Re:5 years in the business...
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
XSLT: Have you tried it? I rest my case.
I've tried it, and I ended up loving it. Of course, I'm not using it as it was intended. I'm using it to convert DocBook into HTML and PDF statically. This is a heck of a lot better than using SGML/Jade.
Like XML, XSLT is being adopted in areas the authors never really intended, but ignored in those they did. I use XML in several areas, so when my employer offered to send me to an XML class for free, I accepted. It was horrible! The examples used by the professor always kept coming back to this web application where everything was done on-the-fly dynamically by XML tools. He raptured ecstatically about a future when all web browsers would be native XML browsers, downloading schemas on the fly to render the pages. Hah! It all looks good on paper, but falls down when it hits the real world. He never once mentioned real world applications of XML, and when I inquired about using XML for file formats and structured documentation, he said, "Hmmm, interesting ideas. I guess it could be used for that...". I won't say his name, but this is one of the chief XML evangelists.
It's even worse with many GTK+ programs sticking to gtk1 instead of moving on to gtk2. Thus you end up with duplicate libraries. For instance, I use Gimp and Dia all the time. But Gimp (stable) is a gtk1 program while Dia is a gtk2 program. So I decided to go to the development version of Gimp to eliminate the redundancy, only to find that Xmms still used gtk1. Aaargh!
If your favorite Gizmo is working with Windows, but the vendor tells you they make no driver for Linux, why would you switch?
My friend's favorite gizmo had drivers for Windows 98, but NOT for Windows XP. So he didn't upgrade. Then he got a new gizmo with drivers for XP but not 98. What should he do?
Oh so true. Windows 95 came out and IBM's response was to increase the price and discontinue the preloads of OS/2. Another blunders included replacing the good and inexpensive CSet/2 compiler with the good but insanely expensive VisualAge compiler.
But this really wasn't marketing, but corporate schizophrenia instead. OS/2, the PC, VisualAge, and LotusWorks, all were in divisions separated by inviolate walls of corporate structure. Imagine those four combined into a single attractive price...
Under Win98SE, you just unplug the USB device. No complains
That might explain some of those random errors you've been getting:-)
Windows can get away with this somewhat because they're mounting the device synchronously. But you're still going to have problems if you yank out the drive while it's still writing. The problems won't occur immediately or all the time, but you will get them.
At my work we've started distributing new builds (internally) for embedded Win2K and WinXP systems using USB storage devices, instead of burning CDs. Costwise, this was a very good move. Quick, simple, and cheap. But we got a huge upswing in bug reports from QA. Turns out that they weren't properly "stopping" the USB devices, but just yanking them out the second the files were copied over. After instructing them on the proper way to unattach a USB device, these mysterious crashes disappeared.
So, is there some way to catch the signal from the eject button and unmount the cd automatically?
There is a way, but I don't know what it is. The Solaris volume manager does this, so I see no reason why other Unix systems can't do the same. I suspect that some of the newer automounters can.
Until then, why should they throw good money after bad?
They don't have to throw good money after bad. But neither do they have to tell SuSE and Mandrake users to use Windows on the desktop. Yet that's what they're saying. If SuSE and Mandrake wish to throw good money after bad, it's none of Redhat's business.
So can Linux if the distribution sets it up to do so. Today. Not years from now, but today. There is nothing stopping a distro from using hotplug to detect an attached camera, automounting it, and throwing up a new icon on the desktop or system tray. One single shell script will do this. In FreeBSD, it would only need an entry in usbd.conf.
I would be quite surprised if there weren't already some distros that have this. OOB.
If Mr. Szulik doesn't want to maintain a distro for average users because he doesn't see any money in it, that's his choice. Heck, I might even agree with him. But that's not what he said.
Operating systems are a "trickle up" technology in many ways. Microsoft made inroads into the enterprise markets by being ubiquitous on the desktop. For Redhat to ignore the desktop is to squander its future in favor of present incomes. IHMO.
