I may be just as ignorant, but my understanding is that:
UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).
The charges then alledge that IBM contributed to the Linux product by (directly or indirectly) submitting code additions to the OSS project before its first release.
SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax. They claim that only IBM could have perpetrated such a thing, and that designing some of the algorithms was beyond the OSS project's stand-alone capability without IBM's help.
By showing that Linux is indeed a viable alternative to SCO UNIX, and that they are losing money based on the commercial installation base of Linux, they can claim that either IBM (1) pay them for the infringement or (2) a judge deem all Linux distro must license from SCO, or both.
To them, IBM didn't want to pay the license fees any more, so IBM starts to sell Linux as their *Nix solution, not the SCO-compile. This locks SCO out from at least IBM's fat check to them. This makes them unhappy. SCO claim foul play.
these are the facts as i understand them, but i write this to ask for clarification from everyone.
In the heyday of the bubble, jumping ships was a practice that everyone knew about it, and often tried. So, relating from my experience of that...
I think your requirements for a replacement CTO should start with securing the system. Hire consultants until the right guy is found to document what's going on - NOT for more development.
Although I have no info about the politics, your lack of insight into managing your technology is stunningly poor. I hope you pick the best of those consultants and hire them to spread this risk in the future.
Above all this, prepare for your competition to now exploit any weakness you have in your market. No more BusinessAsUsual. If you didn't care about what this guy until he left, perhaps you should re-evaluate what you use your technology for, and take it a bit more seriously.
What got left behind was ineffeciency. Nobody WANTS to do much by hand anymore when they toil and struggle to animate true depth, gravity and flow to things like cloth and hair. Even Disney had actors dancing for Cinderella over which they sketched.
Computers can help with all that, but as any modern animation house knows, they don't make a good story or look on their own.
If what you are missing is the concept of physical labor over computer tweaking, then so be it. But don't be fooled into thinking no less research and thought goes into making a modern animation then in ye' olden days.
You want more physical labor to create a film? Go recreate a godzilla movie. That'll smack down your need for tinkering with your hands.
..BEER. You equate the GPL with RIAA's use of market dominance to enforce a copyright?
Howabout we get rid of the radio payola system, the ticketmaster lockout contracts, and the central radio ownership to ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE to get their music out and heard.
Dude, nobody argues with the copyright. Its the ramming of the prices down everyone's throat - for a product we KNOW doesn't cost that much. If it walks and talks like a monopoly...
Filesharing copyrighted material is - to me - a form of public protest; civil disobedience. And it's already at critical mass.
Every spam-subject/. post here eventually brings about the idea of an email system that doesn't moves bytes until requested.
What would be so painful if all email content was simply a web link to the sender's server, their "outbox". When the receiver went to read it, they could store a copy then if they wanted mobility. Or, their email client could follow these links automatically when given the notice.
The differentiation between a content link and a malicious one would be a delicate but solveable problem.
However, since no transmission is until demand, we're not shipping terebytes of crap around the wires for naught. Thats the real issue here. Spammer's email content must be served to the receivers as they open the email. Since spoofing would be akin to removing the content, nobody could get a message across without it.
I know I've read about a formalized version of this idea here. Somebody post it again.
Depends what you're after. lots of string and a compass will give you distances and directions, used correctly.
to measure the size of rooms, check with architect friends about measuring all dimensions of a space manually
For crazy insane measurements of large caves, try surveyors tools.
If you're posting this on/. i guessing you're searching for a computer-vision solution. Digital Rangefinder+Compass+Level = a lot of work to scan a space's distance from a certain spot. Might be neato, but I don't know anyting about that.
I think we can get around this. The target site has to be somewhere in the original link, hashed or not. Once the scheme is determined, you can surf through your own serving object that re-mangles your links to the correct sites. Kind of like layering the SafeWeb idea.
If the hashes are only on the ad servers, then we'll have to build a common hashtable server in the public domain that our server object decodes with. spidering builds the table.
sad overall. however, the internet is a big place, and this'll simply be another plug-in scheme for open browsers.
We're here cutting up and tagenting from Ballmer's interview, but remember this guy is a salesman . All words out of his mouth are intended for the technology decision makers in corporate environments. Simply, this guys speaks to the money.
