XULRunner didn't take off because of a couple things.
Its just too much of a bitch to get started. Its not hard, its just slow and tedious as you spend 90% of your time googling and pulling in bits of information from all over the web in order to finally get a working XULRunner package. The Mozilla documentation is out of date, in multiple ways. You can see that some bits have been updated, but they aren't current, just newer than some other things. Never can you find any current documentation, unless you consider poor people stumbling through it and sharing their work on newsgroups to be documentation. I certainly don't.
Too fat. Simple apps take too much. Too much of a download for something simple. In theory you only need it once for all apps but... see below.
Bad integration with the OS due to chaotic API. The API is constantly in massive flux, you can pretty much rest assured that any moderately complex app is going to have hacks for EVERY damn version of XULRunner, FORGET supporting nightly builds, you might be able to bounce off an installed firefox or thunderbird installation, which limits the number of releases you're trying to hit, but there are still far too many to cope with, so that means... you ship your XULRunner app with a known good XULRunner. Hope the user doesn't update it to fix security issues!
Because of the above, getting an xulrunner package to download and double click to run doesn't work for crap if the user tries to use another one as well, unless maybe you're doing in house apps that share the same XULRunner version compatibilities. Good luck with that, we found that two internal teams working on seperate based XULRunner apps couldn't/wouldn't keep themselves in sync just cause it wasn't work it. Should they waste several hours of time validating code every time someone wants to bump to a newer version of XULRunner for some feature, or ship another 20-60 megs of course instead? Well, the only intelligent choice at face value is to waste disk space since its not an immediate cost.
The update mechanism is a couple clusterfuck as well, thanks to various bits of half implemented features.
Its the common meaning in the desktop publishing world, however points are not standard and never really have been. The DTP world used the word point instead of pixel, and a point was 1/72 of an inch... just like... the standard DPI used for monitors until rather recently. So because of that, now days, points mean roughly 1/72th of an inch, IF you're doing DTP. Your OS is welcome to assume a point is a pixel, or half of one, or like some Windows 7 apps (Looking at you Outlook/Word HTML renderer) a point depends entirely on your DPI, but not directly proportional.
Pica's have a defined meaning, 1/6th of an inch or 1/72 of a foot. This is what you SHOULD be using if you want fixed sizes.
Of course, for readability and accessibility purposes, your a douche for setting a fixed font size anyway. Points and picas may be there, but you shouldn't be using them for anything, the renderer should be making those decisions for exact sizing.
So chrome(ium) isn't open because someone made some chrome specific websites?
Its not open because it has its own special features?
By that definition, neither is Firefox then, I can think of plenty of websites that look like shit in browsers other than firefox. I can also remember when firefox basically took IEs place as far as having websites labeled 'looks best in firefox'. 'looks best in a standards compliant browser' would be one thing, but thats not what gets said.
I can think of plenty of firefox specific css attributes and html attributes. Hint: They start with moz-
The way you're judging open, theres no such thing as anything open really, as pretty much everything has had something created specifically for it at one point or another.
Why the hell is this insightful? Has he even used firefox or any other web browser? Who the hell modded this post up?
You an sign ELF executables? Or aout format? When did that happen? (Seriously curious, wasn't at all aware of it).
On a separate note, you can sign ACTUAL binaries on Windows, not just the packages that contain them.
You could also just get all your apps from the Windows marketplace, one stop shopping. The majority of your software isn't going to come from there, but Windows has far more software packages available, so its not real surprising. Windows users typically get their software directly from the source, not from an intermediate third party that has modified the software with their own special sauce (which could be good or bad, but its not like you actually have a clue as to which way it is for all of crap you install). You make the assumption that the repositories modifications are 'good'
You should also slow your roll on talking about how much software your Linux box has available since pretty much all of it will also run on Windows.
So Windows has pretty much of the apps you have, and its own much larger collection that you can't have. It has signed binaries AND packages, where as you just have signed packages. The signing is done by the actual developers who make the product, not some other third party who's fucked with the code like your case.
Man, you basically just pointed out a bunch of reasons Windows is better than your precious Linux due to your own ignorance.
You're a grade-A ignorant fanboy. Hows that arrogant douche bag attitude of yours doing right now? I'm sure your face is beat red and you're just going to tear me a new asshole in your response filled with more ignorance and incorrect statements.
No, Google isn't commanding Firefox. They did the right thing and instead of trying to influence Firefox, someone at Google saw the writing on the wall and said "We better make our own browser since Mozilla is about to pull a Netscape and repeat its last mistake". Its not like you haven't seen this shit coming from Mozilla for the last several years, we all just didn't want to admit it.
Google just realized Firefox was going to shit earlier on and came up with a viable alternative for people before someone like Microsoft started taking back ground from Firefox. From Googles perspective, its far better for them to take away from Firefox's marketshare than it is for MS to do so. MS doing so would almost certainly be bad long term if Mozilla ends up going belly up like netscape. We don't need another 5 years of nothing while someone else catches up to IE and starts winning back users.
The summary is about their strategy for supporting windows, and how it harmed the browser in general.
Wow, fail at reading comprehension.
The summary is pretty clearly stating that had they not supported Windows, they would be irrelevant. Supporting Windows did nothing to harm Firefox, the very thought that it did just shows your a Linux fanboy rather than a logical person. It blows my mind how completely blind you fanboys can be.
You do realize that integration is tighter now than ANYTHING Win98 had? ActiveDesktop has been renamed, but its still available, even in Win7, which is really what you're referring too. Works just fine now that they've got the bugs out and fixed a lot of the security issues.
Windows HELP is still HTML based. So basically every app has a browser built into it if it uses the standard system help features, like any proper app would.
'integrating the web' happened a long time ago, you just missed it, I could go on for hours about the various ways the integration is far tighter now than anything you would have even thought of in Win98, but I'm far too lazy.
He could very well be immediately unemployed for a significant amount of time.
If you find a true 'expert' then I can think of several businesses that would hire him in an instant, a few government organizations as well.
