1. Regexes are a lot easier to learn if you pick up the underlying theory first. Pick up a book on state automata, then try again.
2. Regexps are not compatible between systems at all. It is not like there is a regex "standard". Just a number of conventions. The interoperability you are worried about simply does not exist, except in the sense that Perl 6 will reject regexps that were valid in Perl 5.
2) I don't know about you, but I have FAR too much documentation at my desk to be able to carry it all with me. There is no way in hell that I can bring my 800+ page Java and SQL refrence guides with me whereever I go.
Ever heard of this newfangled "Internet" thing?
Or you just like to show off knowledge that isn't in your head?
Mozilla is just another platform. So what's new? Should I base my app on XUL just so that my customers can enjoy 20+ extra seconds of start up time? So that the app will work cross-platform on all of the company's 200 Windows machines? Oh, no, wait...
Every platform starts out obsoleting every other platform out there. Then it is obsoleted.
I consider the Web to be a toy. As such I don't care how people use it and what they do with it. As for my browser, I don't care whether it conforms to W3C missives. I just care whether it can correctly interpret a sizable crosssection of pages.
The W3C I'll applaud when they close up shop: "well, the standards are finished, and we have nothing left to do!".
But of course they never will. There will always be another "lazy page designer" for them to go after.
Every time somebody takes the web too seriously, something somewhere breaks. Look at banking websites for example. They take their stuff seriously, but their websites are the first to break. Or look at the DHTML gurus. They take this stuff way too seriously, and their websites are destined to break forever.
The web is a toy. Nice to play around with and nice to see what people can build with it. But a toy nevertheless.
Even if you manage to build a bridge using toys, that doesn't mean you should.
Well, one shouldn't take the web too seriously after all. To proclaim that there is but a single Right Way to do things on the web merely belies an ignorance of the actual state of affairs.
Sigh. Mozilla is just another platform. Like any other platform there will be significant post-1.0 drift. Like any other platform it requires that you shoehorn your application to fit the platform's requirements.
Mozilla 1.0 is great when you are targetting the Mozilla platform. And of course you can use Moz and XML and XSL and HTML and the DOM to create your application. But you can also use Flash. Or Java. Or Squeak Smalltalk. Or plain old HTML/HTTP. Or HyperCard. Or C and flat files for storage.
With that last option being probably the most portable! Just not very scalable.
I don't know if they still make them but I'm rather happy with the Compaq Aero PocketPC. Much thinner and smaller than the iPaq and no color, but a larger display than the Palms and excellent backlight/software.
Whether or not thought is or is not tangible is beside the point anyways. The question is how labor of the mind can best be protected within the existing legal frameworks.
If demand drops, and price drops, then at some point it will no longer be an interesting business venture, and then there will be no broadband at all. So it does not make sense to stop buying the product if what you really want is more value.
What a load of crap. What Orwell saw is how language can be used politically to legitimize (or not) the powers that be; witness terrorists/freedom fighters, Linux/GNU/Linux, downsizing/layoffs.
The age old questions about the relationship between language and thought have very little bearing on this.
Microsoft hasn't been sitting on their asses since the Halloween document. They've clearly taken a good look at why Linux might pose a threat to them and come up with some pretty good answers.
The whole "experience" thing is not an idle boast. A virgin Win2K install is stark to say the least. You get, what? An email client an a browser? It's really not that exciting. With Linux, you get lots and lots of apps, even though most of them are not very good (but the same can be said about the standard Windows tools). In a sense, Linux is cozy (the choice of a penguin for a mascot is a stroke of genius on the part of Linus).
So Microsoft is making Windows cozier, too, by giving you some extra apps and a new look. The fact that they have a unified UI & desktop management layer (in contrast to the mess that is X) is helping them here. At the same time, the.NET strategy deepens the split between developers and users, and so creates room at the bottom to make Windows even cozier.
All this, of course, in the name of revenue. What Microsoft will increasingly be selling is coziness, in the form of entertainment on the one hand (add-on packs like subscriptions to desktop wallpapers, don't forget their image libraries), and, on the other hand, in the form of API's and subscription models that enable developers to deliver more coziness to their users (think Bonzi Buddy).
