It's not such a bad title. Although it's not the entire Google source code, it is part of it.
From the FAQ:
Are these programs still in active use at Google?
They aren't just in active use; they're in active development. These first projects are all current, actively maintained code straight out of our repositories, and as we improve them, those improvements will be merged into the free code base.
And then, when 2.1 or 3 came along, they'd support that promptly.
CSS 2.1 has come along. The standard is time stamped 25 Feb 2004, so it has been out for over a year.
Thus, I hope that I speak for all of us when I say: If you think CSS 2.1 is better than CSS 2, just go ahead and implement it. I sure won't mind if you choose 2.1 over 2.
AFAIK, that's wrong. While RMS makes many good points in that article, that particular point is wrong to my knowledge.
As I know it, the TCPA chip won't prevent you from using a free O/S, it will just prevent you from using its functions with a free O/S. The normal functionality of the computer will still be available to you.
Similarly, you can run free programs (like Firefox) on a DRM:d version of Windows -- they just won't be able to use the DRM functions of the O/S.
The real problem comes when the lawmakers force you into running a DRM:d O/S.
It seems to me that both "have" and "are" require additional hardware to do the authentication. Surely, Microsoft isn't intending to make consumers buy smartcard readers or fingerprint scanners with Longhorn?
It also has _tons_ of unclosed LI tags. These obviously can mess up the display quite a lot.
Actually, HTML (not XHTML, but Slashdot's DTD is HTML 3.2 Final, IIRC) permits this. LI, TR, TD among others work like the P that -- you don't need to close it, it just begins a new paragraph, list item, etc.
You forgot about group 4: Those of us who run our own servers. However good g-mail is, I still prefer running my own server for flexibility. I can get new mail notifications instantly, Kerberos authentication, do any kind of filtering I would ever want, and plug in any kind of software into it that I could ever think of (and although g-mail has 1 GB of storage, using my own server gets me even more -- not that I'll ever use that much).
I can also use a local e-mail client, rather than wait for the page-load lag when using a webmail client.
Sure, it may be a minority group in general, but probably not on Slashdot.
So basically, MIcrosoft is trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export Word XML files. Wonderful.
If only it were that well. What Microsoft is trying to do is to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export any XML files. In other words, they are trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from existing at all, basically.
Well... why? Why should stories be posted together just because they all originated from CeBIT? They aren't even necessarily related topics. It's like saying "Another story from the US? Why not do a daily summary of multiple stories from the US?", isn't it?
If we still cant have consistant pasting between apps...
I don't understand this. I've been hearing this complaint over and over I don't know how many times, but I've been using Linux exclusively for at least two years now, and I have never, ever, had problems copying and pasting.
Just select the text, and middle-click where you want it. I have yet to find a single combination of programs where this doesn't work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the conditions for a patent being valid that there must be no prior art and that the invention must not be obvious for those versed in the art?
If so, what could possible be more obvious than verifying customer info using a credit card account? Seriously, who would not think of that idea?
I don't understand how people can possibly miss the absurdity of software patents with cases like these...
I'm not very surprised to see that the access points don't implement the Wireless Access Protocol, which is used for cell phones.
It may be more surprising that they haven't activated Wi-fi Protected Access, or WPA, however. Definitely more related to WEP, either way.;-)
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand if XML is such a bad idea why haven't other superior alternatives been more popular? If it's because of the ignorant and stupid (which I agree they are) managers imposing it to their developers and engineers? Is marketing really that powerful?
The same thing could be said of Windows.;-)
Seriously, though -- marketing is no doubt that powerful. Think VHS vs. Betamax, for example. There is an almost infinite list of similar examples.
By reading this thread in slashdot (and others) I hear a lot of grief but I can't find an alternative that other people agreed on using.
Actually, there are two standards that other people agreed upon in almost every protocol/file format: 8-bit bytes and ASCII. Unlike XML, these actually provide real advantages. Since 8-bit bytes are being used, all systems can communicate over the same network. Since more or less every text editor and terminal emulator uses ASCII, it allows more or less every such program to manipulate files and network streams.
The difference between the 8-bit byte and ASCII standards and XML is that XML is redundant. 8-bit bytes and ASCII describe data types at the primitive level, where no underlying description exists, while XML just restructures already structured data. As I see it, you create abstractions for two reasons: either to describe something that has no existing description, or to combine several distinct concepts into one. XML does neither -- it just redundantly restructures data.
