Their admission that they didn't have a case won't dismiss those counterclaims, but it will make IBM's proving them a slam-dunk and the penalties there are more than SCO's got in available assets.
I didn't suggest that they admit anything. I suggested that they take their lumps from the judge, then come to a settlement with IBM. If they play their cards right, they may get out of the whole affair without having to deal with the counterclaims.
RedHat... AutoZone... Etc.
They're screwed one way or another. If they don't take their lumps now, they'll just hurt that much more, later.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact..
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.
You need a lot more than a single circumstantial fact to "prove" that someone committed a crime. Rather, you need a large number of such facts that close in on the case and provide a single, inescapable conclusion. Even if you have done that, be prepared for the defense to argue each point under a "hypothetical" context, thus convincing the jury that the "evidence" is nothing more than a set of coincidences presented in such a way as to make the defendent look guilty.
To put it simply, SCO looks like they knew they messed up a long time ago and now they are trying to delay their death as long as possible while they try to get an actual business model up and running. That explains why they are partnering with MySQL and some others and hyping their ironically named OpenServer.
If SCO was smart, they'd cut their losses and run. All they need to do is cooperate with the court, have the court decide that IBM isn't infringing, take their lumps in a settlement, then apologize profusely to their customers and save a little face by stating that they believed their case to be real. SCO would then announce that they are accepting the court's decision and that they have decided to work with the Linux community by sharing some of their highly valuable IP. Then they promote the old versions of Unix they already open sourced, and get some free press while they work on an actual business model.
Step 6. ??? Step 7. Profit!
The biggest advantage to simply getting it over with is that SCO can finally dump all those highly paid lawyers they've been using, not to mention the fact that they can try to establish good relations with the developer community BEFORE their funds run dry.
Changing an INI still isn't good enough. In Java I have written programs that check for JAR files to be added to a particular directory, then load them dynamically. This is particularily popular in Servlet and J2EE applications as many servers have the ability to dynamically reload a WAR or Enterprise JAR at runtime (with zero system downtime). Any new libraries that you've packaged into the WAR or Enterprise JAR are automatically picked up during the reload.
Another example is how JSP pages work. Instead of interpreting the page as PHP does, the page is inverted into a Java source file (i.e. all the "..." is turned into 'out.println("...")'), compiled, loaded, and executed at runtime. This is part of what gives JSP a significant performance advantage over PHP.
But I am happy to hear that you no longer need to recompile. That was always a pain.:-)
Actually, you mentioned only the documentation on embedding, not the examples themsevles. Which is beside the point. My only point is that building a web browser and embedding Gecko are one and the same activity.:-)
Frankly, people who are developing serious projects (that is, often for money) with Mozilla do not have time to "muck around" with examples, especially ones of atrocious quality.
Well, the way I see it your options are:
1. Read the book I linked to and gleen enough internal understanding of the system to accomplish what you're trying to do. 2. Muck around with the examples. 3. Ask this same question on netscape.public.mozilla.embedding and see if they have any better options for you.
We need solid documentation that is up-to-date, accurate, helpful and with clear, well-engineered examples.
Agreed. Sadly, we don't have them, and we don't have any other options. (You could try KHTML or WebCore, but I doubt you'll get much farther.) This means that what you lack in documentation, you'll need to make up for in a smidge of perseverance.
In any case, I wish you the best of luck. If you get the thing running, please do inject some better docs onto the web.:-)
Or did you mean "standard utilities that usually come with the OS"?
Precisely. The user agreed to install the complete OS, knowing the details of what was getting installed on his system. Thus cron and anything else that comes with the OS is not bound by such a law. Nor is anything you explicitly install. (e.g. Apache) Now if I sent you a cool recompile of Doom, but also included a secret installer for "cron", THEN I would get in huge trouble for installing cron on your computer.
"It shall be a criminal offsense to install non-application software on any computer when the user has not been reasonably notified in advance and/or agreed to have the modifications made."
No, not like Apache or cron. (Especially since cron is part of the OS.)
Normally I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, Spyware does not necessarily meet the definition of "malfeasant intrusion." (Whatever that means. I've never heard of such a law, nor do I see any public officials involved.) Every law I've seen only covers physical intrusions. Now there are laws against causing damage to your machine (which this rootkit obviously does), but those won't apply in all situations and can be hard to prove.
The point of an anti-spyware law is to extend the laws of intrusion to cover virtual presence as well as physical presence.
That's where the "reasonably notified" comes in. The courts haven't been too happy about EULAs as they are. If you try to slide things past the consumer, the courts will find that the contract was misrepresented and hold the company accountable.
The bill would actually need a definition of "application software" so that anything that doesn't meet that definition would be automatically covered. e.g. "Application Software refers to a self-contained program that is installed on the consumer's computer. To be considered self-contained, it must not modify the operating system to execute any software at any time other than when the user runs the software in question."
what constituteds "agreed to"?
