OpenBSD going down at the hands of a serious DARPA taint, RedHat (never mind the rest) and IBM getting slaughtered by a vicious left-behind SCO, man... I just don't know what to think.
What other OS'es are there to switch to? I guess OSX is safe, sorta...
*sigh* See kiddies, this is why it was sad to see Be die. *sniff*
No, for the Unixes there was NCSA Mosaic. Well, if you had Sun hardware, that is.
I remember the day I first got a web browser working properly on my old Sparc box (moon.earthlink.net, incidentally EarthLinks' first DNS server...) I thought to myself: This is going to be huge if it ever gets to PC's.
A few weeks later, someone got NCSA Mosaic working under Windows (forget who it was), and the rest is history...
Ummm... d'uh. What is so difficult about this scenario:
a) User wants to run Linux Program X on his PC, currently running Windows. (Alternatively: User wants to run Linux, full-stop, instead of Windows).
b) User *must* have one or two Windows apps to function, but only one or two specific ones.
c) User switches to Linux, uses Crossover to get their old Windows apps working, and runs Linux Program X at the same time.
Honestly, it's as if you MS drones don't understand that there are apps in Linux-land that people *WANT* to run, which will *never* be ported to Windows... and which provide ample reason to go through the hassle of switching.
The "no apps" myth-age of Linux is OVER.
And it's for this reason that Crossover is a godsend, just like VirtualPC was for OSX...
I ran into a guy yesterday who said he was from 2264.
Guess Microsoft will-have-had 'embraced-and-extended' it into their OS by then, or well he mumbled something to that effect... "something something copied the code from the rich guy something something something "...
He said that we should be expecting 90% of the worlds population to be paying us all a visit, but then he turned this weird blue color and disappeared, mid-sentence.
Friends of mine asked me recently to provide them details of how Microsoft invades their privacy, but I couldn't really give them specifics because I use a Mac now and stopped paying attention to MS...
... they start getting spam for dick extenders, realise just how pitiful the rest of the world is, and go back to beating the shit out of each other over which goat pissed where.
The fact that Linux can be forked off into a gazillion distro's, freely and willingly, is a *GOOD THING*.
Okay, so the old market forces may not agree with this.
But OS's are fast becoming irrelevant. Linux' dominance in the 'adapt to all environments' arena cannot be stopped: it runs on *EVERYTHING*, practically, whereas Windows only runs on PC's.
("PC's are not the most predominant computer platform. Cell phones are.")
For compatibility, the only thing XML gives over the.doc format is it is harder for Microsoft to hide undocumented features in it since it is primarily text based.
That sounds like a good enough reason to use XML to me.
No, what I'm saying is that there's no reason for Microsoft to not have used the parseability features of XML to make their document formats more open - to do so would have fulfilled the actual purpose of XML.
These other posts are out of field. XML can be used to store content, as well as all significant details about how that content should be displayed/portrayed to the user in various scenarios, in a way in which the details can be easily parsed - both by software and by human.
XML is an attempt to prolong the longevity of data, forever. The thinking goes that if the data is described in a meta-language (which can also be described), it's easier to - many, many years into the future - parse the details from those documents and render them appropriately.
Microsoft aren't doing it. They're just wrapping up the users data in incomprehensible data formats, within XML, and then 'playing the Open Standards' card...
There's no justification for not including presentation details - content and layout - within the context of XML. It's perfectly applicable in this regard, parent posts notwithstanding...
Which is, in a nutshell, that these issues *SHOULD* be brought to light, and people *SHOULD* stop using MS Word to edit documents.
That you think the/. crowd is stupid for bringing this issue up like this is missing the point completely, which most 'smart'/.'ers know, and which Microsoft do as well, as they are proving here:
There's just no reason to use MS Word any more. None at all. Edit-wise, people don't even use %20 of the features for editing in MS Word, generally. The GUI game is over.
MS Word only has relevance when it comes time to send a completed document to someone else.
The Solution: Use.PDF to send to people when you want to guarantee it'll look (and print) right, and.XML for *All Other Editing Purposes Requiring Openness and Flexibility*.
XML use by Microsoft is just an attempt to curb this strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorta like AMPFEA, for example.
I can imagine a few among that crowd might find this useful...
OpenBSD going down at the hands of a serious DARPA taint, RedHat (never mind the rest) and IBM getting slaughtered by a vicious left-behind SCO, man ... I just don't know what to think.
...
What other OS'es are there to switch to? I guess OSX is safe, sorta
*sigh* See kiddies, this is why it was sad to see Be die. *sniff*
Freakin' hell you two, get a room ...
I dunno ... but will Al Gore have invented it?
No, for the Unixes there was NCSA Mosaic. Well, if you had Sun hardware, that is.
I remember the day I first got a web browser working properly on my old Sparc box (moon.earthlink.net, incidentally EarthLinks' first DNS server...) I thought to myself: This is going to be huge if it ever gets to PC's.
A few weeks later, someone got NCSA Mosaic working under Windows (forget who it was), and the rest is history...
