When a stupid complaint is made-- i.e. "Whaa, whaa, it's not done yet. Mommy, when am I going to get my cookie? You're lazy!"-- and the petitioner is told to go help, the help requested isn't necessarily "Go wade through reams of C and C++ code, do something cool, and then complain."
There's also testing, i.e. running the thing and watching what happens if/when it crashes. I think the Full Circle stuff provides some useful information to them when it crashes. Writing JavaScript test cases, bug reports, making suggestions, etc, etal...
We all complain to a deafening din that the web browsers are bloated and patchy and leaky and nasty. Then when a team actually is bold enough to say, "Alright, knock it over, burn it, and start over," people bitch, bitch, bitch that it's not ready already.
The fact is-- THE MOZILLA PROJECT *IS* WORKING. I use Mozilla on a daily basis now. It's wonderful. Strangely enough, it works faster and crashes less often for 'checking/. every 15 min or so' than NS 4.7 or MSIE 5.0.
Why don't YOU start writing a browser so you can have one NOW and then come back to us and tell us how full of crap the Mozilla team is.
The question placed you in the person of a poor, endangered person in a poor, embattled country, suddenly empowered with a networked device allowing you access to the minds of your fellow endangered persons. What do you do with it?
It wasn't a judgement on you, it was asking you to demonstrate, perhaps, which aspects of the 'new web' could be used to coordinate efforts, acquire food & supplies, and generally solve the problems.
I don't see where you get that its a guilt trip. It's actually showing HOW technology could help the poor and hungry and embattled.
Just how do you think code gets into the kernel tree anyway? Hacking distributing sites notwithstanding, there *is* a (or several) human beings who read the code, test it, and make final decisions on inclusion. As for obfuscated C, that doesn't really fly because if it's not completely understandable by other developers knowledgable on that kernel area, there'll be discussion. It'll get dissected. If there's something that doesn't look like it fit in efficiently, someone will notice.
I don't think MS's customers would put up with a significant rise in it's prices. In fact, I think the only reason that MS has been so successful is that they systematically under-price their OS's below competition.
I firmly disagree with this. I think, right now, my company would put up with a fairly significant rise in price due to changing licensing. And in fact, compared to the pricing of hardware, one could say the price of Windows has risen in proportion to the cost of a full system.
Because, there currently is no alternative. Linux is approaching that status, but won't be there for some time. MacOS is nice, but tied to hardware under Apple's thumb.
Then he says "Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry."
Say that again? How is it that a *FREE* OS made by people that do not get paid for their services are able to enter the market and compete quite well? That's a high barrier?
Actually, I think that's a loud and clear sign that Microsoft is able to maintain a high barrier to entry. Why could no other company challenge Microsoft? Why did it take a mass of protesting programmers working in their spare time to create a competitor? I guarantee, had all those Linux developers been employed by a company, it could not have afforded to fund the effort, and (though this is speculation) I bet it would have been purchased or squashed by MS when it became a challenger.
So, basically, I see the collaborative act of creating an OS like Linux as a consumer revolt and protest against Microsoft.
For the most part, they're not getting paid, or making profit from Linux. Some are, but the fact that a mass of people had to work for free or pay for Linux development seems to me quite a price to pay for market entry.
Ack, will have to respond to other points later, have to run!
My biggest gripe has been that I wish they would stop using that word: 'INNOVATE' However, we may not understand the word as they do... From dictionary.com: innovate \In"no*vate\, v. i. To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.
innovate \In"no*vate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Innovated; p. pr. & vb. n. Innovating.] [L. innovatus,p. p. of innovare to revew; pref. in- in + novare to make new,fr. novus new. See New.] 1. To bring in as new; to introduce as a novelty; as, to innovate a word or an act. [Archaic]
I think you and I see the word 'innovate' to mean, create something original and novel, perhaps even revolutionary or pioneering.
However, according to the definitions above, one (i.e. Microsoft) could use the word to mean 'we introduce changes' or 'we bring things in AS IF they were new' or 'we introduce things AS IF they are novel'
Makes me wonder... Bill Gates & Bill Clinton, dictionary lawyers.