Don't get me wrong, though. I do love XML. I just don't like when it, like virtually every other web standard, is used out of context. XML is great as an eXtensible document Markup Language, HTTP is great as a HyperText Transfer Protocol, and the web is great as the global hypermedia it was intended as. When XML is being used to represent arbitrary data structures, HTTP is being used for anything between heaven and earth (the latest stupid thing I saw was some large standard that just uses HTTP to connect to a service and transfer arbitrary binary data (I think it was some part of Apple's iTunes, but IPP also does it) -- TCP already covers this!), and the web is being used for creating interactive user interfaces, then I get upset. It's like plugging round holes with square pins, or teaching pigs how to fly.
My take on this is the pointy-haired-bosses started learning about the web, and suddenly all web-related concepts were buzzwords that were forced on unsuspecting engineers, and now students are learning in school to do things "the web way". I find no other explanation.
</rant>
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Meaning that if one system uses one binary representation that is different from my binary representation I have to account for the convertion before I can work with the data.
Again, I don't see how XML alleviates this problem. If two sites uses two different XML schemas, the data still has to be converted, and I would claim that it's not like writing an XSLT filter is easier than writing a C routing to translate one binary format into another. And to be honest, it's not like it's easier to agree on an XML schema than a binary schema.
I think the confusing part is that we are used to working with XML by reading it from a file, and so the risk of attaching it early to a specific format... but with Web Services XML could be streamed on the fly between servers to achieve some level of communication.
I don't really understand this either. How are things made easier just because you read from a socket rather than from a file? I'm sorry if I missed the point somehow.
The little I studied about communication protocols is that you get involved with automata theory, in where you have to account for all posible states where your automata could end up based on a particular stage of your communication protocol.
First, that's not actually hard. My protocol/file format parsers usually end up in around 100 lines of C code: almost nothing, in other words. And that's when I write in C. Using Perl, LISP, PHP or virtually any other high-level language makes it even less. Second -- when in doubt, use Bison. It will do the job for you with hardly no work at all.
And I just thought that on top of that you still have to account for all possible types of dates or floating point data interpretations and surely it would become a very complex system.
Again, XML doesn't help alleviate this. XML only has strings, so you still have to interpret numerical formats manually. At least LISP actually specifies distinct formats for both integers and floating point numbers. If you are referring to representing numbers binarily, then maybe you should consider how the Internet has always been able to do this in a fully cross-platform manner using binary protocols such as IP, ICMP, UDP, TCP, DNS, etc.
I'm not one who is in favor of binary application-level protocols, however. I always write ASCII-based protocols whenever I have a chance. Still, binary protocols have their place as well, but mostly where one wants to preserve bandwidth. Surely, you would not want the Internet to be using XML on the network layer?
As an example, SOAP was preached as the best solution for distributed RPC calls but it is so extensive that already a simpler alternative has been adopted extensively. Look at XML-RPC it's a good read.
In my workplace, these technologies are only praised by the non-technical people (managers etc.) that don't really know what they're speaking about. I've only seen it being used voluntarily by programmers once or twice. Ever. (The only implementation that comes to mind is freshmeat's version submittal system)
So it happens that the history of XML allowed it to be used and distributed easier than LISP s-exps. Any other standard could be used, the usefulness is that at least someone can agree to use it so we don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime.
It may just be me, but, to me, that sounds like "there are no technical advantages to XML before any other standard, it just so happens that it was used in many projects and became popular".
Also, since LISP is around 40 years older than XML, I don't really see how the history of XML could allow it to be used easier. The thing is, nothing of the like has happened with any other format than XML. Assuming (which I do), that XML has no technical advantages in and of itself, I believe that it is purely because of hype that it happens.
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Instead of agreeing with the authors/creators of all these systems in defining how a number or a date or a floating point is going to be sent over the wire, they can all agree on XML.
And just what of this does XML help to alleviate? How is it easier to agree on a common XML schema than to agree on a binary protocol or any other ASCII-based protocol? It's exactly the same thing.
So if the rusian guys have this very exotic computer that saves data in a very special format, it can still share data with the outer world by using XML as the standard.
Again, how does XML alleviate this problem? How can you say that data can just automatically be read and interpreted as long as it's using XML? It's not as if you magically get automatic interpretation just because your protocol/file format uses XML for external representation.
if on top of that you add your own data representation, it will basically lock everybody into a very unflexible solution (not Universal)
How is XML more universal than, say, LISP s-exps? How is XML to be preferred over the (extensible and flexible) X11 protocol? Any file format/protocol is just as extensible as its parser. Indeed, I'd care to say that LISP s-exps are to be preferred over XML -- they don't impose any extraneous structure, they're much more concise, and they can handle many more kinds of data types without using ad-hoc parsing. They can represent anything that XML can represent, and they can also represent less than XML is capable of.
