Re:And this relates to XML how?
on
Java RMI
·
· Score: 1
XML-RPC is something completly diffrent from CORBA or RMI.
XML-RPC is used to have some applications talk to each other over the wire, CORBA is used to allow objects to talk to each other. That's a completly diffrent granularity. You can not really compare those two.
SOAP is heading into the direction of CORBA, but it is missing a lot of features CORBA offers (like object activation, etc.).
I don't mean know in the sense of 'having read the most about it', but the one you did a real project in. There simply is no perfect language, there are just languages that you know how to work yround its shortcomings.
Yes, some languages are better suited for certain tasks, but what good is that for you if you have to look up each command in a book? It takes a few month to get 'fluent' in a language. Do you have that time available to get your project finished? If you skip this learning time you will redo much of what you did in the beginning, just because you are ashamed of the ugly code;-)
Isen't this what http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/crust/
is all about?
Actually I think this idea is not-so-good(TM).
The biggest advantage of X is that it runs virtually everywhere. I wouldn't give that up by writting something Hurd-specific.
They don't. They are trying to provide for vector graphics, maybe even a SVG renderer, but they stay in the pixel-world: They don't use real-world meassurements but pixels. You can't ask them to draw a window 50mm wide. You can't have 3D objects outside of windows (the background *is* a window too in X). You can't print anything that you can display on the screen, only those things the QT/GTK guys decided to write a printerdriver for. You can't switch a theme and both QT and GTK will change their looks and feels (actually there are meta themes nowadays that combine a QT and GTK theme into one package, but even with those the 'feel' stays diffrent). How about using a mouse and a graphics tablet at the same time (in X you have to switch between these devices)? How about connecting a dataglove to your computer and using that for input? Berlin's Eventsystem can deal with such a device. How about using your shutterglasses to get a 3D impression of your desktop? Berlin can do most of this allready.
Do I understand you right: You are suggesting to remove X11 in favour for GTK/QT? Yes, X11 will stay around as some kind of compatibility layer, but it won't be used much anyway or you'd give up all these nice features you get from QT/GTK. But in fact you are proclaiming that GTK or QT is 'X12' (or 'Y' or whatever you are going to call it) and X11 is just some kind of compatibility layer for legacy applications. Actually there are things like QT-embedded, GTK on DirectFB trying to realice just that: GTK/QT without X.
Now how does this differ from having Berlin plus a thin X11-compatibility layer?
The only difference I can see is that GTK/Qt have applications while berlin has not. But all those applications should run on X-on-Berlin as well, plus you get all the niffty features of Berlin. So why do you insist on using GTK/QT on X?
There is another issue I consider to be important: How can we exspect users from coming over from the MS-plattform if we are just imitating it? We need something better, better even then the MacOS X-GUI. Berlin has that potential for that IMHO. But then I am biased;-)
Network transparency is great. It will be even greater in the future with all those handheld gadgets companies keep promissing!
Having said that, security in this context propably refers to clients not being able to mess with the server. So clients can rarely crash the server. Networktransparency enforces a very strict separation of client and server and so results in a 'secure' system.
Oh, yes, we can do better:-) Check out http://www.berlin-consortium.org/ and help us get it ready for primetime. We still have a lot of ground to cover, but I guess Berlin is exactly what you are looking for.
That's not a good idea IMHO. With 'X12' you are doing something that is not 100% compatible with X11 anyway: You can't run X12 applications on X11 servers. So you will need to upgrade every system in your network, just as you'd have to do with a completly new system or you will not be able to use the new features. So what do you gain by having X12 instead of a powerful new system? A lot of cruft and inconsistencies from pluging together lots of modules and extensions into a new protocol.
Berlin tries to do a new, consistent, powerful system. A X11 emulation can be added later. Check out
http://www.berlin-consortium.org/:-)
Sorry, but Berlin _DOES_ have significant advantages over X (and most other windowing systems).
Berlin is resolution independent, device independent (has build in printer support, WYSIWYG,...), is fully configurable without each app looking diffrently, has a sophisticated event handling,... .