And the stories aren't rants. They're what's happening. Negative initial finding of fact against MS; analysis of the finding of fact; CNN poll on finding of fact; MS' response to all of it.
Tell me which one of those is an anti-MS rant? As for news for nerds, in case you've been under a rock, this has been one of the biggest stories in almost the last decade and has quite a significance for nerds!
Have you ever used a Nextel phone whilst near stereo equipment, speakers of any kind, or a cordless phone base? Tick tick tick ticktickticktick TICKTICKTICK! Ever heard that noise?
Well, if it can do that to electrical equipment, just think of that really thin layer of outer brain that makes you pretty much human going tick tick tick TICKTICKTICK....
I know you love to hate Jon Katz. I don't. So check YOUR facts before you fly off-- read the story. That's where the 'facts' came from. Katz only supplied commentary.
I don't want to seem antagonistic or anything, and this isn't a flame, but I think you missed my point entirely. Read my post again.
I *do* see the value in accessing my files/apps/data from more than one computer. I *made* the point that I *am* doing web applications for precisely the reason you mention. I am developing a web application and content management framework entitled Iaijutsu (in case you missed all the links.:) ). I *do* access the web applications I write using my Palm III, and am hoping to do so with my Sprint PCS phone. I wasn't talking about desktop applications. I am *for* web applications, but not in the way SmartWorker does it.
The point I was making about another layer on the web is this: Why, specifically, another GUI toolkit? That's just another tight binding system between logic and presentation.
If I understand correctly, SmartWorker can be made to present application differently with a set of 'rendering engines'. I noticed engines for WinCE, DHTML, etc...
So, if I want to present the results of my application logic differently, I have to code another engine, right? Or, I have to reconstruct the code comprising my GUI layout logic, right? It requires someone with a knowledge of Perl to change the look & feel of an application in SmartWorker. In general, to change the presentation of my application in SmartWorker, I have to rework part of it's logic that has been devoted to manipulating the GUI toolkit. Is this correct?
Now, I while I also appreciate that perhaps I can separate my application and a SmartWorker GUI into modules with an established interface between them, my question is: Given the fact that we have a machine readable user interface specification format that is much simpler than Perl (i.e. HTML), why circumvent it by layering another toolkit on top of it and adding complexity and tight coupling to the application? I'm not saying HTML is the best, but it's well known and there are plenty of tools to build it.
The alternative I presented in my last post was this: A system like Zope or my Iaijutsu uses a template language to add flexibility to an HTML document to allow the presentation of the results of an application, mostly independent of the application itself. As long as the application generates the same well-defined data structure, the application logic is free to change, and the presentation is free to change-- independently of each other.
More practically, what this means is:
1) I'm the Perl guru, I write the backend code that churns through the database and returns some row data. 2) Upstairs is a graphic design geek who makes the pretty skins for my application. 3) The guy next to me is the HTML Production Artist who takes the designer's images and processes them into GIFs and HTML with Macromedia tools. He also takes my description of the template language and writes the simple looping tags that fill in table rows from my database results.
With SmartWorker, I think it might go more like this:
1) I write the Perl logic. 2) The designer hands the interface design image to the Production artist. 3) The production artist makes some GIFs, but no HTML, and hands that to me. 4) I write some Perl that lays out the tables and buttons and etc, as close as I can to the original Photoshop design. In this stage, we can't use anything like a nice Macromedia tool to generate a page because it's all done in Perl GUI toolkit calls.
Now, the client asks for a radical change, but luckily enough, it's just cosmetic-- the application inner workings are still the same.
1) I don't have to do much at all, because my part (the application) has remained the same. 2) The graphic designer reworks the image. 3) The HTML Production Artist imports the image into a Macromedia tool, cuts out all the images again, and recreates the HTML template using the methods I gave him. Job done.
With SmartWorker:
1) The designer reworks the image. 2) The Production Artist gives me another pile of gifs. 3) I toss out the Perl module I wrote to layout the GUI, and start over writing more Perl code to try to match the new GUI.
In summary, what's the problem here? For one, if any change is made to the presentation, we *all* have work to do because changing the SmartWorker GUI required Perl expertise. And for another, not only do we all have work to do, but we can't use all of the standard tools we have for HTML page layout.
