Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,' he claimed...
Completely false. Not only can people improve the code, they can do so under a model that isn't too different from what he's familiar with (and, in some ways, pioneered).
If you wish to improve traditional proprietary software, you must pay the IP owner for a license to do so. The same is true for the GPL, except that the currency is different: instead of paying in money, you pay in code. How difficult is that to understand?
He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical.
Actually, you can charge for GPL software. You still have to follow the terms of the GPL -everyone who gets the software has to be able to get the source at no additional cost- but you can charge whatever you want.
More likely they just want to be able to claim compliance while leaving out vital parts of the standard that people want to use. End goal: continue hindering the development of Web applications, but do so in a way that looks a little better than past efforts.
As I understand the controversy, the major problem some people seem to have is with the task scheduler. Certain types of scheduling are better suited for certain types of tasks than others, and according to one side of the debate, the current scheduler is optimized toward big iron (batch jobs) at the expense of the desktop (interactive tasks).
Yeah, right. The ISPs have gotten so far into bed with the RIAA that the only thing listed in the "P2P Bill of Rights" will be the right to remain silent.
Check the summary again. It says "equivalent", not one big 92x92 plot of technology. If the solar fields could be made smaller, but many more spread out over the region, you could get the same effect as if it were one large setup. I addressed that. In terms of surface area alone, the equivalent to a 92x92 plot is equal to fifty plots of about 13x13 miles each. At this size alone you've already excluded many of the smaller or denser states. This does not, however, take into account the issue of how much sunlight falls on each region on average. The Southwest was chosen for the 92x92 plot because that area gets more (and stronger) sunlight than most of the rest of the country; elsewhere, the plots would actually have to be larger, or you would need more of them.
I heard about this on NPR last week, and this same concern was brought up. No one is saying that they are going to make such a huge array (can you imagine the need for maintenance workers?). However, if there are enough arrays created, it can be the functional equivalent of the 92x92 field spoken about. You still need to cover at least the same surface area, and this is where things get hairy. If you used 200 of these plots -four per state- that's still 6.5 miles on a side. Even if you made 1000 plots -20 for each state- that's still 3.5 miles on each side. Suddenly you have to fit 20 of these into each state? As I said before, this might be viable for California or Texas, but not for Rhode Island (which would actually need more than this to compensate for the relative lack of sunlight) or Hawaii.
It's an interesting thought, but it does not scale to the size of nations.
As others have mentioned, a solar farm almost 100 miles per side is completely impractical. Even a set of 13-by-13-mile farms -one for each state- might work for Texas and California, but would be much harder to pull off in Rhode Island or Hawaii just because of space concerns. Then there's the Alaska issue.
Solar thermal is a nice thought. It might even work for some states. But it's not the One Magic Bullet that people seem to be seeking.
Lots of projects exist that extend and/or fork the Linux kernel for specific needs. We have SELinux for heightened security, RTLinux for realtime processing, uCLinux for embedded machines, and so forth. These forks, if they can be properly called that, seem to get on more or less harmoniously with the core Linux kernel group.
Perhaps it is time for a "DeskLinux" project along similar lines, specifically to cater to the needs of desktop users. This would allow the core Linux kernel to keep its ostensible neutrality toward what systems it runs on, while still letting those who favor desktops to resolve what many people see as some very real issues. It even opens the way for a "BigLinux" later on, to bring enhancements specific to big iron that do not need to be in the core.
When the options are for a corporation to pay or the consumers to pay, then the consumers will pay one way or the other. The corporations may be making the actual transactions, but they'll just pass the costs along to us in the end.
The same is true of governments, of course, though we call the people "taxpayers" in that case rather than consumers. Either way, there's no way to escape it: either we end up paying or we find some means of achieving the same goal in a more palatable way.
First they'll have to convince the market that Blu-Ray -or even HD, for that matter- is worth the hundreds of dollars extra they charge. That hasn't happened, nor will it until prices come down to something reasonable, which of course won't happen unless Sony can convince people to pay hundreds more for a marginal improvement. It's a vicious circle.
I think you're confused. The Acid 3 test is not a test for Web standards. Yes, yes it is. Specs, with their inherent ambiguities and alternative interpretations, can only go so far in establishing a standard. It takes a test suite to remove the ambiguities and clear things up in an implementable fashion. That's something developers can depend on. The platform isn't HTML5/CSS3/JavaScript2: it's whatever subset of those you can be sure will work. Test suites establish those subsets.
It's a test for a particular (and rather small) subset of Web standards. It's not even a representative set of Web standards that would necessarily move the Web forward in meaningful ways if there were compatible implementations across the various browsers.
Yes, yes it would. The designers of the various Acid-series tests have always been careful to test for inconsistencies and missing features that have been annoying site developers.
