Actually, no, it explicitly covers DNT. That is fine. I know users are generally going to go with the standard answer, which is going to be "don't change stuff", but that doesn't mean the user didn't opt-in. Not when DNT was specifically covered. That is good. Now we just need to make it law.
Everyone else uses a forward slash to denote directories
Unix does. If you define Unix as "Everybody" you are right, otherwise you are just ignorant.
every time I ever upgraded Windows, half my old programs would no longer work
That is rubbish. Sorry. It is simply rubbish. Of course, unless the software in question was rubbish software written by incompetent idiots. Nobody does backwards compatibility like Microsoft. Nobody perhaps except the IBM mainframe guys.
Yes. Unix is the standard
That is probably the dumbest thing I've read so far today. "Oooooh, everybody should be exactly like me if not my puny brain can't work proper.". Besides, the backslash is not part of the OS, it is part of the command shell, which Microsoft (sensibly) made backwards compatible, something you (when contradicting your self) said was a good thing. Imagine all the stuff that would break if MS changed it in their shell. In the OS the two are equivalent and interchangeable. If you want to use forward slash, why not just install bash and you are good to go.
Apple didn't used to be Unix based, either, but they had the good sense to join the rest of the computing world
Wow. Unix is a standard, but from the 1970s, and it shows. The monolithic monster that is the Linux kernel is (according to Linus) bloated beyond belief. Unix is one of many, many operating systems, and it isn't even close to being the most well designed. Quite frankly, Unix as it is today deserves to finally be awarded the terrible death of badly designed shit. Good operating systems abound, but not all of them are as popular as Unix. Honestly, from an Operating Systems design point of view Unix is an anti-pattern and it is holding back the software development industry tremendously (Windows is a little better, but not "better enough").
Operating systems that beat the crap out of Unix, from a scalability, reliability and programmability perspective include, but are not limited to: MINIX 3, Amoeba, QNX, OS/2, NeXT (kinda, a little bit, sorta), VAX VMS, Open VMS, z/OS etc.
The only positive thing there is to say about Unix is that it is simple and straightforward. It has to be. It was designed to run on PDP/(7-11)s, and it shows. Don't get me wrong, I am a Unix head, but Unix is not even close to being a good operating system, it is barely a skin-deep layer on top of the hardware (to exaggerate just slightly) and the "everything is a stream of bytes" is just a bad idea now. It was good then, but then was a PDP-11.
Internet users need to turn the option on themselves
They do. When they install IE, they are asked. They can answer "Sure, enable DNT" or they can do otherwise. MS is following the standard. Apache is breaking it. The problem here is that Fielding checked on a pre-release of IE10, and that installer didn't ask. He made his decision based on faulty information and now he can't admit he was wrong. If he persists, Apaches reputation will be badly tarnished since it is Apache not following the standard. Apache users will also be exposed to serious legal action in Europe, where internet privacy laws (probably) mandates the honoring of DNT.
Now that it's not, not even those who might have honored it will now. We went from it possibly having some effect to zero possibility of it having any effect.
Not quite. Microsoft clearly asks the user his preference, which is good. This means the user has explicitly stated a preference. That has a very important side effect in Europe, namely that websites are now in fact required to honor DNT (remember, the law is different in Europe and the USA). What does that mean? It means that all advertisers in Europe have to honor DNT. It has a more serious effect though. It makes Apache a dangerous thing to install on websites in Europe. People would simply have to stick with an old version or forego Apache alltogether. That is not in the interest of the Apache foundation I believe.
only to accept the default settings as Microsoft deems fit.
They don't. Microsoft asks them and honors their request. The "Sure, lets have DNT enabled" is the default button, but the user is informed and asked to make a selection. Fielding needs to change his meds.
They don't, so the point is moot. They basically do, "Do you want DNT enabled? Then press this button. If you want to change that, please press this other button. They are doing it well within the spec. Fielding is on some bad drugs (actually, he based his decision on pre-release software, which was dumb).
If the DNT setting is on by default then it's Microsoft deciding in favour of enabling DNT
It isn't. Basically Microsoft is telling the user DNT exists and that it has been enabled. Does the user want it enabled, please press this button, if they want it disabled, please press this other button. That is perfectly well within the standard. Problem is, Fielding made his decision based on a pre-release of IE10, which was dumb.
