I'm giving up my mod points so I hope the other moderators will mod up the parent.
I cannot agree enough with your post. I just finished an application written entirely in DOM, CSS, and Javascript. The HTML frames are generated entirely out of Javascript code. No "regular" HTML is sent to the client.
I kept to bare W3C DOM objects and methods, such as addChild, document.createElement, and so forth. Guess what?
It works in IE 6+, Mozilla (+derivatives), Safari, and others. No browser detection. No special coding. No hacks.
Also, note that this is a full blown web-based application so I feel justified in asking my users to upgrade their browsers. I wouldn't do this on a home page or regular site that people visit. Eventually we can expect 6+ browsers for home pages, but not yet.
Also also, despite my thinking the app is pretty cool in its dynamic interfaces, I can't say enough how much of a screwed up language Javascript is. The companies have really screwed us this time. It's a pain to debug. It's a pain to write (being combined with another server-side language, python in my case).
It's too bad that I think DHTML is the future. I really do think it will make it because it achieves dynamic content without plugins. I just wish it was cleaner. Perhaps IE will finally suppor W3C standards and the language/DOM support will clean up as time goes on. I'm hoping but not holding my breath...
Of course there's more than Windows. Let's see, there's WinNT, WinXP, Win95, Win3.1,...
(I'm joking of course. I use Debian and OS X. Windows-free since 1996.)
And of course, there's more than Mozilla and IE. There's Firebird, Camino, Netscape,...:)
(FWIW, I'm posting this from Safari). Home pages should accept all browsers. But for web-based apps like complex groupware apps that need DHTML, I think we're justified in asking people to install a browser that supports it. Mozilla is on most platforms (except Amiga, I read, but that should change when someone takes up the challenge and gets the cash award).
I know it's late in the day and you'll probably not read this. But, FWIW, I agree that DHTML isn't good for regular web sites. But for a real application (such as a groupware suite), I think you're justified to tell people to get Mozilla or IE. Your home page shouldn't require them, but an internal app can.
Opera, Konq, Omniweb, Safari, Dillo, lynx, links, and others simply don't support the full DOM. I don't have anything against these (I'm posting from Safari), but if they don't support it, then they're out for web-based applications that use DHTML.
Plus, Mozilla includes a lot of browsers. Firebird, Camino, Netscape,...
HTML might be static, but since browsers (IE6+ and Mozilla) support Javascript, DOM, and CSS directly (no plugin), we might as well call HTML "Dynamic HTML".
If you are careful to stick to APIs supported by both browsers, you can program DHTML interfaces that *are* dynamic and don't require plugins.
IMHO, HTML 4.0 is yesterday's technology. Sites (and full applications) of the future will be built with very complex DHTML.
See my other post to this article on using DHTML to create fully-dynamic applications (instead of simple web sites).
I'm wondering if DHTML could be the next GUI platform. We always hear that the "browser is the next platform", but DHTML could really make it happen.
I recently programmed a groupware application with DHTML. Not the "little javascript trinket on my web site", but user interfaces created entirely by accessing the DOM, document, and window. There is no static HTML sent to the browser at all. It is entirely created in Javascript. A hidden window refreshes ever 5 seconds to pull GUI events from the server, and a client-side, DHTML event system processes the events to change the screen.
The result is a fully dynamic, non-refreshing (at least to the user) GUI that approximates traditional applications. Except it runs within the browser with no plugins and no installation. I didn't even realize how powerful it could be until the application was done.
For example, using a DOM/Javascript-based graphics library, we could create a diagramming application that ran fully within DHTML and the browser. No Flash, no Java, no extra plugins.
There's a lot of problems to overcome. I had to be extremely careful so it worked in Mozilla and IE6+. It's not *truly* real time, but it sure looks like it. The components aren't as powerful as traditional components.
Despite the problems, though, the benefits that it is pure web, no install, and standard browser can't be overstated. DHTML is really a powerful GUI language.
BTW, the reviewed book was invaluable to my creating the program. It is a must have for any DHTML developer.
