It only costs £4.99 a month for the Unlimited subscription and this comes with the added bonus of no adverts. The kind of people who say 'So long Spotify. It was nice knowing you' are the kind of people who don't want to pay for music. That's their choice of course, but what did they expect? Spotify's price is pretty low and their product is pretty good. The 'free' side of their business doesn't seem sustainable in the long term and I'd rather they focussed on maintaining a sustainable service. And, you know, if you really don't want to pay for music you still don't have to but your free lunch just got smaller. Bummer.
Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.
The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.
The key word here is limit. It doesn't mean 'always go at 60mph'. It means 'use your judgement, but don't exceed 60mph'.
There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.
There are probably a few times when you could get to 180mph and not be dangerous, but there are probably more times when you think you can get to 180mph and not be dangerous and be wrong. Plenty of people crash doing stuff that they think is safe but misjudged. I image that relative few people crash while doing something they think is dangerous.
Of course speeding isn't the only cause of crashes, but it does make crashes worse. It also makes them more likely. If you are at 180mph in a clear lane on the M25 you stand much less chance of avoiding the idiot who pulls out in front of you than you do if you're travelling at 70mph.
Speed limits aren't always perfect, but they're not arbitrary either. The more you deviate from them the more you put yourself and others at risk.
Redirect on GET is doing it too late. By that time you've already sent a load of traffic to one location, potentially one that takes a long time to get to.
It's not much of an issue for a low volume website with users in the same country but it does matter when you get high volume sites with users around the world.
I think you're missing the point. Geographically aware DNS is used to send you to your nearest deployment of an application. Deciding after you've arrived is too late.
I buy from LCN.com. Not as cheap as godaddy but they work well and don't do anything scummy with your domain (like trying to stop you from transferring). I guess you gets what you pays for.
I'm not sure how godaddy can justify doing this. The icann policy only lets them deny a transfer under the following circumstances (listed under point 3):
1. Evidence of fraud
2. UDRP action
3. Court order by a court of competent jurisdiction
4. Reasonable dispute over the identity of the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact
5. No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.
6. Express written objection to the transfer from the Transfer Contact. (e.g. - email, fax, paper document or other processes by which the Transfer Contact has expressly and voluntarily objected through opt-in means)
7. A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
8. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period.
9. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).
Why in the world should they slow themselves down by catering to people who don't want any of the 2.0 stuff the site is engineered to develop?
Because 2.0 (whatever that is) should degrade nicely. Breaking a simple form with a single text input is a pretty lame use of javascript. They should at least put a banner across the top of the page saying "You need to have javascript enabled to use this simple search form because we are teh super l33tZ web 2.0."
Testing in multiple browsers will only show you that's it's broken. Fixing pages so that they look right is hard, and sometime impossible.
Nothing about that is AJAX-specific,
Indeed not, but I said this in reply to your comment:
Solution: test in multiple browsers. WOW, THAT WAS HARD.
Testing in multiple browsers is not a solution, although it will form part of any solution. But you are right: the problem is as hard for non-AJAX applications as it is for AJAX ones.
I don't need a fucking CORBA connection to the sever.
Good. I'm happy for you;) Sometimes I have wanted more than just a marked up document back from the server. For example, changing the currency changes the price of many basket items -- in many different places -- but I don't want my AJAX call to return the entire basket display again. (I know it can be worked around, but the point remains that HTML documents (or even fragments) aren't always what I want back from the server, even if they're just fine for you).
Ruby and Rails are just joyous to work in.
You know, I'm not convinced that we disagree really, but pointless arguing is fun:-)
Utilize != use. Read the usage note in this definition. No dependency was suggested.
So how exactly does rails "put to use, especially to find a profitable or practical use" AJAX? Rails does not put anything to use. It's a web application framework. You can install rails and it does not put AJAX (or javascript, or HTML, or XML, or kittens, etc.) to use. You can write a web application and it does not put AJAX to use. And so on.
To say that "rails utilizes AJAX" is just plain wrong. You probably meant that rails makes it easy for the developer to utilize AJAX. If you didn't then we have a translation of idolect problem, which conveniently brings us on to:
Never get into a semantic war with me - I will end you:)
Cool. Always wondered what the end was like;) You wanna start with Quine's theories of the indeterminacy of translation (frequently extended to include translation between idolects)? Or his theory that an extensional account of meaning is impossible? Or Tarski's theory that a study of semantics in natural languages is impossible? Or how about Davidson's assertion that substitutional theories of semantics are always subject to Taski's objections? I guess it doesn't really matter what you start with as I've got pretty good grounds for suggesting that semantic wars are impossible. Yay for (semantic) world peace.
