that this will all turn out horribly wrong in the end? Am I just alergic to large corporations in general?
Is my tinfoil hat on too tight?
It's really hard to fault you, actually. History is hard to forget, and it's not unreasonable to wonder if a company can really change it's culture and philosophy so radically.
On the other hand, if someone is giving you a bunch of cool stuff ( i.e. source code ), and doing so under terms ( i.e. license ) that are acceptable to you... it's generally a good thing. I'm not seeing the downside, at least for OSS developers. The downside could be there, of course... but I can't easily think of what it could be.
The upside for IBM, on the other hand, is pretty obvious... it's not like they've done this entirely without thinking of their own benefit. Maybe thinking of it that way will make you feel better? It's not so much that IBM has radically changed ( though it has ), it's that they've figured out how to leverage open source development ?
I didn't know LSD made you pretencious and arrogant. No wonder everyone was a dick in the 70s.
You're thinking of cocaine.
It also makes you jump around like a monkey, yelling and sweating a lot, now that I think about it... hmmm... that's a description of that other Steve, isn't it ?
Actually, it's the "year of HD" , specifically editing HD on your computer ( you said it right the first time, I suspect you meant to type HD and your brain flipped you to DV instead )... HD of course really will need Firewire, will benefit greatly from Firewire800, and definitely would hurt to transfer over USB2.0... so you may have a point, though every Mac I know about has two Firewire ports anyway... so mostly, it's a cost cutting measure, still... that and a nod to all the windows users with USB2.0 and no Firewire.
It's interesting to note that Firewire cards for PCs are super-cheap ( I found one that's 14 bucks new ), so the reason that few PC folks have Firewire points to the truth that few people are interested in opening their cases and using their extra PCI slots. They also don't see reason to use Firewire, since they're not editing video and can get USB2.0 drives ( and don't use external drives anyway ), but... interesting, anyway.
maybe they had the intentions of fighting it and went, "Hmm, holy ekki lokiman, we've got like 10g $_$ on our hands. Do we fight for some piracy ring, lose all of our money and go to prison, or do we bail with the money."
Well, since it turns out there really was MPAA action, it's maybe more like "maybe we make a deal with the MPAA and bail"... in which case, it looks like the MPAA, through sheer dumb luck and legal muscle, managed to make some money off of p2p. Or, at least their lawyers did.
Well, no. They had USB 2.0 chips and interfaces, but Apple had disabled the hi-speed 2.0 in software so that the fast interface was (you guessed it)... Firewire.
That goes in the "obviously not true" category. Besides, Firewire400 is faster than USB2.0 anyway...
It may be true that Apple had USB2.0 hardware out in some machines before it had USB 2.0 drivers, but, if so, it's been quite a while. Apple had USB keyboards and mice standard long before USB 2.0 was even a concept.
Firewire has not spread successfully beyond Apple.
Right, which is why all these camcorders have USB 2.0. Oh, wait, they don't ? Ok... more and more do all the time. Are there any that are USB2.0 only yet?
To an extent, you're right. The consumer level is going to USB 2.0. The mid-to-high-end stuff, though, will still support Firewire. It's certainly not going away.
Apple has actually backed both USB and Firewire. Macs were going standard with USB-only serial ports before most PC users even knew what USB was... the only people getting even slightly burned here are ( relatively ) long-time Mac users who are looking to buy new iPods. Even then, heck, they buy an iPod dock, what's the big deal? Yet another non-story on/. is all...
Don't dismiss the notion that USB 2.0 isn't fast enough. Buy an HD camcorder and you'll be wanting Firewire 800 to import that video, I promise... yea, I know, that's fairly high-end... today.
Even on my Macs, I have quite a few more USB ports than firewire ones, which means less swapping when I want to plug my camcorder, iPod, iSight, and hard drive in at the same time.
Right, but are your USB ports 1.1 or 2.0 ? It's an important distinction.
Do you actually have a USB camcorder?
Anyway, the reason this is a big deal to some is that, up until fairly recently, iMacs only had USB1.1. The mistake was not including USB2.0 on their computers earlier - giving iPod users the more commonly required cable is the right choice, really.