At Mozilla, we're definitely focused on fixing bugs in our various Web standards feature implementations as well as adding new Web standards capabilities... "Adding new Web standards capabilities" I'll grant you. Mozilla is nothing if not eager to add support for new and relatively obscure standards, even making some of its own on occasion.
But "fixing bugs in our various Web standard feature implementations"? I don't think so. I remember when Acid2 was released, just as you (in the sense of Mozilla, not personally) were going into the final stages of 1.5. That was excusable. But not only was a compliant 1.6 not forthcoming, it didn't even make it into 2.0, released a full eleven months later. And you -again, collective rather than personal- call yourselves focused on fixing standards bugs? Your actions speak otherwise, and they speak very loudly.
but we're not going to focus on any one test, especially a test that's designed as much to make browser vendors jump through hoops as much to advance the standards state of the Web. Then you have lost sight of something very important, and I look forward to the day when you remember it. Until then, I'll be on another browser whose developers haven't forgotten that the most important thing about a browser is that the site must work.
Perhaps, but shame on the devs for not announcing a 3.1 release to fix Acid3-compliance as soon as possible after 3.0's release. How I long for the days when standards were a priority on that team.
Having lived through the bad old days when pay-per-use was still popular with ISPs, I'm forced to say no way. It's great for the ISPs, I'm sure, as they can arbitrarily set the "value" of a certain amount of bandwidth completely ex recto and hold everyone to that. For consumers, however, it's terrible; they invariably end up paying more for inferior service plus the fear of using more bandwidth and having to pay more.
Firefox put Web standards on the map. Now it seems that standards are a distant second to "features" no one knew they wanted (and for good reason). Has Mozilla become the next IE?
There isn't any excuse for the blatant deprioritization of standards that has been going on within the Firefox team. While it's true that the Gecko development period for Firefox 2 was finished just before Acid2 was released, this should have been addressed in a high-priority update -perhaps 2.0.1- shortly afterward. The same goes for Firefox 3, yet we're not seeing any serious moves toward that.
I remember when standards were Job 1 with that team, and it really bothers me to see them pushed so far back on the list. When a new test suite is released, you move to pass it. How hard of a concept is that?
What makes you think Firefox is shooting for Acid3? Given how long they've rested on their laurels, dillydallying on Acid2 while IE of all browsers caught up to them, I have very little faith that they're going to suddenly give standards the priority they deserve again.
I use Firefox, Safari, Opera, and a range of other browsers. I probably use Firefox the most. But I've got to say, I've been really disillusioned with their devs ever since they put standards on the back burner.
Anyone who isn't willing to do whatever they need to do to learn good JavaScript isn't worthy of any programming/web design job. Even if that means using a book.
You have no idea whether or not I'm a good programmer, so you have no qualifications to make that judgement.
Given that your main objection to JavaScript seems to be that you refuse to learn the paradigms it espouses, I think that's plenty of evidence right there. Just because you don't understand a language does not make it weak.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,' he claimed...
Completely false. Not only can people improve the code, they can do so under a model that isn't too different from what he's familiar with (and, in some ways, pioneered).
If you wish to improve traditional proprietary software, you must pay the IP owner for a license to do so. The same is true for the GPL, except that the currency is different: instead of paying in money, you pay in code. How difficult is that to understand?
He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical.
Actually, you can charge for GPL software. You still have to follow the terms of the GPL -everyone who gets the software has to be able to get the source at no additional cost- but you can charge whatever you want.
More likely they just want to be able to claim compliance while leaving out vital parts of the standard that people want to use. End goal: continue hindering the development of Web applications, but do so in a way that looks a little better than past efforts.
Anyone have desudesude.su yet?
When Flash is used properly, it can be very good. Animations, small applications and games, and the like are all examples of good uses for Flash.
When Flash is used improperly, it is very bad. Using it for entire Websites is one example of such abuse.
Leave desktop Linux alone!
LEAVE IT ALONE!1!
As I understand the controversy, the major problem some people seem to have is with the task scheduler. Certain types of scheduling are better suited for certain types of tasks than others, and according to one side of the debate, the current scheduler is optimized toward big iron (batch jobs) at the expense of the desktop (interactive tasks).
Yeah, right. The ISPs have gotten so far into bed with the RIAA that the only thing listed in the "P2P Bill of Rights" will be the right to remain silent.
It's an interesting thought, but it does not scale to the size of nations.
As others have mentioned, a solar farm almost 100 miles per side is completely impractical. Even a set of 13-by-13-mile farms -one for each state- might work for Texas and California, but would be much harder to pull off in Rhode Island or Hawaii just because of space concerns. Then there's the Alaska issue.
Solar thermal is a nice thought. It might even work for some states. But it's not the One Magic Bullet that people seem to be seeking.
Lots of projects exist that extend and/or fork the Linux kernel for specific needs. We have SELinux for heightened security, RTLinux for realtime processing, uCLinux for embedded machines, and so forth. These forks, if they can be properly called that, seem to get on more or less harmoniously with the core Linux kernel group.