Because users will want coziness whether they're running Windows or Linux, they will always want to come to Microsoft, is how the idea goes. Microsoft understands that obscure file formats and protocols will not save them forever: we are not dealing with the ignoramuses behind the DMCA here, but with the people who for 15 years have written and sold the OS that has dominated the computer industry. Obviously any help they can get from the DMCA and similar legislation is nice, but Microsoft is not one to bet the farm on a single horse.
So, the "services" model, which is really the "coziness" model, and hinges on both their impressive content marshalling ability and their unique position as a monopolist. They've already gotten de Icaza to enter into a battle he can never win, and many more will follow (just like IE spawned Mozilla and set browser development on Linux back by about a year).
So good luck to all ye open source hackers, and remember never to follow someone else's dream.
Re:Problem with marketing based on mhz
on
AthlonXP Released
·
· Score: 1
The problem with analysis like these, however, is that Joe Sixpack doesn't really exist. He is an amalgam of the buying behaviour of millions of consumers, but when you look at the buying behaviour of each of these consumers individually, chances are you will not find a consumer whose buying behaviour exactly matches Joe Sixpack. IOW people make a lot of different decisions when they buy a computer based on a lot of criteria.
The point is that if you would organize all of these criteria in a list, then AMD vs. Intel or MHz vs. PR rating comes down maybe somewhere around item 1000 for most people, after cost, what the neighbours/collegues/fellow artists/geeks use, choice of ISP/webcam/scanner/printer, color, brand, availability, convenience, you name it.
If AMD doesn't start PR rating their chips people won't buy them.
The point is that people aren't buying AMD's chips. Introducing a PR rating will help little to nothing at all. But it does buy AMD some time, as the industry spends a couple of months figuring out whether the PR rating systems "helps" or not. They can announce faster chips and drop the silly PR rating thing at that time.
Yeah, that's an interesting view. It's like the software piracy problem. The SPA can claim any number of damages by counting the number of pirated software packages, but they have a hard time showing how many of these packages actually constitute lost sales; i.e. how many of these packages would have been bought if piracy did not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
You might as well buy the contract from Red Hat or IBM. Just because software is free does not mean that nobody will take the blame if it breaks.
But Mozilla kept plugging along, getting better and better...
... and AOL posted a $54 billion loss.
Without the financial support of AOL there would have been no Netscape and no Mozilla.
1. Regexes are a lot easier to learn if you pick up the underlying theory first. Pick up a book on state automata, then try again.
2. Regexps are not compatible between systems at all. It is not like there is a regex "standard". Just a number of conventions. The interoperability you are worried about simply does not exist, except in the sense that Perl 6 will reject regexps that were valid in Perl 5.
Actually Java just dumps core when it runs out of memory. It never returns any memory to the host OS either. How is any of that easy?
2) I don't know about you, but I have FAR too much documentation at my desk to be able to carry it all with me. There is no way in hell that I can bring my 800+ page Java and SQL refrence guides with me whereever I go.
Ever heard of this newfangled "Internet" thing?
Or you just like to show off knowledge that isn't in your head?
Mozilla is just another platform. So what's new? Should I base my app on XUL just so that my customers can enjoy 20+ extra seconds of start up time? So that the app will work cross-platform on all of the company's 200 Windows machines? Oh, no, wait...
Every platform starts out obsoleting every other platform out there. Then it is obsoleted.
I consider the Web to be a toy. As such I don't care how people use it and what they do with it. As for my browser, I don't care whether it conforms to W3C missives. I just care whether it can correctly interpret a sizable crosssection of pages.
The W3C I'll applaud when they close up shop: "well, the standards are finished, and we have nothing left to do!".
But of course they never will. There will always be another "lazy page designer" for them to go after.
Every time somebody takes the web too seriously, something somewhere breaks. Look at banking websites for example. They take their stuff seriously, but their websites are the first to break. Or look at the DHTML gurus. They take this stuff way too seriously, and their websites are destined to break forever.
The web is a toy. Nice to play around with and nice to see what people can build with it. But a toy nevertheless.
Even if you manage to build a bridge using toys, that doesn't mean you should.
Well, one shouldn't take the web too seriously after all. To proclaim that there is but a single Right Way to do things on the web merely belies an ignorance of the actual state of affairs.
Sigh. Mozilla is just another platform. Like any other platform there will be significant post-1.0 drift. Like any other platform it requires that you shoehorn your application to fit the platform's requirements.