Apple's "ITiVo" could launch with 3 million users.
That's a great theory, but a big part of TiVo's current problem in marketing TiVo-To-Go and other add-ons is that it's largest group of subscribers ( DirecTV users ) isn't able to use their networking features.
Any company that buys TiVo will effectively have a lot fewer than 3 million users, since DirecTV won't let them enable the networking on those units... I guess they're afraid of hackers modding the boxes or something...
As for the viewing data, any company with tuners in the living room has that ( Comcast, DirecTV even without TiVo, etc ).
I agree that video-on-demand is a logical next step, but I don't think the bandwidth is there yet. iTunes could have been launched years before it was, but the market wouldn't have been there... Apple's going to wait until the time is right for "iTiVO", and it's not going to be now...
Someone found a business model to get pirates to pay for content!!
Step 1) set up torrent site Step 2) claim MPAA takedown Step 3) collect money from torrent downloaders, then run away and PROFIT !!!
The process probably can't be repeated too many times, though... do you figure they made more money than they would have through advertisements ? I'm guessing they did...
Sure, we had Broadcast Flag in Trouble [slashdot.org] and Court Says FCC Out-of-Bounds With Digital TV [slashdot.org]...but you also missed Preparing for the Broadcast Flag? [slashdot.org], where these this court ruling was already mentioned [slashdot.org]
And of course, as mentioned in almost all of those articles, there was NO ruling. It's just a spot-on comment from the judge. He's likely to rule that way, since he made such a strong comment, but still... no ruling. So we've seen 3 dupes of a non-story, basically.
At 12:21 pm someone calling himself "philipswann" posted the following on the Yahoo board:
TiVo Sale Rumors -- link
by: phillipswann 02/23/05 12:21 pm
Msg: 239226 of 239994
Thanks for that. It's nice to know where this all started, because... well, despite all of the talk and speculation, I don't see how it would make _any_ sense at all for Apple.
The true advantage TiVo has in the marketplace consist of (1) some patents on DVR tech and concepts, like Season Pass and such, (2) scheduling data to support that. Other than that, their service and tech are pretty straightforward things that almost any company ( or heck, open source project ) could duplicate with a bit of effort. This is why they haven't been bought out by Comcast or someone already ( that and, oh, they've said they don't _want_ to be bought ).
Anyway, while Steve is full of surprises, I don't really see where TiVo's services fit into Apple's game plan, unless Apple actually does have a handheld video device in it's plans. Personally, I don't think they do - Steve is right; except for the kids in the back of the mini van, I don't know many folks who wants to watch video on a portable. I'm not watching a bunch of movies on my laptop while I'm on vacation. Handheld video players aren't exactly flying off the shelves. Except via cable systems, we aren't yet approaching the bandwidth needed for even standard definition movie downloads at reasonable speeds. The market for TiVo-to-Go isn't really there, short of letting you burn DVDs of broadcast shows, which TiVo-to-Go doesn't do, and that's actually a pretty limited market, too. So why would Apple want to aquire a money-loosing division??
In short, buying TiVo makes way more sense for Microsoft than Apple, wouldn't it? But really, why would either company want to bother ? Wait a while and TiVo might actually end up being available for cheaper... or roll your own for cheaper... and I say that despite the fact that I frickin' love my TiVo.
Partnerships, sure, those make sense. But buying TiVo ? Why buy when you can partner and get TiVo-To-Go support for your platform ( the only thing Apple is likely to really be interested in ) for a whole heck of a lot less cash ???
Either make it a pay service and respect people's privacy by not gathering statistics or support if via selling those statistics and providing the service for free... not both. I'm sure the TiVo apologists will emerge soon to defend their baby to the death.
While I won't defend the policy, I'll point out that every single cable company with has the same click-tracking capability with their digital cable set-top boxes. TiVo is no different from anyone else in this regard.
And by the way, Ajax is just their name for the technology...they didn't invent it or combine it, it's not really new.
Wow, I guess when I said :
"write an ungodly big JavaScript to pass XML between the server and client". Sounds great... really new, groundbreaking stuff there.