This is an important release for the Mac because a good portion of the design shops are stuck in Mac OS 9 because of Quark. They absolutely won't move to OS X until Quark is available. Some may have moved to InDesign, but many have not.
Since Apple is trying its darndest to kill off OS 9, this will bring a lot of people into the new world.
I have to concur with the posters here and throw my (non-red but debian) hat into the ring. I used many different distros (most RH based) until I grew up to Debian. It might be harder to install, but I don't believe anything else, including RH, can come close to Debian Stable. It is simply a whole level of stability higher than anything else in the Linux world.
Not to flame the post, but FYI, I run a deployed server with Debian updating every morning at 6am. Every package on the machine is updated if it needs it. In fact, the major upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 was done this way.
In over 2 years of running this particular machine, I've only encountered one problem with automatic updating. And it wasn't a broken update, but a maintainer tightening security that made some email clients not work. I had to tell them to use more secure means.
Says a lot about the stability of Debian's packages. When the Debian community calls it the 'stable' version, they mean it!
Disclaimer: The production server I speak of runs a few web sites, several email accounts, etc. There's only about 5 users active on the machine. If I was administering it for hundreds, I wouldn't do automatic updates (even with Debian).
IE, being a classic app ported using Carbon, simply can't compete with these two browsers that are Cocoa. Camino, in particular, can read any site that IE can.
I don't disagree with you that Debian is hard to get running at first. But after it gets running, it is incredibly self-maintaining. You get out of the "upgrade" cycle that other distros make you do every 6 months. Instead, Debian simply upgrades packages one at a time as they get updates.
Even for the 2.0 to 3.0 jump, I simply said "apt-get dist-upgrade" from a remote console. Within an hour or so, the whole thing was upgraded. No install CDs, no reformatting, almost no user input.
If you are worried about using a US-based distribution, you should use Debian. It's as free as you can get.
And yes, I know that Ian (the founder) was in the US, but Debian is truly a worldwide effort right now. They have developers pretty evenly spread out throughout the world.
I live here in the valley with both companies. I've worked with both. It is true that both companies are owned by Canopy and that Ray Noorda had a hand in the creation of both (Ray actually lives not to far from me -- he's pretty frugal and you'd never know he has money. A very nice and respectable guy).
Anyway, to answer your question, both companies have switched management many times. Both are out of the hands of Ray and Canopy is very hands-off. Both have pretty clueless CEO's right now. In fact, both have had a long string of clueless CEO's for some time now. As much as I wish Caldera would have made it, their distro simply wasn't as good as Red Hat or Debian (I'm a debian fan).
I'm embarassed for SCO and I wish Novell would make better decisions. I have friends that work for both (who also shake their heads at their own companies). Makes me happy I'm a University professor who can simply use OSS.
Since I'm sitting in my hotel room with my Powerbook connected to my Treo for internet access (about 2x modem speeds), I'd have to disagree.
By far the greatest thing about my treo is the ability for me to use *real* internet (not dumbed down, behind the firewall stuff) directly over it's internet connection. And since Sprint's internet access is a flat rate each month, I get unlimited internet over the thing.
Sure, browsing the web directly on the treo isn't quite the greatest, but doing SSH, email, and Mozilla on my laptop through it is really something.
What's wrong with flashy stuff for somethings? I like flashy (i.e. sometimes buggy) software for my laptop. I don't mind if my beta-version browser crashes once in a while because I get the new features.
My servers, OTOH, are another story. I wouldn't use anything but Debian (for linux, that is) because it is incredibly stable. My two Debian boxes on woody stable run 2+ yr old software. Guess what? They don't crash. I didn't upgrade from potato right away, but waited a little while.
Consumers are generally willing to accept more buggy software because they don't run servers. So what if Word crashes once in a while? Most consumers are so conditioned to it that they don't think another thing of it.
I realize that mail servers, electricity systems, and space probes need stable software, but most consumers don't administer these things. They use browsers, email, and cell phones that don't cause (much) physical harm when they crash.
Since it seems everyone else here is flaming you, I thought I'd give my support to your comments. Very well said. We should have done it differently from the start, but wishful thinking doesn't change the current situation.
