...is a musical instrument. I don't usually correct spelling, but that one amused me.
On a more serious note, this post kinda contends the sort of thing you're talking about.
Additionally, most criminals wish to be able to stay in their own country – if you got this to work, you'd need to steal enough cash before detection, since to get a store credit card system you'd definately need to have your identity known, to leave the country and pay for your life overseas, outwith the reach of your government.
For data-collection apps, perhaps. But chances are these people will have had some training in usability and so forth, and instead of making some mockup in photoshop then relying on developers "translating" it, the idea of these tools are that the designer can just "draw" the interface and have it function, then the developers can just tie into it.
The idea being that developers find it hard to communicate what designers can and cannot do, and the difficulty of their work — now they don't have to. The prototype "design" is also the finished front-end.
This does not, to the best of my knowledge, cover data-collection, web-based front-ends. That's not the same. But as for an interface for a desktop app, it makes a lot of sense, particularly when things are getting to the level where designers have a lot of options as far as the design goes.
So, essentially, what it does is turn designers into proper designers, by giving them a tool that works exactly (give or take) like a design tool, but outputs sensible code, instead of the developer having to act as a proxy.
Just rememer that in XHTML it's <worm_hole destination="/future/#years"/>. Then put that space in to make it compatible with older browsers which won't render it anyway. Oh, and remember it has to be inside a block-level element, after an <h1> or an <h3> but not before a <p> or anywhere near an <h2>. You can also put it inside the <head> area so long as you're not using the Strict scheme, taller than six feet, or it's a full moon.
XML may give you syntactic validation (that is all XML provides, BTW)
Not true. In the context of simple configuration files, perhaps, but general name/value pairs cannot support things like semi-structured data, which are important for many things.
I think the reason people keep pushing XML is that it can deal with everything, even if it deals with simple things clumsily, as opposed to something which does not have the semantic power to describe more complex things and has to have other systems grafted on top (essentially creating many different standards where one would — clumsily — do).
XP's had some updates to make it go faster, and a few other things.
The differences are pretty marginal though — if you're happy to stay with 2k, there's probably little reason to upgrade. There's one or two compatibility issues (very few) and 2k goes out of "official support" earlier than XP, but other than that, nothing serious springs to mind. I personally upgraded my last computer for ClearType, since I got a TFT monitor — however, was I in a situation where I would have to pay for the software, I'm not sure if that'd have been ample reason.
Now that the Supreme Court has set "active inducement" as the standard for liability, the RIAA is trying to establish a paper trail to use in subsequent trials against these services.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. "We got one of you for this, now we're going to try to prove that everyone else is guilty of it." To be fair though, Grokster were a lot more actively promoting infringement — I'm not convinced any of these other companies are in real danger. Now that the Supreme Court has set a standard, all companies need to do is avoid it.
The overwhelming influence people can have with money is just horrible though — I can never remove the Jesse Jordan case from my memory.
(Incidentally, that link is to an online version of Lessig's Free Culture, which I'd recommend to anyone with even a passing interest in these disputes over copyright, even though probably not directly applicable here.)
Strictly speaking, you could think of Firefox as a frontend to the rendering engine Gecko — I think it'd be pretty well possible to write a system based on Gecko that does what you want:)
All versions of Vista will be crippled -- by DRM. In order to play DRMd media, it will only play through the Protected Media Path (PiMP).
I have no idea where the "i" in "PiMP" came from, but I like it!
More seriously, I don't care about buying an OS with DRM built into it. Just don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature that some people might use (although if they knew what it did, they probably wouldn't), but it is not something I plan to use. Is there any provision in Vista to stop you creating and using non-DRMed media? They could never sell that product.
There's a difference here. I don't buy DRMed media, because I don't agree with the principles behind DRM, and don't much feel like having my use of media I paid for controlled. DRMed media is "crippled", since it is like normal media, but has had some of its (legitimate) uses "locked out".
This is not true of Vista. To the best of what I've seen, it is not "crippled" by any definition — it contains support for crippled media, but it does not restrict one's use of non-crippled media. This is an extra feature – not one I plan to ever use, mind – not a restriction.
Skinning generally refers (particularly in the past, although some apps have far more complex things now) to just changing the look of the interface, not what's actually there. He's essentially suggesting changing the whole frontend to create several apps of varying complexity with a common backend.