'experts' don't lose their value very quickly, people who think they are experts generally do. There are plenty of places that want experts in old tech to just get them through daily operations.
You know you're a young'en when you talk about not being able to find a job as a dos expert... have you heard of COBOL? THATS the example language you use for making the point you're trying to make... of course, COBOL 'experts' are snapped up in an instant still today.
Your phone has 200MB of memory, so when a stupid app uses all 200MB... then what? You don't run your other apps? Being wasteful is stupid regardless of where you do it, in your home, or in your code.
(computers did have double digit RAM at some point, right? My history of computer hardware isn't that great)
That '32B SRAM' is actually shared with the 16 general purpose registers, so if you take those out, you have 16 bytes of ram. With those 16 bytes and the rest of the IO and other functions built in you can easily control 3 servos from a single input line, which takes feed from a larger motor. That chip is capable of driving stepper motors with interpolation for a CNC machine, again taking position information from somewhere else, not processing the command tree itself. The chip is used to handle input from several glass breakage detectors and performing false positive checks to avoid triggering because the cat knocked something off that didn't actually break an external window.
In short, the modern world is built on devices with tiny ass amounts of ram. Do you wear a digital watch? They're getting rarer now days, but thats another example.
Its not history were that stuff mattered, its right now today, you just aren't aware of it. Nothing about the concepts used then is bad today, they STILL provide massive benefits if you know them and follow them. You're basically saying 'gasoline is cheap, just burn more to get more done' and ignoring the fact that there are clear physical limits to computing, a given amount of mass, regardless of how its configured, can only store so much data and performing so many computations. Eventually you'll have devices which simply can't meet the demand being put on them... because people thought ram/processing power was cheap and we no longer need to worry about those old guys.
Locality of reference, cache hits, pipeline stalls... all these things that you know nothing about, yet drastically affect how your shitty little app runs. Sigh, I swear at some point in the past people actually took pride in 'doing it right'.
And a too descriptive variable name also means you can't repurpose a variable, for example price_per_unit *= number_of_units won't work, cause then the variable will be lying. cost *= units, on the other hand, works fine.
Repurposing a variable like that is very bad form, it generally makes your code far more complex for the next guy who has to read it. The compiler will deal with the fact that you used two variables instead of one just fine, it'll optimize it down to the same code (well, GCC might not, but any respectable compiler will)
I write (in general) smaller amounts of code than any of the other 4 developers I have to work with, but I also document my code as I write it, the doxygen info for a function or methods is fully written out before I start writing the function. I document then write. My files are always larger because my documentation and commenting is far more complete.
Using shorter variable names does not mean you're writing less code, you're just using less text to do the same thing. That also generally means you're writing unreadable code. Disk space and IO for files used in a compile is irrelevant for any reasonably sized project. If your project is so big that the size of your variable names makes a noticeable difference in your build times... then you need to reorganize your project.
Good code is self documenting, but being that most of us can't write code that beautiful, proper documentation makes the code suck less for the next guy.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I'm pretty long in the tooth myself, but for the most part, if something has been forgotten, it's because it is no longer of use.
The reason you found it long in the tooth and then followed that statement up with 'its forgotten because its unused' just shows exactly how little experience you have.
First and foremost, an assembly language programmer whos been dealing with 1k or 256 bytes or even 64k can pick up just about any language and whip your ass with it, regardless of how long you've been doing it if you don't have the same sort of experience.
Every single thing you learn doing low level embedded code applies to ALL programming. When you get stupid and start spewing shit like 'ram is cheap' you're the exact type of idiot who not only wastes ram, but ends up with slower lookup times for the required data as well, due to your shitty wasting of memory.
Using ram isn't the problem, its making statements like
But I'm not going to miss the days where you had to figure out how to handle your data set when you couldn't use more than 64k of consecutive memory.
'
that reenforce the fact that you don't get how important those lessons were.
You may write code for a living or for fun, but you are not any sort of software developer or engineer. You are more or less exactly what the full article describes.
No, they 'need' to work, not want to work. They do need the social interaction, occasional praise or critism and all the other little bits that go with your typical job like sunlight. They don't really WANT to have to work, but thats the only sure fire way to get all the little bits of 'living' that our minds need to keep from going bat shit insane cause orange motor cycles don't have doors.
Yes, because editing a wikipedia article is exactly like a journalist or blogger who goes into a country where his race/creed is hated, then makes a public spectacle of himself... oh yea, and the country just happens to be known for not taking shit from anyone who doesn't agree with them...
You can't show me one journalist or blogger (and for the record, bloggers are just douche bags writing to a website, they are not fucking journalists) who was beheaded that you couldn't have told them that was going to happen before they started writing. I seriously doubt you can find one instance of it happening where I'd even care about it. No, its not just cause I'm a cold heartless bastard, its because I'm realistic and feel little sympathy for someone who got hit with the obvious that they could have avoided REAL fucking easy by just not going there. No, they had to try to be billy bad ass, and be the jew who got the great news story about the evil palestinian terrorists by infiltrating their training camps... and then he's fucking shocked when they are like 'hey Benjamin Edelstein, guess what, we know your a jew and now you die!' (for those of you who don't know, Benjamin Edelstein is very obviously jewish name)... and billy bad ass is no billy bad ass's body, and billy bad ass's head in a box being shipped back to mommy. If you're surprised, you're a moron. Its not right, but it IS reality.
I feel no sympathy for the chinese man who writes bad things about a government known to take people like himself out in the street and shooting them. I'm sorry it happened, but your an idiot if you didn't see it coming. You are NEVER anonymous, someone IS GOING TO GIVE YOU AWAY, even if its a computer. If you don't realize this the world really is better off without you in the gene pool.
Seriously... bloggers? give me a fucking break. Just because you CAN post to some blog, doesn't mean anyone cares what you're saying. Nor does it mean you SHOULD post on the PUBLIC INTERNET WHERE EVERYONE GOOD OR BAD CAN SEE IT.
Taking out people with no common sense is good for evolution. Sorry your on that list.
