[JavaScript is] just not the right language for writing full-featured applications. It's barely even object oriented, weak typed, etc. And debugging it is a disaster.
Actually, EMCA Script is perhaps one of the most object-oriented languages in use today. Absolutely everything is an object and there are no primatives. And as for debugging, Venkma is probably one of the most powerful debugging environments I have ever used for any language or platform?
As for your comment regarding Java Applets, it is really a matter of ubiquity. Every browser (for our intents and purposes) has ECMA Script support. However, not all of them have the Java Runtime Environment plug-in.
You're so wonderful
Apple of everyone's eye
You're so clever
Multimillion-dollar smile
The world is your oyster and pearls are fun
Share them with everyone that you love
And you love everyone always all of the time
Missing link you eat your own dear
Bird of prey you can't control
In your world perception
Hazy
Connection precise
Cave in
Bow to the other side
You're a superhero
Demigod
No one anywhere anytime any which way but you
If the mirror speaks the truth we must aspire and work
Harder to be like you
'cause anything goes when you're a star
Regal elegant
You are bewitching and wild
Fifteen minutes a lifetime
They just don't apply
Shudder to think that if could ever be true
That anyone else is as lovely as you
You bear the name and the lineage that we desire
In the shutterbug-flash you look fabulous
With your made-to-order plastic-mask
You look so divine
Although I am sure Michael Crichton is an expert on just about everything from dinosaurs to time travel, there is considerably more substantial reference material available on this matter. http://law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/l abvmet.html
You are looking for The Flo Control Project. A photograph of a silhouette of the cat entering the device is taken and compared to images of the cat with and without an object (usually a dead rodent or bird) in its mouth. If the photograph matches approximately with the image of the cat without any extra baggage, it is allowed to enter.
Microsoft is content to drive forward quantity (more disk, more memory, and so forth), but when it comes to dropping relics of aging architectures, they make obviously stupid decisions like this. Full support for EFI is not about booting on the Mac, it's about dropping BIOS for everyone. Yet another example of how Microsoft holds us all back, whether we use their products or not. Nevertheless, there will eventually be a way to dual boot Macs with Windows. It is inevitable.
Nobody is advocating taking away your right to modify your operating system. What I am advocating, however, is that we eliminate the fundamental reason we are forced to choose between a dozen or so different packages on a download page for a single version of a single program.
Yeah, and there's no reason that chocolate ice cream couldn't be made to taste like vanilla. Except that people who prefer chocolate wouldn't buy it.
This analogy misses the point so entirely that I have no idea why I am responding. Alas. Ice cream is still fundamentally a product of a dairy product, salt, and frozen water, differentiated by flavor. When you go to the ice cream store to make a purchase, you base your purchase on chocolate versus vanilla. The overwhelming majority do not make their purchase based on the chemical makeup of the product.
Since we're getting into the endlessly trite realm of argument by analogy (as opposed to reality), let me bring cars into the picture. The overwhelming majority of people who purchase cars just want to drive them. The cars may offer different features and performance characteristics, but as far as the user in concerned, they all use the same gas, can drive on the same roads, and generally operate the same. Now imagine if every car maker required a different road surfce or some required rails and others required maglevs. That would certainly make for a messy situation, agreed?
Sorry to dissapoint you, but eliminating the status-quo has the inescapable consequence of introducing “a swarm of” new problems.
Care to back this rather general statement up? The way I see it, the present status quo could also be the source of a great many problems. To provide an example which contradicts your claim, let me talk about Internet Explorer. With 90% of the browser market, it is both the “standard” and the source of many vulnerabilities in Windows. Replacing it with browsers that support better security features like Firefox and Opera can eliminate the problems it introduces.
Because, as you said, status-quo is “mind-numbing” while eliminating it requires great intellectual effort.
Exactly! Such as consolidating the efforts of many distribution vendors into one base product such that they work together towards eliminating the “norm” rather than against each other. I knew you'd see it my way.
Yes, imagine if this extended beyond executable formats, file systems, and thread models. Sadly, your comment does not address anything higher up which actually affects the user.