So, with SmartWorker, our process of delegating work to each other's specific skill sets is broken, and the tools that make 5 minutes' work out of making a 'skin' for the application in HTML are lost.
Well, before you get your ethical panties in a bunch, you should note that OpenDesk has advertising banners on SlashDot. Looks like a banner exchange to me.
I'm not getting on the bandwagon, and here's why...
For those who have no idea what it is, it's similar to Zope, except that it's written in Perl.
Nope, it's not like Zope. Check out my project, Iaijutsu. THAT is like Zope, only written in Perl.
Currently, the problem (for me!) is that all the presentation has to be hardcoded in Perl. You don't do any HTML, hopefully, you only manipulated high level objects. However, that's a problem for me who works closely with web page designers, and who is lazy enough to want them to deal with all the crappy HTML issues...
Zope (and Iaijutsu) is an object-oriented content management tool and application framework. SmartWorker is more akin to GTK and QT, as it's an abstract windowing toolkit on top of the web.
With a system like Zope or Iaijutsu, logic is separated from presentation by an HTML-based template language. Both Zope and Iaijutsu have object persistence databases which allow storage, search, and retrieval of content and application instances.
And in the case of Iaijutsu, I just recently finished a Skins support system that allows one to create sets of templates to completely change the look & feel of an app or set of content from a user preference, for example.
While SmartWorker does seem to have some persistence and session data facilities, from what I've seen so far, it's nothing like the object persistence database features of Zope or Iaijutsu. On the SmartWorker site, they claim 'This is not a system for generating web content from databases', and thus I think they'd agree. From what I've seen in SmartWorker so far, the data storage is nowhere near as sophisticated as Zope or Iaijutsu. I may be mistaken, so I'm going to keep investigating SmartWorker.
However the reason I'm not jumping on the SmartWorker bandwagon and will continue Iaijutsu development, is this:
SmartWorker is a GUI toolkit for the web. I don't need this. In fact, I'm doing web applications to escape the OS and GUI toolkits and tightly coupled logic and presentation.
I understand SmartWorker has different 'rendering engines' for different 'platforms', but it just doesn't seem flexible enough to me. Beyond just 'platforms', what about the simple fact that I have to collaborate with a) A graphic designer, b) An HTML production artist, c) The Money-providing Client?
I don't want to touch any Perl code when all we want to do is rearrange the form on the screen. We're not changing the data that flows in and out of the application, we're just changing the 'skin'. With Zope and Iaijutsu that's a task I can delegate off to an HTML slave. With SmartWorker, I have to rebuild the code that makes the GUI.
SmartWorker just seems like a misapplied metaphor to me. Because, we have an OS. On the OS is a windowing system. On that windowing system is a windowing toolkit. On that windowing toolkit is a web browser. And so with SmartWorker, we try to make the browser into a windowing system and build another layer of windowing toolkit? Just seems like a mistake to me that wipes out most of the flexibility the web browser provides for logic/presentation separation.
Umm, pay attention to what sources are being asked for. RMS says all software should be Free. Not everyone agrees. But many agree that certain things should ALWAYS be Open Sourced.
I just bought a copy of Neverwhere at a comic convention, just watched it twice through this weekend. If you'd like it, I might part with it or copy it for you.
Or, take a look around eBay, there are several or auction on there.
And you call the Mozilla Effect a Bad Thing? You probably see it as, "Hey lookit that fish of a project flopping around out of water." But I'm running Mozilla right now, and I see it as, "Hey look, they pulled that project out of the dark closet, figured out it really was junk, and rewrote it!"
The Mozilla team is FIXING the Netscape browser. They're doing the Right Thing(tm) this time. It's not out yet, but it will be. And it will be good. And that was the goal. Sure, the have secondary goals such as meeting arbitrary deadlines, making a product, etc... but the main thing was to see if an Open Source development community (and that includes coders, debuggers, testers, thinkers, and well wishers) could do one better than Netscape, and they are.
So it would be sweet if a group could do that with the Amiga. Hell, it'd be sweeter if they could make the Linux-Amiga hybrid Amiga, Inc was talking about. (Tho somehow, I don't think that was going to use any original code from Amiga CLassic.)
