I have been approached by four or five people so far to resume work on an open source project that has been defunct, but I have been unable to respond to, like, three of them because their emails bounced! And one of these guys was from IBM...you'd figure they'd at least have email working.
Right now you can set privacy properties based on *content*. But it is much much more likely that you will want to set them based on *site*, not *content*. Mozilla needs to take a page from IE, and reorganize its settings so that all content settings belong to a zone, which maps to a set of URLs (set of regular expressions, etc.). In IE there is a fixed number of zones, and hence, only a fixed number of security settings/levels. There is no reason that in Mozilla this could not be expanded to arbitrary zones. It is really burdensome to have to configure things on a content-by-content basis, when it is really the *site* for which you want to configure settings.
Here is what I would do:
default zone: most security risks are disabled...not all though, because many common sites would just be broken (javascript, etc.)
trusted zone: all security settings are open (e.g., my own local network, my office network, etc.)
untrusted zone: goatse.cx, etc. Any sites which I absolutely want EVERYTHING disabled on. In reality I haven't found much to stick in here because my default settings are pretty strict.
somewhat-trusted sites: some sites I "sorta" trust...in that I use them daily and they need a lower level of security than default sites, yet, I still don't want everything on (e.g. nytimes.com)
IE has no notion of the latter because it only has fixed zones. In Mozilla there could be an arbitrary number of zones/setting configurations (maybe some sites you want ONLY flash enabled and nothing else? maybe some javascript development sites you want ONLY javascript enabled? etc.)
Very interesting, but if I'm reading you right, you are suggesting setting up a publicly held corporation (stocks? board members?). I know very little about this, but wouldn't a private business be the first step? No stock. No board members. Just you. In fact, a "Doing Business As" might just suffice (plus liability I assume) before incorporating.
Also, I'm very interested in the feasibility of a non-profit "coop" (like a grocery coop, or a credit union) which acts sort of like a contracting agency by attracting/finding work, but also uses the combined bargaining power of the members to get a group healthcare plan, which would seem to be the major downside of working independently. Any advice there?
"do you get this thing to play?" "Just push play" "I already did that" "You did? Did you push the button with the arrow?" "The arrow? What arrow? I pushed the button with the dot...but I'm not hearing anything" "Shit"
Re:Wine's maturity as a product isn't quite enough
on
Fun With Wine
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't people be more likely to donate money to an actual *charity*?
Severity: Critical Subject: Bugzilla slow Comment: Guys, I just found out from Slashdot, but your site is really really slow. You should do something about that. To help you, I am registering a bug for each page I find to be slow.
I assume the filtering statistics live on the client side. What about IMAP? If I open up Mozilla on a new machine, are all my spam statistics lost (presumably rendering the junk mail filtering statistics I've accumulated useless on the new machine).
It would be neat if, with IMAP accounts, Mozilla just stored the statistics in a file on IMAP server instead of on the client.
3. OpenGL 2 which provides a high level API implementations of components of which can be written seperately (potentially by the vendor) and plugged in at any time.
Wow that's excellent. Just hope your chosen architecture doesn't get obsoleted. And you have to relearn everything. Who is the tool of whom? You or the computer?
Abstractions are just that: abstractions. They are not real. They are pretend, they are fantasy, an illusion we create because they are useful. Nobody said they are concrete.
That abstractions leak are the nature of abstractions. This ludicrousness is exemplified by his last car example. Nobody EXPECTS to not have to pay attention to the road and weather conditions. In fact, I'm not even sure of what he is implying a car is an abstraction.
Most of his rant is preoccupied with performance. Non-uniform performance is one of the REASONS for abstractions. You don't want your developer doing wonky ad hoc things for performance because 1) it generally leads to code which is harder to maintain 2) it breaks when your fragile silly assumptions are broken. That is the beauty (or utility for the less romantic) and nature of abstractions. They are simply useful constructs.
His C/C++ comments seem a bit more on topic, because in that case, he is illustrating a broken abstraction. Abstractions whose implementation cannot live up to their specification are, well, broken. There are many things we can't universally abstract. The point of abstraction is to find those essential shared qualities among many different things. This doesn't guarantee that you will expose all qualities (on the contrary, it implies you CANNOT), and doesn't guarantee you can expose idiosynchrasies that you could exploit.
I'm not sure what Joel's point is. Is it that we should just go back to flipping switches? I don't know about him, but I am typing this into a "string text area" "widget" in a "browser" "window" on my "desktop" and for all of the metaphor shear, it is still a hell of a lot better than flipping switches and turning knobs.
it's probably not a problem.. probably.. but I'm showing a small discrepancy in.. well, no, it's well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
(if only we discard the moral implications)
...your OWN email address does not bounce.
I have been approached by four or five people so far to resume work on an open source project that has been defunct, but I have been unable to respond to, like, three of them because their emails bounced! And one of these guys was from IBM...you'd figure they'd at least have email working.
The idiots. Virtual Fishing is a much more fun game.
"I'll Try Anything With A Detached Air of Superiority"
Tip - If somebody asks you if you want to go to a rodeo the answer is: No!
You forget, the DMCA is enforced by the government. Good luck if it is the government you want to prevent from accessing it.
