I disagree, on the grounds that IE was *better* than NS's effort (which looked good at the time, but now we see that it was poor). The quality of browsers now is much higher than it may well have been if IE's developers had restricted it to NS's weak capacity.
The defined standards by the W3C now exceed both browsers' current capabilities, although IE and Mozilla are both racing towards it. Again, this is good for progress.
I would like to cite the following case for comparison: personal computer hardware. The common Intel x86 hardware design (IRQs, 640k base mem, etc.) is clearly inferior to other designs (Amiga, Mac, etc.). The 8086 etc. wasn't even the most powerful chip around at the time.
As a side note, Intel's dominance can only be attributed to strong marketing on the part of itself and IBM; and the DOS operating system (revolutionary in its time).
The point is, by hook or by crook, the inferior hardware gained market dominance, and naturally, the companies making money out of it strove to keep it that way, at the expense of the end users. Look at the hideous legacy we are left with from the days of the early eighties... Windows 98 being the biggest eyesore, crippled and unstable because of the need to support the software explosing written for the non-scalable DOS operating system on Intel hardware.
If only it had been done right in the first place.
A fine point and one that explains the Govt and RIAA actions well.
I don't see where Metallica fits into this picture though. Surely they would be happy to cut out the recording agency (who treats them like shit and takes 95% of the income from the CD sales anyway). Bands make their money from concerts and selling merchandise, and make bugger all from sales -- except for the top few worldwide smash bands, who get money from their songs *despite* the recording companies.
If I were Metallica, I would jump at the chance to record new songs and sell them on the net for cheaper than a CD, and keep the profit !
I guess their only concern is that they have already produced the good work and it is locked into a contract with a recording company, so they cannot sell it themselves on Internet.:(
Where? Linux uses proprietary partition types that weren't around when fdisk was made. fdisk does not pretend to be anything more than a tool for handling Microsoft partitions. It would in fact be appalling if Linux fdisk were not able to remove its own partition.
Intelligence does not equal wisdom. Someone can be very bright, but be unfamiliar with certain systems. Obviously this guy got his MCSE by spouting some self-evident crap about SMB and flipping open his wallet and not actually having any experience. And I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to have Windows 95 experience.
I'm sure you weren't in there editing and compiling your kernel the first five minutes you used Linux.
You just replied to your own post, abusing it. I see that your intelligence is as low as your English skills. It wasn't typos - it was a lack of knowledge of the language (as is easily seen by looking at the actual errors). I'm glad I'm not at your college. (And even more glad I'm not at your collage.)
Not as if your post actually said anything useful anyway, and the reply was certainly humorous (even if pointless).
I see just below this that Karmawhore 11 just got a score 5. I think I'm going to go shoot myself
I agree - having to point out the humour and lameness of the original comment, is entirely redundant, as said lameness is entirely self-evident. Thankyou for wise moderation.
Netscape 4.7 - no border at all Mozilla M14 - ugly square dots IE5 - solid border, no dots IE5.5 - nice-looking round dots
(If anyone can do this in M16 and reply if it differs from M14, that would be good)
W3C standard (which I looked up) does specify the dotted syntax.
The sad state of things at the moment is that multi-browser compliant code has to support the lowest common denominator (ie. NS4), so if you were doing that then you would not be able to use dotted anyway.
It will be good when NS4 support is generally viewed as no longer needed.
HMM. 80% or 100%? HMMMMMM. My pages look like shit in IE5, and look like butter in NS6. HMMMMMM. I really should stop asking for the world here! Why don't I shut the fuck up about standards and go spend another hour reading IE5-fuckup workaround pages.
Maybe you should write standards-compliant code then, instead of shit. I dare you to produce a piece of code that IE handles contrary to W3C CSS specs.
Thanks, you've just suggested an idea for the most destructive yet of these viruses. People will get one saying "RUN THIS, it is like ILOVEYOU except it will protect your system from all of these viruses in future!" (or phrased in more convincing-to-lamers language), and there might even be some publicity about it. So everyone jumps and runs it as quickly as they can ---- and in fact it goes and [insert favourite malicious action]. What would be even worse is if it looked like it inoculated you for 24 hrs or so, and then delivered its payload.
VBscript is no more dangerous than Unix shell script.
What's worse, Unix shell scripts don't have to have any given extension to run - they just have to be executable.
Imaging a shell script called ILOVEYOU.txt arrives as an attachment to a newbie Linux user (that guy's mother, for example). Wouldn't it still be natural to open it, with the same catastrophic results?
The only difference may be that the user isn't logged in as root, whereas Win98 users are -- so if you must attack Windows features, attack that one - and not the others, which are perfectly good.
