If other countries want the US to do something, especially something difficult and expensive, they have to offer it an incentive. Relying on pure generosity on the part of Uncle Sam is -- well, strange. I'm amazed by how long it's taken for a reasonable answer to the question 'how do we make the USA do stuff, when it's too strong to just force it' to appear.
Of course, the size of that incentive is going to have to be pretty big -- huge, even. But if reducing CO2 emissions is as important as the Europeans keep saying it is, surely they'll be happy to foot the bill. If they _won't_ foot the bill for the US to reduce emissions, doesn't it sound a bit like global warming is a serious threat only when it's someone else who has to do something about it?
So, is global warming important enough for Europe to cough up some money to reduce US emissions? Because if not, I don't see why the US should make sacrifices to reduce it....
Heh, just kidding. The various fallacies in the comment above are pretty clear, as is the shortsightedness and unfairness of US policy. But for a second, I bet you thought I was a real libertarian, didn't you? Seriously, I almost convinced myself.
Which is great except they've decided we will migrate by wrapping the old legacy code with managed classes and use a.NET based UI.
Owie.
Unless Mono links to the whole of winelib and provides x86 emulation for non-x86 hosts, this code will never run outside of Win32.
I guess not. I mean, it doesn't sound like it was intended to.
That's the real world.
It's certainly bad -- I hardly think it defines 'the real world'. Neither MS nor Mono can prevent decisions like that one being made, or make the C++ legacy code in the world disappear.
To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to why you think your legacy C++ code and your decision to embed it all in your.NET products reflect badly on Mono. Mono's job is to implement.NET; if you include a whole bunch of MFC or something then it's not going to help you.
Elsewhere, however,.NET is proving very productive on the client side. Pity about Windows.Forms -- but I understand why it is like it is. Actually, the main problem I've had with client-side.NET is performance -- it's faster than Java but it's _much_ slower than MFC, specially if you use GDI+.
Quite a rarity, this... an Mono-skeptical post that is written in a rational tone, as opposed to just freaking out because hey, M$. I will therefore append my opinions to it, such as they are.
It's good but many apps end up PInvoking Win32 because Windows.Forms doesn't do something they need. Thus it isn't that portable.
True, but that's because those people aren't trying to write portable code. I don't like Windows.Forms and I don't think it encourages portability at all; but luckily there's nothing to stop people who want to be portable from using something else. I would rather see work done on whole new GUI kits, than see a perfect Windows.Forms on Linux.
The CLR & core are architecturally cleaner, but Java kicks seven shades of shit out of.NET when it comes to sheer breadth of implementations
I'd say that.NET can have more implementations and libraries and so on by and by (and really, libraries have been appearing at a tremendous rate), whereas the fundamental flaws in Java will be there forever. I'd rather invest in the core that works, even if it has a few crappy libraries on top of it at the moment. The core is just that much better.
neither.NET nor Mono offer anything remotely as compelling as Java at the moment at least in the enterprise domain.
My industry (which invested HUGELY in Java) does not agree -- there are lots of.NET projects starting up, although the lack of a JBoss-equivalent is certainly a problem.
But Mono really has to start encouraging people other than Linux users to use the open source stack - even.NET users.
I agree 103%. That is absolutely the best thing they could do. As things are, most people write.NET apps in Visual Studio and then afterwards they reflect on how they probably could port them to Mono, but can't be bothered. It is essential for the open-source stack to be where projects start from. That would be a very good thing both for portability and for.NET on windows. And it is all about creating an installer that gives you mono and one of the free IDEs and a tutorial.
I'd do that, but ironically I'm busy writing old-style C code for a less forward-thinking open source project.
That's where everything _you_ find weird and wonderful about computers comes from.
If I had to pick a well-defined culture and declare that I belonged to it, as so many/.-ers do, I'd trace my roots back to the home computers of the 80s -- a very different mindset, a bit less cosy, but with the benefit of sprite graphics!
And when I say sprite graphics, I mean all 15 sprites!
Note for socially-undeveloped Lisp programmers from MIT: The point of the last sentence was that there were only 8 sprites on the main sprite graphics platform, the VIC chip, but you could produce 15 (and probably more) by confusing it sufficiently. Hacking, you see. Like with the trains. It's an analogy. C'mon, we can be freinds.
Use the Kinesis Contour (google it). Fully programmable and an extra key 'layer', to put (){}[] and != right under your home row, if you want them.