I should have put a (sarcasm, folks ) there as well ?!?
don't have to sit around waiting for the server, I can be doing other things in the page at the same time.
Like what?!??
to get new data I don't have to refresh the page and fetch everything again, I can get only what is important to retrieve.
I thought that's what CSS was supposed to do?? I shouldn't say that, really, I understand that use of Javascript... but it doesn't make sense unless there's one _small_ bit of data you're retrieving amongst a _lot_ of static stuff... in the case of a lot of sites, like news sites and mapping sites, the big stuff are images ( which my browser caches if you don't change their names/URLs ) and what you're so concerned with reloading is a little page of text, or an image that's new anyway...
What I'm going to say may shock you, but I've QA'd some sites developed with and without Javascript designed exactly the way you say. In general, the bandwidth savings you're talking about don't happen. 10%, maybe. 20%, never. If you're getting that much traffic, are you saying you can't afford another server or more bandwidth?
I guess you won't be responding again, once I point out that there are three sections of Javascript in this very page.
That is pretty funny, but, as I point out elsewhere, my only _serious_ objection is where scripts prevent the use of websites entirely. You can turn off Javascript on this page and you'll never miss it.
Of course not. But you are describing it as if developers have to choose between the two options. They can use both - offering automatic notifications for browsers that have XMLHttpRequest, and letting people using other browsers click the button manually.
If developers _did_ use both, I wouldn't be as annoyed with Javascript ( and Google Maps ) as I am. The sad fact is that all too often, developers ( too be fair, probably their product managers ) don't choose to use both techniques, and that's why I ( and many others ) dislike Javascript, as I keep saying, perhaps unfairly. It's just another tool, with good uses... which is frequently used improperly.
Hey, I'm perfectly aware that you can have the script engine component be a small, managable layer that's customized for each page. I also know from experience that it's going to be tempting for some developers less skilled ( or more ambitious ) than you to create large, unmanageable scripts which remove the concept of "page"... though that's honestly a bigger problem for developers than users - but the "AJAX Engine" isn't going to always be small, either, and somehow I doubt you're being totally honest ( even to yourself ) by describing that layer in terms of a single XMLHttpRequest call... check out the script on Google Maps... maybe you have a different idea of what a 'small' javascript is than I do, but that looks pretty big to me... and we're just going to get more of the same- and, like google maps, we're going to get more "your browser not supported".
So exactly what is your problem?
Websites that require certain browsers/OS combinations, when they don't need to do so, didn't I make that clear ? What's your problem ?
I clearly stated that my aversion to Javascript is just a personal bias, why jump all over it ? I can't imagine why I thought you were a big Javascript fan... jeesh...
You mean you just responded with all that because I characterized the "Ajax Engine" as a large Javascript? Only because that's what I've seen strewn across the web, large scripts by coders who are sure they're being very clever... you probably write nice, small, manageable scripts, but, if so, you're not the norm there. How big would your engine layer need to be to be correctly characterized as "large" ?
What? XMLHttpRequest can grab an XML document in a few lines of code. What makes you think you need to "write an ungodly big JavaScript"?
Uh... the need of TFA to draw a big box around a component and label it "Ajax Engine", combined with having personally seen some damn large javascripts in the past. Why, is this "Ajax Engine" script a tiny little thing?
Feel free to single Google out for screwing up compatibility, but it's a shortcoming of Google, not something intrinsic to Javascript. Javascript can easily be used to enhance the UI for a web application, while gracefully degrading for clients that can't handle it.
Hey, sorry... clearly Javascript is a favorite technology of yours or something, that's OK... back away from the flame thrower. Actually, since Google Maps supports Firefox and company, I'm _guessing_ that we're really looking at a bug in the WebKit/KHTML code somehow... although looking at where XMLHttpRequest comes in sheds some light on it's _clear_ browser-dependence, which is _exactly_ what I have a problem with.
But like I said, if you _want_ to tie your web page to a particular class of browser, go ahead. That's fine, as long as you and the folks you're designing websites for realize that's what you're doing.
