My understanding is that the onChange event doesn't fire until the input field has lost focus. That means that it wouldn't support character-by-character validation.
I think that the patent concerns itself with character-by-character validation. In other words, as soon as you enter a character which would make the validation fail, it let's you know it is invalid. I assume that most Javascript validation waits until all of the text has been entered. I know some medical infusion pumps work this way, but I think it sucks.
So, do you agree that somebody who uses "not pretty" as an excuse for not accepting code should be fired when there is proof? Or were you just trying to deflect the issue by taking about evidence?
Wine hasn't even implemented all the Win32 calls that existed before Linux. The simplest explanation is that duplicating the functionality of a complex and not fully documented OS that took years and many people to develop is difficult to do with part-time unpaid developers.
For what it's worth, Lisp wasn't the language that most Xerox developers were programming for when using a 1109, it was Mesa. So perhaps Lisp isn't that fast on a 1109 after all.
"What C programmers and programmers fail to realize it that there is something called time to Market, something called budget."
Perhaps, but this thread doesn't support the idea that C programmers "fail to realize" other issues. This is a discussion about speed, not time to market, cost, or maintainability.
The primary reason that the DOJ got involved in the first place was because MS competitors (who had embraced the corruption you spoke of) had lobbied for it. That's why the outcome didn't really help consumers - it was never about them.
"Didn't Ellison and McNealy try to sell us this pig in a poke years ago?"
Sort of. Sun's JavaStation was a diskless client machine that ran a Java OS. It required a Sun server which would download applications to the client as needed.
"It was probably the only site to trash the iPod when it was released. And whatever happened to that?"
I'd like to know too so I can fish it out of the trash. After all the original iPod might be worth a lot some day, even if it is covered with tiny bits of moldy food.
Moving functionality from the OS to the BIOS isn't going to accomplish anything. If the BIOS doesn't implement Windows compatibility it will still be DOA.
If in the future, so much functionality is available online that a majority of users don't care about Windows compatibility, than it will open the door to a lot of other OS's, but it still won't matter if it's implemented in a BIOS or not.
"Better than any other portability endeavor in computing history?"
I guess it depends on your definition of "portability".
I consider recompiling to target a specific platform vs. running under a platform-specific implementation of a virtual machine to be an issue that is orthogonal to portability.
I don't think there's any doubt that C programs have run on more hardware platforms than Java.
"What is cool about the Web is that it is the most Agile of all release environments. Unlike shrinkwrap software, web software can be changed very easily and universally for all users. It brings a raw edge to the development of the software."
Sure, it's much easier to change a web application using Javascript and the browser DOM than it is to modify a native application.
When you say some limitation is "not Linux's fault" you're missing the point. It doesn't matter to a consumer who's "at fault" but only if the OS works for them.
I suspect that Linux would do a lot better on the desktop if the developers would stop focusing so much on the kernel and new features and instead concentrate on reverse engineering popular hardware that is currently unsupported and write drivers for them.
I'm not sure about AIDS, but you certainly hear more about Gays and Abortion on Fox News than you do on NPR. I can tell that Fox doesn't like gays and abortion, but they might like AIDS a little bit because it has killed a lot of gays.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I didn't claim that it was impossible (if it were, how could IBM do it?), just not used that often.
My understanding is that the onChange event doesn't fire until the input field has lost focus. That means that it wouldn't support character-by-character validation.
I think that the patent concerns itself with character-by-character validation. In other words, as soon as you enter a character which would make the validation fail, it let's you know it is invalid. I assume that most Javascript validation waits until all of the text has been entered. I know some medical infusion pumps work this way, but I think it sucks.
as an Open/Free software hero? This action seems quite consistent with the IBM of the 1970's.
So, do you agree that somebody who uses "not pretty" as an excuse for not accepting code should be fired when there is proof? Or were you just trying to deflect the issue by taking about evidence?
Wine hasn't even implemented all the Win32 calls that existed before Linux. The simplest explanation is that duplicating the functionality of a complex and not fully documented OS that took years and many people to develop is difficult to do with part-time unpaid developers.
For what it's worth, Lisp wasn't the language that most Xerox developers were programming for when using a 1109, it was Mesa. So perhaps Lisp isn't that fast on a 1109 after all.
"What C programmers and programmers fail to realize it that there is something called time to Market, something called budget."
Perhaps, but this thread doesn't support the idea that C programmers "fail to realize" other issues. This is a discussion about speed, not time to market, cost, or maintainability.
"Like everything we use has to be centered at some big corporation somewhere..."
Not unless you want definitive help.
On the one hand people argue that consumers still can't easily choose a replacement browser on Windows, but then they expect them to use FTP.
The primary reason that the DOJ got involved in the first place was because MS competitors (who had embraced the corruption you spoke of) had lobbied for it. That's why the outcome didn't really help consumers - it was never about them.
So I guess all the original web pages created before CSS were "improper". They should have just given up the whole "WWW" idea then.
Besides all the new Taxi-WebDesigners are reading about CSS. Somehow they don't seem to be getting any better at producing pages, however.
"Didn't Ellison and McNealy try to sell us this pig in a poke years ago?"
Sort of. Sun's JavaStation was a diskless client machine that ran a Java OS. It required a Sun server which would download applications to the client as needed.
Yes, it's like the prediction that computers will replace TV's.
After that, all you have to do is replace the Intel-compatible CPU and all other proprietary hardware devices with "free" ones and you'll be GNU pure.
Well, I'd say for about the first 20 years of that 40, there were no Operating Systems in embedded products.
Why waste valuable code space to provide a general service when only one application would ever use it?
"It was probably the only site to trash the iPod when it was released. And whatever happened to that?"
I'd like to know too so I can fish it out of the trash. After all the original iPod might be worth a lot some day, even if it is covered with tiny bits of moldy food.
Moving functionality from the OS to the BIOS isn't going to accomplish anything. If the BIOS doesn't implement Windows compatibility it will still be DOA.
If in the future, so much functionality is available online that a majority of users don't care about Windows compatibility, than it will open the door to a lot of other OS's, but it still won't matter if it's implemented in a BIOS or not.
"Better than any other portability endeavor in computing history?"
I guess it depends on your definition of "portability".
I consider recompiling to target a specific platform vs. running under a platform-specific implementation of a virtual machine to be an issue that is orthogonal to portability.
I don't think there's any doubt that C programs have run on more hardware platforms than Java.
Sure, MS pays people to post on Slashdot. You sign up on the same site where Bill Gates pays you to send emails to test the Internet.
"It's easy to spot MS shills."
Of course there are no Linux shills because everyone else here is totally objective and has no particular interest in promoting Linux.
Not that long ago, just a few years before Slashdot.org
"What is cool about the Web is that it is the most Agile of all release environments. Unlike shrinkwrap software, web software can be changed very easily and universally for all users. It brings a raw edge to the development of the software."
Sure, it's much easier to change a web application using Javascript and the browser DOM than it is to modify a native application.
When you say some limitation is "not Linux's fault" you're missing the point. It doesn't matter to a consumer who's "at fault" but only if the OS works for them.
I suspect that Linux would do a lot better on the desktop if the developers would stop focusing so much on the kernel and new features and instead concentrate on reverse engineering popular hardware that is currently unsupported and write drivers for them.
I'm not sure about AIDS, but you certainly hear more about Gays and Abortion on Fox News than you do on NPR. I can tell that Fox doesn't like gays and abortion, but they might like AIDS a little bit because it has killed a lot of gays.