Java is currently a very good platform for server-side solutions.
It is not currently an ideal platform for desktop-side solutions. There are a number of reasons for this. One of them, and the most easily remedied of them, is that the current licensing scheme places restrictions on the distribution of binary JRE's.
It may be that Sun is content with the status quo; after all, there's more and safer money on the server. In which case greater ubiquity for the JRE would be of no concern to them.
But: releasing JDIC or whatever it is under the LGPL suggests that they are indeed interested in propagating desktop-side Java. So it would seem logical to get as many Java VM's out there as easily as possible; which would mean slightly less restrictive language about binary distribution. (Notice that I am not speaking here of open source.)
But then again: tight integration of a Linux desktop with a Java VM is one of the selling points of the JDS, so from the perspective of that division, it would not make sense to make Java VM's more easily distributable.
In short, I don't have the faintest idea of where Sun is going. And I suspect that they don't either. You cannot have both ubiquity and control, but Sun's business model is premised upon having both.
I'm going to follow an increasing trend on Slashdot these days and come right out and admit I haven't read TFA.
I'm also going to follow an age-old trend of mankind and blame the victim. Really, Sun; with all of the incomprehensible noise that's been coming out of official and semi-official channels, who can blame me? The Kremlin during Brezhnev's dotage was more on-message than you these days. Clearly you were asking for it.
But anyways, if this doesn't include a less-restrictive license on the JRE such that it could go into Fedora, Debian, free-as-in-beer SuSE and other non-commercial distros, who gives a fuck? I don't even mean GPL - even a patches-only Minix-style source license; hell, even just free binary redistribution without selling your firstborn to Scott McNealy would do it.
Yes, yes, I know; those aren't enterprise Linux. But they are what enterprise Linux guys run at home.
If Sun really wants Java to be the platform of the future, they've got to make it possible to install as part of a platform, rather than an afterthought added in after you've already got kernel, services, gui, and browser application running.
The only reason OS9 staggered on for so long was because Apple took such a long time to get a working replacement.
And because Apple users were willing to take it; even to pretend that the rest of the world was getting a bum deal by using functional multitasking operating systems.
There is a kind of pathological fanboyism that is a natural but regrettable of every computing community. No matter how much a product reeks, some stubborn rump of dead-enders will persist in the delusion that its creators shit Tiffany cufflinks. While this attitude is morbid enough in itself, the morbidity becomes magnified ten-fold when one company alone puts out the OS, the hardware and many of the apps besides.
Fortunately for the Mac community, this imbecile persistence actually paid off in their case. Though it remains open to question whether the payoff was worth absurd hardware markups and continued existence only at the whim of Steve Ballmer.
Decaff: I've got a question for you if you're still reading this thread.
What do you make of the fact that there are no significant Perl or Python forks? Not trying to fuel a license pissing-match, I'd just like to get your thoughts on it since you're obviously an intelligent person and I don't understand your position. Thanks, -T.
I agree that there is a certain degree of immature "give us your code or you suck" attitude in the FOSS community; but more than that is at work here. Sun's public statements have become increasingly confusing and bizarre as of late (not just this: also similar dancing around open-source Solaris, the "Redhat is proprietary" fiasco, etc.) and people are just plain goddamn flabbergasted.
BTW: do you have any idea what the current business plan is for Java? I sure don't.
They nearly did lose control, when Microsoft produced significant windows-specific forks and labelled the result 'Java'. Developers used those libraries and produced Java binaries which could only run on Windows.
And as I recall, this was resolved through trademark litigation. Copyright licensing, proprietary or Free, didd not enter into it.
GNU project could have just taken this as their official kernel, but they'd put too much work into Hurd to stop really, and Hurd is a better design,
So much better that it's still completely unusable.
It's not X/GNU/Apache/MySQL/Linux/etc because non of those other things ever set out to make a Free Operating System, not even Linus.
"It's not GNU because GNU never succeeded in getting a usable system working." Or: "It should be X/Linux because GNU never set out to make a Free Desktop Environment." Same logic, equally asinine.
GNU/Linux, to offer credit to themselves and all the work they've done in creating a Free Software OS, but also to Linus Torvalds.
