Well, do you want to build a web app, or a rich client?
Why are you assuming these things are different?
You still avoid the biggest problem with client-side maintenance, that is: the client is the same across OSs, hardware platforms and (more or less), time.
Err, that's exactly the *last* problem for corporate clients. That's the whole point of selecting a standardized hardware/software platform, and is one of the reasons Dell is so rich.
For a coporate app, your going to be delivering it via something like XenWorks, or Ghost, or SMS, or whatever. If your not using something like that, in a >2 computer office, well, welcome to 1995 (When NAL/XenWorks first came out).
Sure, those solutions work. But, in the end, a web-based or thin-client application will inevitably be cheaper and easier to maintain than a comparable standalone client-side application. There's a reason these things are becoming more popular, after all.
Users are quite willing to blindly click click click to get a nifty thing. That said, Mozilla-the-platform should do extension trust validation, eg cryptographicly, rather then / in addition to domain name based checking.
Well, before doing all that, I suggest Mozilla bring their untrusted security model to some level of sanity first. There is no good reason why a random web app shouldn't be able to create a custom tree model, or a custom data source. It's silly, and clearly indicates a lack of design in Mozilla's security model.
That's my whole damn point. Unless you package your software as an extension, you can't build rich client applications in Mozilla.
In my case, this means I can't develop a nice XUL app which interfaces to a web services backend without requiring the client to install software on their local machine. For corporate apps, this is a massive barrier, as it requires client-side maintenance, which is something you're supposed to *avoid* by building a web app. For mass consumption applications, it's an extra step which will likely turn away a potential customer. Either way, it makes it more likely that people will turn to things like ActiveX or Flash-based solutions in order to build rich client applications.
The end result of all this: Mozilla, with it's wonderful platform, is missing out on a rather large and growing market based around rich clients interfacing into web services backends (aka, this whole AJAX buzz).
ROFL. That's not a solution. I'm sorry, but I do *not* want to have to pay, what, a few hundred bucks a year so I can sign my silly little XUL project.
Except, of course, that basic things like the <tree> element don't work properly when loaded from a website or even local file:// URLs. Just try to create a tree with a custom model and see what I mean (heck, just take the example here and try to load it from file://).:/
Now, some of these problems are due to the lack of testing, but Mozilla's security model also makes it very difficult to create powerful, remotely loaded XUL apps (for example, drag-and-drop and custom data sources aren't useable in this mode... you have to make a locally installed chrome app or extension). Of course, some of this is necessary, but IMHO, the security model hasn't been well thought out, and so they've made the platform *too* limited.
Except, of course, that basic things like the element don't properly work when loaded from a website or FTP site. Just try to create a tree with a custom model and see what I mean.:/
Nope, sorry, wrong. Firefox prevents a script from using XMLHttpRequest to grab anything from a site different from where the script originated, unless:
1) The script is signed and it has requested elevated privileges, in which case the user is prompted as to whether they wish to grant those privileges.
Indeed. Then again, in a nation where capital punishment is an accepted norm, it shouldn't be too surprising that prison rape is also considered perfectly acceptable, and even desirable.
The problem is that the "fair and balanced" approach results in the crackpot ideas being reported as being on par with the properly studied ones. ie, they speak of the two theories as being entirely equal, and worse yet, often make the claim that no one is sure which is actually true, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. This is most clearly evident in the ID vs evolution debate. The two concepts are treated by the media as if they are in equal standing. They even refer to ID as a "theory", even though it doesn't fit the definition. The result is people are left confused, or worse yet, misinformed. This helps no one.
Nice flawed analogy. The difference is the Target cashier wouldn't know what the knife was being used for, unlike the GP who was fully aware of his friend's actions. OTOH, if a guy at Target walked up to the till and said "I'd like to buy this knife, I'm planning to violently kill my family with it this afternoon", then, yes, the cashier has a moral (though admittedly not legal) responsibility to refuse the sale.
If the earliest Micky Mouse work was in the PD, Micky himself would be as well. Other works with him in it that were still under copyright wouldn't be affected, but anyone could make a new work with Micky in it as long as they were derived from the PD version of Micky from those shorts.
Oh please... that article that you link two is one part wild speculation and two parts hacker grandstanding. Until someone actually releases this loader, I'll believe it when I see it... I can see no way they'll be able to get code to load from the memory stick without rewriting the firmware, which would require desoldering the chip, reprogramming it, and resoldering it... not something you average gamer will be willing to do.
I'm a fan of Stainless Steel with aluminum core bottoms, myself. Nice, even heat, good weight, excellent wear resistance (though they can scratch easily), cleans up nicely. And, unlike cast iron, you don't have to oil your cookware periodically.:)
And yet, when people try to get the pledge removed from schools (on "freedom of religion" grounds), there's public outcry. So, who's to blame? The schools or the public?
... am I the only one? Crappy viewing angles, limited resolution options. About the only advantage they seem to have is reduced size and power requirements. Sorry, but if you want my CRT, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead, irradiated fingers!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, do you want to build a web app, or a rich client?
Why are you assuming these things are different?
You still avoid the biggest problem with client-side maintenance, that is: the client is the same across OSs, hardware platforms and (more or less), time.
Err, that's exactly the *last* problem for corporate clients. That's the whole point of selecting a standardized hardware/software platform, and is one of the reasons Dell is so rich.
For a coporate app, your going to be delivering it via something like XenWorks, or Ghost, or SMS, or whatever. If your not using something like that, in a >2 computer office, well, welcome to 1995 (When NAL/XenWorks first came out).
Sure, those solutions work. But, in the end, a web-based or thin-client application will inevitably be cheaper and easier to maintain than a comparable standalone client-side application. There's a reason these things are becoming more popular, after all.