Well, because Wikipedia does very little ACTUAL fact checking, contributors do that, with no vested interest in wikipedia's accuracy other than their name on an edit list and maybe some list of 'top contributors' or something silly that no one cares about. The collections you mention actually consist mostly of people verifying facts in articles and finding/weeding out subjectiveness. People that care about doing the job right because the food on their plate is a direct result of them doing their job right. You simply can't say the same for wikipedia editors. Eating and house are far more powerful motivators than some silly edits ranking.
I don't need to know who actually wrote them, the quality of the writing itself gives it credibility. The fact that there are yearly revisions, with the changes published for inspection also lends credibility. The fact that we know they require their books to be accurate in order to maintain credibility in order to sell their product has a lot to do with it as well.
Wikipedia is a joke, no one with even a quarter of a clue considerings wikipedia a credible source for anything. Its a GREAT place to start looking for credible sources, but the free for all approach to wikipedia means you simply can not under any circumstances trust its data, you have to verify it ALL, which means its effectively a useless source. Its much more like the only (yahoo still does this I think) web directories, which were really just starting points for finding useful pages, wikipedia is just a far better version of those, pretending to be a factual reference source. Wikipedia just begs for money every few months in such an obnoxious way that people give in just to get his face the fuck out of view while they go waste a few ours fucking around at work.
I use wikipedia all the time, but you're seriously out of touch with reality if you think its credible or anywhere near large long running encyclopedias. Your argument is basically 'well I don't trust anyone because...' and you have no reason, just 'because'. Much like most science, I have to trust the work of others to some extent until proven otherwise. If I verified all my sources for EVERYTHING first, I'd spend all my time doing verification. I have plenty of respectable, intelligent, highly educated people AND institutions that consider the Encyclopedia Britannica to safe to assume that its factually accurate.
I don't know anyone who thinks the same thing about Wikipedia, with the exception of some school kids that just want an easy way out of doing actual research and still don't get that ANY encyclopedia is not a valid reference.
Wikipedia isn't being held to a higher standard, they aren't even being held to the same standard. No one anywhere considers the three things you mentioned to be on the same level. Alright, you obviously do, and I'm sure there are others, but to put it bluntly, that just makes you look stupid for being so naive and ignorant of the world around you.
No they don't, statistically, there is no difference in the amount of wrong doers on either said. People on 'the good' side just get by with it more and people on 'the bad side' .
Several studies have show for instance that if say 1 in 20 people is X type of criminal, then 1 in 20 [fireman/policemen/soldiers/guardsmen/sailors/fbi agents/insert WHAT EVER GROUP YOU WANT HERE/catholic priests] are that type of criminal.
The service you are performing generally has nothing to do with how much of a dick you are.
Statistically, crime today is no different than it was in the 1900s. There is no reason for you to cower in your home. Stand up and be a fucking man instead of hiding behind a false identity. There are no more muggings, no more home invasions, no more rapes or murders per person today than there was 100 years ago. The only difference is that today you hear about it, in 1900, you never knew that a school shooting occurred 1500 miles away from you, today the entire world knows it WHILE ITS HAPPENING, but that doesn't mean its happening more.
The only reason you have something to fear is because you bring it on yourself. If you act responsible, considerate and fairly, you'll have no more of a problem than any other job.
Stop being such fucking pansies and live your fucking lives instead of being afraid to do so. God is must suck to be that much of a coward.
The poster is a spam account trying to make his account look more legitimate by making posts and having people reply too him so it looks like he's been here for a while.
When you see something that clearly makes no sense what so ever, assume it was a bot running on a spam account, ESPECIALLY first or nearly first posts. Some of them are clearly MegaHAL based bots by looking at the speech they produce.
Seriously, with the deletionists and all the other rampant Napoleon syndrome/computer courage bastards who have special priveleges it makes it so no one wants to waste their time submitting articles. When you delete an article with perfectly valid info just because it isn't pretty enough, rather than fixing it, you pretty much have made it clear that you don't want people to contribute, you want elitist assholes to contribute.
I'd rather have a poorly written article on some obscure subject than no article on an obscure subject.
The notoriety bullshit needs to go as well, wtf does it matter, the disk space is so fucking cheap that there is absolutely no point in deleting anything ever. So to get notable, I have to put up a couple fake print books on a couple of the sites that will let you publish pretty much any PDF to paper... so if I want to fake something, I can still do it with practically zero effort. All wp accomplishes by deleting these articles is a loss of potentially useful knowledge.
Deletion for lack of citations is another one. Mark it as uncited in some big obvious way (As is already done) BUT DON'T FUCKING DELETE IT. Just because it doesn't have citations that fit your retarded idea of what a citation needs to be doesn't mean its wrong or invalid. Rather than delete it, let me know its got nothing to back it up (which I can figure out by looking at the citations list... like you do in every other publication like this) by putting a header on it that says so (already done) but leave the fucking thing there. Someone else might find it and add citations, you gain absolutely nothing by deleting articles. Not only do you lose the articles themselves and their public presence, after a purge you've lost the history too.
The deletionists are basically book burners, and we should treat them EXACTLY the way we'd treat anyone in the real world that came and tried to burn our books... burn THEM at the stake.
An article is subjective rather than factual? DON'T FUCKING DELETE IT. There is almost certainly SOME validity to even the most subjective of statements. By leaving it there, you're more likely to have some person like me see it and think 'god I hate when fuckers get it so wrong because their fanboys' and I'll spend the next 3 or 4 hours fixing it, adding citations, putting my reasoning on the talk page, ect.... and then the next day some douche will say 'no your wrong' and it magically goes away... regardless of the fact that I've posted citations to documents on websites like say.... nasa.gov backing up everything I've said. No talk page discussion, just delete or revert depending on the page and the douche thats protecting it.
You want Wikipedia to have a chance? You're going to need to replace your entire staff, and make it publically known that you are doing so, and then you need to pray that all the people like myself who have gotten so fed up with your staffs bullshit... actually come back and give you a second chance.
You've already dug your own grave Wikipedia, you can now climb in it and we'll bury you, or you can make a good attempt to fix the fucking problem, but fixing the problem is going to require a changing of the guard. And no, there is no other solution. Your staff IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.