I have a Palm III. I have a Sony Vaio superslim 505TR.
I use my Palm as a "dreamcatcher" for my thoughts. It's small, it's quick, and it remembers. I, on the other hand, do not remember. And it's a simple device. It does what it's supposed to, and it does it well. That 'rut' to which you refer, is exactly where I want my Palm to stay.
I use my Sony Vaio as my development workstation, when I have a chance to set up on a table somewhere. It's bigger, quick, and remembers more. But it's also heavier, doesn't fit in my pocket. But it *does* have a bigger screen. So it's good for sitting down and coding.
I don't care what kind of leapfrogging we do past Moore's Law, but no matter how small the electronics get, I'm still going to need human interfaces of a size and shape compatible with my purposes. And, call me crufty, but I'm NOT impressed with headgear. I don't want VR, I don't want a 'virtual 36" screen' floating in front of me. I want an object (of the atomic kind) in front of me.
I want a small and simple device for quick things and a larger more complex device for longer term interaction. And I use them for different tasks.
You may have seen them. They go for anywhere from $500-50000. They don't fit in your pocket.
THe Palm is a PDA. It fits in your pocket.
Unreal is the Emacs of 3D games.
on
No Next Q3Test
·
· Score: 1
That would take some serious arguing...
Gawd! Not by me! Just looking at the progress between Q2 and Q3, and between Unreal and UT.
I've heard there are a lot of subtle, nice advances in the Quake line. But Q3A feels like Fischer-Price to me, and Q2 feels better. Maybe it's just that I'm not used to it.
But in the Unreal line, you have a completely new GUI library set for mod making, new improvements to the built-in Object Oriented scripting language (!!!! C DLL's from nasty, gnarled, uncommented code? What?) which include Mutators that give you mix-and-match game components (!! I can play CTF and have the Disco Gravity gun too?!)... just seems so much stuff that is an ADVANCE over the predecessor that Q3A lacks, and doesn't seem like it'll get in time for a Real Soon Now release.
Unreal is the Emacs of 3D games, just unfortunately without the Free Software goodness.
Q3Test2 map, and smallishness
on
No Next Q3Test
·
· Score: 1
Did you actually play it? Q3test2 is not small, not indoors, and I bet I can rail you from the other side of it.:> Sure, yeah, yeah, it's a big map space-wise. But in terms of play, that map is TINY. And not much going on. What, like 7-8 smallish platforms for a bunch of blue & red Fisher-Price robot guys to cram onto and randomly gib? Q3A does not impress me so far. I still play Q2 more, and Unreal Tournament more than that.
Well, see, there's a difference. When you buy a bicycle, and later give it to your sister-- you no longer have a bicycle. But when you copy software and give it to your sister, you both now have a copy of it. A copy has been created, independently of the company who creates it.
So, you've just set up your own bicycle factory, and made a new bicycle, claiming that it's the same Huffy you had. If I were to set up a car factory making what I called "Ford" vehicles, I'd be in a lot of trouble.
THe difference between software and physical goods however is, software is mostly made of thoughts, and so easily reproducible.
So, what's the solution if you want to make money making software? Outlaw actual ownership, and license use. Doesn't quite make sense to me...
THat's why I think an Open Source model addresses the problem more effectively
YIKES! AVERAGE users buy Photoshop?! That proggy has got to be one of the MOST expensive apps on the market, along with the Macromedia tools. I can't imagine my uncle (who *is* a photographer, and is fairly computer savvy) just popping down to the software store and picking up a copy.
Umm... So tell me what's the difference a post titled 'Hrm...' and a post titled '...'? Where's YOUR 'good, informative subjectline' and why are you preaching about it if you don't use it?
Slashdot Mirror
No accounting for taste, random noise in the culture-sphere... if you have to ask why, you just don't get it. :)
When a stupid complaint is made-- i.e. "Whaa, whaa, it's not done yet. Mommy, when am I going to get my cookie? You're lazy!"-- and the petitioner is told to go help, the help requested isn't necessarily "Go wade through reams of C and C++ code, do something cool, and then complain."