Perhaps it is time for a "DeskLinux" project along similar lines, specifically to cater to the needs of desktop users. This would allow the core Linux kernel to keep its ostensible neutrality toward what systems it runs on, while still letting those who favor desktops to resolve what many people see as some very real issues. It even opens the way for a "BigLinux" later on, to bring enhancements specific to big iron that do not need to be in the core.
Well, this is the first development release. Do you honestly expect it to already be feature-complete when the work is only just starting?
I nominate "Rose," because what's in a name? That which we call The GIMP by any other word would smell as sweet.
When the options are for a corporation to pay or the consumers to pay, then the consumers will pay one way or the other. The corporations may be making the actual transactions, but they'll just pass the costs along to us in the end.
The same is true of governments, of course, though we call the people "taxpayers" in that case rather than consumers. Either way, there's no way to escape it: either we end up paying or we find some means of achieving the same goal in a more palatable way.
First they'll have to convince the market that Blu-Ray -or even HD, for that matter- is worth the hundreds of dollars extra they charge. That hasn't happened, nor will it until prices come down to something reasonable, which of course won't happen unless Sony can convince people to pay hundreds more for a marginal improvement. It's a vicious circle.
It's a test for a particular (and rather small) subset of Web standards. It's not even a representative set of Web standards that would necessarily move the Web forward in meaningful ways if there were compatible implementations across the various browsers.
Yes, yes it would. The designers of the various Acid-series tests have always been careful to test for inconsistencies and missing features that have been annoying site developers. At Mozilla, we're definitely focused on fixing bugs in our various Web standards feature implementations as well as adding new Web standards capabilities... "Adding new Web standards capabilities" I'll grant you. Mozilla is nothing if not eager to add support for new and relatively obscure standards, even making some of its own on occasion.
But "fixing bugs in our various Web standard feature implementations"? I don't think so. I remember when Acid2 was released, just as you (in the sense of Mozilla, not personally) were going into the final stages of 1.5. That was excusable. But not only was a compliant 1.6 not forthcoming, it didn't even make it into 2.0, released a full eleven months later. And you -again, collective rather than personal- call yourselves focused on fixing standards bugs? Your actions speak otherwise, and they speak very loudly. but we're not going to focus on any one test, especially a test that's designed as much to make browser vendors jump through hoops as much to advance the standards state of the Web. Then you have lost sight of something very important, and I look forward to the day when you remember it. Until then, I'll be on another browser whose developers haven't forgotten that the most important thing about a browser is that the site must work.
Perhaps, but shame on the devs for not announcing a 3.1 release to fix Acid3-compliance as soon as possible after 3.0's release. How I long for the days when standards were a priority on that team.
Having lived through the bad old days when pay-per-use was still popular with ISPs, I'm forced to say no way. It's great for the ISPs, I'm sure, as they can arbitrarily set the "value" of a certain amount of bandwidth completely ex recto and hold everyone to that. For consumers, however, it's terrible; they invariably end up paying more for inferior service plus the fear of using more bandwidth and having to pay more.
If this is really what you're doing, then you're already breaking the law. This doesn't make you less of a criminal.
Firefox put Web standards on the map. Now it seems that standards are a distant second to "features" no one knew they wanted (and for good reason). Has Mozilla become the next IE?
There isn't any excuse for the blatant deprioritization of standards that has been going on within the Firefox team. While it's true that the Gecko development period for Firefox 2 was finished just before Acid2 was released, this should have been addressed in a high-priority update -perhaps 2.0.1- shortly afterward. The same goes for Firefox 3, yet we're not seeing any serious moves toward that.
I remember when standards were Job 1 with that team, and it really bothers me to see them pushed so far back on the list. When a new test suite is released, you move to pass it. How hard of a concept is that?
What makes you think Firefox is shooting for Acid3? Given how long they've rested on their laurels, dillydallying on Acid2 while IE of all browsers caught up to them, I have very little faith that they're going to suddenly give standards the priority they deserve again.
I use Firefox, Safari, Opera, and a range of other browsers. I probably use Firefox the most. But I've got to say, I've been really disillusioned with their devs ever since they put standards on the back burner.
Anyone who isn't willing to do whatever they need to do to learn good JavaScript isn't worthy of any programming/web design job. Even if that means using a book.
As long as you don't have to deal with browser incompatibilities, JavaScript is actually pretty darn cool.
Ah, yes; the slippery slope. Irrational, illogical, and never, ever wrong.
You have no idea whether or not I'm a good programmer, so you have no qualifications to make that judgement.
Given that your main objection to JavaScript seems to be that you refuse to learn the paradigms it espouses, I think that's plenty of evidence right there. Just because you don't understand a language does not make it weak.