I liken the situation to this (using/.'s favorite analogy--automobiles). Imagine if you as a car monopoly were ordered to stop including your company's default CD players in the cars you sell to everybody. In removing the players from the cars, you don't bother to fix up the wiring, so now it's difficult for other players to, say, use the radio properly or access the rear speakers, at least not without manual hacking of the wiring.
Not bothering to fix that wiring is in essence not following the orders of the Commission. Sabotage by omission, as you put it. And then I could run around saying, "Well, that's what happens when we're ordered to stop including our players." It's total arrogance to, on top of it all, blame the Commission for it.
It's kind of sad the way Microsoft has convinced some people that not bundling an application that you can't uninstall so that you can use a competing media player is somehow less functional.
Windows isn't less functional without Media Player. You can happily install several other competing media players on Windows. The issue is that Microsoft appears to be, as usual, making sure the playing field is uneven. Read the last paragraph of the article where RealNetworks demonstrates a Media Player-less Windows that has no problems.
This is Microsoft's "punishment" for being forced to Media Player. As if they wouldn't have noticed or couldn't have fixed issues regarding the very registry that they created. That's not being "fully committed" to the Commission's decision.
Why is the idea of not wanting to have to use Windows Media Player to play media files odd to you? It says in TFA that RealNetworks demonstrates a fully-functioning Media Player-less Windows.
Media Player is just an application that plays DirectShow codecs, you know? Microsoft wants you to believe it's some core aspect of the OS, like with Internet Explorer. If they were at least honest, I could respect their desire to include the player with every copy of Windows, just to let people have a default music and video player with their new computer. But this bogus "it's a core part of Windows that we insist everyone use to push our platform, and if you remove it, just look what happens!" stuff is so sleazy.
A spokesVole said Microsoft was "fully committed to complying" with the Commission, but said any such problems with the registry would be the result of the unbundling process the Commission had insisted on in the first place.
Microsoft loves to do things like this. "Well, you asked us to remove it, and that's what happened!" We savvy people, of course, realize that if Microsoft left the registry screwed in some way during their unbundling process, they would have had to purposely ignoring fixing it since I assume Microsoft knows their own registry enough to fix it (many IT admins have become expert in fixing the damn thing themselves). Leaving it purposely fucked in order to say "See?" wouldn't be complying with the Commission's order. It seems the EU isn't bending over and taking these cute little games the way the U.S. did when dealing with Microsoft.
You would be lying to your client if you said less than 1% of users had cell phones with browsing capability. Particularly in large cities, everyone uses the Internet on those things. I pity the client who gets told to ignore the mobile market.
You're not the first one to make this error. Office isn't loading entirely new GUI libraries into memory. It's using owner-drawn menus. It is still a standard Windows control but with an overrided Paint function that draws the blue squares around each item.
That is completely different from what is going on in the OSS world, where actual multiple GUI libraries are being loaded for individual apps and environments. The equivalent to Windows would be if all those apps used GTK but with custom visual themes. That's still one GUI library in memory.
I call bullshit. You're spouting idealistic, white paper bullshit that doesn't hold water in the real world.
If coding to basic CSS standards that have been around since the 90s is "idealistic, white paper bullshit," call me guilty. Even IE's broken CSS support is robust enough to support seperating data and presentation. The benefits are too great to ignore.
1. CSS standards aren't there yet. Not even close to cross-browser, and buggy as hell in both.
Enough is supported to do what I'm suggesting.
2. Many (most?) web sites aren't just pages willed with information... they're applications. They're a hell of a lot more complicated than you make them out to be.
I'm well aware of how complicated a large-scale website can become. What does a website being an application have to do with anything? You should still seperate your data and your presentation. That's what CSS was designed for. If your site is an application-based design, you should also seperate your application logic from your presentation logic using some sort of template system. This is what my company's website does. Clean code design is a standard that native app writers are encouraged to adhere to. It's time for web developers to step up as well. If your site is a large-scale app design, that's all the more reason for you to be seperating your design for maintainability's sake.
3. I checked out your link (slackersguild.com), and it's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. Messy HTML, virtually no CSS, and I certainly don't see a mobile version of the site. If it's so damn easy to do, then why doesn't your own site do it?
Because it's not "my" site. In fact, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed it's a Slashcode site. The company website I run DOES do it. I believe I mentioned that before.
