BeOS and Naiku have a history. If you used BeOS back in the day, you'll remember that there were several hundred Haikus, some about BeOS, many about JLG himself, that were messages within the OS itself.
You obviously have never designed any sort of commercial website. Sure, it's nice to be a preachy, didactic Slashdotter and complain about lack of standards, but a true commercial venture knows that you can't always rely on customers to know what they're doing, you can't rely on any consistency in the technology they use, and you can't rely on smart design to catch the user's eye.
Javascript is not a bad thing at all, but clearly is often used in bad ways. But you don't advocate taking guns away from the police just because they can be bad. It's useful for taking the strain off the server by doing client side validation.
Frames aren't always evil either. In fact, I use Squirrelmail most of the time - a very common PHP based IMAP webmail system, and the whole damn thing is in frames by default. I love it.
Many Slashdotters use Gmail now, and I'd like to point out that it's about 99% javascript based. Doesn't automatically make it bad, does it?
Opening a second window is OFTEN the preferred behavior. Sites that bring up massive search results - like an ebay type site, or an e-commerce site, or even a personals site like match.com, might prefer opening individual windows.
I can agree with some of what you say: no site should be fully plugin based, and that Flash, while cool, is contributing to the deterioration of the internet, and that horizontal scrolling is the work of the devil. But the rest of your points make you sound too much like a propagandized Slashdot standards fanboy who is hip to the latest trends of XML.
This isn't rocket science, people. Here's how it works:
1. Sun absolutely can GPL Solaris, however, they only have the power to do this to the portions of Solaris of which they own the IP. Sys V code they don't own would have to be ripped out.
2. Scores of developers get to work - on one side building the new "OpenSolaris," which is completely GPL'ed Solaris plugged back up with fresh, modern code to fill in the holes where IP rights prevent release. The other side is pulling Solaris' strengths, like scalability, and submitting patches and modules based on that code into Linux proper.
3. End result: an open Solaris fork is successful on both SPARC and x86 hardware, and Linux gains tremendously from it.
Since Sun still gains from future hardware sales (and can even sell OpenSolaris on it), I'd venture to say the only real loser here is Microsoft. And of course, SCO, who suddenly become irrelevant on the Sun front.
I received my gmail account from a kind Slashdotter who offered up the invite just because he was a cool guy. So now that I have a extra invite, I'll do the same - first person to reply with a valid e-mail address gets a gmail invitation.
I think what the original AC meant was that there was talk not long ago about Gnome version 3 or 4 being written to function within Mono, thereby delivering.NET to the Linux desktop via Gnome, which Sun uses. JDS = GNOME = Mono =.NET on Linux couldn't be more wrong, but I get what the intent was.
They did not do the same thing with SP1. In fact, SP1 installed on plenty of pirated keys, just not the ultra well known "Devil's Own" version which uses the key FCKGW-RHQQ2...
That's the only key not supported. Incidentally, I remember reading something like 1 in 5 pirated versions of XP uses that key.
Actually, the limitation I'm concerned about is FILE SIZE. Partition size is a different story. While Windows would cap FAT partitions at 2 GB for the first partition and 4 GB for the next 3 in Win95 and Win98 (not sure which editions), newer versions of FAT WILL CREATE 32GB PARTITIONS!
However, using Linux, I have created, and STILL USE a 62 GB FAT32 partition. I use it both in Linux and Windows with no problems. Windows can mount a much larger FAT filesystem than it will create.
This is not conjecture - this is my primary machine (running XP and Mandrake 9.1) and I'm typing from it now.
In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem.
Hmm, then maybe don't use Windows?! Seriously, why complain about the file system in particular when the entire OS is closed source. It's one thing to say "I only use OSS," but it's another to say "I don't mind closed source software, except for on this one part - there it's bad."
Windows is optimized for NTFS now, and NTFS is good. If you don't want propritary stuff, don't use Windows, period.
For some reason I don't seem to be able to get away from IE
Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's because you haven't tried. I work for a pretty decent sized company as the IT Manager. I have installed Firefox on several of the more skilled users machines and every personal machine I've worked on. I know how it works. People don't want to change because they like IE.
But it takes about one day's use to break the habit. Teach them about tabs, show them popup blocking without a third party application, show them middle-click-opens-a-background-tab and let them play for a few hours. That's all it takes.
That doesn't even MENTION the massive security holes they avoid by simply not having ActiveX or IE's scripting problems.
