I seem to recall Amazon saying that they only took out the patent as a defensive move, so that no one else could come along, patent the idea and prevent Amazon (or anyone else) from using it.
If that is true then Apple shouldn't have paid Amazon a penny and neither should anyone else.
Have there been any cases of Amazon coming along and telling other sites to stop using one-click?
If not then Amazon are not really the bad guys. They're just keen to avoid getting screwed by opportunitsts exploring a stupid patent.
"You can use a web server to see when a file on that server is accessed", not exactly groundbreaking insight.
The idea that this is a secret bugging feature introduced by MS is nonsense. What it is is the ability to link to content hosted elsewhere which, in a funny sort of way, is exactly what the internet is all about.
Anyone want to suggest the internet is just a great big spying conspiracy?
Obviously, MS are sneaky types and, as the class action story earlier today makes clear, there's an "I'm a victim of MS tyranny too!" culture growing up.
Compensation gravy-train, is the expression that springs to mind
Anyone who thinks that what's being reported here is even slightly sinister needs to take a few deep breaths (And possibly a holiday)
On the other hand, because of real problems, the sooner MS is controlled, the better for all of us.
They've got to be in big trouble if they're doing this.
"Brand awareness" is supposed to be very valuable, according to marketing types. If SCO have decided to chuck away the brand awareness that they have in favour or a clean slate then things must be pretty bad.
It's pretty dangerous to give too much control to someone who doesn't know what they're doing - not really a breakthrough.
IT staff who make changes to production systems without proper records, tests etc. are always going to be a liability. At least an open source OS gives companies a chance of fixing things themselves when they really have to.
Why aren't the same people who claim that Linux puts power in the hands of the technically inept complaining about VB Sript and the Windows Scripting Host? That's a lot easier to mess with than Linux and can really screw things up.
I wonder if the author would like someone to take all the sharp objects out of his house, just in case the potential for accidents overwhelms him.
How many NT bugs could we post in a week if we got to see the code?
Linux bugs are found fast and fixed fast. If you're sys admin on a box that matters then you're going to have to pay attention to stay ahead of the script kiddies but that's the case whatever you run.
Linux gets a lot of bugs reported because it evolves very quickly and stuff gets released (and used) when it isn't out of beta.
Using Linux isn't an alternative to working hard at sys admin and using your brain.
In truth, neither is using NT, though MS would like you to believe that it is.
There's lots of scope for adding extra features to the UI, "Let me know if my friend comes online" etc. and the underlying network protocols can be explored by anyone who feels adventurous.
I'd certainly recommend writing something that involves a bit of networking. That's far cooler and more satisfying for beginners.
Messages appearing on screen from another machine in another room looks pretty much like magic and should make students feel like they're really doing something pretty clever.
Incidentally, much as I agree with just about every criticism of Microsoft, VB is a good beginner's language.
No waiting around to learn too much before seeing a result.
Just make sure that anyone who shows real promise moves onto C before too long!
Another good exercise is the light cycles game from Tron. Two players on a single machine - easy to do, fun to play.
The fact is, though, that unless we have open standards, which aren't at the mercy of corporate interests then the whole transparent interconnectivity across plaforms that makes the internet work will go for pear-shaped very quickly.
Microsoft wouldn't give a monkeys about web usability from any platform other than Windows.
The open source community should respond with a better product. No doubt about that.
Why is it taking so long for a release of Netscape 6, btw?
Doesn't really seem to fit with ESR's description of the efficient bazzar. Mind you, since I haven't helped one iota, I can't really complain.
Putting aside the provocative issue of whether the people of China need bibles...
We may well all remember the kid standing in front of a tank but I'm pretty sure he wasn't throwing any rocks.
As my visual recollection serves, he was carrying a bag which he didn't put down. He sure as hell wasn't lobbing masonry. It might not have been such an evocative image if he had been.
The problems adressed in this topic are occuring everywhere; think Echelon and the RIP bill currently going through the UK Parliament.
RMS wrote a very good article about the RIP bill a while ago. If only I could find a link...
Making Mozilla IE-compliant, rather than standards-compliant would be a terrible move, and not one the Mozilla devlopers ever seriously considered, I suspect.
The web would be owned by MS, just like document format already is, effectively.
Whenever they wanted to screw over whatever competition existed a new load of "standards" would appear, breaking competitors products.
The reason that the internet works at all is that the underlying protocols (TCP/IP etc.) are open.
MS would love to "own" the internet, which, as far as most users are concerned, is the WWW, Mozilla certainly shouldn't be helping them to achieve that goal.
There's another comment here pointing out the updating abiword won't break the gimp, precisely because the underlying libraries aren't shared.