Oh come off this nonsense. This is not about elimating choice, this is about practical reality. It does not make sense to try to support a product across so many distributions that are fundamentally the same operating system. All features that users are interested in exist in, quite intuitively, user space. They do not care what the init scripts are doing or what kernel they are running. Not a single user noticed Apple's transition from BSDi to FreeBSD 5 when they released Panther and that is precisely how computers should operate. Why cannot we, in the open source community, offer the same thing? The answer is: we can, we just don't want to. What users do care about is their own experience, not that of the developer. If we are ever to eliminate the mind-numbing status quo, we have to be pragmatic and offer solutions to problems without introducing a swarm of new problems.
What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform, according to the article.
Ultimately, all mainstream Linux distributions could derive from the same basic base (with the exception of those which try to fit Linux in tight places, for example). There is no reason that RedHat, SuSE, Debian, et al have to have so many differences beneath user-space software. (Consider the wildly different boot-time initialization scripts in each of those distributions. Ironically, there is a modular system in place.) Consolidate the similarities and expand by extensions which do not eliminate cross “distro” compatibility. There are already efforts to this effect. This is no magic bullet for any particular problem, but it will help eliminate the throat-cutting within the community and encourage computer manufacturers like Dell to offer Linux solutions.
The chart features in OpenOffice are like a mystery-lover's dream vacation: a huge, mysterious old house with lots of long halls, secret bookcases, dark closets and creaky doors that, when you peer behind them, reveal wonderful secrets.
So in other words, you're saying that its user interface is a complete and utter failure?
You're extremely naive if you really complain about John Doe not being able to get anywhere without any of these to back him up.
Yes, extremely naive. Just as naive as the fundamental concept of democracy: the notion we can live together in a just and free society. Terribly naive. What were we thinking?
“Moral relativism” seeks to eliminate all meaningful definitions of “morality”.
“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. People define morality, not absolutes. And because people are transient, morals will come and go, and evolve.
Also, it is funny that you say “moral relativism” eliminates definitions of morality. You used the plural form of “definition” thus indicating you think that there are multiple definitions of morality in the first place. I could not agree more.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Debian, right?
Because afterall, email is for old people!
I was attempting to make a joke based on an previous story titled “In Korea, Email Is Only For Old People”.
Actually, EMCA Script is perhaps one of the most object-oriented languages in use today. Absolutely everything is an object and there are no primatives. And as for debugging, Venkma is probably one of the most powerful debugging environments I have ever used for any language or platform?
As for your comment regarding Java Applets, it is really a matter of ubiquity. Every browser (for our intents and purposes) has ECMA Script support. However, not all of them have the Java Runtime Environment plug-in.
Only old people use Britannica.
Superhero, KMFDM
You're so wonderful
Apple of everyone's eye
You're so clever
Multimillion-dollar smile
The world is your oyster and pearls are fun
Share them with everyone that you love
And you love everyone always all of the time
Missing link you eat your own dear
Bird of prey you can't control
In your world perception
Hazy
Connection precise
Cave in
Bow to the other side
You're a superhero
Demigod
No one anywhere anytime any which way but you
If the mirror speaks the truth we must aspire and work
Harder to be like you
'cause anything goes when you're a star
Regal elegant
You are bewitching and wild
Fifteen minutes a lifetime
They just don't apply
Shudder to think that if could ever be true
That anyone else is as lovely as you
You bear the name and the lineage that we desire
In the shutterbug-flash you look fabulous
With your made-to-order plastic-mask
You look so divine
Although I am sure Michael Crichton is an expert on just about everything from dinosaurs to time travel, there is considerably more substantial reference material available on this matter. http://law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/l abvmet.html
It' right here, duh.
You are looking for The Flo Control Project. A photograph of a silhouette of the cat entering the device is taken and compared to images of the cat with and without an object (usually a dead rodent or bird) in its mouth. If the photograph matches approximately with the image of the cat without any extra baggage, it is allowed to enter.