Anyone who uses Windows and insists on IE does so only because they haven't tried. Of this, I'm positive.
This is getting to be annoying, reading all of these browser wars articles. This one happens to be good, and just makes me think - how can we, the developers of the web, stp this from happening?
Simply by NOT USING new MS technology if it alienates anyone on any platform.
No, I've tried Fedora. I've tried FC1, and before it the "TEST" releases, I downloaded and installed FC2T2, then yummed up to test 3, and have since installed FC2 on another machine. Fedora is nowhere near as slick as Xandros. Not a complaint, but I've yet to meet a Red Hat install that could function as a desktop sans command-line. If I had to choose number 2, it would be Mandrake. 9.1 was my desktop for months without a single boot into anything else.
Since 1998 or so, I've used scores of Linux distros - some for "real," some to play around with. Everything from TurboLinux and StormLinux to Lycoris, Lindows, and Ark to Red Hat and SuSE.
If you haven't sprung for Xandros yet, you should. It's friggin slick.
I bet in a few years though, I'll be using Cobind. That pup py is nice looking and will be awesome soon.
There're a thousand good distros out there, but there's really no competition - Xandros is the best newbie distro out there. You don't need command line. It's got most stuff bundled.
Mr. Public, it's sad that you might even take the time to post something that does little more than attempt to aggravate, but I'll bite, just to put you in your place.
As much as you'd like to believe we're a bunch of 12 year old playstation addicts who haxx0r our b0x3n, the fact is, many of us would like to see OSS be more widely adopted because it's often better quality. And that, despite your untainted quest, means you need a userbase. And a userbase doesn't just come from innovation, as time has proven with products like the BeOS. It comes from offering a great product, worth the price, that allows you to be productive.
When Longhorn era technologies start succeeding, the new switchers will look to be productive first, and that means they want the same or similar technologies available. That, sir, is competition.
LUA is supposed to take care of that. And yes, it is a bit like Unix permissioning, but it does do some cool stuff, like provide each app its own copy of local files and even mock registry hives.
Also to assume Microsoft will win, is to have sold out. If you think Microsoft is going to win at everything they do, why don't you go work for them and help them.
That's the difference between being a realist and an idealist. It would be ideal if Microsoft wasn't a guarantee, but it is for now. Accept it and maybe we can do something about it.
Developing (say, mono) to prevent platform lock-in is a hell of a lot better than trolling Slashdot and whining about how everyone else's actions are wrong.
You're deceiving yourself if you think XUL can do it. Microsoft's new technologies WILL be out there, and they WILL succeed. If you accept that, you can be smarter about things. Let's get interoperable so we can compete - THEN we can extend into a new arena.
Miguel "gets it." The future of the web is seamless, safe perfectly integrated rapid application delivery. Imagine delivering an app via website that used native widgets and looked and felt like part of your OS, all while safely sandboxed. It's gonna happen come the Longhorn./NET heydey.
Many fanboys bitch and moan that Miguel laps up the Microsoft swill and ensures their success, but I'd argue it's the converse: Miguel knows we need to reach interoperability to have a meaningful competition in the first place. The better technology doesn't always win. Sometimes you gotta play the game via the home team's rules before the league lets you vote to change them.
I'll bite, despite your insinuation that I haven't read more than the Slashdot summaries of SCO news. I've read virtually every SCO story in the news for the last year plus, including painful stories on Groklaw, so I think I know my stuff for the most part.
So you know - the "shreds' of evidence you refer to took almost a year for SCO to produce, hardly "offered" as much as produced under pressure. Also, it was references to header files and standard error files - hardly unique, and in other places, code that could, within hours, be attributed to other sources. If there were really offending code, SCO could have tried to get someone with some sort credibility in the Linux community to sign an NDA in the first place, not start out by deceiving the public with the "MIT math team" or whatever it was they claimed - a dept MIT claims has never existed.
Slashdot Mirror
First I got three.
Then three more.
Then 5 more, 5 more, and 5 more.
Why interesting? It was MY comment on both sites, and I really only posted because I had gmail invites to give away.
Sue me.
But here is some text, because this lameness filter thing won't let post this without it.
BeOS and Naiku have a history. If you used BeOS back in the day, you'll remember that there were several hundred Haikus, some about BeOS, many about JLG himself, that were messages within the OS itself.
Here is a ton of them
and here is more info.
First three to respond to this (with e-mail addresses!) get gmail invites (if they want).