What world have you been living in? When I plug a standard device into a Windows system, I cross my fingers hoping it will be recognized. Most of the time I have to *install* drivers for it.
Even those these drivers come with the hardware in the form of a CD, it's still a far cry from working "right away". I took my camera home when I visited my mom, and forget to bring along the CD. Even though it was a standard USB mass storage device, it didn't work "right away" on her Windows system. I had to go download a driver for it.
From someone without computer experience, what the hell is "mounting" a hard drive?
Mounting a drive is merely the process of making it available for the user to use. It got it's name from the old days when you literally mounted a reel of tape on a spindle, or literally mounted a disk platter on the drive unit.
Under UNIX, there is a single directory tree. There are no drive letters like C:, D:, etc. So mounting a drive sets it's location (or mount point) on that single directory tree.
If you don't have removable drives, you need never worry about it. But of course you have CDROMs, DVDs and USB devices to hassle with. The traditional UNIX means to deal with these in a "friendly" manner was an auto-mounter of some kind.
Windows also mounts drives, but most are done automatically so you never notice it. Insert a CDROM and it mounts automatically. Push the eject button, and it automatically dismounts before ejecting.
At least it was automatic until recently. Ever use a USB camera or storage device? Do to the nature of USB, Windows can't get the signal that the device has been removed before it gets removed. This is bad. So Windows make you unmount it first. But they don't call it unmounting (or all the UNIX guys would be razzing them for it). Instead they call it "stopping" the device. Before you remove it, you have to click on the USB icon with the green arrow in the systray, then "stop" it. You're only supposed to remove it when Windows tells you that you can.
Under the Macintosh (old and new), you unmounted devices by dragging them to the trashcan. Same concept.
Linux desktop not pass the grandma/soccer-mom test
B.F.Hairy.D.
The mistake being made here is that Linux will please everyone. No operating system ever will. I highly suspect that your Grandma can't even handle Windows unless it's preinstalled and a geek kid downloaded into her neighborhood.
The target audience shouldn't be everyone. It should be the average user. Not below average, but average. That's doable, and I think some Linux distros are already there. And I'm not necessarily talking about the "newbie" distros.
Redhat wants us to develop and test fedora for free, turn around sell it to enteprise for big bucks.
No one is forcing you to develop for or test Fedora. Although I somewhat agree with you in my distaste of performing unpaid QA work for corporations, the choice to do it is still up to you. If you don't like it, stick with noncommercial systems like Debian and FreeBSD, or "just enough revenue to pay our developers" systems like Slackware.
They have incorporated and then licensed software from BSD developers without paying one red cent.
Anything other than portions of the TCP/IP stack?
The point for the grandparent post, is that Microsoft is following the terms and conditions of the BSD license. The developers weren't looking for monetary renumeration, so it's no disappointment when none comes. But what if the BSD developers had demanded payment for checkin to the Microsoft code base? Then Microsoft would have written their own incompatible stack, and we would have all been worse off.
If you check, the BSD TCP/IP stack had already been paid for. That's right, BSD got paid to write it. DARPA paid them. That they didn't get additional payment from Microsoft is skin off of no one's back.
For the average person that needs to be able to plug in their digital camera without going into the terminal window, we think that the user's experience with any brand of Linux will be sub-par.
Has Mr. Szulik ever used Linux? I plug in my digital camera, click on the camera icon on my desktop, and up pops a folder with all of the pictures in it.
Of course, I had to set this up myself, since this capability didn't come out of the box. But it wasn't difficult. I never once had to open a terminal window to do it. This was under FreeBSD, which doesn't have hotplug. It would would have even easier under Linux.
What Mr. Szulik is deliberately turning away people who WANT to use Linux. While I can understand him not wanting to recommend Redhat/Fedora to those who are perfectly happy with Windows, it boggles the mind that he would turn away paying customers waiting at the checkout stand. The average person who WANTS to use Linux (as opposed to merely the average user) is going to be capable of using their digital camera with Linux.