It just seems to me that one would disregard indexing what is defined as a "temporary" redirect. As you state, 302s should be used for things like mirrors. I would want Google to always index the original, not a temporary mirror.
It isn't a feature you can turn off as a user. Quartz itself is based on the PDF imaging model, so spitting out PDF documents from views is naturally inherent.
Where did I say that's all there was? Regardless, seperating design and presentation is a BIG first step to being able to present different designs based on client browsers, don't you think?
It shouldn't matter how many hundreds of pages there are. A stylesheet would apply to all of them instantly because your data would be seperated from your presentation.
Integrating Flash into content and navigation is poor design from the beginning, which is just restating the point I already made about writing it correctly from the beginning. Most of the top websites out there don't use as much Flash as being implied here.
As for websites that do, I think clients would back down on Flash if they were told it meant that all the cell phone users of the world wouldn't be able to navigate their website.
Finally...a case of consolidation of efforts. Now if we could only get the GNOME/KDE factions to combine, we could set an example for the rest of the community who is hell-bent on forking and reinventing the wheel every time they have a beef with some dev. Right now, just running KDE, a GNOME app, Firefox, and OpenOffice at once loads up four entire sets of widgets to get things done. Seriously, think of how many times a single string class gets invented between those four projects.
I know the "choice" argument, but I think combining efforts would, in the end, provide a better choice.
If a 302 is intended as a temporary redirect, shouldn't the Googlebot not replace the original index, considering a 302 redirect is supposed to be temporary? Why would anyone ever want what is supposed to be a temporary to be permanently indexed? Google should never have been indexing "temporary" redirects in the first place.
Well, if your site clearly seperates its data from its presentation (come on, CSS isn't a new technology now), it would be incredibly easy to just fashion up a new barebones stylesheet. If it's difficult, then your design is broken and you should have written it correctly from the beginning.
Sorry to be harsh, but it's 2005 now. These concepts aren't new, and it shouldn't be difficult to make a bare-bones view of the same site after you've designed for that all-important client.
I run the website for a local company, and creating a plain-text stylesheet with basic colors and lines would take me all of 15 minutes.
Believe it or not, Objective-C and Cocoa still have advantages that C# has yet to catch up to.
I still shake my head when I use the Visual Studio beta and create a form, and look at the code to see it instancing classes in an InitializeComponent() function. Anyone whose used Visual Studio before knows things can go haywire if you dare touch any of that code. You have to leave it alone or the editor gets pissy.
In Cocoa, the.nib files are actual serialized object graphs, so there is no code-generation. At run-time, the objects are just loaded into memory automatically as though they were created in code. Which keeps my project clean and seperated from the GUI (that whole model-view-controller thing) and really makes prototyping a GUI easy. I just hit Cmd-R to test the GUI in Interface Builder.
I also like the way method parameters are self-documenting in Objective-C. It's easier to understand a "[something doThis:parameter1 usingThis:parameter2 forThis:parameter3]" then it is a "something.doThis(parameter1, parameter2, parameter3)".
Just my opinion, and I'm sure there are those who have valid reasons to use C#/.NET instead. But I used to be a C# guy too until I learned Cocoa. The flexible messaging system alone keeps me using it.
No, you're missing the point. When something forces you to do something, that is not granting a right--that is taking away a freedom in the name of protecting copyright and rights of GPL authors.
The GPL is a plain-text digital rights management.
The GPL limits just as much. It is not truly free in that you are free to do anything you want. For instance, you must release changes you make and provide your source code. Compare to the BSD license which truly lets you do anything. Between them, the GPL is the more limiting of the two.
You teach them that lesson by not buying music that has DRM restrictions on it.
Lame. And by cracking this protection, labels will be even more paranoid that online music downloaders are only out to break copy restrictions in order to distribute content all over the net, making them seek even more draconian measures.
Tell me, what exactly is so wrong with the DRM of iTunes? I bet you've never even had a single issue with it. All I have to do is recreate my playlist and the CD burn count is reset again. This has to be the most lax DRM there is. And still people try to break it to support some fictional civil rights movement.
You can re-sell GPL'ed software your heart's content - term 1 of the GPL explictly says so.
But if you make changes to the code, you are required to provide those changes. That is a usage restriction dictated by the license, just like a digital rights management system. The GPL is, in effect, a plain text DRM scheme. Just as violating the GPL is violating the license the content was provided under, violating the DRM of online music is breaking a usage license.
Your analogy is very weak, bordering on stupid.
