Yes, and the Engadget article that is TFA is mistaken... He didn't supply any keys, just disc IDs (to map to human readable names of the discs). The place where the keys would have been were all stubbed out with all nulls.
If this is a crack for the DRM, then GPG is a crack for PGP.
I thinkwhitebeam is supposed to be some sort of server-side apache module for running JS. It uses Mozilla's JS engine (SpiderMonkey) at least. Their page is just confusing though, and I've never used it so I can't vouch for its sanity... And as far as I can tell it's not compiled either.
You also use C++ things from JavaScript all the time. Does that mean JS was created with C++ in mind? (Browser don't implement the DOM in JavaScript... so anything that interacts with the page, at all, is talking to C++. Whether through XPCOM (Mozilla) or COM (IE).)
Sadly, when Javascript gets mentioned most people think of browser scripting. That's like thinking of MFC every time C++ gets mentioned...:(
What sorts of shells interpret JS? I know of Mozilla's js shell, and they also have a xpcshell (which adds XPCOM things to make it fully Mozilla-y). Sadly js shell has no built-in file access (it's a compile-time option you have to jump through hoops to enable, and buggy), and xpcshell has lots of XPCOM baggage.
Are there any others using different engines? Anything from Adobe (ActionScript) maybe?
Yeah, as somebody who randomly hangs out on irc://irc.mozilla.org/firefox... We try to support everyone, but sometimes we just get really confused by patched builds.
See the last paragraph starting with "Alternatively". LXR query for the text... And it's this option to use GPL/LGPL instead that makes the license "compatible". As far as I can tell, MPL itself really isn't for the distros, it's the option to use GPL instead (which the distros exercise) that make it possible.
Actually, nobody release the --enable-debug builds of Firefox. You can tell if you have one, because you'd see a bunch of text in the console (at the minimum, at shutdown when it tells you about the leak stats). If you're on Windows, that means actually opening a console window too.
For your reference, the official (mozilla.org / mozilla.com) binaries released are NOT released under the GPL. And that's allowed because their code is MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed and, AFAIK, MPL allows for that.
At least, that was the impression I got from bugzilla... comment 46 of the "provide a unicode binary" bug. No bug numbers because that bug's got enough comments as it is:p
Umm, the TFA was an interview with Blake Ross. Who, as far as I can tell, has mainly been focusing on his Secret Startup Thingy and SpreadFirefox. That is, not the actual coding... Of course there's nothing interesting about memory issues!
To actually get things that are interesting, you'd need an interview with people deep in the coding - say, dbaron (to randomly pick a name out of a hat) for the back-end stuff, or mconnor for the front end stuff. Of course, they're not a "founder"...
They might as well have interviewed hyatt (the other guy to have started this, IIRC - now at Apple...)
You vote for a few years, realize that whatever you do you really can't make a difference, and resort to drinking. Sounds like it's working just fine...
Hinet is so bloody awful because there's no meaningful competition. IIRC, they own the out-of-country lines anyway (since they are the ISP arm of the national telecommunications company), and everyone else have to rent their lines.
... Doesn't help that, when I was there, the APOL (one of the cable companies) had a sucky line. Plug in the NAT box ("router"), nothing on the other end, and watch the lights blink from the various worms looking for a host.
As long as you stick with Gecko 1.8.x or older. Gecko 1.9 (to be in Firefox 3 / Seamonkey 1.5 / whatever) will be Cairo-based, which is part of where the no-Win9x thing comes from.
There sort of is - Microsoft Layer for Unicode. It doesn't target the graphics API though, just some boring strings stuff.
I think there's also some sort of licensing problem with using MSLU in Mozilla though. There was a bug about that, and some sort of open source alternative that... didn't really go anywhere. That, and the main problem with Mozilla was needing a Cairo backend that runs on Win9x. Last I checked, they just didn't have the manpower for it, and was open to help.
The "Special Tools" is on the XP CD. You use that to generate a text file (or you can do it manually) which gets stuck into a floppy while XP installs. (Unfortunately, I don't have the CD handy to find the stuff with; it's in deploy.cab or something)
It's basically for automated installs. Very useful also for not installing crap.
IMG: end tag forbidden OBJECT: end tag required BR: end tag forbidden HR: end tag forbidden META: end tag forbidden LINK: end tag forbidden
I'd like to know what validator you're using, because it's not validating against the last known standard for HTML (HTML 4.01 strict). As far as I know, HTML/SGML didn't have self closing tags.
Browsers, of course, try to take all sorts of crap that get thrown at them. It doesn't make them correct though.
Please, please *don't* write HTML as if it's XHTML. Self-closing tags in HTML is totally invalid and screws up the parsers. Pretend you're a HTML (not XML) parser and parse:
<html><body><script src="..."/>Lots of stuff</body></html>
Your <script> tag never gets closed (remember, this is *not* XML!). Wee, no content....
If you are actually sending it with some sort of XML MIME type, yes, go ahead and do self-closing tags. Just don't pretend it works when you're being HTML.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and the Engadget article that is TFA is mistaken... He didn't supply any keys, just disc IDs (to map to human readable names of the discs). The place where the keys would have been were all stubbed out with all nulls.
If this is a crack for the DRM, then GPG is a crack for PGP.
I think whitebeam is supposed to be some sort of server-side apache module for running JS. It uses Mozilla's JS engine (SpiderMonkey) at least. Their page is just confusing though, and I've never used it so I can't vouch for its sanity... And as far as I can tell it's not compiled either.
You also use C++ things from JavaScript all the time. Does that mean JS was created with C++ in mind?