And no, for limited uses, I don't mind Javascript _too_ much, it can be a useful tool. I only dislike it's use when it locks alternative browsers out of content without good reason- which is, in my experience, all too often the case. It's one of those tools that people all too often use because they think it's cool, or they like it, or they're used to it -not because they _need_ the functionality- and that occasionally gets in the way of creating a useful product.
Javascript can be a fine way to detect browser capabilities and customize the experience- but if you're not displaying *anything* to users of Lynx, OmniWeb, KHTML-based browsers, or ( worst of all ) non-Windows browsers... then there's a problem. With the possible exception of showing images in Lynx, you should always be able to provide some reasonable level of functionality in your website to less-capable browsers. I *definitely* fault the Google enginers for not providing a script-free version of their tool ( with many, many fewer features - but still, what's wrong with a plain ol' HTML form that generates an image when you click "go"?!? ). I can only hope they'll have a simple, stripped-down version of the site when Maps is no longer beta.
a webmail application can periodically poll the server for new events such as new mail without interrupting what the user is doing with a page reload.
Yes, and, for browsers that don't support XMLHttpRequest, you can put a "get new messages" button on the page. Is that too much to ask ?
Also, seriously, Javascript sucks eggs, IMHO... like I said, it's probably just a bad, unfounded personal bias I have based solely on historical issues ( security, bug-compatability across implementations, etc ) and just seeing lots of crap scripts, but... I'm not a fan. Most things Javascript are used for are either just annoying, or could be done server-side.
I'm generally of the opinion that, if what you really want is an active, full-fledged application, you shouldn't decide you *have* to implement it in a web browser. Once you've gone beyond simple parsing of XML/HTML for display, you've created a platform dependancy anyway- write a damn binary or something. Just a bias, showing my age or whatever, but I prefer my HTTP content to be as platform-agnostic as possible. Javascript isn't very- is that script going to ever work well on a handheld ?
Also, seriously, I don't get the real utility of the system described in TFA, besides, like I said, posting some "Waiting for server data" message, which is pretty useless, really... the client needs data from the server in any case... is the 'modal' server-client response method really broken? Is there a real problem this approach solves?
But really, I'm serious when I say it's just my opinion. Have all the fun with Javascript you want. Write ActiveX controls if it makes you happy, I don't care, I won't use them unless forced to, either.
Well, I'm waiting for the mods to pull their heads out of their asses and realize it's supposed to funny. It's not redundant, no one else has mentioned it, and it's not offtopic, being that it's about the internet.
I'm sorry, but why is it supposed to be funny ?
Actually... there was another comment along the same lines, so I guess it was a bit redundant ( although yours was first )... and just because a story is about a particular aspect of the internet ( in this case, control ) doesn't keep a comment about a completely unrelated aspect of the 'net ( in this case, creation ) from being off-topic, but still... what's funny about picking on the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing ?
Just in case you think I'm giving you a hard time or being dense, I'm not trying to be, and generally tend to have a pretty good sense of humor. But doing the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing ? It makes the author either look ignorant to the link I posted, or makes them look like they're trolling ( for someone to post that link )... either way, the humor value is dubious at best, unless I'm missing something that you should be able to explain.
Sorry, I guess I lack the creativity to determine what was witty about that comment.
People who are ambiguous about their true, intended meaning should expect to be misunderstood. People who are trying to make jokes should make sure they're funny... or at least mention that they're joking.
It's probably just a bias on my part, but if it's related to JavaScript ( that which was once more correctly called LiveScript ), then I'm simply not very interested. What's described is "write an ungodly big JavaScript to pass XML between the server and client". Sounds great... really new, groundbreaking stuff there.
Thanks anyway. You kids have fun. My browser will ignore your site(s) until I'm literally forced to use them.
Then, they won't work right unless I use the browser you developed it on... yea, Google maps, that's great, it works with all the Javascript-supporting browsers out there, right ? ( btw, that was sarcasm right there )
Besides that, what really gets me is- hey, you're going to wait for some server process at some point anyway, right? What's your glorified Javascript doing besides displaying a "Waiting for server..." dialog anyway? Yea, real useful...
It'd be nice if folks could see through the "On Demand" stuff... it' s so not like Tivo. It's watching what someone else wants to watch, without the choices or control of TiVo. It totally misses the point.