It's actually amazing how you can almost tell where posters are from. The European "understanding" responses, the USA "give em hell" responses, and so forth.
I love reading Slashdot for the technical articles (which thankfully most are), but it's a good thing the world isn't ruled by some of the nuts here.
I know canopy group well. I've worked with them on several projects. They are very hands off, but they are not the "Mormon Mafia". They are a company just like any other, just a little incompetent in the SCO case.
Anyone know a web page that compares modern Unix to modern VMS? I already know the commands differ, but what really separates them? I know VMS is very stable and works quite well at what it does (whatever that is). My Debian boxes are extremely stable, too. Sorry for the newbie question, but the VAX was before my time.
You'll love Debian if you switch. I went RH --> Mandrake --> Debian. I've never looked back. The stability of Debian and the ease of apt-get just can't be matched.
I was teaching a class the other day, and I realized that my computer didn't have a package that I needed (nmap), so I ran apt-get right in front of the students. Within 10 seconds I had nmap installed and ready to use. The students were in awe.
Re:Windows XP was great, except....
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 2
Don't forget the lack of zipping support. Yes, unzip is pretty seamless, but where is zipping?
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows at all and haven't seen zip supported in any version yet. Perhaps you can zip stuff in WinXP, but that would be news to me.
I don't disagree with most of what you've said. Your comment makes very realistic assumptions. Mine (the parent) talked about the *real* solution: fix families so they have two parents and good structure.
I realize that this is not realistic and will probably never happen in our current culture. However, I do maintain that this is the only long-term, real solution.
I do not accept that one-parent families (as much as single mothers are saints) can provide the same support and child raising as two-parent families.
The solutions you mentioned are more realistic in the near term, but they are only band aids to the problem. We should cater to single-parent families because they need the help. But we should not accept them as the norm.
If people really want to fix the problems in the inner city (or in the outer city for that matter), they'll start getting married and staying married. That means less selfishness, more service to each other, and significantly less pride.
Rather than accepting pride (which I'd say is the cause of most divorces--it's the root cause of money problems in a marriage) and fixing divorced situations, we should be telling adults to fix themselves and stay married.
The problem is not with the kids. It's with their parents. I know this sounds 'preachy' but it is the real solution. Our 70 percent divorce rate says something about what type of people we are in the US.
I've been happily married for 7 years now and I have three wonderful kids. We've had our share of fights and arguments, but both of us are willing to swallow our pride and put our kids welfare above our own. I'm not perfect and neither is my wife. But we make it work for each other and especially for our kids. And guess what, we're happy. Marriage is hard. Divorces are sometimes necessary because of abuse, but then again, that's because of the pride and selfishness of one of the partners.
I also realize that this has been going on for a few generations now, so the cycle is self-maintaining at this point. Very hard to break.
It takes two people to make a baby. That baby deserves two parents in a loving home and a stable life for at least 20 years. Until we get adults to decide to take marriage and kids more seriously, we'll always have significant problems.
The real hypocritical thing that we have 90 percent of Americans who think they can live life as they please (sleeping around, making babies even by accident, divorcing because of pride and unselfishness, drinking excessively to the detriment of the family, smoking with the kids in a closed car who can do nothing about it). And then they want to provide simple solutions to counter all the negative effects. Why can't people just live more responsibly? (that doesn't mean safe sex--it means a whole lot more)
I applaud efforts such as those you give. I hope they succeed. That's why I gave 2 years to help in these programs. When I started I had a more idealistic view that these programs could solve everything. But I found out that they don't solve the root problem. They only help the effects, not the cause.
The real solution is for people to get back to the 'old style' morals and responsibility. We had our problems back then, but nowhere near the significance we have them now.
Slashdot Mirror
A man comes up on a priest banging his head against the wall -- clearly frustrated. The man asks him, "what's wrong?"
The man, who has been celibate all his life, replies, "We just retranslated the oldest manuscript available. The word is 'celebrate'!"
I did emusic. The catch is it isn't the regular music. iTunes has the same music you find at Best Buy. emusic doesn't. (in general, of course)
Safari has "Block Popup Windows" (that I don't explicitly click on)
I'm giving up my mod points so I hope the other moderators will mod up the parent.