All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me
This is wrong. MS has DNT as opt-in, and they clearly and specifically notifies the user of this on install. This has been well documented. Fielding is wrong here. Doubly so, since his patch would not only affect the people who didn't opt in (they do not exist) it would also affect people like me who specifically wanted DNT on. As I mentioned in another posting, this makes Apache (actually anyone using it with Fielding's patch) a law-breaker in Europe and liable for massive law suits. If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.
No, you are not. The discussion is about whether Microsoft asks the user if the user wants DNT tracking enabled or disabled. Microsoft does so, very clearly, when installing Windows 8 (the only way you can get the released IE10 as of now. Since the user is asked, Microsoft violates nothing. Fielding's patch is violating the standard in a bad way, since he doesn't discriminate between what he thinks is a user who had DNT set by default with no information (they do not exists) and a user who specifically set DNT:1 on his own.
The cool thing is that this opens any company that uses a Fielding-patched Apache to legal action in Europe. I am looking forward to browsing tons of websites running Apache in Europe later on and suing their asses off. By European law I will win each and every one of those lawsuits. The sad part would be that Apache would disintegrate as a serious HTTP player. Nobody would (indeed could) go near them ever again.
Fielding needs to go back on his meds and have his commit permit revoked instantly.
despite drawing the ire of corporate America, the Apache Software Foundation
This is not about the Apache Foundation. This is Roy Fielding off his medication, insisting that Microsoft has violated the standard. The question here is whether Microsoft asks the user if the user wants DNT enabled or not. According to RF, Microsoft does not. He is wrong. They do when you install Windows 8. This has been thoroughly documented.
Sadly Fielding's patch not only circumvents the standard (so it is Apache circumventing the standard, not Microsoft), it also makes a patched Apache liable for legal action in Europe. Anyone using Apache in Europe with Fielding's patch enabled have made them selves open to legal action by any European user of that website.
Fielding is simply wrong here, he needs to admit it and his commit privileges needs to be revoked. Simple!
The design intend was not for large multi-threading problems (easily covered by existing constructs)
Which constructs specifically? Let's say I am developing a server side application that, upon a REST request from a client, has to get data from a database, a web service and a legacy application over a non-standard XML interface. I am doing exactly this right now in Java. Which constructs are as easy to use as async and await in C# or Java that will allow me to do this? Please be specific. The fact that you read one line about async and await and then you think you know what it is for just shows how much of a retard you are. Async/await is a benefit to all applications that need to gather data from slow(ish) resources. It is particularly well suited for web-based (server side) applications) since it makes it easy to develop code that doesn't block the HTTP request thread. Not blocking the HTTP requet threads will make your application scale better.
Not only were you wrong
Where was I wrong? Is Anders working on JScript? Since when? Where do you find JScript in Node.js? Remember, TypeScript runs on Node.js, It DOESN'T run in IE at all and probably never will. So, please, explain how Anders is working on JScript, the Microsoft implementation of JavaScript, when Anders is not working with any Microsoft technology at all (apart from adding tooling to VS2012). Please. Show me the link between TypeScript and IE9 or IE10 or any version of IE, you know, where JScript is.
However, async/await may just be handy to bang smaller stuff out quickly
You are really funny. Why would async/await be handy to bang out smaller stuff quickly? Async/await isn't really relevant for anything but large multi threaded applications that need to scale. In Java you have to rely on callbacks, and in complex applications nested callbacks. This is very, very difficult to both debug and maintain over time since the code execution path is not obvious to the programmer. This is why the error rate for massively threaded applications is higher per line of code than when the application is not threaded. Async/await significantly cuts down on code and error rate when writing such applications.
Your dumb "may just be handy to bang smaller stuff out quickly" shows that you again are talking from ignorance. You have no clue what async/await does, and still you talk about it as if you are an expert. You really are quite retarded.
