There are other cross-platform systems, but none which integrate as well with the system's look. The browser component is nicely integrated. It's very easy to use HTML + CSS to render interface components.
It doesn't seem to have much to reccommend it at first glance -- a language that lacks features and performance (javascript) a runtime that's bulky (mozilla), and worst of all a real case of Java-itis -- XML files and source files that endlessly have to be kept in sync and bundled together, no self-documentation and no metadata.
It isn't written in Java. Javascript isn't even anything to do with Java. Also, it doesn't run inside Mozilla or even require Mozilla to be installed. I haven't looked at the code, but poor commenting and source management isn't an issue with the language.
I ask because I tried porting a semi-complicated IE plugin to XUL and had to give up -- admittedly, I had to give up because of limitations in the HTML renderer, but long before then I had learned to dread the process of hooking into Mozilla at all. And that's saying something, considering that the original IE plugin was entirely made of hand-written COM, written against IE's none-too-predictable interfaces.
Why is it a good idea to try and "port" something like that? Neither the interface nor the language have anything in common, and in any case you just said the code you were trying to follow wasn't very nice anyway. XUL doesn't even work in a similar way to COM. That sort of thing calls for a rewrite from scratch.
So, why XUL? I appreciate that you _could_ write an application in it, but what's the unique selling point that justifies all the work?
You could I suppose... At least some of the Mozilla suite, Firefox, Thunderbird and Nvu are pretty nice applications, don't you think?
And? They admit that. Do you think any application that you use daily was not in that state at some point? I fail to understand how this is supposed to reflect on the probability of a good application resulting from this development.
Probably either their official builds are all 32-bit, or they have something cooler than that like a 32-bit wrapper to load 32-bit plugins in a separate process or something.
And then how would Windows software function under it? "Binary compatibility" means you should be able to just install Windows software and drivers as if ReactOS was just another version of of Windows, without modifying the software.
For a start, it's probably easier to do this sort of thing if no filenames, etc. change, although there's nothing to stop you calling an ELF binary *.exe. If you wanted to make a nice Linux app on the win32 API, you could change the paths and stuff and have it install more normally, instead of Picasa's system of having a bin folder of wrapper scripts and a wine folder with a miniature Windows directory tree.
Also, they might have wanted to use exactly the same files for both. Maybe someone who has the Windows build too could diff the MS-DOS executables from both versions? The directory tree certainly looks just like Windows with Picasa 2 and "wine_gecko" installed.
It should also be noted that the reason it might seem at first glance to be winelib is that it doesn't depend on Wine. This is because they include their own version of Wine, presumably because their patches are not in mainstream releases of wine yet.
In the UK, or at least in my part of England, animal charities still say that everyone should have their cats spayed/neutered, even though there is something of a shortage of kittens now and it can be rather difficult to get one. Also, there are very few strays around here.
That said, I went to Madrid (capital of Spain) last year, and the parks there are full of strays; you see them everywhere like sparrows or something.
Well, you could probably develop a system to measure the signal intensity from an RFID tag. Then you could sort of wave a handheld thing around, getting closer to the thing you're looking for.
Of course, they'd probably lose the scanner too, but hey.
They have some interesting locked-down Windows boxes at my sixth form. You can't write to the C drive (obviously), and you can't run executables from your own network folder, or from USB sticks, or in fact from anywhere you have write access to.
It infuriates me, but it wouldn't even be noticed by the sort of people who catch this "worm" (surely actually a virus, as the user is required to run it him/herself?). I don't know how its done, but it seems to be at a fairly low level (doesn't just apply to starting things with Explorer but instead gives the same error even if you try to launch things from office macros, batch files, etc.). If something like this were built into windows (the machines at school have a lot of RM stuff in them, so I suspect it isn't a Windows feature), it would at least protect idiots that have bright friends and family to set stuff up for them. It's much simpler than TC, and the admin can log in (with a separate password you wouldn't even have to give your sister) and install things as normal, even if MS doesn't like it.
If they had all the equipment they needed, would they have gone to the trouble of hacking up a clever system with it? I think they could have spent more and just got the same results.
Slashdot Mirror
But flash drives are rewritable! Surely a tax on "blank" ones can be circumvented by filling them with pointless free content before sale?