Coding the MS Office components, for example, is supposed to make life easier since you have instant access to all the base methods but two factors make it an ordeal:
Firstly, backward compatibility is implemented nearly as well as it should be. There's a good chance that apps which work fine when they are shipped will be suddenly broken a few months later when the user installs something completely dfferent which introduces a newer, broken library.
Secondly, since the core windows components (MDAC etc.) are moving so fast, and there's no way of controlling when those libraries might change on a target machine, you're constantly trying to hit a moving target.
Try writing code which utilises the Excel libraries and works across different versions of Windows & Office.
I've done this, and it isn't pretty.
Reusing objects only makes for easier coding when you can rely on the objects working the same way after you've installed a new screensaver or browsed with IE and picked up a few ActiveX controls along the way.
Page 11 of the Introduction to C# has the following example:
"A reference parameter is declared with a ref modifier. The example using System; class Test { static void Swap(ref int a, ref int b) { int t = a; a = b; b = a; } static void Main() { int x = 1; int y = 2;
Console.WriteLine("pre: x = {0}, y = {1}", x, y); Swap(ref x, ref y); Console.WriteLine("post: x = {0}, y = {1}", x, y); } } shows a Swap method that has two reference parameters. The output of the program is: pre: x = 1, y = 2 post: x = 2, y = 1"
Sadly not. Since t isn't used again in the Swap function, this program is actually going to spew out:
pre: x = 1, y = 2 post: x = 2, y = 2
unless they've done something really odd in the compiler!
It looks like we could be looking at another sucessful "innovation" here.
Incidentally, the point above about the document only being copyrighted if it is qouted verbatim and a reworded analysis of it being entirely "fair use" would certainly hold true of UK copyright law.
That said, Slashdot should leave the posts in place since a "trade secret" that is available to anyone who chooses to read it is just nonsense.
Also, since the.exe can be opened without even seeing the click-through, which shouldn't have come as a suprise to the MS technical experts, their legal restrictions can't seriously be considered to have been a precondition to viewing the document.
The fact that MS want posts which explain how to use winzip to be removed too has to be the most ridiculous part of all this.
A thing can be a secret, or it can be freely available on ther internet, it can't be both.
This remark is made pretty often, by lots of people, and it drives me insane! Katz is writing here about his opposition to corporatism and his belief in government intervention to regulate business.
Indeed, in the same paragraph that he claims he's "not a political person", he goes on to say I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible.
That's a very clear political stance!
I think that what Jon means is that he doesn't want to be labelled to any particular ideology and doesn't support and particular party, but that's very different to not being "political".
The whole open source movement is throws up a number of political questions - copyright law, control of corporations, public ownership, etc.
If you believe the guys who hacked the DVD encryption and distributed the code were right to do so or that Microsoft should be broken up, even though it would be against the wishes of many MS supporters, then you're taking a political stance.
You might not want to go to party rallys and were "We love Clinton" badges, but it does't make sense to say that you are not "political".
I recently read and reveiwed this book and agree with much of the review posted here. It is pretty superficial and won't really suit anyone who understands much about open source and the community. It's really a book for the suits.
Open Sources - Voices from the Revolution is a better all-round read and the whole book is available online from here.
All hail the mighty MS for open-sourcing DirectX 7 (I CAN get the APIs, and I can use the technology in my own software, so it's open source right?
So badly wrong. Direct X 7 is very cool but it is certainly not open source. If it was, any one would be free to pick it apart and put the best bits into another cool program.
Direct X will never be adopted outside of the MS world (like Active X) precisely because it is not open source.
A GPL graphics engine would allow games developers to use a set of tools to create their game (as Direct X does) and it would allow them to create whatever improvements they needed to the engine. The difference is that those improvements would then be shared under the GPL so that, where they were any good, we could all benefit.
The real difference between things like Slashdot and the traditional media (the BBC, who posted the original story, are a good example) is the comments.
The threads which follow the original post are usually very informative, with references to all sorts of sources and a whole load of points being explored, often by people with real expertise.
You simply don't get that in traditional journalism. I suppose you're supposed to believe that the journalist reporting has listened to a whole range of views and is giving you the essence, leaving out the redundant and irrelevant stuff.
I'd rather make that judgement myself.
Also, with comments, you get to post a reply and say "Back that up with evidence or nobody will believe you" (Anybody?).
Seems to me that this whole idea is a pretty good example of people realsing a thing could be done and not paying too much attention to whether it actually makes sense.
There's been a lot of intelligent thought in the threads about this idea and the more people have engaged with the practicalities, the clearer it's been that it's just daft.
Satellite location on a personal, portable device - Yes.
Pulse detectors which alert to danger - Yes.