To be honest, I like to maintain a separation between letters and punctuation -- but the Contour certainly makes programming much easier, specially when I have a dumb editor like Visual Studio that doesn't do any of the work itself.
LISP had it first, LISP did it better, and LISP is all you need. Let's look at why LISP is so good that it has to be mentioned ad nauseam whenever a language discussion comes up.
1 -- LISP is simple and elegant. LISP has a pure functional design, without any of that procedural/imperative/OO junk that people use to actually write software that does stuff. LISPs purity and simplicity keep it in the lab, where languages belong.
2 -- LISP is old. You name it, LISP implemented it way back when. Things like visual form designers, refactoring IDEs, regular expressions and the like don't count -- those aren't real language features, just modern rubbish that helps people do boring jobs.
3 -- LISP is highly intuitive. I've used LISP for 70 years, man and boy, and that's why I realise just how intuitive LISP is. Starting off, some people find LISP a bit daunting, and they keep wanting to write 'a + b' instead of '(add a b)' just because it's "shorter" and "clearer". In fact, though, it only takes a few short years of practise with purely functional languages to find LISP completely intuitive.
4 -- LISP is used by real professionals -- computer scientists, AI researchers from the 1980s, and Douglas Hofstatder. The post-LISP languages are used by hired help -- engineers and whatnot. I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true. If you want to get _paid_ for programming, sure, use C# or PHP or something like that; _gentlemen_ will continue to use LISP.
Well, I hope that's finished the 'debate' (if indeed there can be debate about what is self-evident). LISP is better, and that's that. Remember, it's not what you can _do_ with a language that matters; its how much you can _say_ about it.
Incidentally, this post is a JOKE. LISP has exactly the strengths and weaknesses you would expect from a pure functional language. I just think it's weird that people always jump up and go 'LISP IS BETTER OH YES IT IS' when a language discussion comes round.
Wow. Now _that_ is pointless, and by 'pointless' I mean 'pointless on such a grand, heroic scale as to have acquired deep fundamental meaning purely by virtue of its extreme pointlessness'.
It should become the new standard. To think, we were shilly-shallying around with high-level constructs like C APIs and compilers! Well, no more -- MenuetOS is now my choice of totally useless impossible pipe-dream OS.
Well, actually, I was picturing a printer that lays down a layer of sushi rice in a given pattern, lays toppings on that, and thus 'prints' out plates of sushi to order. So you could dial up '20 maguro in a ring, then 10 amaebi and 10 engawa within that, and NO UNI' and it would lay down nigiri accordingly and output just such a pattern of sushi, with NO UNI.
Ever since I saw a stereolith machine the other day, I have been in awe of the wondrous power of printers.
Look, it's not sushi, if you RTFA you'll see it's a novelty item printed with sushi designs on the outside -- it's not supposed to even look like sushi.
That apart, the point about Moto's is that it doesn't serve actual food, it serves insanely tiny and bizarre objets d'art in Kubrik-esque surroundings. You don't go there to eat, you go there to witness the most ridiculous restaurant ever, and boy do they deliver! Single strand of spaghetti? You can get that. Silver teaspoon containing tiny dab of meat-flavored ice cream? You can get that (but can't keep the teaspoon). Giant pile of pretention, drenched with arrogance, topped with a fundamental inability to understand cookery and garnished with a four-digit bill? They have that, too -- actually, it's compulsory.
It's still part of what makes Chicago great, though.
Sure, this is 'standards creep'. But it's just baby standards creep compared to the W3C.
These guys aren't working on more than one version concurrently. They aren't working on more than one 'level' for each version. They aren't working on more than one 'platform type' per level per version. Without techniques like that, they can never become the awesome standards mill that the W3C is.
Sure, this plan of theirs will result in a linear increase in the total number of standards. But these are baby steps.
If Kazaa goes down, there could well be a flood of low-quality Britney_Spears_naked111.mpg traders and leeches coming onto the good p2p systems. I don't think I want that.
It'll be like AOL day all over again.
Support Kazaa -- or America's highschoolers will be trading on your network!
Reading the newest raft of W3C standards, complete with examples showing the increases in message size and total complexity at each step, I feel as if I have FINALLY understood how UK-style socialism works. And why the US is in Iraq. And why the tax code is 250,000 pages long, and why New Coke was created, and why there are people who will genuinely refuse to read a document if contains a diagram that is not in the most recent version of UML.
