No one uses XML yet, it's harder to parse in a program than proprietary formats, so no one uses them
WHAT?!
XML is the best thing since sliced bread! And, no this isn't a troll, I mean this! Hard to parse? What are you talking about?
First of all, YOU shouldn't be parsing it. I don't care what language you're coding in, you'll probably find that someone else has taken care of that for you. I use Perl primarily, and switch between XML::DOM and XML::Parser, both of which handle all of the dirty work of chewing on the tags and characters.
The documentation I'm writing (other than POD in the Perl modules) is being done with the DocBook DTD, which lets me write in one common format and publish in HTML, Word doc format, etc... all from one document.
Content classes may be created using a hybrid Perl/XML format which defines the class' properties, methods, template accessors, and various other aspects.
Objects in my system may be imported and exported in a simple, self describing XML format listing all of their properties. You can write it by hand easily in Textpad or Emacs to make lots of objects easily...
XML is used to syndicate news and headlines from other sites, like the service Slashdot offers in the backend. I've written content classes in Iaijutsu which download these syndication files to collect headlines. And, I believe, Slashdot uses these files to make slashboxes.
yes, I *do* write import/export routines, everyone still uses comma-delimited or dbf files, occasionally Access files too
Then you've REALLY missed the boat. XML is EASY. Screw comma delimited, I've actually found it easier and more maintainably elegant to write quick Perl scripts which use the XML::DOM, than to hack out a CSV parser. Hell, I even have Oracle DB servers spewing XML streams at me to handle.
XML is far from failed. Go back and try it again. As for XHTML, I don't know that it will ever be truly adopted, but if it catches on... we could write web browsers and web service consumers in a fraction of the time and code.
Thanks, guys... This must've been a lot of work!
on
Slash v0.9 Released
·
· Score: 5
First, thanks to the guys at SlashDot for the release, and for making the damn thing in the first place.
Second, either thanks or a big ole kick in the nuts to all the trolls and me too'ers who jumped on hounding CmdrTaco to release the source-- I haven't decided which yet. You guys were ruthless, and though I think you all are patting yourselves on the back on "making this happen," I somehow think that this was in the works for a bit longer than the latest round of fervor.
Now I'm not asking this to say "Ah hah! Go make a release of your own before you throw stones!" However, it would be nice if you knew what it were like. I suspect there weren't a large proportion of people in the outcry who actually to have active Open Source projects out there. I tend ot think that those people who DO have projects going out there were going easy on the guys at SlashDot.
Why? Because making a release is HARD WORK, *especially* if your web application project has come to be tightly wedded to the machine it's running on and is not particulrly general to install on others. It's *especially* tough when you have a day job that takes up a lot of your time, such as oh say, running a major Internet destination for news and information. Most times its easier to just put it off awhile..
BUT!! You say. ESR told me to release early, release often! And I believe this-- but look at what happened to Mozilla. It's working now, but it took awhile-- they released *too early*. I truly think there *is* such a thing, release too early, without a clean enough package, without enough documentation, and people will bitch just as much to you about your crappy tarball as they have been about you not releasing earlier.
This isn't *POOF* "Sorry guys, I've been a prick, I guess I'll release all the top secret RPMS, Debian packages, tarballs, and 100 pages of docs and man pages I've been sitting on." There *is* a bit of work to be done to 1) Even get SlashDot code pried out of the machine it's running on, and 2) Package it up so that you can wedge it into your machine, and 3) Make it look vaguely like something someone other than CmdrTaco can understand.
Now I know a lot of you are going to say, screw you, I would have loved to have just the pure pile of steaming dung of random code SlashDot may be RIGHT THIS SECOND. (Apologies to SlashDot, but I've gotten the impression that tho it works well, it might not be pretty.:) ) But you know, that's really the author's perogative. Sometimes, you have a lil pride in what you want to show people.
I also know that, even tho you hopeful conumers of raw unpretty code may say you exist out there-- I know that there'll be just as many who download it and e-mail CmdrTaco "i cant get this Slish thing to do c00l stuph on my 31337 LinuxOne machine". So there's a support issue involved, even if you say you're not going to support it. So you have to have *some* answer to it, even it it's just taking a bit more time in the packaging, docs, and commenting to stave off some confusion.
So, have fun with it, and *please* try to go easy on the author of the release now that it's out... He's been called every name in the book, whil probably working his ass off. The last thing he needs now is a billion questions and everyone to say, "You know, this wasn't that cool after all, Slashdot code sucks!"
I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed
As far as I can tell, the Crusoe processor engine itself is not special. If you are a "talented programmer programming to the bare metal", you might as well program in assembly on another pre-existing chip.
And then as a chip manufacturer, you'll face 20 years trying to ensure your vintage instruction set that those bare metal hackers employed.
You're missing the point.
Take database servers. Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, Uncle Joes Ultimate Data Thingy... Just about all of them allow access to their data through a standard SQL language.
But... But... but... Wouldn't it just be so insanely cool and fast if I could just direcly access the ISAM structures and indexes and modify disk sectors directly?!?! I fully expect every dedicated DBA and application designer to go to the bare iron to squeeze performance from their data warehouses!
Has that happened? No. Why? Because MOST, EVERY DAY APPLICATION DESIGNERS DON'T "PROGRAM TO THE BARE METAL". It's too complex, intensive, and fruitless a task. Why is Slashdot written in Perl and not assembly? Why isn't Linux 100% x86 assembly?
There is a BIG difference between just a cool hack and maintainable elegance.
Why do we have high level languages? Why do we have abstraction layers? Why?
The Code Morphing is an abstraction layer. Initially, that layer is the x86 instruction set, an arbitrary set of instructions that just happens to currently be widely used. Using Code Morphing, the Crusoe can leapfrog on that wide base of support, while throwing away the hardware architectural garbage traditionally needed to support it.
