Living in Switzerland I am quite annoyed by the farmers and all their priviledges here. Food is about twice as expensive here (Zurich) as 30km north in Germany, all because of protective measures to keep the farmers in business. Also they get paid to destroy the natural state of the mountains just because some tourists like open landscapes. If they want open landscapes they should go over 2000 meters (above which no trees grow anymore).
I can name some examples (such as scandinavian countries, the netherlands) that are more left-leaning and have at least equal free speech protections, if not better, than the US.
I don't think it has to do with left or right. In germany for example both left and right have a tendency to mix in peoples lives and want to regulate everything, "protect" people for themselves etc.
The anglo saxon countries in particular are over sensitive when it comes to sex (but not to other areas that might warrant regulation), however in the US this is overridden by indeed a higher esteem for free speech and/or mistrust for central government (depending on how you look at it).
It will rather be used for extreme-HDTV: put 2 hours of video on it, with 10000x10000 pixels at 200 frames per second. That'll keep the p2p pirates busy for a while.
But java stands out as a target from companies (most notably MSFT) that care to destroy its 'write once run anywhere' philosophy. Java has been a target, and might be again, because it is much more relevant (especially in the enterprise software world) than languages such as python, perl and ruby.
Therefore I think sun cannot simply take those as an example.
What do you mean with ally? What are "we" trying to accomplish?
As for me: I am a UNIX developer that loves the system and its design (from a technical point of view). That is my ally. And in that sense, Sun with Solaris is and remains in the same camp of my allies like Linux, *BSD, HPUX, AIX and what have you.
All of these sell and advance UNIX. Of course there is competition among them, but what is with that? There has always been a healthy competition in the UNIX camp, which is the reason that so many variants (including Linux) exist and that so much incentive for each "vendor" has been to improve their version and to copy from each other and to innovate.
As long as its not sinking to the purely destructive level of SCO, who don't want to "win" by making a good UNIX but only with lawsuits, I'm all for it.
It does not make Sun the enemy, and it should not to anyone! Sun, like it or not, sells one of the main UNIX variants and still is doing a lot of new and interesting things (ZFS comes to mind). Without Sun, UNIX and with it also Linux would not have nearly as much general credibility, and Linux profited hugely from its bigger and older brothers as example and inspiration.
Healthy competition inside our UNIX/Linux family is OK, but this "them against us" enemy thinking is really sad and damaging to all UNIX friends.
Hmm, I've been using apache, mysql and postgres binaries on Solaris for years (the last time compiled with gcc 3.0) and I have never seen a crash of neither of the programs.
This is exactly the attitude that will destroy our civilization. Until the early 20 century noone would have gotten such a (then) absurd idea. Whole cities were built using similar house designs depending on what was en vogue at the time. Copying and improving is good and is the way civilization has advanced. Preventing this and redirecting creativity into reinventing the wheel and suing instead of evolutionary improvement is what will bing our fall eventually:(:(.
It makes me very sad to see such a horrible opinion posted even on slashdot.
For some parts of the world $.25 per message would effectively prevent 99% of the population to ever send email again. It is principally wrong to introduce a world wide tax on email.
Post is a national thing dealing with physical borders and old (often state owned) companies that have worked out deals for international post. You cannot translate this system to email, which stems naturally from the peer to peer character of the IP protocol and knows nothing about borders. Who would collect the tax, who would decide what is a fair fee for every country in the world?
The idea of paying per message is absurd and self-centered.
It would be better than todays situation, but still it would be possible to hook the world to some format, and then leveraging your monopoly position by changing the format a bit and patent it just shortly before.
I think especially the in samba case: MSFT patents some new features in the next version of the SMB protocol.
This is so strange, just like the Ipod it doesn't have a built-in radio. I can't imagine why, the extra cost and size is minimal, and many people want to hear radio (news) occasionally.
It is strange since all MP3 players from taiwan/japan and european manufacturers have radios (often even the capability to record radio directly). Just Apple and RIO don't. Is it an american peculiarity, is radio so impopular in the US?
and i can always edit any specified binary format with a hex editor.
b.w.t. there are enough hex editors available that allow for comfortable editing of ieee std. numbers etc. without having to know the bit patterns.
another approach would be to use have some import/export tool that transforms the real (efficient) format into some text format (possibly xml) to allow for easier exchange an manipulation. that would be to use xml as it was really intended: to exchange data, not to use it internally in the core of systems.