No. "They" "chose" (notice scare quotes) GNU/Linux:
1. After it had already been called "Linux" for some time; including in official GNU publications.
2. After "LiGNUx" flopped.
3. After it had become abundantly clear that Hurd was going fucking nowhere.
The "GNU/Linux" construction has become a tolerable one. One might argue that it is more just. But any argument that it is the one and only proper way to refer to the system in question is just completely fucking off the wall.
Perhaps they'll adopt the BSD-license model, which I think could make sense.
No. A BSD-style license would not only allow for forking, but also allow for each fork to be closed-source, proprietary and commercial.
Whatever license Sun chooses will be *more* restrictive than the GPL. Look for at least one of the following:
1. Language about patents (a la CPL)
2. Restrictions on distribution (e.g. no selling)
3. Language about lawsuits.
Some options would preclude OSDI/FSF approval, others would not. It depends on how much Sun wants to anatagonize people. Based on previous history I would guess: a lot.
The fear of a fork is what keeps the community split.
Sun has this spooky, almost pathological, fear of forking. I guess you can attribute it to fallout from the proprietary Unix wars of the 80s and 90s. Thing is, those were a direct consequence of proprietary licensing. Everyone took the "historical Unix" code, put it in their own systems, and then chugged along incompatibly, with the new code hidden. The difference with GPL'd code is that if you use it, you have to publish it. So your rivals can copy or emulate incompatible features easily.
GPL projects can fork, but the forks can dovetail back into one another. Proprietary projects that fork stay forked.
Sun Rays use a proprietary protocol. They are not X terminals. SunRay server handles much more of the rendering than X, which makes the clients much, much more lightweight. You could reverse-engineer something equivalent, but it would not be as simple as just plugging a SunRay client into LTSP.
What annoys me about "XML" is that a "Markup Language" is supposed to describe data *for presentation*, that's what Markup is all about. Using it as a general purpose database format is truly a misuse of the SGML technology.
Oh, is there actually something XML should be used for? News to me...
Absolutely. For defining complex documents, as opposed to proprietary or roll-your-own data formats. XML is half human-readable: it is plain text, but it has so much noise that it's a pain to read. This makes it IMHO a bad choice for stuff like config files or most data-serialization tasks. In those cases it's good to be able to do quick-and-dirty editing with a text editor if you need to - and you probably will need to.
But for stuff like Word Processor files where most of the editing is done with a front-end anyways, the format doesn't really need to be easily human-readable. In that case the main benefit of human-readability is in ease of writing a parser. And XML is pretty easy to parse.
A cynical take on this article would be that it's sour grapes by a stranded Lisp/Smalltalk guy who never got used to doing things The Unix Way, and still wants to lead the unwashed masses kicking and screaming to the promised land.
"PUT DOWN THE VIM! WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED!"
All cynicism aside, this is a mixed back. Extensible syntax is a great idea; and yeah, Lisp already had it in the 50's. What needs to happen for broader adoption is to do it in a natural Algolish syntax, which basically means limiting functionality. Languages like Python and Ruby (with lambdas and blocks/procs) are starting to do it and I expect to see others follow.
The whole "seamless translation into XML and back into any language of your choice" is a lovely idea, but even small bugs in implementation would handicap its usefulness considerably. It'd also take a tool oodles more complicated than gcc, which he doesn't seem to like.
Finally, tight coupling of language and development environment can mean added productivity, but it also tends to mean less flexibility in practice: this is one of several reasons that Smalltalk hasn't caught on.
The graphics & stuff still have a different license, right? I suspect the ISOs still aren't fair game for copying...
GPL applies to copyright, not trademarks.
But if you want, you can download the source, strip out the trademarked material and redistribute it to your heart's content. That's full GPL compliance.
I've been pretty surprised that JDS isn't already on SunRays. That's what Sun's been pushing for years, and technically if not necessarily commercially it's their killer offering.
I dunno, maybe you're right that this is just a test-bed. Pretty weird way to go about it. But then again we're talking about Sun here.
JDS isn't really another distro; it's preconfigured SuSE. What JDS offers, which no one else does, is ready plugability into Sun's Java Enterprise System server stack. (Unlike JDS, JES actually is substantially Java-based).
The usefulness of JDS would hinge on how good JES is. So far I haven't found a good review of it, either alone or in comparison with similar stacks from Novell, IBM, Microsoft, etc.