You obviously have never designed any sort of commercial website. Sure, it's nice to be a preachy, didactic Slashdotter and complain about lack of standards, but a true commercial venture knows that you can't always rely on customers to know what they're doing, you can't rely on any consistency in the technology they use, and you can't rely on smart design to catch the user's eye.
Javascript is not a bad thing at all, but clearly is often used in bad ways. But you don't advocate taking guns away from the police just because they can be bad. It's useful for taking the strain off the server by doing client side validation.
Frames aren't always evil either. In fact, I use Squirrelmail most of the time - a very common PHP based IMAP webmail system, and the whole damn thing is in frames by default. I love it.
Many Slashdotters use Gmail now, and I'd like to point out that it's about 99% javascript based. Doesn't automatically make it bad, does it?
Opening a second window is OFTEN the preferred behavior. Sites that bring up massive search results - like an ebay type site, or an e-commerce site, or even a personals site like match.com, might prefer opening individual windows.
I can agree with some of what you say: no site should be fully plugin based, and that Flash, while cool, is contributing to the deterioration of the internet, and that horizontal scrolling is the work of the devil. But the rest of your points make you sound too much like a propagandized Slashdot standards fanboy who is hip to the latest trends of XML.
This isn't rocket science, people. Here's how it works:
1. Sun absolutely can GPL Solaris, however, they only have the power to do this to the portions of Solaris of which they own the IP. Sys V code they don't own would have to be ripped out.
2. Scores of developers get to work - on one side building the new "OpenSolaris," which is completely GPL'ed Solaris plugged back up with fresh, modern code to fill in the holes where IP rights prevent release. The other side is pulling Solaris' strengths, like scalability, and submitting patches and modules based on that code into Linux proper.
3. End result: an open Solaris fork is successful on both SPARC and x86 hardware, and Linux gains tremendously from it.
Since Sun still gains from future hardware sales (and can even sell OpenSolaris on it), I'd venture to say the only real loser here is Microsoft. And of course, SCO, who suddenly become irrelevant on the Sun front.
I received my gmail account from a kind Slashdotter who offered up the invite just because he was a cool guy. So now that I have a extra invite, I'll do the same - first person to reply with a valid e-mail address gets a gmail invitation.
And......go!
I think what the original AC meant was that there was talk not long ago about Gnome version 3 or 4 being written to function within Mono, thereby delivering .NET to the Linux desktop via Gnome, which Sun uses. JDS = GNOME = Mono = .NET on Linux couldn't be more wrong, but I get what the intent was.
They did not do the same thing with SP1. In fact, SP1 installed on plenty of pirated keys, just not the ultra well known "Devil's Own" version which uses the key FCKGW-RHQQ2...
That's the only key not supported. Incidentally, I remember reading something like 1 in 5 pirated versions of XP uses that key.
Actually, the limitation I'm concerned about is FILE SIZE. Partition size is a different story. While Windows would cap FAT partitions at 2 GB for the first partition and 4 GB for the next 3 in Win95 and Win98 (not sure which editions), newer versions of FAT WILL CREATE 32GB PARTITIONS!
However, using Linux, I have created, and STILL USE a 62 GB FAT32 partition. I use it both in Linux and Windows with no problems. Windows can mount a much larger FAT filesystem than it will create.
This is not conjecture - this is my primary machine (running XP and Mandrake 9.1) and I'm typing from it now.
In fact, I don't want my data stored on a proprietary, closed filesystem.
Hmm, then maybe don't use Windows?! Seriously, why complain about the file system in particular when the entire OS is closed source. It's one thing to say "I only use OSS," but it's another to say "I don't mind closed source software, except for on this one part - there it's bad."
Windows is optimized for NTFS now, and NTFS is good. If you don't want propritary stuff, don't use Windows, period.
Last I checked, you couldn't have files over 4 gb in size on a FAT partition.
For some reason I don't seem to be able to get away from IE
Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's because you haven't tried. I work for a pretty decent sized company as the IT Manager. I have installed Firefox on several of the more skilled users machines and every personal machine I've worked on. I know how it works. People don't want to change because they like IE.
But it takes about one day's use to break the habit. Teach them about tabs, show them popup blocking without a third party application, show them middle-click-opens-a-background-tab and let them play for a few hours. That's all it takes.
That doesn't even MENTION the massive security holes they avoid by simply not having ActiveX or IE's scripting problems.