Yes, Berlin is being developed slowly. But then it is a huge project and we have very few developers.
I see a time where you will no longer be allowed to open the hood of your car... you could find out that the car manufacturer made design mistakes, you might copy the 'algorithm' (engine, transmission) if you happen to build cars yourself or - god forbid - use those parts to build your own car.How long will mechanical engineers be able to publish their research: Is a engine of type A better then one of type B build by another company?
I doubt that something like that will happen: There are more people interested in the inner working of cars then those that care about what happens inside their computer. So the political pressure to keep cars 'open' is much higher.
How can we increase the political pressure to keep reverse engineering open? The only way I see is by educating the non-geek masses that this is important. But how can this be done? The only way I can think of is by providing everyday examples of reverse engineering: like the car example I tried. Do you know any better examples?
Why do I spend time developing free software? That's difficult to answer... For a bunch of reasons:
I want to learn something. Not just programming in general, but how complex systems for textprocessing, graphics rendering, multimedia streaming,... work. I found that actually doing one is the only way to understand what's going on inside those systems! IMHO participating in one free software project should be mandatory for any student of computer science.
I use Linux, mozilla, xchat, blackbox,... exclusivly, no commercial software at all! That software is just great for me, I'm so happy that I don't have to bother with licensing and pricing everytime a new version of a program I like comes out!
That's why I feel obliqued to return something to the community that provides the software I use. Others do webdesign, translations of documentation, organization of shows, writting new software, whatever. I'm rather good (I think) at writting software, so that's what I do.
I like the people: Most tend to be open to new ideas sharing their own and using those contributed by users. Almost everyone I meet so far was very friendly and willing to teach and/or learn. They tend to know what kind of work is involved with a big project and tend to respect those contributing their time and energie into one .
I like the ideas of free software. I believe its a good thing. Yes, that's rather idealistic, but that's how I am,
I don't know, maybe I'm just nostalgic. But computer games used to be great when I started out with my Amstrad CPC: Graphics were amazing, Sound not so much (the CPC had cheesy sound) and the Games were fascinating.I used to play such simple things like Boulderdash, Gryzor (a shoot em up) and all time classics like Bard's Tale and Elite.
What made those games great? Considering nowadays games those were ridiculously simple: Few colors, 320x200 pixels and horrible sound. The stories? In Elite you fly around with a ship you could equip with a lot of gimmicks, you bought and sold goods to get money or you became a pirate and attacks innocent traders, you were able to smuggle forbidden goods. Sometimes you even got to do special missions (those really happened rarely). I'm not too deep into games anymore, but I don't know of a single game nowadays that comes anywhere near!
Bard's Tale was so much fun too: You ran around with a party of adventurers and killed anything 'moving' (of course nothing did really move, this computer had 64K of RAM:-). Storyline? Well, you went to diffrent places to kill and eventually fought the ultimate evil wizard... Nothing compared to todays multiple CD epics. Yet, I did kill that evil wizard multiple times... today I hardly ever finish a game anymore.
Why did that happen? Did I change? Or did the games get boring? Is it some kind of 'been there, done that'? I don't know.
Playing todays games I am fascinated by the graphics and sounds for a while, I play for a few hours and then I'm getting bored. Somehow I keep getting the impression that the money goes to the artists, not to the script writers. Producing a computer game is getting more and more like making a movie: You need a script, but you get most of the audience with the special effects. Some gems (like Myst) emerge sometimes, but those are rare and far between...
What really catches my imagination for a while is the multiplayer feature of todays games: Real humans are so much more challenging then those dump computer controlled opponents. But even there I eventually feel bored: Most games just don't let me do what I want to do. They restrict me too much to be fun for long.
Am I the only one who feels like that?
What's your definition of a good book? Mine is that I feel compelled to read on... that's why I like Harry Potter.
I read all of them, and I think they are getting better with each volume: Harry is growing up, and so are the books. The Gobblet of Fire is definitly not a kid's book anymore (people die for no reason at all, no happy end,...), we'll see how the next one will be.
