The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
See what wonderful questions one can answer when he actually takes time to read the license? ---
And let us not forget those fly-by-night operations that use the internet to lob calls overseas for cheap rates meanwhile escaping regulation as a telephone carrier. ---
Oh, and just to yank a chain, I hate the term HUI.
A user interface is an interface for the user.
A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is a user interface for the computer that is graphical.
A Human User Interface (HUI) is a user interface for the computer that is human - for example, a slave that operates the computer for you.
I guess you could interpret HUI as a computer interface for human users. But that seems to me redundant. As if there would be a Parrot User Interface (PUI) or a Fish User Interface (FUI)!
There were alot of very good comments in the document. I agree the UI could be alot better - GUI design philosophy is a hobby of mine.. Well, I guess it's my career too, but that's just because I'm lucky.
What I do object to is the idea that to make a good GUI it needs to respond like existing GUIs to make it easier to learn. I think ease of learning is important, and if there are good ideas already in use in other GUIs, then don't throw them out simply because they're not original.
But the point of creating a new interface is to create a better interface - and some things have to go, no matter how familiar they may be to new users.
In a linux desktop, I want a 1-click shell. That is, I should have a new shell 1 click away from anything. While I agree that the "terminal emulator" button in the article needs some work (icon, label, tool-tip, etc.), just because it's scarey to new users doesn't mean we should make it less accessible.
This is probably a poor example, but my point is that sometimes new users just have to get over their fright at learning something new.
They will be willing to learn if it really does mean better productivity for them.
A better example is using a keyboard to type. It is frustrating to learn to touch-type, but people will learn it if it benefits them.
Another example is Palm Graffiti. People are willing to learn it because it's faster than handwriting recognition (HWR). Sure, a Palm wouldn't be as scarey if it had real HWR like Microsoft's Transcriber. But we learn it because writing in Graffiti strokes is faster than writing ordinary letters.
Read the documentation again. Web start is a download manager for java apps. It WILL put an icon on your desktop for you. It can also load java apps from a web page.
You read it again. Here's a relevant bit from the FAQ.
JavaTM Web Start will always launch the application from the cache, if possible, and it will simultaneously perform a background check with the server for updates. If updates are available, then it will notify the user, and launch the update versions the next time. This approach ensures fast startup time in the common case where there is no update, and also makes sure that an application can be launched offline.
In a corporate intranet environment, this is great because you don't have to go around updating a thousand computers. It's great in a lot of other places, too. But sometimes, I want to use a certain version of an application - not always the latest. Or maybe I don't want the overhead of checking for updates. Or maybe a thousand other things.
WebStart is not a direct solution to the problem. It is a different technology that is closely related to Java application technology. I think WebStart is great, but I want a direct solution to the problem - not a different way of doing things pretending to be a solution.
And yes, WebStart does use JNLP. Read the documentation again.
WebSeart and JNLP (Java Network Launch Protocol) allow you to run remote applications inside a sandbox, similar to the applet sandbox. JNLP is a really nice protocol, and can do things like only download parts of the application when they're needed and always make sure it is running the latest version.
WebStart lets you run JNLP from a web page.
Neither has any relevance to what I'm talking about.
What I meant was that there's no way to do that from the JAR file itself, automatically. Every user has to do it manually, or I have to use some windows-friendly installer.
Sun is doing quite well making the JRE user friendly. As of now, you can double-click on an executable JAR and it will run - no DOS window - with javaw.
What they need to do is find a way to associate an icon with a JAR file in a way that windows explorer and the desktop will recognize it and display that icon instead of the generic executable JAR icon. It's reasonable to assume they will get no help from Microsoft to this end.
Another problem with desktop Java on windows is associated file types. Without using some sort of installer, I don't know of a way to tell windows that every time I double-click on a file with a.txt,.html, or.java extension, I want it to open in my Java text editor, instead of notepad.exe.
The problem with OEMs packaging the JRE is that it would make Microsoft mad. Antitrust lawsuits or no, Microsoft would make it hard on that OEM, if it's not already forbidden by the MS licensing. (Wasn't there a slashdot story about MS supposedly letting up on this, but not really?).
Another possible problem - and I don't know how big a deal it is - but Compaq, Dell, and whoever else probably sell NT servers. Why "help out" Sun installing JREs on their PCs when Sun competes with their server business?