Demonization is so much easier than debating an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I liken the situation to this (using /.'s favorite analogy--automobiles). Imagine if you as a car monopoly were ordered to stop including your company's default CD players in the cars you sell to everybody. In removing the players from the cars, you don't bother to fix up the wiring, so now it's difficult for other players to, say, use the radio properly or access the rear speakers, at least not without manual hacking of the wiring.
Not bothering to fix that wiring is in essence not following the orders of the Commission. Sabotage by omission, as you put it. And then I could run around saying, "Well, that's what happens when we're ordered to stop including our players." It's total arrogance to, on top of it all, blame the Commission for it.
It's kind of sad the way Microsoft has convinced some people that not bundling an application that you can't uninstall so that you can use a competing media player is somehow less functional.
Windows isn't less functional without Media Player. You can happily install several other competing media players on Windows. The issue is that Microsoft appears to be, as usual, making sure the playing field is uneven. Read the last paragraph of the article where RealNetworks demonstrates a Media Player-less Windows that has no problems.
This is Microsoft's "punishment" for being forced to Media Player. As if they wouldn't have noticed or couldn't have fixed issues regarding the very registry that they created. That's not being "fully committed" to the Commission's decision.
RealNetworks got a Media Player-less Windows up and running without problem.
Next.
Why is the idea of not wanting to have to use Windows Media Player to play media files odd to you? It says in TFA that RealNetworks demonstrates a fully-functioning Media Player-less Windows.
Media Player is just an application that plays DirectShow codecs, you know? Microsoft wants you to believe it's some core aspect of the OS, like with Internet Explorer. If they were at least honest, I could respect their desire to include the player with every copy of Windows, just to let people have a default music and video player with their new computer. But this bogus "it's a core part of Windows that we insist everyone use to push our platform, and if you remove it, just look what happens!" stuff is so sleazy.
Microsoft loves to do things like this. "Well, you asked us to remove it, and that's what happened!" We savvy people, of course, realize that if Microsoft left the registry screwed in some way during their unbundling process, they would have had to purposely ignoring fixing it since I assume Microsoft knows their own registry enough to fix it (many IT admins have become expert in fixing the damn thing themselves). Leaving it purposely fucked in order to say "See?" wouldn't be complying with the Commission's order. It seems the EU isn't bending over and taking these cute little games the way the U.S. did when dealing with Microsoft.
Never, because Slashdot never reports on them. Only IE holes and some major Firefox holes that couldn't be ignored get posted on the front page.
Slashcode has built-in web interfaces for post-editing.
You would be lying to your client if you said less than 1% of users had cell phones with browsing capability. Particularly in large cities, everyone uses the Internet on those things. I pity the client who gets told to ignore the mobile market.
You're not the first one to make this error. Office isn't loading entirely new GUI libraries into memory. It's using owner-drawn menus. It is still a standard Windows control but with an overrided Paint function that draws the blue squares around each item.
That is completely different from what is going on in the OSS world, where actual multiple GUI libraries are being loaded for individual apps and environments. The equivalent to Windows would be if all those apps used GTK but with custom visual themes. That's still one GUI library in memory.
If coding to basic CSS standards that have been around since the 90s is "idealistic, white paper bullshit," call me guilty. Even IE's broken CSS support is robust enough to support seperating data and presentation. The benefits are too great to ignore.
Enough is supported to do what I'm suggesting.
I'm well aware of how complicated a large-scale website can become. What does a website being an application have to do with anything? You should still seperate your data and your presentation. That's what CSS was designed for. If your site is an application-based design, you should also seperate your application logic from your presentation logic using some sort of template system. This is what my company's website does. Clean code design is a standard that native app writers are encouraged to adhere to. It's time for web developers to step up as well. If your site is a large-scale app design, that's all the more reason for you to be seperating your design for maintainability's sake.
Because it's not "my" site. In fact, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed it's a Slashcode site. The company website I run DOES do it. I believe I mentioned that before.
It just seems to me that one would disregard indexing what is defined as a "temporary" redirect. As you state, 302s should be used for things like mirrors. I would want Google to always index the original, not a temporary mirror.
It isn't a feature you can turn off as a user. Quartz itself is based on the PDF imaging model, so spitting out PDF documents from views is naturally inherent.
Adobe toolbar, what's that? I just hit "Save to PDF" on any print dialogs...