Mozilla 1.0 is great when you are targetting the Mozilla platform. And of course you can use Moz and XML and XSL and HTML and the DOM to create your application. But you can also use Flash. Or Java. Or Squeak Smalltalk. Or plain old HTML/HTTP. Or HyperCard. Or C and flat files for storage.
With that last option being probably the most portable! Just not very scalable.
Why is kowtowing to the W3C party line considered to be a good thing? What has the W3C ever done for *you*?
I don't know if they still make them but I'm rather happy with the Compaq Aero PocketPC. Much thinner and smaller than the iPaq and no color, but a larger display than the Palms and excellent backlight/software.
Whether or not thought is or is not tangible is beside the point anyways. The question is how labor of the mind can best be protected within the existing legal frameworks.
Nor do inept analogies substitute for reasoning.
If demand drops, and price drops, then at some point it will no longer be an interesting business venture, and then there will be no broadband at all. So it does not make sense to stop buying the product if what you really want is more value.
On the contrary, I respect independant thought so much that I support its protection through property law.
It is quite obvious that you have never had an idea.
On a related note, if you're looking for a sound editor, check out GNUsound. I wrote it myself so it must be good :)
"write some code, kid" --ESR
What a load of crap. What Orwell saw is how language can be used politically to legitimize (or not) the powers that be; witness terrorists/freedom fighters, Linux/GNU/Linux, downsizing/layoffs.
The age old questions about the relationship between language and thought have very little bearing on this.
Not a bug, but user error due to bad system design.
Bah, the whole idea of the "internet appliance" is flawed. Like marketing an "electricity appliance".
Microsoft hasn't been sitting on their asses since the Halloween document. They've clearly taken a good look at why Linux might pose a threat to them and come up with some pretty good answers.
.NET strategy deepens the split between developers and users, and so creates room at the bottom to make Windows even cozier.
The whole "experience" thing is not an idle boast. A virgin Win2K install is stark to say the least. You get, what? An email client an a browser? It's really not that exciting. With Linux, you get lots and lots of apps, even though most of them are not very good (but the same can be said about the standard Windows tools). In a sense, Linux is cozy (the choice of a penguin for a mascot is a stroke of genius on the part of Linus).
So Microsoft is making Windows cozier, too, by giving you some extra apps and a new look. The fact that they have a unified UI & desktop management layer (in contrast to the mess that is X) is helping them here. At the same time, the
All this, of course, in the name of revenue. What Microsoft will increasingly be selling is coziness, in the form of entertainment on the one hand (add-on packs like subscriptions to desktop wallpapers, don't forget their image libraries), and, on the other hand, in the form of API's and subscription models that enable developers to deliver more coziness to their users (think Bonzi Buddy).
Because users will want coziness whether they're running Windows or Linux, they will always want to come to Microsoft, is how the idea goes. Microsoft understands that obscure file formats and protocols will not save them forever: we are not dealing with the ignoramuses behind the DMCA here, but with the people who for 15 years have written and sold the OS that has dominated the computer industry. Obviously any help they can get from the DMCA and similar legislation is nice, but Microsoft is not one to bet the farm on a single horse.
So, the "services" model, which is really the "coziness" model, and hinges on both their impressive content marshalling ability and their unique position as a monopolist. They've already gotten de Icaza to enter into a battle he can never win, and many more will follow (just like IE spawned Mozilla and set browser development on Linux back by about a year).
So good luck to all ye open source hackers, and remember never to follow someone else's dream.
The point is that if you would organize all of these criteria in a list, then AMD vs. Intel or MHz vs. PR rating comes down maybe somewhere around item 1000 for most people, after cost, what the neighbours/collegues/fellow artists/geeks use, choice of ISP/webcam/scanner/printer, color, brand, availability, convenience, you name it.
The point is that people aren't buying AMD's chips. Introducing a PR rating will help little to nothing at all. But it does buy AMD some time, as the industry spends a couple of months figuring out whether the PR rating systems "helps" or not. They can announce faster chips and drop the silly PR rating thing at that time.
Yeah, that's an interesting view. It's like the software piracy problem. The SPA can claim any number of damages by counting the number of pirated software packages, but they have a hard time showing how many of these packages actually constitute lost sales; i.e. how many of these packages would have been bought if piracy did not exist.