Take away the fucking delete button, remove it entirely from the wikimedia software, there is NO REASON it should exist on wikipedia (obviously copyright issues make that statement untrue, but you can deal with that off line manually as the C&D letters come in, its not going to be that common.
Yes, find their ISPs ip ranges in the WHOIS database, send a special notice to anyone coming from those IPs. You'll warn a few people that aren't effected like slashdotters with their own resolvers locally, but those people will get it anyway and probably think you're pretty cool for doing so.
IP allocation information is publicly available, though not always easy to find.
, and if major browsers would silently accept self-signed without drowning the user in a storm of "RUN FOREST, RUN !!!" messages.
Just a hint, every time you say that, it makes it very clear that you have absolutely no idea how SSL works. SSL with unverified certificates is absolutely useless, which means blindly accepting it and pretending its okay is a lie of omission to the user, its basically snake oil instead of something useful.
At the very minimum, the user has to be prompted to verify the unknown certificate. You must make the wording here strong enough that people GET that its a dangerous decision. You setup a site with a self signed cert, then your upstream ISP just MITMs it, and instantly your SSL means exactly DICK because no one will know the difference except for the people who get a warning that its a different certain than the previously self signed one... which means they'll get that warning every year or so anyway (unless you're just retarded and using long term certs, again showing you completely fail to understand SSL and what makes it secure).
But it would be very nice if I could publish a flag in DNSSEC that could say "This is my certificate thumbprint, use it", and leverage the secure DNS tree instead of the insecure and bogus certificate industry.
That may happen to some extent, but your missing the point of SSL. A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY has verified the identity of the certificate holder (well, thats the theory anyway, we've seen examples of where it breaks down occasionally). DNS is unverified, I could go buy MTV.COM if no one else had done so (and made a fucking fortune selling it to them;), and then publish my own certs as you suggest, and put up sites and make it look like I'm MTV and you would have absolutely no way what so ever to verify that I really am MTV, all you know is that I bought a domain, which has absolutely 0 verification associated with it. With SSL the way it works, someone else has verified the company information that MTV.COM uses in their certs, so when I view the information, I know with a high degree of trust that the information presented to me is accurate, so when it says whatever MTV.com's cert says for the company name, I can trust that its true and that I'm talking to a server that not only the owner says is the right one, but someone else, whom I trust to verify their information has also verified it. The third party makes it WAY harder to lie about who you are, which cuts out MITM attacks, which is the entire point, making sure no one in the middle can read or modify your data.
Why again should I have to fork a pile of cash to obtain a bit string that says that I actually own the domain I'm using ?
A pile of cash? Seriously? Their like 15 fucking bucks from godaddy. If you can't spend $15 dollars on a cert, you probably can't afford to do most everything else required to run a website. I'm sorry, this is a stupid fucking reason to not have an SSL cert, if you can't pay $15, you need to go home. A pan handler on the streets of washington DC makes $100-150/day... and you can't spare $15 for a cert? You're priorities are fucked up.
Of course, those are shitty certs that I specifically don't trust and have removed the godaddy certs from my trusted roots, but I'm certainly a rare example of that, and go daddy isn't the only source of cheap certs.
The reason it costs money is because someone actually needs to put a little effort into verifying not that 'you own the domain' but that you ARE who you say you are, and you're not some fake company that doesn't actually exist just running a scam. Now we've seen plenty of examples of how some shitty cert provider fucks up and allows it to happen anyway, but that generally gets fixed and doesn't happen again.
Second, it weeds out a bunch of people who want to do stuff, but really don't know how and won't maintain their sit
Do you have browser caching turned off or something or do you just browse so freaking much your browser cache is overflowing regularly.
You're right on automatic updates, but being that you can just schedule them for a time when your lines aren't busy, which seems a whole lot simpler than setting up a proxy.
I find your numbers suspect. Perhaps in a large enough household, with a bunch of facebook users or something where you guys visit the same set of sites, but in my house, which is small with only 2 perm residents and a couple that float in and out from time to time, family is like that:/... when I bothered with a caching proxy we saw almost 0 cache hits from it, we all browse different stuff and our browsers handle the caching just fine.
I do run a caching DNS server, but thats only because I have different DNS views internally for a few personal/work domains in order to keep that traffic flowing over the VPN connections, caching is on anyway so its not like I have to maintain it. I do have to occasionally flush it rather than wait for name updates, but again thats just due to my work environment.
- I will defeat most of the benefits of running local caching proxy servers (come on, this is/., surely I'm not the only one with a proxy array at home?)
I think you'll find the percentage pretty low, the only people who do it really are those with more time than money, as in most cases it offers very little benefit.
My browser caches pretty well on its own, there are 2 people in my house, me and my wife. We view pretty much 0 related content on the web with the exception of photos... which are served locally anyway. A cache proxy is going to get almost 0 cache hits in normal usage, except for that one time when I happen to look at an old reference manual 3 months down the road after my browser forgot it.
Running a cache proxy at home is something you do when you don't have a real job and want to futz around in your free time, maybe learn about it so you can use it at a job and make yourself more valuable. I get that. The rest of us however, don't have time to set it up (yes, I know its almost trivial, but lets face it, you gotta tweak it for yourself and next thing you know, its 5 hours later). And then a year or two later it breaks, or you futz with the firewall or upgrade the OS and the transparent part of it breaks, so you open it up so your wife can browse and never get around to fixing it again.
Basically, running a local proxy at home is a toy for people with extra free time, and occasionally, someone doing some testing, which I admit, my home network is a functional testbed for future rollouts at the office. But its not something everyone does, its limited to a few geeks, even here on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
XULRunner didn't take off because of a couple things.
Its just too much of a bitch to get started. Its not hard, its just slow and tedious as you spend 90% of your time googling and pulling in bits of information from all over the web in order to finally get a working XULRunner package. The Mozilla documentation is out of date, in multiple ways. You can see that some bits have been updated, but they aren't current, just newer than some other things. Never can you find any current documentation, unless you consider poor people stumbling through it and sharing their work on newsgroups to be documentation. I certainly don't.