I would reboot the router, reboot the modem.... call the help desk to see what the problem is.
If they are anything like my ISP, you've missed quite a few steps.
Argue with ISP. Disconnect router, since they don't support it. Argue with ISP. Reboot out of superior OS and into Windows. Argue with ISP. Hunt for cheesy ISP software CD. Install cheesy ISP software. Argue with ISP. Run rebranded PPPoE software with banner ads. ISP finally informs you, "I'm sorry sir, but our service is temporarily down in your area."
Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.
If you read and understand the licenses, you'll find out that while the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, the GPL most certainly is NOT compatible with the BSD. One GPLd device driver for the kernel, and suddenly your whole base system isn't under the BSD license any more.
The various BSDs are glad to use GPL software. But they must take care that it doesn't infect other software.
I use GPLd software all the time. But when I write my own software, it's going to be as free of restrictions as I can possibly make it. This means the BSD and MIT licenses (since releasing software under the public domain is not feasible). Of course, you can pay me to put it under another license, even the GPL. Do I hear any offers?
"the BSD license is more friendly to big companies"
Is there any particular reason we should be unfriendly to them instead?
You've got it backwards. Imagine, for one moment, your whole life has been dedicated to the ideology of perfection. Then you discover that one of your disciples is more perfect than you. This more perfect person has gone from being a follower to being a leader. He threatens your place at the front of the revolution. That is unacceptable.
Thomas Bushnell is more devoted to the ideals of GNU than Richard Stallman is. Richard cannot tolerate this, so he was removed from his position.
and as a european, I'm very glad of all the work that Stallman has done
What does being European have to do with anything? Was there going to be some EU directive outlawing Free Software until RMS came along and stopped it?
They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution.
This is so petty it boggles the mind. In fact, it's so petty it makes me suspicious that RMS merely got pissed at a Debian developer instead.
It is entirely possible and quite simple to aquire, install and use Debian without once seeing non-free software anywhere near your system, with no loss of functionality. That there may be non-free software elsewhere on the ftp site is irrelevant.
Three years ago we had a Solaris network, Sun workstations, Netscape mail and calendar server, etc. There were five sysadmins for 1200 employees. An "Intro to UNIX" class was held twice a year, and an "Advanced UNIX" class once a year. All in all, it was a traditional, stable, robust, and boring infrastructure.
Then we got bought out by a huge multinational. We went Microsoft-only. We're now on a Windows network, Win2K and WinXP workstations, Exchange server, etc. We have 20 MCSE's for 1000 employees. Introduction to Windows classes are held quarterly, with additional classes in Word, Access, PowerPoint, etc. Our network is now unstable, frequently down, and very exciting. We have to reboot our workstations to apply patches about twice a week.
he most obvious one: If Linux has so many more resources, than why doesn't it have all the features of Windows already? Flame me all you want, but it doesn't.
Actually, Linux has MORE features than Windows does. A Harley Davidson motocycle has more features than a Schwinn bicycle, despite the fact that the Harley doesn't have peddles.
Does this mean I might need to fork over $699 to keep using CP/M on my DEC Rainbow to run Hack (as in, precursor to NetHack)?
Until they removed it from the base system last year, classic hack was part of the FreeBSD base system. Now it's available in the freebsd-games port. Of course, that's only until Darl gets around early next year to charging $699 for it.
it's far more likely to be exploited by the wicked than the virtuous, as it's the bad guys who've got something to hind.
Some quotes from Phil Zimmerman, author of PGP (emphasis mine):
Its personal. Its private.
And its no ones business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing your taxes, or having a secret romance. Or you may be communicating with a political dissident in a repressive country. Whatever it is, you don't want your private electronic mail (email) or confidential documents read by anyone else. Theres nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution.
