Are you telling me Opera, Mozilla and Firefox don't have a tonne of bugs? I work of plenty of Web App devs who know all too well that there a bugs, lots of bugs, both big and small in all of the above, including IE.
Comparatively and as far as websites/web applications go, Opera, Firefox, Safari or Konqueror have no bug in front of MSIE.
And no damn blasted missing feature that you'd really want to use but can't because MS' JScript doesn't have it, too
Not to mention that IE is as dev-unfriendly as you can get: hundreds of quirks and special cases (wanna hear the last one? you can't use "tags" as the ID of an element, because IE puts it in it's global namespace so that you can use pretty shiny "document.tags" and it breaks when you try to print because "document.tags" is actually a vital printing API), buggy renderings of just about everything, buggy cache, specific proprietary DOM and events APIs (which suck, by the way) and last, but not the least, no damn blasted frigging useable Javascript console/debugger (and no, that sorry excuse for a javascript alert doesn't help you debug shit, try Firefox's Javascript console to check what a true console/alert is)
Thing is that the European Union more or less binds the différent countries to each other. To my knowledge, France the only country who had a ruling about ripping your rental DVDs, which turned out to be considered legal. While not binding at all, this sets a european precedent and may work in favour of similar rulings in other european countries if the issue ever arose.
I figure, in a way, I'm doing Blockbuster a favor. I typically watch movies only once or twice, so I'm just taking their "No Late Fees" policy to the extreme. They are pretty clear that the return refers to the rental, and doesn't terminate your right to view. So I figure as long as I don't distribute I can maintain a moral ambiguity long enough to justify ripping the movie and returning it, on time, to watch when it's more convenient. That way, unlike with a movie purchase, they have the hard copy to rent to someone else, and it's back in the store the day. As long as I don't distribute, it seems to be exactly the same as established precedent law on time shifting.
BTW, going back to the first post, my comment was about
DocBook is waaayy too bloated,
as HTML 4 is to XHTML strict. Speaking of which, XHTML 2, [blah blah blah]
Which puts a clear split between "XHTML Strict" (XHTML 1.0 Strict, since there is no "strict" doctype of either XHTML1.1 or 2.0) and "XHTML 2", and since I was referring to the former and not the later you are, once again, wrong.
XHTML means either XHTML 1.0 or 1.1, for XHTML 2 is a mere working draft and nowhere near complete in anyway (on top of not being understood by any user agent). When talking about XHTML 2, one does explicitely state the version, for versionless acronyms are for currently stable standards.
This is exactly the same as if when talking about Firefox you were talking about the upcomming 1.5 beta instead of the currently stable and distributed 1.0.6, if "Visual Studio" meant "Visual Studio 2005 beta" (it does not). Versionless names are for stable releases, not for preversions.
File transfert is a basic feature of IMs, ICQ had it 5 years ago, MSN has it now, I fail to see how it would be a legal issue for google if it isn't for anyone else.
Could they may be concerned about the amount of storage required to hang on to all those messages until someone gets around to logging in?
Come on, we're talking about Google here, the ones who said "hey, let's give everyone a gigabyte to store their mails" and currently hand you 2.5 Gb for free when you create a GMail account...
They could even store offline messages IN the gmail account of the recipient if they really wanted, or implement a message decay (6 months or something) for the offline queue, but don't tell me that Google lacks *storage space*
What do you think their "federation" program is all about? They're not about to set up transports to everyone else and get summarily cut off like lots of other jabber servers. Instead they announce a program and make the other guys look bad for not cooperating.
Yeah, that was probably the most (only?) logical thing *not* to implement, but it's still missing
Again I suspect their may be a reluctance to implement group chats because of the legal implications. To many people associated Group chats/chat rooms with luring children into evil ways.
Yeah, google groups is ok cause there is no one actually bad there, and IM confs are bad, cause... you could lure more people in than in single chats... or something
If only S2S was the only Jabber feature that Google "left out" when rolling out GTalk... but they also forgot to activate all these standard jabber features
File transferts
Offline messages (how the heck did they manage to be that stupid?