The courts do. Considering the difficulties they've been giving to the click-through licensers, I'm perfectly okay with that.
In OOo's case, the application *must* be bundled together. They're all part of the same codebase, and are pretty much inseperable without throwing away and rewriting the whole thing. I would be interested in knowing how much "just the core" takes, but I'm guessing it's far more than you'd expect. (Say ~20MB.)
We can pretty much thank StarDivision for their "StarDesk" idea for this rediculous level of integration. Sadly, we're still paying for it 5 years later.
As somebody else pointed out the last time OO.o was discussed on Slashdot, bundling all those applications together was more of a marketing innovation on Microsoft's part than a technical innovation.
That was very much true, at least in the beginning. However, I believe that Microsoft now shares significant amounts of code between the applications, making it just as much technological as marketing. Microsoft can still separate out the applications, but they have to send a huge core of software with each one. (Which doesn't bother Microsoft since it all gets "integrated" with Windows.)
We *really* need to get a anti-spyware bill on the books. Something along the lines of, "It shall be a criminal offsense to install non-application software on any computer when the user has not been reasonably notified in advance and/or agreed to have the modifications made. This bill will be reevaluated for its effect in three years."
Anything running in the background, rootkits, and other forms of spyware (which generally rely on the user not knowing they're there) would immediately become illegal.
I just installed OO2, and, although impressive, lacks the polish of a professional application.
Please tell me you're kidding? On my new computer at home, I was dealing with a bunch of Excel and Word documents just last night. I had completely forgotten that I hadn't installed MS Office until I noticed an MDB that I couldn't open. (Not that I needed to get into it anyway.) At that point it suddenly hit me that those multi-workbook Excel sheets I had just been using (one workbook referenced another, and shipped values across all kinds of sheets) shouldn't have worked because this is "different" than Excel.
I'm sorry, but for 95% of people, OOo has arrived. It's only a matter of getting people used to it. Besides, the new icons look WAY better than Office 2003.;-)
Word Processor SpreadSheet Presentation Drawing App Math App Database App w/Database
Using the same 5MB per calculation, I get 30MB (6x5MB). Now add in a boatload more features, all with cool icons, plus some snazzy templates and clipart, and you can get it up there in no time flat.
Which isn't to say that there isn't still bloat in OOo. But it's not so significant that it should matter.
AFAIK, you should be able to ignore the XUL if you don't need it. All you really need is to intialize the XPCom system, then embed the nsWebBrowser into whatever application you are working on. For example, here's an MFC "brower" and here's a GTK "browser". (The latter being based on the GTK Embed widget.) The rest of the docs go on to explain all the wonderful features you can make use of, including XUL.
At the end of the day, though, the only way to really get going is to do as the Embedding FAQ suggests, and start mucking with one of the example browsers.:-)
P.S. If you're looking to embed Mozilla in Java, the Blackwood Webclient is pretty much ready to go.
somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap.
It will happen eventually. I don't know if you've seen them yet, but many stores are now carrying the $1.00 DVDs of many old shows. Everything from episodes of Laurel and Hardy to Rocky Jones Space Ranger (you've got to see this show, even just for the comedic effect) are now appearing on the shelves.
However, I have a feeling that it will be a while before they show up on iTunes. Jobs doesn't want to make the same mistake as MovieLink and find himself in the position of *only* selling old shows. Once iTunes is established a way of distributing new content, only then will Jobs allow for virtual reruns.
No, those two are pretty much the same. Perhaps that's why the documentation is confusing you? A web browser is merely a wrapper around the HTML control that provides the "browsing" experience. For your own application, you'd pull up the HTML control whenever you needed it as opposed to using it centrally. Other than that, there really are no differences.
If you're thinking that they're different, perhaps you're only looking for the ActiveX Control? You can get the binaries here. It should work *exactly* like IE.
While this has nothing to do with MySQL directly, I think it would be fantastic if the Mozilla people were able to come up with a decent book regarding the embedding of the Gecko rendering engine.
I think I remember seeing a book on this when I did my article on free books. Ah, here we are. If I'm not mistaken, "Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" should cover the topic you're interested in. You can even download it at no cost as part of Peren's dedication to Open Source Books.
For novice users, mention is made of the "--I-am-a-dummy" option which warns and provides a second chance to avoid inadvertent updating or deleting of a table.
Perhaps something less insulting to the user should have been chosen? e.g. "--novice" or "--safety=on"? I understand that they're trying to be funny, but they've never seen a highly frustrated newbie before. The poor sap may be so flustered that having the documentation call him a "dummy" might just be the last straw.
Alternatively, your boss might not find it so funny when you tell him you'll just flip on the "I'm a dummy" flag. I know that my boss wasn't too impressed when I told him that I was going to use Bouncy Castle for encryption. The API is really great, but the name doesn't exactly scream "Professionsl!"