I cannot agree enough with your post. I just finished an application written entirely in DOM, CSS, and Javascript. The HTML frames are generated entirely out of Javascript code. No "regular" HTML is sent to the client.
I kept to bare W3C DOM objects and methods, such as addChild, document.createElement, and so forth. Guess what?
It works in IE 6+, Mozilla (+derivatives), Safari, and others. No browser detection. No special coding. No hacks.
Also, note that this is a full blown web-based application so I feel justified in asking my users to upgrade their browsers. I wouldn't do this on a home page or regular site that people visit. Eventually we can expect 6+ browsers for home pages, but not yet.
Also also, despite my thinking the app is pretty cool in its dynamic interfaces, I can't say enough how much of a screwed up language Javascript is. The companies have really screwed us this time. It's a pain to debug. It's a pain to write (being combined with another server-side language, python in my case).
It's too bad that I think DHTML is the future. I really do think it will make it because it achieves dynamic content without plugins. I just wish it was cleaner. Perhaps IE will finally suppor W3C standards and the language/DOM support will clean up as time goes on. I'm hoping but not holding my breath...
Let's see, on my TiVO, I skip, um, *all* of the commercials. That must take pretty advanced statistics...but I think it woks out to about 100%. :)
Of course there's more than Windows. Let's see, there's WinNT, WinXP, Win95, Win3.1, ...
... :)
(I'm joking of course. I use Debian and OS X. Windows-free since 1996.)
And of course, there's more than Mozilla and IE. There's Firebird, Camino, Netscape,
(FWIW, I'm posting this from Safari). Home pages should accept all browsers. But for web-based apps like complex groupware apps that need DHTML, I think we're justified in asking people to install a browser that supports it. Mozilla is on most platforms (except Amiga, I read, but that should change when someone takes up the challenge and gets the cash award).
I know it's late in the day and you'll probably not read this. But, FWIW, I agree that DHTML isn't good for regular web sites. But for a real application (such as a groupware suite), I think you're justified to tell people to get Mozilla or IE. Your home page shouldn't require them, but an internal app can.
...
Opera, Konq, Omniweb, Safari, Dillo, lynx, links, and others simply don't support the full DOM. I don't have anything against these (I'm posting from Safari), but if they don't support it, then they're out for web-based applications that use DHTML.
Plus, Mozilla includes a lot of browsers. Firebird, Camino, Netscape,
HTML might be static, but since browsers (IE6+ and Mozilla) support Javascript, DOM, and CSS directly (no plugin), we might as well call HTML "Dynamic HTML".
If you are careful to stick to APIs supported by both browsers, you can program DHTML interfaces that *are* dynamic and don't require plugins.
IMHO, HTML 4.0 is yesterday's technology. Sites (and full applications) of the future will be built with very complex DHTML.
See my other post to this article on using DHTML to create fully-dynamic applications (instead of simple web sites).
I'm wondering if DHTML could be the next GUI platform. We always hear that the "browser is the next platform", but DHTML could really make it happen.
I recently programmed a groupware application with DHTML. Not the "little javascript trinket on my web site", but user interfaces created entirely by accessing the DOM, document, and window. There is no static HTML sent to the browser at all. It is entirely created in Javascript. A hidden window refreshes ever 5 seconds to pull GUI events from the server, and a client-side, DHTML event system processes the events to change the screen.
The result is a fully dynamic, non-refreshing (at least to the user) GUI that approximates traditional applications. Except it runs within the browser with no plugins and no installation. I didn't even realize how powerful it could be until the application was done.
For example, using a DOM/Javascript-based graphics library, we could create a diagramming application that ran fully within DHTML and the browser. No Flash, no Java, no extra plugins.
There's a lot of problems to overcome. I had to be extremely careful so it worked in Mozilla and IE6+. It's not *truly* real time, but it sure looks like it. The components aren't as powerful as traditional components.
Despite the problems, though, the benefits that it is pure web, no install, and standard browser can't be overstated. DHTML is really a powerful GUI language.