If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then
why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut? Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email?
Slashdot Mirror
XSLT: Have you tried it? I rest my case.
I've tried it, and I ended up loving it. Of course, I'm not using it as it was intended. I'm using it to convert DocBook into HTML and PDF statically. This is a heck of a lot better than using SGML/Jade.
Like XML, XSLT is being adopted in areas the authors never really intended, but ignored in those they did. I use XML in several areas, so when my employer offered to send me to an XML class for free, I accepted. It was horrible! The examples used by the professor always kept coming back to this web application where everything was done on-the-fly dynamically by XML tools. He raptured ecstatically about a future when all web browsers would be native XML browsers, downloading schemas on the fly to render the pages. Hah! It all looks good on paper, but falls down when it hits the real world. He never once mentioned real world applications of XML, and when I inquired about using XML for file formats and structured documentation, he said, "Hmmm, interesting ideas. I guess it could be used for that...". I won't say his name, but this is one of the chief XML evangelists.
It's even worse with many GTK+ programs sticking to gtk1 instead of moving on to gtk2. Thus you end up with duplicate libraries. For instance, I use Gimp and Dia all the time. But Gimp (stable) is a gtk1 program while Dia is a gtk2 program. So I decided to go to the development version of Gimp to eliminate the redundancy, only to find that Xmms still used gtk1. Aaargh!
If your favorite Gizmo is working with Windows, but the vendor tells you they make no driver for Linux, why would you switch?
My friend's favorite gizmo had drivers for Windows 98, but NOT for Windows XP. So he didn't upgrade. Then he got a new gizmo with drivers for XP but not 98. What should he do?
Maybe because they've never been really cheap.
Oh so true. Windows 95 came out and IBM's response was to increase the price and discontinue the preloads of OS/2. Another blunders included replacing the good and inexpensive CSet/2 compiler with the good but insanely expensive VisualAge compiler.
But this really wasn't marketing, but corporate schizophrenia instead. OS/2, the PC, VisualAge, and LotusWorks, all were in divisions separated by inviolate walls of corporate structure. Imagine those four combined into a single attractive price...
Under Win98SE, you just unplug the USB device. No complains
:-)
That might explain some of those random errors you've been getting
Windows can get away with this somewhat because they're mounting the device synchronously. But you're still going to have problems if you yank out the drive while it's still writing. The problems won't occur immediately or all the time, but you will get them.
At my work we've started distributing new builds (internally) for embedded Win2K and WinXP systems using USB storage devices, instead of burning CDs. Costwise, this was a very good move. Quick, simple, and cheap. But we got a huge upswing in bug reports from QA. Turns out that they weren't properly "stopping" the USB devices, but just yanking them out the second the files were copied over. After instructing them on the proper way to unattach a USB device, these mysterious crashes disappeared.
So, is there some way to catch the signal from the eject button and unmount the cd automatically?
There is a way, but I don't know what it is. The Solaris volume manager does this, so I see no reason why other Unix systems can't do the same. I suspect that some of the newer automounters can.
Until then, why should they throw good money after bad?
They don't have to throw good money after bad. But neither do they have to tell SuSE and Mandrake users to use Windows on the desktop. Yet that's what they're saying. If SuSE and Mandrake wish to throw good money after bad, it's none of Redhat's business.
Windows does all this OOB
So can Linux if the distribution sets it up to do so. Today. Not years from now, but today. There is nothing stopping a distro from using hotplug to detect an attached camera, automounting it, and throwing up a new icon on the desktop or system tray. One single shell script will do this. In FreeBSD, it would only need an entry in usbd.conf.
I would be quite surprised if there weren't already some distros that have this. OOB.
If Mr. Szulik doesn't want to maintain a distro for average users because he doesn't see any money in it, that's his choice. Heck, I might even agree with him. But that's not what he said.
