'It's on YRO because there are a bunch of goddamn children around who think "TOP SECRET" means "I won't talk about it unless I'm of a mind to."'
Hey, mister, can you enlighten this poor, benighted child? He's trying to understand how the magic incantation 'TOP SECRET' suddenly requires that we forget we ever had a conscience, a sense of common decency and a constitution that upholds human rights.
Anyone who is unable to see that Justice can - and should - trump secrecy is living in a moral vacuum.
"I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I think trusting their stated intent is a bit like trusting a bamboo pole and kit string on a deep-dea fishing trip."
No, it's more like trusting a bear with the contents of your picnic basket.
So your solution to China cracking the protocol is to make it open-source.
You are a genius.
And you, evidently, are not.
If you're analysing the risks inherent in a communications infrastructure, and you find that one (and only one) outside party has access to the protocol, it makes perfect sense to drop the 'security by obscurity' part of the plan entirely, and to move to the next element of your defense-in-depth. In this case, open sourcing the protocol could have the effect of ensuring that others invest heavily in it, improving and expanding the service, making it harder for the Chinese authorities to justify blocking it.
This is, ultimately, why the Great Firewall of China will never be effective against the Web: The value of the system to the Chinese is greater than the value of blocking it outright. Instead, they compromise by making it somewhat difficult for most people to get to most 'objectionable' content. This 'whack-a-mole' strategy guarantees that those who really want to access restricted information sources can do so, given time and a nominal amount of effort.
That's fine for Bruce, and in fairness I think he's right that an RF shield in the passport cover reduces risk. But the one thing that nobody seems to have considered is that the passport is often the only ID considered valid for non-residents of most countries.
A briefcase bomb sitting in a Western Union office in Jakarta, for example, would likely prove quite effective.
"Then <lname> tripped over <lastname> which was crawling on the floor after being decked by <name last="Henry"/> who was rather pissed off after an argument with <name><last>Henry</last></name>"
"Yeah. And that's XML's fault how? Get a DTD and stick to it."
Well, actually, schema and RDF were supposed to address exactly that issue. So, in the opinion of the W3C, at least, it appears 'Get a DTD and stick to it' isn't the complete answer.
But that's a simplistic retort. The truth is that there are many cases (especially when individual business-to-business transactions are concerned) where 'Get a DTD and stick to it' is probably the right answer. It's simpler, if nothing else.
That's not the end of the conversation, though. There are a number of cases where future communications and permutations simply can't be known, and in situations like that, the option of sticking to a single DTD simply doesn't exist. In theory at least, schema and RDF supply the means to handle semantic translation of data.
'"Semantics" aren't reusable. They're not arbitrarily applied. Please stop using words you fail to understand. Not every markup of data is semantic, even if the markup means something. Semantics are the work of understanding context, not identifying relationships. Telling the difference between two kinds of ID code isn't semantic. Telling the difference between bug (insect) and bug (Volkswagon,) however, is.'
That may be true, but I remember very clearly listening to Tim Berners Lee introducing the Semantic Web in Toronto back in '99, and the example he used of how the Semantic Web would work showed A being determined to be semantically the same as C because A and B were known to be equivalent, and B and C were known to be equivalent as well. So while it's technically correct to say that semantics has nothing to do with translation, the promise of the Semantic Web is that one is able to translate between ad hoc data types precisely because their semantics can be inferred.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of schema and RDF in practice. Suffice it to say that no one's found many compelling (or at least popular) uses for either so far. That said, we still don't take advantage of much of HTML and CSS, so the problem may be PEBCAK (or just impatience) rather than poor design.
"Fair point. But as long as you start emailing people.odt files instead of the latest.doc, your files are safe."
Untrue. If people are using the proposed MS plug-in, it would read the ODF file, translate it into MS' proprietary[*] XML format, allow changes, then translate back into ODF. This means that there are two signficant points of failure where translation errors - whether deliberate or accidental - can occur.
That's ad hoc design, and not worthy of consideration as anything more than a stop-gap measure until ODF is supported natively by MS apps. And that, I understand, is what the ODF spokesperson in the article is trying to say.
---
[*] Yes, 'proprietary'. Just because something is world-readable doesn't mean it's unencumbered.
I didn't RTFA - in fact, I didn't even read your comment - but I just wanted to say that Slashdot is more interesting than other sites is because the discussion is more interesting here.
"Four years ago, Corel shutdown their OSS site and now they are seeing a return to stability. While it is debatable whether their OSS division was the direct cause of financial hardship, it certainly seems to have been a factor."