The "20yo Linux" comment is invalid as technospeak as it is to be an apologist for 8-10 years of stability-gain for each Windows "innovation". But no need to chop it up, he doesn't care if its correct. He just wants that quote emailed to your CTO. Its a tagline.
Funny enough, the Linux-As-Noncompetition theme simply doesn't work. MS knows this, but they waiver on their position: "We're Attacking! We're Indifferent!" There isn't a position against Linux they won't release.
Frankly, though, their own arguments seem to bite them back:
20-year-old technology cannot be easily criticized on stability or market share, or mindshare either.
Innovation in technology to MS is based on StupidUser productivity and value-added sales. In the *nix world, innovation is based on experiment and integration. User productivity comes out, but the target community isn't always (or so far highly) the StupidUser demographic. Innovation overall stems from scientific experimentation. MS cannot employ every SuperGenius at every university.
Linux offers choices and a splattering of options. Having them is the advantage, not disadvantage. Too many tech-minded people are intimidated by this change from the MS "approved driver list" mentality. Software is vastly more intricate than the $20 bin at CompuCrack. If you are to be the geekguru, you gotta do the homework. Most computer behavior is a commodity, shop around. MS's attack that this somehow causes problems is their song like any shop, "Believe In No Gods Beside Me".
The kernel vs. OS deliniation keeps coming back to replacability. Any OO programmer knows having well-designed isolated layers can serve as a benefit. When MS's services form a complex tree of dependencies that make an upgrade so daunting it shakes their own BlueCards, you know something's wrong. Linux survives continuously because the dependencies are flatter and more outlined (read: not gone though). I'm unsure how MS got itself into this homogenization, but I suspect it has something to do with lack of design at their consolidation methods over the years. And so, we start with a major OS revision coming out yet again. Every new solution exposes a new problem in that experience.
I could go on, as we've all read this before here. But frankly, MS still has a steep uphill battle to make money competing with something that's free, and improving.
Overall, it seems simply remembering the information may last the longest, accepting misinterpretation. Farenheit 451! We still have many early myths with us. (~4000yrs)
So by this argument, and the discussion that will follow, upon the next act of terrorism on US soil that succeeds without prior detection will prove this Act misguided?
I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.
Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.
We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.
Sounds great for a humanistic, societal view of things, but getting down to pure natural law, might makes right. Think insect colonies, animals habitats, etc. Whomever survives wins. Last I checked, thats the only natural "right".
Everything we create on top of the animalistic level is pretty much up for debate as to its worth. So far, we've only managed to crowd the little blue ball with trash.
Why wouldn't MS open the C# concepts as a standard? Even the framework libraries are replacable (given a ton of work, like any modern library these days). MS makes it money on server installations, not IDE sales. Build it and they will come. The "Standard" itself isn't worth anything anyway, as C++ programmers know.
But MS doens't need people to switch to MS OS's just because they want to use C#... They would rather enjoy having the best-of-breed editor and compiler on their platform (and maybe, yes, others!), and let the tendrils of development in C# spider to other OSes.
For instance, a C# project today on *nix boxes may have to jump through a few hoops (although I think these days MS would throw some support at it) to get bootstrapped, but think about the MONEY:
MS is posing C#/.NET to be a marketing sell for cross-platform development and integration. "Build with MS today, and tie to everything already in the world...How? Write more and more with.NET assemblies everywhere. We're working on the details right now!"
So,.NET ends up on a few of your shop boxes, putting smiles on bosess faces. MS then can start to leverage the "thing run better with us" mantra, and paint pretty pictures about porting. Is anyone still surprised MS is a BUSINESS out to make MONEY?
They are selling based on exactly what Java does as a defacto concept: a single technology with many uses. If bosses see that Java or C# are going to morph anyway, they will make a decision not based on this news. BUT one can only hope.
Currency is a tool, a means for improving the barter system. Electronic currency would at frist seem to only the same requirements. But alas, no.
Credit card companies, banks, etc., have all be indoctrinated with the restricting domestic "illegal" activites, in the areas that demand it. Paypal has just graduated into the same realm. No crying foul here. Electronic or online currency/exchanges/banks are indeed going to be responsible for tracking, preventing, and reporting on any activity a government wants.
