SVG is a Good Thing, and it would be fantastic if it had broader browser support. Is anybody sufficiently familiar with the dark corners of the standard to explain why we don't see more implementations? Would it really be so hard for Adobe to update their Linux implementation to work with current browsers? Why isn't Mozilla/SVG farther along?
I'm trying to decide if you're joking here, or serious. Why on earth would anyone lead such an admittedly miserable life to work towards such a stupid, pathetic, miserable goal? Pretend you do become "upper level management." What on earth do you think you'll do with yourself? You've spent years training yourself to have no fun. Now you'll have lots of money, and no idea how to enjoy yourself. You'll buy all sorts of useless crap, and it will give you no joy. Go rent "Devil's Advocate" sometime.
> Microsoft is a company passionate about innovation and creativity
Yep, sure. As long as their customers aren't being innovative or creative, they're cool. Big Bro... I mean Microsoft retains that right for himself alone.
Re:Sex is holding us back!
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 1
Smith. Winston Smith. But yes, I remember. Sorry for doubting you:)
Re:Sex is holding us back!
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 1
This is a sad offering. They only support specific, official RedHat 7.3 kernel patchlevels -- i.e., there's no compilable
kernel module like NVIDIA uses. This somewhat limits
the audience for these drivers -- certainly makes
them useless for me. I'll stick with my Quadro.
Actually, I'm not whining. The only DVDs we actually
own are a few of the kids' Disney ones. I've never
seen the need to buy any, let alone a "collector's edition." There's never been a movie made I've felt like watching more than twice.
I was commenting, though, on a sleazy marketing trend, victims of which have spoken out here on/. before. I'm definitely not one of the "idiots" you describe, but they're out there, and frankly, I don't like to see anybody taken advantage of,
idiot or not.
This seems to be a trend, as I'm sure y'all have
noticed already: announce the latest in a series
of movies, and simultaneously release a boxed
set of DVDs of all the previous movies.
The buzz about the upcoming movie sells the boxed set. After the
next movie arrives, the boxed set is now incomplete,
and you get a chance to sell a brand new boxed set
to the believers. Pretty crappy if you ask me, but people apparently fall for it.
Mod parent up! Not only does Squeak have a nice
set of active multimedia components, and not only
is it cross-platform, but Smalltalk (of which Squeak is an implementation) is a very underappreciated
language, far ahead of its time. More young people learning it could
only lead to great things.
I'm not sure how much I'd trust this whitepaper, which comes from a company that sells alternatives.
That impartiality, along with at least one outright error
(most Soundex algorithms use alphabetic transliteration to deal with Corbin/Korbin before
generating a key) makes the whole thing suspect. Soundex isn't ideal, but there ain't much that's better.
The picture creeps me out, because it reminds
me very much of the oldest of the old, dilapidated
robots at the "flesh fair" in Kubrick/Spielberg's "A.I." So this robot's ancestors will end up there... *shudder*
Re:IBM response to SCO :
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Isn't that "What the F# do you think you're doing?"
> The CLR "sandbox" doesn't control access to files. The operating system does based on the privelege of the user running the.NET application.
> Ditto for network connections.
Not really a sandbox at all, then, is it? It
means that Joe Blow can't run untrusted code unless Joe Blow has no files of value on the system. And last time I checked, Windows didn't have a privileges system that restricted network connections, so untrusted code could go wild
sending death threat emails to the president in
Joe Blow's name.
Regarding private data in Java: so, go ahead. Write a Java applet that munges private data in
a system class when running in a browser. Post it here when you're done. You'll be famous!
Any class that has a private data member representing a file (file name, descriptor, whatever) can never be sure that that value hasn't changed out from under it. Therefore, if the sandbox wants to restrict file access, it can't trust the member data it contains to tell it what
files are accessible.
Ditto network connections.
In Java, untrusted applet windows are decorated with warning symbols so they can be
distinguished. If the GUI toolkit's private data were accessible, the untrusted code could remove
these symbols.
If there is no private data, then only cryptographic security is even conceivable The last time I checked,
cryptographically protected file systems, GUIs, and TCP stacks were not the norm. Even this is questionable, since private keys are often stored on disk (a la SSH).
> members are set as such not as some security method but to protect users of a class from using them. The fact this can be *programmed around* is irrelevant.
Sorry, but no. This is true for C++, but it's not supposed to be true here. As others have already pointed out,.NET and the CLI are supposed to act like the JVM,
allowing "sandboxing" of untrusted code.
The JVM prevents access to private data as a fundamental part of its security mechanisms. This
is what makes the whole concept of running
untrusted code in a "sandbox" possible. If
it's possible to access private members in other
classes, then no untrusted code can ever be run
safely.