Users are quite willing to blindly click click click to get a nifty thing. That said, Mozilla-the-platform should do extension trust validation, eg cryptographicly, rather then / in addition to domain name based checking.
Well, before doing all that, I suggest Mozilla bring their untrusted security model to some level of sanity first. There is no good reason why a random web app shouldn't be able to create a custom tree model, or a custom data source. It's silly, and clearly indicates a lack of design in Mozilla's security model.
That's my whole damn point. Unless you package your software as an extension, you can't build rich client applications in Mozilla.
In my case, this means I can't develop a nice XUL app which interfaces to a web services backend without requiring the client to install software on their local machine. For corporate apps, this is a massive barrier, as it requires client-side maintenance, which is something you're supposed to *avoid* by building a web app. For mass consumption applications, it's an extra step which will likely turn away a potential customer. Either way, it makes it more likely that people will turn to things like ActiveX or Flash-based solutions in order to build rich client applications.
The end result of all this: Mozilla, with it's wonderful platform, is missing out on a rather large and growing market based around rich clients interfacing into web services backends (aka, this whole AJAX buzz).
ROFL. That's not a solution. I'm sorry, but I do *not* want to have to pay, what, a few hundred bucks a year so I can sign my silly little XUL project.
Damnit, hit submit too soon:
:/
Except, of course, that basic things like the <tree> element don't work properly when loaded from a website or even local file:// URLs. Just try to create a tree with a custom model and see what I mean (heck, just take the example here and try to load it from file://).
Now, some of these problems are due to the lack of testing, but Mozilla's security model also makes it very difficult to create powerful, remotely loaded XUL apps (for example, drag-and-drop and custom data sources aren't useable in this mode... you have to make a locally installed chrome app or extension). Of course, some of this is necessary, but IMHO, the security model hasn't been well thought out, and so they've made the platform *too* limited.
Except, of course, that basic things like the element don't properly work when loaded from a website or FTP site. Just try to create a tree with a custom model and see what I mean. :/
and incapable of thinking outside the box.
:)
Nice pun.
"I want to build generic programs. Java, C, Pascal, Occam, COBOL, shell scripts."
Well, nice if you to post your complaints in a forum about Ant and Java, then.
And, thus this post proves that even those with low Slashdot IDs can be totally fucking idiots. Congrats!
Nope, sorry, wrong. Firefox prevents a script from using XMLHttpRequest to grab anything from a site different from where the script originated, unless:
1) The script is signed and it has requested elevated privileges, in which case the user is prompted as to whether they wish to grant those privileges.
2) The script is a local script.
Indeed. Then again, in a nation where capital punishment is an accepted norm, it shouldn't be too surprising that prison rape is also considered perfectly acceptable, and even desirable.
Well, that didn't take long. I think we really need a new analogue to Godwin's Law as follows:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving child molestors approaches 1 (i.e. certainty)."
Think of the children! Won't somebody *please* think of the children?!
(although I can't understand how they can put up with the repetitivness)
No kidding! I mean, look at hollywood. No repetitiveness there! No siree, none at all. The paragon of originality, Hollywood is...
And the war in Iraq stopped this... how?
Oh, BTW, I have a rock that repels tigers. Wanna buy it?
The problem is that the "fair and balanced" approach results in the crackpot ideas being reported as being on par with the properly studied ones. ie, they speak of the two theories as being entirely equal, and worse yet, often make the claim that no one is sure which is actually true, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. This is most clearly evident in the ID vs evolution debate. The two concepts are treated by the media as if they are in equal standing. They even refer to ID as a "theory", even though it doesn't fit the definition. The result is people are left confused, or worse yet, misinformed. This helps no one.
Hospital? Why? They're run by corporations, for profit. How is that any less evil than handing the land over to Pfizer?
That was an excellent explanation, thank you. The question now, is, how long will Sony take to fix this flaw and release a firmware upgrade...
Nice flawed analogy. The difference is the Target cashier wouldn't know what the knife was being used for, unlike the GP who was fully aware of his friend's actions. OTOH, if a guy at Target walked up to the till and said "I'd like to buy this knife, I'm planning to violently kill my family with it this afternoon", then, yes, the cashier has a moral (though admittedly not legal) responsibility to refuse the sale.
If the earliest Micky Mouse work was in the PD, Micky himself would be as well. Other works with him in it that were still under copyright wouldn't be affected, but anyone could make a new work with Micky in it as long as they were derived from the PD version of Micky from those shorts.
Never heard of a Trademark, eh?
Oh please... that article that you link two is one part wild speculation and two parts hacker grandstanding. Until someone actually releases this loader, I'll believe it when I see it... I can see no way they'll be able to get code to load from the memory stick without rewriting the firmware, which would require desoldering the chip, reprogramming it, and resoldering it... not something you average gamer will be willing to do.
I'm a fan of Stainless Steel with aluminum core bottoms, myself. Nice, even heat, good weight, excellent wear resistance (though they can scratch easily), cleans up nicely. And, unlike cast iron, you don't have to oil your cookware periodically. :)
And yet, when people try to get the pledge removed from schools (on "freedom of religion" grounds), there's public outcry. So, who's to blame? The schools or the public?
And for this, you get modded... insightful. *sigh*
But it comes with your choice of toppings! (good)
Dude, WTF are you talking about? Micheal Jackson owns the publishing rights to a large number of Beatles songs, though he may be at risk of losing the catalogue due to recent financial troubles.
... am I the only one? Crappy viewing angles, limited resolution options. About the only advantage they seem to have is reduced size and power requirements. Sorry, but if you want my CRT, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead, irradiated fingers!