The market has made the W3C irrelevant. Users and developers fo theWeb don't care what the W3C has to say, it's all about market share and ease of use.
That is untrue because everyone wants to get onto the XML bandwagon. XML, and all the accompanying technologies (such as XML Schema and XML Linking) provide a standard, open way of storing and manipulating data which is far more powerful than, say, SQL. IE-only web pages may work today, but most organisations who want to do any serious content management are at least considering XML-based systems for the future, and so XHTML-compliant web pages will be a no-brainer once browsers start to support XHTML fairly well (which is basically true of IE 5.5 and Netscape 6).
Not long ago I would have agreed with your view that the W3C was becoming irrelevant. However, the stunt they have pulled with XML is extremely nice - pulling people towards a powerful open standard because it is powerful, open and standard:-)
Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
In other words, only Sams Publishing has the right to distribute printed copies. This might sound fair enough, but it suffers from the same problem as the QPL: incompatibility with itself. If you want to merge portions of this book with portions of another, similarly licensed book from someone else, then nobody has the right to print the resulting derivative work. If a C++ book, say, was released under this license by Que, say, and you used the C++ book and the KDE book to create a derived work, "Learn C++ for KDE", then neither you nor Que nor Sams Publishing have the right to print that book.
Nader appears to have cost Gore Oregano, Ohio, and Florida. Sure hope he sleeps well
People who are blaming Nader for this don't seem to be able to see that it's a problem with the voting system. If they keep blaming Nader they're not helping to fix the system. Sure hope they sleep well.
After I installed it and started it, it just plain silently hangs. [...] NS 4.* work fine on this box with no problem. [...] Stop the BS. Netscape can not write robust software.
Hmmm. The fourth sentence I quoted contradicts the second. But seriously, do you think that the beta hangs without starting on everybody's computer? Don't you think the reviews would be a bit worse if it did? And note the word ``beta'' in that sentence.
For kanji? Not unless the aforementioned tools can make your text consolework with double-byte characters; there are over 1850 kanji.
Yep, that's right, double-byte is how they do it. chdrv does it by using svgalib, wheras console-tools can apparently do it in VGA text mode, according to the docs:
In recent (as of 1998/08/11) kernels, the screen driver is based on 16-bit unicode (UCS2) encoding, which means that every console-font loaded should be defined using a unicode Screen Font Map [...]
By marketing mostly outside the U.S., IBM has effectively alienated its remaining American customers. What's next, a press release saying that the proper pronunciation of IBM is "eee-bay-emm-sha"?
Go on then, teach us how to pronounce it properly.
the GUI makes it easy to support the Japanese kana and kanji (tough to do that in text mode without specialized hardware).
The console-tools package, together with an appropriate console font, does the job fine. the Unicode Transformation Format (utf-8) means that all these extra characters cause minimal disruption to programs who only want to use ASCII.
Whether or not the console is a suitable place for a monoglot Japanese speaker to live I do not know. But displaying the fonts is not a problem.
from a maintainability and "purity of the language" point of view, it's a potential nightmare.
Well, C has a macro structure which makes it pretty easy to obfuscate code. For example, don't distribute or execute the following example, and especially not with high numbers:
#include <stdio.h>
#define f(x) x ## x
#define k(x) ((x % 2) ? (x = 3 * x + 1) : (x/= 2));
#define or(a, b) if (!(a)) {b}
#define die(die, do) do ## or ## die
#define error(m, a) printf(m, a); die((k(a);), a) int main(void) { int f = 43; do { printf("%d ", f); k(f); or(f 1); printf("\n"); exit (0); }
It never whines about not doing something if it can do anything at all
Try putting "!/usr/bin/perl -w" at the top of your programs - y'get a lot more ``suspicion'' error messages.
just try printing a hashref for an example
That one's quite easy to pick up just by spotting the output, though.