BTW, the reviewed book was invaluable to my creating the program. It is a must have for any DHTML developer.
This is an important release for the Mac because a good portion of the design shops are stuck in Mac OS 9 because of Quark. They absolutely won't move to OS X until Quark is available. Some may have moved to InDesign, but many have not.
Since Apple is trying its darndest to kill off OS 9, this will bring a lot of people into the new world.
I have to concur with the posters here and throw my (non-red but debian) hat into the ring. I used many different distros (most RH based) until I grew up to Debian. It might be harder to install, but I don't believe anything else, including RH, can come close to Debian Stable. It is simply a whole level of stability higher than anything else in the Linux world.
Not to flame the post, but FYI, I run a deployed server with Debian updating every morning at 6am. Every package on the machine is updated if it needs it. In fact, the major upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 was done this way.
In over 2 years of running this particular machine, I've only encountered one problem with automatic updating. And it wasn't a broken update, but a maintainer tightening security that made some email clients not work. I had to tell them to use more secure means.
Says a lot about the stability of Debian's packages. When the Debian community calls it the 'stable' version, they mean it!
Disclaimer: The production server I speak of runs a few web sites, several email accounts, etc. There's only about 5 users active on the machine. If I was administering it for hundreds, I wouldn't do automatic updates (even with Debian).
Update Option A
Update Option B
IE, being a classic app ported using Carbon, simply can't compete with these two browsers that are Cocoa. Camino, in particular, can read any site that IE can.
I don't disagree with you that Debian is hard to get running at first. But after it gets running, it is incredibly self-maintaining. You get out of the "upgrade" cycle that other distros make you do every 6 months. Instead, Debian simply upgrades packages one at a time as they get updates.
Even for the 2.0 to 3.0 jump, I simply said "apt-get dist-upgrade" from a remote console. Within an hour or so, the whole thing was upgraded. No install CDs, no reformatting, almost no user input.
If you are worried about using a US-based distribution, you should use Debian. It's as free as you can get.
And yes, I know that Ian (the founder) was in the US, but Debian is truly a worldwide effort right now. They have developers pretty evenly spread out throughout the world.
I live here in the valley with both companies. I've worked with both. It is true that both companies are owned by Canopy and that Ray Noorda had a hand in the creation of both (Ray actually lives not to far from me -- he's pretty frugal and you'd never know he has money. A very nice and respectable guy).
Anyway, to answer your question, both companies have switched management many times. Both are out of the hands of Ray and Canopy is very hands-off. Both have pretty clueless CEO's right now. In fact, both have had a long string of clueless CEO's for some time now. As much as I wish Caldera would have made it, their distro simply wasn't as good as Red Hat or Debian (I'm a debian fan).
I'm embarassed for SCO and I wish Novell would make better decisions. I have friends that work for both (who also shake their heads at their own companies). Makes me happy I'm a University professor who can simply use OSS.
Since I'm sitting in my hotel room with my Powerbook connected to my Treo for internet access (about 2x modem speeds), I'd have to disagree.
By far the greatest thing about my treo is the ability for me to use *real* internet (not dumbed down, behind the firewall stuff) directly over it's internet connection. And since Sprint's internet access is a flat rate each month, I get unlimited internet over the thing.
Sure, browsing the web directly on the treo isn't quite the greatest, but doing SSH, email, and Mozilla on my laptop through it is really something.
"What's the IP address of your servers witht he 2 year old linux distros? ; )"
;-P
I just checked ifconfig: 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.1. Please attack this address and let me know if you can crash them. I dare you!
What's wrong with flashy stuff for somethings? I like flashy (i.e. sometimes buggy) software for my laptop. I don't mind if my beta-version browser crashes once in a while because I get the new features.
My servers, OTOH, are another story. I wouldn't use anything but Debian (for linux, that is) because it is incredibly stable. My two Debian boxes on woody stable run 2+ yr old software. Guess what? They don't crash. I didn't upgrade from potato right away, but waited a little while.
Consumers are generally willing to accept more buggy software because they don't run servers. So what if Word crashes once in a while? Most consumers are so conditioned to it that they don't think another thing of it.