If this scares you, then realize the standard has been in place for quite some time; purchase histories are fair game during federal investigations. Even anonymous cash itself has been under this pressure for quite some time, from serial numbers to embedded symbols. Someone at a certain level wants to know how the money flows.
Reliability of big iron comes at a whopping cost more than "boxes one must administrate". IBM's licensing and support fees are a significant portion of it.
I've worked on systems that were 20 years old and I've seen the hacks done to keep the code in tune with business practices. Simply amazing and scary. Today, programming is often about abstraction and reuse. A lot of work goes into this endeavor. Not back then. I'm of course speaking from the specific, but thats my experience.
I advocating moving to the "long-term" solution asap. The Y2K ruse stole thunder from a real opportunity to jump ship.
I agree, and I'd add that this entire use of "meta" implying that we're beyond materials in some way is bogus to me. We're not transcending materials either.
The source of the ingredients to make these products may need to be manufactured in a highly controlled process, but the source isn't something "one level up" from matter. "Metamaterials" is simply a marketing name for the constructed output. How is this different than other man-made materials?
Using "meta" implies there is some sort of hierarchy to the process of creating materials. Sure there is, but it's long and varied already. If I use pre-mixed egg-substitute for my cake, is it a "meta-cake" ? Would I want to eat it anyway?
Good info. My suggestion: Sell the powerbook and Ducati and buy a bigger bike with a battery and a Palm along with you to read/write email.
Seriously, if you are nowhere near a good source of electricity for this long, wouldn't a piece of paper and a pencil still be the easiest way to keep notes?
If you are near a telephone to read/write email, there should be some sort of power source nearby. Especially if you are looking for petrol every X km. No vibrational damage either (save for the wrists and arse).
I don't think its even worth the geek factor to adjust too much for a powerbook. If you are making changes to the bike for other reasons, good on'ya. Even hauling a laptop seems excessive for a motorbike trip. Internet cafes exist in a lot of places, as well.
I still have my journals from bike trips up and down the US west coast. Doodles and sketches add a lot to it. A laptop just didn't fit with the air of a road trip, to me.
if he is keeping the laptop running and recharging ala as if we were plugged in, then this is a more complex problem. also, it seems kinda silly to me.
if he is simply storing the laptop for the jaunt, then just pop out the batteries and put them in a simple trickle charger. 12vAC rectified to 12vDC transformed to 6vDC limited to %1 of max discharge mA.
sheesh man, read MY post. Its not about a bike. Its about doing a SEARCH first
no mention of running the laptop while on the bike. in this case, a battery is what he's dealing with.
the point is/. is not a search engine - that was just the first link from a cheapass search. this post looks suspiciously like there's no research behind it. there are quite a number of circuit design sites out there. yawn.
Saying anything is "hard" is not really a challenge to a language. Languages per se do not solve problems alone, they convert an algorithm into text. The grammar changes, but it's not a big deal.
The pre-packaged libraries/modules/class objects you incorporate can make complexity encapsulated. I think this is what this guy needs. But since he addresses they already exist and there is no standard answer, it's because...
XML has been made so flexible that the "standard" is a large set. Much larger than, say, a programming language grammar. Everything starts with simplicity, and then Need/Desire expand it. So, we get C -> csh -> C++ -> Java -> C# etc. as the needs for programs and platforms become re-prioritized.
XML, on the other hand, imposes a model, but then leaves a grammar open to its use. There's elegance there. However, the need to process data in bulk from many parsers must go away. I'm ignoring the Much Sadness(tm) rant about callbacks. Callbacks are simply another programming model, and I consider it elegant when used correctly.
If any particular XML file is too large for processing, even OS's learned that runtime libraries were a happy addition. Break it into multiple files, for example.
Complexity be damned. It brings out the innovation in us.
There is no better time than NOW to keeping suggesting a server-based email system. Email as it is now is a tired protocol.
Spammers should send links to their host and then accept visitors like any other serving format. There are several projects working on this, but adoption is the holy grail. Yawn.
Slashdot Mirror
I may be just as ignorant, but my understanding is that:
UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).