Just put a "designed for any browser except IE" on your page.
Hope that compatability is retained
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It would be very sad if changes in the X protocol or Xlib would make "new" clients unavailable on other X-window platforms and/or would no longer be network transparent.
In this cases it would no longer be possible to remotely work on a UNIX/linux server with windows X-emulators (such as exceed), nor would the typical linux open source app be able to run on other UNIX variants. Which would be very bad for UNIX as a whole and thus also for Linux which is a part of that world.
Yes, you have the obligation to do anything to kill this criminal industry! They are prepared to buy politicians and laws, and destroy personal rights all in the name of keeping up their perpetual profits. They want to introduce controlled hardware, extend copyrights forever, and almost force people to buy their products (if you don't you are already suspect). All based on an old businessmodel. With the help of their bought politicians and laws they keep some marktes (mostly the music market) cornered in what is in principle an illegal cartel.
IMO, you have the obligation as a good citizen to do anything in your power that leads to the downfall of them.
It is not slower than C#! (for non GUI stuff). How did you get this idea? Can you provide some hard benchmarks? I have seen some and did a number of benchmarks for myself, comparing.NET 1.1 C# to JDK 1.4, and in most cases Java was faster.
It is very irritating to see repeats of such blatant lies trying to engrave these myths in peoples minds.
Therefore exploiting solar energy must go hand in hand with introducing hydrogen as "fuel", that is as a means to store the energy retrieved from the sun.
Use solar energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be done by a number of means. Solar cells is one one, but solar power can also be used in huge turbines instead (more efficient) to generate AC current. In either way the electricity can be used in the neighbourhood directly, and be used for electrolysis for large scale use and storage.
There are empty areas enough (deserts come to mind, especially deserts that are quite near seas and oceans) that can be used. Yes it will require huge investments (to transport the water to the dry and sunny areas for example) but the oil industry also has required an enormous infrastructure (refineries, oil tankers) and wasn't built overnight. It is doable and necessary, and at some time one must start to invest in it for the long term.
FUD refers to something entirely different: to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to scare users away from a competitors product.
In this case, if you don't agree with the flexbeta article, better not inflate the meaning of the word FUD, but just call it unjust, unfair, inaccurate, false, lies or whatever. But FUD it is not.
No it won't. Server-side programming (i.e. "enterprise") means backwards compatability is very important. MSFT cannot afford to break it in.NET either.
SUN has done an amazing job in extending Java even to include generics without breaking backwards compatability. Yes it did not lead to the solution that is technically and internally the most efficient (it would have required changes to the JVM), but the developer is not affected. Internally it is solved by typecasts, but who cares? The compiler, it cares and verifies and tat is what matters..NET is years behind and plans to bring similar features only in 2007 (generics). It remains to be seen if they can do it without breaking backwards compatability. They already have a very hard time to convince their current developers to switch to.NET, they cannot afford to make their developers have to migrate once more in the next 10 years..NET being so poorly designed I truely wonder if they can improve it without disturbing compatability. I cannot see it being a threat.
I work in a large company, and all new development is done 100% in Java (except the mainframe parts, in PL/1 but that is declining rapidly)..NET would only be considered for fat client GUI's which used to be done in MFC. So even if.NET becomes a success, it will only replace parts that were already done in MSFT technology before, it has zero chance on the server side.
You're 100% right. I fell into the trap of buying some of those fat books as well (on java, xml and oracle). Result: I never read them, I don't have the time to wade through all those lengthly examples and texts.
I just read the specs from the authors (java -> sun, xml -> w3c, oracle -> oracle) and one or two tutorials also from the source. Any good product has good documentation. If it needs additional external documentation, it's not for me and I'm not interested (such as the typical MSFT product which does not have consise reference type documentation but only lengthy cut&paste examples, blah).
With IDE's like eclipse, that compile any file on the fly as you save it, there is no more lengthly build process and even with a fast compiled language such as Java you don't have to suffer.