Yeah, the obsession with maintaining backward compatibility at the bytecode level is indeed a bitch
Ah, see, you don't even understand this. The unwillingness to to change the bytecode level is not for backwards compatibility. You can change the bytecode to your hearts extent and maintain backwards compatibility. The "we won't change the bytecode" is for forwards compatibility, and that is just dumb. The.NET 4 runtime runs.NET 2.0 code perfectly fine simply due to the fact that the 2.0 stuff doesn't use any of the 4.x stuff. Expanding the capabilities of the bytecode engine doesn't impact older software at all.
I do like how old stuff and libraries still work though.
They do in.NET too, even though the bytecode engine has been expanded. Why would they not? Microsoft doesn't expect.NET 4.0 code to run on a.NET 2.0 runtime though. Sun did, and that is why they refused to change the bytecode.
I txted my bro and and he is a bit fuzzy (20 years ago) but thinks it was kernel 0.12
OK, I'll bite. Let's assume it was 0.12. I am then going to ask you a very simple question - how did you install 0.12 on your PC? Tell me approximately what you downloaded, how you created disk images and how it was booted. If you used 0.12, you'll remember.
By all means, bet your business on TypeScript
Again, you are showing a total lack of understanding of what TS is. You do not understand why the annotations are there at all do you?
Meanwhile I'll still be recommending GWT
That's interesting. So, instead of using an open standard with standardized protocols like REST, JSON etc, you are recommending a closed source project where you are so extremely tied to the tools that if the vendor decides to drop the project, you are going to have to do all your apps over from the start. Seriously?
My bad on JScript, I was unaware of this. You have caught my in my first error - the name of a product.
They are not working on JScript at all, they are working on JavaScript
Lol, fail. "JScript" is Microsoft's trade name for their JavaScript implementation
You are correct, but Anders is not working on JScript since he is (though you want him to) not working on a Microsoft browser language. Anders is working on TypeScript in JavaScript running on Node.js. If you do not understand what that means, make your brother boot his non-existing version of Linux 0.20 and run "man moron".
I have given a link to IE9's significant compatibility flaws
Which, specifically, are significant, and for what reason?
Suggesting you fix things by just replacing the old with the new (eg. as small outfits can) is not realistic
Here is again an area where your ignorance is showing. Enterprise is not clinging to IE6 because they are on XP (they can upgrade any time) they cling to it because so many apps are written for IE6 specifically, and will only work on IE6. Now, if Microsoft patches IE6 so that it becomes more standards compliant, those things will break. You see, that is why they can not move, using a standards compliant browser with these web applications won't work. So, how do you suppose Microsoft make IE6 standards compliant without breaking the apps that assumes IE6 is not standards compliant? Again, you are a big nice beacon of ignorance and stupidity.
Shame it is not yet released to the non-MSDN public
In three weeks.
IE 10 is still not relevant to this discussion *at this point in time*.
Actually it is. You are claiming MS isn't doing enough to catch up to standards. IE9 was a huge step in the right direction, and IE10 will be even more so. Both, even though IE10 is not yet released, proves you wrong.
whether or not they get useful patches in the near term
Three weeks, too long for you? Then get the pre-release version. It's free.
By working in TypeScript you are still working in a single-vendor dialect of Javascript
You keep saying stupid ignorant stuff like this. You repeating it doesn't make it less stupid and it doesn't make it less ignorant. You should have taken my advice a long time ago and learned a little bit about what TypeScript is. No, it is not single-vendor, it is ECMA JS 6. The fact that you don't know that shows that you have not tried to educate your self, and that you are still sticking to ignorant dogma. That is really, really dumb.
Once you have a large code base written in TypeScript it is a pain to convert back to pure Javascript should you want to
Nope. Wrong again. And again. And again. Everything you say about TS is wrong. That's why you are an idiot. Not because you are wrong, but because, despite numerous attempts on my part, you still stubbornly refuse to learn anything about TypeScript. It means that you are an idiot. Here is why you are wrong (so that this is not an ad-hominem): It takes zero time to convert back to pure Javascript since you had to do that to make TypeScript run at all. TypeScript will not run in any browser, first you have to convert it to pure Javascript. The fact that you still don't know this is yet another proof that you are ignorant and proud of it. It takes zero time to convert to pure Javascript if for example MS abandons TS because you already have converted it to pure JS. There now, I said it twice. If you can't understand what I said, have an adult read it for you and explain it to you.
why do a half-assed solution like TypeScript
Because it is Javascript. Because it is ECMA 6. That is a fucking good idea.