Macs may still be towering iceberg-like things, but the small-form-factor PC market has been big for a while now. It's even subdivided into three main submarkets:
-- 'Power' SFF PC's, like the higher end shuttles -- Quiet, small 'hifi' PCs... don't know who makes them but they tend to be tiny and black and tucked under the TV -- 'Stackable' PC's, eg for server farms. The less powerful shuttles and I guess the 'blade' form factor are in this market space
Nice to see the concept percolating down to the Mac community!
NB The above sentence is a JOKE! You do understand jokes? I know that Apple has been the leader in many areas, really.
NB The sentence above this one is also a joke! I don't really think Mac users are thin skinned, literal minded and a bit silly. OR DO I? Ohhh... I'll never dig myself out of this hole now...
...you would have noticed that dumb as they are, cows are still vastly more intelligent than most other food animals. Compared to sheep, cows are geniuses standing around in their fields discussing quantum physics and Sartre.
Cows can learn to open doors -- no mean feat for an animal that has evolved with no concept at all of manipulating objects (cf dogs which naturally carry stuff) and has then been bred purely for food for a few centuries. Cows can plot a path home from today's field to the shed -- sheep will just stand there and die of cold. Cows can actually learn not to eat poisonous things, which makes them Einsteins among farm animals (horse owners will know what I mean here).
I'd say the only creatures on the farm smarter than cows are the dogs, the pigs, and mayyyybe the cats.
The system you decry is the very one that allows us to have an entire industry dedicated to entertaining geeky game players.
Right! Because it would be impossible to have a game software company where people trusted each other, co-operated, and saw themselves as having common interests. Ruthless battery-farming is the only way to create decent games.
After all, EA does that and EA are successful -- so it must be the Only Way and a Good Thing. Also, we have always been at war with Eurasia, and boot production is up 15% in this sector.
I used to wonder why new (or old) ultra-clean, elegant GUI ideas never caught on. I can understand why things like 3d desktops have had a rather slow start, but why do the simple things also fail to measure up to the horrible old overlapping windows model?
Well, the design of this web page makes it absolutely crystal clear:
Because these things are designed by the same kind of people who make pages like this.
Now, there are an awful lot of ways this page can be criticized, from the presentation (grey! with lots of little lines! and tiny writing! in randomly chosen fonts! monospaced!) to the utility (want to find something? try crtl-F! better, try saving the page and using grep! or maybe you can write a perl script to do it!), to the nitpicky (there's a column called 'title' and the first thing in it is not a title) and I'm sure a funny little essay could be written about it. But what's important is not the actual particular failings of this page, it's the deep lesson the page teaches.
Ideas fail because they get presented like this.
The idea in this case may be bad or good; all one can really be sure of is that it's doomed, VC or no VC.
And this deep lesson, which I am even now still awed by, is just a shadow of a still deeper truth:
The unix model of security is extremely simplistic -- though it could be argued that this is preferable to a more comprehensive system that happens to have gaping holes made in it, ie Windows. I suppose you could argue that the unix model is effective considering it's extreme simplicity -- but it remains a system not designed with security as a primary goal, and not granular enough for security to be easily retrofitted.
You would be well advised to at least learn about Windows, not because it is particularly secure, but because it's easy and lots of security concepts from outside the Unix world are found in it, such as ACLs and fine-grained (only compared to Unix) privileges.
Of course, Windows then goes and does exactly what Unix does, and gives all the privileges to one user and requires that user's token to be used all over the place. But to be honest, usability is what propagates a system, not security.
Please stop trying to build up this markup language, which annotates documents with suggestions as to how they might be displayed, into a typesetting system. Please get a typesetting system instead, and use formats such as eps and latex that are relevant to the task.
Thank you.
Also please stop using XML to represent arbitrary data. It's a markup language. It annotates and divides text. It does not extend easily to representing all data in all contexts, and when you try and make it do that, you wind up with syntax like '[CDATA['.
Thank you for your co-operation and enjoy your day. This has been a Public Service Rant brought to you by Diet Coke.
Slashdot Mirror
If other countries want the US to do something, especially something difficult and expensive, they have to offer it an incentive. Relying on pure generosity on the part of Uncle Sam is -- well, strange. I'm amazed by how long it's taken for a reasonable answer to the question 'how do we make the USA do stuff, when it's too strong to just force it' to appear.