In the same vein, I always got a kick out of the naming for the ElectricFire JVM. From "How did the project get it's name?":
Scott Silver, one of the first EF developers, originally wanted to codename the project "Sexual Chocolate". (I'm not making this up.) That name was rejected, presumably because it would confuse Netscape's managers: "So, this Sexual Chocolate project actually has nothing to do with chocolate ?" Instead, Silver proposed "Electrical Fire" (two separate words). For the open-source release, Scott Furman coalesced the two words into one: "ElectricalFire", to make it apparent that the project was not to be confused with a safety hazard. A word of advice for the wise: if you end up working on a project with Scott Silver, do not allow him to handle the project codename.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I often don't get a chance to check Slashdot on the weekend.
You say every person has that choice. The very act of creating a path where its either my way or burn is evil. It doesn't matter how what lables you create or attach to the being who creates it.
You do realize that a Paradise that wasn't God's home did exist at one time, right? The Garden of Eden that the Bible speaks of was supposed to be an eternal home for Adam and Eve. His only requirement in giving this home was, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Well, we all know how that ended, don't we?
So, now we die. When we die, our soul is loosed from this Earth. I don't entirely understand the difference between Sheol and Hell, but the two places do seem to be different. Sheol seems to be an "eternal slumber", or a ceasation of existence. This would be as per the convenent given to Adam and Eve. As the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, we could theoretically chose this. But we instead tend to sell ourselves to the devil's temptations and thus must be sentenced to the same punishment as him. As an alternative, God opened the doors of His home for us. He sent his Son to pay the price of our sins so that we may join him.
In other words, there is the possibility of a death without God or the devil, but this is pretty much impossible for humans to achieve. Given the choice, we always give in to sinful temptations.
How about Corinthians 1 11:3-9 ?
This is a really difficult verse, as the full context has been long been lost to us. Literally it would seem that Paul is suggesting that women should cover their heads in service so that they may revel in their womanhood. i.e. Long hair is a glory to a woman, so should be her head covering. One way or another, it referred to only the mode of worship, and not of day to day life.
We obviously don't use head coverings as the chosen form of symbology in today's culture. Rather, women usually wear an attractive dress and men try to wear an attractive suit and tie. You could reverse the two, but they'd seem kind of disrespectful to the church proceedings. (As was Paul's point.)
As for the woman "being of the man", here is what I personally read from that. His point is that woman was created to be a companion to man and was given the gift of bearing children. That is her glory and honor to do so. It is not a requirement for her (the whole "subjegation" idea is simply wrong; women have a free will as well), but simply a matter of being true to one's self. He is certainly not saying, "women are second class citizens of the world." He is saying that women do honor to themselves by using symbology to represent the fact that they are women. Or in other words, it's a pure and wonderful thing if women act feminine.
So from that, is it "wrong" if a woman wants to act manly? Well, no. There's no, "thou shalt never act masculine" anywhere in the Bible. Woman are free to make their own choices.
There's a rather pleasent right up on the entire thing here. It's written by a woman, so you may find the interpretation to be of interest.
In my own life, I have always treated my wife with full respect, and I see her as an equal in our relationship. I have never pushed the idea of "being the head of the family" despite the fact that it often works that way. (We recently ribbed our lawyer about all of the legal documents having my name before hers. I think his heart skipped a beat before he realized we were kidding him, and that the issue really didn't matter to us.) My wife and I are "of one flesh" and are equals in our relationship. And I'm sure my wife would be along to kick your butt if you suggest otherwise.;-)
God could have easily struck the Pharoh dead with a bolt of lignten
The reasons to use Java on the server are quite simple. The combination of factors that attracted developers to Java in the first place make them want to use it on the server. Those factors are:
1. Cross-platform capability - Many companies still prefer to deploy applications on large Sun, IBM, or Linux (name your brand) servers. However, these companies would also like to give their developers Windows desktops so they can interact with the rest of the company. (Who most likely uses MS Office/Outlook.) As long as you avoid explicit path names, it is quite easy (and common!) to develop on a Windows machines but deploy on a Unix or Unix-like machine.
2. Automatic Memory Management - So your server is running along, and suddenly someone generates an unexpected error. In Java you can sleep soundly because even the worst programmer would have a hard time doing anything to completely take down the application. If you use a language that allows direct memory management, you have a good chance of that new guy coding a General Protection Fault/Segfault. The result is that your entire system coredumps when you least expect it.
3. Security - While Java is able to control the Security of the ENTIRE JVM through its security framework, most companies are happy with the lack of buffer overruns, code injection techniques, and other common attacks. That's not to say that a poor programmer can't put a security hole in the application wide enough to drive a Mack truck through, but at least you can rely on the underlying system not to betray you.