Back to SQL: Oracle supports SQL for access to data, but beneath, I'll bet you that a lot of the specific operations upon data that those SQL statements fire off has changed ENORMOUSLY over the years. What would have happened had they allowed programmers straight past the abstraction layer? They still would be trying to support that API today, and I bet they wouldn't be as free to rework their server software.
Furthermore, why do we have the DBI module and DBD modules in Perl? To provide a semi-universal abstraction layer across all databases. When one database's API changes for performance reasons, efficiency, whatever, you just change the morphing-- er DBD-- layer to accomodate it.
What is the point of Crusoe then?
Not to provide assembly hackers with a new opcode set to learn and tweak, which 90% of the application design world will never learn or exploit, and therefore will remain voodoo essentially.
The point is to provide an architecture which supports ABSTRACTION LAYERS of assembly opcodes. So Transmeta is free to vary the underlying hardware in any exotic or esoteric form they see fit, throwing backwards compatibility of their VLIW opcodes to the wind because the Code Morphing allows the SAME ABSTRACTION LAYER API to be exposed to the application designer.
Now, finally, note I keep saying 'application designer'. This is as opposed to 'dedicated hacker'.
Read the definition of a hack. The first two definitions are not my idea of elegance. Something that's quick and does the job but not well. Or, something that is incredibly good, but took a long time.
Now, read the definition of elegant. Something that combines simplicity, power, and grace. Something that is understandable, almost obvious in its expression. Something maintainable.
Tell me what's more maintainable: Assembly code for the Mx-650938 processor, or Java code. It's a close call, but I'll have to go with the Java code. It's harder to write a hack in Java, than it is to create an elegant design in assembly.
It's not about performance. We haven't even BEGUN to wring the performance from the chips we have-- and why? because it's not humanly possible for every applications designer to be a brilliant assembly hacker, which is why we have compilers!
So, finally, why spend your time learning the latest opcode set when you can just focus on a higher level language and leave the hand tweaking and performance tweaks to the man behind the curtain of the Code Morphing abstraction layer of OZ?!?!?!
While the hardware suggestions on their page may be a bit high... Do some calculations on how much ram and HD space it takes to manipulate 10+ hours of TV quality footage, and the CPU power needed to apply effects, edits, and various other goodies to said footage.
Take a look at some of the equipment on Avid Technology, Inc.'s site. According to one product spec I saw, it allowed up to 1080GB of available storage for collaborative video editing.
While I don't know if the software in question here quite warrants it.... it's not necessarily insane.
In the right place, and crafted by the right hands, a heavy Flash site can be insanely amazing. You can bypass all the crap and workarounds in trying to execute something that's a genuine *experience* in a web browser-- versus something that's kinda interactive as long as you have the right browser and don't mind clunky Javascript crashy code.
For instance, I love a lot of the new movie advertising sites which present the movies with Flash trailer-like pieces.
Mind you, I don't want Slashdot using Flash.. But if you have a site that wants to be entertaining, dynamic, and maybe a bit different, Flash rocks.
I've always thought that the way first Quake, and now Unreal handle opening of source a very good model for commercial software-- open just enough of your goodies so that others can run with it and customize and add features.
Started playing with doing some mods for Quake 2, using the messy messy C source. Haven't seen Q3A's mod development state of the art yet, but I have to tell you that that code for Q2 is the worst I've ever seen.:)
But then comes Unreal and UnrealScript, and this is why I respect Unreal so much-- the code looked nice, was enough like Java and JavaScript for me to catch on, and it made sense. I was able to make some pretty cool mods in 1/4 the time as with Quake, and they were more satisfying with the pretty Unreal engine.:)
So, as you can tell, I'm an Unreal loyalist.
But back to the point... That I'm an Unreal loyalist IS THE POINT! I bought Unreal (and QUake) and found that I could extend it, and found that lots of other people could as well. So, I bought Unreal Tournament (the next version) expecting the same thing. It's likely I'll buy the next game in the series if they have the same extendability.
What if every app followed a similar semi-Open model?
Yes, Andover acquired Slashdot, but where have you seen them barring links exiting the site? THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE FREAKING SITE **IS**. Have the story links gone away? Have the Slashboxes gone away?
Besides, what does Andover care whether you use the Slash system or not? As for Slash being closed-source, I think that's a it unfair. CmdrTaco is lazy:
Someday I'll post a new version, but honestly its a lower priority to me than it ought to be. I'm to busy ironing out kinks and adding features to take a couple days and create a distributable tar ball. It'll happen, but not tomorrow. I'm already working pretty much every waking second of the day.
But SlashDot is neither completely closed source nor open source. ANd I think that's because it's tough running a site like this and running a collaborative open source project all at once.
I'm just sick and tired of people slamming companies who make money.
In other words, even the bible of the Internet revolution behaved like so many other technology companies, sitting atop nuggets of gold buried beneath the street of everyday business events
Hmm... well, maybe there's a REASON the 'bible of the Internet' and 'so many other' companies acted this way. Maybe they decided there were more important things to go after-- like, oh say, further innovation rather than legally resting on past accomplishments which have become trivialized by the pace of the Internet.
Rivette estimates that Wired lost at least $20 million a year by not seeking a patent on banner advertising.
And how much would the industry as a whole have lost? How many 'free' sites would not even have existed? A successfully defended patent on this concept may have majorly damaged the development of the web as we know it now.
Would Slashdot exist?
Worldwide patent licensing revenues rose from about $15 billion in 1990 to more than $100 billion in 1998, according to industry estimates. The growth is unlikely to abate.
Revenues to whom? The patent holding companies and lawyers? And what are the nature of the patents? Seems nowadays certain patents are like apples and oranges to each other. One might be a genuinely novel, distinguished invention and the other a nearly obvious idea.
Again, what does the growth of these revenues mean to the growth of the patent holders' industry itself?