Well, you could always write C++ with various compiler-specific (eg. GNU) macros.
So, does the C++ compiler, when using the compiler specific macros, compile to pure C++ without that compiler specificity, and then run that C++ code directly? No? I thought not. You see, that is what TS does, and you still don't know that because you are too full of ignorance to realize how stupid you are.
I urge caution of those considering adopting it as a direct implementation language
Again, your ignorance is talking.
Incidentally, both my brother and I were amazed when the Linux kernel we'd been using for a while reached 0.20 (not a typo).
Are you absolutely certain it is not a typo? For sure? Really? Lets see. There was the announcement and 0.01, then came 0.02, 0.03 and 0.10, then 0.11 followed by 0.12 and then 0.95. Yes, you are a dumb little liar, are you not? Before trying to give your self and your brother some credit you do not deserve, at least read a little bit about the stuff you are going to write half-truths about. In case you didn't get that, which seems like an extraordinary high probability, there was no 0.20 version of Linux. You have to ask Linus him self about why he jumped like that, but I doubt you'll get an answer.
headless for high-performance instances that aren't virtualized
Ah, so you don't know that Windows Server can run headless, do you? Also, being in an organization that runs Windows and Linux servers, Linux is clearly more expensive to manage. Licensing costs are nothing compared to management and support cost. Managing and AD or equivalent infrastructure for, say 1000 to 5000 people is a hell of a lot easier on Windows than on Linux.
Outdated. Java is unstuck and moving again.
Not really. It is still managed by a totally dysfunctional committee with a totally broken process. Sorry, Java is the COBOL of this decade and the next few. Heck, they even need to go back and undo some of the damage done previously. Autoboxing in Java for example is a disaster and utterly broken. You can't do autoboxing in the compiler it has to be in the VM
In short, in case your comatose brain didn't get it, TypeScript gives you ECMA 6 with browsers that currently do not support it. Since ECMA 6 is in flux at the moment, expect TypeScript to change accordingly. Really, it is right there, in the articles and everything. ECMA, not vendor specific. Now go ask your mum for your weekly allowance and go get your self some books on Reading 101.
Yes. And? Has anyone ever stated IE9 is perfect? No, it is a very significant improvement on all other IE browsers, something you will probably find 100% consensus about in the web development community. IE 10 is up there with Chrome, and on JavaScript, it is better than Chrome.
It is my wish that Microsoft patch their older browsers for better compliance
Nobody does that. The patch is called IE9 and IE10.
Hence my point, don't frig around adding single-vendor annotations to JScript, spend every ounce of effort fixing the dogs you already have running out on the real world
And you are still spouting nonsense out of your ignorant ass. Really. Check it out. They are not working on JScript at all, they are working on JavaScript, and the annotations they are adding are not single vendor. If you had not been so fucking retarded that you had to go an spout all kinds of nonsense about a technology you have not bothered (I am assuming it must be due to the lack of ability) to read a damned thing about. Hint: The annotations are in line with ECMA future. Check it out and stop being such a fucking idiot.
Seriously? That's an argument? I mean, seriously? Haven't seen that since the 1990s. Are you complaining about the MS-DOS compatibility of the file names? What would have happened if MS had made backwards compatibility impossible? Seriously? Are you complaining about the disk annotation? You do know that that is optional right?
Unix: hda... Apple: hda..... MS: C:
All of the mentioned items, Unix, Linux and Apple, are Unix variations. Are you complaining that Windows is not Unix? Are you trying to look serious when doing so? I mean, seriously?
That IE pre IE9 was junk will get no counter-arguments from me. It was. I have never argued it was not.
Everyone: Javascript. MS: jscript
BZZZT! Wrong. Everyone Javascript. MS: three different ones, including JavaScript. As of IE10, IE is also very standards compliant at the JavaScript end. Again, I have never argued that MS is best, does best, is the greatest. I use Chrome personally almost exclusively, but MS is in fact doing many right things at the moment.
W7 notebook's docs say you have to have W7pro on the network to be able to network
No, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't. Please read it again.