Well, I'm a guy who doesn't like to get screwed. If I buy a CD, and am denied my fair use right to make a back up copy, I feel I am getting screwed.
The fact that they are not even saying which CDs have the protection is the big issue to me - if I knew beforehand that I wouldn't be able to make a back up, I wouldn't buy it. Or, if I wanted it badly enough, I could willingly give up my fair use rights and buy it. But if after I spent my money I found out it had this protection, I would consider myself screwed.
PrePaid Legal makes it easy (and affordable) to make sure I don't get screwed by people I don't want to get screwed by.
Here in Texas, you can return anything for 3 days. I believe it's called the "green law" or something like that.
And yes, the point is that if enough people return them, the record companies will have to quit using the copy protection. Kind of like civil disobedience, except with corporations instead of the government.
Some would disagree with you, saying that on speakers that can reproduce those frequencies, playing them allows them to "color" the frequencies you can hear, resulting in a truer sound.
It's sort of like the way the bulk of the sound of the human voice is around 250Hz, but the frequencies around 1.5-2kHz are what gives clarity to the sound.
while saying "but we don't care what our users want, we'll only code what we think is cool"
Free software is a movement - a community. We (and I can say "we") don't exist to create something wonderful for someone else (you), we exist to create something wonderful for ourselves and our peers.
I recently started writing my own text editor. I know there are a thousand text editors out there - I didn't like any of them. So my text editor will (when finished) do exactly what I want, how I want, no more and no less. If others want to use it, they are Free to. If they don't, that's fine. If they want to change something, they can do it themselves - that's why they have the source - not beg me to do it.
Unfortunately, no one has developed a product that can be used by the average non-technical person.
Cisco makes some really slick SIP/Skinny phones, but the cost about $1000 each. Though the average, non-technical person could use one quite well, I doubt they would be excited about purchasing one.
Who wouldn't love to have a cordless phone that runs VOIP on encrypted 802.11b, with both POTS and Ethernet in the base?
Your grasp of technology is laughable - if you're going allow the option of connecting to the PSTN at the base, why would you packetize data in the handset? And since it doesn't make sense to packetize data at the handset, even if you don't want to connect to the PSTN, why not use RF? It would be alot easier than trying to use H.323 or SIP between the handset and base.
Cisco already has their hands in with cool things like the Cisco ATA 186 - an adapter that turns any old analog phone into an IP phone. You should be able to pick one up for around $200. I've thought about getting one of these and setting up a SIP server for my friends and me.
If your phone is capable of sending and receiving email, just use that instead of SMS. With my AT&T phone, I can SMS other AT&T customers, but for everyone else I just email them from my phone. The phone (Nokia 8260) makes little distinction.
The email address of my phone is 214xxxxxxx@mobile.att.net where the x's are my phone number. Sprint (I believe) is similar - so instead of SMSing 214xxxxxxx just email the associated phone address (which, I think, makes AT&T SMS me your message).
1) Communication: Art is a form of communication. Therefore, does it reach the intended audience? via the medium that It is expressed in (rock music, sculpture in silly putty or stone, etc.
I have to disagree with this. From an expressionist viewpoint, the value of art is in the expression of the artist during the creation. After it's been created, whether people see it or not really doesn't matter - the artist made "art" when he expressed himself.
Pick your favorite "artist." He completes a new work; it is done, and ready to go to the gallery. His studio burns down and it is destroyed. Was it art when it existed? Or is it only art when someone else sees it?
My answer to that question is that it was art the moment it was created. Expression is the value, not communication.
Am I right? No. Are you right? No. Who's right? Nobody. "Art" is one of those words that doesn't have a definition, yet people try so hard to give it one.
Well, no one really knows. "Art" is one of those words that gets tossed around and argued over, with distinctions made between art and craft, art and entertainment, etc.
There are four basic schools of thought as to exactly what art is. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, their merits and follies.
1. The Mimetic View: Shakespeare said it best: "Art holds a mirror to nature." In this philosophy, art is that which is created by humans to reflect things (objects as well as ideas) found in nature. If you believed in this view, a clear, sharp painting of an apple is "better" art than a fuzzy blurry picture of an apple. This was the common view during the Renissance.