Too fat. Simple apps take too much. Too much of a download for something simple. In theory you only need it once for all apps but ... see below.
Bad integration with the OS due to chaotic API. The API is constantly in massive flux, you can pretty much rest assured that any moderately complex app is going to have hacks for EVERY damn version of XULRunner, FORGET supporting nightly builds, you might be able to bounce off an installed firefox or thunderbird installation, which limits the number of releases you're trying to hit, but there are still far too many to cope with, so that means ... you ship your XULRunner app with a known good XULRunner. Hope the user doesn't update it to fix security issues!
Because of the above, getting an xulrunner package to download and double click to run doesn't work for crap if the user tries to use another one as well, unless maybe you're doing in house apps that share the same XULRunner version compatibilities. Good luck with that, we found that two internal teams working on seperate based XULRunner apps couldn't/wouldn't keep themselves in sync just cause it wasn't work it. Should they waste several hours of time validating code every time someone wants to bump to a newer version of XULRunner for some feature, or ship another 20-60 megs of course instead? Well, the only intelligent choice at face value is to waste disk space since its not an immediate cost.
The update mechanism is a couple clusterfuck as well, thanks to various bits of half implemented features.
They could even leverage AJAX to eliminate the fucking PostBacks.
... welcome to 3 years ago for every major web development toolkit on the planet
Its the common meaning in the desktop publishing world, however points are not standard and never really have been. The DTP world used the word point instead of pixel, and a point was 1/72 of an inch ... just like ... the standard DPI used for monitors until rather recently. So because of that, now days, points mean roughly 1/72th of an inch, IF you're doing DTP. Your OS is welcome to assume a point is a pixel, or half of one, or like some Windows 7 apps (Looking at you Outlook/Word HTML renderer) a point depends entirely on your DPI, but not directly proportional.
Pica's have a defined meaning, 1/6th of an inch or 1/72 of a foot. This is what you SHOULD be using if you want fixed sizes.
Of course, for readability and accessibility purposes, your a douche for setting a fixed font size anyway. Points and picas may be there, but you shouldn't be using them for anything, the renderer should be making those decisions for exact sizing.
So chrome(ium) isn't open because someone made some chrome specific websites?
Its not open because it has its own special features?
By that definition, neither is Firefox then, I can think of plenty of websites that look like shit in browsers other than firefox. I can also remember when firefox basically took IEs place as far as having websites labeled 'looks best in firefox'. 'looks best in a standards compliant browser' would be one thing, but thats not what gets said.
I can think of plenty of firefox specific css attributes and html attributes. Hint: They start with moz-
The way you're judging open, theres no such thing as anything open really, as pretty much everything has had something created specifically for it at one point or another.
Why the hell is this insightful? Has he even used firefox or any other web browser? Who the hell modded this post up?
You an sign ELF executables? Or aout format? When did that happen? (Seriously curious, wasn't at all aware of it).
On a separate note, you can sign ACTUAL binaries on Windows, not just the packages that contain them.
You could also just get all your apps from the Windows marketplace, one stop shopping. The majority of your software isn't going to come from there, but Windows has far more software packages available, so its not real surprising. Windows users typically get their software directly from the source, not from an intermediate third party that has modified the software with their own special sauce (which could be good or bad, but its not like you actually have a clue as to which way it is for all of crap you install). You make the assumption that the repositories modifications are 'good'
You should also slow your roll on talking about how much software your Linux box has available since pretty much all of it will also run on Windows.
So Windows has pretty much of the apps you have, and its own much larger collection that you can't have. It has signed binaries AND packages, where as you just have signed packages. The signing is done by the actual developers who make the product, not some other third party who's fucked with the code like your case.
Man, you basically just pointed out a bunch of reasons Windows is better than your precious Linux due to your own ignorance.
You're a grade-A ignorant fanboy. Hows that arrogant douche bag attitude of yours doing right now? I'm sure your face is beat red and you're just going to tear me a new asshole in your response filled with more ignorance and incorrect statements.
No, Google isn't commanding Firefox. They did the right thing and instead of trying to influence Firefox, someone at Google saw the writing on the wall and said "We better make our own browser since Mozilla is about to pull a Netscape and repeat its last mistake". Its not like you haven't seen this shit coming from Mozilla for the last several years, we all just didn't want to admit it.
Google just realized Firefox was going to shit earlier on and came up with a viable alternative for people before someone like Microsoft started taking back ground from Firefox. From Googles perspective, its far better for them to take away from Firefox's marketshare than it is for MS to do so. MS doing so would almost certainly be bad long term if Mozilla ends up going belly up like netscape. We don't need another 5 years of nothing while someone else catches up to IE and starts winning back users.
The summary is about their strategy for supporting windows, and how it harmed the browser in general.
Wow, fail at reading comprehension.
The summary is pretty clearly stating that had they not supported Windows, they would be irrelevant. Supporting Windows did nothing to harm Firefox, the very thought that it did just shows your a Linux fanboy rather than a logical person. It blows my mind how completely blind you fanboys can be.
You do realize that integration is tighter now than ANYTHING Win98 had? ActiveDesktop has been renamed, but its still available, even in Win7, which is really what you're referring too. Works just fine now that they've got the bugs out and fixed a lot of the security issues.
Windows HELP is still HTML based. So basically every app has a browser built into it if it uses the standard system help features, like any proper app would.
'integrating the web' happened a long time ago, you just missed it, I could go on for hours about the various ways the integration is far tighter now than anything you would have even thought of in Win98, but I'm far too lazy.
He could very well be immediately unemployed for a significant amount of time.
If you find a true 'expert' then I can think of several businesses that would hire him in an instant, a few government organizations as well.
'experts' don't lose their value very quickly, people who think they are experts generally do. There are plenty of places that want experts in old tech to just get them through daily operations.
You know you're a young'en when you talk about not being able to find a job as a dos expert ... have you heard of COBOL? THATS the example language you use for making the point you're trying to make ... of course, COBOL 'experts' are snapped up in an instant still today.