The charges then alledge that IBM contributed to the Linux product by (directly or indirectly) submitting code additions to the OSS project before its first release.
SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax. They claim that only IBM could have perpetrated such a thing, and that designing some of the algorithms was beyond the OSS project's stand-alone capability without IBM's help.
By showing that Linux is indeed a viable alternative to SCO UNIX, and that they are losing money based on the commercial installation base of Linux, they can claim that either IBM (1) pay them for the infringement or (2) a judge deem all Linux distro must license from SCO, or both.
To them, IBM didn't want to pay the license fees any more, so IBM starts to sell Linux as their *Nix solution, not the SCO-compile. This locks SCO out from at least IBM's fat check to them. This makes them unhappy. SCO claim foul play.
these are the facts as i understand them, but i write this to ask for clarification from everyone.
mug
In the heyday of the bubble, jumping ships was a practice that everyone knew about it, and often tried. So, relating from my experience of that...
I think your requirements for a replacement CTO should start with securing the system. Hire consultants until the right guy is found to document what's going on - NOT for more development.
Although I have no info about the politics, your lack of insight into managing your technology is stunningly poor. I hope you pick the best of those consultants and hire them to spread this risk in the future.
Above all this, prepare for your competition to now exploit any weakness you have in your market. No more BusinessAsUsual. If you didn't care about what this guy until he left, perhaps you should re-evaluate what you use your technology for, and take it a bit more seriously.
mug
What got left behind was ineffeciency. Nobody WANTS to do much by hand anymore when they toil and struggle to animate true depth, gravity and flow to things like cloth and hair. Even Disney had actors dancing for Cinderella over which they sketched.
Computers can help with all that, but as any modern animation house knows, they don't make a good story or look on their own.
If what you are missing is the concept of physical labor over computer tweaking, then so be it. But don't be fooled into thinking no less research and thought goes into making a modern animation then in ye' olden days.
You want more physical labor to create a film? Go recreate a godzilla movie. That'll smack down your need for tinkering with your hands.
mug
Howabout we get rid of the radio payola system, the ticketmaster lockout contracts, and the central radio ownership to ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE to get their music out and heard.
Dude, nobody argues with the copyright. Its the ramming of the prices down everyone's throat - for a product we KNOW doesn't cost that much. If it walks and talks like a monopoly...
Filesharing copyrighted material is - to me - a form of public protest; civil disobedience. And it's already at critical mass.
Every spam-subject
What would be so painful if all email content was simply a web link to the sender's server, their "outbox". When the receiver went to read it, they could store a copy then if they wanted mobility. Or, their email client could follow these links automatically when given the notice.
The differentiation between a content link and a malicious one would be a delicate but solveable problem.
However, since no transmission is until demand, we're not shipping terebytes of crap around the wires for naught. Thats the real issue here. Spammer's email content must be served to the receivers as they open the email. Since spoofing would be akin to removing the content, nobody could get a message across without it.
I know I've read about a formalized version of this idea here. Somebody post it again.
mug
Ahhh. I've been enlightened! we're screwed :)
HA. So lets use the same idea to build a list of sites that use this junk idea and avoid them.
Depends what you're after. lots of string and a compass will give you distances and directions, used correctly.
to measure the size of rooms, check with architect friends about measuring all dimensions of a space manually
For crazy insane measurements of large caves, try surveyors tools.
If you're posting this on
mug
I think we can get around this. The target site has to be somewhere in the original link, hashed or not. Once the scheme is determined, you can surf through your own serving object that re-mangles your links to the correct sites. Kind of like layering the SafeWeb idea.
If the hashes are only on the ad servers, then we'll have to build a common hashtable server in the public domain that our server object decodes with. spidering builds the table.
sad overall. however, the internet is a big place, and this'll simply be another plug-in scheme for open browsers.
mug
The "20yo Linux" comment is invalid as technospeak as it is to be an apologist for 8-10 years of stability-gain for each Windows "innovation". But no need to chop it up, he doesn't care if its correct. He just wants that quote emailed to your CTO. Its a tagline.
Funny enough, the Linux-As-Noncompetition theme simply doesn't work. MS knows this, but they waiver on their position: "We're Attacking! We're Indifferent!" There isn't a position against Linux they won't release.