(Browser don't implement the DOM in JavaScript... so anything that interacts with the page, at all, is talking to C++. Whether through XPCOM (Mozilla) or COM (IE).)
Sadly, when Javascript gets mentioned most people think of browser scripting. That's like thinking of MFC every time C++ gets mentioned... :(
What sorts of shells interpret JS? I know of Mozilla's js shell, and they also have a xpcshell (which adds XPCOM things to make it fully Mozilla-y). Sadly js shell has no built-in file access (it's a compile-time option you have to jump through hoops to enable, and buggy), and xpcshell has lots of XPCOM baggage.
Are there any others using different engines? Anything from Adobe (ActionScript) maybe?
Imagine what would happen if PeerGuardian blocked all of RoadRunner or Charter.
Now imagine what happens when you're Chinese and wrongly blocked... You might not even know PeerGuardian exists; how would you file a complaint?
Remember, they don't need to care about the *IAA as much over there - they'd just have their own equivalents that use different hosts to begin with.
releases.mozilla.org not ftp.mozilla.org - the former is a bunch of mirrors, the latter is a poor MoCo hosted machine people also need for nightlies :)
Umm, you do realize the "current, ongoing project" got the name from... the Debian-legal mailing list?
Sorry, but the name duplication is FSF's fault (or rather, whoever decided to name that project).
Yeah, as somebody who randomly hangs out on irc://irc.mozilla.org/firefox ... We try to support everyone, but sometimes we just get really confused by patched builds.
f ox/+bug/33840 - this is Debian (and from there Ubuntu) specific and doesn't happen with Firefox builds from mozilla.com (on the same system).
For example, https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/fire
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/mpl-tri -license-txt other versions
See the last paragraph starting with "Alternatively". LXR query for the text... And it's this option to use GPL/LGPL instead that makes the license "compatible". As far as I can tell, MPL itself really isn't for the distros, it's the option to use GPL instead (which the distros exercise) that make it possible.
Isn't that just the normal GTK2 file browser dialog?
(If it is, press / to start typing... I think. I run Windows here, so I can't test)
Actually, nobody release the --enable-debug builds of Firefox. You can tell if you have one, because you'd see a bunch of text in the console (at the minimum, at shutdown when it tells you about the leak stats). If you're on Windows, that means actually opening a console window too.
Err...
:p
For your reference, the official (mozilla.org / mozilla.com) binaries released are NOT released under the GPL. And that's allowed because their code is MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed and, AFAIK, MPL allows for that.
Firefox EULA.
At least, that was the impression I got from bugzilla... comment 46 of the "provide a unicode binary" bug. No bug numbers because that bug's got enough comments as it is
Umm, the TFA was an interview with Blake Ross. Who, as far as I can tell, has mainly been focusing on his Secret Startup Thingy and SpreadFirefox. That is, not the actual coding... Of course there's nothing interesting about memory issues!
To actually get things that are interesting, you'd need an interview with people deep in the coding - say, dbaron (to randomly pick a name out of a hat) for the back-end stuff, or mconnor for the front end stuff. Of course, they're not a "founder"...
They might as well have interviewed hyatt (the other guy to have started this, IIRC - now at Apple...)
Even more fun - their actual audio playing stuff is XPCOMized VLC, used under GPL2.
You vote for a few years, realize that whatever you do you really can't make a difference, and resort to drinking. Sounds like it's working just fine...
Hinet is so bloody awful because there's no meaningful competition. IIRC, they own the out-of-country lines anyway (since they are the ISP arm of the national telecommunications company), and everyone else have to rent their lines.
As long as you stick with Gecko 1.8.x or older. Gecko 1.9 (to be in Firefox 3 / Seamonkey 1.5 / whatever) will be Cairo-based, which is part of where the no-Win9x thing comes from.
There sort of is - Microsoft Layer for Unicode. It doesn't target the graphics API though, just some boring strings stuff.
I think there's also some sort of licensing problem with using MSLU in Mozilla though. There was a bug about that, and some sort of open source alternative that... didn't really go anywhere. That, and the main problem with Mozilla was needing a Cairo backend that runs on Win9x. Last I checked, they just didn't have the manpower for it, and was open to help.
Dang, that means I better remove /usr/lib/zen-updater/ZenUpdater.exe ...
(AFAICT, all mono apps are *.exe)
The "Special Tools" is on the XP CD. You use that to generate a text file (or you can do it manually) which gets stuck into a floppy while XP installs. (Unfortunately, I don't have the CD handy to find the stuff with; it's in deploy.cab or something)
It's basically for automated installs. Very useful also for not installing crap.
According to http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/S60browser/ (which is linked from the TFA... sigh), KHTML/KJS is LGPL (and I guess with Nokia additions in BSD or something)
Oh, and a random chunk of plugin stuff in NPL. I'm amazed Nokia wants that mess of code...
IMG: end tag forbidden
OBJECT: end tag required
BR: end tag forbidden
HR: end tag forbidden
META: end tag forbidden
LINK: end tag forbidden
I'd like to know what validator you're using, because it's not validating against the last known standard for HTML (HTML 4.01 strict). As far as I know, HTML/SGML didn't have self closing tags.
Browsers, of course, try to take all sorts of crap that get thrown at them. It doesn't make them correct though.
Please, please *don't* write HTML as if it's XHTML. Self-closing tags in HTML is totally invalid and screws up the parsers. Pretend you're a HTML (not XML) parser and parse:
<html><body><script src="..."/>Lots of stuff</body></html>
Your <script> tag never gets closed (remember, this is *not* XML!). Wee, no content....
If you are actually sending it with some sort of XML MIME type, yes, go ahead and do self-closing tags. Just don't pretend it works when you're being HTML.