4. Flexibility - The Java server side frameworks are exceedingly flexible in their designs. For example, the servlet framework allows you to plug in your own custom server page technology. I have seen many a programmer (including myself) implement something like Reports by simply linking the ".rpt" extension to a custom servlet. The servlet then loads the requested configuration file and executes it. Very nice.
Another example is servlet filters. Need a security framework added in a hurry? Just add a filter servlet! It will execute before the rest of the code, allowing you to check the variables and security permissions to ensure that the client isn't trying any funny business.
5. API - When Java was first introduced, it absolutely creamed all the competing languages in the richness of its bundled API. As time has worn on, this has changed. However, Java still enjoys a sizable lead over even C/C++ with features such as Type IV (tested cross-platform, pure Java) JDBC database drivers. Unlike ODBC, many of these drivers have been tuned for excellent performance. Similarly, there are free APIs for handling Office Documents, PDF Creation/Editing, SOAP/XML-RPC communications, Object-Relational mapping, Image Management/Creation/Editing, CORBA, XML Databases, XSL-T, etc. While these APIs are all available for C/C++, there are significant cross-platform issues with many of them, as well as a lack of common "pluggable" APIs that allow for one API to many implementations.
Other languages have a hit/miss score with these sorts of features, often not providing these features, providing only a small subset, or only being available in an expensive commercial package.
6. Dynamic Loading - While C/C++ can manage dynamic loading of shared objects, it's a very difficult thing to implement. Java does it out of the box, with a full reflection API and interface support, thus allowing such wonderful code as Beans, Servlets, Pluggable Drivers, self-organizing code, and a host of other features that other systems can't compete with.
(If you don't believe me, try adding support for a feature in PHP sometime. "It's so simple! Just install the SO and recompile PHP!" Meh.)
7. Performance - This may sound like an odd thing to say, but the performance of Java is a key selling feature. Java server applications may execute more slowly than one written in C/C++ (just as C/C++ may execute more slowly than
You still get the infinite punishment. How does changing the definition of the crime make the punishment any more just?
Whoa. Time out here. You seem to be of the opinion that not reaching heaven is a punishment for all the horrible deads you committed while you were alive. While that was certainly true under the law (and I'm afraid has been presented that way by many preachers), it's not the case any more. Now you can freely enter heaven. You don't have to do anything other than say, "Yes, I believe that Jesus died for my sins so that I might enter heaven."
Or to put it another way, if you're stuck out in the cold and a guy invites you into to his warm house (make no mistake, heaven is God's home) wouldn't you come in? I would hope that most people would. But let's say for a moment that you hate the guy's guts. Now you have to make a decision between coming into the home of someone you hate or staying out in the cold. To make things even worse, there are gangs of thugs running around outside, beating up anyone who's out after dark. But you REALLY hate the guy's guts. What do you do?
That's the choice you're faced with. Think of being out in the cold as a punishment if you wish, but the truth is that you just hate the guy's guts and can't see past that for long enough to realize that the guy actually cares about you and wants to share his home to keep you safe and comfortable.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the israelites did kill Babylonians.
That's usually what happens in a war. (Remember, these are *captives*. They're not just visiting to say, "Hello, I want to bash the skull of your kid in.") That hardly means that the Iraelites went around smashing babies against rocks. (Your original complaint.) As I said, I'm sure quite a few people would have liked to nuke Russia during the Cold War. Didn't mean that they did.
And for the record, the Iraelites did not manage to resist the onslaught of the Babylonians conquerors. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, enslaved the Jewish people, and generally conquered and pillaged. Their reign over the land of Israel lead to the eventual rule by the Greeks, then the Romans, and eventually the final dissolution of Israel under the Arabs.
But you know what? The Jewish people eventually stopped trying to kill the Babylonians out of spite, and started trying to work with them. A lot of them were killed because they wouldn't bow to Babylonian gods, but their God eventually proved his superiority to their golden idols. (e.g. Shadrak, Meshak and Abednego, not to mention Daniel in the Lion's Den.) According to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar himself became a believer in the power of the God of Israel.
You're bashing arguments that I did not make
You didn't make the argument that a single line about killing entire lines of people means that the Bible is promoting senseless violence? You certainly didn't offer any other evidence for your statement: "There are plenty of examples of outright glorification of violence in the old testament." When I debunked it, all you had to say was, "By that rationale, nothing condones violence." So we followed through on your logic, and found that all the classics are about glorifying horrible deads.
No, wait. They're about how people handle unfortunate situations, aren't they? It isn't always pretty, but it's not the same thing as glorifying violence.
imply that I'm stupid or illiterate because I disagree with you.