The sad thing is Java is one of the better-supported lagnuages for Mozilla. XUL would ideally be a great platform to hack on, but it's very badly documented and there isn't much in the way of language bindings or mindshare out there.
Ditto for OpenOffice. UNO is great in the abstract but in practice it's extremely forbidding. It would be nice if they could work together on a single, XML-based cross-platform app delivery framework - they even have similar licenses - but...hell, you know the story.
People predicted this shit about ActiveX. It didn't happen. Before that, people predicted that NT would kill Unix. Unix vendors were tripping all over themselves to kill off their own businesses. It didn't happen. The stupidity and completeness of the panic is apparent from the fact that Sun - despite a complete lack of corporate competence or contact with reality - are the only ones who held on to a Unix business at all, from the mere fact of not having shot themselves in the head preemptively.
The.NET doom scenario requires you to believe several things:
1..NET will be so overwhelmingly more convenient to develop in that it will make the cost for web developers to migrate immediately and en masse insignificant. 2. Once they migrate, they will love it so much that they'll never even consider a future alternative. 3. That once they make the development decision, it will be so compelling that they'll willingly shitcan their existing Linux/Apache installations, which are in many cases quite large. 4. That none of the revulsion that end-users feel towards over-the-internet Java apps will carry over to.NET. 5. That security will not be a concern.
I could go on, but even these five assumptions are not tenable. Does that mean no-one will use.NET? No. Does that mean there won't be some catchup for Mozilla et al. to play? No. Will the FOSS-fanboys' dream of everyone giving up IE come true soon? No.
But these Chicken Little scenarios are just completely f'ing off the wall.
Was a cultural thing in the greek believe. Only heroes could get a semi pleasent afterlife in hades and only a handful were able to achieve god state and didnt have to endure pain and hopelessness in hades.
In the historical period Greek cities gave out heroic honors to the dead for:
1. Being struck by lightning
2. Hosting a god's image while his temple was being built.
3. Winning Olympic victories.
4. Disappearing into a hole in the ground.
5. In one case, winning an Olympic victory, going insane, committing murder, fleeing from an angry mob into a temple, hiding in a box, and then disappearing.
In the historical period, heroization for individuals for deeds in war was actually quite rare: it tended to favor aristocrats and undermined broad-based hoplite warfare and democracy.
The period from the birth of the Greek city-state to Alexander is about 5 or 600 years. That's about three times as long as the US has been around. And Greek city-states stretched all the way from Sicily and Libya to the Southern coasts of Turkey and the Ukraine.
Even if parallels with Dick Cheney were apposite for the Peloponnesian war (which is highly arguable) making generalizations about all of Greek antiquity based on the two cities we happen to know the most about at the time period we happen to know the most about is not smart. As the examples above show, there was a huge amount of variation.
I am perfectly happy to have the comparatively wise and competent Slashdot editors select the occasional gem from OSNews (which is really amazing at digging stuff up, even if a lot of it's useless) and leaving the chaff/flamebait behind.
The basic problem is that the author is incapable of imagining a world different from his own.
The leads to some annoying religious/political biases. Greek culture is evaluated based on what it contributed to Catholicism and social-justice (good) or what it contributed to Neoconservatism (bad). Annoyingly, Cahill takes V.D. Hanson and other neocon writers at their word when they say the Greeks anticipated neocon thought, when their findings are open to doubt.
But Cahill's lack of imagination shows up in other annoying ways. For example, some of the most interesting work being done in Classics these days is based on the hypothesis that early Greek poems like the Homeric epics were not written down once and for all by a monumental author at a very early date, but instead underwent continuous recomposition-in-performance until...depends on how radical you want to get; some scholars will say 500 BC, others 200 BC or later.
Cahill's argument against this is that the Iliad and Odyssey are too good to have been a collaborative effort. This is akin to saying that Linux must have been put together by a highly paid corporate team with extensive UML documents and an imprimatur from AT&T.
I'd recommend Greg Nagy's _The Best of the Achaeans_ if you want to see some of the more interesting directions that Greek scholarship has been taking in the past few decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Java is currently a very good platform for server-side solutions.
It is not currently an ideal platform for desktop-side solutions. There are a number of reasons for this. One of them, and the most easily remedied of them, is that the current licensing scheme places restrictions on the distribution of binary JRE's.
It may be that Sun is content with the status quo; after all, there's more and safer money on the server. In which case greater ubiquity for the JRE would be of no concern to them.