There's also testing, i.e. running the thing and watching what happens if/when it crashes. I think the Full Circle stuff provides some useful information to them when it crashes. Writing JavaScript test cases, bug reports, making suggestions, etc, etal...
Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch!
/. every 15 min or so' than NS 4.7 or MSIE 5.0.
We all complain to a deafening din that the web browsers are bloated and patchy and leaky and nasty. Then when a team actually is bold enough to say, "Alright, knock it over, burn it, and start over," people bitch, bitch, bitch that it's not ready already.
The fact is-- THE MOZILLA PROJECT *IS* WORKING. I use Mozilla on a daily basis now. It's wonderful. Strangely enough, it works faster and crashes less often for 'checking
Why don't YOU start writing a browser so you can have one NOW and then come back to us and tell us how full of crap the Mozilla team is.
The question placed you in the person of a poor, endangered person in a poor, embattled country, suddenly empowered with a networked device allowing you access to the minds of your fellow endangered persons. What do you do with it?
It wasn't a judgement on you, it was asking you to demonstrate, perhaps, which aspects of the 'new web' could be used to coordinate efforts, acquire food & supplies, and generally solve the problems.
I don't see where you get that its a guilt trip. It's actually showing HOW technology could help the poor and hungry and embattled.
Just how do you think code gets into the kernel tree anyway? Hacking distributing sites notwithstanding, there *is* a (or several) human beings who read the code, test it, and make final decisions on inclusion. As for obfuscated C, that doesn't really fly because if it's not completely understandable by other developers knowledgable on that kernel area, there'll be discussion. It'll get dissected. If there's something that doesn't look like it fit in efficiently, someone will notice.
I don't think MS's customers would put up with a significant rise in it's prices. In fact, I think the only reason that MS has been so successful is that they systematically under-price their OS's below competition.
I firmly disagree with this. I think, right now, my company would put up with a fairly significant rise in price due to changing licensing. And in fact, compared to the pricing of hardware, one could say the price of Windows has risen in proportion to the cost of a full system.
Because, there currently is no alternative. Linux is approaching that status, but won't be there for some time. MacOS is nice, but tied to hardware under Apple's thumb.
Then he says "Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry."
Say that again? How is it that a *FREE* OS made by people that do not get paid for their services are able to enter the market and compete quite well? That's a high barrier?
Actually, I think that's a loud and clear sign that Microsoft is able to maintain a high barrier to entry. Why could no other company challenge Microsoft? Why did it take a mass of protesting programmers working in their spare time to create a competitor? I guarantee, had all those Linux developers been employed by a company, it could not have afforded to fund the effort, and (though this is speculation) I bet it would have been purchased or squashed by MS when it became a challenger.
So, basically, I see the collaborative act of creating an OS like Linux as a consumer revolt and protest against Microsoft.
For the most part, they're not getting paid, or making profit from Linux. Some are, but the fact that a mass of people had to work for free or pay for Linux development seems to me quite a price to pay for market entry.
Ack, will have to respond to other points later, have to run!
My biggest gripe has been that I wish they would stop using that word: 'INNOVATE' However, we may not understand the word as they do... From dictionary.com:
innovate \In"no*vate\, v. i. To introduce novelties or changes; -- sometimes with in or on.
innovate \In"no*vate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Innovated; p. pr. & vb. n. Innovating.] [L. innovatus,p. p. of innovare to revew; pref. in- in + novare to make new,fr. novus new. See New.] 1. To bring in as new; to introduce as a novelty; as, to innovate a word or an act. [Archaic]
I think you and I see the word 'innovate' to mean, create something original and novel, perhaps even revolutionary or pioneering.
However, according to the definitions above, one (i.e. Microsoft) could use the word to mean 'we introduce changes' or 'we bring things in AS IF they were new' or 'we introduce things AS IF they are novel'
Makes me wonder... Bill Gates & Bill Clinton, dictionary lawyers.
Have you read the posting which started the riot? The findings of fact? Against Microsoft?
And the stories aren't rants. They're what's happening. Negative initial finding of fact against MS; analysis of the finding of fact; CNN poll on finding of fact; MS' response to all of it.