'Tis ironic really, because you threaten semantic war over the utilization of "utilize" with a non-intentional referring entity (rails), which is impossible by definiton. Cute.
The GP was the one who made the comparison
I guess GP is indexical then:-)
My original GP was replying to a comparison between AJAX and Rails, and showing why it was flawed. Your's wasn't.;-)
Browsers' main problem lies in their non-compliance with standards. Solution: test in multiple browsers. WOW, THAT WAS HARD.
Testing in multiple browsers will only show you that's it's broken. Fixing pages so that they look right is hard, and sometime impossible.
JavaScript. Poor design? I was shocked at how powerful the language is...
Powerful, yes. Well designed, no. (Of course, this is a subjective judgement, and javascript does what it does a lot better than the alternatives. But there is still a lot it does badly, or shouldn't do at all.)
HTML? It still is used as a basic markup language...
...and this makes it a bad choice for AJAX. If your only return type is marked up documents then you end up having to do funky stuff some of the time.
You imply a minimalism that isn't present. The framework is quite complicated in places and does a lot of tricky things.
This is true to an extent. Rails makes it really easy to write most of your application, which leads to minimalism in your code. But it isn't perfect, so you do end up having to learn some complicated concepts sometimes, or at least learning the rails way of doing things. Most of the time, however, you don't need to know about rails' trickiness.
Ruby's implementation is a big, slow VM
It's not that slow. It should be quick enough for a lot of web apps. I find that any slowness is due to my bad coding rather than ruby's speed in the majority of cases. (Although this might say more about my coding that it does about ruby;)
not to mention the fact that rails utilizes AJAX and, more generally, javascript all over the place.
No it doesn't. Rails providers helpers for AJAX and javascript, but it does not utilize them. People writing rails apps might utilise them, and the fact that rails helps you out is a Good Thing. It would be wrong, though, to suggest that rails somehow depends upon them.
I think the grandparent poster is right -- comparing AJAX and rails is misleading. Rails is much better thought out and designed; AJAX is more of a cobbled together pragmatic solution. The real beauty of rails is that it makes it easy to write applications properly, and discourages you from reinventing the wheel badly.
The problem for, say, media companies is not that someone might steal their content. Traditional understanding of theft just doesn't apply here. The problem is that content can be copied; once copied the content is easily and cheaply distributed. For media companies the money does not come from producing some content -- that in itself has no inherent worth -- but from controlling the distribution of the content.
Ultimately, this is why DRM is so pointless. If content can be seen (or heard) then someone can copy it. Once copied the internet provides a cheap and easy mechanism for distributing it. So locks don't provide such a good analogy here.
you never hear people telling the victims of Theives that they should have had three deadbolts on the door
I often go out and leave all the doors open and piles of money lying around and it's amazing how few people are sympathetic when someone steals all my stuff.
You can't really chroot the kernel (at least as far as I know). The kernel is the only thing that stays consistent across a chroot. (If you are interested in using chroot to hold a different installation you could start by looking at the debian manual.)
I guess you could install something like bochs and run a kernel inside a kernel, but that is a lot of effort just to improve your uptime.
Yeah, it's really good to know that if some critical application goes down I can call the support number and be asked "Have you installed the latest patch?"
Every support contract I've seen has an SLA that guarantees response time, not resolution time. It would be nonsense to suggest that I could call a supplier up and have a fix straight away unless I'd missed something really obvious. (If this was the case then sacking me would make more sense than paying for an expensive support contract.)
I have also seen suppliers decide not to fix a problem because it was not commercially viable for them to do so. It's no good being indignant in this case, your suppliers need to make money as much as you do.
The whole concept of support contracts pisses me off. Of course it is sometimes useful to have someone on the end of the phone, or more usually on the end of an email, when I run out of knowledge. At the same time though it is important that I have a clue and can diagnose and resolve problems on my own. Contacting a supplier for help should be the exception, not the rule, and I don't think it makes sense to pay a large amount of money every year just in case I need to call someone.
Conversly I don't expect to have to keep paying someone to fix bugs in the software they sold me in the first place. I wouldn't pay my television manufacturer a big chunk of money just in case the product they originally sold me was defective. If you are paying someone a continuous amount of money to work towards the solution you need then this should be understood from the outset and the price should reflect this.