There is a Californian, touchy-feely sense to the Gathering
Somehow, I think that this is diametrically opposed to the 'Californian, touchy-feely sense' that might be rephrased as idealism. I see this sense applied to open sharing of ideas, mutual benefit, onward and upward-- not exploitation, greed, and legal entrenchment which slows things in general.
Note that I'm not against one making money, making money for one's efforts-- I'm against doing so by standing in the way of everyone else.
Fox wants to make sure that H-P scientists and engineers tell him about what they are creating, so he can protect it legally and exploit it commercially. Sometimes it's a hard sell, says Fox. Inventors are often so accustomed to working every day on their projects that "it looks obvious to them."
Hmm... maybe that's not because the inventors have been staring at it everday, but because to other engineers and inventors IT REALLY IS OBVIOUS.
Steven Bochner of Palo Alto's Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati gave a speech in 1998 on the potential liabilities of boards of directors who are not minding the intellectual property store. "It is not unreasonable to look to the board and say, "How are you managing these assets?' " he says.
This is about the only thing I agree with in the entire article-- How are you managing these assets? How should you? Are you posting tollbooths in the intellectual stream, or are you truly innovating and moving forward faster than anyone else?
The former makes you immediate money. The latter makes you more money in the longer haul as your company benefits from further innovation and not entrenched battles, as well as the success of the industry as a whole.
I guess the only good thing about this article, at least, is that the lawyers are coming out in the open and being honest about their desires.
Mozilla as a browser will not fit on a floppy. Various Mozilla technology components, such as the Gecko rendering engine, most likely will.
You don't really think that Nokia, who IIRC expressed interest in using Mozilla on a wireless device, will be using the same Mozilla browser as it's assembled on Linux and Win32, do you?
No, they'll prolly be using a version of the HTML engine, with a new browser wrapped around it.
Should be bigger than the kernel? Hells yes!
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hell yeah an application should be bigger than the kernel! The kernel's not supposed to be the shopping mall you stick all the stores in, it's supposed to be the layer of foundation you put under your house. Same goes for the windowing system.
While you have a good point about forking into smaller programs-- the thing is, it already IS. You *can* compile the various components separately if you know what you're doing, and I imagine that this 'know what you're doing' part will become easier for developers as Moz approaches a release.
It's normal for anyone who's in the spotlight to make the occasional mistake. Bruce recognized his error and apologized in public. Which is more than I can say for most who back themselves into an indefensible verbal corner.
And I say KUDOS TO SLASHDOT, both for reporting the news and providing the equally visible PUBLIC FORUM where that recant could take place.
What other news publication does the same? Something like News.com or ZeeDeeNet would fire and forget on the story, and then maybe take a few weeks to print a story on the recant.
By going on, and on, and on, about it, you're amplifying the silly mistake that he made and the damage too. He's recanted, we all agree, and now shut up.
I don't know that I agree that this story amplifies the damage-- on the contrary, I think it helps *dampen* the damage.
Look, you say "We all agree", but who is this "we"? THe casual ZeeDeeNet reporter browsing Slashdot who just saw "Bruce Parens says SUE COREL!" and then jumps off to write a story without clicking 'read more'? I think it's QUITE valuable to reiterate the whole debacle and reflect on what WE AS A COMMUNITY are doing to the reporting of news.
So this FEATURE (not a news story, mind you) recants and reflects upon the fact that Bruce Parens jumped the gun on a 'private' (ie. slightly less avialable than slashdot) forum, got a bit lambasted by Slashdot readers, and Bruce recanted. Now we take a moment to analyze the process.
I think this serves two very valuable purposes for good journalism from Slashdot: 1) Tells the casual shareholders that it's okay, the big bad Open Source amoeba isn't going to try to eat Corel. and 2) Highlights an important changing trend in the process of news event and idea sharing.
I see so many messages on this thread talking about the 'old Slashdot'. Well, akin to what this article is saying, I'm sorry boys and girls but we're out of the GARDEN OF EDEN and the AGE OF INNOCENCE is gone. Slashdot is a NEWS MEDIUM, in the SAME class as the big boys-- more so perhaps, because I know I for one give Slashdot more credibility than most other news sources because of the wide open forum attached to each story.
Slashdot informs, influences, and it's a good idea to take a moment to be self-consious of the process.
While I agree with you about the tendencies of zealots around here, I really have an issue with this:
"But why would you run NT, when Linux is clearly superior?" I'll tell you. The linux box has been in this agency since about 95 or so. Its running whatever version of Slackware was out at that time. Its been patched along the way (I hope...), but was the baby of an employee who no longer works here. He didn't leave documentation. One of the two NT servers was also here when I got here and was also the toy of another employee. Which one was easier to take over?
Okay, hold up a minute here, though I agree with you that there is still a usability gap between NT and Linux, you can't compare a modern NT system with a Slackware (my GOD! The WORST distribution EVER for a black box) Linux install from '95. How old is the WinNT box? What version?
I suspect you're comparing apples to raw steak.
Linux is a *maturing* OS. NT is touted as a *matured* OS. Take a look at NT 4.0 when it came out, and Linux at the same time. Take a look at NT (even with all the service packs) now and Linux now. In fact, that's one of the biggest points I make to people. How far has NT come and changed since 1995, and how far has Linux come? Plot a mental chart, and figure out the trajectory. Which one looks like it may mature faster?
Honestly, I'm not sure.
Which box would be harder to pick up as a black box now? Well, still Linux maybe, but I'd say not by much. I find myself wandering around what's left of http://www.microsoft.com/kb looking for obscure NT oddities that have gone wrong... when I have a Linux problem, I find docs pretty easily now.
Proficiency in the administration of either is a matter of experience and learning.
...The linux is fragmented argument is only really valid for heavily multithreaded applications like mozilla.