It isn't written in Java. Javascript isn't even anything to do with Java. Also, it doesn't run inside Mozilla or even require Mozilla to be installed. I haven't looked at the code, but poor commenting and source management isn't an issue with the language.
Why is it a good idea to try and "port" something like that? Neither the interface nor the language have anything in common, and in any case you just said the code you were trying to follow wasn't very nice anyway. XUL doesn't even work in a similar way to COM. That sort of thing calls for a rewrite from scratch.
You could I suppose... At least some of the Mozilla suite, Firefox, Thunderbird and Nvu are pretty nice applications, don't you think?
Is there any evidence for this at all?
I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!
You're going to want full video of the flight, at a high resolution if possible. That's gonna take up a few GB very fast
But we don't WANT non-geeks on our Internet! They get in the way and ask stupid questions.
Probably either their official builds are all 32-bit, or they have something cooler than that like a 32-bit wrapper to load 32-bit plugins in a separate process or something.
It's odd, that. It's actually a borderless window, with Google Earth drawing what it thinks a windows border should look like. Weird way to do things.
Retarded summery. Sorry.
How does the virus "infect" a computer then? That would imply local code execution.
A flaw in whose JS implementation then?
And then how would Windows software function under it? "Binary compatibility" means you should be able to just install Windows software and drivers as if ReactOS was just another version of of Windows, without modifying the software.
Many closed-source QT apps use a default look even under KDE, notably applications which are hard-linked against an internal QT4.
That does strike me as odd.
For a start, it's probably easier to do this sort of thing if no filenames, etc. change, although there's nothing to stop you calling an ELF binary *.exe. If you wanted to make a nice Linux app on the win32 API, you could change the paths and stuff and have it install more normally, instead of Picasa's system of having a bin folder of wrapper scripts and a wine folder with a miniature Windows directory tree.
Also, they might have wanted to use exactly the same files for both. Maybe someone who has the Windows build too could diff the MS-DOS executables from both versions? The directory tree certainly looks just like Windows with Picasa 2 and "wine_gecko" installed.
It should also be noted that the reason it might seem at first glance to be winelib is that it doesn't depend on Wine. This is because they include their own version of Wine, presumably because their patches are not in mainstream releases of wine yet.
What's the world coming to? On Slashdot, "fashionable" is when we actually put clothes on.
Probably not. They're not actually GM, you see. They're selectively bred, with gene sequencing used to get a better idea of what they're doing.
Which country is this?
In the UK, or at least in my part of England, animal charities still say that everyone should have their cats spayed/neutered, even though there is something of a shortage of kittens now and it can be rather difficult to get one. Also, there are very few strays around here.
That said, I went to Madrid (capital of Spain) last year, and the parks there are full of strays; you see them everywhere like sparrows or something.
Well, you could probably develop a system to measure the signal intensity from an RFID tag. Then you could sort of wave a handheld thing around, getting closer to the thing you're looking for.
Of course, they'd probably lose the scanner too, but hey.
I wonder if you could design some sort of pressure-driven bong in which water doesn't escape in microgravity.
It's probably meaningless. You're visible from space, with good enough optics, and a low enough orbit.
LOL.
He certainly has. It isn't his real name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gorden_Corley
They have some interesting locked-down Windows boxes at my sixth form. You can't write to the C drive (obviously), and you can't run executables from your own network folder, or from USB sticks, or in fact from anywhere you have write access to.
It infuriates me, but it wouldn't even be noticed by the sort of people who catch this "worm" (surely actually a virus, as the user is required to run it him/herself?).
I don't know how its done, but it seems to be at a fairly low level (doesn't just apply to starting things with Explorer but instead gives the same error even if you try to launch things from office macros, batch files, etc.). If something like this were built into windows (the machines at school have a lot of RM stuff in them, so I suspect it isn't a Windows feature), it would at least protect idiots that have bright friends and family to set stuff up for them. It's much simpler than TC, and the admin can log in (with a separate password you wouldn't even have to give your sister) and install things as normal, even if MS doesn't like it.
If they had all the equipment they needed, would they have gone to the trouble of hacking up a clever system with it? I think they could have spent more and just got the same results.