You attack Window because it *doesn't* warn the user when they are doing something stupid?
The whole philosophy of *nix is that you can fuck up your system with one command. When was the last time you saw "Are you sure, Y/N" when you went 'rm -rf *' ? I have seen plenty of people criticizing MS OS when they warn people before doing such things that are potentially dangerous.
Well, you're right when you say a compiler has nothing to do with your source code. However, this is not the case with C++ Builder, since it is not just a compiler. It also generates code for you. My opinion is that this is an accident, though.
Cut to scene at Borland offices, just after the release of C++Builder
Joe: Sir, a customer reports that C++Builder generated some code for him, instead of just compiling the customer's own code. Boss: Damnation! I *knew* we forgot to take something out for the final release.
No - the Borland compiler is one of the oldest and fastest out there. Borland have a history of good compilers and good tools (unlike some of the slow bloat crap MS has churned out over the years). All versions right back to old Turbo C 2 have been excellent.
GCC is inferior to both MSVC++ and Borland C++ in compiling and optimising C++ code.
I find C++Builder a joy to work with in Windows, and Turbo C++ was a joy to write DOS programs in. I can't wait until Kylix is finished, and then all you Linux developers can be converted too:)
Areas which Borland have mastered, they have done superbly - it is much easier to develop some things in C++Builder than in Visual C++. However, there is the problem that MS can add all their new OS features into their compiler straight away, because they know fully what their OS can do, and they know about all undocumented calls, etc. It always takes Borland several months to catch up. This is one thing that splitting MS up might help to resolve: the MS-OS would have to specify their OS better, so that the MS-apps could use it in their apps -- and so could non-MS apps.
C++Builder still has rough edges - for example, the ActiveX importing has bugs and COM implementation is bloaty. But it does many other things superbly, and I fully recommend it to anyone who wants to write Windows (and soon to be Linux) software.
By the way, "REDISTRIBUTABLES" refers to Borland-supplied packages (DLLs) containing the VCL, widget sets, etc. which the user is allowed to re-distribute. It doesn't refer to the user's source code.
Seems to be a lot of speculation here and not many facts.
Firstly, Borland is owned by Corel, who aim to be a major Linux company, so I hardly think they are going to alienate their target market by banning open-source projects from their compiler.
The Standard (cheapest) edition of C++Builder is probably what was on this magazine (not a specially crippled version or anything). Borland are happy to give away lower versions of their products. It makes sense both economically and karma-ly. For another example, If you buy C++Builder 5, you get free Delphi 4 and JBuilder 3 standard editions.
I have C++Builder 3 and C++Builder 5, Professional Editions, and they both have that same paragraph in the licence.
Note that the first line in the paragraph is: "GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES" This paragraph *does not even apply* to source code ! They then go into more detailed licence agreements further down, which I must say, are very amiable compared to some*coughMScough* licence agreements I've seen.
Now, my response to a couple of other comments I've seen:
You are allowed to redistribute Borland DLLs (including widget sets etc.) with your executable -- how stupid would it be to release a package in which people can develop apps, but nobody can run them cos they don't have the widgets?
When I distribute my source code, I will include wizard-code it has generated for me -- this code becomes part of MY project (which is mine because I bought this copy of C++Builder). (NOTE this does not include distributing things like system include files).
I think C++Builder 3 has been around since before the DMCA, too.
Something nobody has mentioned yet -- I don't think the corporations would actually be able to win this court case, since there is clearly no copyright violation. Maybe they could sue for plagiarism if he kept a log of the translated pages. I hope some big company with money decides to host the Dialectizer for him, then we can have blood. Blood!
Next thing you know, it'll be illegal to do a translation by using a dictionary.
In fact, this gives me an idea. These corporations are threatening legal action because the Dialectizer is translating their webpage. Perhaps he can counter-sue them for not making their webpage accessible to non-english speakers (and in fact taking steps to make it *only* accessible to english speakers),
Why would he refer to a crappy string instrument? Perhaps he meant Voila.
BTW, that previous post got 5, Interesting. I wonder if any moderators actually understood it, or if they just modded it up cos it looked like he was saying something
Slashdot Mirror
SE stands for Special Edition, fool
I disagree, on the grounds that IE was *better* than NS's effort (which looked good at the time, but now we see that it was poor). The quality of browsers now is much higher than it may well have been if IE's developers had restricted it to NS's weak capacity.
The defined standards by the W3C now exceed both browsers' current capabilities, although IE and Mozilla are both racing towards it. Again, this is good for progress.
I would like to cite the following case for comparison: personal computer hardware.