Taking the business risk decision that "we need a support contract in case the product breaks" is dumb unless the support contract has SLAs for fault resolution. Until you have that there is no business gain (let alone any technological one) from having some wet behind the ears employee go through checklist of dumbarse questions that need to be answered before you can open a support case that then sits in a queue waiting to be assigned to the person who actually has enough knowledge and experience to resolve your problem. In the interim you get a stupid email every 12 hours (or 4 hours, or 5 minutes, or whatever you've paid through the nose for) telling you that your case is being looked at.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against ISC offering commercial support and I hope that they make a big pile of money from it. It just makes me angry when people refuse to adopt a technology on the grounds that it doesn't come with a support contract, thus assuming that the support contract is inherently more useful than emailing the people who wrote the code, or asking a mailing list full of people who actually care about the quality and success of the product they are developing.
My paycheck is on the line (to some extent), and I don't fuck around. I've never found myself in trouble due to lack of support from an open source project. Even if I don't get a response back from the "l334G33k425" (or in most cases the professional programmers taking pride in a piece of software they write and feeling a sense of social and community responsibility to the people who use the software), at least I can look at the source and try to understand the problem for myself, or maybe even fix it. It might not work every time, and sometimes I haven't been able to resolve a particular problem, but I've never found a support contract that served me better.
doesn't have any viral effects on your code with regards to how you can license it. [my emphasis]
Trying not to bite on what might be flamebait, but the GPL does not restrict how you licence your code. It only restricts how others licence it.
Using the GPL allows me to say "here you go, use the code however you like but don't ever stop others from doing the same". If you make a change to my code then you are welcome to keep it to yourself or, more usefully, to redistribute it but you can never change the conditions under which I originally released my code. If you don't like that condition then go away and recode it yourself, duplicate the effort, and miss out on the community effort but don't think you can use my code in whatever way you want.
you're only allowed to install a certain version of Windows 2000, with servicepacks up to a certain number, and one hotfix.
The same is true of EAL4 Solaris, and presumably also of SuSE. It wouldn't make sense to certify all versions and configurations of a particular OS, including service packs/patches that haven't yet been written. Take a look at how to set up EAL4 certified solaris [sun.com] to see how specific the certification is.
But I'm still waiting for a certificate for some SELinux version.
I suspect cost plays a big factor here. I used to work for a hosting company and came across a customer who wanted C2 (kinda EAL3 equivalent) certified Solaris. We could do this, right up to the point at which they plugged it into the internet. To get their particular setup of Solaris certified would have meant involving a third party (CLEF) to audit the solution, and this would have cost quite a bit of money. In the end the customer decided to go with our explicitly uncertified "kinda like an EAL4 (CCAP) Solaris setup" with SSH (logging through BSM) stuck on the side.
The real problem with certification is that it costs money, so it needs to have a business driver. In the case of solaris they needed the certification to sell to banks etc. SELinux is unlikely to have a similar financial incentive to takeup.
"SVG is currently a working draft at the W3C, with working group members coming from key industry leaders such as Adobe, HP, IBM, Macromedia, Microsoft..."
Now find a major standards group of which Microsoft doesn't have membership. The fact that they are represented on a working group does not mean that they are planning to play a major role. Microsoft will always continue to develop technologies to meet their commercial needs and ambitions, but this way they can always claim to be involved in open standards and at the forefront of any technology that becomes popular.
Slashdot Mirror
It only costs £4.99 a month for the Unlimited subscription and this comes with the added bonus of no adverts. The kind of people who say 'So long Spotify. It was nice knowing you' are the kind of people who don't want to pay for music. That's their choice of course, but what did they expect? Spotify's price is pretty low and their product is pretty good. The 'free' side of their business doesn't seem sustainable in the long term and I'd rather they focussed on maintaining a sustainable service. And, you know, if you really don't want to pay for music you still don't have to but your free lunch just got smaller. Bummer.
Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.
The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.
The key word here is limit. It doesn't mean 'always go at 60mph'. It means 'use your judgement, but don't exceed 60mph'.
There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.
There are probably a few times when you could get to 180mph and not be dangerous, but there are probably more times when you think you can get to 180mph and not be dangerous and be wrong. Plenty of people crash doing stuff that they think is safe but misjudged. I image that relative few people crash while doing something they think is dangerous.
Of course speeding isn't the only cause of crashes, but it does make crashes worse. It also makes them more likely. If you are at 180mph in a clear lane on the M25 you stand much less chance of avoiding the idiot who pulls out in front of you than you do if you're travelling at 70mph.
Speed limits aren't always perfect, but they're not arbitrary either. The more you deviate from them the more you put yourself and others at risk.
