Really? I thought us Slashdot readers liked to tell people how all software sucks -- Either because the problem was "solved" on Unix in the 1980s, or because there's some bleeding edge, half-implemented spec which kind of does the same thing.
Yes, I know, but what % of Firefox users have this installed? Things relating to file-format compatibility really need to be part of the base package, not an extention.
You know, at some point you have to get over DR-DOS. It was just another sucky DOS anyways, they sued MS and got their money, nobody cares anymore. It's just pathetic to be wollowing in stuff that happened in 1992.
Back in 1998/1999, MS was telling everybody that OSS would never compete against MS
I would argue that's still the case. OSS (and by that you mean Linux) has targeted the traditional Unix market and done very little to compete with Microsoft's installed base. So, MS lost a huge growth opportunity with all those 'obsolete' Unix/RISC servers going away, but has done very well growing their natural base of desktops/groupware/file+print/intranet despite Linux.
it closely corresponds to things like Python (with tkinter, PyQt, or pygtk), TCL/TK, Perl (with Gtk2::*) etc
Not to mention VB6 [which lacks the functional elements but was plauged with the same reference-counting issues.] Of course, you didn't add "VB is a horrible language" to your list because, well, people have actually used it and agree totally.:)
I'm not a Swing programmer, so I can't comment on efficiency. Just competitively, if someone is creating something for "cross-platform", "network-delivered" local applications, Swing dominates that market, so that's what they should be targetting, not obscure python bindings and the like.
There's already a perfectly good standard for this -- MIME-encapsulated HTML or MHTML. It also has the advantage of being implemented in that little browser with 85% marketshare, Internet Explorer.
The Mozilla bug for implementing this is 40873, not that voting for it seems to do any good (bug is still 'NEW' after almost 6 years).
The Mozilla developers threw away the only thing that could stop Internet Explorer from winning the browser wars... to build XULRunner. Good job on building a GUI toolkit, Mozilla guys! I just wish you'd focused on building a web browser instead.
I'm sure many people remember the line from mozilla.org -- "It's not a Browser, it's a Development Platform!!" Urg.
Unfortunately, Mozilla (aka AOL) did not understand the fundamentals of what they were getting into. "Development Platforms" are far less about capabilities and a lot more about Tools. It's just confounding that they sunk soo much effort into developing XUL, and then never released documentation, never released a GUI builder, never really built a community.
Even ignoring the overall irrationality of the AOL building their own GUI Toolkit, it's just totally bewildering that they only went 80% of the way there. If one wants to compete directly with Microsoft and Sun in the devtools market, you really have follow through, not just throw a bunch of code out on a FTP site and then wonder why nobody's using it. They really did throw away 50% marketshare with nothing to show for it.
If you look at XUL from a competitive standpoint, it maps most closely against Java/Swing, where one generally does not have to be overly concerned with object lifecycles and 'native objects' and memory leaks (not that you can completely ignore it, but in general there's less "gotchas" than there is with JS.)
I'm a big fan of Javascript as a language, but can totally understand why someone from an RAD app-programming POV would see it as a drawback.
Bottom line: if you can't be bothered to learn the grammar of the language you are using... perhaps software development is really not for you.
No, the bottom line is that developers use something other than XUL to build apps. You can challenge people's manliness all you want, but that's reality -- almost nobody uses XUL.
> what's the advantage over just putting Firefox on your system?
API stability -- This allows you to distribute standalone XUL apps without worrying that the next.01 rev of Firefox will change the API and break things.
Wrong. Mac users don't buy Macs to run OSX -- OS X is just an enabler to Edit Photos/Word Process/Web Surf or whatever the user really wants to do -- all things the Dell does as well. Every Mac sale is a concious decision not to buy the cheaper and more ubiquitous generic PC.
Using the offical IDE and documented API is quite a strech for the term "hacker mentality". Since when did everyone who develops software become a "hacker"?