So if you only know the first one, get the last and read that too. That's the one that won the Hugo (well, the category is of course all wrong, but the book is worth an award IMHO), and rightly so. I know some kids that started to read J.R.R. Tolkien and others after Harry Potter, although they said those book were just too think to spend there time on earlier this year. Any book that does that is worth an award!
Slashdot Mirror
XML-RPC is something completly diffrent from CORBA or RMI.
XML-RPC is used to have some applications talk to each other over the wire, CORBA is used to allow objects to talk to each other. That's a completly diffrent granularity. You can not really compare those two.
SOAP is heading into the direction of CORBA, but it is missing a lot of features CORBA offers (like object activation, etc.).
Regards,
Tobias
The best language is the one *you* know.
I don't mean know in the sense of 'having read the most about it', but the one you did a real project in. There simply is no perfect language, there are just languages that you know how to work yround its shortcomings.
Yes, some languages are better suited for certain tasks, but what good is that for you if you have to look up each command in a book? It takes a few month to get 'fluent' in a language. Do you have that time available to get your project finished? If you skip this learning time you will redo much of what you did in the beginning, just because you are ashamed of the ugly code;-)
Regards,
Tobias
Isen't this what http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/crust/
is all about?
Actually I think this idea is not-so-good(TM).
The biggest advantage of X is that it runs virtually everywhere. I wouldn't give that up by writting something Hurd-specific.
They don't. They are trying to provide for vector graphics, maybe even a SVG renderer, but they stay in the pixel-world: They don't use real-world meassurements but pixels. You can't ask them to draw a window 50mm wide. You can't have 3D objects outside of windows (the background *is* a window too in X). You can't print anything that you can display on the screen, only those things the QT/GTK guys decided to write a printerdriver for. You can't switch a theme and both QT and GTK will change their looks and feels (actually there are meta themes nowadays that combine a QT and GTK theme into one package, but even with those the 'feel' stays diffrent). How about using a mouse and a graphics tablet at the same time (in X you have to switch between these devices)? How about connecting a dataglove to your computer and using that for input? Berlin's Eventsystem can deal with such a device. How about using your shutterglasses to get a 3D impression of your desktop? Berlin can do most of this allready.
Do I understand you right: You are suggesting to remove X11 in favour for GTK/QT? Yes, X11 will stay around as some kind of compatibility layer, but it won't be used much anyway or you'd give up all these nice features you get from QT/GTK. But in fact you are proclaiming that GTK or QT is 'X12' (or 'Y' or whatever you are going to call it) and X11 is just some kind of compatibility layer for legacy applications. Actually there are things like QT-embedded, GTK on DirectFB trying to realice just that: GTK/QT without X.
Now how does this differ from having Berlin plus a thin X11-compatibility layer?
The only difference I can see is that GTK/Qt have applications while berlin has not. But all those applications should run on X-on-Berlin as well, plus you get all the niffty features of Berlin. So why do you insist on using GTK/QT on X?
There is another issue I consider to be important: How can we exspect users from coming over from the MS-plattform if we are just imitating it? We need something better, better even then the MacOS X-GUI. Berlin has that potential for that IMHO. But then I am biased;-)
Network transparency is great. It will be even greater in the future with all those handheld gadgets companies keep promissing!
Having said that, security in this context propably refers to clients not being able to mess with the server. So clients can rarely crash the server. Networktransparency enforces a very strict separation of client and server and so results in a 'secure' system.
Oh, yes, we can do better:-) Check out http://www.berlin-consortium.org/ and help us get it ready for primetime. We still have a lot of ground to cover, but I guess Berlin is exactly what you are looking for.
Regards,
Tobias
That's not a good idea IMHO. With 'X12' you are doing something that is not 100% compatible with X11 anyway: You can't run X12 applications on X11 servers. So you will need to upgrade every system in your network, just as you'd have to do with a completly new system or you will not be able to use the new features. So what do you gain by having X12 instead of a powerful new system? A lot of cruft and inconsistencies from pluging together lots of modules and extensions into a new protocol.