BTW try this if you really want to print a hash: "use Data::Dumper; print Dumper($hashref);"
now, it was only one week, and source was only "viewed", not downloaded
Anyone understand what that statement is supposed to mean at all? How can they know that the source was ``only'' viewed? If the cracker was viewing the code, then copied-and-pasted out of his xterm/browser/whatever, then he has a permanent, downloaded copy! I suspect the use of these words is an attempt to fool non-technical people.
Re:Could it be a source of problems for Wine & Co.
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 2
I can't believe that Microsoft would ever admit it has been cracked and their sources were stolen unless there is some advantage in doing so. Do you?
If their shareholders found out they'd been keeping it secret, then the directors could go to jail.
you've checked every line of your linux kernel for back doors then, correct?
Someone has. Well, not quite to the OpenBSD level, but each patch has been read by someone. And there is an unbroken patch link from linux 1.0 to current versions, so I guess the chances of those patches having been looked at are pretty high.
They now have the perfect ammunition to claim that these projects have received help in theirtasks from people who are willing to engage in criminal persuits
Would be hard to prove. I can imagine, in such a trial, the defence demoing a 1997 version of wine running Excel 95. (It was unstable, but you could get it to run which is visually important). I.e. "this project has been making an earnest attempt to do a legit clone of the windows functionality for many years now".
open source programmers already include criminals (Randall Schwartz)
I'm sure there are examples of closed-source programmers who are criminals, which you could list in a trial.
(In case anyone doesn't know, Randall's only crime was to get on the wrong side of Intel in Oregon, where the government basically does anything Intel wants. See here for details. Please boycott Intel and write to them to tell them you are doing so).
This would have happened if they were using Linux, BSD or anything else.
Well, y'd have to be running some program as stupid as Outlook, which runs arbitrary executable attachments, inside your supposedly "clean environment". I can't imagine a competent UNIX sysadmin would set things up this way.
Why would it be difficult to get an MS employee to download anything moronic?
Why would they bother? All the moronic stuff is already preinstalled...:-)
s/NT/stupidly trojan-enabled software/
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 4
Um it was not about NT you fool.
No. It's just about the software which comes with NT and Microsoft sells for NT and everybody uses on NT. An equally stupidly-designed UNIX mail reader would be equally bad. But most UNIX systems don't use such software.
Initial breakin was via email trojan
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 3
From what the MSNBC article said, the crackers initially got access because some poor MS employee inadvertantly ran a trojan email attachment, then did some sort of password sniffing.
It should now be completely clear that attachment-running programs such as Outlook are dangerous and should not be used by any business which has sensitive data, i.e. any business at all. Any business which jeapordises my personal privacy by using such software is acting negligently, just as if they left their locks unlocked and their safe open at night.
I wish I could say that this marks the beginning of the end of such "back-door enabled" software. However I fear that this will not be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
That is untrue because everyone wants to get onto the XML bandwagon. XML, and all the accompanying technologies (such as XML Schema and XML Linking) provide a standard, open way of storing and manipulating data which is far more powerful than, say, SQL. IE-only web pages may work today, but most organisations who want to do any serious content management are at least considering XML-based systems for the future, and so XHTML-compliant web pages will be a no-brainer once browsers start to support XHTML fairly well (which is basically true of IE 5.5 and Netscape 6).
Not long ago I would have agreed with your view that the W3C was becoming irrelevant. However, the stunt they have pulled with XML is extremely nice - pulling people towards a powerful open standard because it is powerful, open and standard :-)
In other words, only Sams Publishing has the right to distribute printed copies. This might sound fair enough, but it suffers from the same problem as the QPL: incompatibility with itself. If you want to merge portions of this book with portions of another, similarly licensed book from someone else, then nobody has the right to print the resulting derivative work. If a C++ book, say, was released under this license by Que, say, and you used the C++ book and the KDE book to create a derived work, "Learn C++ for KDE", then neither you nor Que nor Sams Publishing have the right to print that book.
Interesting - are Americans more likely to go out and vote if they think their candidate is winning, or if they think he is losing?