Four or so years ago (okay, six), they also dropped the single biggest liability the company has ever known: Michael Cowpland, their founder and would-be Napoleon, who foolishly believed that he could beat Microsoft at its own game. He was notorious for having the attention span of a gnat, which had the effect of sending his company charging off after every shiny new technological bauble, with "...unsuccessful forays into CAD, videoconferencing, Java, Linux and other developments."
He was also a crook, and was found guilty of insider trading.
"You are arguing the politically-trendy fallacy that more choice implies better results."
I am not arguing anything of the kind. I am arguing long-term risk management.
This issue has almost nothing to do with software performance, features or other intangibles. It has to do with ensuring that data will remain available and usable for an indefinite period, using an unknowable array of automation processes. Proprietary binary formats, especially when one considers their history, have little to offer in this regard. Open, text-based, standards-based specifications designed with exactly this kind of flexibility in mind, on the other hand, are quite appealing.
"You can argue until you're blue in the face that document format and application features are two separate things, but this fact remains: if you dictate a format, then people have to use an application that supports the format!"
An application that supports the format? You mean, like, Microsoft Office?
I think you're the one missing the point here. Anyone who argues apps agains formats is liable to fall into the same logical hole: Just because an app - or an app-maker, for that matter - doesn't support a format today, doesn't mean that they can't or won't. The mere fact that it is standard and required will almost inevitably be enough to ensure that someone steps up and supports the format.
Ultimately, the whole point of open formats is the exact opposite of telling someone which application they can or cannot use. The truth of it is that open formats allow the customer to decide what's best for him, without fear of finding himself at the mercy of a single, predatory vendor.
"This legislation was first introduced by the liberals last year, so it isn't just because of the more right wing conservatives."
That's 'Liberal' with a capital 'L', please. One is a name, the other is an adjective. Here's an example of usage: "In Canada (as in Australia), the Liberal party is not at all liberal in its policies."
Now with that out of the way, allow me to re-phrase your statement more accurately:
"This legislation was first introduced by the liberals last year, so it is just because of more right wing politicians."
"Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister, or sometimes Practical Extraction and Reporting Language. The first one is said to have come first, and was the "real" meaning of the acronym, but I think the second one is the more "official" meaning."
Perl was originally named "Pearl", after "the pearl of great price" of Matthew 13:46. Larry Wall wanted to give the language a short name with positive connotations; he claims that he looked at (and rejected) every three- and four-letter word in the dictionary. He also considered naming it after his wife Gloria. Wall discovered before the language's official release that there was already a programming language named PEARL and changed the spelling of the name.
You made the mistake of decribing a US city. Most cities in Europe - where, not coincidentally, Fon is based - are much more densely integrated, with people living upstairs or across the street from most parks, shops and cafés in the city center. This means, for example, that even if the pub owner decides that s/he wants to overcharge for 'Net access, you can just opt for the cheaper option emanating from right upstairs.
There are limitations, of course. Not the least of them is that many European buildings are built with stone and brick. This means that in many cities Fon will have to establish its service literally 'street by street,' as their marketing bumph states.
'Is it just me, or does it look like ever since Steve Ballmer took over the reigns Microsoft's business plan can be summed up as "Whatever Google/Apple is doing, we're gonna compete with that."?'
It's a winning strategy, and has proven effective on all levels of the food chain. It's called scavenging. Example: lions use tremendous cunning and skill to trap and kill their prey. Some are injured or killed in the process, but the risk is worth it.
Hyenas, on the other hand, simply follow the lions.
"Automate as in a shell script? Try creating a batch file... Although I must admit that Microsoft goofed when they ditched some of the more useful batch commands, like choice.com - they're still available on the web, but not included in the default install anymore... as for the lack of a decent copy command, try typing "xcopy/?" at the command prompt - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the number of options available. I know, I know, i'm tooting M$'s horn, but I have found that any OS is only as good as the effort you put into learning how to use it."
Sorry, maybe I should have made it clear that I worked professionally with MS products from about DOS 6 until Windows 2000, when I finally switched entirely to FOSS. I've written a number of batch files - and you're right about some of the assumptions they made once DOS bagen to fade. I've also used ActiveState Perl, Cygwin and a number of other really wonderful utilities. I didn't mean to create the impression that this kind of thing is impossible on Windows. It's just that it's hard to get at by default.
Entirely the opposite is true in the Unix/Linux world. No matter what GUI I find myself staring at, I'm pretty much assured that - with a nominal amount of variation - I will find more or less the same toolset at hand, and files in more or less the same place.
Using Windows as a development or sysadmin workstation is not a big deal, because within a day or two you can get things tweaked just the way you like them, and all your favourite tools installed. Unfortunately, that kind of thing isn't very portable. Working on client computers was the situation that set my teeth a-grinding, as I mentioned in the GP.