Really? Well, I've had a few problems here and there in the past with binary packages other than Mozilla, which I'm completely willing to slate up to cluefulness I've since gained.
But, I've seen a bit of FUD about Linux market fragmentation and incompatibilities. Perceptions are stronger than realities, since the first are the only way we know anything about the second.
As the subject says-- I think that the fact GT fears the customer support for UT for Linux should be TELLING US SOMETHING.
UT isn't a clue-requiring program to get running under Windows. Under Linux, I'm not sure-- I'm still downloading the binaries-- but if my experience with getting any other non-distribution-targeted binary to run, I understand their fear.
GLIBC 1.x, 2.x, 2342.23423-- who expects an average gamer to know the difference?? Libraries? Support packages? Various bits and pieces not necessarily shared between distributions?
Now, I'm a Linux advocate and, games excepted, my PC staus in Linux 90% of the time. My Sony Vaio notebook got nuked the day I got it and Linux installed. When I get a binary package, and it seems to be missing some dependencies, I know how to chase them down-- i.e. through the docs, through HOW-TO's, even through Deja.com searches. Sometimes, I even chase down the source and recompile it myself by hand, and have been known to tweak Makefiles and the source itself.
This isn't a problem for me.
However, might it be a problem for less clueful Linux users? Granted, the case could be made that, currently, success in setting up Linux at all is the result of a certain cluefulness. (That's another long running criticism that I won't touch further here.)
But either way, the gamble could seem very scary to a company like GT looking to make some money off sales. The price of one service call could wipe out the profit from the purchase of the game?! OUCH! Even with a disclaimer saying, "Don't call us, you're on your own," they're not entirely clear of the problem I think.
I think this issue is more complex than, "Bad GT, no biscuit!"
In their (and our) favor: The UT team wasn't burned at the stake for making a Linux port, and allowed to release it. Good GT, here's a cookie.
Against us: Linux is not yet clue-free enough for a quick, nearly support-free installation of games.
Against them (and us): Linux is not enough of a contender enough in the gaming market for GT to invest in hiring and training Linux gurus for support. Or, for that matter, hire developers who specifically know how to work Linux to solve installation problems in the first place.
So what's my answer? Enjoy the port. Work to make Linux more uniform in basic ways. BUY THE STINKING GAME IF YOU WANT TO PLAY IT, DOWNLOAD THE BINARIES, SEND IN YOUR REGISTRATION CARD WITH GLOWING LINUX PRAISE. Piracy blows the chances of Linux EVER becoming a contender to be considered investing development of software and games for a company like GT.
(Granted a case here could also be made for Open Source game development, but that's another can of worms... but even on this GT appears to be flexible, as per Greenmarine's.plan. Another cookie.)
"mean to them"? What is that supposed to mean (no pun intended)? I don't understand why some people here seem to equate a refusal to purchase UT as some sort of cruel punishment against GT and Epic. It can't be any further from the truth. You might as well say that Pepsi drinkers are cruelly punishing the Coca-Cola bottlers by not buying Coke
No, no, no. Not buying their game is nice, relatively.
I think what he refers to is such behavior as: Mail bombing customer support staff e-mail; sending off nasty letters; badmouthing the company in every venue; starting boycott campaigns; and generally being vehemently nasty and venemous about the box not displaying a penguin.
This is a gripe I've had for years as these hybrid "You've got your peanut butter (code) in my chocolate (html). No, you've got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" web development systems have grown.
As a code-in-HTML system, PHP rocks over ASP. No doubt. If that's what you want.
While you CAN create complex, rich applications with those systems... They DO get hard to maintain and modify, and VERY hard to retool the user interface. And they throw monkey wrenches into the mix of task delegation between application developers, UI developers (i.e. HTML coders), and designers.
That's why I love Zope, and that's why I'm writing a competitor to it in Perl called Iaijutsu. I want the logic separated completely from presentation and to minimize the impact of changes on one from the other.
For a quick example: Can you do 'skins' with your web application in PHP? In other words, completely swap out the look-and-feel for another without touching any Perl/PHP/ASP/Python code? Iaijutsu can, because it uses a template system where the Perl code supplies a set of data to an HTML-like template language. Separation of logic from presentation.
If you don't like skins, then... can you instantly change the entire graphic design of your site using only graphic designers and HTML production artists when the Client sneezes? I, as the application developer, don't want to stay the weekend if it's only because I have to make sure my PHP code in the HTML doesn't break.
So, while PHP is great, compared to other HTML-and-code development environments, I hate the whole concept. I'm thinking as the web is maturing, it's turing more into an application environment.
If you're coming from an HTML-oriented standpoint, trying to make those pages do something, then PHP seems like the dog's tuxedo. But if you're coming from an application-oriented standpoint, thinking about your data and your functionality, and the window dressing later... the code-in-HTML concept does not make that easier.
Slashdot Mirror
WHAT?!
XML is the best thing since sliced bread! And, no this isn't a troll, I mean this! Hard to parse? What are you talking about?
First of all, YOU shouldn't be parsing it. I don't care what language you're coding in, you'll probably find that someone else has taken care of that for you. I use Perl primarily, and switch between XML::DOM and XML::Parser, both of which handle all of the dirty work of chewing on the tags and characters.
As I mentioned in the story on the Slashdot code release, I have a project: Iaijutsu: Open Source Content Management and Web Application Framework. And this project makes extensive, pervasive use of XML.
- The documentation I'm writing (other than POD in the Perl modules) is being done with the DocBook DTD, which lets me write in one common format and publish in HTML, Word doc format, etc... all from one document.
- Content classes may be created using a hybrid Perl/XML format which defines the class' properties, methods, template accessors, and various other aspects.
- Objects in my system may be imported and exported in a simple, self describing XML format listing all of their properties. You can write it by hand easily in Textpad or Emacs to make lots of objects easily...
