Even "philosophers" must confront the world they live in.
I think we disagree on the definition of "philosophy", mine doesn't include the absolute necessecity to include practical problems in basic right/wrong discussions.
If he wishes to preserve the ideas and ideals and continued existence of free software, then he ought to care about the success of free software. Any alternative demonstrates that he fails to understand the position in which he's operating.
Success and distribution aren't necessary to preserve an idea, as long as a legal system protects them from being wiped out (thus the GPL).
And why should they hurry up? They're with the philosophical side, not the "success" one... There's no incentive to get it done any faster, especially since the main goal, availability of the platform, has already been reached by Linux under the GPL...
Funny, how many people consider "GNU/Linux" so inappropriate. Linux is the kernel, GNU the system and X-Window the GUI, just as with Microsoft: ntkernel is the kernel, Windows XP (for example) is the system and Luna the GUI. Would you call your MS-System "ntkernel"??? Or your BSD one "Mach"?
Calling your GNU-System "Linux" has stuck, which is the reason "GNU/Linux" is offered at all, but "GNU" would be correct, at least compared to other naming conventions out there...
Which is still less important than the availability of the Platform to Stallman, as I've pointed out in an uncle-post.
To you they may matter, but Stallman speaks for himself, not everybody, and, apparently, not you, ok?
To him the name doesn't matter, because he's not after being successful in the way you imply. He doesn't care what the companies use.
To Stallman only the existance of a free development platform matters, and that existance is practically guaranteed due to the GPL and GNU by now (Technically HURD isn't necessary anymore, because the Linux Kernel is GPL'ed). If everybody used it, that'd be a bonus, but the mere existance is the one-and-only goal.
Try to see him more as the philosopher he is, not caring about marketing and commercial success, but taking care his ideas (Specifically that it should always be possible to use a free development platform) continue to exist (And one website, hosted privately, practically could do that), no matter what.
Oh, and, everybody, please don't automacally assume I'm on Stallmans "side" here, I just don't like him being misunderstood. He's an idealist, which is not necessarily moronic.
While I certainly agree that a browser has to support Quirks-mode under all circumstances because of the general audience, I still consider it bad design to make it a priority before the, easier to implement, strict-mode, which could then have quirks-mode attached. So that Quirks would actually inherit from Strict.
Well, that's probably the CompSci-guy in me speaking. He wants some steamy hot grits, er, Interface defining action now:-P
Agreed, and as my audience usually consists only of three or four friends, all using Opera...:-P
Thanks for the link, I'm usually not aware of any browser specific problems, too much standard zealot for that:-). Still, it's a shame if gecko/Mozilla/FF doesn't render XHTML faster... Quirksmode-first is a horribly stupid decision from a software design standpoint...
You don't need to know wheter the page is valid beforehand: if you encounter something invalid (like a non-existant tag, or a missing closing one, etc.) during rendering, simply stop and display an error.
No matter how optimzied quirks-mode gets, it still has to include code to figure-how-to-render incorrect files, which can simply be omitted in strict mode... That is: there is "necessarily a speed penalty". It may not be really significant though...
Concerning IE's boxmodel and DOCTYPE-Problem (the latter is indeed new to me, but not surprising) I'd say the old advice of "Don't use pixel-perfect design" holds true. Simply design the site so that such an error doesn't make it unreadable (it is perfectly acceptable to look ugly on non-W3C-standard browsers, though) and be done with it.
XHTML rendering should be way faster, because no quirks-mode has to be employed. Validation should be optional, as non-valid pages will simply not render in the first place...
Concerning the Doctype: I've never had any problems with that, care to give an example?
If you really can't go for the lcd (which you should try, there's rarely the need for javascript and never, IMHO, for flash. Use server-side scripts to be independent) then check for technology support instead of browser brand.
RewriteEngine on
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/xhtml\+xml
RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} !application/xhtml\+xml\s*;\s*q=0
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} \.html$
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} HTTP/1\.1
RewriteRule.* - [T=application/xhtml+xml]
for example (as.htaccess on an Apache server) serves xhtml pages (called html no matter what) as application/xhtml+xml to browsers who understand and as text/html (the default) to all others (IE only, AFAIK, but that's not important). You can easily adapt this to your needs, simply check for HTTP_ACCEPT and be done with it.
Adventure Game Studio provides an extremely simple way of doing old-style adventures quickly and has an active community behind it, which is rather friendly.
Jeez, I'm used to reading plain out garbled sentences here, but this article (The actual FA, not the submission) does it on purpose (check for "hugh" instead of "huge"... appears at least twice...)