Microsoft is content to drive forward quantity (more disk, more memory, and so forth), but when it comes to dropping relics of aging architectures, they make obviously stupid decisions like this. Full support for EFI is not about booting on the Mac, it's about dropping BIOS for everyone. Yet another example of how Microsoft holds us all back, whether we use their products or not. Nevertheless, there will eventually be a way to dual boot Macs with Windows. It is inevitable.
I hope you weren't implying that Wine is an emulator because Wine Is Not an Emulator. ;)
Nobody is advocating taking away your right to modify your operating system. What I am advocating, however, is that we eliminate the fundamental reason we are forced to choose between a dozen or so different packages on a download page for a single version of a single program.
This analogy misses the point so entirely that I have no idea why I am responding. Alas. Ice cream is still fundamentally a product of a dairy product, salt, and frozen water, differentiated by flavor. When you go to the ice cream store to make a purchase, you base your purchase on chocolate versus vanilla. The overwhelming majority do not make their purchase based on the chemical makeup of the product.
Since we're getting into the endlessly trite realm of argument by analogy (as opposed to reality), let me bring cars into the picture. The overwhelming majority of people who purchase cars just want to drive them. The cars may offer different features and performance characteristics, but as far as the user in concerned, they all use the same gas, can drive on the same roads, and generally operate the same. Now imagine if every car maker required a different road surfce or some required rails and others required maglevs. That would certainly make for a messy situation, agreed?
Great diversionary tactic, but I'll bite.
Care to back this rather general statement up? The way I see it, the present status quo could also be the source of a great many problems. To provide an example which contradicts your claim, let me talk about Internet Explorer. With 90% of the browser market, it is both the “standard” and the source of many vulnerabilities in Windows. Replacing it with browsers that support better security features like Firefox and Opera can eliminate the problems it introduces.
Exactly! Such as consolidating the efforts of many distribution vendors into one base product such that they work together towards eliminating the “norm” rather than against each other. I knew you'd see it my way.
Yes, imagine if this extended beyond executable formats, file systems, and thread models. Sadly, your comment does not address anything higher up which actually affects the user.
Oh come off this nonsense. This is not about elimating choice, this is about practical reality. It does not make sense to try to support a product across so many distributions that are fundamentally the same operating system. All features that users are interested in exist in, quite intuitively, user space. They do not care what the init scripts are doing or what kernel they are running. Not a single user noticed Apple's transition from BSDi to FreeBSD 5 when they released Panther and that is precisely how computers should operate. Why cannot we, in the open source community, offer the same thing? The answer is: we can, we just don't want to. What users do care about is their own experience, not that of the developer. If we are ever to eliminate the mind-numbing status quo, we have to be pragmatic and offer solutions to problems without introducing a swarm of new problems.
Ultimately, all mainstream Linux distributions could derive from the same basic base (with the exception of those which try to fit Linux in tight places, for example). There is no reason that RedHat, SuSE, Debian, et al have to have so many differences beneath user-space software. (Consider the wildly different boot-time initialization scripts in each of those distributions. Ironically, there is a modular system in place.) Consolidate the similarities and expand by extensions which do not eliminate cross “distro” compatibility. There are already efforts to this effect. This is no magic bullet for any particular problem, but it will help eliminate the throat-cutting within the community and encourage computer manufacturers like Dell to offer Linux solutions.
Who do you think is the target audience of a product called “OpenOffice”?
So in other words, you're saying that its user interface is a complete and utter failure?
Yes, extremely naive. Just as naive as the fundamental concept of democracy: the notion we can live together in a just and free society. Terribly naive. What were we thinking?
Whew. I am happy the morality of my locality differs from the morality of those who would commit such “honor killings”.
“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. People define morality, not absolutes. And because people are transient, morals will come and go, and evolve.
Also, it is funny that you say “moral relativism” eliminates definitions of morality. You used the plural form of “definition” thus indicating you think that there are multiple definitions of morality in the first place. I could not agree more.
Herion or heroine and the tip of one's penis. It's all the same.
Sunlight?
That's if Dick Cheney walks into the restaurant.