That doesn't stop your friends (or enemies) from posting photos and tagging them with your name...
Yeah no friends of me...
hah! In your face google
I've lost count. Probably five times at least
You need to work on your counting skills.
Redirect on GET is doing it too late. By that time you've already sent a load of traffic to one location, potentially one that takes a long time to get to.
It's not much of an issue for a low volume website with users in the same country but it does matter when you get high volume sites with users around the world.
I think you're missing the point. Geographically aware DNS is used to send you to your nearest deployment of an application. Deciding after you've arrived is too late.
I buy from LCN.com. Not as cheap as godaddy but they work well and don't do anything scummy with your domain (like trying to stop you from transferring). I guess you gets what you pays for.
I'm not sure how godaddy can justify doing this. The icann policy only lets them deny a transfer under the following circumstances (listed under point 3):
Yeah, I can see how having standards controlled by any one company is never going to work out.
Because 2.0 (whatever that is) should degrade nicely. Breaking a simple form with a single text input is a pretty lame use of javascript. They should at least put a banner across the top of the page saying "You need to have javascript enabled to use this simple search form because we are teh super l33tZ web 2.0."
$3.6m to get rid of the real Tom Cruise sounds pretty reasonable to me. Shame it's only for 30 minutes though.
Why are men exempt from the semaphore and banana requirement?
Indeed not, but I said this in reply to your comment:
Testing in multiple browsers is not a solution, although it will form part of any solution. But you are right: the problem is as hard for non-AJAX applications as it is for AJAX ones.
Good. I'm happy for you
You know, I'm not convinced that we disagree really, but pointless arguing is fun
So how exactly does rails "put to use, especially to find a profitable or practical use" AJAX? Rails does not put anything to use. It's a web application framework. You can install rails and it does not put AJAX (or javascript, or HTML, or XML, or kittens, etc.) to use. You can write a web application and it does not put AJAX to use. And so on.
To say that "rails utilizes AJAX" is just plain wrong. You probably meant that rails makes it easy for the developer to utilize AJAX. If you didn't then we have a translation of idolect problem, which conveniently brings us on to:
Cool. Always wondered what the end was like
'Tis ironic really, because you threaten semantic war over the utilization of "utilize" with a non-intentional referring entity (rails), which is impossible by definiton. Cute.
I guess GP is indexical then
My original GP was replying to a comparison between AJAX and Rails, and showing why it was flawed. Your's wasn't.
(Really oughta go do some work now)
Testing in multiple browsers will only show you that's it's broken. Fixing pages so that they look right is hard, and sometime impossible.
Powerful, yes. Well designed, no. (Of course, this is a subjective judgement, and javascript does what it does a lot better than the alternatives. But there is still a lot it does badly, or shouldn't do at all.)
This is true to an extent. Rails makes it really easy to write most of your application, which leads to minimalism in your code. But it isn't perfect, so you do end up having to learn some complicated concepts sometimes, or at least learning the rails way of doing things. Most of the time, however, you don't need to know about rails' trickiness.
It's not that slow. It should be quick enough for a lot of web apps. I find that any slowness is due to my bad coding rather than ruby's speed in the majority of cases. (Although this might say more about my coding that it does about ruby
No it doesn't. Rails providers helpers for AJAX and javascript, but it does not utilize them. People writing rails apps might utilise them, and the fact that rails helps you out is a Good Thing. It would be wrong, though, to suggest that rails somehow depends upon them.
I think the grandparent poster is right -- comparing AJAX and rails is misleading. Rails is much better thought out and designed; AJAX is more of a cobbled together pragmatic solution. The real beauty of rails is that it makes it easy to write applications properly, and discourages you from reinventing the wheel badly.
The problem for, say, media companies is not that someone might steal their content. Traditional understanding of theft just doesn't apply here. The problem is that content can be copied; once copied the content is easily and cheaply distributed. For media companies the money does not come from producing some content -- that in itself has no inherent worth -- but from controlling the distribution of the content.
Ultimately, this is why DRM is so pointless. If content can be seen (or heard) then someone can copy it. Once copied the internet provides a cheap and easy mechanism for distributing it. So locks don't provide such a good analogy here.
I often go out and leave all the doors open and piles of money lying around and it's amazing how few people are sympathetic when someone steals all my stuff.
It looks like you're trying to write a blackmail note...
I thought that Microsoft already patent free and open standards...
You can't really chroot the kernel (at least as far as I know). The kernel is the only thing that stays consistent across a chroot. (If you are interested in using chroot to hold a different installation you could start by looking at the debian manual.)