I realize that mail servers, electricity systems, and space probes need stable software, but most consumers don't administer these things. They use browsers, email, and cell phones that don't cause (much) physical harm when they crash.
Since it seems everyone else here is flaming you, I thought I'd give my support to your comments. Very well said. We should have done it differently from the start, but wishful thinking doesn't change the current situation.
It's actually amazing how you can almost tell where posters are from. The European "understanding" responses, the USA "give em hell" responses, and so forth.
I love reading Slashdot for the technical articles (which thankfully most are), but it's a good thing the world isn't ruled by some of the nuts here.
(Go ahead, flame on everyone)
I know canopy group well. I've worked with them on several projects. They are very hands off, but they are not the "Mormon Mafia". They are a company just like any other, just a little incompetent in the SCO case.
Anyone know a web page that compares modern Unix to modern VMS? I already know the commands differ, but what really separates them? I know VMS is very stable and works quite well at what it does (whatever that is). My Debian boxes are extremely stable, too. Sorry for the newbie question, but the VAX was before my time.
You'll love Debian if you switch. I went RH --> Mandrake --> Debian. I've never looked back. The stability of Debian and the ease of apt-get just can't be matched.
I was teaching a class the other day, and I realized that my computer didn't have a package that I needed (nmap), so I ran apt-get right in front of the students. Within 10 seconds I had nmap installed and ready to use. The students were in awe.
Don't forget the lack of zipping support. Yes, unzip is pretty seamless, but where is zipping?
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows at all and haven't seen zip supported in any version yet. Perhaps you can zip stuff in WinXP, but that would be news to me.
I don't disagree with most of what you've said. Your comment makes very realistic assumptions. Mine (the parent) talked about the *real* solution: fix families so they have two parents and good structure.
I realize that this is not realistic and will probably never happen in our current culture. However, I do maintain that this is the only long-term, real solution.
I do not accept that one-parent families (as much as single mothers are saints) can provide the same support and child raising as two-parent families.
The solutions you mentioned are more realistic in the near term, but they are only band aids to the problem. We should cater to single-parent families because they need the help. But we should not accept them as the norm.
If people really want to fix the problems in the inner city (or in the outer city for that matter), they'll start getting married and staying married. That means less selfishness, more service to each other, and significantly less pride.
Rather than accepting pride (which I'd say is the cause of most divorces--it's the root cause of money problems in a marriage) and fixing divorced situations, we should be telling adults to fix themselves and stay married.
The problem is not with the kids. It's with their parents. I know this sounds 'preachy' but it is the real solution. Our 70 percent divorce rate says something about what type of people we are in the US.
I've been happily married for 7 years now and I have three wonderful kids. We've had our share of fights and arguments, but both of us are willing to swallow our pride and put our kids welfare above our own. I'm not perfect and neither is my wife. But we make it work for each other and especially for our kids. And guess what, we're happy. Marriage is hard. Divorces are sometimes necessary because of abuse, but then again, that's because of the pride and selfishness of one of the partners.
I also realize that this has been going on for a few generations now, so the cycle is self-maintaining at this point. Very hard to break.
It takes two people to make a baby. That baby deserves two parents in a loving home and a stable life for at least 20 years. Until we get adults to decide to take marriage and kids more seriously, we'll always have significant problems.
The real hypocritical thing that we have 90 percent of Americans who think they can live life as they please (sleeping around, making babies even by accident, divorcing because of pride and unselfishness, drinking excessively to the detriment of the family, smoking with the kids in a closed car who can do nothing about it). And then they want to provide simple solutions to counter all the negative effects. Why can't people just live more responsibly? (that doesn't mean safe sex--it means a whole lot more)
I applaud efforts such as those you give. I hope they succeed. That's why I gave 2 years to help in these programs. When I started I had a more idealistic view that these programs could solve everything. But I found out that they don't solve the root problem. They only help the effects, not the cause.
The real solution is for people to get back to the 'old style' morals and responsibility. We had our problems back then, but nowhere near the significance we have them now.