- XML is used to syndicate news and headlines from other sites, like the service Slashdot offers in the backend. I've written content classes in Iaijutsu which download these syndication files to collect headlines. And, I believe, Slashdot uses these files to make slashboxes.
yes, I *do* write import/export routines, everyone still uses comma-delimited or dbf files, occasionally Access files tooThen you've REALLY missed the boat. XML is EASY. Screw comma delimited, I've actually found it easier and more maintainably elegant to write quick Perl scripts which use the XML::DOM, than to hack out a CSV parser. Hell, I even have Oracle DB servers spewing XML streams at me to handle.
XML is far from failed. Go back and try it again. As for XHTML, I don't know that it will ever be truly adopted, but if it catches on... we could write web browsers and web service consumers in a fraction of the time and code.
First, thanks to the guys at SlashDot for the release, and for making the damn thing in the first place.
:) ) But you know, that's really the author's perogative. Sometimes, you have a lil pride in what you want to show people.
Second, either thanks or a big ole kick in the nuts to all the trolls and me too'ers who jumped on hounding CmdrTaco to release the source-- I haven't decided which yet. You guys were ruthless, and though I think you all are patting yourselves on the back on "making this happen," I somehow think that this was in the works for a bit longer than the latest round of fervor.
How many of you asking-- demanding!-- for the source to be released, have an Open Source software project of your own out there? (I do. It's the Iaijutsu Web Application Framework Project, also on SourceForge.)
Now I'm not asking this to say "Ah hah! Go make a release of your own before you throw stones!" However, it would be nice if you knew what it were like. I suspect there weren't a large proportion of people in the outcry who actually to have active Open Source projects out there. I tend ot think that those people who DO have projects going out there were going easy on the guys at SlashDot.
Why? Because making a release is HARD WORK, *especially* if your web application project has come to be tightly wedded to the machine it's running on and is not particulrly general to install on others. It's *especially* tough when you have a day job that takes up a lot of your time, such as oh say, running a major Internet destination for news and information. Most times its easier to just put it off awhile..
BUT!! You say. ESR told me to release early, release often! And I believe this-- but look at what happened to Mozilla. It's working now, but it took awhile-- they released *too early*. I truly think there *is* such a thing, release too early, without a clean enough package, without enough documentation, and people will bitch just as much to you about your crappy tarball as they have been about you not releasing earlier.
This isn't *POOF* "Sorry guys, I've been a prick, I guess I'll release all the top secret RPMS, Debian packages, tarballs, and 100 pages of docs and man pages I've been sitting on." There *is* a bit of work to be done to 1) Even get SlashDot code pried out of the machine it's running on, and 2) Package it up so that you can wedge it into your machine, and 3) Make it look vaguely like something someone other than CmdrTaco can understand.
Now I know a lot of you are going to say, screw you, I would have loved to have just the pure pile of steaming dung of random code SlashDot may be RIGHT THIS SECOND. (Apologies to SlashDot, but I've gotten the impression that tho it works well, it might not be pretty.
I also know that, even tho you hopeful conumers of raw unpretty code may say you exist out there-- I know that there'll be just as many who download it and e-mail CmdrTaco "i cant get this Slish thing to do c00l stuph on my 31337 LinuxOne machine". So there's a support issue involved, even if you say you're not going to support it. So you have to have *some* answer to it, even it it's just taking a bit more time in the packaging, docs, and commenting to stave off some confusion.
So, have fun with it, and *please* try to go easy on the author of the release now that it's out... He's been called every name in the book, whil probably working his ass off. The last thing he needs now is a billion questions and everyone to say, "You know, this wasn't that cool after all, Slashdot code sucks!"
:)
I see that you've repented of your rash statements, so I'll go easy on you. ;^)
:) I apologize for the possible flame content, I was trying to be funny mostly.
Indeed, and thank you.
Seems like it'll be very interesting to see, really, where this came from.
Then again, after posting this, I realized...
:)
Someone, indeed, could be in trouble.
I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records. I looked at the site where the story came from and all I can suggest is that the people who posted it are misinformed
Did you READ the blurb above, or just spout off? I would think that closed court records would not be publically available on the internet. In fact, if someone one posted the court records containing the CSS source, I would have to say that either someone is about to be in big trouble, or the court records in question are indeed UNSEALED .
In fact, I would say that this is the whole FREAKING POINT OF THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT!
Thank you, please drive through.
No, no, no, **YOU** STILL DON'T GET **IT**.
As far as I can tell, the Crusoe processor engine itself is not special. If you are a "talented programmer programming to the bare metal", you might as well program in assembly on another pre-existing chip.
And then as a chip manufacturer, you'll face 20 years trying to ensure your vintage instruction set that those bare metal hackers employed.
You're missing the point.
Take database servers. Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, Uncle Joes Ultimate Data Thingy... Just about all of them allow access to their data through a standard SQL language.
But... But... but... Wouldn't it just be so insanely cool and fast if I could just direcly access the ISAM structures and indexes and modify disk sectors directly?!?! I fully expect every dedicated DBA and application designer to go to the bare iron to squeeze performance from their data warehouses!
Has that happened? No. Why? Because MOST, EVERY DAY APPLICATION DESIGNERS DON'T "PROGRAM TO THE BARE METAL". It's too complex, intensive, and fruitless a task. Why is Slashdot written in Perl and not assembly? Why isn't Linux 100% x86 assembly?
There is a BIG difference between just a cool hack and maintainable elegance.
Why do we have high level languages? Why do we have abstraction layers? Why?
The Code Morphing is an abstraction layer. Initially, that layer is the x86 instruction set, an arbitrary set of instructions that just happens to currently be widely used. Using Code Morphing, the Crusoe can leapfrog on that wide base of support, while throwing away the hardware architectural garbage traditionally needed to support it.