I guess you could install something like bochs and run a kernel inside a kernel, but that is a lot of effort just to improve your uptime.
Real men chroot and do both.
Yeah, it's really good to know that if some critical application goes down I can call the support number and be asked "Have you installed the latest patch?"
Every support contract I've seen has an SLA that guarantees response time, not resolution time. It would be nonsense to suggest that I could call a supplier up and have a fix straight away unless I'd missed something really obvious. (If this was the case then sacking me would make more sense than paying for an expensive support contract.)
I have also seen suppliers decide not to fix a problem because it was not commercially viable for them to do so. It's no good being indignant in this case, your suppliers need to make money as much as you do.
The whole concept of support contracts pisses me off. Of course it is sometimes useful to have someone on the end of the phone, or more usually on the end of an email, when I run out of knowledge. At the same time though it is important that I have a clue and can diagnose and resolve problems on my own. Contacting a supplier for help should be the exception, not the rule, and I don't think it makes sense to pay a large amount of money every year just in case I need to call someone.
Conversly I don't expect to have to keep paying someone to fix bugs in the software they sold me in the first place. I wouldn't pay my television manufacturer a big chunk of money just in case the product they originally sold me was defective. If you are paying someone a continuous amount of money to work towards the solution you need then this should be understood from the outset and the price should reflect this.
Taking the business risk decision that "we need a support contract in case the product breaks" is dumb unless the support contract has SLAs for fault resolution. Until you have that there is no business gain (let alone any technological one) from having some wet behind the ears employee go through checklist of dumbarse questions that need to be answered before you can open a support case that then sits in a queue waiting to be assigned to the person who actually has enough knowledge and experience to resolve your problem. In the interim you get a stupid email every 12 hours (or 4 hours, or 5 minutes, or whatever you've paid through the nose for) telling you that your case is being looked at.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against ISC offering commercial support and I hope that they make a big pile of money from it. It just makes me angry when people refuse to adopt a technology on the grounds that it doesn't come with a support contract, thus assuming that the support contract is inherently more useful than emailing the people who wrote the code, or asking a mailing list full of people who actually care about the quality and success of the product they are developing.
My paycheck is on the line (to some extent), and I don't fuck around. I've never found myself in trouble due to lack of support from an open source project. Even if I don't get a response back from the "l334G33k425" (or in most cases the professional programmers taking pride in a piece of software they write and feeling a sense of social and community responsibility to the people who use the software), at least I can look at the source and try to understand the problem for myself, or maybe even fix it. It might not work every time, and sometimes I haven't been able to resolve a particular problem, but I've never found a support contract that served me better.
--John
Doubtless developed using Macromedia Studio MX for linux?
localhost /etc/mail/local-host-names
$w.my.domain -->
root
and so on.
Trying not to bite on what might be flamebait, but the GPL does not restrict how you licence your code. It only restricts how others licence it.
Using the GPL allows me to say "here you go, use the code however you like but don't ever stop others from doing the same". If you make a change to my code then you are welcome to keep it to yourself or, more usefully, to redistribute it but you can never change the conditions under which I originally released my code. If you don't like that condition then go away and recode it yourself, duplicate the effort, and miss out on the community effort but don't think you can use my code in whatever way you want.
In my book that isn't virulent.
The same is true of EAL4 Solaris, and presumably also of SuSE. It wouldn't make sense to certify all versions and configurations of a particular OS, including service packs/patches that haven't yet been written. Take a look at how to set up EAL4 certified solaris [sun.com] to
see how specific the certification is.
I suspect cost plays a big factor here. I used to work for a hosting company and came across a customer who wanted C2 (kinda EAL3 equivalent) certified Solaris. We could do this, right up to the point at which they plugged it into the internet. To get their particular setup of Solaris certified would have meant involving a third party (CLEF) to audit the solution, and this would have cost quite a bit of money. In the end the customer decided to go with our explicitly uncertified "kinda like an EAL4 (CCAP) Solaris setup" with SSH (logging through BSM) stuck on the side.
The real problem with certification is that it costs money, so it needs to have a business driver. In the case of solaris they needed the certification to sell to banks etc. SELinux is unlikely to have a similar financial incentive to takeup.
Now find a major standards group of which Microsoft doesn't have membership. The fact that they are represented on a working group does not mean that they are planning to play a major role. Microsoft will always continue to develop technologies to meet their commercial needs and ambitions, but this way they can always claim to be involved in open standards and at the forefront of any technology that becomes popular.