War with East Asia
New bootlaces
War with East Asia
Rations down 3%
War with Eurasia
War with Eurasia
Rations up 1.2%
We have always been at war with...wait, no we haven't...
...Tasha Yar is coming back?...
Mozilla needs configurable zones.
Right now you can set privacy properties based on *content*. But it is much much more likely that you will want to set them based on *site*, not *content*. Mozilla needs to take a page from IE, and reorganize its settings so that all content settings belong to a zone, which maps to a set of URLs (set of regular expressions, etc.). In IE there is a fixed number of zones, and hence, only a fixed number of security settings/levels. There is no reason that in Mozilla this could not be expanded to arbitrary zones. It is really burdensome to have to configure things on a content-by-content basis, when it is really the *site* for which you want to configure settings.
Here is what I would do:
default zone: most security risks are disabled...not all though, because many common sites would just be broken (javascript, etc.)
trusted zone: all security settings are open (e.g., my own local network, my office network, etc.)
untrusted zone: goatse.cx, etc. Any sites which I absolutely want EVERYTHING disabled on. In reality I haven't found much to stick in here because my default settings are pretty strict.
somewhat-trusted sites: some sites I "sorta" trust...in that I use them daily and they need a lower level of security than default sites, yet, I still don't want everything on (e.g. nytimes.com)
IE has no notion of the latter because it only has fixed zones. In Mozilla there could be an arbitrary number of zones/setting configurations (maybe some sites you want ONLY flash enabled and nothing else? maybe some javascript development sites you want ONLY javascript enabled? etc.)
Very interesting, but if I'm reading you right, you are suggesting setting up a publicly held corporation (stocks? board members?). I know very little about this, but wouldn't a private business be the first step? No stock. No board members. Just you. In fact, a "Doing Business As" might just suffice (plus liability I assume) before incorporating.
Also, I'm very interested in the feasibility of a non-profit "coop" (like a grocery coop, or a credit union) which acts sort of like a contracting agency by attracting/finding work, but also uses the combined bargaining power of the members to get a group healthcare plan, which would seem to be the major downside of working independently. Any advice there?
A cut of the Dot Com Billion $$$ bandwagon of course.
The contents of the tape are as follows:
"do you get this thing to play?"
"Just push play"
"I already did that"
"You did? Did you push the button with the arrow?"
"The arrow? What arrow? I pushed the button with the dot...but I'm not hearing anything"
"Shit"
Wouldn't people be more likely to donate money to an actual *charity*?
Funny how an as-yet-undetermined-to-be-dead-shot-cat will totally rot and stink and funk up a place though.
Greater Work != Greater Productivity
Severity: Critical
Subject: Bugzilla slow
Comment: Guys, I just found out from Slashdot, but your site is really really slow. You should do something about that. To help you, I am registering a bug for each page I find to be slow.
Apparently he was sick of it and was not going to take it any more.
"was because it was skinnable."
:)
And skinnable to look like a different mail client at that
"since every Mozilla article degrades to a flame fest of Microsoft greatness versus the rest of the world"
s/Microsoft/Open Source/
I assume the filtering statistics live on the client side. What about IMAP? If I open up Mozilla on a new machine, are all my spam statistics lost (presumably rendering the junk mail filtering statistics I've accumulated useless on the new machine).
It would be neat if, with IMAP accounts, Mozilla just stored the statistics in a file on IMAP server instead of on the client.
3. OpenGL 2 which provides a high level API implementations of components of which can be written seperately (potentially by the vendor) and plugged in at any time.
agnosticism of implementation is a FEATURE of abstractions...not a bug
Wow that's excellent. Just hope your chosen architecture doesn't get obsoleted. And you have to relearn everything. Who is the tool of whom? You or the computer?
Abstractions are just that: abstractions. They are not real. They are pretend, they are fantasy, an illusion we create because they are useful. Nobody said they are concrete.
That abstractions leak are the nature of abstractions. This ludicrousness is exemplified by his last car example. Nobody EXPECTS to not have to pay attention to the road and weather conditions. In fact, I'm not even sure of what he is implying a car is an abstraction.
Most of his rant is preoccupied with performance. Non-uniform performance is one of the REASONS for abstractions. You don't want your developer doing wonky ad hoc things for performance because 1) it generally leads to code which is harder to maintain 2) it breaks when your fragile silly assumptions are broken. That is the beauty (or utility for the less romantic) and nature of abstractions. They are simply useful constructs.
His C/C++ comments seem a bit more on topic, because in that case, he is illustrating a broken abstraction. Abstractions whose implementation cannot live up to their specification are, well, broken. There are many things we can't universally abstract. The point of abstraction is to find those essential shared qualities among many different things. This doesn't guarantee that you will expose all qualities (on the contrary, it implies you CANNOT), and doesn't guarantee you can expose idiosynchrasies that you could exploit.
I'm not sure what Joel's point is. Is it that we should just go back to flipping switches? I don't know about him, but I am typing this into a "string text area" "widget" in a "browser" "window" on my "desktop" and for all of the metaphor shear, it is still a hell of a lot better than flipping switches and turning knobs.
it's probably not a problem.. probably.. but I'm showing a small discrepancy in.. well, no, it's well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining sequence.
Aha...there's the bug, now let me just recompile the daemon against libpcap...uh, wait...