Netscape is just as guilty of shady practices as Microsoft. You can't be anti-MS for these reasons and be pro-Netscape. Some of you people are just so blind with your anti-MS fervor that you don't realize MS did what any company would do in its place -- even your beloved Netscape.
Are these supposedly shady practices are what spawned the Mozilla project, which just happens to be the most open, standards-compliant browser out there?
Surprise, surprise. Someone, with any releasee x whatsoever always wants to wait until x+1. Give me a break. You probably wanted to wait until M17 when M16 came out. Or M18 when M17 came out. When.8 comes out, I'm sure you'll say "wait till.9"
On the other hand, Perl powers Slashdot, so I guess this is the place for the
procedural approach to have its message heard. In fact, Slashdot totally vindicates the article: its
non-OOP approach is fast, effective, efficient, and easy-to-understand. Highly scalable and
expandable as well. I especially like Slash.pm (aka THE BEAST) and the my_conf{shit} variable. I'm
sure the non-OOP approach will really take off once everyone switches over from C++/Java to Perl.
I wouldn't put down those who write in Perl that much as being anti-OOP. There are many, many of us who write and like OOP in Perl (it's especially useful to read Damian Conway's "Object Oriented Perl" to see the beauty of Perl's OOP.)
OOP in Perl, actually, is much more fun than other languages because of it's flexibility. For instance, Class::MethodMaker is capable of creating accessor methods for various types of data members of objects at compile-time; this is a beautiful thing. Perl's flexibility has a whole lot of other things that allow fantastic OOP, and "Object Oriented Perl" expounds on much of this.
[quote] The self-containedness of objects does make code reuse simpler and less bug prone.
[not quote]
For the love of humanity, will you please learn to write HTML? Your comments and article are full of impossibly bad code. It certainly doesn't reflect well on you.
To a corporate chairman or major investor, a few
people dead on the highways due to unsafe vehicles would seem insignificant next to the death
of their web site.
Sounds like a good reason to me to not allow corporations determine our laws.
You couldn't be more wrong. Leaving a box with high bandwidth access unprotected is like
leaving a loaded gun out when there are kids around. If somebody shoots themself or someone
else with that gun, you should be held responsible.
Leaving a loaded gun about is not like leaving an unsecured machine about because the level of harm the gun can do is immensely greater than that of the machine.
One box alone does not have that much power to disrupt things. That's why we have distributed denial of service attacks.
There needs to be
some system of accountability and a standardized measure of competence in
order to be allowed onto the Internet.
This sort of approach does not if you take the position that one's computer is merely an extension of one's self onto the Internet, a global community. Just because others can affect parts your behaviour without your knowing doesn't mean you are incompetent and should not allowed to exist within the community. You are responsible for what you do, but you shouldn't need to pre-prove yourself.
Take for instance marketting. Marketting is about getting people to change their behaviour in some manner, with or without their knowledge. However, one wouldn't expect to enforce a sort of compentency test for being exposed to marketting.
An analogy of driving licenses does not really hold, since in a car, each person has a tremendous amount of power to destroy property and life. However, though, with computers on the internet, each single person is not that powerful; it is only collective (distributed) power that is massive (just like with marketting).
There are solutions to this sort of problem, but your solution is not a good one.
Re:The question is not whether there is a problem
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand, if I object to something the government does, I do not
have the ability to deny them my money.
I'd rather have many
corporations running the show instead of one goverment.
Of course, without a government, we'd very likely only end up with one (at most a few) corporation anyways. This is greatly what the whole MS deal is about.
No, the HTML has already been authored and you only have insignificant control. Only with XML do you have control of the display, and then you must have the author's schema in order to make sense of the data.
What are you talking about? All the author has decided is the linearization of text with HTML. You can decide fully how it will be represented with CSS. And anyways, you're supposed to be writing XHTML, which is an XML application anyways, so your point is moot; I could use XSL to reorganize the linearization of data how I please
Web bugs are more evil than your average URL link because you have to
click on the link, whereas a web bug (and the potential attached evil code)
gets loaded automatically if you have an HTML-enabled mail viewer. Stuff
like this is why I have intentionally avoided HTML-enabled mail clients.
Automatically executing code from a remote, untrusted source is bad,
kids.
HTML email gets a bad wrap. The thing people forget about HTML is that it is, at its core, a semantic markup language. HTML provides meaning to otherwise flat text. Flat text forces the author of an email to use how an email will look to get across meaning. On the other hand, HTML clients, done properly, allow the reader to decide how something will look.
My dream is to have an HTML-aware client that accepts everything that is in the XHTML-Basic specification. XHTML-Basic allows basic semantic markup, disallowing presentational elements such as <font>, and uses CSS to provide presentation. However, the client can choose to ignore the CSS, if the user wants, leaving all presentational items up to the reader.
