Writing a layout engine is, I expect, very difficult so I'd say starting from scratch is only for the brave.
There are other layout engines but they are generally not compliant with the latest standards, with the possible exception of this one (although it is in alpha): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tkhtml
There is more to a browser than the layout engine though.
I also liked Bicentennial Man but I haven't read the book.
I think those that have read the books will often have issues with the film adaptions.
The problem is that they will be comparing the film with the vision they had in their head when reading the book. The two are rarely going to match up.
An exception for me was the LOTR trilogy, which is very close to how I imagined it.
Then of course you have the usual over the top Hollywood effects and action sequences, which they seem to think is necessary to pull in the punters. Maybe it is, and I'm a exception, who knows.
2) Security - ActiveX applications could do anything they liked.
Although I find the idea of running C code in a browser completely unnecessary, in it's favour this solution does seem to solve the two issues above because it is platform independent and runs in a VM. Quite a lot like a Java applet.
So I don't think it's a poorly reinvented ActiveX, but I don't see why it is needed at all.
Maybe it's a potential way to run legacy applications via a browser, but you'd be better off rewriting it as a 'true' web application.
Your door is only 'worth' $10,000 so the logical thing to do would be to take the cheque.
But, as it's a game show you might like to me a bit more fun/daring and try the door...
That's the best explanation I've heard, thanks.
I wrote some code to test the Monty Hall problem (see here but still couldn't get my head round exactly why the odds change.
"Edit: Slashdot seems to have picked up on this, and in typical style, has completely misunderstood the post. To be clear, I do not think that Apple is in any way trying to purposely "cripple" non-Apple software. I also do not think that undocumented APIs give Safari any kind of "significant performance advantage" (as Firefox 3 should show!). However, as I said, the undocumented functionality could be useful for Firefox and other apps to implement things in an simpler (and potentially more efficient) manner. I don't think this is malicious, it's just an unfortunate cutting of corners that is way too easy for a company that's not fully open to do."
Slashdot editors - can we drop the sensationalist titles/summaries and stick to reporting the facts?
The points in your post would be valid if WMP outperformed VLC. Are you sure it does?
It's a while since I've used Windows but I remember WMP being somewhat bloatware compared to VLC. Lots of unnecessary GUI elements. I can't say I noticed any difference in performance playing videos - they both played at the true frame rate and what more do you need than that? VLC certainly loaded faster, though.
"Apple hasn't been found to be an abusive monopolist."
And Microsoft has, and I fully agree with that. But in relation to Windows Media Player? I can't see any abuse there. WMP supports Microsoft specific codecs and DRM in addition to many open/standard codecs, true, but content producers don't have to use the MS codecs. iTunes supports Apple specific codecs and DRM.
Others have pointed out in reply to my original message that Windows Media Player was not the real issue here - most or all of the fine relates to charging excessive amounts for interoperability information for server software.
That part I can understand, but not the media player inclusion.
Windows without WMP is less useful than with WMP, I'm not sure many would argue with that. Several free media players are available but the newbie would just want to know why Windows won't play their mp3 files.
"There's nothing wrong with shipping useful functionality with your OS as long as it isn't leveraged to stifle competition"
Again, how is this different to Apple/iTunes? iTunes is useful, but it only connects to the iTunes store for music downloads. It is possible to buy DRM free MP3s at a lower cost than on iTunes and import them to iTunes (e.g. with play.com in the UK) but it takes extra work and a newbie might not find it particularly easy. Thus it could be argued that Apple are using iTunes to stifle competition.
Never thought I'd ever defend MS, but on this point I'm really not sure what the legal issue is.
So the crucial difference (with Apple OS X / iTunes) is that Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS and Apple doesn't?
So if OS X became the number one operating system, they'd have to stop shipping with iTunes? Seems odd to me that being a monopoly alone is enough to justify a different set of rules.
It's assuming that a monopoly will always be evil, essentially. This has shown several times to be the case, but are we saying this is always the case?
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to admit that I don't see what's wrong with shipping a media player with your OS. Surely that's just adding useful functionality?
Apple ships with iTunes, and most Linux distros include a media player.
Is the point here to do with creating a monopoly on online music purchasing? Because despite shipping WMP with Windows, iTunes has still taken the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Open source code can, generally, be included propriety software. Both the common license types (GPL/BSD) allow for this.
Konquerer is still KHTML, not WebKit.
That's right, all current browsers use one of four layout engines, or derivitives thereof.
Gecko (Firefox)
Trident (Internet Explorer)
Presto (Opera)
KHTML (Konquerer, Safari via WebKit fork)
Writing a layout engine is, I expect, very difficult so I'd say starting from scratch is only for the brave.
There are other layout engines but they are generally not compliant with the latest standards, with the possible exception of this one (although it is in alpha):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tkhtml
There is more to a browser than the layout engine though.
Dan
Did you click the link in the article?
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2550
I also liked Bicentennial Man but I haven't read the book.
I think those that have read the books will often have issues with the film adaptions.
The problem is that they will be comparing the film with the vision they had in their head when reading the book. The two are rarely going to match up.
An exception for me was the LOTR trilogy, which is very close to how I imagined it.