But: releasing JDIC or whatever it is under the LGPL suggests that they are indeed interested in propagating desktop-side Java. So it would seem logical to get as many Java VM's out there as easily as possible; which would mean slightly less restrictive language about binary distribution. (Notice that I am not speaking here of open source.)
But then again: tight integration of a Linux desktop with a Java VM is one of the selling points of the JDS, so from the perspective of that division, it would not make sense to make Java VM's more easily distributable.
In short, I don't have the faintest idea of where Sun is going. And I suspect that they don't either. You cannot have both ubiquity and control, but Sun's business model is premised upon having both.
I'm going to follow an increasing trend on Slashdot these days and come right out and admit I haven't read TFA.
I'm also going to follow an age-old trend of mankind and blame the victim. Really, Sun; with all of the incomprehensible noise that's been coming out of official and semi-official channels, who can blame me? The Kremlin during Brezhnev's dotage was more on-message than you these days. Clearly you were asking for it.
But anyways, if this doesn't include a less-restrictive license on the JRE such that it could go into Fedora, Debian, free-as-in-beer SuSE and other non-commercial distros, who gives a fuck? I don't even mean GPL - even a patches-only Minix-style source license; hell, even just free binary redistribution without selling your firstborn to Scott McNealy would do it.
Yes, yes, I know; those aren't enterprise Linux. But they are what enterprise Linux guys run at home.
If Sun really wants Java to be the platform of the future, they've got to make it possible to install as part of a platform, rather than an afterthought added in after you've already got kernel, services, gui, and browser application running.
The only reason OS9 staggered on for so long was because Apple took such a long time to get a working replacement.
And because Apple users were willing to take it; even to pretend that the rest of the world was getting a bum deal by using functional multitasking operating systems.
There is a kind of pathological fanboyism that is a natural but regrettable of every computing community. No matter how much a product reeks, some stubborn rump of dead-enders will persist in the delusion that its creators shit Tiffany cufflinks. While this attitude is morbid enough in itself, the morbidity becomes magnified ten-fold when one company alone puts out the OS, the hardware and many of the apps besides.
Fortunately for the Mac community, this imbecile persistence actually paid off in their case. Though it remains open to question whether the payoff was worth absurd hardware markups and continued existence only at the whim of Steve Ballmer.
Decaff: I've got a question for you if you're still reading this thread.
What do you make of the fact that there are no significant Perl or Python forks? Not trying to fuel a license pissing-match, I'd just like to get your thoughts on it since you're obviously an intelligent person and I don't understand your position. Thanks, -T.
I agree that there is a certain degree of immature "give us your code or you suck" attitude in the FOSS community; but more than that is at work here. Sun's public statements have become increasingly confusing and bizarre as of late (not just this: also similar dancing around open-source Solaris, the "Redhat is proprietary" fiasco, etc.) and people are just plain goddamn flabbergasted.
BTW: do you have any idea what the current business plan is for Java? I sure don't.
They nearly did lose control, when Microsoft produced significant windows-specific forks and labelled the result 'Java'. Developers used those libraries and produced Java binaries which could only run on Windows.
And as I recall, this was resolved through trademark litigation. Copyright licensing, proprietary or Free, didd not enter into it.
I noticed that too. I don't know who this "Noone" character he keeps talking about is, but he doesn't sound like a very nice fellow.
GNU project could have just taken this as their official kernel, but they'd put too much work into Hurd to stop really, and Hurd is a better design,
So much better that it's still completely unusable.
It's not X/GNU/Apache/MySQL/Linux/etc because non of those other things ever set out to make a Free Operating System, not even Linus.
"It's not GNU because GNU never succeeded in getting a usable system working." Or: "It should be X/Linux because GNU never set out to make a Free Desktop Environment." Same logic, equally asinine.
GNU/Linux, to offer credit to themselves and all the work they've done in creating a Free Software OS, but also to Linus Torvalds.
No. "They" "chose" (notice scare quotes) GNU/Linux:
1. After it had already been called "Linux" for some time; including in official GNU publications.
2. After "LiGNUx" flopped.
3. After it had become abundantly clear that Hurd was going fucking nowhere.
The "GNU/Linux" construction has become a tolerable one. One might argue that it is more just. But any argument that it is the one and only proper way to refer to the system in question is just completely fucking off the wall.