In summary, plain, flat text for mail is one of the worst things we are plagued with. It mixes meaning with presentation. The author is forced to decide presentation, which is one of the biggest evils of communication. Presentation should be decided on the reader's end, with the message only containing semantic meaning; HTML allows this.
The truth, which all of us real OO programmers know, is that almost any language can be used to write OO code.
This is true, yet bogus if you take it, as some do, to mean that you can sanely apply OO to any language. Anyone who hacks ML to do OO and expects others to follow should be shot.
... like the ones you think are decent?
For me, I'm particularly impressed with how Perl gets objects. It's truly really interesting; they're not "pure" objects, but given the flexibility of Perl, you can get the language to implement every feature of OO. A lot of amazing technicques are described in Damian Conways "Object Oriented Perl".
You say "after linking must be under the GPL". Does this mean only temporarily while the user is running the program, or that that the author must distribute it under the GPL after linking it at build time? In other words, would Debian (as an example) offer the application under the BSD license, or would they have to offer it under the GPL? In the case of the latter, the GPL is still effectively telling me what license to use.
First, let me say I should have said that the "combination" must be under the GPL, without saying "after linking must be under the GPL" I'm afraid I can't provide specifics here; even Stallman told me there is no simple answer to describe when programs are "combined". Here is part of my question to him, and his reply:
[ME]: Practically speaking, what defines a "combination of programs"? Does itapply to the context of "shipping" or "executing"? Or another context? An example to clarify would be helpful.
[RMS]: There is no simple answer to this question--any simple criterion has
to be a bad criterion. However, linking modules together (statically
or dynamically) or designing them so they expect to be specifically
linked together is combining them, in our judgement.
In answer to your question about Debian, I would think that the full program itself is GPL'd; however, a user could separate out the BSD-licensed stuff and use it under the BSD license.
As it now stands, software in the public domain or under a BSD, MIT or other "copycenter" license cannot use GPLd libraries, such as readline or Qt/Embedded.
This is wrong; I've actually asked RMS himself about this. It is possible for any software to link to GPL'd software as long as the software is capable of being placed under the GPL. The combined result, after linking must be under the GPL, but the original program can still be placed under a less restrictive license than the GPL.
For example, if you write a BSD program to link to a GPL library, this is kosher, because one can place BSD-style licensed programs under the GPL. Your code alone still remains under the BSD license, but the combination, with the linking, is under the GPL.
RedHat has said several times, that it is not trying to be another M$. So why are there so many people who seem to be expecting it to become so?
Unfortunately, the answer to this is all too easy. The American culture pushes one to gain exorbitant amounts of money. To do so, this generally involves dominance and overpowering of one's competitors; this is what Microsoft has done.
Why do we care if we can change the skin on a software package?
The sad part is you are probably as dumb as you sound. I suppose you've never changed how an application looks; you've never changed how your shell prompt looks, the colors for your windows, your desktop background, where your buttons are, etc. Different people require different interfaces; this is the whole point behind HTML, to provide semantic meaning, and allow the end user to decide how that information is presented.
I've quickly learned the web basicly sucks if you're not using the latest version of IE on the latest version of Windows.
Thankfully, you're doing your part in making the web a better place at your page by using valid transitional HTML 4 and CSS. Of course, it would be better if you used strict HTML and more contrasting colors (gray on black is pretty hard to read), but overall, okay on the accessibility.
Anything less than 100% shouldn't be tolerated when it comes to standards support; that's what standards are all about.
You're using a web browser, aren't you? There exists no browser that exists that supports any set of standards perfectly. Hence, you are supporting software which does not fully support standards.
One has to choose the most-standards-compliant software, and here, Gecko-based systems rule, far and away.
Slashdot Mirror
Are these supposedly shady practices are what spawned the Mozilla project, which just happens to be the most open, standards-compliant browser out there?
Surprise, surprise. Someone, with any releasee x whatsoever always wants to wait until x+1. Give me a break. You probably wanted to wait until M17 when M16 came out. Or M18 when M17 came out. When .8 comes out, I'm sure you'll say "wait till .9"
I wouldn't put down those who write in Perl that much as being anti-OOP. There are many, many of us who write and like OOP in Perl (it's especially useful to read Damian Conway's "Object Oriented Perl" to see the beauty of Perl's OOP.)
OOP in Perl, actually, is much more fun than other languages because of it's flexibility. For instance, Class::MethodMaker is capable of creating accessor methods for various types of data members of objects at compile-time; this is a beautiful thing. Perl's flexibility has a whole lot of other things that allow fantastic OOP, and "Object Oriented Perl" expounds on much of this.
For the love of humanity, will you please learn to write HTML? Your comments and article are full of impossibly bad code. It certainly doesn't reflect well on you.
Sounds like a good reason to me to not allow corporations determine our laws.