Excuse ME? Does your stupid statement mean that you don't even know that there is no such thing as "HTML 4.01 Strict", and that XHTML Strict removes all visual formatting tags? XHTML only contains semantic / structural tags, and is not at all the same thing as HTML. And that is what I am getting at:
The XHTML 1.0 spec is surprisingly empty when compared to the extensive HTML 4.01 spec (only one page against a few hundreds), which is probably because they are strictly the same (see the words "XHTML is a family of current and future document [...] that reproduce [...] HTML 4"?) but for a few exceptions (such as... XHTML being XML while HTML is SGML, and... oh, that's all, every difference comes from that very single one...)
Visually formatting tags still exist in XHTML: not only they're all valid in 1.0 Transitional, but since they're not even deprecated, the B, I, TT, BIG and SMALL elements are perfectly valid even in XHTML 1.0 Strict (don't believe me? please, try, be my guest)
Just having information in XML is not enough, as XML is yet another mapping of some structure onto text. What is important, is the vocabulary - one wants to store information in a pure state, containing only the semantics - i.e. what it represents, not what it looks like.
And HTML 4.01 is just as meaningful as XHTML 1.0 strict, exactly my point, thank you, drive through
And lastly, if we consider your XML/SGML statement, and remember that XML is also a subset of SGML (thereby making your statement irrelevant)
Whoopsie... wrong sir, an XML document is not valid as an SGML one but by relying on SGML parsing quirks. For example a strictly conforming SGML parser allows both "/" and ">" to end a tag (you can write either <img> or <img/ for example), the facts that browsers grok the "/>" tag closure is only because of a quirk (which only works when you put a space before said closure, <img/> will be ok but <img/> will make an SGML parser rip your head off your shoulders), <tag/> does, in fact, render as "<tag>>" in SGML.
I used it to write a few essays last term on my laptop (which was, at the time, running Mandrake), and I found that it mimicked old MS products a little too well -- it crashed randomly, usually when I was in the middle of something important.
Sounds like OO.o 1.0.x alright, or very early 2.0 betas (but more like 1.0)
I also had some issues moving documents between OO and Word (I'm using MS Office 97, incidentally, so that may be part of the problem).
You shouldn't have any issue with that as long as you're not saving your documents in the 2000/XP format...
Give a shot at the latest 2.0 branch beta (1.9m122 at the moment)
We have a saying here at our company (
http://www.solms.co.za/ - "MS Word is the black hole of information". The same goes of OOo.
Once you take the time to type meticulously thought-out information into Word, it's no longer accessible to anything or anybody else out there, it's not re-usable, and you are tied to one rendering of said information.
Our approach is to store everything (and I mean *everything*, all documentation information) in a CVS repository of "knowledge components" using our own XML format (with a XML Schema, of course) that's a very strict subset of Docbook XML. Voila! Instant re-use of components (we also present courses, so if we have one set of knowledge on basic Java, that same bit is re-used in all courses, EJB, J2ME, etc). I can, for the life of me, not understand why anybody would want to put so much work into information to which a single rendering is so inextricably tied.
Early versions of OpenOffice implemented their own fully open and documented XML formats, the 2.0 branch uses the Oasis OpenDocuments specifications, once again fully open XML specifications (with schemas, I guess)...
Blackhole? yeah right
DocBook is waaayy too bloated, as HTML 4 is to XHTML strict.
Excuse me? Does this stupid statement mean that you don't even know HTML 4.01 Strict is the same thing as XHTML 1.0 Strict but for the fact that one is a subset of SGML while the other is a subset of XML? Aka if one is bloated the other one is, too, and the other way round?
It was not a licensing issue but a philosophy issue: the embedding of very specific Java features that weren't yet implemented in fully OSS VMs didn't allow you to run a "fully free" environment (since you needed Sun's VM, or another proprietary VM).
This was resolved by making sure that OSS VMs (CGJ) implemented the needed features, implementing them if required.
It doesn't, there are already free email clients available, and OOo, as nice as it is, still has quite a long way to go before it can be deemed "perfect" as an office suite
And the true value of Office doesn't come from the mere mail handling (if it did, Office Express would be awesome, it's not)
Speaking of load times, that is the one BIG thing that is keeping Open Office from being widely accepted. Until the load times get under 3 seconds (Pentium 4 3.0GHz+ systems with 1GB+ of RAM should NOT be talking over 3 seconds to load a word processor!)