Back to SQL: Oracle supports SQL for access to data, but beneath, I'll bet you that a lot of the specific operations upon data that those SQL statements fire off has changed ENORMOUSLY over the years. What would have happened had they allowed programmers straight past the abstraction layer? They still would be trying to support that API today, and I bet they wouldn't be as free to rework their server software.
Furthermore, why do we have the DBI module and DBD modules in Perl? To provide a semi-universal abstraction layer across all databases. When one database's API changes for performance reasons, efficiency, whatever, you just change the morphing-- er DBD-- layer to accomodate it.
What is the point of Crusoe then?
Not to provide assembly hackers with a new opcode set to learn and tweak, which 90% of the application design world will never learn or exploit, and therefore will remain voodoo essentially.
The point is to provide an architecture which supports ABSTRACTION LAYERS of assembly opcodes. So Transmeta is free to vary the underlying hardware in any exotic or esoteric form they see fit, throwing backwards compatibility of their VLIW opcodes to the wind because the Code Morphing allows the SAME ABSTRACTION LAYER API to be exposed to the application designer.
Now, finally, note I keep saying 'application designer'. This is as opposed to 'dedicated hacker'.
Read the definition of a hack. The first two definitions are not my idea of elegance. Something that's quick and does the job but not well. Or, something that is incredibly good, but took a long time.
Now, read the definition of elegant. Something that combines simplicity, power, and grace. Something that is understandable, almost obvious in its expression. Something maintainable.
Tell me what's more maintainable: Assembly code for the Mx-650938 processor, or Java code. It's a close call, but I'll have to go with the Java code. It's harder to write a hack in Java, than it is to create an elegant design in assembly.
It's not about performance. We haven't even BEGUN to wring the performance from the chips we have-- and why? because it's not humanly possible for every applications designer to be a brilliant assembly hacker, which is why we have compilers!
So, finally, why spend your time learning the latest opcode set when you can just focus on a higher level language and leave the hand tweaking and performance tweaks to the man behind the curtain of the Code Morphing abstraction layer of OZ?!?!?!
Umm... AppWatch is basically Freshmeat, and neither are like SourceForge.
While the hardware suggestions on their page may be a bit high... Do some calculations on how much ram and HD space it takes to manipulate 10+ hours of TV quality footage, and the CPU power needed to apply effects, edits, and various other goodies to said footage.
Take a look at some of the equipment on Avid Technology, Inc.'s site. According to one product spec I saw, it allowed up to 1080GB of available storage for collaborative video editing.
While I don't know if the software in question here quite warrants it.... it's not necessarily insane.
In the right place, and crafted by the right hands, a heavy Flash site can be insanely amazing. You can bypass all the crap and workarounds in trying to execute something that's a genuine *experience* in a web browser-- versus something that's kinda interactive as long as you have the right browser and don't mind clunky Javascript crashy code.
For instance, I love a lot of the new movie advertising sites which present the movies with Flash trailer-like pieces.
Mind you, I don't want Slashdot using Flash.. But if you have a site that wants to be entertaining, dynamic, and maybe a bit different, Flash rocks.
Why does it give you the creeps?
I've always thought that the way first Quake, and now Unreal handle opening of source a very good model for commercial software-- open just enough of your goodies so that others can run with it and customize and add features.
:)
:)
Started playing with doing some mods for Quake 2, using the messy messy C source. Haven't seen Q3A's mod development state of the art yet, but I have to tell you that that code for Q2 is the worst I've ever seen.
But then comes Unreal and UnrealScript, and this is why I respect Unreal so much-- the code looked nice, was enough like Java and JavaScript for me to catch on, and it made sense. I was able to make some pretty cool mods in 1/4 the time as with Quake, and they were more satisfying with the pretty Unreal engine.
So, as you can tell, I'm an Unreal loyalist.
But back to the point... That I'm an Unreal loyalist IS THE POINT! I bought Unreal (and QUake) and found that I could extend it, and found that lots of other people could as well. So, I bought Unreal Tournament (the next version) expecting the same thing. It's likely I'll buy the next game in the series if they have the same extendability.
What if every app followed a similar semi-Open model?
That was supposed to be informatve?
WTF are you talking about?
Yes, Andover acquired Slashdot, but where have you seen them barring links exiting the site? THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE FREAKING SITE **IS**. Have the story links gone away? Have the Slashboxes gone away?
Besides, what does Andover care whether you use the Slash system or not? As for Slash being closed-source, I think that's a it unfair. CmdrTaco is lazy:
Someday I'll post a new version, but honestly its a lower priority to me than it ought to be.
I'm to busy ironing out kinks and adding features to take a couple days and create a distributable tar ball. It'll happen, but
not tomorrow. I'm already working pretty much every waking second of the day.
But SlashDot is neither completely closed source nor open source. ANd I think that's because it's tough running a site like this and running a collaborative open source project all at once.
I'm just sick and tired of people slamming companies who make money.
In other words, even the bible of the Internet revolution behaved like so many other technology companies, sitting atop nuggets of gold buried beneath the street of everyday business events
Hmm... well, maybe there's a REASON the 'bible of the Internet' and 'so many other' companies acted this way. Maybe they decided there were more important things to go after-- like, oh say, further innovation rather than legally resting on past accomplishments which have become trivialized by the pace of the Internet.
Rivette estimates that Wired lost at least $20 million a year by not seeking a patent on banner advertising.
And how much would the industry as a whole have lost? How many 'free' sites would not even have existed? A successfully defended patent on this concept may have majorly damaged the development of the web as we know it now.
Would Slashdot exist?
Worldwide patent licensing revenues rose from about $15 billion in 1990 to more than $100 billion in 1998, according to industry estimates. The growth is unlikely to abate.
Revenues to whom? The patent holding companies and lawyers? And what are the nature of the patents? Seems nowadays certain patents are like apples and oranges to each other. One might be a genuinely novel, distinguished invention and the other a nearly obvious idea.
