Simple. Using the cli to issue the signal to the pid feels more powerful and closer to the system than using a graphical interface. Granted, it's not always true. But in OSX, it's easier to do
"rm *e*" to rm all files with e in it than use the finder to find all files in the current folder with e, then drag them to the trash, then delete them.
".."? In MacOSX, I just use the up arrow button to go up, or scroll sideways if I'm in that long stretched out view. What's this ".."?
".." is a special operator on a file operator on unix systems. On mac os 9, it was:: Sure, any chucklehead can figure it out afte ra while, but isn't the point of a good user interface, is a good user interaface? One that is easy to understand?
Took me a while to figure out how to turn off my iPod. You have to hold down the play button. It took me a while to think, yeah, that's obvious considering other electronics i've used.. but this is a new device... hwo was I to know?
Open standards aren't a panacea. I love saying "isn't a panacea".
Opensource is good and all. Open standards are great and all as well. But you can't judge a product on its openness. After all, is the sorenson codec or OS X (both apple) bad? How about trillian? Great piece of software... and it's closed.
Some of your questions are even self-answering. If they're not using the clients out there, whether those clients support some namespace they cook up for their own calendering solution is irrelevant, and if they're implementing their own namespace for it then it doesn't matter how well whatever analogous standardized namespace fits their needs. (Of course, if they *could* stick with the standards on that, it makes their work that much easier -- but let's say that they have some good reason to reinvent that portion of the wheel). There's still no good reason to impliment any kind of messaging system without taking a good hard look at Jabber.
You are assuming they haven't. If they did, then they obviously found something "better". What about SOAP, XML-RPC? What if they are using something that's NOT XML, like EJB or RMI (one uses the other, I know).
Not really. Look at the apache config file. WOrks wonders. Maybe for DNS would work as well. Works for HTML. Html is an XML derivative.. or the other way around chronologically.
Now granted, using XML for the password file would suck.
As for your app argument, to parse it isn't that hard. jdom, for a config file, is really fast to implement. For simple tabular data, csv an work as well, just depends on your task, eh?
SO it leaves XML for lots of uses.. just not all of them
Same reason you dont' do procedural programming (to a degree). You can write a lot of that and make readability a bitch. OOP ISN'T A PANACEA! Procedural programming just makes things a little.. easier to shoot one's foot.
It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.
What Jabber are you referring to? the core protocol or the many proprietary or opensource implimentations?
Either. Sun see's it more fit to use a certain protocol as well as software to work with their suite. They may do a better job than Jabber, i can't say.
Point is, they don't want to use jabber, that's fine. The protocol they develop becomes their thing. WHo cares if you have to use it? If they did, they'd have to modify it to their whims and close source it anyway, since they probably won't offer support contracts for opensource software they didn't write.
Sorry, but that is like saying that TCP doesn't integrate with Windows 98. In reality, it would be a bit different-- one would have a program that would *use* TCP and integrate with Windows 98, but TCP by itself does not integrate with anything other than IP:-P
No, it's like using analogies to say what you really mean. Jabber doesn't integrate with the whims of Sun for whatever reason they know of. Does jabber protocl support calendar's and email notifications better than something sun cooked up? Do the jabber clients out there (which I doubt they'd use) support the functions they want? It's a right fit issue, not a "it's crap or not" issue.
The point is I see no reason why an Exchange connecter could not be written to allow a groupware client to access calendar, email notifications, etc. via the Jabber protocol. It would probably be relatively easy to do. Same with any other server that has an SDK associated with it. This connector could be a jabber client itself, or could be a plugin to a jabber server (and act as a gateway).
because they don't see it fit. For instance, why don't i use the jabber protocol for DNS? It's too heavy. A UDP packet is a LOT smaller than a bunch of tcp packets carrying jabber.
Jabberd today integrates with MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, AOL, SMTP(!) etc. and also can provide many other services.
As much as jabber is a great protocol and all, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Did you people bother read the article? Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's suite. If they foudn the technology usable, the may have used it.
It's not about SUN making IM softare. It's about their IM/Collaboration/Calendar/Email suite. It's about them releasing software, that integrates well with their software. Being redundant there. It's about cool little popups from their IM program telling you about a meeting or about email, muchlike yahoo client does
If you wanna keep talking about Jabber Protocol, why not SOAP, or XML-RPC? Cripes... As if that's what the article really is about.
Linux, because of it's open source nature is one of the least reliable OSs out there.
You can't assign causality like that. Because it is opensource, people aquired the code, because one affects the other. Linus being famous due to Linux's opensourceness works too, because if it wasn't opensource, it would never have progressed to be such a big project. People wouldn't have helped.
Saying opensource is unreliable doesn't work. Code is unreliabale because people write bad code. Linux has a lot of developers and code managers. You can say, it's unreliable due to managers not addressing issues or crappy coders. You can have a closed source project with crappy code. Look at something like.. MS-DOS 4.x.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude! You remember the doom interface for killing linux processes? Port THAT!
Nah, just having fun with the 'puter.