What other OSes are you running
This is a short list of current and previous operating systems I have used.
Current: Windows 7, Windows 8, I have Ubuntu 11 for all my JBoss development at work (since we deploy on Ubuntu, it's easier to use Ubuntu as the dev platform). I use Open Suse 12 at home for my Ruby development but Windows 7 for other app dev. I have Android on my Samsung Galaxy III and Windows Phone 7 on my LG Windows Phone.
My favorite OS in many was was VAX VMS since it had ACLs and file versioning (yep, full versioning. You could go back to any version of your file by just specifying the version number when opening it) built into the operating system while Unix heads were still arguing that a stream of bytes is always best (it isn't, it was a good idea with the hardware at the time, but it has damaged good file systems for decades since) and rwx------ was plenty secure and flexible (it isn't). I ran DOS from the 2.x days, I replaced it on my AT box with Minix first and later version 0.97 of Linux and then there was Slackware - oh heaven. I was a huge fan of OS/2 particularly OS/Warp which kicked everybody's ass at the time, and had some innovations that neither Linux nor Windows ever will have. An OO desktop for example and a fantastic programming model, even better than the NeXT model. Oh, yeah, and I had a NeXT Cube on my desk at Uni, it looked awesome but was basically (in the end) useless.
Most of this I did while you were still having your butt wiped by your mother.
Wow. That's just funny. "You're holding it wrong". "All the other guys have the same problem". "It's only in very unusual conditions". Same BS we heard about the antenna. Apart from the fact that it was wrong. Sorry, this is quite bad, particularly considering you don't get the same issue with other cameras in the exact same situation. Tried. Tested. iPhone 5 fails.
I don't think he expected that, but also he probably didn't assume that he would be prevented from taking perfectly normal pictures with the iPhone 5, pictures that was quite easy to take with the iPhone 4. It's not like its impossible to take decent photos with the iPhone. Well, the 4s at least.
Probably meant to be funny, you are right. Color perception in humans is in fact not at all calibrated. We have this brain thing that constantly adjusts our color perception so that we think colors are quite different from what they actually are. Easy to see if you walk into a room at night with white walls. They are yellow if the light is from incandescent bulbs, green if the light is from fluorescent etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It pops a dialog saying - we're going to set it on, is that OK? You says yes or no. Opt-in enough if you ask me.
You mean like IE 8 / 9 / 10 default settings
Actually, no, it explicitly covers DNT. That is fine. I know users are generally going to go with the standard answer, which is going to be "don't change stuff", but that doesn't mean the user didn't opt-in. Not when DNT was specifically covered. That is good. Now we just need to make it law.
Everyone else uses a forward slash to denote directories
Unix does. If you define Unix as "Everybody" you are right, otherwise you are just ignorant.
every time I ever upgraded Windows, half my old programs would no longer work
That is rubbish. Sorry. It is simply rubbish. Of course, unless the software in question was rubbish software written by incompetent idiots. Nobody does backwards compatibility like Microsoft. Nobody perhaps except the IBM mainframe guys.
Yes. Unix is the standard
That is probably the dumbest thing I've read so far today. "Oooooh, everybody should be exactly like me if not my puny brain can't work proper.". Besides, the backslash is not part of the OS, it is part of the command shell, which Microsoft (sensibly) made backwards compatible, something you (when contradicting your self) said was a good thing. Imagine all the stuff that would break if MS changed it in their shell. In the OS the two are equivalent and interchangeable. If you want to use forward slash, why not just install bash and you are good to go.
Apple didn't used to be Unix based, either, but they had the good sense to join the rest of the computing world
Wow. Unix is a standard, but from the 1970s, and it shows. The monolithic monster that is the Linux kernel is (according to Linus) bloated beyond belief. Unix is one of many, many operating systems, and it isn't even close to being the most well designed. Quite frankly, Unix as it is today deserves to finally be awarded the terrible death of badly designed shit. Good operating systems abound, but not all of them are as popular as Unix. Honestly, from an Operating Systems design point of view Unix is an anti-pattern and it is holding back the software development industry tremendously (Windows is a little better, but not "better enough").
