"and the others didn't hold enough ground" - meaning other browsers not other versions of Gecko or Mozilla.
Obviously the browser only handles (and can only mangle) what it sees, so the old technology comment applies only to client-side scripting.
Re:XForms are teh suck
on
XForms Essentials
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Standards from 5 or 6 years ago? 5 or 6 years ago "HTML Standard" was an oxymoron. I personally don't use IE but, aside from the MS proprietary quirks, IE seems to do as good a job as any browser when it comes to handling standards, and one of the reasons it took over the browser market (other than, of course, being bundled in Windows), is the long-time lack of another appealing solution since the inital versions of Gecko were slightly disasterous (and the others didn't hold enough ground).
I'd say that it probably will take a while for XForms to become standard but it has mostly to do with the combination of the net still emerging from the past lack of standardization, and more importantly the fact that in an environment where millions of users whom you don't control access the page, you should try to accomodate as many people as possible. Since a large number of people don't stay on top of upgrading their browsers that normally means using relatively old, trusted technologies (or writing alternate versions of everything).
Just dig some Construx out of your basement and build a case out of them. Those come complete with little astronaut decorations.
I've actually been waiting for a modular case solution...as long as it's done well.
17 byte Haiku (besides formatting of course)
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
Nature themed and everything (and with poor grammar since you people seem to care about that)
Y R U A B
B4 I C U I 8
O I 8 A B
I was gonna write another one, computer related, but...well...I didn't. Someone else can feel free to take up the challange. Some symbol characters may be useful, but I've already wasted enough of my life doing this.
There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements:). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had.
Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story)
I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing). Then the RRAS became locked in an utterly useless state where it said it needed to be configured (which was good because had never configured it), but that it already was configured and it wouldn't let me configure it...or remove it...or anything but look at the little icon and wonder at the fact that the way to fix the problem was by using the program that wouldn't work because it seemed that no matter what I did with it the service apparantly seemed to be in the exact opposite state it needed to be in to do it, magically changing from one state to another without my apparently ever managing to communicate with it at all. But then again if File Sharing was causing me problems who knows what else could have been...maybe it was Media Player.
There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements:). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had.
Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story) I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing).
I'd think that if they removed the presence of the components enough so as not to be noticable or interfere with competing products that it would satisfy some of the issues. Possibly to the point of creating DLL's and so forth which contain only the resources required to allow other things to run. The presence of these programs in the background may be an annoyance and probably not the best way to do these things, but their immediately noticable integration into the operating system, and user's direct interface with them is what's furthering Microsoft's monopoly. If you were the average computer user why would you use Netscape if IE was already sitting there?
I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run.
Or maybe it would just have problems like crashing every day or something:-P.
The concept of them not being able to remove some of the programs is BS. Even if the entire OS is built around the libraries for those programs it doesn't mean the actual programs have to remain. They're just trying to play off their own power and people's ignorance but there's too much attention on them for them to get away with it, so in the long run they're just playing off their own arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
"and the others didn't hold enough ground" - meaning other browsers not other versions of Gecko or Mozilla. Obviously the browser only handles (and can only mangle) what it sees, so the old technology comment applies only to client-side scripting.
Standards from 5 or 6 years ago? 5 or 6 years ago "HTML Standard" was an oxymoron. I personally don't use IE but, aside from the MS proprietary quirks, IE seems to do as good a job as any browser when it comes to handling standards, and one of the reasons it took over the browser market (other than, of course, being bundled in Windows), is the long-time lack of another appealing solution since the inital versions of Gecko were slightly disasterous (and the others didn't hold enough ground).
I'd say that it probably will take a while for XForms to become standard but it has mostly to do with the combination of the net still emerging from the past lack of standardization, and more importantly the fact that in an environment where millions of users whom you don't control access the page, you should try to accomodate as many people as possible. Since a large number of people don't stay on top of upgrading their browsers that normally means using relatively old, trusted technologies (or writing alternate versions of everything).
Just dig some Construx out of your basement and build a case out of them. Those come complete with little astronaut decorations.
I've actually been waiting for a modular case solution...as long as it's done well.
Nature themed and everything (and with poor grammar since you people seem to care about that)
Y R U A B
B4 I C U I 8
O I 8 A B
I was gonna write another one, computer related, but...well...I didn't. Someone else can feel free to take up the challange. Some symbol characters may be useful, but I've already wasted enough of my life doing this.
Think about it. They could fit right in on 3rd Rock from the Sun.
What...did they forget to have DirectX render the icons and cursor too?
Shouldn't have been HTML formatted. Sorry...cut and pasted and didn't pay attention.
There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements :). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had.
Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story)
I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing). Then the RRAS became locked in an utterly useless state where it said it needed to be configured (which was good because had never configured it), but that it already was configured and it wouldn't let me configure it...or remove it...or anything but look at the little icon and wonder at the fact that the way to fix the problem was by using the program that wouldn't work because it seemed that no matter what I did with it the service apparantly seemed to be in the exact opposite state it needed to be in to do it, magically changing from one state to another without my apparently ever managing to communicate with it at all. But then again if File Sharing was causing me problems who knows what else could have been...maybe it was Media Player.
There was interview posted here a while ago with a former project manager at Microsoft (a link would be appreciated by someone not too lazy to find it) about the business of programming and so forth. One of the things that struck me about it later was the way that he said that rewriting code is bad from both a business standpoint and because every line of code is there for a reason. In my (albeit limited) experience a large number of patches and changes to code are made to accomodate initial errors in logic or lack of foresight for such things as scalability, and with major changes a rewrite allows you to most cleanly adjust for either of those things, and quite possibly improve the code with other techniques learned since the original writing. Microsoft is obviously a heavily business-oriented company, so they've probably seen quick hacks as a less time-consuming, more profitable solution than restructuring their design, which would explain why every MS product seems just like the one before it but with a couple more features and system requirements :). A fully modular operating system with the technologies that have been integrated into Windows probably would not have been as appealing to them as just building off what they already had.
Why I took Windows 2000 off my home computer (quick true story)
I was trying to get Routing and Remote Access set up with NAT so I could plug my laptop into my desktop (something I've done several times on other computers). First I was getting an error becuase File and Print Sharing wasn't set-up (which is of course a key component to any type of routing).
I'd think that if they removed the presence of the components enough so as not to be noticable or interfere with competing products that it would satisfy some of the issues. Possibly to the point of creating DLL's and so forth which contain only the resources required to allow other things to run. The presence of these programs in the background may be an annoyance and probably not the best way to do these things, but their immediately noticable integration into the operating system, and user's direct interface with them is what's furthering Microsoft's monopoly. If you were the average computer user why would you use Netscape if IE was already sitting there?
I can't even think that a project the size of Windows, IE, Media Plaer combined as a spaghetti code could even run.
:-P.
Or maybe it would just have problems like crashing every day or something
The concept of them not being able to remove some of the programs is BS. Even if the entire OS is built around the libraries for those programs it doesn't mean the actual programs have to remain. They're just trying to play off their own power and people's ignorance but there's too much attention on them for them to get away with it, so in the long run they're just playing off their own arrogance.