I wouldn't even be sure they actually meant "interact" rather than "look at", because what could there be to do? Switch on and off some topographic map overlay textures maybe, but that's hardly "interaction"... You can, apparently, add polygon models to the voxel scenery, probably including egoshooter-type "triggers" and stuff, but still, what use could they be in a glorified 3d-Map? This thing is nice as proof of concept and as starting point/library for other systems (probably worth the 10k), but in itself it's just "nice"...
If I remember correctly, the broken sheet could be obtained by leaving out only the "opera" part (by changung it to "oprah") in the agent-string yielded the correct sheet. As far as I remember the opera engineers experimented with this to prove their point, but honestly I don't care enough to dig up more than one link... http://my.opera.com/community/dev/discussion/openw eb/20030206/
To me this is proof enough of either malintent or incompetence, really:-)
That's not necessarily a stupid idea, bitmap transformations can be applied to vector graphics, only they have to be _after_ the initial rendering (read: every time the image is displayed and the plugin has to be on the users machine as well, of course. Not practical for complex effectsm but not outright impossible either.)
SVG includes some standard "filters", like blurring, etc. for this. If I recall correctly, that is.
Sadly it isn't paranoid... Remember the user-agent: opera stylesheet problem? They have purposefully broken functionality for non-ie-browsers before... The Review us still pretty bad & useless, but paranoid, I'm afraid, not:-)
And to think that this very man was the defending lawyer of RAF-Terrorists... People can change into oppressors blazingly fast under the guise of protection and he probably even believes that shit... Nothing worse than a well-meaning person, I guess.
Honestly, a 470x60 Ad window in the upper right (where no important functions are, at least on my window decoration...) doesn't bother me at all on an 1280x1024 resolution, I don't even notice it anymore. And if I do, by accident, then it contains google ads, tailored to my interests, usually remotely interesting, you know?
So, does Opera cost money? Only if you are really bothered by the small ad (HINT: It doesn't scale ith resolution).
Apparently you only want to argue and insult, ignoring all my explanations. This is going nowhere.
Please, continue fighting for your gurus, I'll continue fighting for Critical Thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Even "philosophers" must confront the world they live in.
I think we disagree on the definition of "philosophy", mine doesn't include the absolute necessecity to include practical problems in basic right/wrong discussions.
If he wishes to preserve the ideas and ideals and continued existence of free software, then he ought to care about the success of free software. Any alternative demonstrates that he fails to understand the position in which he's operating.
Success and distribution aren't necessary to preserve an idea, as long as a legal system protects them from being wiped out (thus the GPL).
And why should they hurry up? They're with the philosophical side, not the "success" one... There's no incentive to get it done any faster, especially since the main goal, availability of the platform, has already been reached by Linux under the GPL...
Funny, how many people consider "GNU/Linux" so inappropriate. Linux is the kernel, GNU the system and X-Window the GUI, just as with Microsoft: ntkernel is the kernel, Windows XP (for example) is the system and Luna the GUI. Would you call your MS-System "ntkernel"??? Or your BSD one "Mach"?
Calling your GNU-System "Linux" has stuck, which is the reason "GNU/Linux" is offered at all, but "GNU" would be correct, at least compared to other naming conventions out there...
Which is still less important than the availability of the Platform to Stallman, as I've pointed out in an uncle-post.
To you they may matter, but Stallman speaks for himself, not everybody, and, apparently, not you, ok?
To him the name doesn't matter, because he's not after being successful in the way you imply. He doesn't care what the companies use.
To Stallman only the existance of a free development platform matters, and that existance is practically guaranteed due to the GPL and GNU by now (Technically HURD isn't necessary anymore, because the Linux Kernel is GPL'ed). If everybody used it, that'd be a bonus, but the mere existance is the one-and-only goal.
Try to see him more as the philosopher he is, not caring about marketing and commercial success, but taking care his ideas (Specifically that it should always be possible to use a free development platform) continue to exist (And one website, hosted privately, practically could do that), no matter what.
Oh, and, everybody, please don't automacally assume I'm on Stallmans "side" here, I just don't like him being misunderstood. He's an idealist, which is not necessarily moronic.
While I certainly agree that a browser has to support Quirks-mode under all circumstances because of the general audience, I still consider it bad design to make it a priority before the, easier to implement, strict-mode, which could then have quirks-mode attached. So that Quirks would actually inherit from Strict. :-P
Well, that's probably the CompSci-guy in me speaking. He wants some steamy hot grits, er, Interface defining action now
Agreed, and as my audience usually consists only of three or four friends, all using Opera... :-P
:-). Still, it's a shame if gecko/Mozilla/FF doesn't render XHTML faster... Quirksmode-first is a horribly stupid decision from a software design standpoint...
Thanks for the link, I'm usually not aware of any browser specific problems, too much standard zealot for that
You don't need to know wheter the page is valid beforehand: if you encounter something invalid (like a non-existant tag, or a missing closing one, etc.) during rendering, simply stop and display an error.