Again, what does the growth of these revenues mean to the growth of the patent holders' industry itself?
There is a Californian, touchy-feely sense to the Gathering
Somehow, I think that this is diametrically opposed to the 'Californian, touchy-feely sense' that might be rephrased as idealism. I see this sense applied to open sharing of ideas, mutual benefit, onward and upward-- not exploitation, greed, and legal entrenchment which slows things in general.
Note that I'm not against one making money, making money for one's efforts-- I'm against doing so by standing in the way of everyone else.
Fox wants to make sure that H-P scientists and engineers tell him about what they are creating, so he can protect it legally and exploit it commercially. Sometimes it's a hard sell, says Fox. Inventors are often so accustomed to working every day on their projects that "it looks obvious to them."
Hmm... maybe that's not because the inventors have been staring at it everday, but because to other engineers and inventors IT REALLY IS OBVIOUS.
Steven Bochner of Palo Alto's Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati gave a speech in 1998 on the potential liabilities of boards of directors who are not minding the intellectual property store. "It is not unreasonable to look to the board and say, "How are you managing these assets?' " he says.
This is about the only thing I agree with in the entire article-- How are you managing these assets? How should you? Are you posting tollbooths in the intellectual stream, or are you truly innovating and moving forward faster than anyone else?
The former makes you immediate money. The latter makes you more money in the longer haul as your company benefits from further innovation and not entrenched battles, as well as the success of the industry as a whole.
I guess the only good thing about this article, at least, is that the lawyers are coming out in the open and being honest about their desires.
Browser != HTML engine.
Mozilla as a browser will not fit on a floppy. Various Mozilla technology components, such as the Gecko rendering engine, most likely will.
You don't really think that Nokia, who IIRC expressed interest in using Mozilla on a wireless device, will be using the same Mozilla browser as it's assembled on Linux and Win32, do you?
No, they'll prolly be using a version of the HTML engine, with a new browser wrapped around it.
Hell yeah an application should be bigger than the kernel! The kernel's not supposed to be the shopping mall you stick all the stores in, it's supposed to be the layer of foundation you put under your house. Same goes for the windowing system.
While you have a good point about forking into smaller programs-- the thing is, it already IS. You *can* compile the various components separately if you know what you're doing, and I imagine that this 'know what you're doing' part will become easier for developers as Moz approaches a release.
It's normal for anyone who's in the spotlight to make the occasional mistake. Bruce recognized his error and apologized in public. Which is more than I can say for most who back themselves into an indefensible verbal corner.
And I say KUDOS TO SLASHDOT, both for reporting the news and providing the equally visible PUBLIC FORUM where that recant could take place.
What other news publication does the same? Something like News.com or ZeeDeeNet would fire and forget on the story, and then maybe take a few weeks to print a story on the recant.
By going on, and on, and on, about it, you're amplifying the silly mistake that he made and the damage too. He's recanted, we all agree, and now shut up.
I don't know that I agree that this story amplifies the damage-- on the contrary, I think it helps *dampen* the damage.
Look, you say "We all agree", but who is this "we"? THe casual ZeeDeeNet reporter browsing Slashdot who just saw "Bruce Parens says SUE COREL!" and then jumps off to write a story without clicking 'read more'? I think it's QUITE valuable to reiterate the whole debacle and reflect on what WE AS A COMMUNITY are doing to the reporting of news.
So this FEATURE (not a news story, mind you) recants and reflects upon the fact that Bruce Parens jumped the gun on a 'private' (ie. slightly less avialable than slashdot) forum, got a bit lambasted by Slashdot readers, and Bruce recanted. Now we take a moment to analyze the process.
I think this serves two very valuable purposes for good journalism from Slashdot: 1) Tells the casual shareholders that it's okay, the big bad Open Source amoeba isn't going to try to eat Corel. and 2) Highlights an important changing trend in the process of news event and idea sharing.
I see so many messages on this thread talking about the 'old Slashdot'. Well, akin to what this article is saying, I'm sorry boys and girls but we're out of the GARDEN OF EDEN and the AGE OF INNOCENCE is gone. Slashdot is a NEWS MEDIUM, in the SAME class as the big boys-- more so perhaps, because I know I for one give Slashdot more credibility than most other news sources because of the wide open forum attached to each story.
Slashdot informs, influences, and it's a good idea to take a moment to be self-consious of the process.
While I agree with you about the tendencies of zealots around here, I really have an issue with this:
"But why would you run NT, when Linux is clearly superior?" I'll tell you. The linux box has been in this agency since about 95 or so. Its running whatever version of Slackware was out at that time. Its been patched along the way (I hope...), but was the baby of an employee who no longer works here. He didn't leave documentation. One of the two NT servers was also here when I got here and was also the toy of another employee. Which one was easier to take over?
Okay, hold up a minute here, though I agree with you that there is still a usability gap between NT and Linux, you can't compare a modern NT system with a Slackware (my GOD! The WORST distribution EVER for a black box) Linux install from '95. How old is the WinNT box? What version?
I suspect you're comparing apples to raw steak.
Linux is a *maturing* OS. NT is touted as a *matured* OS. Take a look at NT 4.0 when it came out, and Linux at the same time. Take a look at NT (even with all the service packs) now and Linux now. In fact, that's one of the biggest points I make to people. How far has NT come and changed since 1995, and how far has Linux come? Plot a mental chart, and figure out the trajectory. Which one looks like it may mature faster?
Honestly, I'm not sure.
Which box would be harder to pick up as a black box now? Well, still Linux maybe, but I'd say not by much. I find myself wandering around what's left of http://www.microsoft.com/kb looking for obscure NT oddities that have gone wrong... when I have a Linux problem, I find docs pretty easily now.
Proficiency in the administration of either is a matter of experience and learning.
...The linux is fragmented argument is only really valid for heavily multithreaded applications like mozilla.