You really don't get it.
Your phone has 200MB of memory, so when a stupid app uses all 200MB ... then what? You don't run your other apps? Being wasteful is stupid regardless of where you do it, in your home, or in your code.
(computers did have double digit RAM at some point, right? My history of computer hardware isn't that great)
http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=4605&category_id=163&family_id=607&subfamily_id=791
If you're too lazy to follow the link:
The high-performance, low-power Atmel 8-bit AVR RISC-based microcontroller combines 512B ISP flash memory, 32B SRAM
That '32B SRAM' is actually shared with the 16 general purpose registers, so if you take those out, you have 16 bytes of ram. With those 16 bytes and the rest of the IO and other functions built in you can easily control 3 servos from a single input line, which takes feed from a larger motor. That chip is capable of driving stepper motors with interpolation for a CNC machine, again taking position information from somewhere else, not processing the command tree itself. The chip is used to handle input from several glass breakage detectors and performing false positive checks to avoid triggering because the cat knocked something off that didn't actually break an external window.
In short, the modern world is built on devices with tiny ass amounts of ram. Do you wear a digital watch? They're getting rarer now days, but thats another example.
Its not history were that stuff mattered, its right now today, you just aren't aware of it. Nothing about the concepts used then is bad today, they STILL provide massive benefits if you know them and follow them. You're basically saying 'gasoline is cheap, just burn more to get more done' and ignoring the fact that there are clear physical limits to computing, a given amount of mass, regardless of how its configured, can only store so much data and performing so many computations. Eventually you'll have devices which simply can't meet the demand being put on them ... because people thought ram/processing power was cheap and we no longer need to worry about those old guys.
Locality of reference, cache hits, pipeline stalls ... all these things that you know nothing about, yet drastically affect how your shitty little app runs. Sigh, I swear at some point in the past people actually took pride in 'doing it right'.
And a too descriptive variable name also means you can't repurpose a variable, for example price_per_unit *= number_of_units won't work, cause then the variable will be lying.
cost *= units, on the other hand, works fine.
Repurposing a variable like that is very bad form, it generally makes your code far more complex for the next guy who has to read it. The compiler will deal with the fact that you used two variables instead of one just fine, it'll optimize it down to the same code (well, GCC might not, but any respectable compiler will)
Less code does NOT mean smaller file sizes.
I write (in general) smaller amounts of code than any of the other 4 developers I have to work with, but I also document my code as I write it, the doxygen info for a function or methods is fully written out before I start writing the function. I document then write. My files are always larger because my documentation and commenting is far more complete.
Using shorter variable names does not mean you're writing less code, you're just using less text to do the same thing. That also generally means you're writing unreadable code. Disk space and IO for files used in a compile is irrelevant for any reasonably sized project. If your project is so big that the size of your variable names makes a noticeable difference in your build times ... then you need to reorganize your project.
Good code is self documenting, but being that most of us can't write code that beautiful, proper documentation makes the code suck less for the next guy.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I'm pretty long in the tooth myself, but for the most part, if something has been forgotten, it's because it is no longer of use.
The reason you found it long in the tooth and then followed that statement up with 'its forgotten because its unused' just shows exactly how little experience you have.
First and foremost, an assembly language programmer whos been dealing with 1k or 256 bytes or even 64k can pick up just about any language and whip your ass with it, regardless of how long you've been doing it if you don't have the same sort of experience.
Every single thing you learn doing low level embedded code applies to ALL programming. When you get stupid and start spewing shit like 'ram is cheap' you're the exact type of idiot who not only wastes ram, but ends up with slower lookup times for the required data as well, due to your shitty wasting of memory.
Using ram isn't the problem, its making statements like
But I'm not going to miss the days where you had to figure out how to handle your data set when you couldn't use more than 64k of consecutive memory.
'
that reenforce the fact that you don't get how important those lessons were.
You may write code for a living or for fun, but you are not any sort of software developer or engineer. You are more or less exactly what the full article describes.
most people want to work after a certain time.
No, they 'need' to work, not want to work. They do need the social interaction, occasional praise or critism and all the other little bits that go with your typical job like sunlight. They don't really WANT to have to work, but thats the only sure fire way to get all the little bits of 'living' that our minds need to keep from going bat shit insane cause orange motor cycles don't have doors.
Yes, because editing a wikipedia article is exactly like a journalist or blogger who goes into a country where his race/creed is hated, then makes a public spectacle of himself ... oh yea, and the country just happens to be known for not taking shit from anyone who doesn't agree with them ...
You can't show me one journalist or blogger (and for the record, bloggers are just douche bags writing to a website, they are not fucking journalists) who was beheaded that you couldn't have told them that was going to happen before they started writing. I seriously doubt you can find one instance of it happening where I'd even care about it. No, its not just cause I'm a cold heartless bastard, its because I'm realistic and feel little sympathy for someone who got hit with the obvious that they could have avoided REAL fucking easy by just not going there. No, they had to try to be billy bad ass, and be the jew who got the great news story about the evil palestinian terrorists by infiltrating their training camps ... and then he's fucking shocked when they are like 'hey Benjamin Edelstein, guess what, we know your a jew and now you die!' (for those of you who don't know, Benjamin Edelstein is very obviously jewish name) ... and billy bad ass is no billy bad ass's body, and billy bad ass's head in a box being shipped back to mommy. If you're surprised, you're a moron. Its not right, but it IS reality.
I feel no sympathy for the chinese man who writes bad things about a government known to take people like himself out in the street and shooting them. I'm sorry it happened, but your an idiot if you didn't see it coming. You are NEVER anonymous, someone IS GOING TO GIVE YOU AWAY, even if its a computer. If you don't realize this the world really is better off without you in the gene pool.
Seriously ... bloggers? give me a fucking break. Just because you CAN post to some blog, doesn't mean anyone cares what you're saying. Nor does it mean you SHOULD post on the PUBLIC INTERNET WHERE EVERYONE GOOD OR BAD CAN SEE IT.