Your argument is certainly either stupid or based on a poor understanding of literature. What did you expect the Iraelites to think of a foreign invader? "Oh, hello. Glad you dropped by to rape, pillage, and subjugate?" Yet because the Iraeli people were hopping mad over getting conquered, you think that the Bible is about glorifying violence? That's an extremely poor excuse for logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Their admission that they didn't have a case won't dismiss those counterclaims, but it will make IBM's proving them a slam-dunk and the penalties there are more than SCO's got in available assets.
... AutoZone ... Etc.
I didn't suggest that they admit anything. I suggested that they take their lumps from the judge, then come to a settlement with IBM. If they play their cards right, they may get out of the whole affair without having to deal with the counterclaims.
RedHat
They're screwed one way or another. If they don't take their lumps now, they'll just hurt that much more, later.
From Lectric Law Library:
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact..
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.
You need a lot more than a single circumstantial fact to "prove" that someone committed a crime. Rather, you need a large number of such facts that close in on the case and provide a single, inescapable conclusion. Even if you have done that, be prepared for the defense to argue each point under a "hypothetical" context, thus convincing the jury that the "evidence" is nothing more than a set of coincidences presented in such a way as to make the defendent look guilty.
To put it simply, SCO looks like they knew they messed up a long time ago and now they are trying to delay their death as long as possible while they try to get an actual business model up and running. That explains why they are partnering with MySQL and some others and hyping their ironically named OpenServer.
If SCO was smart, they'd cut their losses and run. All they need to do is cooperate with the court, have the court decide that IBM isn't infringing, take their lumps in a settlement, then apologize profusely to their customers and save a little face by stating that they believed their case to be real. SCO would then announce that they are accepting the court's decision and that they have decided to work with the Linux community by sharing some of their highly valuable IP. Then they promote the old versions of Unix they already open sourced, and get some free press while they work on an actual business model.
Step 6. ???
Step 7. Profit!
The biggest advantage to simply getting it over with is that SCO can finally dump all those highly paid lawyers they've been using, not to mention the fact that they can try to establish good relations with the developer community BEFORE their funds run dry.
Changing an INI still isn't good enough. In Java I have written programs that check for JAR files to be added to a particular directory, then load them dynamically. This is particularily popular in Servlet and J2EE applications as many servers have the ability to dynamically reload a WAR or Enterprise JAR at runtime (with zero system downtime). Any new libraries that you've packaged into the WAR or Enterprise JAR are automatically picked up during the reload.
:-)
Another example is how JSP pages work. Instead of interpreting the page as PHP does, the page is inverted into a Java source file (i.e. all the "..." is turned into 'out.println("...")'), compiled, loaded, and executed at runtime. This is part of what gives JSP a significant performance advantage over PHP.
But I am happy to hear that you no longer need to recompile. That was always a pain.
Actually, you mentioned only the documentation on embedding, not the examples themsevles. Which is beside the point. My only point is that building a web browser and embedding Gecko are one and the same activity. :-)
:-)
Frankly, people who are developing serious projects (that is, often for money) with Mozilla do not have time to "muck around" with examples, especially ones of atrocious quality.
Well, the way I see it your options are:
1. Read the book I linked to and gleen enough internal understanding of the system to accomplish what you're trying to do.
2. Muck around with the examples.
3. Ask this same question on netscape.public.mozilla.embedding and see if they have any better options for you.
We need solid documentation that is up-to-date, accurate, helpful and with clear, well-engineered examples.
Agreed. Sadly, we don't have them, and we don't have any other options. (You could try KHTML or WebCore, but I doubt you'll get much farther.) This means that what you lack in documentation, you'll need to make up for in a smidge of perseverance.
In any case, I wish you the best of luck. If you get the thing running, please do inject some better docs onto the web.
Or did you mean "standard utilities that usually come with the OS"?
Precisely. The user agreed to install the complete OS, knowing the details of what was getting installed on his system. Thus cron and anything else that comes with the OS is not bound by such a law. Nor is anything you explicitly install. (e.g. Apache) Now if I sent you a cool recompile of Doom, but also included a secret installer for "cron", THEN I would get in huge trouble for installing cron on your computer.
"It shall be a criminal offsense to install non-application software on any computer when the user has not been reasonably notified in advance and/or agreed to have the modifications made."
No, not like Apache or cron. (Especially since cron is part of the OS.)
Normally I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, Spyware does not necessarily meet the definition of "malfeasant intrusion." (Whatever that means. I've never heard of such a law, nor do I see any public officials involved.) Every law I've seen only covers physical intrusions. Now there are laws against causing damage to your machine (which this rootkit obviously does), but those won't apply in all situations and can be hard to prove.
The point of an anti-spyware law is to extend the laws of intrusion to cover virtual presence as well as physical presence.
That's where the "reasonably notified" comes in. The courts haven't been too happy about EULAs as they are. If you try to slide things past the consumer, the courts will find that the contract was misrepresented and hold the company accountable.
shall we define "non-application software"?