Tell me which one of those is an anti-MS rant? As for news for nerds, in case you've been under a rock, this has been one of the biggest stories in almost the last decade and has quite a significance for nerds!
Sheesh!
Have you ever used a Nextel phone whilst near stereo equipment, speakers of any kind, or a cordless phone base? Tick tick tick ticktickticktick TICKTICKTICK! Ever heard that noise?
Well, if it can do that to electrical equipment, just think of that really thin layer of outer brain that makes you pretty much human going tick tick tick TICKTICKTICK....
:)
I know you love to hate Jon Katz. I don't. So check YOUR facts before you fly off-- read the story. That's where the 'facts' came from. Katz only supplied commentary.
I don't want to seem antagonistic or anything, and this isn't a flame, but I think you missed my point entirely. Read my post again.
:) ). I *do* access the web applications I write using my Palm III, and am hoping to do so with my Sprint PCS phone. I wasn't talking about desktop applications. I am *for* web applications, but not in the way SmartWorker does it.
I *do* see the value in accessing my files/apps/data from more than one computer. I *made* the point that I *am* doing web applications for precisely the reason you mention. I am developing a web application and content management framework entitled Iaijutsu (in case you missed all the links.
The point I was making about another layer on the web is this: Why, specifically, another GUI toolkit? That's just another tight binding system between logic and presentation.
If I understand correctly, SmartWorker can be made to present application differently with a set of 'rendering engines'. I noticed engines for WinCE, DHTML, etc...
So, if I want to present the results of my application logic differently, I have to code another engine, right? Or, I have to reconstruct the code comprising my GUI layout logic, right? It requires someone with a knowledge of Perl to change the look & feel of an application in SmartWorker. In general, to change the presentation of my application in SmartWorker, I have to rework part of it's logic that has been devoted to manipulating the GUI toolkit. Is this correct?
Now, I while I also appreciate that perhaps I can separate my application and a SmartWorker GUI into modules with an established interface between them, my question is: Given the fact that we have a machine readable user interface specification format that is much simpler than Perl (i.e. HTML), why circumvent it by layering another toolkit on top of it and adding complexity and tight coupling to the application? I'm not saying HTML is the best, but it's well known and there are plenty of tools to build it.
The alternative I presented in my last post was this: A system like Zope or my Iaijutsu uses a template language to add flexibility to an HTML document to allow the presentation of the results of an application, mostly independent of the application itself. As long as the application generates the same well-defined data structure, the application logic is free to change, and the presentation is free to change-- independently of each other.
More practically, what this means is:
1) I'm the Perl guru, I write the backend code that churns through the database and returns some row data. 2) Upstairs is a graphic design geek who makes the pretty skins for my application. 3) The guy next to me is the HTML Production Artist who takes the designer's images and processes them into GIFs and HTML with Macromedia tools. He also takes my description of the template language and writes the simple looping tags that fill in table rows from my database results.
With SmartWorker, I think it might go more like this:
1) I write the Perl logic. 2) The designer hands the interface design image to the Production artist. 3) The production artist makes some GIFs, but no HTML, and hands that to me. 4) I write some Perl that lays out the tables and buttons and etc, as close as I can to the original Photoshop design. In this stage, we can't use anything like a nice Macromedia tool to generate a page because it's all done in Perl GUI toolkit calls.
Now, the client asks for a radical change, but luckily enough, it's just cosmetic-- the application inner workings are still the same.
With Zope or Iaijutsu the process goes like this:
1) I don't have to do much at all, because my part (the application) has remained the same. 2) The graphic designer reworks the image. 3) The HTML Production Artist imports the image into a Macromedia tool, cuts out all the images again, and recreates the HTML template using the methods I gave him. Job done.
With SmartWorker:
1) The designer reworks the image. 2) The Production Artist gives me another pile of gifs. 3) I toss out the Perl module I wrote to layout the GUI, and start over writing more Perl code to try to match the new GUI.
In summary, what's the problem here? For one, if any change is made to the presentation, we *all* have work to do because changing the SmartWorker GUI required Perl expertise. And for another, not only do we all have work to do, but we can't use all of the standard tools we have for HTML page layout.