Taking out people with no common sense is good for evolution. Sorry your on that list.
Well, because Wikipedia does very little ACTUAL fact checking, contributors do that, with no vested interest in wikipedia's accuracy other than their name on an edit list and maybe some list of 'top contributors' or something silly that no one cares about. The collections you mention actually consist mostly of people verifying facts in articles and finding/weeding out subjectiveness. People that care about doing the job right because the food on their plate is a direct result of them doing their job right. You simply can't say the same for wikipedia editors. Eating and house are far more powerful motivators than some silly edits ranking.
I don't need to know who actually wrote them, the quality of the writing itself gives it credibility. The fact that there are yearly revisions, with the changes published for inspection also lends credibility. The fact that we know they require their books to be accurate in order to maintain credibility in order to sell their product has a lot to do with it as well.
Wikipedia is a joke, no one with even a quarter of a clue considerings wikipedia a credible source for anything. Its a GREAT place to start looking for credible sources, but the free for all approach to wikipedia means you simply can not under any circumstances trust its data, you have to verify it ALL, which means its effectively a useless source. Its much more like the only (yahoo still does this I think) web directories, which were really just starting points for finding useful pages, wikipedia is just a far better version of those, pretending to be a factual reference source. Wikipedia just begs for money every few months in such an obnoxious way that people give in just to get his face the fuck out of view while they go waste a few ours fucking around at work.
I use wikipedia all the time, but you're seriously out of touch with reality if you think its credible or anywhere near large long running encyclopedias. Your argument is basically 'well I don't trust anyone because ...' and you have no reason, just 'because'. Much like most science, I have to trust the work of others to some extent until proven otherwise. If I verified all my sources for EVERYTHING first, I'd spend all my time doing verification. I have plenty of respectable, intelligent, highly educated people AND institutions that consider the Encyclopedia Britannica to safe to assume that its factually accurate.
I don't know anyone who thinks the same thing about Wikipedia, with the exception of some school kids that just want an easy way out of doing actual research and still don't get that ANY encyclopedia is not a valid reference.
Wikipedia isn't being held to a higher standard, they aren't even being held to the same standard. No one anywhere considers the three things you mentioned to be on the same level. Alright, you obviously do, and I'm sure there are others, but to put it bluntly, that just makes you look stupid for being so naive and ignorant of the world around you.
No they don't, statistically, there is no difference in the amount of wrong doers on either said. People on 'the good' side just get by with it more and people on 'the bad side' .
Several studies have show for instance that if say 1 in 20 people is X type of criminal, then 1 in 20 [fireman/policemen/soldiers/guardsmen/sailors/fbi agents/insert WHAT EVER GROUP YOU WANT HERE/catholic priests] are that type of criminal.
The service you are performing generally has nothing to do with how much of a dick you are.
When did everyone become such pussies?
Statistically, crime today is no different than it was in the 1900s. There is no reason for you to cower in your home. Stand up and be a fucking man instead of hiding behind a false identity. There are no more muggings, no more home invasions, no more rapes or murders per person today than there was 100 years ago. The only difference is that today you hear about it, in 1900, you never knew that a school shooting occurred 1500 miles away from you, today the entire world knows it WHILE ITS HAPPENING, but that doesn't mean its happening more.
The only reason you have something to fear is because you bring it on yourself. If you act responsible, considerate and fairly, you'll have no more of a problem than any other job.
Stop being such fucking pansies and live your fucking lives instead of being afraid to do so. God is must suck to be that much of a coward.
The poster is a spam account trying to make his account look more legitimate by making posts and having people reply too him so it looks like he's been here for a while.
When you see something that clearly makes no sense what so ever, assume it was a bot running on a spam account, ESPECIALLY first or nearly first posts. Some of them are clearly MegaHAL based bots by looking at the speech they produce.
Seriously, with the deletionists and all the other rampant Napoleon syndrome/computer courage bastards who have special priveleges it makes it so no one wants to waste their time submitting articles. When you delete an article with perfectly valid info just because it isn't pretty enough, rather than fixing it, you pretty much have made it clear that you don't want people to contribute, you want elitist assholes to contribute.
I'd rather have a poorly written article on some obscure subject than no article on an obscure subject.
The notoriety bullshit needs to go as well, wtf does it matter, the disk space is so fucking cheap that there is absolutely no point in deleting anything ever. So to get notable, I have to put up a couple fake print books on a couple of the sites that will let you publish pretty much any PDF to paper ... so if I want to fake something, I can still do it with practically zero effort. All wp accomplishes by deleting these articles is a loss of potentially useful knowledge.
Deletion for lack of citations is another one. Mark it as uncited in some big obvious way (As is already done) BUT DON'T FUCKING DELETE IT. Just because it doesn't have citations that fit your retarded idea of what a citation needs to be doesn't mean its wrong or invalid. Rather than delete it, let me know its got nothing to back it up (which I can figure out by looking at the citations list ... like you do in every other publication like this) by putting a header on it that says so (already done) but leave the fucking thing there. Someone else might find it and add citations, you gain absolutely nothing by deleting articles. Not only do you lose the articles themselves and their public presence, after a purge you've lost the history too.
The deletionists are basically book burners, and we should treat them EXACTLY the way we'd treat anyone in the real world that came and tried to burn our books ... burn THEM at the stake.
An article is subjective rather than factual? DON'T FUCKING DELETE IT. There is almost certainly SOME validity to even the most subjective of statements. By leaving it there, you're more likely to have some person like me see it and think 'god I hate when fuckers get it so wrong because their fanboys' and I'll spend the next 3 or 4 hours fixing it, adding citations, putting my reasoning on the talk page, ect .... and then the next day some douche will say 'no your wrong' and it magically goes away ... regardless of the fact that I've posted citations to documents on websites like say .... nasa.gov backing up everything I've said. No talk page discussion, just delete or revert depending on the page and the douche thats protecting it.
You want Wikipedia to have a chance? You're going to need to replace your entire staff, and make it publically known that you are doing so, and then you need to pray that all the people like myself who have gotten so fed up with your staffs bullshit ... actually come back and give you a second chance.