Operating systems that beat the crap out of Unix, from a scalability, reliability and programmability perspective include, but are not limited to: MINIX 3, Amoeba, QNX, OS/2, NeXT (kinda, a little bit, sorta), VAX VMS, Open VMS, z/OS etc.
The only positive thing there is to say about Unix is that it is simple and straightforward. It has to be. It was designed to run on PDP/(7-11)s, and it shows. Don't get me wrong, I am a Unix head, but Unix is not even close to being a good operating system, it is barely a skin-deep layer on top of the hardware (to exaggerate just slightly) and the "everything is a stream of bytes" is just a bad idea now. It was good then, but then was a PDP-11.
Internet users need to turn the option on themselves
They do. When they install IE, they are asked. They can answer "Sure, enable DNT" or they can do otherwise. MS is following the standard. Apache is breaking it. The problem here is that Fielding checked on a pre-release of IE10, and that installer didn't ask. He made his decision based on faulty information and now he can't admit he was wrong. If he persists, Apaches reputation will be badly tarnished since it is Apache not following the standard. Apache users will also be exposed to serious legal action in Europe, where internet privacy laws (probably) mandates the honoring of DNT.
If Microsoft enable it by default
They don't. They ask.
Microsoft asks when you install it. They are in compliance. Fielding is wrong.
Now that it's not, not even those who might have honored it will now. We went from it possibly having some effect to zero possibility of it having any effect.
Not quite. Microsoft clearly asks the user his preference, which is good. This means the user has explicitly stated a preference. That has a very important side effect in Europe, namely that websites are now in fact required to honor DNT (remember, the law is different in Europe and the USA). What does that mean? It means that all advertisers in Europe have to honor DNT. It has a more serious effect though. It makes Apache a dangerous thing to install on websites in Europe. People would simply have to stick with an old version or forego Apache alltogether. That is not in the interest of the Apache foundation I believe.
only to accept the default settings as Microsoft deems fit.
They don't. Microsoft asks them and honors their request. The "Sure, lets have DNT enabled" is the default button, but the user is informed and asked to make a selection. Fielding needs to change his meds.
then they extended it by turning it on by default
They don't, so the point is moot. They basically do, "Do you want DNT enabled? Then press this button. If you want to change that, please press this other button. They are doing it well within the spec. Fielding is on some bad drugs (actually, he based his decision on pre-release software, which was dumb).
If the DNT setting is on by default then it's Microsoft deciding in favour of enabling DNT
It isn't. Basically Microsoft is telling the user DNT exists and that it has been enabled. Does the user want it enabled, please press this button, if they want it disabled, please press this other button. That is perfectly well within the standard. Problem is, Fielding made his decision based on a pre-release of IE10, which was dumb.
All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me
This is wrong. MS has DNT as opt-in, and they clearly and specifically notifies the user of this on install. This has been well documented. Fielding is wrong here. Doubly so, since his patch would not only affect the people who didn't opt in (they do not exist) it would also affect people like me who specifically wanted DNT on. As I mentioned in another posting, this makes Apache (actually anyone using it with Fielding's patch) a law-breaker in Europe and liable for massive law suits. If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.
No, you are not. The discussion is about whether Microsoft asks the user if the user wants DNT tracking enabled or disabled. Microsoft does so, very clearly, when installing Windows 8 (the only way you can get the released IE10 as of now. Since the user is asked, Microsoft violates nothing. Fielding's patch is violating the standard in a bad way, since he doesn't discriminate between what he thinks is a user who had DNT set by default with no information (they do not exists) and a user who specifically set DNT:1 on his own.
The cool thing is that this opens any company that uses a Fielding-patched Apache to legal action in Europe. I am looking forward to browsing tons of websites running Apache in Europe later on and suing their asses off. By European law I will win each and every one of those lawsuits. The sad part would be that Apache would disintegrate as a serious HTTP player. Nobody would (indeed could) go near them ever again.
Fielding needs to go back on his meds and have his commit permit revoked instantly.
despite drawing the ire of corporate America, the Apache Software Foundation
This is not about the Apache Foundation. This is Roy Fielding off his medication, insisting that Microsoft has violated the standard. The question here is whether Microsoft asks the user if the user wants DNT enabled or not. According to RF, Microsoft does not. He is wrong. They do when you install Windows 8. This has been thoroughly documented.