> But SElinux controls apply to all software, not just system services. In theory.
In practice, nobody is shipping SELinux in a functional form for desktop (X11) software. Vista will ship with a MAC/sandboxed version of IE for example, when no such tools currently exist to do the same with Firefox on LInux.
They might own a lot of the rights, but not all of them -- all the video codecs, the Java OS, and the copy protection system -- all licensed from someone.
And I believe that most of the current cost of a DVD player actually goes to patent licenses and not the hardware. Considering how much more sophisiticated BluRay will be, it's not going to be cheap, IP-wise.
People like him are just statistical noise anyway, so he's not going to "hurt" Sony. I think Sony's profit strategy is not just games, but Blu-Ray royalties anyway.
Also, you put Linux on the thing and the Cell/BluRay/Nvidia stuff is all basically useless. I don't see how you'll ever get any value out of it without going the Sony route.
Well, the reason Sony is sticking a BluRay drive into the PS3 is to bring up mass production as quickly as possible and force economies of scale. Of course, that also means the PS3 is delayed until BluRay has all the kinks worked out.
By "we", who are you talking about? Who is going to sink money and marketing into OpenGL? (Unlike Microsoft, neither Apple nor Linux distributor seem to feel that gaming is a strategic market.)
Even Id/John Carmack has switched to DirectX now, so it seems like the end is neigh for OpenGL.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I thought us Slashdot readers liked to tell people how all software sucks -- Either because the problem was "solved" on Unix in the 1980s, or because there's some bleeding edge, half-implemented spec which kind of does the same thing.
Yes, I know, but what % of Firefox users have this installed? Things relating to file-format compatibility really need to be part of the base package, not an extention.
You know, at some point you have to get over DR-DOS. It was just another sucky DOS anyways, they sued MS and got their money, nobody cares anymore. It's just pathetic to be wollowing in stuff that happened in 1992.
Back in 1998/1999, MS was telling everybody that OSS would never compete against MS
I would argue that's still the case. OSS (and by that you mean Linux) has targeted the traditional Unix market and done very little to compete with Microsoft's installed base. So, MS lost a huge growth opportunity with all those 'obsolete' Unix/RISC servers going away, but has done very well growing their natural base of desktops/groupware/file+print/intranet despite Linux.
it closely corresponds to things like Python (with tkinter, PyQt, or pygtk), TCL/TK, Perl (with Gtk2::*) etc
:)
Not to mention VB6 [which lacks the functional elements but was plauged with the same reference-counting issues.] Of course, you didn't add "VB is a horrible language" to your list because, well, people have actually used it and agree totally.
I'm not a Swing programmer, so I can't comment on efficiency. Just competitively, if someone is creating something for "cross-platform", "network-delivered" local applications, Swing dominates that market, so that's what they should be targetting, not obscure python bindings and the like.
There's already a perfectly good standard for this -- MIME-encapsulated HTML or MHTML. It also has the advantage of being implemented in that little browser with 85% marketshare, Internet Explorer.
The Mozilla bug for implementing this is 40873, not that voting for it seems to do any good (bug is still 'NEW' after almost 6 years).
The Mozilla developers threw away the only thing that could stop Internet Explorer from winning the browser wars... to build XULRunner.
Good job on building a GUI toolkit, Mozilla guys! I just wish you'd focused on building a web browser instead.
I'm sure many people remember the line from mozilla.org -- "It's not a Browser, it's a Development Platform!!" Urg.
Unfortunately, Mozilla (aka AOL) did not understand the fundamentals of what they were getting into. "Development Platforms" are far less about capabilities and a lot more about Tools. It's just confounding that they sunk soo much effort into developing XUL, and then never released documentation, never released a GUI builder, never really built a community.
Even ignoring the overall irrationality of the AOL building their own GUI Toolkit, it's just totally bewildering that they only went 80% of the way there. If one wants to compete directly with Microsoft and Sun in the devtools market, you really have follow through, not just throw a bunch of code out on a FTP site and then wonder why nobody's using it. They really did throw away 50% marketshare with nothing to show for it.