No matter how optimzied quirks-mode gets, it still has to include code to figure-how-to-render incorrect files, which can simply be omitted in strict mode... That is: there is "necessarily a speed penalty". It may not be really significant though...
Concerning IE's boxmodel and DOCTYPE-Problem (the latter is indeed new to me, but not surprising) I'd say the old advice of "Don't use pixel-perfect design" holds true. Simply design the site so that such an error doesn't make it unreadable (it is perfectly acceptable to look ugly on non-W3C-standard browsers, though) and be done with it.
XHTML rendering should be way faster, because no quirks-mode has to be employed. Validation should be optional, as non-valid pages will simply not render in the first place... Concerning the Doctype: I've never had any problems with that, care to give an example?
Jeez, /.
/ .* - [T=application/xhtml+xml]
RewriteEngine on
RewriteBase
RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/xhtml\+xml
RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} !application/xhtml\+xml\s*;\s*q=0
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} \.html$
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} HTTP/1\.1
RewriteRule
If you really can't go for the lcd (which you should try, there's rarely the need for javascript and never, IMHO, for flash. Use server-side scripts to be independent) then check for technology support instead of browser brand. .* - [T=application/xhtml+xml]
for example (as .htaccess on an Apache server) serves xhtml pages (called html no matter what) as application/xhtml+xml to browsers who understand and as text/html (the default) to all others (IE only, AFAIK, but that's not important). You can easily adapt this to your needs, simply check for HTTP_ACCEPT and be done with it.
RewriteEngine on RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/xhtml\+xml RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} !application/xhtml\+xml\s*;\s*q=0 RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} \.html$ RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} HTTP/1\.1 RewriteRule
I really dislike Real-Streams and a transcript is nicer anyway IMHO :-)
When I bought it, it was around 50 EUR, which is a lot for a student. No need to get impolite...
Check the games done by hobbyists at AGS and other "homemade adventure systems"... There's a huge pile of garbage there, but some are real gems :-)
Adventure Game Studio provides an extremely simple way of doing old-style adventures quickly and has an active community behind it, which is rather friendly.
Surely not inexpensive, but it does a very good job of showing how to implement games in Java, including 3d-rendering...
:-P
The Author's Website (Includes demo-project and source codes to all chapters)
I'm not affiliated with this in any way
Jeez, I'm used to reading plain out garbled sentences here, but this article (The actual FA, not the submission) does it on purpose (check for "hugh" instead of "huge"... appears at least twice...)
I wouldn't even be sure they actually meant "interact" rather than "look at", because what could there be to do? Switch on and off some topographic map overlay textures maybe, but that's hardly "interaction"... You can, apparently, add polygon models to the voxel scenery, probably including egoshooter-type "triggers" and stuff, but still, what use could they be in a glorified 3d-Map? This thing is nice as proof of concept and as starting point/library for other systems (probably worth the 10k), but in itself it's just "nice"...
If I remember correctly, the broken sheet could be obtained by leaving out only the "opera" part (by changung it to "oprah") in the agent-string yielded the correct sheet. As far as I remember the opera engineers experimented with this to prove their point, but honestly I don't care enough to dig up more than one link... http://my.opera.com/community/dev/discussion/openw eb/20030206/ :-)
To me this is proof enough of either malintent or incompetence, really
_Explicitly_ designing and providing a broken stylesheet is not a "mistake". "Total Incompetence" I might be able to accept, though :-)
That's not necessarily a stupid idea, bitmap transformations can be applied to vector graphics, only they have to be _after_ the initial rendering (read: every time the image is displayed and the plugin has to be on the users machine as well, of course. Not practical for complex effectsm but not outright impossible either.)
SVG includes some standard "filters", like blurring, etc. for this. If I recall correctly, that is.
Sadly it isn't paranoid... Remember the user-agent: opera stylesheet problem? They have purposefully broken functionality for non-ie-browsers before... The Review us still pretty bad & useless, but paranoid, I'm afraid, not :-)
It's about "proper CSS", baka.
And to think that this very man was the defending lawyer of RAF-Terrorists... People can change into oppressors blazingly fast under the guise of protection and he probably even believes that shit... Nothing worse than a well-meaning person, I guess.
Honestly, a 470x60 Ad window in the upper right (where no important functions are, at least on my window decoration...) doesn't bother me at all on an 1280x1024 resolution, I don't even notice it anymore. And if I do, by accident, then it contains google ads, tailored to my interests, usually remotely interesting, you know?
So, does Opera cost money? Only if you are really bothered by the small ad (HINT: It doesn't scale ith resolution).
Apparently you only want to argue and insult, ignoring all my explanations. This is going nowhere.
Please, continue fighting for your gurus, I'll continue fighting for Critical Thinking.