Sadly Fielding's patch not only circumvents the standard (so it is Apache circumventing the standard, not Microsoft), it also makes a patched Apache liable for legal action in Europe. Anyone using Apache in Europe with Fielding's patch enabled have made them selves open to legal action by any European user of that website.
Fielding is simply wrong here, he needs to admit it and his commit privileges needs to be revoked. Simple!
The design intend was not for large multi-threading problems (easily covered by existing constructs)
Which constructs specifically? Let's say I am developing a server side application that, upon a REST request from a client, has to get data from a database, a web service and a legacy application over a non-standard XML interface. I am doing exactly this right now in Java. Which constructs are as easy to use as async and await in C# or Java that will allow me to do this? Please be specific. The fact that you read one line about async and await and then you think you know what it is for just shows how much of a retard you are. Async/await is a benefit to all applications that need to gather data from slow(ish) resources. It is particularly well suited for web-based (server side) applications) since it makes it easy to develop code that doesn't block the HTTP request thread. Not blocking the HTTP requet threads will make your application scale better.
Not only were you wrong
Where was I wrong? Is Anders working on JScript? Since when? Where do you find JScript in Node.js? Remember, TypeScript runs on Node.js, It DOESN'T run in IE at all and probably never will. So, please, explain how Anders is working on JScript, the Microsoft implementation of JavaScript, when Anders is not working with any Microsoft technology at all (apart from adding tooling to VS2012). Please. Show me the link between TypeScript and IE9 or IE10 or any version of IE, you know, where JScript is.
However, async/await may just be handy to bang smaller stuff out quickly
You are really funny. Why would async/await be handy to bang out smaller stuff quickly? Async/await isn't really relevant for anything but large multi threaded applications that need to scale. In Java you have to rely on callbacks, and in complex applications nested callbacks. This is very, very difficult to both debug and maintain over time since the code execution path is not obvious to the programmer. This is why the error rate for massively threaded applications is higher per line of code than when the application is not threaded. Async/await significantly cuts down on code and error rate when writing such applications.
Your dumb "may just be handy to bang smaller stuff out quickly" shows that you again are talking from ignorance. You have no clue what async/await does, and still you talk about it as if you are an expert. You really are quite retarded.
Yeah, the obsession with maintaining backward compatibility at the bytecode level is indeed a bitch
Ah, see, you don't even understand this. The unwillingness to to change the bytecode level is not for backwards compatibility. You can change the bytecode to your hearts extent and maintain backwards compatibility. The "we won't change the bytecode" is for forwards compatibility, and that is just dumb. The .NET 4 runtime runs .NET 2.0 code perfectly fine simply due to the fact that the 2.0 stuff doesn't use any of the 4.x stuff. Expanding the capabilities of the bytecode engine doesn't impact older software at all.
I do like how old stuff and libraries still work though.
They do in .NET too, even though the bytecode engine has been expanded. Why would they not? Microsoft doesn't expect .NET 4.0 code to run on a .NET 2.0 runtime though. Sun did, and that is why they refused to change the bytecode.
I txted my bro and and he is a bit fuzzy (20 years ago) but thinks it was kernel 0.12
OK, I'll bite. Let's assume it was 0.12. I am then going to ask you a very simple question - how did you install 0.12 on your PC? Tell me approximately what you downloaded, how you created disk images and how it was booted. If you used 0.12, you'll remember.
By all means, bet your business on TypeScript
Again, you are showing a total lack of understanding of what TS is. You do not understand why the annotations are there at all do you?
Meanwhile I'll still be recommending GWT
That's interesting. So, instead of using an open standard with standardized protocols like REST, JSON etc, you are recommending a closed source project where you are so extremely tied to the tools that if the vendor decides to drop the project, you are going to have to do all your apps over from the start. Seriously?
My bad on JScript, I was unaware of this. You have caught my in my first error - the name of a product.