2. The Fundamental View: Art can be described with a set of rules, or properties. In painting, it might be the quality of the lines or colors, or the fineness of the brushstrokes, or something like that. So a painting that had very fine colors and brush strokes would be "better" art than a painting that had sloppy brush strokes. Of course, "fine" and "sloppy" are really a matter of opinion, but people who believe this view treat them as if they are objective qualities and argue for hours about the form and fundamentals of a given piece. This is a common view today.
3. The Expressionist View: Art is something created out of self expression. The "better" you express yourself, your feelings, at the time you create the piece, the better the art is. Of course, from this viewpoint, the only one who really knows how well he expressed himself is the artist. Still, people will argue that they can divine what he was trying to express, and then pass judgement on how well he accomplished it. An example would be if I said Dave Matthews was a better artist than Britney Spears because he expressed himself in his music, and Britney was really nothing more than the product of a clever marketing team, crafting entertainment for the masses. The point being that Britney was not an artist because she didn't express herself. This is a very popular viewpoint right now.
4. The Impressionist View: (Don't confuse this with "impressionist painting"). In this view, the greatest art is that which impresses feelings on its audience the best. If I create something that makes you feel very sad and cry, the impressionist would say I had created great art. Edgar Allen Poe was an impressionist - he crafted his stories and poems for the purpose of creating a response in his audience: usually forbodeing, fear, repulsion, horror, or something along those lines. "The Raven" really isn't about much, but is sure makes us feel creepy.
So, which of these views is right? Well, there isn't a "right" view - they all have good points and bad points, but if you understand them you can make an educated case for why your pieces qualify as "art".
I could write volumes on this subject, but this is Slashdot and I'm about to get one of those "Click Here to read the rest of this comment" things if I haven't already.
An entertaining exercise is to examine pornography from each of the four viewpoints - and see which ones are forced (or able, depending on your affiliations) to qualify pornography as art.
Hope this helps.. email me if you want to talk about it more.
Slashdot Mirror
From the GNU General Public License, Section 0:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
See what wonderful questions one can answer when he actually takes time to read the license?
---
haha.. thanks.
---
Can someone post a screenshot of a web page being presented with these links?
I would be especially interested in seeing www.goose24.org (a site I'm involved with).
But Yahoo! or any other would be fine. I just want to see what these things look like.
wish
---
Yes, you are correct.
And let us not forget those fly-by-night operations that use the internet to lob calls overseas for cheap rates meanwhile escaping regulation as a telephone carrier.
---
IP telephony doesn't need the internet - just an IP network.
Carriers build their own IP networks so they can control / monitor traffic and guarantee QoS.
---
Oh, and just to yank a chain, I hate the term HUI.
A user interface is an interface for the user.
A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is a user interface for the computer that is graphical.
A Human User Interface (HUI) is a user interface for the computer that is human - for example, a slave that operates the computer for you.
I guess you could interpret HUI as a computer interface for human users. But that seems to me redundant. As if there would be a Parrot User Interface (PUI) or a Fish User Interface (FUI)!
wishus
---
There were alot of very good comments in the document. I agree the UI could be alot better - GUI design philosophy is a hobby of mine.. Well, I guess it's my career too, but that's just because I'm lucky.
What I do object to is the idea that to make a good GUI it needs to respond like existing GUIs to make it easier to learn. I think ease of learning is important, and if there are good ideas already in use in other GUIs, then don't throw them out simply because they're not original.
But the point of creating a new interface is to create a better interface - and some things have to go, no matter how familiar they may be to new users.
In a linux desktop, I want a 1-click shell. That is, I should have a new shell 1 click away from anything. While I agree that the "terminal emulator" button in the article needs some work (icon, label, tool-tip, etc.), just because it's scarey to new users doesn't mean we should make it less accessible.
This is probably a poor example, but my point is that sometimes new users just have to get over their fright at learning something new.
They will be willing to learn if it really does mean better productivity for them.
A better example is using a keyboard to type. It is frustrating to learn to touch-type, but people will learn it if it benefits them.
Another example is Palm Graffiti. People are willing to learn it because it's faster than handwriting recognition (HWR). Sure, a Palm wouldn't be as scarey if it had real HWR like Microsoft's Transcriber. But we learn it because writing in Graffiti strokes is faster than writing ordinary letters.
wishus
---
You read it again. Here's a relevant bit from the FAQ.
JavaTM Web Start will always launch the application from the cache, if possible, and it will simultaneously perform a background check with the server for updates. If updates are available, then it will notify the user, and launch the update versions the next time. This approach ensures fast startup time in the common case where there is no update, and also makes sure that an application can be launched offline.