Then of course you have the usual over the top Hollywood effects and action sequences, which they seem to think is necessary to pull in the punters. Maybe it is, and I'm a exception, who knows.
Dan
I actually enjoyed the Dune film, but I saw the film before I read the book. So there wasn't a feeling that a ton of stuff had been cut out.
The heaters serve the purpose of keeping the electronics within tested survivable limits.
IANARS, I just RTFA
Perhaps the GP was joking? I thought they were anyway.
This happened in a film I saw as a kid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starflight:_The_Plane_That_Couldn't_Land
It wasn't that believable even back then.
I had a WRT54G, and it needed rebooting once every two to three weeks. The wi-fi element would just stop working. Really irritating.
I eventually scrapped the thing and bought a Netgear, which hasn't failed since I first switched it on several months ago.
All this sounds like it might be quite time consuming.
Only if you babysit it. Kick it off and go time is usually less than 5 minutes for each step.
...once you've actually set it all up in the first place.
All this sounds like it might be quite time consuming.
What's the actual cost of the disk space you are saving, and was it worth spending the time doing all this?
Unless your time is free, I'm wondering if it might be cheaper just to buy another drive or two. I haven't done the maths, though.
The two flaws with ActiveX in my opinion were:
1) Platform dependency - it was Windows only.
2) Security - ActiveX applications could do anything they liked.
Although I find the idea of running C code in a browser completely unnecessary, in it's favour this solution does seem to solve the two issues above because it is platform independent and runs in a VM. Quite a lot like a Java applet.
So I don't think it's a poorly reinvented ActiveX, but I don't see why it is needed at all.
Maybe it's a potential way to run legacy applications via a browser, but you'd be better off rewriting it as a 'true' web application.
Dan
What about the time taken to build it? Time is not normally free.
Your door is only 'worth' $10,000 so the logical thing to do would be to take the cheque. But, as it's a game show you might like to me a bit more fun/daring and try the door...
That's the best explanation I've heard, thanks. I wrote some code to test the Monty Hall problem (see here but still couldn't get my head round exactly why the odds change.
"Edit: Slashdot seems to have picked up on this, and in typical style, has completely misunderstood the post. To be clear, I do not think that Apple is in any way trying to purposely "cripple" non-Apple software. I also do not think that undocumented APIs give Safari any kind of "significant performance advantage" (as Firefox 3 should show!). However, as I said, the undocumented functionality could be useful for Firefox and other apps to implement things in an simpler (and potentially more efficient) manner. I don't think this is malicious, it's just an unfortunate cutting of corners that is way too easy for a company that's not fully open to do."
Slashdot editors - can we drop the sensationalist titles/summaries and stick to reporting the facts?
Dan
The points in your post would be valid if WMP outperformed VLC. Are you sure it does?
It's a while since I've used Windows but I remember WMP being somewhat bloatware compared to VLC. Lots of unnecessary GUI elements. I can't say I noticed any difference in performance playing videos - they both played at the true frame rate and what more do you need than that? VLC certainly loaded faster, though.
Dan
"Does iTunes force you into using a media format that only iTunes properly supports"
Does WMP? Last time I checked VLC played WMV files just fine. And content producers aren't forced to use MS codecs anyway.
You can't play DRM-locked files elsewhere, but then files locked with Apple's DRM will only play on iTunes and iPods.
"Apple hasn't been found to be an abusive monopolist."
And Microsoft has, and I fully agree with that. But in relation to Windows Media Player? I can't see any abuse there. WMP supports Microsoft specific codecs and DRM in addition to many open/standard codecs, true, but content producers don't have to use the MS codecs. iTunes supports Apple specific codecs and DRM.
Others have pointed out in reply to my original message that Windows Media Player was not the real issue here - most or all of the fine relates to charging excessive amounts for interoperability information for server software.
That part I can understand, but not the media player inclusion.
Windows without WMP is less useful than with WMP, I'm not sure many would argue with that. Several free media players are available but the newbie would just want to know why Windows won't play their mp3 files.
"There's nothing wrong with shipping useful functionality with your OS as long as it isn't leveraged to stifle competition"
Again, how is this different to Apple/iTunes? iTunes is useful, but it only connects to the iTunes store for music downloads. It is possible to buy DRM free MP3s at a lower cost than on iTunes and import them to iTunes (e.g. with play.com in the UK) but it takes extra work and a newbie might not find it particularly easy. Thus it could be argued that Apple are using iTunes to stifle competition.
Never thought I'd ever defend MS, but on this point I'm really not sure what the legal issue is.
So the crucial difference (with Apple OS X / iTunes) is that Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS and Apple doesn't?
So if OS X became the number one operating system, they'd have to stop shipping with iTunes? Seems odd to me that being a monopoly alone is enough to justify a different set of rules.
It's assuming that a monopoly will always be evil, essentially. This has shown several times to be the case, but are we saying this is always the case?
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to admit that I don't see what's wrong with shipping a media player with your OS. Surely that's just adding useful functionality?
Apple ships with iTunes, and most Linux distros include a media player.
Is the point here to do with creating a monopoly on online music purchasing? Because despite shipping WMP with Windows, iTunes has still taken the market.
Dan
Not exactly speedy data access though? Having to wait for a machine to start up...