The common Intel x86 hardware design (IRQs, 640k base mem, etc.) is clearly inferior to other designs (Amiga, Mac, etc.). The 8086 etc. wasn't even the most powerful chip around at the time.
As a side note, Intel's dominance can only be attributed to strong marketing on the part of itself and IBM; and the DOS operating system (revolutionary in its time).
The point is, by hook or by crook, the inferior hardware gained market dominance, and naturally, the companies making money out of it strove to keep it that way, at the expense of the end users. Look at the hideous legacy we are left with from the days of the early eighties... Windows 98 being the biggest eyesore, crippled and unstable because of the need to support the software explosing written for the non-scalable DOS operating system on Intel hardware.
If only it had been done right in the first place.
I'm glad Netscape didn't become the standard.
A fine point and one that explains the Govt and RIAA actions well.
:(
I don't see where Metallica fits into this picture though. Surely they would be happy to cut out the recording agency (who treats them like shit and takes 95% of the income from the CD sales anyway). Bands make their money from concerts and selling merchandise, and make bugger all from sales -- except for the top few worldwide smash bands, who get money from their songs *despite* the recording companies.
If I were Metallica, I would jump at the chance to record new songs and sell them on the net for cheaper than a CD, and keep the profit !
I guess their only concern is that they have already produced the good work and it is locked into a contract with a recording company, so they cannot sell it themselves on Internet.
Where? Linux uses proprietary partition types that weren't around when fdisk was made. fdisk does not pretend to be anything more than a tool for handling Microsoft partitions. It would in fact be appalling if Linux fdisk were not able to remove its own partition.
Typical Linux user arrogance...
Intelligence does not equal wisdom. Someone can be very bright, but be unfamiliar with certain systems. Obviously this guy got his MCSE by spouting some self-evident crap about SMB and flipping open his wallet and not actually having any experience. And I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to have Windows 95 experience.
I'm sure you weren't in there editing and compiling your kernel the first five minutes you used Linux.
You just replied to your own post, abusing it. I see that your intelligence is as low as your English skills. It wasn't typos - it was a lack of knowledge of the language (as is easily seen by looking at the actual errors). I'm glad I'm not at your college. (And even more glad I'm not at your collage.)
Not as if your post actually said anything useful anyway, and the reply was certainly humorous (even if pointless).
I see just below this that Karmawhore 11 just got a score 5. I think I'm going to go shoot myself
:D!!!!
I agree - having to point out the humour and lameness of the original comment, is entirely redundant, as said lameness is entirely self-evident. Thankyou for wise moderation.
Here is how various browsers treat this:
Netscape 4.7 - no border at all
Mozilla M14 - ugly square dots
IE5 - solid border, no dots
IE5.5 - nice-looking round dots
(If anyone can do this in M16 and reply if it differs from M14, that would be good)
W3C standard (which I looked up) does specify the dotted syntax.
The sad state of things at the moment is that multi-browser compliant code has to support the lowest common denominator (ie. NS4), so if you were doing that then you would not be able to use dotted anyway.
It will be good when NS4 support is generally viewed as no longer needed.
HMM. 80% or 100%? HMMMMMM. My pages look like shit in IE5, and look like butter in NS6. HMMMMMM. I really should stop asking for the world here! Why don't I shut the fuck up about standards and go spend another hour reading IE5-fuckup workaround pages.
Maybe you should write standards-compliant code then, instead of shit. I dare you to produce a piece of code that IE handles contrary to W3C CSS specs.
Thanks, you've just suggested an idea for the most destructive yet of these viruses. People will get one saying "RUN THIS, it is like ILOVEYOU except it will protect your system from all of these viruses in future!" (or phrased in more convincing-to-lamers language), and there might even be some publicity about it. So everyone jumps and runs it as quickly as they can ---- and in fact it goes and [insert favourite malicious action]. What would be even worse is if it looked like it inoculated you for 24 hrs or so, and then delivered its payload.
id made BadTech? Well at least its graphics are better than Quake 1's graphics.
Actually, either placement of the comma is now recognized by the "authorities", and either is correct. There are good reasons for both cases.
No writers create virii.
Some create viruses, but that's another matter.
VBscript is no more dangerous than Unix shell script.
What's worse, Unix shell scripts don't have to have any given extension to run - they just have to be executable.
Imaging a shell script called ILOVEYOU.txt arrives as an attachment to a newbie Linux user (that guy's mother, for example). Wouldn't it still be natural to open it, with the same catastrophic results?
The only difference may be that the user isn't logged in as root, whereas Win98 users are -- so if you must attack Windows features, attack that one - and not the others, which are perfectly good.
