I think the Mozilla team should make a "secret" commitment to never have a version 1.0. It would be deliciously like Xeno's paradox and oh so much fun to be able to say the 7 9s version of Moz is both more stable, more featureful and more lightweight than IE 7.1.
John.
Remind me again why a browser should do email?
on
Mozilla 0.9.3 Released
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Why do people keep posing technical legal questions to a bunch of geeks, most of whom haven't even graduated from college yet?
'Cause they're not all clueless idiots, there are a few sharp tacks in the bunch. Plus, one or two of 'em have graduated from college and actually have something to say worth reading. Sort by score order, idiot.
Judging from the uninformed comments above, evidently not, but there are a *ton* of clueless idiots who are more than happy to spout off their opinions on a subject they know nothing about.
Well, duh. What else is new about any online community? Why should/. be any different?
Some few years ago, I was a TA for an undergrad CS course that had two TAs at UNC-CH. One day I was too sick to grade my students' programs and my partner got to grade the entire bunch. Guess what he found? Two students w/different TAs (i.e., he and me) turned in the same program. We two TAs and the prof were pretty much livid and after the prof discussed the problem w/the students involved, we took the one we judged to be truly guilty to honor court. We all three "testified" against the student.
Because of privacy issues, we never found out exactly what the ruling was, but I'm pretty sure he got convicted and wound up having to take the course over.
Excellent! So we'll be seeing Samba acting as a PDC/BDC and/or authenticator for Win32 clients in a few months! So, apart from the Exchange server, we can have a total Unix back office for all of our Win32 clients who only want Office and email!
I think html, properly restricted in email, used primarily (only?) for text formatting, could be great. "Proper restriction" for me would include: no damn images, no javascript, no references to resources not immediately included in the html and whatever else smarter people than I think of.
The stuff you're complaining about has more to do with how html email is commonly (mis-)used than any intrinsic badness in html.
Wasted bandwidth, storage, slow loadtimes: all due to images.
Cruddy appearance in text interfaces: well, yeah, but I bet a minimal html editor that tried to preserve text format (or format the marked-up text to reflect how the markup will make it appear) could be written. (I'm thinking potential Linux html-based email clients.)
Interference of ads: images again.
Tracking user's habits: side-effect of handing off the html to a full-blown web browser for rendering. I don't think we need that.
Cross-platform compatibility: side effect of current crop of crappy html generators. If our hypothetical email client used nothing but xhtml/html 4.01, we'd be ok, yes?
Necessity of being connected: only if the html requests external resources. Images again. Why should we tolerate that? But... it's not an intrinsically bad thing about html, just how it's used.
Mail lists: well, yeah, but if minimal html clients became the norm, maybe that problem would be reduced. In the meantime, hey, save as text!
Sorry, I don't quite see how your feelings toward html are relevant to a javascript-based problem.
Unless you consider javascript to be an integral part of html, which I don't.
Seems to me all the email problems stem from executable content, not formatting. An email client that honored basic html formatting tags w/out honoring javascript should be just fine.
Linux folks writing a new email client might be able to start w/Gecko and strip out the javascript support.
(BTW, I used to feel the same way about plain text email. When I'm at home, I use fetchmail and emacs gnus to sort my mail and score the messages and it is just too cool for school. BUT, I do like being able to indent and bullet and color and italicize and all that, and I wish emacs could do it, somehow.)
I'm working for a small company that might, in the near future, want to generate action items for its users. It would be nice if there was an open protocol that we could code to (w/the obligatory Outlook translator as an afterthought). I'm thinking that in addition to our software being able to enter items into the to-do list, it will need to be able to receive status updates (e.g., "done").
Note that this is independent of all the spiffy GUI features others are asking for.
Apologies for the incoherence of this post. This was going to be my one final quick skim of/. before bed. Geez, it's 3:00 a.m. here.
Plus, statistics show that 70% of all Java developers target APIs that are native to their platform.
Say again? We're writing a fairly heavy-duty AppServiceProvider-model application with JSPs and servlets hosted on IIS/JRun and I don't believe we've had any temptation whatsoever to use "native APIs" (whatever that is). Unless you want to count our assumption that lines are terminated with "\n".
what eudora would do w/a "meeting" tag is stuff the meeting into a Eudora scheduler thingy, if Eudora had one and there were a standard definition of "meeting" tags that MS adhered to.
Say, is there a standard protocol for scheduling things?
think everything on the Web should be free of charge to the end consumer
Not sure exactly where you're going here; are you agreeing or disagreeing w/me? I specifically said "Web" (as opposed to "Internet") on purpose. Sure, people pay for their Internet access. Those who don't want to pay use an ad-supported service like NetZero or FreeInternet or whatever, and supply their customer profile info to the ISP, presumably under an explicit, specific, enforceable privacy contract.