The bill would actually need a definition of "application software" so that anything that doesn't meet that definition would be automatically covered. e.g. "Application Software refers to a self-contained program that is installed on the consumer's computer. To be considered self-contained, it must not modify the operating system to execute any software at any time other than when the user runs the software in question."
what constituteds "agreed to"?
The courts do. Considering the difficulties they've been giving to the click-through licensers, I'm perfectly okay with that.
In OOo's case, the application *must* be bundled together. They're all part of the same codebase, and are pretty much inseperable without throwing away and rewriting the whole thing. I would be interested in knowing how much "just the core" takes, but I'm guessing it's far more than you'd expect. (Say ~20MB.)
We can pretty much thank StarDivision for their "StarDesk" idea for this rediculous level of integration. Sadly, we're still paying for it 5 years later.
As somebody else pointed out the last time OO.o was discussed on Slashdot, bundling all those applications together was more of a marketing innovation on Microsoft's part than a technical innovation.
That was very much true, at least in the beginning. However, I believe that Microsoft now shares significant amounts of code between the applications, making it just as much technological as marketing. Microsoft can still separate out the applications, but they have to send a huge core of software with each one. (Which doesn't bother Microsoft since it all gets "integrated" with Windows.)
We *really* need to get a anti-spyware bill on the books. Something along the lines of, "It shall be a criminal offsense to install non-application software on any computer when the user has not been reasonably notified in advance and/or agreed to have the modifications made. This bill will be reevaluated for its effect in three years."
Anything running in the background, rootkits, and other forms of spyware (which generally rely on the user not knowing they're there) would immediately become illegal.
I just installed OO2, and, although impressive, lacks the polish of a professional application.
;-)
Please tell me you're kidding? On my new computer at home, I was dealing with a bunch of Excel and Word documents just last night. I had completely forgotten that I hadn't installed MS Office until I noticed an MDB that I couldn't open. (Not that I needed to get into it anyway.) At that point it suddenly hit me that those multi-workbook Excel sheets I had just been using (one workbook referenced another, and shipped values across all kinds of sheets) shouldn't have worked because this is "different" than Excel.
I'm sorry, but for 95% of people, OOo has arrived. It's only a matter of getting people used to it. Besides, the new icons look WAY better than Office 2003.
So, the Word Processor component is only ~5MB.
Yet OOo is:
Word Processor
SpreadSheet
Presentation
Drawing App
Math App
Database App w/Database
Using the same 5MB per calculation, I get 30MB (6x5MB). Now add in a boatload more features, all with cool icons, plus some snazzy templates and clipart, and you can get it up there in no time flat.
Which isn't to say that there isn't still bloat in OOo. But it's not so significant that it should matter.
AFAIK, you should be able to ignore the XUL if you don't need it. All you really need is to intialize the XPCom system, then embed the nsWebBrowser into whatever application you are working on. For example, here's an MFC "brower" and here's a GTK "browser". (The latter being based on the GTK Embed widget.) The rest of the docs go on to explain all the wonderful features you can make use of, including XUL.
:-)
At the end of the day, though, the only way to really get going is to do as the Embedding FAQ suggests, and start mucking with one of the example browsers.
P.S. If you're looking to embed Mozilla in Java, the Blackwood Webclient is pretty much ready to go.
somebody posted this last week about making old 50s shows available for cheap.
It will happen eventually. I don't know if you've seen them yet, but many stores are now carrying the $1.00 DVDs of many old shows. Everything from episodes of Laurel and Hardy to Rocky Jones Space Ranger (you've got to see this show, even just for the comedic effect) are now appearing on the shelves.
However, I have a feeling that it will be a while before they show up on iTunes. Jobs doesn't want to make the same mistake as MovieLink and find himself in the position of *only* selling old shows. Once iTunes is established a way of distributing new content, only then will Jobs allow for virtual reruns.
No, those two are pretty much the same. Perhaps that's why the documentation is confusing you? A web browser is merely a wrapper around the HTML control that provides the "browsing" experience. For your own application, you'd pull up the HTML control whenever you needed it as opposed to using it centrally. Other than that, there really are no differences.
If you're thinking that they're different, perhaps you're only looking for the ActiveX Control? You can get the binaries here. It should work *exactly* like IE.
Here's the correct PDF link. I accidently linked to the book on eCos. (Not that it isn't an interesting book...)
While this has nothing to do with MySQL directly, I think it would be fantastic if the Mozilla people were able to come up with a decent book regarding the embedding of the Gecko rendering engine.
I think I remember seeing a book on this when I did my article on free books. Ah, here we are. If I'm not mistaken, "Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" should cover the topic you're interested in. You can even download it at no cost as part of Peren's dedication to Open Source Books.