Q: Got it. Now could you tell us about the new metadata facility?
A: It's a bit different from the other features we've discussed. It's also focused on making life easier for the developer, but with the assistance of tools vendors.
These days, many APIs require a fair amount of boilerplate. For example, when you define a JAX-RPC Web Service you provide both an interface and an implementation class:
public interface CoffeeOrderIF extends java.rmi.Remote {
public Coffee [] getPriceList()
throws java.rmi.RemoteException;
public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity)
throws java.rmi.RemoteException; }
public class CoffeeOrderImpl implements CoffeeOrderIF {
public Coffee [] getPriceList() {...
}
public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity) {...
} }
This example was copied straight from our Web Services Tutorial.
With the metadata facility, you don't have to write all of this yourself. You just annotate the code to let a tool know which methods are remotely accessible, and the tool generates the above code. Here's how the source code looks with metadata:
import javax.xml.rpc.*;
public class CoffeeOrder {
@Remote public Coffee [] getPriceList() {...
}
@Remote public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity) {...
} }
All the boilerplate's gone!
Q: Yes, that's much clearer. But you can't possibly define all of the useful attributes and build all the tools, can you?
A: No, JSR-175 is just providing the framework that enables others to define attributes and build tools. Other JSRs -- such as JSR-181, which is defining metadata for Web Services -- are defining attributes. We expect lots of activity in this area.
> K & Ritchies ANSI C book sets a fine standard for concise technical books.
I absolutely agree. Note, however, that my copy of K&R, 2nd edition, is a slim 272 pages -- longer than
the book being discussed! 246 pages is a slim book indeed.
I can think of dozens of ways to get thrown in prison just by playing around with my system at night after work.
The same could be said of cameras, chef's knives, wood chippers, and table saws. Does this mean that photographers should live in fear of accidentally creating child pornography, or chefs of accidentally dismembering their lovers? Nope. C'mon, buddy, you've got free will, you may recall. If you're not interested in fighting the laws, then just keep your nose clean. It's not rocket science, and it ain't the end of the frickin' world.
The great thing about Google is that by and large, they're not selling anything except search technology. They've got ads, but they're always clearly marked as such, and they're easy to ignore. As a result, when you search for something on Google, barring the odd restriction on Nazi paraphernalia and Scientology, you feel that you're getting the straight dope. For technical information, this is certainly true.
In contrast, Microsoft is selling a world view -- theirs. I can't even imagine searching for gcc, or Java, or "Linus Torvalds" on Microogle and expecting to get useful information. You don't ask a plumber if your pipes need fixing.
WETA are the call letters of both a public TV
station and a public radio station here in
the Washington, DC area. Probably no relationship,
but who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
SVG is a Good Thing, and it would be fantastic if it had broader browser support. Is anybody sufficiently familiar with the dark corners of the standard to explain why we don't see more implementations? Would it really be so hard for Adobe to update their Linux implementation to work with current browsers? Why isn't Mozilla/SVG farther along?
I'm trying to decide if you're joking here, or serious. Why on earth would anyone lead such an admittedly miserable life to work towards such a stupid, pathetic, miserable goal? Pretend you do become "upper level management." What on earth do you think you'll do with yourself? You've spent years training yourself to have no fun. Now you'll have lots of money, and no idea how to enjoy yourself. You'll buy all sorts of useless crap, and it will give you no joy. Go rent "Devil's Advocate" sometime.
THe other day, I read this EXACT same troll under an Apple-related story, but substitute MacOS everywhere for Linux. Just a troll.
> Microsoft is a company passionate about innovation and creativity
Yep, sure. As long as their customers aren't being innovative or creative, they're cool. Big Bro... I mean Microsoft retains that right for himself alone.
Smith. Winston Smith. But yes, I remember. Sorry for doubting you :)
Maybe you mean Brave new world?
This is a sad offering. They only support specific, official RedHat 7.3 kernel patchlevels -- i.e., there's no compilable kernel module like NVIDIA uses. This somewhat limits the audience for these drivers -- certainly makes them useless for me. I'll stick with my Quadro.
Same people who wouldn't buy a cow for $50. What the hell would I do with a cow, bargain or not?
I was commenting, though, on a sleazy marketing trend, victims of which have spoken out here on /. before. I'm definitely not one of the "idiots" you describe, but they're out there, and frankly, I don't like to see anybody taken advantage of,
idiot or not.