That was a typical slashdot substance-free reply.
... perhaps software development is really not for you.
If you look at XUL from a competitive standpoint, it maps most closely against Java/Swing, where one generally does not have to be overly concerned with object lifecycles and 'native objects' and memory leaks (not that you can completely ignore it, but in general there's less "gotchas" than there is with JS.)
I'm a big fan of Javascript as a language, but can totally understand why someone from an RAD app-programming POV would see it as a drawback.
Bottom line: if you can't be bothered to learn the grammar of the language you are using
No, the bottom line is that developers use something other than XUL to build apps. You can challenge people's manliness all you want, but that's reality -- almost nobody uses XUL.
And that explains perfectly why there are 1,000,000 VB applications in the world, and only 7 XUL applications.
"We're too l33t for GUI builders HUR HUR HUR!!!!11" (meanwhile 100 man-years of programming effort disappears into obscurity)
> what's the advantage over just putting Firefox on your system?
.01 rev of Firefox will change the API and break things.
API stability -- This allows you to distribute standalone XUL apps without worrying that the next
None of that contradicts the fact that Apple sells personal computers and therefore competes with Dell, who also sells personal computers.
And, yes, people with high disposable income do spend lots of money on shiny things.
Escaping out apostrophes on a webform == KOOK.
Wrong. Mac users don't buy Macs to run OSX -- OS X is just an enabler to Edit Photos/Word Process/Web Surf or whatever the user really wants to do -- all things the Dell does as well. Every Mac sale is a concious decision not to buy the cheaper and more ubiquitous generic PC.
Morality arguments such as these are stupid because there's nothing to say except ISNOT/ISTOO/ISNOT/ISTOO.
Neither Apple nor the posters here are going to successfully shame people into not pirating the OS.
Using the offical IDE and documented API is quite a strech for the term "hacker mentality". Since when did everyone who develops software become a "hacker"?
I think you mean competing with Microsoft. Apple already competes with Dell (ie, every Mac desktop shipped is a sale that could have gone to Dell.)
> But SElinux controls apply to all software, not just system services.
In theory.
In practice, nobody is shipping SELinux in a functional form for desktop (X11) software. Vista will ship with a MAC/sandboxed version of IE for example, when no such tools currently exist to do the same with Firefox on LInux.
They might own a lot of the rights, but not all of them -- all the video codecs, the Java OS, and the copy protection system -- all licensed from someone.
And I believe that most of the current cost of a DVD player actually goes to patent licenses and not the hardware. Considering how much more sophisiticated BluRay will be, it's not going to be cheap, IP-wise.
Actually, I would assume that like most other visualization applications, they would have moved away from SGI. But what do I know.
Try a System State backup.
People like him are just statistical noise anyway, so he's not going to "hurt" Sony. I think Sony's profit strategy is not just games, but Blu-Ray royalties anyway.
Also, you put Linux on the thing and the Cell/BluRay/Nvidia stuff is all basically useless. I don't see how you'll ever get any value out of it without going the Sony route.
I'm curious what medical devices would require a Cell CPU.
Otherwise Cell is being marketed as a niche scientific chip, and the volumes in those markets will be next to nothing when compared with the PS3.
Well, the reason Sony is sticking a BluRay drive into the PS3 is to bring up mass production as quickly as possible and force economies of scale. Of course, that also means the PS3 is delayed until BluRay has all the kinks worked out.
By "we", who are you talking about? Who is going to sink money and marketing into OpenGL? (Unlike Microsoft, neither Apple nor Linux distributor seem to feel that gaming is a strategic market.)
Even Id/John Carmack has switched to DirectX now, so it seems like the end is neigh for OpenGL.
DirectX is supposedly cheaper and faster to develop for. Do you understand now?