A> HTML was *never* meant to look the same on every machine, that is some other standard job (PDF?)
B> IE makes a good job in rendering webpages, Opera does it as well. Mozilla should be great when it's around 2.0 version.
The problem would've been much simpler if you had to write a HTML renderer alone, but you also have to write for Javascript, CSS, DHTML, etc.
C> I agree that translation is hard, I'm just pointing out that no compiler, as of now, has completed implementing the standard. No a *single* one. Ada is much harder standard to write for, and there doesn't seem so much of a problem with it.
Not according to MS, according to www.thecounter.com
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/brows er.html
IE 5 has 77% of the market share, IE 4 has 9%
I believe the numbers speak for themselves.
And IE6 will support all the features of IE5 & 4, just like IE5 supported all of IE4's features. It's netscape that breaks everything in browser releases.
You really don't know MS, do you? Backward compatability is a very important matter to them, sometimes even to the point of madness (9x, frex)
Hell, I can still play goldenaxe on XP, and the OS it was written for was about as different from the one I run it on as possible.
Why can't I do client side programming on any of those languages?
On a related note, do you know if there are Windows Script Host extention for those languages?
If I understood it correctly, the Judges on the US has political opinions, and (at least the supreme court, are being choosen by politicians).
Here, politic has only 1/3 of the vote, and an *ex*-judge that dared to voice a political opinion was criticized quite thoroughfully.
Judges ought to be impartial. Gore's case left, at best, a bad stigma of the US justice system in my opition.
It took several days after this was first reported in Reg, but slashdot managed to pull a story with a lot of interesting links that actually look researched.
Keep on doing to good work!
Next week, I might inform/. about o-p-t-o-m-i-z-a-t-i-o-n, which is a way to speed up the reaction.
By the turn of the century,/. may come up with an *original* story or two on its own.
Yes, I know this is shocking, but it's *possible*.
IDIOTS!
You never, *ever*, do this kind of stuff.
If the site wasn't slashdotted, you could get http://www.ariston.com/includes/connection.inc and read this script, and probably get a lot of info on how the connect to their DB, might even get passwords.
If it supports Blue Tooth in its current incernation, they will have to add a lot of things, because it's not complete yet, and you'll be angry about them for embracing & extending the technology.
If they wait for Blue Tooth to become stable, you'll be angry about them for using monopoly power to strungle technology.
So, if MS does it, considering the lack of true BlueTooth standard, you'll all start screaming about how MS embrace & extend it.
Beside, think about it this way, if Linux, Apple, and other non-MS OS would agree on a standard, for once, it would be MS that would have to play catch-up on hardware area.
In other words, you recommend that each program will have its own networking code, right?
And, since you use Perl, you must avoid using ReadLine (or is it ReadFile, don't program in Perl much), which is several thousand lines long.
Force them to submit all their code as evidence, that way it's publically available.
Even if we lose, we win!
On a more serious note, it's going to need more than speculation to do so. And the GPL was never tested on court, losing such a case (and MS has *way* more money the FSF) will result in GPL being null & void.
Hopefully, so will MS' EULA.
I think that they will have some version of non-stop machines.
That is what *I* would've put in a intersteller space ship.
OR you can take the NASA's approach, two totaly different hardware & software for anything, so no single bug can take any thing, plus a backup.
I don't think that it would be very hard to comuunicate, morse code is possibly the best thing for this.
There is simply *no way* they don't have the means to pick it up.
What you send, however, is a matter of choice.
You go to the library, pick up some texts about contacting with aliens, there should be couple of dozens of articles that you can use.
That isn't what I asked, though.
I asked how much time would it take to get game ready from a linux box (when you've the drivers, but at the moment can only reach console) and how much time it would take to get game ready on a windows box (when you have the drivers, but at the moment can only boot in safe mode).
Can you tell me?
Nice scenario, you left reality somewhere along the way, though.
The race to the moon was just the biggest, most expensive, most foolish "my dick is bigger than yours" fight that humanity ever saw.
Now, technologically, you are undoubtfully correct, except for FTL travel. Even if we had it, it's going to be one *hell* of energy expense, you aren't going to be able to afford that just to jump to pluto.
Economically, I don't think so. You would be throwing money at something that gives no visible (there was a lot that was gained from race to space) return for the invesment.
Socially, also, it's quite hard for people to plan something that will take twenty five years to see if it was at all successful.
All in all, up to the point where your argument goes against nature, I agrees with you, too bad it also goes against nature's laws.
... that as a gamer, I don't *want* to do anything to the OS to work.
If I want to play a game, I want to play a game, not to tweak the OS so it could run it.
In this case, Linux force me to waste time I would rather spend playing.
Here is a little thought experiment:
Need:
Two PCs, OS-Less.
Average Joe Gamer & Linux sopisticated user.
Windows & Linux installation.
Comparable drivers for Linux & Windows.
QIII for windows & linux.
Now, assume that both OS has just enough stock drivers to reach safe mode & console respectfully, there are 2 other CDs on which all the good drivers are.
Now, who do you think is going to play QIII first?
Slashdot Mirror
So WMP8 won't be able to rip MP3 in high bitrate?
Who *cares*?
Who the hell uses it for MP3 ripping anyway?
And as for the problems with the applications, that is because they are designed for 9x, and not for NT.
A> HTML was *never* meant to look the same on every machine, that is some other standard job (PDF?)
B> IE makes a good job in rendering webpages, Opera does it as well. Mozilla should be great when it's around 2.0 version.
The problem would've been much simpler if you had to write a HTML renderer alone, but you also have to write for Javascript, CSS, DHTML, etc.