This seems to be a trend, as I'm sure y'all have noticed already: announce the latest in a series of movies, and simultaneously release a boxed set of DVDs of all the previous movies. The buzz about the upcoming movie sells the boxed set. After the next movie arrives, the boxed set is now incomplete, and you get a chance to sell a brand new boxed set to the believers. Pretty crappy if you ask me, but people apparently fall for it.
Mod parent up! Not only does Squeak have a nice set of active multimedia components, and not only is it cross-platform, but Smalltalk (of which Squeak is an implementation) is a very underappreciated language, far ahead of its time. More young people learning it could only lead to great things.
I'm not sure how much I'd trust this whitepaper, which comes from a company that sells alternatives. That impartiality, along with at least one outright error (most Soundex algorithms use alphabetic transliteration to deal with Corbin/Korbin before generating a key) makes the whole thing suspect. Soundex isn't ideal, but there ain't much that's better.
The picture creeps me out, because it reminds me very much of the oldest of the old, dilapidated robots at the "flesh fair" in Kubrick/Spielberg's "A.I." So this robot's ancestors will end up there... *shudder*
Isn't that "What the F# do you think you're doing?"
> Ditto for network connections.
Not really a sandbox at all, then, is it? It means that Joe Blow can't run untrusted code unless Joe Blow has no files of value on the system. And last time I checked, Windows didn't have a privileges system that restricted network connections, so untrusted code could go wild sending death threat emails to the president in Joe Blow's name.
Regarding private data in Java: so, go ahead. Write a Java applet that munges private data in a system class when running in a browser. Post it here when you're done. You'll be famous!
If there is no private data, then only cryptographic security is even conceivable The last time I checked, cryptographically protected file systems, GUIs, and TCP stacks were not the norm. Even this is questionable, since private keys are often stored on disk (a la SSH).
Sorry, but no. This is true for C++, but it's not supposed to be true here. As others have already pointed out, .NET and the CLI are supposed to act like the JVM,
allowing "sandboxing" of untrusted code.
The JVM prevents access to private data as a fundamental part of its security mechanisms. This is what makes the whole concept of running untrusted code in a "sandbox" possible. If it's possible to access private members in other classes, then no untrusted code can ever be run safely.
Q: Got it. Now could you tell us about the new metadata facility?
... ...
... ...
A: It's a bit different from the other features we've discussed. It's also focused on making life easier for the developer, but with the assistance of tools vendors.
These days, many APIs require a fair amount of boilerplate. For example, when you define a JAX-RPC Web Service you provide both an interface and an implementation class:
public interface CoffeeOrderIF extends java.rmi.Remote {
public Coffee [] getPriceList()
throws java.rmi.RemoteException;
public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity)
throws java.rmi.RemoteException;
}
public class CoffeeOrderImpl implements CoffeeOrderIF {
public Coffee [] getPriceList() {
}
public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity) {
}
}
This example was copied straight from our Web Services Tutorial.
With the metadata facility, you don't have to write all of this yourself. You just annotate the code to let a tool know which methods are remotely accessible, and the tool generates the above code. Here's how the source code looks with metadata:
import javax.xml.rpc.*;
public class CoffeeOrder {
@Remote public Coffee [] getPriceList() {
}
@Remote public String orderCoffee(String name, int quantity) {
}
}
All the boilerplate's gone!
Q: Yes, that's much clearer. But you can't possibly define all of the useful attributes and build all the tools, can you?
A: No, JSR-175 is just providing the framework that enables others to define attributes and build tools. Other JSRs -- such as JSR-181, which is defining metadata for Web Services -- are defining attributes. We expect lots of activity in this area.
Glad to see you read the article before posting. See the discussion of "Metadata" to see how Tiger will address exactly this.
What one thing is that?
I absolutely agree. Note, however, that my copy of K&R, 2nd edition, is a slim 272 pages -- longer than the book being discussed! 246 pages is a slim book indeed.
The same could be said of cameras, chef's knives, wood chippers, and table saws. Does this mean that photographers should live in fear of accidentally creating child pornography, or chefs of accidentally dismembering their lovers? Nope. C'mon, buddy, you've got free will, you may recall. If you're not interested in fighting the laws, then just keep your nose clean. It's not rocket science, and it ain't the end of the frickin' world.
Steve Bennett isn't my favorite Amateur Rocketman -- John Carmack is!
In contrast, Microsoft is selling a world view -- theirs. I can't even imagine searching for gcc, or Java, or "Linus Torvalds" on Microogle and expecting to get useful information. You don't ask a plumber if your pipes need fixing.
WETA are the call letters of both a public TV station and a public radio station here in the Washington, DC area. Probably no relationship, but who knows.