You save and run the program right away, or in the case of an automatically reloading servlet such as tomcat you don't even run the program: your changed class file is detected and tomcat reloads the class in the running program. IBM websphere takes that concept even further.
It feels like smalltalk, where you are also changing the program aka image in place without restarting it.
Yes, I've read the same page before I posted my comment. That is why I say it may replace maybe 50% of javascript use, but not more.
I'd rather stick with a single mechanism (i.e. javascript, even when it may be improved especially the compatability between browsers) instead of introducing yet another way. Except if xforms could replace 99% of javascript use (i.e. most could just switch completely) it does not make much sense.
For that, the declarative approach is unsuitable IMHO. Even in the doc for authors you still find references to script elements.
So now with xforms we get a 3rd way to do some things that today can be done either through javascript or server side.
The server side way gives you full flexibility, you can use any language/technology to validate, structure your parameters, regenerate the page. The cost is some efficiency (round trips, having to regenerate full pages except if you use lots if (i)frames which can be very hard to handle).
Now what exactly is the place of this 3rd posibility? Could it really replace javascript? It may eliminiate the need of 60% of todays javascript, but I don't think it can handle all cases.
So the result is, developers need to learn and stay current still with javascript and their server technology of choice (e.g. asp, jsp) and additianlly need to learn xforms and related technologies (xml, xpath).
While submitting structured parameters is nice, what exactly is the point? While validating input values for ranges or types is nice, you still have to repeat the validation on the server side (you never know what manipulated or buggy client comes at you). The server side still has to convert all those text parameters into really structured types/classes.
So I see little benefit but great cost. One or two tricks would be really useful as an addition to current HTML standards (e.g. the partial replacement of pages which can help on large/complex pages without having to resort to frames).
I think this is a typical result of strandards groups that have grown too large and now don't know how to stop and limit themselves. To justify their existance, they keep putting out an ever growing stream of "useful" standards and loose touch with their "customers".
Slashdot Mirror
Living in Switzerland I am quite annoyed by the farmers and all their priviledges here. Food is about twice as expensive here (Zurich) as 30km north in Germany, all because of protective measures to keep the farmers in business. Also they get paid to destroy the natural state of the mountains just because some tourists like open landscapes. If they want open landscapes they should go over 2000 meters (above which no trees grow anymore).
For example
I can name some examples (such as scandinavian countries, the netherlands) that are more left-leaning and have at least equal free speech protections, if not better, than the US.
I don't think it has to do with left or right. In germany for example both left and right have a tendency to mix in peoples lives and want to regulate everything, "protect" people for themselves etc.
The anglo saxon countries in particular are over sensitive when it comes to sex (but not to other areas that might warrant regulation), however in the US this is overridden by indeed a higher esteem for free speech and/or mistrust for central government (depending on how you look at it).
It will rather be used for extreme-HDTV: put 2 hours of video on it, with 10000x10000 pixels at 200 frames per second. That'll keep the p2p pirates busy for a while.
But java stands out as a target from companies (most notably MSFT) that care to destroy its 'write once run anywhere' philosophy. Java has been a target, and might be again, because it is much more relevant (especially in the enterprise software world) than languages such as python, perl and ruby.
Therefore I think sun cannot simply take those as an example.
What do you mean with ally? What are "we" trying to accomplish?
As for me: I am a UNIX developer that loves the system and its design (from a technical point of view). That is my ally. And in that sense, Sun with Solaris is and remains in the same camp of my allies like Linux, *BSD, HPUX, AIX and what have you.
All of these sell and advance UNIX. Of course there is competition among them, but what is with that? There has always been a healthy competition in the UNIX camp, which is the reason that so many variants (including Linux) exist and that so much incentive for each "vendor" has been to improve their version and to copy from each other and to innovate.
As long as its not sinking to the purely destructive level of SCO, who don't want to "win" by making a good UNIX but only with lawsuits, I'm all for it.
It does not make Sun the enemy, and it should not to anyone! Sun, like it or not, sells one of the main UNIX variants and still is doing a lot of new and interesting things (ZFS comes to mind). Without Sun, UNIX and with it also Linux would not have nearly as much general credibility, and Linux profited hugely from its bigger and older brothers as example and inspiration.