Communication protocols are not easy to implement
I'm sorry, but this I just don't get. Just what part of a communication protocol is not easy to implement? Writing a parser? Also, even if I assume that your statement is indeed correct, how does XML alleviate this problem?
The thing is that XML excels at transporting data between computer systems.
Indeed, to recap -- just what part of XML makes it excel more than any other format at representing data (not to be nitpicking, but XML does not transport data, it represents it)?
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's a very good universal data description language.
You don't think it's a very good universal data description language? Well, let me confirm your suspicions: XML absolutely and totally sucks as a universal data description language.
The thing is, I don't understand for the life of me why people got the idea that XML should be used for data description to begin with -- it wasn't designed as such. XML was designed to be a document markup language, and that's precisely what it is. It's a good extensible document markup language (I don't say very good, since there are still some annoyances, but it certainly is good), but it is by no means a data description language.
XML is, quite possibly, the most awkward way there is to describe arbitrary data structures. First, it's by far too verbose for machines, and I would argue even for humans. Second, it's by far too verbose for the majority of data structures. Third, it's too awkward to write by hand. Fourth, it's too high-level to describe simpler structures in an elegant way. Fifth, it's too awkward to parse simply. I could probably continue for ten more pages to spit out arguments against XML, but I hope I've made my point.
Sure, XML is platform independent. So has every official internet protocol (STD document) been since the inception of the internet. The only reason I can think of why XML is so popular is because most platforms happen to ship with XML parsers (which is, of course, because it became so popular for that purpose to begin with -- I have no idea why that happened to begin with).
Honestly, inventing a new format or protocol that suits your ends better is not that hard. If nothing else, at least use s-exps instead of XML.
I'd really like to know why XML is so popular as it is. Can someone tell me?
RMS "invented" emacs (his own description) but didn't actually write it
He did write emacs. The first thing he did for the GNU system was to write the first version of Emacs (including the LISP engine), so that he could use that to write more programs. After that, he started writing on GCC, another incredibly important piece of free software.
Noone, not even RMS himself, says that he's written it all himself, but he most certainly did write parts of it -- large parts. In particular, he was the one who started writing them.
We need to take what people say on its merits - the good and the bad.
And you actually say that RMS don't have any good merits?
I should have just left it as "show us the code" instead of putting in my own rant.
If you want to see RMS's code -- really, just look at emacs, just look at gcc, just look at the GNU coreutils. RMS has written a lot of code. He does have a lot of goals that you might not agree with, but he has most certainly written a lot of code as well.
I really don't think RMS slamming Intel is going to acheive anything positive at all. RMS setting up some sort of BIOS group instead of just slamming Intel would acheive something.
If you had bothered to read the actual article, you'd see that he wasn't actually slamming at Intel that much. He was slamming at Intel, but that was just a very small part of the article. The major part of the article was about the importance of a free BIOS. In the article, RMS was trying to draw attention to the importance of writing a free BIOS, and also to pressure hardware manufacturers (not just Intel specifically) to leave out specifications in order to be able to write a free BIOS. I'm sure he would set up a free BIOS group, but to be honest, the man has pretty much else to do -- he can't do it all himself, and then blogging about it may be the next best thing to do.
It's not like you actually have to clear the memory to get to a clean state. Just jumping back to the boot ROM or restarting the kernel ought to do the same thing for you.
Rather, non-volatile memory instead has the enormous advantage that you can shut down your computer (physically) without shutting down your software system.
Oh yeah, that's a great idea. Then I should get one computer for sending mails, another computer for reading mail, and third for browsing the web and maybe a fourth for viewing my desktop background.
Indeed, one device for one purpose -- isn't it a great idea?
No, it's called bloat when the nearly infinite possibilities are part of the default application - the base set.
I'd care to disagree -- whether the features are included by default doesn't constitute bloat. You don't call the UNIX command line (by that I mean the command line as a concept, not the shell program itself) bloated since there are many thousands commands that you can use.
Rather, I'd say that bloat is a question of architecture. The command line isn't bloat, since all the commands are properly seperated from the shell itself. If every command was a part of the shell program itself, then it would be bloat, even though it has the exact same capabilities.
That's why Firefox may be called bloated -- not because all the extensions are included by default (which they, of course, aren't), but rather because all the extensions that you choose to include run as part of the same program. They become part of the firefox program itself when you install them. That is also why "It gets progressively more difficult to create seamless solutions". Since the extensions aren't properly seperated from themselves or the core Firefox program (the shell, if you will), it becomes ever more difficult to avoid conflicts.