You'll probably enjoy knowing that without the preloader (which I never use) OpenOffice Writer from the 1.9m122 does indeed load in under 3 seconds on an A64/3000+ (with 2Gb RAM, but I'm well under 1Gb load right now so that ain't an issue).
Loading time seems around 2 seconds on this setup without any software hogging the processing ressources, and the processor barely peaks
You should give it a try again, 2.0 has been a huge step from 1.0.x from the beginning, but with each new beta release it gets stabler AND faster.
Oh yeah, streamlined indeed babe, it's an IM and only that, no avatars, no offline messages, no integration with other networks, no video, no history, no searching in the inexistant history either, no files transfert... while the XMPP (Jabber) protocol, which is used, implements all of these already...
20% of the employee's working time is supposed to be devoted to personal projects, and personal projects ARE taken in account in Google's evaluation (one of the recently hired employees a few months ago, without any project at that time, wondered if he should pick one since he at the same time had the time and Google resources (calculation power + code repository) and could get better evaluations from it
Which you usually don't do (unless you're writing a web-based feedreader), but the ability to create both the web page (XHTML) and feed (RSS/Atom) from the XML templating simply by applying a different XSL is, on the other hand, very pleasing.
Yes, and he obviously spoke truthfully, just as truthfully as GWB when he explained that Iraq had WMDs and that the war there would be done within 6 month...
Slashdot Mirror
Comparatively and as far as websites/web applications go, Opera, Firefox, Safari or Konqueror have no bug in front of MSIE.
And no damn blasted missing feature that you'd really want to use but can't because MS' JScript doesn't have it, too
Not to mention that IE is as dev-unfriendly as you can get: hundreds of quirks and special cases (wanna hear the last one? you can't use "tags" as the ID of an element, because IE puts it in it's global namespace so that you can use pretty shiny "document.tags" and it breaks when you try to print because "document.tags" is actually a vital printing API), buggy renderings of just about everything, buggy cache, specific proprietary DOM and events APIs (which suck, by the way) and last, but not the least, no damn blasted frigging useable Javascript console/debugger (and no, that sorry excuse for a javascript alert doesn't help you debug shit, try Firefox's Javascript console to check what a true console/alert is)
That was not the point I was trying to make
Thing is that the European Union more or less binds the différent countries to each other. To my knowledge, France the only country who had a ruling about ripping your rental DVDs, which turned out to be considered legal. While not binding at all, this sets a european precedent and may work in favour of similar rulings in other european countries if the issue ever arose.
Hah, I moved from Bittorent to newsgroups, THAT is what I call progress !
Your behaviour is probably Bad© and AntiAmerican©, if not CommieAnarchistLibertarian© for US standards, but it's been ruled as perfectly legal in France, and therefore would probably be in most of Europe.
BTW, going back to the first post, my comment was about
Which puts a clear split between "XHTML Strict" (XHTML 1.0 Strict, since there is no "strict" doctype of either XHTML1.1 or 2.0) and "XHTML 2", and since I was referring to the former and not the later you are, once again, wrong.
XHTML means either XHTML 1.0 or 1.1, for XHTML 2 is a mere working draft and nowhere near complete in anyway (on top of not being understood by any user agent). When talking about XHTML 2, one does explicitely state the version, for versionless acronyms are for currently stable standards.
This is exactly the same as if when talking about Firefox you were talking about the upcomming 1.5 beta instead of the currently stable and distributed 1.0.6, if "Visual Studio" meant "Visual Studio 2005 beta" (it does not). Versionless names are for stable releases, not for preversions.
File transfert is a basic feature of IMs, ICQ had it 5 years ago, MSN has it now, I fail to see how it would be a legal issue for google if it isn't for anyone else.
Come on, we're talking about Google here, the ones who said "hey, let's give everyone a gigabyte to store their mails" and currently hand you 2.5 Gb for free when you create a GMail account...