Point is, with the command line, you have the power to do what you want, regardless if you knew what you are doing :)
To hold a python? The ASPCA would have a fit if you used a normal sized nutshell. :)
Any smaller, the ASPCA would bitch :)
Simple. Using the cli to issue the signal to the pid feels more powerful and closer to the system than using a graphical interface. Granted, it's not always true. But in OSX, it's easier to do
"rm *e*" to rm all files with e in it than use the finder to find all files in the current folder with e, then drag them to the trash, then delete them.
It's so not the same.
:)
command-option-escape is kicking your annoying guest out the house.
"killall 'Internet Explorer.app'"
That's stabbing him in the eye first
Added bonus. When IE is doing something you don't like, you can kill it with the kill command. Felt good to do that my frist time :)
Yes, I know you solaris heads could do this already and that chimera, moz, phoenix, safari exist. >P
".."? In MacOSX, I just use the up arrow button to go up, or scroll sideways if I'm in that long stretched out view. What's this ".."?
:: Sure, any chucklehead can figure it out afte ra while, but isn't the point of a good user interface, is a good user interaface? One that is easy to understand?
".." is a special operator on a file operator on unix systems. On mac os 9, it was
Took me a while to figure out how to turn off my iPod. You have to hold down the play button. It took me a while to think, yeah, that's obvious considering other electronics i've used.. but this is a new device... hwo was I to know?
Open standards aren't a panacea. I love saying "isn't a panacea".
Opensource is good and all. Open standards are great and all as well. But you can't judge a product on its openness. After all, is the sorenson codec or OS X (both apple) bad? How about trillian? Great piece of software... and it's closed.
You are assuming they haven't. If they did, then they obviously found something "better". What about SOAP, XML-RPC? What if they are using something that's NOT XML, like EJB or RMI (one uses the other, I know).
Not really. Look at the apache config file. WOrks wonders. Maybe for DNS would work as well. Works for HTML. Html is an XML derivative.. or the other way around chronologically.
Now granted, using XML for the password file would suck.
As for your app argument, to parse it isn't that hard. jdom, for a config file, is really fast to implement. For simple tabular data, csv an work as well, just depends on your task, eh?
SO it leaves XML for lots of uses.. just not all of them
Same reason you dont' do procedural programming (to a degree). You can write a lot of that and make readability a bitch. OOP ISN'T A PANACEA! Procedural programming just makes things a little.. easier to shoot one's foot.
Didn't that get renamed to WIndows Server 2003 or something like that? ;)
Either. Sun see's it more fit to use a certain protocol as well as software to work with their suite. They may do a better job than Jabber, i can't say.
Point is, they don't want to use jabber, that's fine. The protocol they develop becomes their thing. WHo cares if you have to use it? If they did, they'd have to modify it to their whims and close source it anyway, since they probably won't offer support contracts for opensource software they didn't write.
No, it's like using analogies to say what you really mean. Jabber doesn't integrate with the whims of Sun for whatever reason they know of. Does jabber protocl support calendar's and email notifications better than something sun cooked up? Do the jabber clients out there (which I doubt they'd use) support the functions they want? It's a right fit issue, not a "it's crap or not" issue.
because they don't see it fit. For instance, why don't i use the jabber protocol for DNS? It's too heavy. A UDP packet is a LOT smaller than a bunch of tcp packets carrying jabber.
As much as jabber is a great protocol and all, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Looking at Enron, MCI Worldcom et al.. you believe them? ;)
Did you people bother read the article? Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's suite. If they foudn the technology usable, the may have used it.
It's not about SUN making IM softare. It's about their IM/Collaboration/Calendar/Email suite. It's about them releasing software, that integrates well with their software. Being redundant there. It's about cool little popups from their IM program telling you about a meeting or about email, muchlike yahoo client does
If you wanna keep talking about Jabber Protocol, why not SOAP, or XML-RPC? Cripes... As if that's what the article really is about.
It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.
That's like blaming MS for not using Linux's drivers. They don't work together.
Isn't this a Linksys problem if it crashes due to errant traffic? You may wanna talk to them about this, incase someone with 10.2.4 lives next door :)
You can't assign causality like that. Because it is opensource, people aquired the code, because one affects the other. Linus being famous due to Linux's opensourceness works too, because if it wasn't opensource, it would never have progressed to be such a big project. People wouldn't have helped.
Saying opensource is unreliable doesn't work. Code is unreliabale because people write bad code. Linux has a lot of developers and code managers. You can say, it's unreliable due to managers not addressing issues or crappy coders. You can have a closed source project with crappy code. Look at something like.. MS-DOS 4.x.
Trollin' the trolls..
I'd rather A free legacy pc any day.
-s
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
[/kidding]
Weren't you around 2 days ago? They are merging all the bsd's. That's why there is a delay.
:P)
(Really? No, not really
I think your priorities are screwed. ALWAYS use the nail gun. It's just more fun :)
What about perl? or fortran?
I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but i remember seeing perl work on windows before java. But that's my memory.