Operating systems are a "trickle up" technology in many ways. Microsoft made inroads into the enterprise markets by being ubiquitous on the desktop. For Redhat to ignore the desktop is to squander its future in favor of present incomes. IHMO.
What world have you been living in? When I plug a standard device into a Windows system, I cross my fingers hoping it will be recognized. Most of the time I have to *install* drivers for it.
Even those these drivers come with the hardware in the form of a CD, it's still a far cry from working "right away". I took my camera home when I visited my mom, and forget to bring along the CD. Even though it was a standard USB mass storage device, it didn't work "right away" on her Windows system. I had to go download a driver for it.
From someone without computer experience, what the hell is "mounting" a hard drive?
Mounting a drive is merely the process of making it available for the user to use. It got it's name from the old days when you literally mounted a reel of tape on a spindle, or literally mounted a disk platter on the drive unit.
Under UNIX, there is a single directory tree. There are no drive letters like C:, D:, etc. So mounting a drive sets it's location (or mount point) on that single directory tree.
If you don't have removable drives, you need never worry about it. But of course you have CDROMs, DVDs and USB devices to hassle with. The traditional UNIX means to deal with these in a "friendly" manner was an auto-mounter of some kind.
Windows also mounts drives, but most are done automatically so you never notice it. Insert a CDROM and it mounts automatically. Push the eject button, and it automatically dismounts before ejecting.
At least it was automatic until recently. Ever use a USB camera or storage device? Do to the nature of USB, Windows can't get the signal that the device has been removed before it gets removed. This is bad. So Windows make you unmount it first. But they don't call it unmounting (or all the UNIX guys would be razzing them for it). Instead they call it "stopping" the device. Before you remove it, you have to click on the USB icon with the green arrow in the systray, then "stop" it. You're only supposed to remove it when Windows tells you that you can.
Under the Macintosh (old and new), you unmounted devices by dragging them to the trashcan. Same concept.
provided that you've installed a gphoto2-based app such as gtkam or kamera
Heck, with my Olympus, you don't even need that. Just plug it in and you're done.
Linux desktop not pass the grandma/soccer-mom test
B.F.Hairy.D.
The mistake being made here is that Linux will please everyone. No operating system ever will. I highly suspect that your Grandma can't even handle Windows unless it's preinstalled and a geek kid downloaded into her neighborhood.
The target audience shouldn't be everyone. It should be the average user. Not below average, but average. That's doable, and I think some Linux distros are already there. And I'm not necessarily talking about the "newbie" distros.
Redhat wants us to develop and test fedora for free, turn around sell it to enteprise for big bucks.
No one is forcing you to develop for or test Fedora. Although I somewhat agree with you in my distaste of performing unpaid QA work for corporations, the choice to do it is still up to you. If you don't like it, stick with noncommercial systems like Debian and FreeBSD, or "just enough revenue to pay our developers" systems like Slackware.
They have incorporated and then licensed software from BSD developers without paying one red cent.
Anything other than portions of the TCP/IP stack?
The point for the grandparent post, is that Microsoft is following the terms and conditions of the BSD license. The developers weren't looking for monetary renumeration, so it's no disappointment when none comes. But what if the BSD developers had demanded payment for checkin to the Microsoft code base? Then Microsoft would have written their own incompatible stack, and we would have all been worse off.
If you check, the BSD TCP/IP stack had already been paid for. That's right, BSD got paid to write it. DARPA paid them. That they didn't get additional payment from Microsoft is skin off of no one's back.
For the average person that needs to be able to plug in their digital camera without going into the terminal window, we think that the user's experience with any brand of Linux will be sub-par.
Has Mr. Szulik ever used Linux? I plug in my digital camera, click on the camera icon on my desktop, and up pops a folder with all of the pictures in it.
Of course, I had to set this up myself, since this capability didn't come out of the box. But it wasn't difficult. I never once had to open a terminal window to do it. This was under FreeBSD, which doesn't have hotplug. It would would have even easier under Linux.