You've already dug your own grave Wikipedia, you can now climb in it and we'll bury you, or you can make a good attempt to fix the fucking problem, but fixing the problem is going to require a changing of the guard. And no, there is no other solution. Your staff IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.
Take away the fucking delete button, remove it entirely from the wikimedia software, there is NO REASON it should exist on wikipedia (obviously copyright issues make that statement untrue, but you can deal with that off line manually as the C&D letters come in, its not going to be that common.
Yes, find their ISPs ip ranges in the WHOIS database, send a special notice to anyone coming from those IPs. You'll warn a few people that aren't effected like slashdotters with their own resolvers locally, but those people will get it anyway and probably think you're pretty cool for doing so.
IP allocation information is publicly available, though not always easy to find.
OpenDNS does the same thing you tool, they at least tell you about it, but none the less, they do the exact same thing.
, and if major browsers would silently accept self-signed without drowning the user in a storm of "RUN FOREST, RUN !!!" messages.
Just a hint, every time you say that, it makes it very clear that you have absolutely no idea how SSL works. SSL with unverified certificates is absolutely useless, which means blindly accepting it and pretending its okay is a lie of omission to the user, its basically snake oil instead of something useful.
At the very minimum, the user has to be prompted to verify the unknown certificate. You must make the wording here strong enough that people GET that its a dangerous decision. You setup a site with a self signed cert, then your upstream ISP just MITMs it, and instantly your SSL means exactly DICK because no one will know the difference except for the people who get a warning that its a different certain than the previously self signed one ... which means they'll get that warning every year or so anyway (unless you're just retarded and using long term certs, again showing you completely fail to understand SSL and what makes it secure).
But it would be very nice if I could publish a flag in DNSSEC that could say "This is my certificate thumbprint, use it", and leverage the secure DNS tree instead of the insecure and bogus certificate industry.
That may happen to some extent, but your missing the point of SSL. A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY has verified the identity of the certificate holder (well, thats the theory anyway, we've seen examples of where it breaks down occasionally). DNS is unverified, I could go buy MTV.COM if no one else had done so (and made a fucking fortune selling it to them ;), and then publish my own certs as you suggest, and put up sites and make it look like I'm MTV and you would have absolutely no way what so ever to verify that I really am MTV, all you know is that I bought a domain, which has absolutely 0 verification associated with it. With SSL the way it works, someone else has verified the company information that MTV.COM uses in their certs, so when I view the information, I know with a high degree of trust that the information presented to me is accurate, so when it says whatever MTV.com's cert says for the company name, I can trust that its true and that I'm talking to a server that not only the owner says is the right one, but someone else, whom I trust to verify their information has also verified it. The third party makes it WAY harder to lie about who you are, which cuts out MITM attacks, which is the entire point, making sure no one in the middle can read or modify your data.
Why again should I have to fork a pile of cash to obtain a bit string that says that I actually own the domain I'm using ?
A pile of cash? Seriously? Their like 15 fucking bucks from godaddy. If you can't spend $15 dollars on a cert, you probably can't afford to do most everything else required to run a website. I'm sorry, this is a stupid fucking reason to not have an SSL cert, if you can't pay $15, you need to go home. A pan handler on the streets of washington DC makes $100-150/day ... and you can't spare $15 for a cert? You're priorities are fucked up.
Of course, those are shitty certs that I specifically don't trust and have removed the godaddy certs from my trusted roots, but I'm certainly a rare example of that, and go daddy isn't the only source of cheap certs.
The reason it costs money is because someone actually needs to put a little effort into verifying not that 'you own the domain' but that you ARE who you say you are, and you're not some fake company that doesn't actually exist just running a scam. Now we've seen plenty of examples of how some shitty cert provider fucks up and allows it to happen anyway, but that generally gets fixed and doesn't happen again.
Second, it weeds out a bunch of people who want to do stuff, but really don't know how and won't maintain their sit
Do you have browser caching turned off or something or do you just browse so freaking much your browser cache is overflowing regularly.
You're right on automatic updates, but being that you can just schedule them for a time when your lines aren't busy, which seems a whole lot simpler than setting up a proxy.
I find your numbers suspect. Perhaps in a large enough household, with a bunch of facebook users or something where you guys visit the same set of sites, but in my house, which is small with only 2 perm residents and a couple that float in and out from time to time, family is like that :/ ... when I bothered with a caching proxy we saw almost 0 cache hits from it, we all browse different stuff and our browsers handle the caching just fine.
I do run a caching DNS server, but thats only because I have different DNS views internally for a few personal/work domains in order to keep that traffic flowing over the VPN connections, caching is on anyway so its not like I have to maintain it. I do have to occasionally flush it rather than wait for name updates, but again thats just due to my work environment.
- I will defeat most of the benefits of running local caching proxy servers (come on, this is /., surely I'm not the only one with a proxy array at home?)
I think you'll find the percentage pretty low, the only people who do it really are those with more time than money, as in most cases it offers very little benefit.
My browser caches pretty well on its own, there are 2 people in my house, me and my wife. We view pretty much 0 related content on the web with the exception of photos ... which are served locally anyway. A cache proxy is going to get almost 0 cache hits in normal usage, except for that one time when I happen to look at an old reference manual 3 months down the road after my browser forgot it.
Running a cache proxy at home is something you do when you don't have a real job and want to futz around in your free time, maybe learn about it so you can use it at a job and make yourself more valuable. I get that. The rest of us however, don't have time to set it up (yes, I know its almost trivial, but lets face it, you gotta tweak it for yourself and next thing you know, its 5 hours later). And then a year or two later it breaks, or you futz with the firewall or upgrade the OS and the transparent part of it breaks, so you open it up so your wife can browse and never get around to fixing it again.
Basically, running a local proxy at home is a toy for people with extra free time, and occasionally, someone doing some testing, which I admit, my home network is a functional testbed for future rollouts at the office. But its not something everyone does, its limited to a few geeks, even here on slashdot.