Healthy competition inside our UNIX/Linux family is OK, but this "them against us" enemy thinking is really sad and damaging to all UNIX friends.
Hmm, I've been using apache, mysql and postgres binaries on Solaris for years (the last time compiled with gcc 3.0) and I have never seen a crash of neither of the programs.
No I haven't noticed. putty runs as ever, as a small app it starts without any noticable delay, also in XP SP2.
This is exactly the attitude that will destroy our civilization. Until the early 20 century noone would have gotten such a (then) absurd idea. Whole cities were built using similar house designs depending on what was en vogue at the time. Copying and improving is good and is the way civilization has advanced. Preventing this and redirecting creativity into reinventing the wheel and suing instead of evolutionary improvement is what will bing our fall eventually :( :(.
It makes me very sad to see such a horrible opinion posted even on slashdot.
What is the problem with ANSI joins in Oracle?
For some parts of the world $.25 per message would effectively prevent 99% of the population to ever send email again. It is principally wrong to introduce a world wide tax on email.
Post is a national thing dealing with physical borders and old (often state owned) companies that have worked out deals for international post. You cannot translate this system to email, which stems naturally from the peer to peer character of the IP protocol and knows nothing about borders. Who would collect the tax, who would decide what is a fair fee for every country in the world?
The idea of paying per message is absurd and self-centered.
It would be better than todays situation, but still it would be possible to hook the world to some format, and then leveraging your monopoly position by changing the format a bit and patent it just shortly before.
I think especially the in samba case: MSFT patents some new features in the next version of the SMB protocol.
This is so strange, just like the Ipod it doesn't have a built-in radio. I can't imagine why, the extra cost and size is minimal, and many people want to hear radio (news) occasionally.
It is strange since all MP3 players from taiwan/japan and european manufacturers have radios (often even the capability to record radio directly). Just Apple and RIO don't. Is it an american peculiarity, is radio so impopular in the US?
and i can always edit any specified binary format with a hex editor.
b.w.t. there are enough hex editors available that allow for comfortable editing of ieee std. numbers etc. without having to know the bit patterns.
another approach would be to use have some import/export tool that transforms the real (efficient) format into some text format (possibly xml) to allow for easier exchange an manipulation. that would be to use xml as it was really intended: to exchange data, not to use it internally in the core of systems.
Just put a "designed for any browser except IE" on your page.
It would be very sad if changes in the X protocol or Xlib would make "new" clients unavailable on other X-window platforms and/or would no longer be network transparent.
In this cases it would no longer be possible to remotely work on a UNIX/linux server with windows X-emulators (such as exceed), nor would the typical linux open source app be able to run on other UNIX variants. Which would be very bad for UNIX as a whole and thus also for Linux which is a part of that world.
Yes, you have the obligation to do anything to kill this criminal industry! They are prepared to buy politicians and laws, and destroy personal rights all in the name of keeping up their perpetual profits. They want to introduce controlled hardware, extend copyrights forever, and almost force people to buy their products (if you don't you are already suspect). All based on an old businessmodel. With the help of their bought politicians and laws they keep some marktes (mostly the music market) cornered in what is in principle an illegal cartel.
IMO, you have the obligation as a good citizen to do anything in your power that leads to the downfall of them.
It is not slower than C#! (for non GUI stuff). How did you get this idea? Can you provide some hard benchmarks? I have seen some and did a number of benchmarks for myself, comparing .NET 1.1 C# to JDK 1.4, and in most cases Java was faster.
It is very irritating to see repeats of such blatant lies trying to engrave these myths in peoples minds.
Therefore exploiting solar energy must go hand in hand with introducing hydrogen as "fuel", that is as a means to store the energy retrieved from the sun.
Use solar energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be done by a number of means. Solar cells is one one, but solar power can also be used in huge turbines instead (more efficient) to generate AC current. In either way the electricity can be used in the neighbourhood directly, and be used for electrolysis for large scale use and storage.