What Mr. Szulik is deliberately turning away people who WANT to use Linux. While I can understand him not wanting to recommend Redhat/Fedora to those who are perfectly happy with Windows, it boggles the mind that he would turn away paying customers waiting at the checkout stand. The average person who WANTS to use Linux (as opposed to merely the average user) is going to be capable of using their digital camera with Linux.
I would reboot the router, reboot the modem .... call the help desk to see what the problem is.
If they are anything like my ISP, you've missed quite a few steps.
Argue with ISP. Disconnect router, since they don't support it. Argue with ISP. Reboot out of superior OS and into Windows. Argue with ISP. Hunt for cheesy ISP software CD. Install cheesy ISP software. Argue with ISP. Run rebranded PPPoE software with banner ads. ISP finally informs you, "I'm sorry sir, but our service is temporarily down in your area."
Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.
If you read and understand the licenses, you'll find out that while the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, the GPL most certainly is NOT compatible with the BSD. One GPLd device driver for the kernel, and suddenly your whole base system isn't under the BSD license any more.
The various BSDs are glad to use GPL software. But they must take care that it doesn't infect other software.
I use GPLd software all the time. But when I write my own software, it's going to be as free of restrictions as I can possibly make it. This means the BSD and MIT licenses (since releasing software under the public domain is not feasible). Of course, you can pay me to put it under another license, even the GPL. Do I hear any offers?
"the BSD license is more friendly to big companies"
Is there any particular reason we should be unfriendly to them instead?
You've got it backwards. Imagine, for one moment, your whole life has been dedicated to the ideology of perfection. Then you discover that one of your disciples is more perfect than you. This more perfect person has gone from being a follower to being a leader. He threatens your place at the front of the revolution. That is unacceptable.
Thomas Bushnell is more devoted to the ideals of GNU than Richard Stallman is. Richard cannot tolerate this, so he was removed from his position.
and as a european, I'm very glad of all the work that Stallman has done
What does being European have to do with anything? Was there going to be some EU directive outlawing Free Software until RMS came along and stopped it?
They even have a beef with Debian, a distribution which requires all software in its release to be free, because they maintain non-free software on the same servers as their distribution.
This is so petty it boggles the mind. In fact, it's so petty it makes me suspicious that RMS merely got pissed at a Debian developer instead.
It is entirely possible and quite simple to aquire, install and use Debian without once seeing non-free software anywhere near your system, with no loss of functionality. That there may be non-free software elsewhere on the ftp site is irrelevant.
My company would make a good case study.
Three years ago we had a Solaris network, Sun workstations, Netscape mail and calendar server, etc. There were five sysadmins for 1200 employees. An "Intro to UNIX" class was held twice a year, and an "Advanced UNIX" class once a year. All in all, it was a traditional, stable, robust, and boring infrastructure.
Then we got bought out by a huge multinational. We went Microsoft-only. We're now on a Windows network, Win2K and WinXP workstations, Exchange server, etc. We have 20 MCSE's for 1000 employees. Introduction to Windows classes are held quarterly, with additional classes in Word, Access, PowerPoint, etc. Our network is now unstable, frequently down, and very exciting. We have to reboot our workstations to apply patches about twice a week.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
he most obvious one: If Linux has so many more resources, than why doesn't it have all the features of Windows already? Flame me all you want, but it doesn't.
Actually, Linux has MORE features than Windows does. A Harley Davidson motocycle has more features than a Schwinn bicycle, despite the fact that the Harley doesn't have peddles.
Does this mean I might need to fork over $699 to keep using CP/M on my DEC Rainbow to run Hack (as in, precursor to NetHack)?
Until they removed it from the base system last year, classic hack was part of the FreeBSD base system. Now it's available in the freebsd-games port. Of course, that's only until Darl gets around early next year to charging $699 for it.
Some quotes from Phil Zimmerman, author of PGP (emphasis mine):