Are there any reasons why this metal wouldn't be a good choice for other applications?
One word: Patents.
... and their ocean-dwelling UFO-crashing alien masters sure have been up to some good work lately!
...
Seriously though, how long until we see this metal in Oakleys, I wonder
so what is the incentive to change?
Ummm... d'uh. What is so difficult about this scenario:
a) User wants to run Linux Program X on his PC, currently running Windows. (Alternatively: User wants to run Linux, full-stop, instead of Windows).
b) User *must* have one or two Windows apps to function, but only one or two specific ones.
c) User switches to Linux, uses Crossover to get their old Windows apps working, and runs Linux Program X at the same time.
Honestly, it's as if you MS drones don't understand that there are apps in Linux-land that people *WANT* to run, which will *never* be ported to Windows... and which provide ample reason to go through the hassle of switching.
The "no apps" myth-age of Linux is OVER.
And it's for this reason that Crossover is a godsend, just like VirtualPC was for OSX...
... this should put a new light on the whole 'software synthesis' issue, eh?
Heh heh. Sometimes I kill myself...
... or does a 256-byte inode seem just a bit ... well ... excessive?
Duh. Porn, you idiot.
I ran into a guy yesterday who said he was from 2264.
... "something something copied the code from the rich guy something something something " ...
Guess Microsoft will-have-had 'embraced-and-extended' it into their OS by then, or well he mumbled something to that effect
He said that we should be expecting 90% of the worlds population to be paying us all a visit, but then he turned this weird blue color and disappeared, mid-sentence.
Do Microsoft do this? If so, where's the details?
...
Friends of mine asked me recently to provide them details of how Microsoft invades their privacy, but I couldn't really give them specifics because I use a Mac now and stopped paying attention to MS
Bring on the Rat Thing!
And as a Clie user, I'd pay for TealMagnify if I heard they did this after a little nudging from their customers.
I love the camera integration. The Clie needs a "Blade Runner"-esque realtime image-processing system.
End of story.
... they start getting spam for dick extenders, realise just how pitiful the rest of the world is, and go back to beating the shit out of each other over which goat pissed where.
Well, maybe Microsoft can save them.
Sheesh. It's not *THAT* hard to write software which runs well and good on all Linux distro's.
You can find plenty of good examples on freshmeat. Why should it be any different for so-called 'commercial' vendors?
Yeah, ummm ... right.
...
CE != Windows
Good luck doing your 'ports'
No, I disagree.
The fact that Linux can be forked off into a gazillion distro's, freely and willingly, is a *GOOD THING*.
Okay, so the old market forces may not agree with this.
But OS's are fast becoming irrelevant. Linux' dominance in the 'adapt to all environments' arena cannot be stopped: it runs on *EVERYTHING*, practically, whereas Windows only runs on PC's.
("PC's are not the most predominant computer platform. Cell phones are.")
What matters is the document formats.
Oooh... good one! I did not know about that "turn away from the east" thing, that's very juicy!
But I don't trust the WordNET inclusion of it in the 'disorient' sense. I believe that's jaunty.
For compatibility, the only thing XML gives over the .doc format is it is harder for Microsoft to hide undocumented features in it since it is primarily text based.
That sounds like a good enough reason to use XML to me.
Yes, I have. It's crap. I will not use it, because I will not use Word.
Or, for that matter, any Microsoft product.
They no longer deserve my support - and I've been supporting them since GWBASIC was something I had to burn myself.
No, what I'm saying is that there's no reason for Microsoft to not have used the parseability features of XML to make their document formats more open - to do so would have fulfilled the actual purpose of XML.
These other posts are out of field. XML can be used to store content, as well as all significant details about how that content should be displayed/portrayed to the user in various scenarios, in a way in which the details can be easily parsed - both by software and by human.
XML is an attempt to prolong the longevity of data, forever. The thinking goes that if the data is described in a meta-language (which can also be described), it's easier to - many, many years into the future - parse the details from those documents and render them appropriately.
Microsoft aren't doing it. They're just wrapping up the users data in incomprehensible data formats, within XML, and then 'playing the Open Standards' card...
There's no justification for not including presentation details - content and layout - within the context of XML. It's perfectly applicable in this regard, parent posts notwithstanding...
Which is, in a nutshell, that these issues *SHOULD* be brought to light, and people *SHOULD* stop using MS Word to edit documents.
/. crowd is stupid for bringing this issue up like this is missing the point completely, which most 'smart' /.'ers know, and which Microsoft do as well, as they are proving here:
.PDF to send to people when you want to guarantee it'll look (and print) right, and .XML for *All Other Editing Purposes Requiring Openness and Flexibility*.
That you think the
There's just no reason to use MS Word any more. None at all. Edit-wise, people don't even use %20 of the features for editing in MS Word, generally. The GUI game is over.
MS Word only has relevance when it comes time to send a completed document to someone else.
The Solution: Use
XML use by Microsoft is just an attempt to curb this strategy.