I can wait for it all to come together, I know how to program my VCR.
Also totally missing the point. Do you program your VCR? I know how to, but I rarely did.
Right now, TCM ( Turner Classic Movies, I think ) is showing a long, long list of old ( and less old ) Oscar-winning and nominated movies, which our TiVo list has maybe 8 or 9 of right now. Would we have recorded those on our VCR? If I had a 12-hour tape... no. Not ever. Neither would you.
Simply put, On Demand and VCR just don't compare to a good DVR, and folks who think they do just don't get it, because they don't have it...
Hey, TiVo ain't dead yet, they've got a base of 3 million or so users...
Epsons will stop printing when the ink recovery pad in the bottom of the printer is saturated... It's possible to reset the printer by pressing a combination of keys on the front panel.
So that's what happens... I've been wondering, as my Epson is sitting in a somewhat dusty corner and I frequently see it charging the ink head, and all too often have to run it through the head cleaning process, as it's not used on a regular basis. I knew enough to know that it's spitting ink on a pad in there, but I've always wondered what happens when it's full of ink...
Thanks! I'd label you Informative if I had mod points...
Look, I frickin' love the magic 8 ball, but to put it ahead of the sextant on a top 100 gadgets of all time list ? That's just stupid. Lame, lame lame.
Slashdot Mirror
What, now you're a devil worshiper, too?!?
It's really hard to fault you, actually. History is hard to forget, and it's not unreasonable to wonder if a company can really change it's culture and philosophy so radically.
On the other hand, if someone is giving you a bunch of cool stuff ( i.e. source code ), and doing so under terms ( i.e. license ) that are acceptable to you... it's generally a good thing. I'm not seeing the downside, at least for OSS developers. The downside could be there, of course... but I can't easily think of what it could be.
The upside for IBM, on the other hand, is pretty obvious... it's not like they've done this entirely without thinking of their own benefit. Maybe thinking of it that way will make you feel better? It's not so much that IBM has radically changed ( though it has ), it's that they've figured out how to leverage open source development ?
You're thinking of cocaine.
It also makes you jump around like a monkey, yelling and sweating a lot, now that I think about it... hmmm... that's a description of that other Steve, isn't it ?
Glad to see you're not pretentious, AC...
Actually, it's the "year of HD" , specifically editing HD on your computer ( you said it right the first time, I suspect you meant to type HD and your brain flipped you to DV instead ) ... HD of course really will need Firewire, will benefit greatly from Firewire800, and definitely would hurt to transfer over USB2.0... so you may have a point, though every Mac I know about has two Firewire ports anyway... so mostly, it's a cost cutting measure, still... that and a nod to all the windows users with USB2.0 and no Firewire.
It's interesting to note that Firewire cards for PCs are super-cheap ( I found one that's 14 bucks new ), so the reason that few PC folks have Firewire points to the truth that few people are interested in opening their cases and using their extra PCI slots. They also don't see reason to use Firewire, since they're not editing video and can get USB2.0 drives ( and don't use external drives anyway ), but... interesting, anyway.
Well, since it turns out there really was MPAA action, it's maybe more like "maybe we make a deal with the MPAA and bail"... in which case, it looks like the MPAA, through sheer dumb luck and legal muscle, managed to make some money off of p2p. Or, at least their lawyers did.
That goes in the "obviously not true" category. Besides, Firewire400 is faster than USB2.0 anyway...
It may be true that Apple had USB2.0 hardware out in some machines before it had USB 2.0 drivers, but, if so, it's been quite a while. Apple had USB keyboards and mice standard long before USB 2.0 was even a concept.
Right, which is why all these camcorders have USB 2.0. Oh, wait, they don't ? Ok... more and more do all the time. Are there any that are USB2.0 only yet?
To an extent, you're right. The consumer level is going to USB 2.0. The mid-to-high-end stuff, though, will still support Firewire. It's certainly not going away.
Apple has actually backed both USB and Firewire. Macs were going standard with USB-only serial ports before most PC users even knew what USB was... the only people getting even slightly burned here are ( relatively ) long-time Mac users who are looking to buy new iPods. Even then, heck, they buy an iPod dock, what's the big deal? Yet another non-story on /. is all...