"On a side note, show me *any* major software company that will offer *FREE* linux support to a user *WITHOUT CHECKING A WARRANTY*."
Heh, the staff who develop the contribs.org SME Server do that, and have done since we were first hired by e-smith, inc. back in the dotcom boom. Of course they do it on a best-effort, spare-time basis, but they do provide a lot of support.
"For that matter, show me *any* ISP that will help you configure your *nix box to use pppoe or slip to attach to their network..."
You picked the wrong person to ask. I've been working with the national telecom in the country where I live, helping them test exactly this kind of scenario. They gave me three free months Internet, fixed IPs to run servers from, and have consulted me on all their relevant documentation.
"Only figures... Since most of the money I was supposed to pay my taxes with, I used to buy porn anyway."
That what you call cutting out the middle man. Only thing is, I can't remember if cutting out the middle man is considered Good or Bad in the pr0n world....
"5. Lack of decent file-browser. The best I've come across is Nautilus in a mode that resembles Windows Explorer. It'll do for now, but as far as I'm aware, offers no context-sensitive menus for applications (like the Winamp "Play in Winamp" right-click menu on folders."
There's a historical reason for this, and it's one that makes many Windows users uncomfortable. It's called the command line.
It's not pretty, and it's not easy for people who've spent their computing life mousing through a GUI, but honestly, the command line is immensely more powerful in terms of file management. There are very few file management operations that are more efficient through a GUI. I love graphical applications for many tasks, but when I'm moving a file from one place to another, or when I'm performing a task that involves changing the properties of many files at once, I always find myself going back to the console. When I'm in Windows, I often find myself grinding my teeth at the lack of a decent console - or more to the point, any way to easily automate file and configuration management tasks.
See, Linux will never be Windows. Philosophically, it can't be. It has a different history and a different culture. This is not necessarily good or bad; it's simply the way things have, er, developed.
Some kinds of file listings lend themselves very well to GUI - image, movie or song archives are good examples of places where visual and/or auditory cues are really desirable. GNOME and KDE have made good progress in their respective environments. In the fullness of time, you'll likely see some really decent performance and features.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, mister, can you enlighten this poor, benighted child? He's trying to understand how the magic incantation 'TOP SECRET' suddenly requires that we forget we ever had a conscience, a sense of common decency and a constitution that upholds human rights.
Anyone who is unable to see that Justice can - and should - trump secrecy is living in a moral vacuum.
No, it's more like trusting a bear with the contents of your picnic basket.
Man, some days, the jokes just write themselves. 8^)
For those who haven't had their coffee yet: the statements 'stable', 'reliable' and 'runs for days without problems' are not exactly synonymous.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by citizens of the nation where the attack occurs.
Sure you can... if you're the FBI.
And you, evidently, are not.
If you're analysing the risks inherent in a communications infrastructure, and you find that one (and only one) outside party has access to the protocol, it makes perfect sense to drop the 'security by obscurity' part of the plan entirely, and to move to the next element of your defense-in-depth. In this case, open sourcing the protocol could have the effect of ensuring that others invest heavily in it, improving and expanding the service, making it harder for the Chinese authorities to justify blocking it.
This is, ultimately, why the Great Firewall of China will never be effective against the Web: The value of the system to the Chinese is greater than the value of blocking it outright. Instead, they compromise by making it somewhat difficult for most people to get to most 'objectionable' content. This 'whack-a-mole' strategy guarantees that those who really want to access restricted information sources can do so, given time and a nominal amount of effort.
That's fine for Bruce, and in fairness I think he's right that an RF shield in the passport cover reduces risk. But the one thing that nobody seems to have considered is that the passport is often the only ID considered valid for non-residents of most countries.
A briefcase bomb sitting in a Western Union office in Jakarta, for example, would likely prove quite effective.
Well, actually, schema and RDF were supposed to address exactly that issue. So, in the opinion of the W3C, at least, it appears 'Get a DTD and stick to it' isn't the complete answer.
But that's a simplistic retort. The truth is that there are many cases (especially when individual business-to-business transactions are concerned) where 'Get a DTD and stick to it' is probably the right answer. It's simpler, if nothing else.
That's not the end of the conversation, though. There are a number of cases where future communications and permutations simply can't be known, and in situations like that, the option of sticking to a single DTD simply doesn't exist. In theory at least, schema and RDF supply the means to handle semantic translation of data.