OSNews has a charming write-up about the BeOS
You misspelled "morbid obsession with".
Perhaps they'll adopt the BSD-license model, which I think could make sense.
No. A BSD-style license would not only allow for forking, but also allow for each fork to be closed-source, proprietary and commercial.
Whatever license Sun chooses will be *more* restrictive than the GPL. Look for at least one of the following:
1. Language about patents (a la CPL)
2. Restrictions on distribution (e.g. no selling)
3. Language about lawsuits.
Some options would preclude OSDI/FSF approval, others would not. It depends on how much Sun wants to anatagonize people. Based on previous history I would guess: a lot.
No. You will die soon.
The fear of a fork is what keeps the community split.
Sun has this spooky, almost pathological, fear of forking. I guess you can attribute it to fallout from the proprietary Unix wars of the 80s and 90s. Thing is, those were a direct consequence of proprietary licensing. Everyone took the "historical Unix" code, put it in their own systems, and then chugged along incompatibly, with the new code hidden. The difference with GPL'd code is that if you use it, you have to publish it. So your rivals can copy or emulate incompatible features easily.
GPL projects can fork, but the forks can dovetail back into one another. Proprietary projects that fork stay forked.
Sun Rays use a proprietary protocol. They are not X terminals. SunRay server handles much more of the rendering than X, which makes the clients much, much more lightweight. You could reverse-engineer something equivalent, but it would not be as simple as just plugging a SunRay client into LTSP.
What annoys me about "XML" is that a "Markup Language" is supposed to describe data *for presentation*, that's what Markup is all about. Using it as a general purpose database format is truly a misuse of the SGML technology.
Absolutely agree.
Oh, is there actually something XML should be used for? News to me...
Absolutely. For defining complex documents, as opposed to proprietary or roll-your-own data formats. XML is half human-readable: it is plain text, but it has so much noise that it's a pain to read. This makes it IMHO a bad choice for stuff like config files or most data-serialization tasks. In those cases it's good to be able to do quick-and-dirty editing with a text editor if you need to - and you probably will need to.
But for stuff like Word Processor files where most of the editing is done with a front-end anyways, the format doesn't really need to be easily human-readable. In that case the main benefit of human-readability is in ease of writing a parser. And XML is pretty easy to parse.
A cynical take on this article would be that it's sour grapes by a stranded Lisp/Smalltalk guy who never got used to doing things The Unix Way, and still wants to lead the unwashed masses kicking and screaming to the promised land.
"PUT DOWN THE VIM! WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED!"
All cynicism aside, this is a mixed back. Extensible syntax is a great idea; and yeah, Lisp already had it in the 50's. What needs to happen for broader adoption is to do it in a natural Algolish syntax, which basically means limiting functionality. Languages like Python and Ruby (with lambdas and blocks/procs) are starting to do it and I expect to see others follow.
The whole "seamless translation into XML and back into any language of your choice" is a lovely idea, but even small bugs in implementation would handicap its usefulness considerably. It'd also take a tool oodles more complicated than gcc, which he doesn't seem to like.
Finally, tight coupling of language and development environment can mean added productivity, but it also tends to mean less flexibility in practice: this is one of several reasons that Smalltalk hasn't caught on.
The graphics & stuff still have a different license, right? I suspect the ISOs still aren't fair game for copying...
GPL applies to copyright, not trademarks.
But if you want, you can download the source, strip out the trademarked material and redistribute it to your heart's content. That's full GPL compliance.
I've been pretty surprised that JDS isn't already on SunRays. That's what Sun's been pushing for years, and technically if not necessarily commercially it's their killer offering.
I dunno, maybe you're right that this is just a test-bed. Pretty weird way to go about it. But then again we're talking about Sun here.
JDS isn't really another distro; it's preconfigured SuSE. What JDS offers, which no one else does, is ready plugability into Sun's Java Enterprise System server stack. (Unlike JDS, JES actually is substantially Java-based).
The usefulness of JDS would hinge on how good JES is. So far I haven't found a good review of it, either alone or in comparison with similar stacks from Novell, IBM, Microsoft, etc.
C'mon, OSDN, let's get with the program.
The sad thing is Java is one of the better-supported lagnuages for Mozilla. XUL would ideally be a great platform to hack on, but it's very badly documented and there isn't much in the way of language bindings or mindshare out there.