There are empty areas enough (deserts come to mind, especially deserts that are quite near seas and oceans) that can be used. Yes it will require huge investments (to transport the water to the dry and sunny areas for example) but the oil industry also has required an enormous infrastructure (refineries, oil tankers) and wasn't built overnight. It is doable and necessary, and at some time one must start to invest in it for the long term.
FUD refers to something entirely different: to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to scare users away from a competitors product.
In this case, if you don't agree with the flexbeta article, better not inflate the meaning of the word FUD, but just call it unjust, unfair, inaccurate, false, lies or whatever. But FUD it is not.
No it won't. Server-side programming (i.e. "enterprise") means backwards compatability is very important. MSFT cannot afford to break it in .NET either.
.NET is years behind and plans to bring similar features only in 2007 (generics). It remains to be seen if they can do it without breaking backwards compatability. They already have a very hard time to convince their current developers to switch to .NET, they cannot afford to make their developers have to migrate once more in the next 10 years. .NET being so poorly designed I truely wonder if they can improve it without disturbing compatability. I cannot see it being a threat.
.NET would only be considered for fat client GUI's which used to be done in MFC. So even if .NET becomes a success, it will only replace parts that were already done in MSFT technology before, it has zero chance on the server side.
SUN has done an amazing job in extending Java even to include generics without breaking backwards compatability. Yes it did not lead to the solution that is technically and internally the most efficient (it would have required changes to the JVM), but the developer is not affected. Internally it is solved by typecasts, but who cares? The compiler, it cares and verifies and tat is what matters.
I work in a large company, and all new development is done 100% in Java (except the mainframe parts, in PL/1 but that is declining rapidly).
You're 100% right. I fell into the trap of buying some of those fat books as well (on java, xml and oracle). Result: I never read them, I don't have the time to wade through all those lengthly examples and texts.
I just read the specs from the authors (java -> sun, xml -> w3c, oracle -> oracle) and one or two tutorials also from the source. Any good product has good documentation. If it needs additional external documentation, it's not for me and I'm not interested (such as the typical MSFT product which does not have consise reference type documentation but only lengthy cut&paste examples, blah).
With IDE's like eclipse, that compile any file on the fly as you save it, there is no more lengthly build process and even with a fast compiled language such as Java you don't have to suffer.
You save and run the program right away, or in the case of an automatically reloading servlet such as tomcat you don't even run the program: your changed class file is detected and tomcat reloads the class in the running program. IBM websphere takes that concept even further.
It feels like smalltalk, where you are also changing the program aka image in place without restarting it.
Yes, I've read the same page before I posted my comment. That is why I say it may replace maybe 50% of javascript use, but not more.
I'd rather stick with a single mechanism (i.e. javascript, even when it may be improved especially the compatability between browsers) instead of introducing yet another way. Except if xforms could replace 99% of javascript use (i.e. most could just switch completely) it does not make much sense.
For that, the declarative approach is unsuitable IMHO. Even in the doc for authors you still find references to script elements.
So now with xforms we get a 3rd way to do some things that today can be done either through javascript or server side.
The server side way gives you full flexibility, you can use any language/technology to validate, structure your parameters, regenerate the page. The cost is some efficiency (round trips, having to regenerate full pages except if you use lots if (i)frames which can be very hard to handle).
Now what exactly is the place of this 3rd posibility? Could it really replace javascript? It may eliminiate the need of 60% of todays javascript, but I don't think it can handle all cases.
So the result is, developers need to learn and stay current still with javascript and their server technology of choice (e.g. asp, jsp) and additianlly need to learn xforms and related technologies (xml, xpath).
While submitting structured parameters is nice, what exactly is the point? While validating input values for ranges or types is nice, you still have to repeat the validation on the server side (you never know what manipulated or buggy client comes at you). The server side still has to convert all those text parameters into really structured types/classes.
So I see little benefit but great cost. One or two tricks would be really useful as an addition to current HTML standards (e.g. the partial replacement of pages which can help on large/complex pages without having to resort to frames).
I think this is a typical result of strandards groups that have grown too large and now don't know how to stop and limit themselves. To justify their existance, they keep putting out an ever growing stream of "useful" standards and loose touch with their "customers".