I don't think that has anything to do w/my admonishment to those who think everything on the Web should be free of charge to the end consumer (there, I said it again -- proof through repetition) and then complain when the content-providers try to make a buck or two.
Here's yet another reply in support of Deja (and a longing for digital cash).
All you cheap weenies (if you don't know who you are, you should) think everything on the Web should be free of charge to the end consumer, supported by ad revenue. Yet, when a site tries to get some ad revenue, you bitch.
*dope slap*
Coming down off my soapbox, I guess what we really need is digital cash (preferably "double-blind" (I think that's the term)). Most folks might not feel comfortable handing out a CC# for a couple of bucks a month (or less) but I'd just love to be able to zap a digital nickel to Deja to pay for a query.
Ok, dumb question #1: isn't it (theoretically) possible to turn off the retrieval of things from sites that differ from the original URL host or domain, in the browser? Like, if I request a URL from www.flibbertygibbit.com, can't the browser be smart enough not to request further resources from, say, ad.doubleclick.net (but be smart enough to request resources from pix.flibbertygibbit.com)? Wasn't this capability in Mozilla until recently? How hard is it to put back in?
Netscape's parser stinks, but it can certainly render XHTML (which is fully normalized) adequately. Pressuring your customers into supporting a predatory monopolist you don't even work for is unconscionable.
And the funky Javascript bugs?
I wasn't real happy about dropping NS, but (a) I'm not mgmt, and (b) it is indeed a PITA.
I don't believe we're pressuring our customers. As far as I know, they're already all using IE anyway and there is no pressure to support NS. When we dropped NS, we worried about losing sales, but I don't think it's happened yet. (But I'm not on the sales/support side.)
Well, I was serious, actually, but sometimes I get a little too earnest.:)
Portability, shmortability. The startup I work for is developing an ASP kinda thingy using JSPs (with Javascrpt:( ) and Java servlets running on Allaire JRun/IIS and targetting only IE (because NS is just too damn buggy). We supported NS until recently. Our mgmt pays lip service to portability and adherence to standards, but the truth is, we'll probably never leave MS-Windows. I suspect the same is true of any other shop that has started development on Windows. I don't think many places actually move their software to a different architecture, they just leave the legacy stuff where it is, develop new functionality on new platforms and use something like CORBA or XML to bridge back to the old stuff, unmoved. I think MS knows this dynamic, so their primary goal is to force or strongly influence decision makers onto the Windows platform, where they'll stay, once planted. Putting extensions into their servers that work w/hooks in the browser is the way to do this.
I agree w/your other points that Sun's standardization is ok (for the time being) and that discussion of Sun's standardization is a digression from the topic at hand.:)
On a quick skim, this appears to be a language-theoretical paper. I suspect the authors would actually be more harsh on C#. I also suspect they'd prefer that a language like ML or Haskell become popular.
Actually, come to think of it, I'd prefer Haskell to become popular.
The real question is: Does C# have enough new functionality to draw the masses to it? I'll wager time can answer that for us...
Well, I don't know much, but....
We know by now that the quality of the mousetrap is irrelevant. MS will put the C# VM in IE while leaving the JVM (increasingly back-rev) an "optional" component. As soon as the C# engine is available on millions of desktops, mgmt will begin saying "Why don't we develop for C#? After all, everybody has it now." Seasoned Java developers will grit their teeth and resist, but it will be futile.
Meanwhile, Al Gore, having run a totally lackluster campaign (and having split the vote w/Nader) will lose to Dubya in a landslide. Dubya's DOJ will promptly drop the lawsuit against MS as "without merit". MS knows this now, that's why they're making no contingency plans for a breakup.
So, there we'll be: C# on the One True Browser, Java fighting valiantly (presumably more valiantly than OS/2) but losing nonetheless. Then, of course, MS will be free to extend their browser monopoly onto the server, finally dislodging the Linux/Apache combo that's been irritating them for so long.
How to resist? In no particular order:
MS's biggest weak spot is security. We need more security horror stories. Maybe this.NET thing is a fertile area (trust your data to MS's internet servers, anybody?). At the same time, Linux had better not start opening up security holes for the sake of convenience. Emacs 'eval' file variables, anyone?
Another weak spot is low-reliability software -- "reboot the server" should be shown to be inefficient and costly ("costly" being more important than "inefficient").
And "good enough" software that is really too frustrating for 10% of the developer population (I think it's valid to assume that 10% is somewhere near the top end of the talent scale, so maybe we can use the 10:1 productivity ratio as a magnifier of that 10%).
We need more Linux success stories like Google.