Ditto for OpenOffice. UNO is great in the abstract but in practice it's extremely forbidding. It would be nice if they could work together on a single, XML-based cross-platform app delivery framework - they even have similar licenses - but...hell, you know the story.
People predicted this shit about ActiveX. It didn't happen. Before that, people predicted that NT would kill Unix. Unix vendors were tripping all over themselves to kill off their own businesses. It didn't happen. The stupidity and completeness of the panic is apparent from the fact that Sun - despite a complete lack of corporate competence or contact with reality - are the only ones who held on to a Unix business at all, from the mere fact of not having shot themselves in the head preemptively.
.NET doom scenario requires you to believe several things:
.NET will be so overwhelmingly more convenient to develop in that it will make the cost for web developers to migrate immediately and en masse insignificant. .NET.
.NET? No. Does that mean there won't be some catchup for Mozilla et al. to play? No. Will the FOSS-fanboys' dream of everyone giving up IE come true soon? No.
The
1.
2. Once they migrate, they will love it so much that they'll never even consider a future alternative.
3. That once they make the development decision, it will be so compelling that they'll willingly shitcan their existing Linux/Apache installations, which are in many cases quite large.
4. That none of the revulsion that end-users feel towards over-the-internet Java apps will carry over to
5. That security will not be a concern.
I could go on, but even these five assumptions are not tenable. Does that mean no-one will use
But these Chicken Little scenarios are just completely f'ing off the wall.
Was a cultural thing in the greek believe. Only heroes could get a semi pleasent afterlife in hades and only a handful were able to achieve god state and didnt have to endure pain and hopelessness in hades.
In the historical period Greek cities gave out heroic honors to the dead for:
1. Being struck by lightning
2. Hosting a god's image while his temple was being built.
3. Winning Olympic victories.
4. Disappearing into a hole in the ground.
5. In one case, winning an Olympic victory, going insane, committing murder, fleeing from an angry mob into a temple, hiding in a box, and then disappearing.
In the historical period, heroization for individuals for deeds in war was actually quite rare: it tended to favor aristocrats and undermined broad-based hoplite warfare and democracy.
The period from the birth of the Greek city-state to Alexander is about 5 or 600 years. That's about three times as long as the US has been around. And Greek city-states stretched all the way from Sicily and Libya to the Southern coasts of Turkey and the Ukraine.
Even if parallels with Dick Cheney were apposite for the Peloponnesian war (which is highly arguable) making generalizations about all of Greek antiquity based on the two cities we happen to know the most about at the time period we happen to know the most about is not smart. As the examples above show, there was a huge amount of variation.
OSNews has had 2 stories on Amiga and one each on BeOS and SkyOS within the past week. Mercifully, we're spared that on Slashdot.
OSNews also has a greater propensity for posting bare press releases, contentless, flame-prone speculation, and and editorials on programming by people with no grasp of either programming or English.
I am perfectly happy to have the comparatively wise and competent Slashdot editors select the occasional gem from OSNews (which is really amazing at digging stuff up, even if a lot of it's useless) and leaving the chaff/flamebait behind.
The basic problem is that the author is incapable of imagining a world different from his own.
The leads to some annoying religious/political biases. Greek culture is evaluated based on what it contributed to Catholicism and social-justice (good) or what it contributed to Neoconservatism (bad). Annoyingly, Cahill takes V.D. Hanson and other neocon writers at their word when they say the Greeks anticipated neocon thought, when their findings are open to doubt.
But Cahill's lack of imagination shows up in other annoying ways. For example, some of the most interesting work being done in Classics these days is based on the hypothesis that early Greek poems like the Homeric epics were not written down once and for all by a monumental author at a very early date, but instead underwent continuous recomposition-in-performance until...depends on how radical you want to get; some scholars will say 500 BC, others 200 BC or later.
Cahill's argument against this is that the Iliad and Odyssey are too good to have been a collaborative effort. This is akin to saying that Linux must have been put together by a highly paid corporate team with extensive UML documents and an imprimatur from AT&T.
I'd recommend Greg Nagy's _The Best of the Achaeans_ if you want to see some of the more interesting directions that Greek scholarship has been taking in the past few decades.
Sorry, wrong URL; but they do have a page specifically aimed at people who encounter popups and blame it on Google.