Of course, the size of that incentive is going to have to be pretty big -- huge, even. But if reducing CO2 emissions is as important as the Europeans keep saying it is, surely they'll be happy to foot the bill. If they _won't_ foot the bill for the US to reduce emissions, doesn't it sound a bit like global warming is a serious threat only when it's someone else who has to do something about it?
So, is global warming important enough for Europe to cough up some money to reduce US emissions? Because if not, I don't see why the US should make sacrifices to reduce it.
Heh, just kidding. The various fallacies in the comment above are pretty clear, as is the shortsightedness and unfairness of US policy. But for a second, I bet you thought I was a real libertarian, didn't you? Seriously, I almost convinced myself.
You may now mod me down
alt.useful.medium.is.is.is
alt.Sacred.Format.e
'alt.adjective.noun.verb.v
alt.mighty.tradition.is.is.is
alt.unending.ete
alt.rosy.future.d
alt.patriotic.hymn.sing.chant.wail:
'alt.sacred.format.preserve.obey.defend
alt.sa
alt.single.adject
alt.ensuing.noun.stir-in.mix.
alt.triple.verbs.add.finish.append!'
alt.silly.post.finishes.signs-off.submits
Which is great except they've decided we will migrate by wrapping the old legacy code with managed classes and use a .NET based UI.
.NET products reflect badly on Mono. Mono's job is to implement .NET; if you include a whole bunch of MFC or something then it's not going to help you.
.NET is proving very productive on the client side. Pity about Windows.Forms -- but I understand why it is like it is. Actually, the main problem I've had with client-side .NET is performance -- it's faster than Java but it's _much_ slower than MFC, specially if you use GDI+.
Owie.
Unless Mono links to the whole of winelib and provides x86 emulation for non-x86 hosts, this code will never run outside of Win32.
I guess not. I mean, it doesn't sound like it was intended to.
That's the real world.
It's certainly bad -- I hardly think it defines 'the real world'. Neither MS nor Mono can prevent decisions like that one being made, or make the C++ legacy code in the world disappear.
To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to why you think your legacy C++ code and your decision to embed it all in your
Elsewhere, however,
Quite a rarity, this... an Mono-skeptical post that is written in a rational tone, as opposed to just freaking out because hey, M$. I will therefore append my opinions to it, such as they are.
It's good but many apps end up PInvoking Win32 because Windows.Forms doesn't do something they need. Thus it isn't that portable.
True, but that's because those people aren't trying to write portable code. I don't like Windows.Forms and I don't think it encourages portability at all; but luckily there's nothing to stop people who want to be portable from using something else. I would rather see work done on whole new GUI kits, than see a perfect Windows.Forms on Linux.
The CLR & core are architecturally cleaner, but Java kicks seven shades of shit out of
I'd say that
neither
My industry (which invested HUGELY in Java) does not agree -- there are lots of
But Mono really has to start encouraging people other than Linux users to use the open source stack - even
I agree 103%. That is absolutely the best thing they could do. As things are, most people write
I'd do that, but ironically I'm busy writing old-style C code for a less forward-thinking open source project.
That's where everything _you_ find weird and wonderful about computers comes from.
If I had to pick a well-defined culture and declare that I belonged to it, as so many
And when I say sprite graphics, I mean all 15 sprites!
Note for socially-undeveloped Lisp programmers from MIT: The point of the last sentence was that there were only 8 sprites on the main sprite graphics platform, the VIC chip, but you could produce 15 (and probably more) by confusing it sufficiently. Hacking, you see. Like with the trains. It's an analogy. C'mon, we can be freinds.
Use the Kinesis Contour (google it). Fully programmable and an extra key 'layer', to put (){}[] and != right under your home row, if you want them.
To be honest, I like to maintain a separation between letters and punctuation -- but the Contour certainly makes programming much easier, specially when I have a dumb editor like Visual Studio that doesn't do any of the work itself.
I've used LISP for 70 years...
Close, but no cigar. Lisp was invented in the late 1950's, so it's a little over 45 years old today.
That is tragic.
I knew there would be some hurt responses from the kind of people who can get stung deeply over someone else's disrespectful attitude to Lisp.
But the above is truly, deeply, tragically tragic.
Did I say it was tragic? I'll say it again.
In all my years of reading
Oh. Your play on words zipped right over my head and smacked into the wall.
The word matching 'beholder' that you're looking for in 'beheld' -- 'beholden' means 'indebted to'.