That's also why a Linux distro is often considered less bloated than Windows, even though it's capable of so much more.
But because the fact that lots of extensions exists and lots of combinations of extensions are possible, the problem of the nearly infinite possibilities for customization and tweaking of settings is as real in such a customisable application with extensions as it is in a bloated application.
Note again the parallel of the UNIX command line. There are even more combinations of programs (extensions, if you will) in the command line than there are for Firefox, but that's not a problem since it has a better underlying architecture.
That's particularly true for a light-weight browser as Firefox.
Not really part of the subject, but I can't help noting how "light-weight" is such a relative word... Firefox may be light-weight compared to IE, the Mozilla suite, etc., but can you really call any program that takes 25 MBs of memory just to start of "light-weight"?
Things may have changed since I last access the internet over a modem line (about 3 years ago or so), but back then, the latency to my gateway was more than 500 ms.
With my ADSL latency being less than a tenth of that, I'd say that in itself is a good enough reason. Especially so if you're into gaming (not that I am, but since the original subject was Starcraft...).
Slashdot Mirror
From the FAQ:
Thus, I hope that I speak for all of us when I say: If you think CSS 2.1 is better than CSS 2, just go ahead and implement it. I sure won't mind if you choose 2.1 over 2.
As I know it, the TCPA chip won't prevent you from using a free O/S, it will just prevent you from using its functions with a free O/S. The normal functionality of the computer will still be available to you.
Similarly, you can run free programs (like Firefox) on a DRM:d version of Windows -- they just won't be able to use the DRM functions of the O/S.
The real problem comes when the lawmakers force you into running a DRM:d O/S.
It seems to me that both "have" and "are" require additional hardware to do the authentication. Surely, Microsoft isn't intending to make consumers buy smartcard readers or fingerprint scanners with Longhorn?
Needless to say, because of that they don't nest.
I can also use a local e-mail client, rather than wait for the page-load lag when using a webmail client.
Sure, it may be a minority group in general, but probably not on Slashdot.
Well... why? Why should stories be posted together just because they all originated from CeBIT? They aren't even necessarily related topics. It's like saying "Another story from the US? Why not do a daily summary of multiple stories from the US?", isn't it?
Then again, does the GPL need ph34r 4|\|d r35p3ct? ;-)
Just select the text, and middle-click where you want it. I have yet to find a single combination of programs where this doesn't work.
If so, what could possible be more obvious than verifying customer info using a credit card account? Seriously, who would not think of that idea?
I don't understand how people can possibly miss the absurdity of software patents with cases like these...
It may be more surprising that they haven't activated Wi-fi Protected Access, or WPA, however. Definitely more related to WEP, either way. ;-)
Seriously, though -- marketing is no doubt that powerful. Think VHS vs. Betamax, for example. There is an almost infinite list of similar examples.
Actually, there are two standards that other people agreed upon in almost every protocol/file format: 8-bit bytes and ASCII. Unlike XML, these actually provide real advantages. Since 8-bit bytes are being used, all systems can communicate over the same network. Since more or less every text editor and terminal emulator uses ASCII, it allows more or less every such program to manipulate files and network streams.The difference between the 8-bit byte and ASCII standards and XML is that XML is redundant. 8-bit bytes and ASCII describe data types at the primitive level, where no underlying description exists, while XML just restructures already structured data. As I see it, you create abstractions for two reasons: either to describe something that has no existing description, or to combine several distinct concepts into one. XML does neither -- it just redundantly restructures data.
Don't get me wrong, though. I do love XML. I just don't like when it, like virtually every other web standard, is used out of context. XML is great as an eXtensible document Markup Language, HTTP is great as a HyperText Transfer Protocol, and the web is great as the global hypermedia it was intended as. When XML is being used to represent arbitrary data structures, HTTP is being used for anything between heaven and earth (the latest stupid thing I saw was some large standard that just uses HTTP to connect to a service and transfer arbitrary binary data (I think it was some part of Apple's iTunes, but IPP also does it) -- TCP already covers this!), and the web is being used for creating interactive user interfaces, then I get upset. It's like plugging round holes with square pins, or teaching pigs how to fly.
My take on this is the pointy-haired-bosses started learning about the web, and suddenly all web-related concepts were buzzwords that were forced on unsuspecting engineers, and now students are learning in school to do things "the web way". I find no other explanation.