:-)
Berlin tries to do a new, consistent, powerful system. A X11 emulation can be added later. Check out
http://www.berlin-consortium.org/
Regards,
Tobias
Sorry, but Berlin _DOES_ have significant advantages over X (and most other windowing systems).
...), is fully configurable without each app looking diffrently, has a sophisticated event handling, ... .
Berlin is resolution independent, device independent (has build in printer support, WYSIWYG,
Yes, Berlin is being developed slowly. But then it is a huge project and we have very few developers.
Regards,
Tobias
I see a time where you will no longer be allowed to open the hood of your car... you could find out that the car manufacturer made design mistakes, you might copy the 'algorithm' (engine, transmission) if you happen to build cars yourself or - god forbid - use those parts to build your own car.How long will mechanical engineers be able to publish their research: Is a engine of type A better then one of type B build by another company?
I doubt that something like that will happen: There are more people interested in the inner working of cars then those that care about what happens inside their computer. So the political pressure to keep cars 'open' is much higher.
How can we increase the political pressure to keep reverse engineering open? The only way I see is by educating the non-geek masses that this is important. But how can this be done? The only way I can think of is by providing everyday examples of reverse engineering: like the car example I tried. Do you know any better examples?
Regards,
Tobias
That's why I feel obliqued to return something to the community that provides the software I use. Others do webdesign, translations of documentation, organization of shows, writting new software, whatever. I'm rather good (I think) at writting software, so that's what I do.
Regards,
Tobias
Hi!
I don't know, maybe I'm just nostalgic. But computer games used to be great when I started out with my Amstrad CPC: Graphics were amazing, Sound not so much (the CPC had cheesy sound) and the Games were fascinating.I used to play such simple things like Boulderdash, Gryzor (a shoot em up) and all time classics like Bard's Tale and Elite.
What made those games great? Considering nowadays games those were ridiculously simple: Few colors, 320x200 pixels and horrible sound. The stories? In Elite you fly around with a ship you could equip with a lot of gimmicks, you bought and sold goods to get money or you became a pirate and attacks innocent traders, you were able to smuggle forbidden goods. Sometimes you even got to do special missions (those really happened rarely). I'm not too deep into games anymore, but I don't know of a single game nowadays that comes anywhere near!
Bard's Tale was so much fun too: You ran around with a party of adventurers and killed anything 'moving' (of course nothing did really move, this computer had 64K of RAM:-). Storyline? Well, you went to diffrent places to kill and eventually fought the ultimate evil wizard... Nothing compared to todays multiple CD epics. Yet, I did kill that evil wizard multiple times... today I hardly ever finish a game anymore.
Why did that happen? Did I change? Or did the games get boring? Is it some kind of 'been there, done that'? I don't know.
Playing todays games I am fascinated by the graphics and sounds for a while, I play for a few hours and then I'm getting bored. Somehow I keep getting the impression that the money goes to the artists, not to the script writers. Producing a computer game is getting more and more like making a movie: You need a script, but you get most of the audience with the special effects. Some gems (like Myst) emerge sometimes, but those are rare and far between...
What really catches my imagination for a while is the multiplayer feature of todays games: Real humans are so much more challenging then those dump computer controlled opponents. But even there I eventually feel bored: Most games just don't let me do what I want to do. They restrict me too much to be fun for long.
Am I the only one who feels like that?
Regards,
Tobias
What's your definition of a good book? Mine is that I feel compelled to read on... that's why I like Harry Potter.
...), we'll see how the next one will be.
I read all of them, and I think they are getting better with each volume: Harry is growing up, and so are the books. The Gobblet of Fire is definitly not a kid's book anymore (people die for no reason at all, no happy end,
So if you only know the first one, get the last and read that too. That's the one that won the Hugo (well, the category is of course all wrong, but the book is worth an award IMHO), and rightly so. I know some kids that started to read J.R.R. Tolkien and others after Harry Potter, although they said those book were just too think to spend there time on earlier this year. Any book that does that is worth an award!
Regards,
Tobias