Where did I say that's all there was? Regardless, seperating design and presentation is a BIG first step to being able to present different designs based on client browsers, don't you think?
It shouldn't matter how many hundreds of pages there are. A stylesheet would apply to all of them instantly because your data would be seperated from your presentation.
Integrating Flash into content and navigation is poor design from the beginning, which is just restating the point I already made about writing it correctly from the beginning. Most of the top websites out there don't use as much Flash as being implied here.
As for websites that do, I think clients would back down on Flash if they were told it meant that all the cell phone users of the world wouldn't be able to navigate their website.
Finally...a case of consolidation of efforts. Now if we could only get the GNOME/KDE factions to combine, we could set an example for the rest of the community who is hell-bent on forking and reinventing the wheel every time they have a beef with some dev. Right now, just running KDE, a GNOME app, Firefox, and OpenOffice at once loads up four entire sets of widgets to get things done. Seriously, think of how many times a single string class gets invented between those four projects.
I know the "choice" argument, but I think combining efforts would, in the end, provide a better choice.
Slashdot isn't exactly one of the most open websites around. Just sayin'.
If a 302 is intended as a temporary redirect, shouldn't the Googlebot not replace the original index, considering a 302 redirect is supposed to be temporary? Why would anyone ever want what is supposed to be a temporary to be permanently indexed? Google should never have been indexing "temporary" redirects in the first place.
Well, if your site clearly seperates its data from its presentation (come on, CSS isn't a new technology now), it would be incredibly easy to just fashion up a new barebones stylesheet. If it's difficult, then your design is broken and you should have written it correctly from the beginning.
Sorry to be harsh, but it's 2005 now. These concepts aren't new, and it shouldn't be difficult to make a bare-bones view of the same site after you've designed for that all-important client.
I run the website for a local company, and creating a plain-text stylesheet with basic colors and lines would take me all of 15 minutes.
This is more like making our own equivalent teats to suckle from.
I never thought I'd use a sentence like that. Thanks.
Believe it or not, Objective-C and Cocoa still have advantages that C# has yet to catch up to.
.nib files are actual serialized object graphs, so there is no code-generation. At run-time, the objects are just loaded into memory automatically as though they were created in code. Which keeps my project clean and seperated from the GUI (that whole model-view-controller thing) and really makes prototyping a GUI easy. I just hit Cmd-R to test the GUI in Interface Builder.
I still shake my head when I use the Visual Studio beta and create a form, and look at the code to see it instancing classes in an InitializeComponent() function. Anyone whose used Visual Studio before knows things can go haywire if you dare touch any of that code. You have to leave it alone or the editor gets pissy.
In Cocoa, the
I also like the way method parameters are self-documenting in Objective-C. It's easier to understand a "[something doThis:parameter1 usingThis:parameter2 forThis:parameter3]" then it is a "something.doThis(parameter1, parameter2, parameter3)".
Just my opinion, and I'm sure there are those who have valid reasons to use C#/.NET instead. But I used to be a C# guy too until I learned Cocoa. The flexible messaging system alone keeps me using it.
No, you're missing the point. When something forces you to do something, that is not granting a right--that is taking away a freedom in the name of protecting copyright and rights of GPL authors.
The GPL is a plain-text digital rights management.
The GPL limits just as much. It is not truly free in that you are free to do anything you want. For instance, you must release changes you make and provide your source code. Compare to the BSD license which truly lets you do anything. Between them, the GPL is the more limiting of the two.
You teach them that lesson by not buying music that has DRM restrictions on it.
Lame. And by cracking this protection, labels will be even more paranoid that online music downloaders are only out to break copy restrictions in order to distribute content all over the net, making them seek even more draconian measures.
Tell me, what exactly is so wrong with the DRM of iTunes? I bet you've never even had a single issue with it. All I have to do is recreate my playlist and the CD burn count is reset again. This has to be the most lax DRM there is. And still people try to break it to support some fictional civil rights movement.
GPL restrictions are only on distribution
Again--how is this different from DRM?
You can re-sell GPL'ed software your heart's content - term 1 of the GPL explictly says so.
But if you make changes to the code, you are required to provide those changes. That is a usage restriction dictated by the license, just like a digital rights management system. The GPL is, in effect, a plain text DRM scheme. Just as violating the GPL is violating the license the content was provided under, violating the DRM of online music is breaking a usage license.
Your analogy is very weak, bordering on stupid.
Demonization is so much easier than debating an argument.