, the Lisp program does it in roughly 1 hour. The job was about data analysis and statistics - and we got statistics just an hour away from the data collection, and not one day away. This advantage is more than worth the raised maintainance costs.
OK, for our customer (a large European bank) it will be hard to maintain the system himself. So what? They're used to this; they can't maintain SAP or MS Office either, but rely on it nevertheless. In addition, I doubt that they would have been able to maintain the yacc/C++ program - they're a Cobol shop, after all. The Real World(tm) runs on Cobol, don't forget this... :-)
A implies B.
Therefore, B implies A.
You should visit a course on Logic 101. There the difference between implication and equivalence is taught. Seems to be time for you to learn that.
Huch? Samba company? going out of business? what are you smoking?
Samba is not a company but a project that let Microsoft customers use their computers in a way they want - and not in the way Microsoft wants. U.S. legislation is "supposed to be designed to protect the customer?" OK. Then protection is needed to be able to write something like Samba in the US.
As a consultant, one knows that it is one job to handle sliding requirements. Managing such changes and their associated risks lies at the heart of our jobs. One has to anticipate and will guesstimate changes (and, in particular, rate of changes); incorporate them in the software development timetable up front.
Such estimates are based on previous experience in that job, in that area, and with that customer. (The latter is forgotten very often.)
And, of course, it's very hard to find staff with that qualification. (I'm a CEO of a consulting company, by the way.)
Because somebody must pay the infrastructure you're using?
While Internet access and an Internet presence is very cheap for private usage, it is quite expensive for a business. And, speaking as a CEO of a company, I have to tell you that one better has a return on such an investment, or one might soon be out of business.
That does not actually say that the Internet is not profitable for a business right now already. I know many companies, large and small, that have saved much money with their Internet access and their Internet presence, more than it costs. But these returns are not some hyped e-commerce thing, but plain-old savings for call-centers, or productivity improvements.
Breaking a glass during the flight? Damn good idea.
Your pocket knife does not raise the risk either, not more than bringing in hard-plastic sharp pieces (or box cutters, coincidentially...). It is not possible to prevent this.
Do yourself a favour and read Bruce Schneier's special Crypto-Gram issue for an insightful piece.
It might be a typical college student viewpoint, but it's true nevertheless. Being 40 and a CEO of a consulting company, I'm not a student any more - and I see loads of pirated software in use at both small and large companies and in private homes. In particular, Photoshup is seldomly payed for as legally required; often with the excuse "we bought one license, let's use it on 10 systems", etc. Garbage - 10 systems means 10 licences. Period.
If you don't know this situation, you don't have much experience in the corporate world. And we don't need to start to speak about home users.
Finally, please don't come back with musings about "advocates for professional use". Being both a registered Microsoft partner and using Linux since 0.99.something, I know what I'm speaking about: Both systems have their place on the desktop - and thanks to VMware it's even easy to deploy both.
Yes, I know that I'm replying to a troll, but nevertheless - it's such a joy.
It's been a long time, at least ten years, that I've read something to describe TeX as bloatware and with "useless bells and whistles". Others have already asked you about the money that you are going to get from commercial vendors when you find a typo or a missing index entry in the manual, your article speaks for itself. But then, somebody attacking TeX still means that TeX is still very much alive - much to the contrary opinion of those who hail the latest {K,Open,Star}Office package that still can't deliver what TeX does since 20 years.
Proud to work with TeX since 1982, involved in creating CTAN, founding member of DANTE; sincerly yours
The "product" of Salon is not only the stories itself, but also the editorial process to select them and the convenience to find them all in one place.
And that's worth the money, IMO.
and then you will discover that you have changed one boss for many bosses (all your customers) and you will start to make lots of compromises in quality you never thought of.
Been there, done that.
No port security on your switches? Tsk, tsk.
IMO, in a proper setup, one cannot connect an unknown system to a network. Everything else would be a security nightmare.
Do you use Windows, then, as the only one of the tech-guys? From the context, it seemed that the original poster meant "admin" as in "administrative staff" as in "executives", not as in "sysadmin".