We need absolutely sterling Linux support. (We cannot count on IBM; they'll blow with the wind because they're not fools. In fact, since they're now a service company, what richer field for service opportunities than supporting MS software, which so badly needs support?)
We need more noticeable instances of the MS tax ($300 for bloated, unnecessary Office upgrades because the idiot in the next department insists on sending attachments in Office<todaysDate++>).
And of course, Just Plain Better Linux Solutions. Mo' betta fasta. Cheaper. Scads of Linux developers hopping over that low barrier to entry.
Duh. All of this being blindingly obvious, of course. None of it having anything to do w/the merits of C# over Java.
Look at the top left corner of the first image (the dialog box). Can we stop slinging around nifty beveled edges and engraved effects just because we can? Just give the user a grey slab w/some indication (minimal or not, user-adjustable) of what's clickable and what's just a label.
You rabid Slashdotters gotta be careful. MS is in the right on this when they ask that copyrighted material be removed. If you make a big stink about that particular point, you're gonna lose, and that publicly. You might still help The Cause (that of bringing MS to heel) through sheer publicity, but you also run the risk of being viewed as anarchists for opposing the use of copyright law. In case it's slipped your mind: anarchists are not generally appreciated by the mainstream (by which I mean the vast majority of MS's users).
(No, I didn't read all 300 preceding comments. I have something else to do besides surf/., so excuse me if this is a repeat.)
School administrators know that the real problem is bullying and alienation. If you listen to the news reports that actually take the trouble to find an administrator instead of Johnny-on-the-street, you'll hear it. The school in Oregon where Kip Kinkel killed a couple of people a year or two ago has taken action to reduce alienation, not reduce Internet usage.
My point is: you (Hemos and all you other foaming-at-the-mouth/.ers) are allowing yourself to get overexcited and feel persecuted. Calm down.
Slashdot Mirror
John.
no damn body
John.
Some few years ago, I was a TA for an undergrad CS course that had two TAs at UNC-CH. One day I was too sick to grade my students' programs and my partner got to grade the entire bunch. Guess what he found? Two students w/different TAs (i.e., he and me) turned in the same program. We two TAs and the prof were pretty much livid and after the prof discussed the problem w/the students involved, we took the one we judged to be truly guilty to honor court. We all three "testified" against the student.
Because of privacy issues, we never found out exactly what the ruling was, but I'm pretty sure he got convicted and wound up having to take the course over.
John.
Plus, recovery is easier, since it's mostly a matter of restoring user files from backup, not reinstalling/reconfiguring the OS itself.
John.
Now, why the heck do I need body? Subject line says it.
The stuff you're complaining about has more to do with how html email is commonly (mis-)used than any intrinsic badness in html.
Wasted bandwidth, storage, slow loadtimes: all due to images.
Cruddy appearance in text interfaces: well, yeah, but I bet a minimal html editor that tried to preserve text format (or format the marked-up text to reflect how the markup will make it appear) could be written. (I'm thinking potential Linux html-based email clients.)
Interference of ads: images again.
Tracking user's habits: side-effect of handing off the html to a full-blown web browser for rendering. I don't think we need that.
Cross-platform compatibility: side effect of current crop of crappy html generators. If our hypothetical email client used nothing but xhtml/html 4.01, we'd be ok, yes?
Necessity of being connected: only if the html requests external resources. Images again. Why should we tolerate that? But... it's not an intrinsically bad thing about html, just how it's used.
Mail lists: well, yeah, but if minimal html clients became the norm, maybe that problem would be reduced. In the meantime, hey, save as text!
John.
Unless you consider javascript to be an integral part of html, which I don't.
Seems to me all the email problems stem from executable content, not formatting. An email client that honored basic html formatting tags w/out honoring javascript should be just fine.
Linux folks writing a new email client might be able to start w/Gecko and strip out the javascript support.
(BTW, I used to feel the same way about plain text email. When I'm at home, I use fetchmail and emacs gnus to sort my mail and score the messages and it is just too cool for school. BUT, I do like being able to indent and bullet and color and italicize and all that, and I wish emacs could do it, somehow.)
John.
Note that this is independent of all the spiffy GUI features others are asking for.
Apologies for the incoherence of this post. This was going to be my one final quick skim of /. before bed. Geez, it's 3:00 a.m. here.
John.
Say again? We're writing a fairly heavy-duty AppServiceProvider-model application with JSPs and servlets hosted on IIS/JRun and I don't believe we've had any temptation whatsoever to use "native APIs" (whatever that is). Unless you want to count our assumption that lines are terminated with "\n".
Where did you get that 70% figure?
Say, is there a standard protocol for scheduling things?
Wouldn't this be an appropriate way for users to respond to "search result pollution" by Yahoo?
John.