In a corporate intranet environment, this is great because you don't have to go around updating a thousand computers. It's great in a lot of other places, too. But sometimes, I want to use a certain version of an application - not always the latest. Or maybe I don't want the overhead of checking for updates. Or maybe a thousand other things.WebStart is not a direct solution to the problem. It is a different technology that is closely related to Java application technology. I think WebStart is great, but I want a direct solution to the problem - not a different way of doing things pretending to be a solution.
And yes, WebStart does use JNLP. Read the documentation again.
wishus
---
WebSeart and JNLP (Java Network Launch Protocol) allow you to run remote applications inside a sandbox, similar to the applet sandbox. JNLP is a really nice protocol, and can do things like only download parts of the application when they're needed and always make sure it is running the latest version.
WebStart lets you run JNLP from a web page.
Neither has any relevance to what I'm talking about.
wishus
---
That's one solution.
Another is to append the JAR to the end of a BMP, since windows can use a BMP as an icon, and ZIP (and thus JAR) files are end-based.
See this RFE for a discussion on the issue.
But I don't want workarounds. I want to distribute a single executable JAR that shows up as a custom icon in windows/solaris/linux/mac.
When you install the JRE, it should "give" windows the ability to pull an icon from a JAR.
wishus
---
What I meant was that there's no way to do that from the JAR file itself, automatically. Every user has to do it manually, or I have to use some windows-friendly installer.
;>
Thanks for trying to help though.
wishus
---
Thanks, yes, I know that. :)
What I meant was this:
If a user downloads my JAR, there is no way - without some sort of windows-friendly installer - to do that automatically from the JAR file.
wishus
---
What they need to do is find a way to associate an icon with a JAR file in a way that windows explorer and the desktop will recognize it and display that icon instead of the generic executable JAR icon. It's reasonable to assume they will get no help from Microsoft to this end.
Another problem with desktop Java on windows is associated file types. Without using some sort of installer, I don't know of a way to tell windows that every time I double-click on a file with a .txt, .html, or .java extension, I want it to open in my Java text editor, instead of notepad.exe.
The problem with OEMs packaging the JRE is that it would make Microsoft mad. Antitrust lawsuits or no, Microsoft would make it hard on that OEM, if it's not already forbidden by the MS licensing. (Wasn't there a slashdot story about MS supposedly letting up on this, but not really?).
Another possible problem - and I don't know how big a deal it is - but Compaq, Dell, and whoever else probably sell NT servers. Why "help out" Sun installing JREs on their PCs when Sun competes with their server business?
wishus
---
Well, I'm a guy who doesn't like to get screwed. If I buy a CD, and am denied my fair use right to make a back up copy, I feel I am getting screwed.
The fact that they are not even saying which CDs have the protection is the big issue to me - if I knew beforehand that I wouldn't be able to make a back up, I wouldn't buy it. Or, if I wanted it badly enough, I could willingly give up my fair use rights and buy it. But if after I spent my money I found out it had this protection, I would consider myself screwed.
PrePaid Legal makes it easy (and affordable) to make sure I don't get screwed by people I don't want to get screwed by.
wishus
---
Here in Texas, you can return anything for 3 days. I believe it's called the "green law" or something like that.
And yes, the point is that if enough people return them, the record companies will have to quit using the copy protection. Kind of like civil disobedience, except with corporations instead of the government.
wishus
---
Well, if I ever end up with one of these, it's back to the store with it.
If they won't take it back because "it's been opened", a phone call from one of my lawyers should do the trick.
wishus
---
Some would disagree with you, saying that on speakers that can reproduce those frequencies, playing them allows them to "color" the frequencies you can hear, resulting in a truer sound.
It's sort of like the way the bulk of the sound of the human voice is around 250Hz, but the frequencies around 1.5-2kHz are what gives clarity to the sound.
wishus
---
Free software is a movement - a community. We (and I can say "we") don't exist to create something wonderful for someone else (you), we exist to create something wonderful for ourselves and our peers.
I recently started writing my own text editor. I know there are a thousand text editors out there - I didn't like any of them. So my text editor will (when finished) do exactly what I want, how I want, no more and no less. If others want to use it, they are Free to. If they don't, that's fine. If they want to change something, they can do it themselves - that's why they have the source - not beg me to do it.
wishus
---
Cisco makes some really slick SIP/Skinny phones, but the cost about $1000 each. Though the average, non-technical person could use one quite well, I doubt they would be excited about purchasing one.