Call the application dumb cos it overwrites files, not the OS
If you were installing something as root, and it overwrote your kernel and shared objects and stuff, you wouldn't be blaming Linux, would you?
This kind of prejudice is sooooooooooooooo Linux.
ROFL ROFL ROFL
You attack Window because it *doesn't* warn the user when they are doing something stupid?
The whole philosophy of *nix is that you can fuck up your system with one command. When was the last time you saw "Are you sure, Y/N" when you went 'rm -rf *' ? I have seen plenty of people criticizing MS OS when they warn people before doing such things that are potentially dangerous.
Well, you're right when you say a compiler has nothing to do with your source code. However, this is not the case with C++ Builder, since it is not just a compiler. It also generates code for you. My opinion is that this is an accident, though.
Cut to scene at Borland offices, just after the release of C++Builder
Joe: Sir, a customer reports that C++Builder generated some code for him, instead of just compiling the customer's own code.
Boss: Damnation! I *knew* we forgot to take something out for the final release.
No - the Borland compiler is one of the oldest and fastest out there. Borland have a history of good compilers and good tools (unlike some of the slow bloat crap MS has churned out over the years). All versions right back to old Turbo C 2 have been excellent.
:)
GCC is inferior to both MSVC++ and Borland C++ in compiling and optimising C++ code.
I find C++Builder a joy to work with in Windows, and Turbo C++ was a joy to write DOS programs in. I can't wait until Kylix is finished, and then all you Linux developers can be converted too
Areas which Borland have mastered, they have done superbly - it is much easier to develop some things in C++Builder than in Visual C++. However, there is the problem that MS can add all their new OS features into their compiler straight away, because they know fully what their OS can do, and they know about all undocumented calls, etc. It always takes Borland several months to catch up. This is one thing that splitting MS up might help to resolve: the MS-OS would have to specify their OS better, so that the MS-apps could use it in their apps -- and so could non-MS apps.
C++Builder still has rough edges - for example, the ActiveX importing has bugs and COM implementation is bloaty. But it does many other things superbly, and I fully recommend it to anyone who wants to write Windows (and soon to be Linux) software.
By the way, "REDISTRIBUTABLES" refers to Borland-supplied packages (DLLs) containing the VCL, widget sets, etc. which the user is allowed to re-distribute. It doesn't refer to the user's source code.
Seems to be a lot of speculation here and not many facts.
Firstly, Borland is owned by Corel, who aim to be a major Linux company, so I hardly think they are going to alienate their target market by banning open-source projects from their compiler.
The Standard (cheapest) edition of C++Builder is probably what was on this magazine (not a specially crippled version or anything). Borland are happy to give away lower versions of their products. It makes sense both economically and karma-ly. For another example, If you buy C++Builder 5, you get free Delphi 4 and JBuilder 3 standard editions.
I have C++Builder 3 and C++Builder 5, Professional Editions, and they both have that same paragraph in the licence.
Note that the first line in the paragraph is:
"GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES"
This paragraph *does not even apply* to source code !
They then go into more detailed licence agreements further down, which I must say, are very amiable compared to some*coughMScough* licence agreements I've seen.
Now, my response to a couple of other comments I've seen:
You are allowed to redistribute Borland DLLs (including widget sets etc.) with your executable -- how stupid would it be to release a package in which people can develop apps, but nobody can run them cos they don't have the widgets?
When I distribute my source code, I will include wizard-code it has generated for me -- this code becomes part of MY project (which is mine because I bought this copy of C++Builder). (NOTE this does not include distributing things like system include files).
I think C++Builder 3 has been around since before the DMCA, too.
Something nobody has mentioned yet -- I don't think the corporations would actually be able to win this court case, since there is clearly no copyright violation. Maybe they could sue for plagiarism if he kept a log of the translated pages.
I hope some big company with money decides to host the Dialectizer for him, then we can have blood. Blood!
Next thing you know, it'll be illegal to do a translation by using a dictionary.
In fact, this gives me an idea. These corporations are threatening legal action because the Dialectizer is translating their webpage. Perhaps he can counter-sue them for not making their webpage accessible to non-english speakers (and in fact taking steps to make it *only* accessible to english speakers),
You don't need a singularity to have a black hole.
No event horizon? "Oops, Jim, didn't mean to come this way, let's turn around and go back"
The Spinoza equation "T1 = T2
By induction, T2 = T3. Now I know who to call when I need that extra bandwidth
Why would he refer to a crappy string instrument?
Perhaps he meant Voila.
BTW, that previous post got 5, Interesting. I wonder if any moderators actually understood it, or if they just modded it up cos it looked like he was saying something