Leaving a loaded gun about is not like leaving an unsecured machine about because the level of harm the gun can do is immensely greater than that of the machine.
One box alone does not have that much power to disrupt things. That's why we have distributed denial of service attacks.
This is a bad analogy because the degree of harm an unsafe car can do is much greater than that of an unsecured house or computer system.
This sort of approach does not if you take the position that one's computer is merely an extension of one's self onto the Internet, a global community. Just because others can affect parts your behaviour without your knowing doesn't mean you are incompetent and should not allowed to exist within the community. You are responsible for what you do, but you shouldn't need to pre-prove yourself.
Take for instance marketting. Marketting is about getting people to change their behaviour in some manner, with or without their knowledge. However, one wouldn't expect to enforce a sort of compentency test for being exposed to marketting.
An analogy of driving licenses does not really hold, since in a car, each person has a tremendous amount of power to destroy property and life. However, though, with computers on the internet, each single person is not that powerful; it is only collective (distributed) power that is massive (just like with marketting).
There are solutions to this sort of problem, but your solution is not a good one.
You deny government votes, not money.
Of course, without a government, we'd very likely only end up with one (at most a few) corporation anyways. This is greatly what the whole MS deal is about.
What are you talking about? All the author has decided is the linearization of text with HTML. You can decide fully how it will be represented with CSS. And anyways, you're supposed to be writing XHTML, which is an XML application anyways, so your point is moot; I could use XSL to reorganize the linearization of data how I please
HTML email gets a bad wrap. The thing people forget about HTML is that it is, at its core, a semantic markup language. HTML provides meaning to otherwise flat text. Flat text forces the author of an email to use how an email will look to get across meaning. On the other hand, HTML clients, done properly, allow the reader to decide how something will look.
My dream is to have an HTML-aware client that accepts everything that is in the XHTML-Basic specification. XHTML-Basic allows basic semantic markup, disallowing presentational elements such as <font>, and uses CSS to provide presentation. However, the client can choose to ignore the CSS, if the user wants, leaving all presentational items up to the reader.
In summary, plain, flat text for mail is one of the worst things we are plagued with. It mixes meaning with presentation. The author is forced to decide presentation, which is one of the biggest evils of communication. Presentation should be decided on the reader's end, with the message only containing semantic meaning; HTML allows this.
Don't forget, however, that Laziness is the greatest virtue of a programmer.
This is true, yet bogus if you take it, as some do, to mean that you can sanely apply OO to any language. Anyone who hacks ML to do OO and expects others to follow should be shot.
For me, I'm particularly impressed with how Perl gets objects. It's truly really interesting; they're not "pure" objects, but given the flexibility of Perl, you can get the language to implement every feature of OO. A lot of amazing technicques are described in Damian Conways "Object Oriented Perl".
First, let me say I should have said that the "combination" must be under the GPL, without saying "after linking must be under the GPL" I'm afraid I can't provide specifics here; even Stallman told me there is no simple answer to describe when programs are "combined". Here is part of my question to him, and his reply:
In answer to your question about Debian, I would think that the full program itself is GPL'd; however, a user could separate out the BSD-licensed stuff and use it under the BSD license.
This is wrong; I've actually asked RMS himself about this. It is possible for any software to link to GPL'd software as long as the software is capable of being placed under the GPL. The combined result, after linking must be under the GPL, but the original program can still be placed under a less restrictive license than the GPL.
For example, if you write a BSD program to link to a GPL library, this is kosher, because one can place BSD-style licensed programs under the GPL. Your code alone still remains under the BSD license, but the combination, with the linking, is under the GPL.
Unfortunately, the answer to this is all too easy. The American culture pushes one to gain exorbitant amounts of money. To do so, this generally involves dominance and overpowering of one's competitors; this is what Microsoft has done.
The sad part is you are probably as dumb as you sound. I suppose you've never changed how an application looks; you've never changed how your shell prompt looks, the colors for your windows, your desktop background, where your buttons are, etc. Different people require different interfaces; this is the whole point behind HTML, to provide semantic meaning, and allow the end user to decide how that information is presented.
No, it's not simply a browser, and was never intended to be. It's an application environment.
Thankfully, you're doing your part in making the web a better place at your page by using valid transitional HTML 4 and CSS. Of course, it would be better if you used strict HTML and more contrasting colors (gray on black is pretty hard to read), but overall, okay on the accessibility.
You're using a web browser, aren't you? There exists no browser that exists that supports any set of standards perfectly. Hence, you are supporting software which does not fully support standards.
One has to choose the most-standards-compliant software, and here, Gecko-based systems rule, far and away.
My goodness, such clarity. Why can't I see more intelligent posts like this? (I'm not being sarcastic).
Whoops, my mistake. Bad number.
500 votes now. Really unfortunate.
You spoke too soon. At 02:31 CST, the hell it does. The reported difference is 500 votes.