Really? Well, I've had a few problems here and there in the past with binary packages other than Mozilla, which I'm completely willing to slate up to cluefulness I've since gained.
But, I've seen a bit of FUD about Linux market fragmentation and incompatibilities. Perceptions are stronger than realities, since the first are the only way we know anything about the second.
Sure, it worked for you, but will it work on:
Slackware, Debian, OpenLinux, RedHat 5 & 6, Mandrake, Corel, Joe's-Homebrew-Linux-Built-From-Scratch.
A customer support NIGHTMARE.
As the subject says-- I think that the fact GT fears the customer support for UT for Linux should be TELLING US SOMETHING.
.plan. Another cookie.)
UT isn't a clue-requiring program to get running under Windows. Under Linux, I'm not sure-- I'm still downloading the binaries-- but if my experience with getting any other non-distribution-targeted binary to run, I understand their fear.
GLIBC 1.x, 2.x, 2342.23423-- who expects an average gamer to know the difference?? Libraries? Support packages? Various bits and pieces not necessarily shared between distributions?
Now, I'm a Linux advocate and, games excepted, my PC staus in Linux 90% of the time. My Sony Vaio notebook got nuked the day I got it and Linux installed. When I get a binary package, and it seems to be missing some dependencies, I know how to chase them down-- i.e. through the docs, through HOW-TO's, even through Deja.com searches. Sometimes, I even chase down the source and recompile it myself by hand, and have been known to tweak Makefiles and the source itself.
This isn't a problem for me.
However, might it be a problem for less clueful Linux users? Granted, the case could be made that, currently, success in setting up Linux at all is the result of a certain cluefulness. (That's another long running criticism that I won't touch further here.)
But either way, the gamble could seem very scary to a company like GT looking to make some money off sales. The price of one service call could wipe out the profit from the purchase of the game?! OUCH! Even with a disclaimer saying, "Don't call us, you're on your own," they're not entirely clear of the problem I think.
I think this issue is more complex than, "Bad GT, no biscuit!"
In their (and our) favor: The UT team wasn't burned at the stake for making a Linux port, and allowed to release it. Good GT, here's a cookie.
Against us: Linux is not yet clue-free enough for a quick, nearly support-free installation of games.
Against them (and us): Linux is not enough of a contender enough in the gaming market for GT to invest in hiring and training Linux gurus for support. Or, for that matter, hire developers who specifically know how to work Linux to solve installation problems in the first place.
So what's my answer? Enjoy the port. Work to make Linux more uniform in basic ways. BUY THE STINKING GAME IF YOU WANT TO PLAY IT, DOWNLOAD THE BINARIES, SEND IN YOUR REGISTRATION CARD WITH GLOWING LINUX PRAISE. Piracy blows the chances of Linux EVER becoming a contender to be considered investing development of software and games for a company like GT.
(Granted a case here could also be made for Open Source game development, but that's another can of worms... but even on this GT appears to be flexible, as per Greenmarine's
"mean to them"? What is that supposed to mean (no pun intended)? I don't understand why some people here seem to equate a refusal to purchase UT as some sort of cruel punishment against GT and Epic. It can't be any further from the truth. You might as well say that Pepsi drinkers are cruelly punishing the Coca-Cola bottlers by not buying Coke
No, no, no. Not buying their game is nice, relatively.
I think what he refers to is such behavior as: Mail bombing customer support staff e-mail; sending off nasty letters; badmouthing the company in every venue; starting boycott campaigns; and generally being vehemently nasty and venemous about the box not displaying a penguin.
This is a gripe I've had for years as these hybrid "You've got your peanut butter (code) in my chocolate (html). No, you've got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" web development systems have grown.
As a code-in-HTML system, PHP rocks over ASP. No doubt. If that's what you want.
While you CAN create complex, rich applications with those systems... They DO get hard to maintain and modify, and VERY hard to retool the user interface. And they throw monkey wrenches into the mix of task delegation between application developers, UI developers (i.e. HTML coders), and designers.
That's why I love Zope, and that's why I'm writing a competitor to it in Perl called Iaijutsu. I want the logic separated completely from presentation and to minimize the impact of changes on one from the other.
For a quick example: Can you do 'skins' with your web application in PHP? In other words, completely swap out the look-and-feel for another without touching any Perl/PHP/ASP/Python code? Iaijutsu can, because it uses a template system where the Perl code supplies a set of data to an HTML-like template language. Separation of logic from presentation.
If you don't like skins, then... can you instantly change the entire graphic design of your site using only graphic designers and HTML production artists when the Client sneezes? I, as the application developer, don't want to stay the weekend if it's only because I have to make sure my PHP code in the HTML doesn't break.
So, while PHP is great, compared to other HTML-and-code development environments, I hate the whole concept. I'm thinking as the web is maturing, it's turing more into an application environment.
If you're coming from an HTML-oriented standpoint, trying to make those pages do something, then PHP seems like the dog's tuxedo. But if you're coming from an application-oriented standpoint, thinking about your data and your functionality, and the window dressing later... the code-in-HTML concept does not make that easier.
This, along with a story about a patent on Y2K 'windowing' I heard last night on NPR (which was also reported earlier here on Slashdot) has got me completely disgusted.
It's about time we get together as an angry mob with pitchforks and torches, and knock over and burn that damn patent office. Why hasn't there been any congressional lobbying or attention on this yet? (Because companies like being able to fence off almost brainlessly obvious solutions and hold other companies hostage? Hello Amazon? Hello Yahoo? Hello-- oh hell, just search for 'patent' on Slashdot!)
I'd rather see no patents whatsoever on anything than this garbage!
My only question is: Why hasn't this guy slapped up a few money making banner ads? :)
(Yes, yes, I know, if he made a page like that, he prolly doesn't know what a banner ad is or how to make money from them...)