Go back and check that quote. It's love of money that's the root of all evil, not money itself.
Oh, and btw, it's a haughty spirit that goes before a fall and pride before destruction.
I hate it when people screw up perfectly good biblical quotes.
John.
Not sure exactly where you're going here; are you agreeing or disagreeing w/me? I specifically said "Web" (as opposed to "Internet") on purpose. Sure, people pay for their Internet access. Those who don't want to pay use an ad-supported service like NetZero or FreeInternet or whatever, and supply their customer profile info to the ISP, presumably under an explicit, specific, enforceable privacy contract.
I don't think that has anything to do w/my admonishment to those who think everything on the Web should be free of charge to the end consumer (there, I said it again -- proof through repetition) and then complain when the content-providers try to make a buck or two.
All you cheap weenies (if you don't know who you are, you should) think everything on the Web should be free of charge to the end consumer, supported by ad revenue. Yet, when a site tries to get some ad revenue, you bitch.
*dope slap*
Coming down off my soapbox, I guess what we really need is digital cash (preferably "double-blind" (I think that's the term)). Most folks might not feel comfortable handing out a CC# for a couple of bucks a month (or less) but I'd just love to be able to zap a digital nickel to Deja to pay for a query.
John.
John.
And the funky Javascript bugs?
I wasn't real happy about dropping NS, but (a) I'm not mgmt, and (b) it is indeed a PITA.
I don't believe we're pressuring our customers. As far as I know, they're already all using IE anyway and there is no pressure to support NS. When we dropped NS, we worried about losing sales, but I don't think it's happened yet. (But I'm not on the sales/support side.)
Portability, shmortability. The startup I work for is developing an ASP kinda thingy using JSPs (with Javascrpt :( ) and Java servlets running on Allaire JRun/IIS and targetting only IE (because NS is just too damn buggy). We supported NS until recently. Our mgmt pays lip service to portability and adherence to standards, but the truth is, we'll probably never leave MS-Windows. I suspect the same is true of any other shop that has started development on Windows. I don't think many places actually move their software to a different architecture, they just leave the legacy stuff where it is, develop new functionality on new platforms and use something like CORBA or XML to bridge back to the old stuff, unmoved. I think MS knows this dynamic, so their primary goal is to force or strongly influence decision makers onto the Windows platform, where they'll stay, once planted. Putting extensions into their servers that work w/hooks in the browser is the way to do this.
I agree w/your other points that Sun's standardization is ok (for the time being) and that discussion of Sun's standardization is a digression from the topic at hand. :)
John.
Actually, come to think of it, I'd prefer Haskell to become popular.
John.
Well, I don't know much, but....
We know by now that the quality of the mousetrap is irrelevant. MS will put the C# VM in IE while leaving the JVM (increasingly back-rev) an "optional" component. As soon as the C# engine is available on millions of desktops, mgmt will begin saying "Why don't we develop for C#? After all, everybody has it now." Seasoned Java developers will grit their teeth and resist, but it will be futile.
Meanwhile, Al Gore, having run a totally lackluster campaign (and having split the vote w/Nader) will lose to Dubya in a landslide. Dubya's DOJ will promptly drop the lawsuit against MS as "without merit". MS knows this now, that's why they're making no contingency plans for a breakup.
So, there we'll be: C# on the One True Browser, Java fighting valiantly (presumably more valiantly than OS/2) but losing nonetheless. Then, of course, MS will be free to extend their browser monopoly onto the server, finally dislodging the Linux/Apache combo that's been irritating them for so long.
How to resist? In no particular order:
Duh. All of this being blindingly obvious, of course. None of it having anything to do w/the merits of C# over Java.
Look at the top left corner of the first image (the dialog box). Can we stop slinging around nifty beveled edges and engraved effects just because we can? Just give the user a grey slab w/some indication (minimal or not, user-adjustable) of what's clickable and what's just a label.
You rabid Slashdotters gotta be careful. MS is in the right on this when they ask that copyrighted material be removed. If you make a big stink about that particular point, you're gonna lose, and that publicly. You might still help The Cause (that of bringing MS to heel) through sheer publicity, but you also run the risk of being viewed as anarchists for opposing the use of copyright law. In case it's slipped your mind: anarchists are not generally appreciated by the mainstream (by which I mean the vast majority of MS's users).
School administrators know that the real problem is bullying and alienation. If you listen to the news reports that actually take the trouble to find an administrator instead of Johnny-on-the-street, you'll hear it. The school in Oregon where Kip Kinkel killed a couple of people a year or two ago has taken action to reduce alienation, not reduce Internet usage.
My point is: you (Hemos and all you other foaming-at-the-mouth /.ers) are allowing yourself to get overexcited and feel persecuted. Calm down.
John.