Anyone who uses Windows and insists on IE does so only because they haven't tried. Of this, I'm positive.
This is getting to be annoying, reading all of these browser wars articles. This one happens to be good, and just makes me think - how can we, the developers of the web, stp this from happening?
Simply by NOT USING new MS technology if it alienates anyone on any platform.
It's up to us.
If pagerank measured standards compliance, we'd see a MASSIVE commericla migration to standards compliant sites!
I'm no conspiricy theorist, but did anyone notice that IBM - effectively the Microsoft of the 80s - has become the geek hero of the age?
Sure, this has cost them lots of $$, but they are going to emerge the champions of tech geeks the world over.
No, I've tried Fedora. I've tried FC1, and before it the "TEST" releases, I downloaded and installed FC2T2, then yummed up to test 3, and have since installed FC2 on another machine. Fedora is nowhere near as slick as Xandros. Not a complaint, but I've yet to meet a Red Hat install that could function as a desktop sans command-line. If I had to choose number 2, it would be Mandrake. 9.1 was my desktop for months without a single boot into anything else.
Since 1998 or so, I've used scores of Linux distros - some for "real," some to play around with. Everything from TurboLinux and StormLinux to Lycoris, Lindows, and Ark to Red Hat and SuSE.
If you haven't sprung for Xandros yet, you should. It's friggin slick.
I bet in a few years though, I'll be using Cobind. That pup py is nice looking and will be awesome soon.
There're a thousand good distros out there, but there's really no competition - Xandros is the best newbie distro out there. You don't need command line. It's got most stuff bundled.
Nothing too interesting to see here, folks. In summation: Darl is still a jackass.
1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...2 ...13...14...15...16...17...18....19.. .20
10...11...1
me, please!
Mr. Public, it's sad that you might even take the time to post something that does little more than attempt to aggravate, but I'll bite, just to put you in your place.
As much as you'd like to believe we're a bunch of 12 year old playstation addicts who haxx0r our b0x3n, the fact is, many of us would like to see OSS be more widely adopted because it's often better quality. And that, despite your untainted quest, means you need a userbase. And a userbase doesn't just come from innovation, as time has proven with products like the BeOS. It comes from offering a great product, worth the price, that allows you to be productive.
When Longhorn era technologies start succeeding, the new switchers will look to be productive first, and that means they want the same or similar technologies available. That, sir, is competition.
Microsoft is on top of that.
LUA is supposed to take care of that. And yes, it is a bit like Unix permissioning, but it does do some cool stuff, like provide each app its own copy of local files and even mock registry hives.
Also to assume Microsoft will win, is to have sold out. If you think Microsoft is going to win at everything they do, why don't you go work for them and help them.
That's the difference between being a realist and an idealist. It would be ideal if Microsoft wasn't a guarantee, but it is for now. Accept it and maybe we can do something about it.
Developing (say, mono ) to prevent platform lock-in is a hell of a lot better than trolling Slashdot and whining about how everyone else's actions are wrong.
You're deceiving yourself if you think XUL can do it. Microsoft's new technologies WILL be out there, and they WILL succeed. If you accept that, you can be smarter about things. Let's get interoperable so we can compete - THEN we can extend into a new arena.
Miguel "gets it." The future of the web is seamless, safe perfectly integrated rapid application delivery. Imagine delivering an app via website that used native widgets and looked and felt like part of your OS, all while safely sandboxed. It's gonna happen come the Longhorn./NET heydey.
Many fanboys bitch and moan that Miguel laps up the Microsoft swill and ensures their success, but I'd argue it's the converse: Miguel knows we need to reach interoperability to have a meaningful competition in the first place. The better technology doesn't always win. Sometimes you gotta play the game via the home team's rules before the league lets you vote to change them.
I'll bite, despite your insinuation that I haven't read more than the Slashdot summaries of SCO news. I've read virtually every SCO story in the news for the last year plus, including painful stories on Groklaw, so I think I know my stuff for the most part.
So you know - the "shreds' of evidence you refer to took almost a year for SCO to produce, hardly "offered" as much as produced under pressure. Also, it was references to header files and standard error files - hardly unique, and in other places, code that could, within hours, be attributed to other sources. If there were really offending code, SCO could have tried to get someone with some sort credibility in the Linux community to sign an NDA in the first place, not start out by deceiving the public with the "MIT math team" or whatever it was they claimed - a dept MIT claims has never existed.