Frankly, though, their own arguments seem to bite them back:
20-year-old technology cannot be easily criticized on stability or market share, or mindshare either.
Innovation in technology to MS is based on StupidUser productivity and value-added sales. In the *nix world, innovation is based on experiment and integration. User productivity comes out, but the target community isn't always (or so far highly) the StupidUser demographic. Innovation overall stems from scientific experimentation. MS cannot employ every SuperGenius at every university.
Linux offers choices and a splattering of options. Having them is the advantage, not disadvantage. Too many tech-minded people are intimidated by this change from the MS "approved driver list" mentality. Software is vastly more intricate than the $20 bin at CompuCrack. If you are to be the geekguru, you gotta do the homework. Most computer behavior is a commodity, shop around. MS's attack that this somehow causes problems is their song like any shop, "Believe In No Gods Beside Me".
The kernel vs. OS deliniation keeps coming back to replacability. Any OO programmer knows having well-designed isolated layers can serve as a benefit. When MS's services form a complex tree of dependencies that make an upgrade so daunting it shakes their own BlueCards, you know something's wrong. Linux survives continuously because the dependencies are flatter and more outlined (read: not gone though). I'm unsure how MS got itself into this homogenization, but I suspect it has something to do with lack of design at their consolidation methods over the years. And so, we start with a major OS revision coming out yet again. Every new solution exposes a new problem in that experience.
I could go on, as we've all read this before here. But frankly, MS still has a steep uphill battle to make money competing with something that's free, and improving.
mug
Overall, it seems simply remembering the information may last the longest, accepting misinterpretation. Farenheit 451! We still have many early myths with us. (~4000yrs)
Hmm. Moderation doesn't removed the posts; this isn't censorship at all. Filter at your leisure.
Actually, with that type of writing, I can understand why you'd be upset about moderation.
If you want a site without filters, stick to newgroups sourpuss. Nobody forces you to come here, although being so angry does flatter the site.
mug
So by this argument, and the discussion that will follow, upon the next act of terrorism on US soil that succeeds without prior detection will prove this Act misguided?
I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.
Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.
We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.
mug
Sounds great for a humanistic, societal view of things, but getting down to pure natural law, might makes right. Think insect colonies, animals habitats, etc. Whomever survives wins. Last I checked, thats the only natural "right".
Everything we create on top of the animalistic level is pretty much up for debate as to its worth. So far, we've only managed to crowd the little blue ball with trash.
I doubt this is a cost effective solution for this guy.
Why wouldn't MS open the C# concepts as a standard? Even the framework libraries are replacable (given a ton of work, like any modern library these days). MS makes it money on server installations, not IDE sales. Build it and they will come. The "Standard" itself isn't worth anything anyway, as C++ programmers know.
But MS doens't need people to switch to MS OS's just because they want to use C#... They would rather enjoy having the best-of-breed editor and compiler on their platform (and maybe, yes, others!), and let the tendrils of development in C# spider to other OSes.
For instance, a C# project today on *nix boxes may have to jump through a few hoops (although I think these days MS would throw some support at it) to get bootstrapped, but think about the MONEY:
MS is posing C#/.NET to be a marketing sell for cross-platform development and integration. "Build with MS today, and tie to everything already in the world...How? Write more and more with
So,
They are selling based on exactly what Java does as a defacto concept: a single technology with many uses. If bosses see that Java or C# are going to morph anyway, they will make a decision not based on this news. BUT one can only hope.
mug
Currency is a tool, a means for improving the barter system. Electronic currency would at frist seem to only the same requirements. But alas, no.
Credit card companies, banks, etc., have all be indoctrinated with the restricting domestic "illegal" activites, in the areas that demand it. Paypal has just graduated into the same realm. No crying foul here. Electronic or online currency/exchanges/banks are indeed going to be responsible for tracking, preventing, and reporting on any activity a government wants.
If this scares you, then realize the standard has been in place for quite some time; purchase histories are fair game during federal investigations. Even anonymous cash itself has been under this pressure for quite some time, from serial numbers to embedded symbols. Someone at a certain level wants to know how the money flows.
mug
You're correct, but remember we're going to get a flavor of XML from MS that does not port, of the Office rumors are true.