So, with SmartWorker, our process of delegating work to each other's specific skill sets is broken, and the tools that make 5 minutes' work out of making a 'skin' for the application in HTML are lost.
Well, before you get your ethical panties in a bunch, you should note that OpenDesk has advertising banners on SlashDot. Looks like a banner exchange to me.
I'm not getting on the bandwagon, and here's why...
...
For those who have no idea what it is, it's similar to Zope, except that it's written in Perl.
Nope, it's not like Zope. Check out my project, Iaijutsu. THAT is like Zope, only written in Perl.
Currently, the problem (for me!) is that all the presentation has to be hardcoded in Perl. You don't do any HTML, hopefully, you only manipulated high level objects. However, that's a problem for me who works closely with web page designers, and who is lazy enough to want them to deal with all the crappy HTML issues
Zope (and Iaijutsu) is an object-oriented content management tool and application framework.
SmartWorker is more akin to GTK and QT, as it's an abstract windowing toolkit on top of the web.
With a system like Zope or Iaijutsu, logic is separated from presentation by an HTML-based template language. Both Zope and Iaijutsu have object persistence databases which allow storage, search, and retrieval of content and application instances.
And in the case of Iaijutsu, I just recently finished a Skins support system that allows one to create sets of templates to completely change the look & feel of an app or set of content from a user preference, for example.
While SmartWorker does seem to have some persistence and session data facilities, from what I've seen so far, it's nothing like the object persistence database features of Zope or Iaijutsu. On the SmartWorker site, they claim 'This is not a system for generating web content from databases', and thus I think they'd agree. From what I've seen in SmartWorker so far, the data storage is nowhere near as sophisticated as Zope or Iaijutsu. I may be mistaken, so I'm going to keep investigating SmartWorker.
However the reason I'm not jumping on the SmartWorker bandwagon and will continue Iaijutsu development, is this:
SmartWorker is a GUI toolkit for the web. I don't need this. In fact, I'm doing web applications to escape the OS and GUI toolkits and tightly coupled logic and presentation.
I understand SmartWorker has different 'rendering engines' for different 'platforms', but it just doesn't seem flexible enough to me. Beyond just 'platforms', what about the simple fact that I have to collaborate with a) A graphic designer, b) An HTML production artist, c) The Money-providing Client?
I don't want to touch any Perl code when all we want to do is rearrange the form on the screen. We're not changing the data that flows in and out of the application, we're just changing the 'skin'. With Zope and Iaijutsu that's a task I can delegate off to an HTML slave. With SmartWorker, I have to rebuild the code that makes the GUI.
SmartWorker just seems like a misapplied metaphor to me. Because, we have an OS. On the OS is a windowing system. On that windowing system is a windowing toolkit. On that windowing toolkit is a web browser. And so with SmartWorker, we try to make the browser into a windowing system and build another layer of windowing toolkit? Just seems like a mistake to me that wipes out most of the flexibility the web browser provides for logic/presentation separation.
My $0.02. Oh, and check out Iaijutsu. =)
Umm, pay attention to what sources are being asked for. RMS says all software should be Free. Not everyone agrees. But many agree that certain things should ALWAYS be Open Sourced.
Games? Not usually.
Drivers? ALWAYS! Critical operating system components? ALWAYS! Programming languages? ALWAYS! Application platforms? (i.e. browsers) ALWAYS!
There's a difference.
Even heroes can be jerks, and sometimes, after realizing they've become bona fide heroes, they become jerks.
I just bought a copy of Neverwhere at a comic convention, just watched it twice through this weekend. If you'd like it, I might part with it or copy it for you.
Or, take a look around eBay, there are several or auction on there.
And you call the Mozilla Effect a Bad Thing? You probably see it as, "Hey lookit that fish of a project flopping around out of water." But I'm running Mozilla right now, and I see it as, "Hey look, they pulled that project out of the dark closet, figured out it really was junk, and rewrote it!"