People who are blaming Nader for this don't seem to be able to see that it's a problem with the voting system. If they keep blaming Nader they're not helping to fix the system. Sure hope they sleep well.
#!/bin/sh
/\s(\d),(\d{3}),(\d{3})/}print $n[0]-$n[1];'
echo -n 'Bush winning by '
lynx -dump http://www.cnn.com/ | grep -2 PRESIDENT | perl -e '
while(<>){$n[$i++] = $1.$2.$3 if
echo ' votes in Florida.'
Hmmm. The fourth sentence I quoted contradicts the second. But seriously, do you think that the beta hangs without starting on everybody's computer? Don't you think the reviews would be a bit worse if it did? And note the word ``beta'' in that sentence.
Yep, that's right, double-byte is how they do it. chdrv does it by using svgalib, wheras console-tools can apparently do it in VGA text mode, according to the docs:
Cool, I was just wondering if it would be "aah-bee-emm" or "ahh-buey-eirm" or
Go on then, teach us how to pronounce it properly.
The console-tools package, together with an appropriate console font, does the job fine. the Unicode Transformation Format (utf-8) means that all these extra characters cause minimal disruption to programs who only want to use ASCII.
Whether or not the console is a suitable place for a monoglot Japanese speaker to live I do not know. But displaying the fonts is not a problem.
If you can get someone to compile it for you.
Cool! I've never been any good at using kernels without any software on top.
Well, C has a macro structure which makes it pretty easy to obfuscate code. For example, don't distribute or execute the following example, and especially not with high numbers:
Try putting "!/usr/bin/perl -w" at the top of your programs - y'get a lot more ``suspicion'' error messages.
That one's quite easy to pick up just by spotting the output, though.
BTW try this if you really want to print a hash: "use Data::Dumper; print Dumper($hashref);"
Yeah, but they both have to go in Debian's contrib section until someone writes a free QB replacement.
Hmm what does "ghetto" mean in this context?
Anyone understand what that statement is supposed to mean at all? How can they know that the source was ``only'' viewed? If the cracker was viewing the code, then copied-and-pasted out of his xterm/browser/whatever, then he has a permanent, downloaded copy! I suspect the use of these words is an attempt to fool non-technical people.
If their shareholders found out they'd been keeping it secret, then the directors could go to jail.
Someone has. Well, not quite to the OpenBSD level, but each patch has been read by someone. And there is an unbroken patch link from linux 1.0 to current versions, so I guess the chances of those patches having been looked at are pretty high.
Would be hard to prove. I can imagine, in such a trial, the defence demoing a 1997 version of wine running Excel 95. (It was unstable, but you could get it to run which is visually important). I.e. "this project has been making an earnest attempt to do a legit clone of the windows functionality for many years now".
I'm sure there are examples of closed-source programmers who are criminals, which you could list in a trial.
(In case anyone doesn't know, Randall's only crime was to get on the wrong side of Intel in Oregon, where the government basically does anything Intel wants. See here for details. Please boycott Intel and write to them to tell them you are doing so).
Well, y'd have to be running some program as stupid as Outlook, which runs arbitrary executable attachments, inside your supposedly "clean environment". I can't imagine a competent UNIX sysadmin would set things up this way.
And making samba work with the secret protocols used by PDCs, and doing the same for Wine, and
Why would they bother? All the moronic stuff is already preinstalled
No. It's just about the software which comes with NT and Microsoft sells for NT and everybody uses on NT. An equally stupidly-designed UNIX mail reader would be equally bad. But most UNIX systems don't use such software.
From what the MSNBC article said, the crackers initially got access because some poor MS employee inadvertantly ran a trojan email attachment, then did some sort of password sniffing.
It should now be completely clear that attachment-running programs such as Outlook are dangerous and should not be used by any business which has sensitive data, i.e. any business at all. Any business which jeapordises my personal privacy by using such software is acting negligently, just as if they left their locks unlocked and their safe open at night.
I wish I could say that this marks the beginning of the end of such "back-door enabled" software. However I fear that this will not be the case.