A bra which calls the police when the wearer becomes agitated or excited - For goodness sake.
Of course, what do I know? I find bras about at easy to deal with as Active X (I can feel a list of similarities coming on which I shan't bother sharing).
Slashdot Mirror
If that is true then Apple shouldn't have paid Amazon a penny and neither should anyone else.
Have there been any cases of Amazon coming along and telling other sites to stop using one-click?
If not then Amazon are not really the bad guys. They're just keen to avoid getting screwed by opportunitsts exploring a stupid patent.
"You can use a web server to see when a file on that server is accessed", not exactly groundbreaking insight.
The idea that this is a secret bugging feature introduced by MS is nonsense. What it is is the ability to link to content hosted elsewhere which, in a funny sort of way, is exactly what the internet is all about.
Anyone want to suggest the internet is just a great big spying conspiracy?
Obviously, MS are sneaky types and, as the class action story earlier today makes clear, there's an "I'm a victim of MS tyranny too!" culture growing up.
Compensation gravy-train, is the expression that springs to mind
Anyone who thinks that what's being reported here is even slightly sinister needs to take a few deep breaths (And possibly a holiday)
On the other hand, because of real problems, the sooner MS is controlled, the better for all of us.
It's a pain to have to port the thing, but the point here is to learn about programming so I don't see a major problem here.
Of course, if the thing is written well then it should be pretty portable anyway.
If the assignment was to develop something large and complex then there would be more of a problem.
"Brand awareness" is supposed to be very valuable, according to marketing types. If SCO have decided to chuck away the brand awareness that they have in favour or a clean slate then things must be pretty bad.
IT staff who make changes to production systems without proper records, tests etc. are always going to be a liability. At least an open source OS gives companies a chance of fixing things themselves when they really have to.
Why aren't the same people who claim that Linux puts power in the hands of the technically inept complaining about VB Sript and the Windows Scripting Host? That's a lot easier to mess with than Linux and can really screw things up.
I wonder if the author would like someone to take all the sharp objects out of his house, just in case the potential for accidents overwhelms him.
In fact, it was one of the main factors in making me decide to become a programmer.
Shame he's reduced to trolling for attention.
Linux bugs are found fast and fixed fast. If you're sys admin on a box that matters then you're going to have to pay attention to stay ahead of the script kiddies but that's the case whatever you run.
Linux gets a lot of bugs reported because it evolves very quickly and stuff gets released (and used) when it isn't out of beta.
Using Linux isn't an alternative to working hard at sys admin and using your brain.
In truth, neither is using NT, though MS would like you to believe that it is.
I've had people do this as a learning exercise.
There's lots of scope for adding extra features to the UI, "Let me know if my friend comes online" etc. and the underlying network protocols can be explored by anyone who feels adventurous.
I'd certainly recommend writing something that involves a bit of networking. That's far cooler and more satisfying for beginners.
Messages appearing on screen from another machine in another room looks pretty much like magic and should make students feel like they're really doing something pretty clever.
Incidentally, much as I agree with just about every criticism of Microsoft, VB is a good beginner's language.
No waiting around to learn too much before seeing a result.
Just make sure that anyone who shows real promise moves onto C before too long!
Another good exercise is the light cycles game from Tron. Two players on a single machine - easy to do, fun to play.
The fact is, though, that unless we have open standards, which aren't at the mercy of corporate interests then the whole transparent interconnectivity across plaforms that makes the internet work will go for pear-shaped very quickly.
Microsoft wouldn't give a monkeys about web usability from any platform other than Windows.
The open source community should respond with a better product. No doubt about that.
Why is it taking so long for a release of Netscape 6, btw?
Doesn't really seem to fit with ESR's description of the efficient bazzar. Mind you, since I haven't helped one iota, I can't really complain.
The point about holy wars and persecution is true, though.
We may well all remember the kid standing in front of a tank but I'm pretty sure he wasn't throwing any rocks.
As my visual recollection serves, he was carrying a bag which he didn't put down. He sure as hell wasn't lobbing masonry. It might not have been such an evocative image if he had been.
The problems adressed in this topic are occuring everywhere; think Echelon and the RIP bill currently going through the UK Parliament.
RMS wrote a very good article about the RIP bill a while ago. If only I could find a link...
The web would be owned by MS, just like document format already is, effectively.
Whenever they wanted to screw over whatever competition existed a new load of "standards" would appear, breaking competitors products.
The reason that the internet works at all is that the underlying protocols (TCP/IP etc.) are open.
MS would love to "own" the internet, which, as far as most users are concerned, is the WWW, Mozilla certainly shouldn't be helping them to achieve that goal.
I've never seen that happen.