The Mozilla team is FIXING the Netscape browser. They're doing the Right Thing(tm) this time. It's not out yet, but it will be. And it will be good. And that was the goal. Sure, the have secondary goals such as meeting arbitrary deadlines, making a product, etc... but the main thing was to see if an Open Source development community (and that includes coders, debuggers, testers, thinkers, and well wishers) could do one better than Netscape, and they are.
So it would be sweet if a group could do that with the Amiga. Hell, it'd be sweeter if they could make the Linux-Amiga hybrid Amiga, Inc was talking about. (Tho somehow, I don't think that was going to use any original code from Amiga CLassic.)
ANyway...
I have a Palm III. I have a Sony Vaio superslim 505TR.
I use my Palm as a "dreamcatcher" for my thoughts. It's small, it's quick, and it remembers. I, on the other hand, do not remember. And it's a simple device. It does what it's supposed to, and it does it well. That 'rut' to which you refer, is exactly where I want my Palm to stay.
I use my Sony Vaio as my development workstation, when I have a chance to set up on a table somewhere. It's bigger, quick, and remembers more. But it's also heavier, doesn't fit in my pocket. But it *does* have a bigger screen. So it's good for sitting down and coding.
I don't care what kind of leapfrogging we do past Moore's Law, but no matter how small the electronics get, I'm still going to need human interfaces of a size and shape compatible with my purposes. And, call me crufty, but I'm NOT impressed with headgear. I don't want VR, I don't want a 'virtual 36" screen' floating in front of me. I want an object (of the atomic kind) in front of me.
I want a small and simple device for quick things and a larger more complex device for longer term interaction. And I use them for different tasks.
So, I say, go, go gadget Palm.
You may have seen them. They go for anywhere from $500-50000. They don't fit in your pocket.
THe Palm is a PDA. It fits in your pocket.
That would take some serious arguing...
Gawd! Not by me! Just looking at the progress between Q2 and Q3, and between Unreal and UT.
I've heard there are a lot of subtle, nice advances in the Quake line. But Q3A feels like Fischer-Price to me, and Q2 feels better. Maybe it's just that I'm not used to it.
But in the Unreal line, you have a completely new GUI library set for mod making, new improvements to the built-in Object Oriented scripting language (!!!! C DLL's from nasty, gnarled, uncommented code? What?) which include Mutators that give you mix-and-match game components (!! I can play CTF and have the Disco Gravity gun too?!)... just seems so much stuff that is an ADVANCE over the predecessor that Q3A lacks, and doesn't seem like it'll get in time for a Real Soon Now release.
Unreal is the Emacs of 3D games, just unfortunately without the Free Software goodness.
Did you actually play it? Q3test2 is not small, not indoors, and I bet I can rail you from the other side of it. :> Sure, yeah, yeah, it's a big map space-wise. But in terms of play, that map is TINY. And not much going on. What, like 7-8 smallish platforms for a bunch of blue & red Fisher-Price robot guys to cram onto and randomly gib? Q3A does not impress me so far. I still play Q2 more, and Unreal Tournament more than that.
Not just Republicans, I agree. Just one more reason to form a sovereign virtual nation. :)
Well, see, there's a difference. When you buy a bicycle, and later give it to your sister-- you no longer have a bicycle. But when you copy software and give it to your sister, you both now have a copy of it. A copy has been created, independently of the company who creates it.
So, you've just set up your own bicycle factory, and made a new bicycle, claiming that it's the same Huffy you had. If I were to set up a car factory making what I called "Ford" vehicles, I'd be in a lot of trouble.
THe difference between software and physical goods however is, software is mostly made of thoughts, and so easily reproducible.
So, what's the solution if you want to make money making software? Outlaw actual ownership, and license use. Doesn't quite make sense to me...
THat's why I think an Open Source model addresses the problem more effectively
YIKES! AVERAGE users buy Photoshop?! That proggy has got to be one of the MOST expensive apps on the market, along with the Macromedia tools. I can't imagine my uncle (who *is* a photographer, and is fairly computer savvy) just popping down to the software store and picking up a copy.
YIKES! I say! YIKES!
Umm... So tell me what's the difference a post titled 'Hrm...' and a post titled '...'? Where's YOUR 'good, informative subjectline' and why are you preaching about it if you don't use it?