Don't dismiss the notion that USB 2.0 isn't fast enough. Buy an HD camcorder and you'll be wanting Firewire 800 to import that video, I promise... yea, I know, that's fairly high-end... today.
Right, but are your USB ports 1.1 or 2.0 ? It's an important distinction.
Do you actually have a USB camcorder?
Anyway, the reason this is a big deal to some is that, up until fairly recently, iMacs only had USB1.1. The mistake was not including USB2.0 on their computers earlier - giving iPod users the more commonly required cable is the right choice, really.
That's a great theory, but a big part of TiVo's current problem in marketing TiVo-To-Go and other add-ons is that it's largest group of subscribers ( DirecTV users ) isn't able to use their networking features.
Any company that buys TiVo will effectively have a lot fewer than 3 million users, since DirecTV won't let them enable the networking on those units... I guess they're afraid of hackers modding the boxes or something...
As for the viewing data, any company with tuners in the living room has that ( Comcast, DirecTV even without TiVo, etc ).
I agree that video-on-demand is a logical next step, but I don't think the bandwidth is there yet. iTunes could have been launched years before it was, but the market wouldn't have been there... Apple's going to wait until the time is right for "iTiVO", and it's not going to be now...
Someone found a business model to get pirates to pay for content!!
Step 1) set up torrent site
Step 2) claim MPAA takedown
Step 3) collect money from torrent downloaders, then run away and PROFIT !!!
The process probably can't be repeated too many times, though... do you figure they made more money than they would have through advertisements ? I'm guessing they did...
And of course, as mentioned in almost all of those articles, there was NO ruling. It's just a spot-on comment from the judge. He's likely to rule that way, since he made such a strong comment, but still... no ruling. So we've seen 3 dupes of a non-story, basically.
Thanks for that. It's nice to know where this all started, because... well, despite all of the talk and speculation, I don't see how it would make _any_ sense at all for Apple.
The true advantage TiVo has in the marketplace consist of (1) some patents on DVR tech and concepts, like Season Pass and such, (2) scheduling data to support that. Other than that, their service and tech are pretty straightforward things that almost any company ( or heck, open source project ) could duplicate with a bit of effort. This is why they haven't been bought out by Comcast or someone already ( that and, oh, they've said they don't _want_ to be bought ).
Anyway, while Steve is full of surprises, I don't really see where TiVo's services fit into Apple's game plan, unless Apple actually does have a handheld video device in it's plans. Personally, I don't think they do - Steve is right; except for the kids in the back of the mini van, I don't know many folks who wants to watch video on a portable. I'm not watching a bunch of movies on my laptop while I'm on vacation. Handheld video players aren't exactly flying off the shelves. Except via cable systems, we aren't yet approaching the bandwidth needed for even standard definition movie downloads at reasonable speeds. The market for TiVo-to-Go isn't really there, short of letting you burn DVDs of broadcast shows, which TiVo-to-Go doesn't do, and that's actually a pretty limited market, too. So why would Apple want to aquire a money-loosing division??
In short, buying TiVo makes way more sense for Microsoft than Apple, wouldn't it? But really, why would either company want to bother ? Wait a while and TiVo might actually end up being available for cheaper... or roll your own for cheaper... and I say that despite the fact that I frickin' love my TiVo.
Partnerships, sure, those make sense. But buying TiVo ? Why buy when you can partner and get TiVo-To-Go support for your platform ( the only thing Apple is likely to really be interested in ) for a whole heck of a lot less cash ???
While I won't defend the policy, I'll point out that every single cable company with has the same click-tracking capability with their digital cable set-top boxes. TiVo is no different from anyone else in this regard.
Wow, I guess when I said :
I should have put a (sarcasm, folks ) there as well ?!?don't have to sit around waiting for the server, I can be doing other things in the page at the same time.
Like what?!??
to get new data I don't have to refresh the page and fetch everything again, I can get only what is important to retrieve.