Perhaps something less insulting to the user should have been chosen? e.g. "--novice" or "--safety=on"? I understand that they're trying to be funny, but they've never seen a highly frustrated newbie before. The poor sap may be so flustered that having the documentation call him a "dummy" might just be the last straw.
Alternatively, your boss might not find it so funny when you tell him you'll just flip on the "I'm a dummy" flag. I know that my boss wasn't too impressed when I told him that I was going to use Bouncy Castle for encryption. The API is really great, but the name doesn't exactly scream "Professionsl!"
In the same vein, I always got a kick out of the naming for the ElectricFire JVM. From "How did the project get it's name?":
So that would be a "no" then? Just want to be clear here.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I often don't get a chance to check Slashdot on the weekend.
;-)
You say every person has that choice. The very act of creating a path where its either my way or burn is evil. It doesn't matter how what lables you create or attach to the being who creates it.
You do realize that a Paradise that wasn't God's home did exist at one time, right? The Garden of Eden that the Bible speaks of was supposed to be an eternal home for Adam and Eve. His only requirement in giving this home was, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Well, we all know how that ended, don't we?
So, now we die. When we die, our soul is loosed from this Earth. I don't entirely understand the difference between Sheol and Hell, but the two places do seem to be different. Sheol seems to be an "eternal slumber", or a ceasation of existence. This would be as per the convenent given to Adam and Eve. As the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, we could theoretically chose this. But we instead tend to sell ourselves to the devil's temptations and thus must be sentenced to the same punishment as him. As an alternative, God opened the doors of His home for us. He sent his Son to pay the price of our sins so that we may join him.
In other words, there is the possibility of a death without God or the devil, but this is pretty much impossible for humans to achieve. Given the choice, we always give in to sinful temptations.
How about Corinthians 1 11:3-9 ?
This is a really difficult verse, as the full context has been long been lost to us. Literally it would seem that Paul is suggesting that women should cover their heads in service so that they may revel in their womanhood. i.e. Long hair is a glory to a woman, so should be her head covering. One way or another, it referred to only the mode of worship, and not of day to day life.
We obviously don't use head coverings as the chosen form of symbology in today's culture. Rather, women usually wear an attractive dress and men try to wear an attractive suit and tie. You could reverse the two, but they'd seem kind of disrespectful to the church proceedings. (As was Paul's point.)
As for the woman "being of the man", here is what I personally read from that. His point is that woman was created to be a companion to man and was given the gift of bearing children. That is her glory and honor to do so. It is not a requirement for her (the whole "subjegation" idea is simply wrong; women have a free will as well), but simply a matter of being true to one's self. He is certainly not saying, "women are second class citizens of the world." He is saying that women do honor to themselves by using symbology to represent the fact that they are women. Or in other words, it's a pure and wonderful thing if women act feminine.
So from that, is it "wrong" if a woman wants to act manly? Well, no. There's no, "thou shalt never act masculine" anywhere in the Bible. Woman are free to make their own choices.
There's a rather pleasent right up on the entire thing here. It's written by a woman, so you may find the interpretation to be of interest.
In my own life, I have always treated my wife with full respect, and I see her as an equal in our relationship. I have never pushed the idea of "being the head of the family" despite the fact that it often works that way. (We recently ribbed our lawyer about all of the legal documents having my name before hers. I think his heart skipped a beat before he realized we were kidding him, and that the issue really didn't matter to us.) My wife and I are "of one flesh" and are equals in our relationship. And I'm sure my wife would be along to kick your butt if you suggest otherwise.
God could have easily struck the Pharoh dead with a bolt of lignten
The reasons to use Java on the server are quite simple. The combination of factors that attracted developers to Java in the first place make them want to use it on the server. Those factors are:
1. Cross-platform capability - Many companies still prefer to deploy applications on large Sun, IBM, or Linux (name your brand) servers. However, these companies would also like to give their developers Windows desktops so they can interact with the rest of the company. (Who most likely uses MS Office/Outlook.) As long as you avoid explicit path names, it is quite easy (and common!) to develop on a Windows machines but deploy on a Unix or Unix-like machine.
2. Automatic Memory Management - So your server is running along, and suddenly someone generates an unexpected error. In Java you can sleep soundly because even the worst programmer would have a hard time doing anything to completely take down the application. If you use a language that allows direct memory management, you have a good chance of that new guy coding a General Protection Fault/Segfault. The result is that your entire system coredumps when you least expect it.
3. Security - While Java is able to control the Security of the ENTIRE JVM through its security framework, most companies are happy with the lack of buffer overruns, code injection techniques, and other common attacks. That's not to say that a poor programmer can't put a security hole in the application wide enough to drive a Mack truck through, but at least you can rely on the underlying system not to betray you.