Pedantic? Yes. But 'beheld' is a cool word.
LISP had it first, LISP did it better, and LISP is all you need. Let's look at why LISP is so good that it has to be mentioned ad nauseam whenever a language discussion comes up.
1 -- LISP is simple and elegant. LISP has a pure functional design, without any of that procedural/imperative/OO junk that people use to actually write software that does stuff. LISPs purity and simplicity keep it in the lab, where languages belong.
2 -- LISP is old. You name it, LISP implemented it way back when. Things like visual form designers, refactoring IDEs, regular expressions and the like don't count -- those aren't real language features, just modern rubbish that helps people do boring jobs.
3 -- LISP is highly intuitive. I've used LISP for 70 years, man and boy, and that's why I realise just how intuitive LISP is. Starting off, some people find LISP a bit daunting, and they keep wanting to write 'a + b' instead of '(add a b)' just because it's "shorter" and "clearer". In fact, though, it only takes a few short years of practise with purely functional languages to find LISP completely intuitive.
4 -- LISP is used by real professionals -- computer scientists, AI researchers from the 1980s, and Douglas Hofstatder. The post-LISP languages are used by hired help -- engineers and whatnot. I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true. If you want to get _paid_ for programming, sure, use C# or PHP or something like that; _gentlemen_ will continue to use LISP.
Well, I hope that's finished the 'debate' (if indeed there can be debate about what is self-evident). LISP is better, and that's that. Remember, it's not what you can _do_ with a language that matters; its how much you can _say_ about it.
Incidentally, this post is a JOKE. LISP has exactly the strengths and weaknesses you would expect from a pure functional language. I just think it's weird that people always jump up and go 'LISP IS BETTER OH YES IT IS' when a language discussion comes round.
How ironic that the wolves are actually behind them.
The above gibberish is not a parody of Japanese. It is an actual Japanese tonguetwister.
Tokyo -- Tokyo
tokkyo -- patent
kyoka-kyoku -- 'permissions office'
kyou -- today
kyuukyo -- hurriedly
kyoka -- permission
kyakka -- rejection
Shakespeare _did_ perform the plays himself -- at least early on.
I followed your MenuetOS link.
Wow. Now _that_ is pointless, and by 'pointless' I mean 'pointless on such a grand, heroic scale as to have acquired deep fundamental meaning purely by virtue of its extreme pointlessness'.
It should become the new standard. To think, we were shilly-shallying around with high-level constructs like C APIs and compilers! Well, no more -- MenuetOS is now my choice of totally useless impossible pipe-dream OS.
Well, actually, I was picturing a printer that lays down a layer of sushi rice in a given pattern, lays toppings on that, and thus 'prints' out plates of sushi to order. So you could dial up '20 maguro in a ring, then 10 amaebi and 10 engawa within that, and NO UNI' and it would lay down nigiri accordingly and output just such a pattern of sushi, with NO UNI.
Ever since I saw a stereolith machine the other day, I have been in awe of the wondrous power of printers.
Look, it's not sushi, if you RTFA you'll see it's a novelty item printed with sushi designs on the outside -- it's not supposed to even look like sushi.
That apart, the point about Moto's is that it doesn't serve actual food, it serves insanely tiny and bizarre objets d'art in Kubrik-esque surroundings. You don't go there to eat, you go there to witness the most ridiculous restaurant ever, and boy do they deliver! Single strand of spaghetti? You can get that. Silver teaspoon containing tiny dab of meat-flavored ice cream? You can get that (but can't keep the teaspoon). Giant pile of pretention, drenched with arrogance, topped with a fundamental inability to understand cookery and garnished with a four-digit bill? They have that, too -- actually, it's compulsory.
It's still part of what makes Chicago great, though.
Sure, this is 'standards creep'. But it's just baby standards creep compared to the W3C.
These guys aren't working on more than one version concurrently. They aren't working on more than one 'level' for each version. They aren't working on more than one 'platform type' per level per version. Without techniques like that, they can never become the awesome standards mill that the W3C is.
Sure, this plan of theirs will result in a linear increase in the total number of standards. But these are baby steps.
<grumpiness size="extreme" style="curmudgeonly">
If Kazaa goes down, there could well be a flood of low-quality Britney_Spears_naked111.mpg traders and leeches coming onto the good p2p systems. I don't think I want that.
It'll be like AOL day all over again.
Support Kazaa -- or America's highschoolers will be trading on your network!