I thought that's what CSS was supposed to do?? I shouldn't say that, really, I understand that use of Javascript... but it doesn't make sense unless there's one _small_ bit of data you're retrieving amongst a _lot_ of static stuff... in the case of a lot of sites, like news sites and mapping sites, the big stuff are images ( which my browser caches if you don't change their names/URLs ) and what you're so concerned with reloading is a little page of text, or an image that's new anyway...
What I'm going to say may shock you, but I've QA'd some sites developed with and without Javascript designed exactly the way you say. In general, the bandwidth savings you're talking about don't happen. 10%, maybe. 20%, never. If you're getting that much traffic, are you saying you can't afford another server or more bandwidth?
That is pretty funny, but, as I point out elsewhere, my only _serious_ objection is where scripts prevent the use of websites entirely. You can turn off Javascript on this page and you'll never miss it.
If developers _did_ use both, I wouldn't be as annoyed with Javascript ( and Google Maps ) as I am. The sad fact is that all too often, developers ( too be fair, probably their product managers ) don't choose to use both techniques, and that's why I ( and many others ) dislike Javascript, as I keep saying, perhaps unfairly. It's just another tool, with good uses... which is frequently used improperly.
Hey, I'm perfectly aware that you can have the script engine component be a small, managable layer that's customized for each page. I also know from experience that it's going to be tempting for some developers less skilled ( or more ambitious ) than you to create large, unmanageable scripts which remove the concept of "page"... though that's honestly a bigger problem for developers than users - but the "AJAX Engine" isn't going to always be small, either, and somehow I doubt you're being totally honest ( even to yourself ) by describing that layer in terms of a single XMLHttpRequest call... check out the script on Google Maps... maybe you have a different idea of what a 'small' javascript is than I do, but that looks pretty big to me... and we're just going to get more of the same- and, like google maps, we're going to get more "your browser not supported".
So exactly what is your problem?
Websites that require certain browsers/OS combinations, when they don't need to do so, didn't I make that clear ? What's your problem ?
I clearly stated that my aversion to Javascript is just a personal bias, why jump all over it ? I can't imagine why I thought you were a big Javascript fan... jeesh...
You mean you just responded with all that because I characterized the "Ajax Engine" as a large Javascript? Only because that's what I've seen strewn across the web, large scripts by coders who are sure they're being very clever... you probably write nice, small, manageable scripts, but, if so, you're not the norm there. How big would your engine layer need to be to be correctly characterized as "large" ?
Uh... the need of TFA to draw a big box around a component and label it "Ajax Engine", combined with having personally seen some damn large javascripts in the past. Why, is this "Ajax Engine" script a tiny little thing?
Feel free to single Google out for screwing up compatibility, but it's a shortcoming of Google, not something intrinsic to Javascript. Javascript can easily be used to enhance the UI for a web application, while gracefully degrading for clients that can't handle it.
Hey, sorry... clearly Javascript is a favorite technology of yours or something, that's OK... back away from the flame thrower. Actually, since Google Maps supports Firefox and company, I'm _guessing_ that we're really looking at a bug in the WebKit/KHTML code somehow... although looking at where XMLHttpRequest comes in sheds some light on it's _clear_ browser-dependence, which is _exactly_ what I have a problem with.
But like I said, if you _want_ to tie your web page to a particular class of browser, go ahead. That's fine, as long as you and the folks you're designing websites for realize that's what you're doing.
And no, for limited uses, I don't mind Javascript _too_ much, it can be a useful tool. I only dislike it's use when it locks alternative browsers out of content without good reason- which is, in my experience, all too often the case. It's one of those tools that people all too often use because they think it's cool, or they like it, or they're used to it -not because they _need_ the functionality- and that occasionally gets in the way of creating a useful product.
Javascript can be a fine way to detect browser capabilities and customize the experience- but if you're not displaying *anything* to users of Lynx, OmniWeb, KHTML-based browsers, or ( worst of all ) non-Windows browsers... then there's a problem. With the possible exception of showing images in Lynx, you should always be able to provide some reasonable level of functionality in your website to less-capable browsers. I *definitely* fault the Google enginers for not providing a script-free version of their tool ( with many, many fewer features - but still, what's wrong with a plain ol' HTML form that generates an image when you click "go"?!? ). I can only hope they'll have a simple, stripped-down version of the site when Maps is no longer beta.
a webmail application can periodically poll the server for new events such as new mail without interrupting what the user is doing with a page reload.