That may be true, but I remember very clearly listening to Tim Berners Lee introducing the Semantic Web in Toronto back in '99, and the example he used of how the Semantic Web would work showed A being determined to be semantically the same as C because A and B were known to be equivalent, and B and C were known to be equivalent as well. So while it's technically correct to say that semantics has nothing to do with translation, the promise of the Semantic Web is that one is able to translate between ad hoc data types precisely because their semantics can be inferred.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of schema and RDF in practice. Suffice it to say that no one's found many compelling (or at least popular) uses for either so far. That said, we still don't take advantage of much of HTML and CSS, so the problem may be PEBCAK (or just impatience) rather than poor design.
"Fair point. But as long as you start emailing people .odt files instead of the latest .doc, your files are safe."
Untrue. If people are using the proposed MS plug-in, it would read the ODF file, translate it into MS' proprietary[*] XML format, allow changes, then translate back into ODF. This means that there are two signficant points of failure where translation errors - whether deliberate or accidental - can occur.
That's ad hoc design, and not worthy of consideration as anything more than a stop-gap measure until ODF is supported natively by MS apps. And that, I understand, is what the ODF spokesperson in the article is trying to say.
---
[*] Yes, 'proprietary'. Just because something is world-readable doesn't mean it's unencumbered.I didn't RTFA - in fact, I didn't even read your comment - but I just wanted to say that Slashdot is more interesting than other sites is because the discussion is more interesting here.
Now, what are we talking about?
8^)
"You don't have to be a mechanic to know that a car has pistons, needs gas and oil."
Nononono, you've got it all wrong. Detroit has Pistons. Cars have Motors
And it's pronounced Noo-kyuh-lur . 8^)
"Four years ago, Corel shutdown their OSS site and now they are seeing a return to stability. While it is debatable whether their OSS division was the direct cause of financial hardship, it certainly seems to have been a factor."
Four or so years ago (okay, six), they also dropped the single biggest liability the company has ever known: Michael Cowpland, their founder and would-be Napoleon, who foolishly believed that he could beat Microsoft at its own game. He was notorious for having the attention span of a gnat, which had the effect of sending his company charging off after every shiny new technological bauble, with "...unsuccessful forays into CAD, videoconferencing, Java, Linux and other developments."
He was also a crook, and was found guilty of insider trading.
Otherwise, he's a nice guy. 8^)
"You are arguing the politically-trendy fallacy that more choice implies better results."
I am not arguing anything of the kind. I am arguing long-term risk management.
This issue has almost nothing to do with software performance, features or other intangibles. It has to do with ensuring that data will remain available and usable for an indefinite period, using an unknowable array of automation processes. Proprietary binary formats, especially when one considers their history, have little to offer in this regard. Open, text-based, standards-based specifications designed with exactly this kind of flexibility in mind, on the other hand, are quite appealing.
"You can argue until you're blue in the face that document format and application features are two separate things, but this fact remains: if you dictate a format, then people have to use an application that supports the format!"
An application that supports the format? You mean, like, Microsoft Office?
I think you're the one missing the point here. Anyone who argues apps agains formats is liable to fall into the same logical hole: Just because an app - or an app-maker, for that matter - doesn't support a format today, doesn't mean that they can't or won't. The mere fact that it is standard and required will almost inevitably be enough to ensure that someone steps up and supports the format.
Ultimately, the whole point of open formats is the exact opposite of telling someone which application they can or cannot use. The truth of it is that open formats allow the customer to decide what's best for him, without fear of finding himself at the mercy of a single, predatory vendor.
"This legislation was first introduced by the liberals last year, so it isn't just because of the more right wing conservatives."
That's 'Liberal' with a capital 'L', please. One is a name, the other is an adjective. Here's an example of usage: "In Canada (as in Australia), the Liberal party is not at all liberal in its policies."
Now with that out of the way, allow me to re-phrase your statement more accurately:
"This legislation was first introduced by the liberals last year, so it is just because of more right wing politicians."
8^)
"Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister, or sometimes Practical Extraction and Reporting Language. The first one is said to have come first, and was the "real" meaning of the acronym, but I think the second one is the more "official" meaning."
Er, no. The word 'Perl' is a backronym.
Wikipedia sez:
"Perl is the most wonderfully architected, elegant, flexible language in the world."
Indeed. In fact, it's the only language in the world that can guarantee perfect software, every time. Even when you're drunk. 8^)
You made the mistake of decribing a US city. Most cities in Europe - where, not coincidentally, Fon is based - are much more densely integrated, with people living upstairs or across the street from most parks, shops and cafés in the city center. This means, for example, that even if the pub owner decides that s/he wants to overcharge for 'Net access, you can just opt for the cheaper option emanating from right upstairs.