Who wouldn't love to have a cordless phone that runs VOIP on encrypted 802.11b, with both POTS and Ethernet in the base?
Your grasp of technology is laughable - if you're going allow the option of connecting to the PSTN at the base, why would you packetize data in the handset? And since it doesn't make sense to packetize data at the handset, even if you don't want to connect to the PSTN, why not use RF? It would be alot easier than trying to use H.323 or SIP between the handset and base.
wishus
---
wishus
---
Since we all know free software licenses are viral, "Mono" is a good name for the project.
wishus
---
If your phone is capable of sending and receiving email, just use that instead of SMS. With my AT&T phone, I can SMS other AT&T customers, but for everyone else I just email them from my phone. The phone (Nokia 8260) makes little distinction.
The email address of my phone is 214xxxxxxx@mobile.att.net where the x's are my phone number. Sprint (I believe) is similar - so instead of SMSing 214xxxxxxx just email the associated phone address (which, I think, makes AT&T SMS me your message).
wishus
---
C) Store them in a 128-bit DES encrypted database on their Palm pilot.
---
I have to disagree with this. From an expressionist viewpoint, the value of art is in the expression of the artist during the creation. After it's been created, whether people see it or not really doesn't matter - the artist made "art" when he expressed himself.
Pick your favorite "artist." He completes a new work; it is done, and ready to go to the gallery. His studio burns down and it is destroyed. Was it art when it existed? Or is it only art when someone else sees it?
My answer to that question is that it was art the moment it was created. Expression is the value, not communication.
Am I right? No. Are you right? No. Who's right? Nobody. "Art" is one of those words that doesn't have a definition, yet people try so hard to give it one.
All you can really say is what art is to you.
wishus
---
What is art?
Well, no one really knows. "Art" is one of those words that gets tossed around and argued over, with distinctions made between art and craft, art and entertainment, etc.
There are four basic schools of thought as to exactly what art is. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, their merits and follies.
1. The Mimetic View: Shakespeare said it best: "Art holds a mirror to nature." In this philosophy, art is that which is created by humans to reflect things (objects as well as ideas) found in nature. If you believed in this view, a clear, sharp painting of an apple is "better" art than a fuzzy blurry picture of an apple. This was the common view during the Renissance.
2. The Fundamental View: Art can be described with a set of rules, or properties. In painting, it might be the quality of the lines or colors, or the fineness of the brushstrokes, or something like that. So a painting that had very fine colors and brush strokes would be "better" art than a painting that had sloppy brush strokes. Of course, "fine" and "sloppy" are really a matter of opinion, but people who believe this view treat them as if they are objective qualities and argue for hours about the form and fundamentals of a given piece. This is a common view today.
3. The Expressionist View: Art is something created out of self expression. The "better" you express yourself, your feelings, at the time you create the piece, the better the art is. Of course, from this viewpoint, the only one who really knows how well he expressed himself is the artist. Still, people will argue that they can divine what he was trying to express, and then pass judgement on how well he accomplished it. An example would be if I said Dave Matthews was a better artist than Britney Spears because he expressed himself in his music, and Britney was really nothing more than the product of a clever marketing team, crafting entertainment for the masses. The point being that Britney was not an artist because she didn't express herself. This is a very popular viewpoint right now.
4. The Impressionist View: (Don't confuse this with "impressionist painting"). In this view, the greatest art is that which impresses feelings on its audience the best. If I create something that makes you feel very sad and cry, the impressionist would say I had created great art. Edgar Allen Poe was an impressionist - he crafted his stories and poems for the purpose of creating a response in his audience: usually forbodeing, fear, repulsion, horror, or something along those lines. "The Raven" really isn't about much, but is sure makes us feel creepy.
So, which of these views is right? Well, there isn't a "right" view - they all have good points and bad points, but if you understand them you can make an educated case for why your pieces qualify as "art".
I could write volumes on this subject, but this is Slashdot and I'm about to get one of those "Click Here to read the rest of this comment" things if I haven't already.
An entertaining exercise is to examine pornography from each of the four viewpoints - and see which ones are forced (or able, depending on your affiliations) to qualify pornography as art.
Hope this helps.. email me if you want to talk about it more.
wishus
---