Yes, and, for browsers that don't support XMLHttpRequest, you can put a "get new messages" button on the page. Is that too much to ask ?
Also, seriously, Javascript sucks eggs, IMHO... like I said, it's probably just a bad, unfounded personal bias I have based solely on historical issues ( security, bug-compatability across implementations, etc ) and just seeing lots of crap scripts, but... I'm not a fan. Most things Javascript are used for are either just annoying, or could be done server-side.
I'm generally of the opinion that, if what you really want is an active, full-fledged application, you shouldn't decide you *have* to implement it in a web browser. Once you've gone beyond simple parsing of XML/HTML for display, you've created a platform dependancy anyway- write a damn binary or something. Just a bias, showing my age or whatever, but I prefer my HTTP content to be as platform-agnostic as possible. Javascript isn't very- is that script going to ever work well on a handheld ?
Also, seriously, I don't get the real utility of the system described in TFA, besides, like I said, posting some "Waiting for server data" message, which is pretty useless, really... the client needs data from the server in any case... is the 'modal' server-client response method really broken? Is there a real problem this approach solves?
But really, I'm serious when I say it's just my opinion. Have all the fun with Javascript you want. Write ActiveX controls if it makes you happy, I don't care, I won't use them unless forced to, either.
I'm sorry, but why is it supposed to be funny ?
Actually... there was another comment along the same lines, so I guess it was a bit redundant ( although yours was first )... and just because a story is about a particular aspect of the internet ( in this case, control ) doesn't keep a comment about a completely unrelated aspect of the 'net ( in this case, creation ) from being off-topic, but still... what's funny about picking on the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing ?
Just in case you think I'm giving you a hard time or being dense, I'm not trying to be, and generally tend to have a pretty good sense of humor. But doing the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing ? It makes the author either look ignorant to the link I posted, or makes them look like they're trolling ( for someone to post that link )... either way, the humor value is dubious at best, unless I'm missing something that you should be able to explain.
Why do you think it's funny, again?
People who are ambiguous about their true, intended meaning should expect to be misunderstood. People who are trying to make jokes should make sure they're funny... or at least mention that they're joking.
Thanks anyway. You kids have fun. My browser will ignore your site(s) until I'm literally forced to use them.
Then, they won't work right unless I use the browser you developed it on... yea, Google maps, that's great, it works with all the Javascript-supporting browsers out there, right ? ( btw, that was sarcasm right there )
Besides that, what really gets me is- hey, you're going to wait for some server process at some point anyway, right? What's your glorified Javascript doing besides displaying a "Waiting for server..." dialog anyway? Yea, real useful...
Vinton Cerf thinks he helped
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/inter esting-people/200009/msg00052.html
Or was that an attempt to be funny? Not sure why you're being modded Redundant instead of offtopic... but it drives your comment down either way, huh?
I can wait for it all to come together, I know how to program my VCR.
Also totally missing the point. Do you program your VCR? I know how to, but I rarely did.
Right now, TCM ( Turner Classic Movies, I think ) is showing a long, long list of old ( and less old ) Oscar-winning and nominated movies, which our TiVo list has maybe 8 or 9 of right now. Would we have recorded those on our VCR? If I had a 12-hour tape... no. Not ever. Neither would you.
Simply put, On Demand and VCR just don't compare to a good DVR, and folks who think they do just don't get it, because they don't have it...
Hey, TiVo ain't dead yet, they've got a base of 3 million or so users...
So that's what happens... I've been wondering, as my Epson is sitting in a somewhat dusty corner and I frequently see it charging the ink head, and all too often have to run it through the head cleaning process, as it's not used on a regular basis. I knew enough to know that it's spitting ink on a pad in there, but I've always wondered what happens when it's full of ink...
Thanks! I'd label you Informative if I had mod points...
Look, I frickin' love the magic 8 ball, but to put it ahead of the sextant on a top 100 gadgets of all time list ? That's just stupid. Lame, lame lame.