Re:How can you vouch for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
Guess you didn't RTFA - Sparkle is NOT just for the web. It gives control to the whole UI of the host machine.
Guess you didn't RTFA or my post. I wrote "web-based Sparkle stuff". There is a security model, web-based usages of Sparkle will be sandboxed and will not have such sweeping controls.
Instead of taking an open spec like XUl and joining it, bettering it, and implementing it they chose to go their own way. Nothing to see here, runalong now and leave the evil people to their own devices.
I guess they realised that they'd be accused of "embracing and extending" if they did that.
Well explained. I expect our friend here is a little wound up in the intricacies of his own FUD.
Re:What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
Likely not to many. It's a.NET technology, and the.NET security model is fairly solid, at least in the parts of it which exist for now. The biggest threat would be in the form of "signed" web applications (like malicious Java applets, Firefox extensions, etc.) which gain privileges through tricking the user. I'm not sure if these are supported, though.
Re:What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
This (sparkle) isn't just for the browser. Its for all of Vista. It literally opens up new Vistas for viruses, trojans, and worms (bad pun, but its accurate).
Just like the cross-use of JavaScript in Firefox — which has a far worse security model than.NET — makes it very insecure?
Your predictions are essentially baseless – this is a new technology which is being used in several places in different ways, but considering the excellent security model in the rest of.NET (there was an article on here about it not long ago) there's no reason to assume that security concerns will have been ignored.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
You're fudging the issue — this is a matter of security policy. Web-based Sparkle stuff will have the same "access to the filesystem" that JavaScript has in Mozilla. A web-based app will not have these permissions.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
historical performance is a reasonable basis for prediction.
My understanding is that this is a new display layer for C#/.NET. Since.NET was, in a recent article, hailed for having an extremely good security model, and since it has had fewer security flaws identified than comparable products, it seems fair to assume, from your assertion, that Sparkle will not be a great security flaw in Vista.
Fair enough, but I don't believe it's a sensible feature to include by default, is my point. It's similar to adding a "window minimise button changes to last tab" (simulating minimise on a tab) option. It can be done by extension, though, which is a good thing. But you were replying to a post which asked – if the default behaviour were to close a tab instead of the window – what would you do about the people who expected a system to work "normally". That's what the guy was contending, and what you appear to have replied to.
We all know there's alternate ways of closing an app window, the discussion here is about whether or not an alternative action for the default close button is appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
...is a musical instrument. I don't usually correct spelling, but that one amused me.
On a more serious note, this post kinda contends the sort of thing you're talking about.
Additionally, most criminals wish to be able to stay in their own country – if you got this to work, you'd need to steal enough cash before detection, since to get a store credit card system you'd definately need to have your identity known, to leave the country and pay for your life overseas, outwith the reach of your government.
Does it really seem likely that a credit card company would release a technology so easily circumvented?
Well, "draining bank accounts" seems a little extreme since the system is apparently based on a strong encryption (?) scheme.
For data-collection apps, perhaps. But chances are these people will have had some training in usability and so forth, and instead of making some mockup in photoshop then relying on developers "translating" it, the idea of these tools are that the designer can just "draw" the interface and have it function, then the developers can just tie into it.
The idea being that developers find it hard to communicate what designers can and cannot do, and the difficulty of their work — now they don't have to. The prototype "design" is also the finished front-end.
This does not, to the best of my knowledge, cover data-collection, web-based front-ends. That's not the same. But as for an interface for a desktop app, it makes a lot of sense, particularly when things are getting to the level where designers have a lot of options as far as the design goes.
So, essentially, what it does is turn designers into proper designers, by giving them a tool that works exactly (give or take) like a design tool, but outputs sensible code, instead of the developer having to act as a proxy.
I believe the protocol calls for the browser to send itself back with the document.
Just rememer that in XHTML it's <worm_hole destination="/future/#years"/>. Then put that space in to make it compatible with older browsers which won't render it anyway. Oh, and remember it has to be inside a block-level element, after an <h1> or an <h3> but not before a <p> or anywhere near an <h2>. You can also put it inside the <head> area so long as you're not using the Strict scheme, taller than six feet, or it's a full moon.
Not true. In the context of simple configuration files, perhaps, but general name/value pairs cannot support things like semi-structured data, which are important for many things.