4. Flexibility - The Java server side frameworks are exceedingly flexible in their designs. For example, the servlet framework allows you to plug in your own custom server page technology. I have seen many a programmer (including myself) implement something like Reports by simply linking the ".rpt" extension to a custom servlet. The servlet then loads the requested configuration file and executes it. Very nice.
Another example is servlet filters. Need a security framework added in a hurry? Just add a filter servlet! It will execute before the rest of the code, allowing you to check the variables and security permissions to ensure that the client isn't trying any funny business.
5. API - When Java was first introduced, it absolutely creamed all the competing languages in the richness of its bundled API. As time has worn on, this has changed. However, Java still enjoys a sizable lead over even C/C++ with features such as Type IV (tested cross-platform, pure Java) JDBC database drivers. Unlike ODBC, many of these drivers have been tuned for excellent performance. Similarly, there are free APIs for handling Office Documents, PDF Creation/Editing, SOAP/XML-RPC communications, Object-Relational mapping, Image Management/Creation/Editing, CORBA, XML Databases, XSL-T, etc. While these APIs are all available for C/C++, there are significant cross-platform issues with many of them, as well as a lack of common "pluggable" APIs that allow for one API to many implementations.
Other languages have a hit/miss score with these sorts of features, often not providing these features, providing only a small subset, or only being available in an expensive commercial package.
6. Dynamic Loading - While C/C++ can manage dynamic loading of shared objects, it's a very difficult thing to implement. Java does it out of the box, with a full reflection API and interface support, thus allowing such wonderful code as Beans, Servlets, Pluggable Drivers, self-organizing code, and a host of other features that other systems can't compete with.
(If you don't believe me, try adding support for a feature in PHP sometime. "It's so simple! Just install the SO and recompile PHP!" Meh.)
7. Performance - This may sound like an odd thing to say, but the performance of Java is a key selling feature. Java server applications may execute more slowly than one written in C/C++ (just as C/C++ may execute more slowly than
You still get the infinite punishment. How does changing the definition of the crime make the punishment any more just?
Whoa. Time out here. You seem to be of the opinion that not reaching heaven is a punishment for all the horrible deads you committed while you were alive. While that was certainly true under the law (and I'm afraid has been presented that way by many preachers), it's not the case any more. Now you can freely enter heaven. You don't have to do anything other than say, "Yes, I believe that Jesus died for my sins so that I might enter heaven."
Or to put it another way, if you're stuck out in the cold and a guy invites you into to his warm house (make no mistake, heaven is God's home) wouldn't you come in? I would hope that most people would. But let's say for a moment that you hate the guy's guts. Now you have to make a decision between coming into the home of someone you hate or staying out in the cold. To make things even worse, there are gangs of thugs running around outside, beating up anyone who's out after dark. But you REALLY hate the guy's guts. What do you do?
That's the choice you're faced with. Think of being out in the cold as a punishment if you wish, but the truth is that you just hate the guy's guts and can't see past that for long enough to realize that the guy actually cares about you and wants to share his home to keep you safe and comfortable.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the israelites did kill Babylonians.
That's usually what happens in a war. (Remember, these are *captives*. They're not just visiting to say, "Hello, I want to bash the skull of your kid in.") That hardly means that the Iraelites went around smashing babies against rocks. (Your original complaint.) As I said, I'm sure quite a few people would have liked to nuke Russia during the Cold War. Didn't mean that they did.
And for the record, the Iraelites did not manage to resist the onslaught of the Babylonians conquerors. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, enslaved the Jewish people, and generally conquered and pillaged. Their reign over the land of Israel lead to the eventual rule by the Greeks, then the Romans, and eventually the final dissolution of Israel under the Arabs.
But you know what? The Jewish people eventually stopped trying to kill the Babylonians out of spite, and started trying to work with them. A lot of them were killed because they wouldn't bow to Babylonian gods, but their God eventually proved his superiority to their golden idols. (e.g. Shadrak, Meshak and Abednego, not to mention Daniel in the Lion's Den.) According to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar himself became a believer in the power of the God of Israel.
You're bashing arguments that I did not make
You didn't make the argument that a single line about killing entire lines of people means that the Bible is promoting senseless violence? You certainly didn't offer any other evidence for your statement: "There are plenty of examples of outright glorification of violence in the old testament." When I debunked it, all you had to say was, "By that rationale, nothing condones violence." So we followed through on your logic, and found that all the classics are about glorifying horrible deads.
No, wait. They're about how people handle unfortunate situations, aren't they? It isn't always pretty, but it's not the same thing as glorifying violence.
imply that I'm stupid or illiterate because I disagree with you.
Your argument is certainly either stupid or based on a poor understanding of literature. What did you expect the Iraelites to think of a foreign invader? "Oh, hello. Glad you dropped by to rape, pillage, and subjugate?" Yet because the Iraeli people were hopping mad over getting conquered, you think that the Bible is about glorifying violence? That's an extremely poor excuse for logic.