They could even store offline messages IN the gmail account of the recipient if they really wanted, or implement a message decay (6 months or something) for the offline queue, but don't tell me that Google lacks *storage space*
Yeah, that was probably the most (only?) logical thing *not* to implement, but it's still missing
Yeah, google groups is ok cause there is no one actually bad there, and IM confs are bad, cause... you could lure more people in than in single chats... or something
You left out Groups Beta, Scholar Beta and Suggests beta, the Google Blog Beta will be very very angry at you.
I know that i'll be modded down for an unfunny comment to your witty remark... but GTalk doesn't even provide emoticons...
If only S2S was the only Jabber feature that Google "left out" when rolling out GTalk... but they also forgot to activate all these standard jabber features
Oh god, this is wrong on so many levels...
First of all, let's do a fact check:
And HTML 4.01 is just as meaningful as XHTML 1.0 strict, exactly my point, thank you, drive through
Whoopsie... wrong sir, an XML document is not valid as an SGML one but by relying on SGML parsing quirks. For example a strictly conforming SGML parser allows both "/" and ">" to end a tag (you can write either <img> or <img/ for example), the facts that browsers grok the "/>" tag closure is only because of a quirk (which only works when you put a space before said closure, <img /> will be ok but <img/> will make an SGML parser rip your head off your shoulders), <tag/> does, in fact, render as "<tag>>" in SGML.
Sounds like OO.o 1.0.x alright, or very early 2.0 betas (but more like 1.0)
You shouldn't have any issue with that as long as you're not saving your documents in the 2000/XP format...
Give a shot at the latest 2.0 branch beta (1.9m122 at the moment)
Early versions of OpenOffice implemented their own fully open and documented XML formats, the 2.0 branch uses the Oasis OpenDocuments specifications, once again fully open XML specifications (with schemas, I guess)...
Blackhole? yeah right
Excuse me? Does this stupid statement mean that you don't even know HTML 4.01 Strict is the same thing as XHTML 1.0 Strict but for the fact that one is a subset of SGML while the other is a subset of XML? Aka if one is bloated the other one is, too, and the other way round?
It was not a licensing issue but a philosophy issue: the embedding of very specific Java features that weren't yet implemented in fully OSS VMs didn't allow you to run a "fully free" environment (since you needed Sun's VM, or another proprietary VM).
This was resolved by making sure that OSS VMs (CGJ) implemented the needed features, implementing them if required.
Whoa, lower tech to the roots indeed, that's impressive sir (guaranteed 100% irony free)
Such as using the Simple Standard based SlideShow System (S5)?
(ps: this is not a joke, I'm usually doing my presentations with it, it's slick and fast and doesn't care about the presentation box' setup)
I know the pain if you're using 1.0 (the current "stable" version, which is about as stable as ice in a red-hot frying pan)
Just give it's chance at OOo 2.0 when it'll be released as gold, just expect it to work (don't expect it to be
You'll probably enjoy knowing that without the preloader (which I never use) OpenOffice Writer from the 1.9m122 does indeed load in under 3 seconds on an A64/3000+ (with 2Gb RAM, but I'm well under 1Gb load right now so that ain't an issue).
Loading time seems around 2 seconds on this setup without any software hogging the processing ressources, and the processor barely peaks
You should give it a try again, 2.0 has been a huge step from 1.0.x from the beginning, but with each new beta release it gets stabler AND faster.
Oh yeah, streamlined indeed babe, it's an IM and only that, no avatars, no offline messages, no integration with other networks, no video, no history, no searching in the inexistant history either, no files transfert... while the XMPP (Jabber) protocol, which is used, implements all of these already...
20% of the employee's working time is supposed to be devoted to personal projects, and personal projects ARE taken in account in Google's evaluation (one of the recently hired employees a few months ago, without any project at that time, wondered if he should pick one since he at the same time had the time and Google resources (calculation power + code repository) and could get better evaluations from it
Which you usually don't do (unless you're writing a web-based feedreader), but the ability to create both the web page (XHTML) and feed (RSS/Atom) from the XML templating simply by applying a different XSL is, on the other hand, very pleasing.
AFAIK RSS/ATOM is already a religious war being fought right now.
Yes, and he obviously spoke truthfully, just as truthfully as GWB when he explained that Iraq had WMDs and that the war there would be done within 6 month...
oh god...
May i ask a mod passing by to mod all my previous posts of this thread "-1 fucktard"? thank you