MS likes XML, but they use it as a tool like anyone else. They will still draw a bound around value-based technologies and formats to keep the income.
I don't disagree with it, but keep in mind that MS isn't all free-as-in-beer XML everywhere.
Reliability of big iron comes at a whopping cost more than "boxes one must administrate". IBM's licensing and support fees are a significant portion of it.
I've worked on systems that were 20 years old and I've seen the hacks done to keep the code in tune with business practices. Simply amazing and scary. Today, programming is often about abstraction and reuse. A lot of work goes into this endeavor. Not back then. I'm of course speaking from the specific, but thats my experience.
I advocating moving to the "long-term" solution asap. The Y2K ruse stole thunder from a real opportunity to jump ship.
It hurts to write RPG, EXEC2 and COBOL.
I agree, and I'd add that this entire use of "meta" implying that we're beyond materials in some way is bogus to me. We're not transcending materials either.
The source of the ingredients to make these products may need to be manufactured in a highly controlled process, but the source isn't something "one level up" from matter. "Metamaterials" is simply a marketing name for the constructed output. How is this different than other man-made materials?
Using "meta" implies there is some sort of hierarchy to the process of creating materials. Sure there is, but it's long and varied already. If I use pre-mixed egg-substitute for my cake, is it a "meta-cake" ? Would I want to eat it anyway?
You have one second...PENCILS DOWN.
Good info. My suggestion: Sell the powerbook and Ducati and buy a bigger bike with a battery and a Palm along with you to read/write email.
Seriously, if you are nowhere near a good source of electricity for this long, wouldn't a piece of paper and a pencil still be the easiest way to keep notes?
If you are near a telephone to read/write email, there should be some sort of power source nearby. Especially if you are looking for petrol every X km. No vibrational damage either (save for the wrists and arse).
I don't think its even worth the geek factor to adjust too much for a powerbook. If you are making changes to the bike for other reasons, good on'ya. Even hauling a laptop seems excessive for a motorbike trip. Internet cafes exist in a lot of places, as well.
I still have my journals from bike trips up and down the US west coast. Doodles and sketches add a lot to it. A laptop just didn't fit with the air of a road trip, to me.
Good luck
mug
IS THE LAPTOP SUPPOSED TO BE ON OR JUST STORED?
if he is keeping the laptop running and recharging ala as if we were plugged in, then this is a more complex problem. also, it seems kinda silly to me.
if he is simply storing the laptop for the jaunt, then just pop out the batteries and put them in a simple trickle charger. 12vAC rectified to 12vDC transformed to 6vDC limited to %1 of max discharge mA.
sheesh man, read MY post. Its not about a bike. Its about doing a SEARCH first
no mention of running the laptop while on the bike. in this case, a battery is what he's dealing with.
the point is
this guy built one and it seems rather trivial.
I hit it on the first link of a yahoo search. So, for that, you get the big middle-finger-in-the-face award.
Saying anything is "hard" is not really a challenge to a language. Languages per se do not solve problems alone, they convert an algorithm into text. The grammar changes, but it's not a big deal.
The pre-packaged libraries/modules/class objects you incorporate can make complexity encapsulated. I think this is what this guy needs. But since he addresses they already exist and there is no standard answer, it's because...
XML has been made so flexible that the "standard" is a large set. Much larger than, say, a programming language grammar. Everything starts with simplicity, and then Need/Desire expand it. So, we get C -> csh -> C++ -> Java -> C# etc. as the needs for programs and platforms become re-prioritized.
XML, on the other hand, imposes a model, but then leaves a grammar open to its use. There's elegance there. However, the need to process data in bulk from many parsers must go away. I'm ignoring the Much Sadness(tm) rant about callbacks. Callbacks are simply another programming model, and I consider it elegant when used correctly.
If any particular XML file is too large for processing, even OS's learned that runtime libraries were a happy addition. Break it into multiple files, for example.
Complexity be damned. It brings out the innovation in us.
mug
There is no better time than NOW to keeping suggesting a server-based email system. Email as it is now is a tired protocol.
Spammers should send links to their host and then accept visitors like any other serving format. There are several projects working on this, but adoption is the holy grail. Yawn.
mug