There are limitations, of course. Not the least of them is that many European buildings are built with stone and brick. This means that in many cities Fon will have to establish its service literally 'street by street,' as their marketing bumph states.
Bricolage has a lot of what you're looking for, and it's very well built.
Here is a good intro to what it is and how it works.
'"A few permanents writers", nice editing slick. :)'
He's Brazilian. Unless you're willing let him critique your Portuguese, I'd suggest you not be so quick to complain. 8^)
"If these stats are even semi-accurate, then internet penetration is less then 10% of the population.... (roughly 110 million people)."
Only 110 million people using the Internet in China, you say? Well, that's okay, then. Fsck 'em if they can't take a joke, huh?
</sarcasm>
'Is it just me, or does it look like ever since Steve Ballmer took over the reigns Microsoft's business plan can be summed up as "Whatever Google/Apple is doing, we're gonna compete with that."?'
It's a winning strategy, and has proven effective on all levels of the food chain. It's called scavenging. Example: lions use tremendous cunning and skill to trap and kill their prey. Some are injured or killed in the process, but the risk is worth it.
Hyenas, on the other hand, simply follow the lions.
"Automate as in a shell script? Try creating a batch file... Although I must admit that Microsoft goofed when they ditched some of the more useful batch commands, like choice.com - they're still available on the web, but not included in the default install anymore... as for the lack of a decent copy command, try typing "xcopy /?" at the command prompt - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the number of options available. I know, I know, i'm tooting M$'s horn, but I have found that any OS is only as good as the effort you put into learning how to use it."
Sorry, maybe I should have made it clear that I worked professionally with MS products from about DOS 6 until Windows 2000, when I finally switched entirely to FOSS. I've written a number of batch files - and you're right about some of the assumptions they made once DOS bagen to fade. I've also used ActiveState Perl, Cygwin and a number of other really wonderful utilities. I didn't mean to create the impression that this kind of thing is impossible on Windows. It's just that it's hard to get at by default.
Entirely the opposite is true in the Unix/Linux world. No matter what GUI I find myself staring at, I'm pretty much assured that - with a nominal amount of variation - I will find more or less the same toolset at hand, and files in more or less the same place.
Using Windows as a development or sysadmin workstation is not a big deal, because within a day or two you can get things tweaked just the way you like them, and all your favourite tools installed. Unfortunately, that kind of thing isn't very portable. Working on client computers was the situation that set my teeth a-grinding, as I mentioned in the GP.
"On a side note, show me *any* major software company that will offer *FREE* linux support to a user *WITHOUT CHECKING A WARRANTY*."
Heh, the staff who develop the contribs.org SME Server do that, and have done since we were first hired by e-smith, inc. back in the dotcom boom. Of course they do it on a best-effort, spare-time basis, but they do provide a lot of support.
"For that matter, show me *any* ISP that will help you configure your *nix box to use pppoe or slip to attach to their network..."
You picked the wrong person to ask. I've been working with the national telecom in the country where I live, helping them test exactly this kind of scenario. They gave me three free months Internet, fixed IPs to run servers from, and have consulted me on all their relevant documentation.
Times, they are a-changin', my friend. 8^)
"Only figures... Since most of the money I was supposed to pay my taxes with, I used to buy porn anyway."
That what you call cutting out the middle man. Only thing is, I can't remember if cutting out the middle man is considered Good or Bad in the pr0n world....
"5. Lack of decent file-browser. The best I've come across is Nautilus in a mode that resembles Windows Explorer. It'll do for now, but as far as I'm aware, offers no context-sensitive menus for applications (like the Winamp "Play in Winamp" right-click menu on folders."
There's a historical reason for this, and it's one that makes many Windows users uncomfortable. It's called the command line.
It's not pretty, and it's not easy for people who've spent their computing life mousing through a GUI, but honestly, the command line is immensely more powerful in terms of file management. There are very few file management operations that are more efficient through a GUI. I love graphical applications for many tasks, but when I'm moving a file from one place to another, or when I'm performing a task that involves changing the properties of many files at once, I always find myself going back to the console. When I'm in Windows, I often find myself grinding my teeth at the lack of a decent console - or more to the point, any way to easily automate file and configuration management tasks.
See, Linux will never be Windows. Philosophically, it can't be. It has a different history and a different culture. This is not necessarily good or bad; it's simply the way things have, er, developed.
Some kinds of file listings lend themselves very well to GUI - image, movie or song archives are good examples of places where visual and/or auditory cues are really desirable. GNOME and KDE have made good progress in their respective environments. In the fullness of time, you'll likely see some really decent performance and features.
...But they still won't be Windows.