C> I agree that translation is hard, I'm just pointing out that no compiler, as of now, has completed implementing the standard. No a *single* one. Ada is much harder standard to write for, and there doesn't seem so much of a problem with it.
Not according to MS, according to www.thecounter.coms er .html
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/brow
IE 5 has 77% of the market share, IE 4 has 9%
I believe the numbers speak for themselves.
And IE6 will support all the features of IE5 & 4, just like IE5 supported all of IE4's features. It's netscape that breaks everything in browser releases.
You really don't know MS, do you? Backward compatability is a very important matter to them, sometimes even to the point of madness (9x, frex)
Hell, I can still play goldenaxe on XP, and the OS it was written for was about as different from the one I run it on as possible.
Why can't I do client side programming on any of those languages?
On a related note, do you know if there are Windows Script Host extention for those languages?
> Present html clients have existed for several years now, but people still haven't upgraded to the latest and greatest (for whatever reason).
Actually, IE 5 has about 70% of the market, you can bet that within 6 months of IE6 being out, it will be in a strong position too.
And you already can program webpages with Basic.
It's called VBS, and work on more than 80% of the browsers.
Yeah, right!
No one has succeeded in implementing C++ correctly yet, and it's much older than the web as we know it.
You often can't move code from one compiler to another, so you complain about lousy HTML?
Or Gore's case.
If I understood it correctly, the Judges on the US has political opinions, and (at least the supreme court, are being choosen by politicians).
Here, politic has only 1/3 of the vote, and an *ex*-judge that dared to voice a political opinion was criticized quite thoroughfully.
Judges ought to be impartial. Gore's case left, at best, a bad stigma of the US justice system in my opition.
An *extremely* good point.
It took several days after this was first reported in Reg, but slashdot managed to pull a story with a lot of interesting links that actually look researched.
/. about o-p-t-o-m-i-z-a-t-i-o-n, which is a way to speed up the reaction.
/. may come up with an *original* story or two on its own.
Keep on doing to good work!
Next week, I might inform
By the turn of the century,
Yes, I know this is shocking, but it's *possible*.
Do you remember when Yahoo! had much the same stuff in their license?
We should ack against it.
Um, windows has dvd player, and had it in all versions since 98.
Type dvdplay.exe in the run menu and see what happens.
IDIOTS!
You never, *ever*, do this kind of stuff.
If the site wasn't slashdotted, you could get http://www.ariston.com/includes/connection.inc and read this script, and probably get a lot of info on how the connect to their DB, might even get passwords.
Well, even binaries can be verified.
What, you want to tell me you can't RTFB ???
If it supports Blue Tooth in its current incernation, they will have to add a lot of things, because it's not complete yet, and you'll be angry about them for embracing & extending the technology.
If they wait for Blue Tooth to become stable, you'll be angry about them for using monopoly power to strungle technology.
So, if MS does it, considering the lack of true BlueTooth standard, you'll all start screaming about how MS embrace & extend it.
Beside, think about it this way, if Linux, Apple, and other non-MS OS would agree on a standard, for once, it would be MS that would have to play catch-up on hardware area.
In other words, you recommend that each program will have its own networking code, right?
And, since you use Perl, you must avoid using ReadLine (or is it ReadFile, don't program in Perl much), which is several thousand lines long.
Make sure to get into the Witness Protection program first, though.
You can always run a string search for all the files on a MS CD.
Force them to submit all their code as evidence, that way it's publically available.
Even if we lose, we win!
On a more serious note, it's going to need more than speculation to do so. And the GPL was never tested on court, losing such a case (and MS has *way* more money the FSF) will result in GPL being null & void.
Hopefully, so will MS' EULA.
I think that they will have some version of non-stop machines.
That is what *I* would've put in a intersteller space ship.
OR you can take the NASA's approach, two totaly different hardware & software for anything, so no single bug can take any thing, plus a backup.
I don't think that it would be very hard to comuunicate, morse code is possibly the best thing for this.
There is simply *no way* they don't have the means to pick it up.
What you send, however, is a matter of choice.
You go to the library, pick up some texts about contacting with aliens, there should be couple of dozens of articles that you can use.
That isn't what I asked, though.
I asked how much time would it take to get game ready from a linux box (when you've the drivers, but at the moment can only reach console) and how much time it would take to get game ready on a windows box (when you have the drivers, but at the moment can only boot in safe mode).
Can you tell me?
http://lzip.sourceforge.net/license.html
This should be moderated up!
Nice scenario, you left reality somewhere along the way, though.
The race to the moon was just the biggest, most expensive, most foolish "my dick is bigger than yours" fight that humanity ever saw.
Now, technologically, you are undoubtfully correct, except for FTL travel. Even if we had it, it's going to be one *hell* of energy expense, you aren't going to be able to afford that just to jump to pluto.
Economically, I don't think so. You would be throwing money at something that gives no visible (there was a lot that was gained from race to space) return for the invesment.
Socially, also, it's quite hard for people to plan something that will take twenty five years to see if it was at all successful.
All in all, up to the point where your argument goes against nature, I agrees with you, too bad it also goes against nature's laws.
... that as a gamer, I don't *want* to do anything to the OS to work.
If I want to play a game, I want to play a game, not to tweak the OS so it could run it.
In this case, Linux force me to waste time I would rather spend playing.
Here is a little thought experiment:
Need:
Two PCs, OS-Less.
Average Joe Gamer & Linux sopisticated user.
Windows & Linux installation.
Comparable drivers for Linux & Windows.
QIII for windows & linux.
Now, assume that both OS has just enough stock drivers to reach safe mode & console respectfully, there are 2 other CDs on which all the good drivers are.
Now, who do you think is going to play QIII first?