More common is MS producing a new version of a dll themselves and making a total pig's ear of the backward compatibility.
I don't think you can shift the blame away from MS for this one!
Coding the MS Office components, for example, is supposed to make life easier since you have instant access to all the base methods but two factors make it an ordeal:
Firstly, backward compatibility is implemented nearly as well as it should be. There's a good chance that apps which work fine when they are shipped will be suddenly broken a few months later when the user installs something completely dfferent which introduces a newer, broken library.
Secondly, since the core windows components (MDAC etc.) are moving so fast, and there's no way of controlling when those libraries might change on a target machine, you're constantly trying to hit a moving target.
Try writing code which utilises the Excel libraries and works across different versions of Windows & Office.
I've done this, and it isn't pretty.
Reusing objects only makes for easier coding when you can rely on the objects working the same way after you've installed a new screensaver or browsed with IE and picked up a few ActiveX controls along the way.
Page 11 of the Introduction to C# has the following example:
"A reference parameter is declared with a ref modifier. The example
using System;
class Test {
static void Swap(ref int a, ref int b) {
int t = a;
a = b;
b = a;
}
static void Main() {
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
Console.WriteLine("pre: x = {0}, y = {1}", x, y);
Swap(ref x, ref y);
Console.WriteLine("post: x = {0}, y = {1}", x, y);
}
}
shows a Swap method that has two reference parameters. The output of the program is:
pre: x = 1, y = 2
post: x = 2, y = 1"
Sadly not. Since t isn't used again in the Swap function, this program is actually going to spew out:
pre: x = 1, y = 2
post: x = 2, y = 2
unless they've done something really odd in the compiler!
It looks like we could be looking at another sucessful "innovation" here.
What a brilliant analogy!
.exe can be opened without even seeing the click-through, which shouldn't have come as a suprise to the MS technical experts, their legal restrictions can't seriously be considered to have been a precondition to viewing the document.
Incidentally, the point above about the document only being copyrighted if it is qouted verbatim and a reworded analysis of it being entirely "fair use" would certainly hold true of UK copyright law.
That said, Slashdot should leave the posts in place since a "trade secret" that is available to anyone who chooses to read it is just nonsense.
Also, since the
The fact that MS want posts which explain how to use winzip to be removed too has to be the most ridiculous part of all this.
A thing can be a secret, or it can be freely available on ther internet, it can't be both.
Indeed, in the same paragraph that he claims he's "not a political person", he goes on to say I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible.
That's a very clear political stance!
I think that what Jon means is that he doesn't want to be labelled to any particular ideology and doesn't support and particular party, but that's very different to not being "political".
The whole open source movement is throws up a number of political questions - copyright law, control of corporations, public ownership, etc.
If you believe the guys who hacked the DVD encryption and distributed the code were right to do so or that Microsoft should be broken up, even though it would be against the wishes of many MS supporters, then you're taking a political stance.
You might not want to go to party rallys and were "We love Clinton" badges, but it does't make sense to say that you are not "political".
Open Sources - Voices from the Revolution is a better all-round read and the whole book is available online from here.
So badly wrong. Direct X 7 is very cool but it is certainly not open source. If it was, any one would be free to pick it apart and put the best bits into another cool program.
Direct X will never be adopted outside of the MS world (like Active X) precisely because it is not open source.
A GPL graphics engine would allow games developers to use a set of tools to create their game (as Direct X does) and it would allow them to create whatever improvements they needed to the engine. The difference is that those improvements would then be shared under the GPL so that, where they were any good, we could all benefit.
The real difference between things like Slashdot and the traditional media (the BBC, who posted the original story, are a good example) is the comments.
The threads which follow the original post are usually very informative, with references to all sorts of sources and a whole load of points being explored, often by people with real expertise.
You simply don't get that in traditional journalism. I suppose you're supposed to believe that the journalist reporting has listened to a whole range of views and is giving you the essence, leaving out the redundant and irrelevant stuff.
I'd rather make that judgement myself.
Also, with comments, you get to post a reply and say "Back that up with evidence or nobody will believe you" (Anybody?).
Try saying that to your television.
Seems to me that this whole idea is a pretty good example of people realsing a thing could be done and not paying too much attention to whether it actually makes sense.
There's been a lot of intelligent thought in the threads about this idea and the more people have engaged with the practicalities, the clearer it's been that it's just daft.
Satellite location on a personal, portable device - Yes.
Pulse detectors which alert to danger - Yes.
A bra which calls the police when the wearer becomes agitated or excited - For goodness sake.
Of course, what do I know? I find bras about at easy to deal with as Active X (I can feel a list of similarities coming on which I shan't bother sharing).