</rant>
I'm not one who is in favor of binary application-level protocols, however. I always write ASCII-based protocols whenever I have a chance. Still, binary protocols have their place as well, but mostly where one wants to preserve bandwidth. Surely, you would not want the Internet to be using XML on the network layer?
In my workplace, these technologies are only praised by the non-technical people (managers etc.) that don't really know what they're speaking about. I've only seen it being used voluntarily by programmers once or twice. Ever. (The only implementation that comes to mind is freshmeat's version submittal system) It may just be me, but, to me, that sounds like "there are no technical advantages to XML before any other standard, it just so happens that it was used in many projects and became popular".Also, since LISP is around 40 years older than XML, I don't really see how the history of XML could allow it to be used easier. The thing is, nothing of the like has happened with any other format than XML. Assuming (which I do), that XML has no technical advantages in and of itself, I believe that it is purely because of hype that it happens.
The thing is, I don't understand for the life of me why people got the idea that XML should be used for data description to begin with -- it wasn't designed as such. XML was designed to be a document markup language, and that's precisely what it is. It's a good extensible document markup language (I don't say very good, since there are still some annoyances, but it certainly is good), but it is by no means a data description language.
XML is, quite possibly, the most awkward way there is to describe arbitrary data structures. First, it's by far too verbose for machines, and I would argue even for humans. Second, it's by far too verbose for the majority of data structures. Third, it's too awkward to write by hand. Fourth, it's too high-level to describe simpler structures in an elegant way. Fifth, it's too awkward to parse simply. I could probably continue for ten more pages to spit out arguments against XML, but I hope I've made my point.
Sure, XML is platform independent. So has every official internet protocol (STD document) been since the inception of the internet. The only reason I can think of why XML is so popular is because most platforms happen to ship with XML parsers (which is, of course, because it became so popular for that purpose to begin with -- I have no idea why that happened to begin with).
Honestly, inventing a new format or protocol that suits your ends better is not that hard. If nothing else, at least use s-exps instead of XML.
I'd really like to know why XML is so popular as it is. Can someone tell me?
Noone, not even RMS himself, says that he's written it all himself, but he most certainly did write parts of it -- large parts. In particular, he was the one who started writing them.
And you actually say that RMS don't have any good merits? If you want to see RMS's code -- really, just look at emacs, just look at gcc, just look at the GNU coreutils. RMS has written a lot of code. He does have a lot of goals that you might not agree with, but he has most certainly written a lot of code as well. If you had bothered to read the actual article, you'd see that he wasn't actually slamming at Intel that much. He was slamming at Intel, but that was just a very small part of the article. The major part of the article was about the importance of a free BIOS. In the article, RMS was trying to draw attention to the importance of writing a free BIOS, and also to pressure hardware manufacturers (not just Intel specifically) to leave out specifications in order to be able to write a free BIOS. I'm sure he would set up a free BIOS group, but to be honest, the man has pretty much else to do -- he can't do it all himself, and then blogging about it may be the next best thing to do.Rather, non-volatile memory instead has the enormous advantage that you can shut down your computer (physically) without shutting down your software system.
Indeed, one device for one purpose -- isn't it a great idea?
Rather, I'd say that bloat is a question of architecture. The command line isn't bloat, since all the commands are properly seperated from the shell itself. If every command was a part of the shell program itself, then it would be bloat, even though it has the exact same capabilities.
That's why Firefox may be called bloated -- not because all the extensions are included by default (which they, of course, aren't), but rather because all the extensions that you choose to include run as part of the same program. They become part of the firefox program itself when you install them. That is also why "It gets progressively more difficult to create seamless solutions". Since the extensions aren't properly seperated from themselves or the core Firefox program (the shell, if you will), it becomes ever more difficult to avoid conflicts.
That's also why a Linux distro is often considered less bloated than Windows, even though it's capable of so much more.
Note again the parallel of the UNIX command line. There are even more combinations of programs (extensions, if you will) in the command line than there are for Firefox, but that's not a problem since it has a better underlying architecture. Not really part of the subject, but I can't help noting how "light-weight" is such a relative word... Firefox may be light-weight compared to IE, the Mozilla suite, etc., but can you really call any program that takes 25 MBs of memory just to start of "light-weight"?If it's comprised of just dark matter, how can they tell that it's there at all?
I thought that the very problem that we had with dark matter was that we couldn't detect it, isn't that right?
With my ADSL latency being less than a tenth of that, I'd say that in itself is a good enough reason. Especially so if you're into gaming (not that I am, but since the original subject was Starcraft...).