I think the reason people keep pushing XML is that it can deal with everything, even if it deals with simple things clumsily, as opposed to something which does not have the semantic power to describe more complex things and has to have other systems grafted on top (essentially creating many different standards where one would — clumsily — do).
Fair enough :)
XP's had some updates to make it go faster, and a few other things.
The differences are pretty marginal though — if you're happy to stay with 2k, there's probably little reason to upgrade. There's one or two compatibility issues (very few) and 2k goes out of "official support" earlier than XP, but other than that, nothing serious springs to mind. I personally upgraded my last computer for ClearType, since I got a TFT monitor — however, was I in a situation where I would have to pay for the software, I'm not sure if that'd have been ample reason.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. "We got one of you for this, now we're going to try to prove that everyone else is guilty of it." To be fair though, Grokster were a lot more actively promoting infringement — I'm not convinced any of these other companies are in real danger. Now that the Supreme Court has set a standard, all companies need to do is avoid it.
The overwhelming influence people can have with money is just horrible though — I can never remove the Jesse Jordan case from my memory.
(Incidentally, that link is to an online version of Lessig's Free Culture, which I'd recommend to anyone with even a passing interest in these disputes over copyright, even though probably not directly applicable here.)
Strictly speaking, you could think of Firefox as a frontend to the rendering engine Gecko — I think it'd be pretty well possible to write a system based on Gecko that does what you want :)
I have no idea where the "i" in "PiMP" came from, but I like it!
More seriously, I don't care about buying an OS with DRM built into it. Just don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature that some people might use (although if they knew what it did, they probably wouldn't), but it is not something I plan to use. Is there any provision in Vista to stop you creating and using non-DRMed media? They could never sell that product.
There's a difference here. I don't buy DRMed media, because I don't agree with the principles behind DRM, and don't much feel like having my use of media I paid for controlled. DRMed media is "crippled", since it is like normal media, but has had some of its (legitimate) uses "locked out".
This is not true of Vista. To the best of what I've seen, it is not "crippled" by any definition — it contains support for crippled media, but it does not restrict one's use of non-crippled media. This is an extra feature – not one I plan to ever use, mind – not a restriction.
I agree completely. Seperating the parts is critical.
Skinning generally refers (particularly in the past, although some apps have far more complex things now) to just changing the look of the interface, not what's actually there. He's essentially suggesting changing the whole frontend to create several apps of varying complexity with a common backend.
Guess you didn't RTFA or my post. I wrote "web-based Sparkle stuff". There is a security model, web-based usages of Sparkle will be sandboxed and will not have such sweeping controls.
I guess they realised that they'd be accused of "embracing and extending" if they did that.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Well explained. I expect our friend here is a little wound up in the intricacies of his own FUD.
Likely not to many. It's a .NET technology, and the .NET security model is fairly solid, at least in the parts of it which exist for now. The biggest threat would be in the form of "signed" web applications (like malicious Java applets, Firefox extensions, etc.) which gain privileges through tricking the user. I'm not sure if these are supported, though.
Just like the cross-use of JavaScript in Firefox — which has a far worse security model than .NET — makes it very insecure?
Your predictions are essentially baseless – this is a new technology which is being used in several places in different ways, but considering the excellent security model in the rest of .NET (there was an article on here about it not long ago) there's no reason to assume that security concerns will have been ignored.
"lol"
You're fudging the issue — this is a matter of security policy. Web-based Sparkle stuff will have the same "access to the filesystem" that JavaScript has in Mozilla. A web-based app will not have these permissions.
My understanding is that this is a new display layer for C#/.NET. Since .NET was, in a recent article, hailed for having an extremely good security model, and since it has had fewer security flaws identified than comparable products, it seems fair to assume, from your assertion, that Sparkle will not be a great security flaw in Vista.
Well, it's supposed to be, then.
That behaviour in Reader always annoyed me though, yeah.
Fair enough, but I don't believe it's a sensible feature to include by default, is my point. It's similar to adding a "window minimise button changes to last tab" (simulating minimise on a tab) option. It can be done by extension, though, which is a good thing. But you were replying to a post which asked – if the default behaviour were to close a tab instead of the window – what would you do about the people who expected a system to work "normally". That's what the guy was contending, and what you appear to have replied to.
We all know there's alternate ways of closing an app window, the discussion here is about whether or not an alternative action for the default close button is appropriate.
I agree. Thanks for being on-side with this one.