</grumpiness>
Reading the newest raft of W3C standards, complete with examples showing the increases in message size and total complexity at each step, I feel as if I have FINALLY understood how UK-style socialism works. And why the US is in Iraq. And why the tax code is 250,000 pages long, and why New Coke was created, and why there are people who will genuinely refuse to read a document if contains a diagram that is not in the most recent version of UML.
It's all a product of the same kind of thinking.
Macs may still be towering iceberg-like things, but the small-form-factor PC market has been big for a while now. It's even subdivided into three main submarkets:
-- 'Power' SFF PC's, like the higher end shuttles
-- Quiet, small 'hifi' PCs... don't know who makes them but they tend to be tiny and black and tucked under the TV
-- 'Stackable' PC's, eg for server farms. The less powerful shuttles and I guess the 'blade' form factor are in this market space
Nice to see the concept percolating down to the Mac community!
NB The above sentence is a JOKE! You do understand jokes? I know that Apple has been the leader in many areas, really.
NB The sentence above this one is also a joke! I don't really think Mac users are thin skinned, literal minded and a bit silly. OR DO I? Ohhh... I'll never dig myself out of this hole now...
Cows can learn to open doors -- no mean feat for an animal that has evolved with no concept at all of manipulating objects (cf dogs which naturally carry stuff) and has then been bred purely for food for a few centuries. Cows can plot a path home from today's field to the shed -- sheep will just stand there and die of cold. Cows can actually learn not to eat poisonous things, which makes them Einsteins among farm animals (horse owners will know what I mean here).
I'd say the only creatures on the farm smarter than cows are the dogs, the pigs, and mayyyybe the cats.
And maybe the people.
Although not in every case.
The system you decry is the very one that allows us to have an entire industry dedicated to entertaining geeky game players.
Right! Because it would be impossible to have a game software company where people trusted each other, co-operated, and saw themselves as having common interests. Ruthless battery-farming is the only way to create decent games.
After all, EA does that and EA are successful -- so it must be the Only Way and a Good Thing. Also, we have always been at war with Eurasia, and boot production is up 15% in this sector.
I used to wonder why new (or old) ultra-clean, elegant GUI ideas never caught on. I can understand why things like 3d desktops have had a rather slow start, but why do the simple things also fail to measure up to the horrible old overlapping windows model?
Well, the design of this web page makes it absolutely crystal clear:
Because these things are designed by the same kind of people who make pages like this.
Now, there are an awful lot of ways this page can be criticized, from the presentation (grey! with lots of little lines! and tiny writing! in randomly chosen fonts! monospaced!) to the utility (want to find something? try crtl-F! better, try saving the page and using grep! or maybe you can write a perl script to do it!), to the nitpicky (there's a column called 'title' and the first thing in it is not a title) and I'm sure a funny little essay could be written about it. But what's important is not the actual particular failings of this page, it's the deep lesson the page teaches.
Ideas fail because they get presented like this.
The idea in this case may be bad or good; all one can really be sure of is that it's doomed, VC or no VC.
And this deep lesson, which I am even now still awed by, is just a shadow of a still deeper truth:
People are dumb, and that includes smart people
This is a horribly, horribly naive thing to say.
The unix model of security is extremely simplistic -- though it could be argued that this is preferable to a more comprehensive system that happens to have gaping holes made in it, ie Windows. I suppose you could argue that the unix model is effective considering it's extreme simplicity -- but it remains a system not designed with security as a primary goal, and not granular enough for security to be easily retrofitted.
You would be well advised to at least learn about Windows, not because it is particularly secure, but because it's easy and lots of security concepts from outside the Unix world are found in it, such as ACLs and fine-grained (only compared to Unix) privileges.
Of course, Windows then goes and does exactly what Unix does, and gives all the privileges to one user and requires that user's token to be used all over the place. But to be honest, usability is what propagates a system, not security.
Please stop trying to build up this markup language, which annotates documents with suggestions as to how they might be displayed, into a typesetting system. Please get a typesetting system instead, and use formats such as eps and latex that are relevant to the task.
Thank you.
Also please stop using XML to represent arbitrary data. It's a markup language. It annotates and divides text. It does not extend easily to representing all data in all contexts, and when you try and make it do that, you wind up with syntax like '[CDATA['.
Thank you for your co-operation and enjoy your day. This has been a Public Service Rant brought to you by Diet Coke.