They are not working on JScript at all, they are working on JavaScript
Lol, fail. "JScript" is Microsoft's trade name for their JavaScript implementation
You are correct, but Anders is not working on JScript since he is (though you want him to) not working on a Microsoft browser language. Anders is working on TypeScript in JavaScript running on Node.js. If you do not understand what that means, make your brother boot his non-existing version of Linux 0.20 and run "man moron".
I have given a link to IE9's significant compatibility flaws
Which, specifically, are significant, and for what reason?
Suggesting you fix things by just replacing the old with the new (eg. as small outfits can) is not realistic
Here is again an area where your ignorance is showing. Enterprise is not clinging to IE6 because they are on XP (they can upgrade any time) they cling to it because so many apps are written for IE6 specifically, and will only work on IE6. Now, if Microsoft patches IE6 so that it becomes more standards compliant, those things will break. You see, that is why they can not move, using a standards compliant browser with these web applications won't work. So, how do you suppose Microsoft make IE6 standards compliant without breaking the apps that assumes IE6 is not standards compliant? Again, you are a big nice beacon of ignorance and stupidity.
Shame it is not yet released to the non-MSDN public
In three weeks.
IE 10 is still not relevant to this discussion *at this point in time*.
Actually it is. You are claiming MS isn't doing enough to catch up to standards. IE9 was a huge step in the right direction, and IE10 will be even more so. Both, even though IE10 is not yet released, proves you wrong.
whether or not they get useful patches in the near term
Three weeks, too long for you? Then get the pre-release version. It's free.
By working in TypeScript you are still working in a single-vendor dialect of Javascript
You keep saying stupid ignorant stuff like this. You repeating it doesn't make it less stupid and it doesn't make it less ignorant. You should have taken my advice a long time ago and learned a little bit about what TypeScript is. No, it is not single-vendor, it is ECMA JS 6. The fact that you don't know that shows that you have not tried to educate your self, and that you are still sticking to ignorant dogma. That is really, really dumb.
Once you have a large code base written in TypeScript it is a pain to convert back to pure Javascript should you want to
Nope. Wrong again. And again. And again. Everything you say about TS is wrong. That's why you are an idiot. Not because you are wrong, but because, despite numerous attempts on my part, you still stubbornly refuse to learn anything about TypeScript. It means that you are an idiot. Here is why you are wrong (so that this is not an ad-hominem): It takes zero time to convert back to pure Javascript since you had to do that to make TypeScript run at all. TypeScript will not run in any browser, first you have to convert it to pure Javascript. The fact that you still don't know this is yet another proof that you are ignorant and proud of it. It takes zero time to convert to pure Javascript if for example MS abandons TS because you already have converted it to pure JS. There now, I said it twice. If you can't understand what I said, have an adult read it for you and explain it to you.
why do a half-assed solution like TypeScript
Because it is Javascript. Because it is ECMA 6. That is a fucking good idea.
Well, you could always write C++ with various compiler-specific (eg. GNU) macros.
So, does the C++ compiler, when using the compiler specific macros, compile to pure C++ without that compiler specificity, and then run that C++ code directly? No? I thought not. You see, that is what TS does, and you still don't know that because you are too full of ignorance to realize how stupid you are.
I urge caution of those considering adopting it as a direct implementation language
Again, your ignorance is talking.
Incidentally, both my brother and I were amazed when the Linux kernel we'd been using for a while reached 0.20 (not a typo).
Are you absolutely certain it is not a typo? For sure? Really? Lets see. There was the announcement and 0.01, then came 0.02, 0.03 and 0.10, then 0.11 followed by 0.12 and then 0.95. Yes, you are a dumb little liar, are you not? Before trying to give your self and your brother some credit you do not deserve, at least read a little bit about the stuff you are going to write half-truths about. In case you didn't get that, which seems like an extraordinary high probability, there was no 0.20 version of Linux. You have to ask Linus him self about why he jumped like that, but I doubt you'll get an answer.
headless for high-performance instances that aren't virtualized
Ah, so you don't know that Windows Server can run headless, do you? Also, being in an organization that runs Windows and Linux servers, Linux is clearly more expensive to manage. Licensing costs are nothing compared to management and support cost. Managing and AD or equivalent infrastructure for, say 1000 to 5000 people is a hell of a lot easier on Windows than on Linux.
Outdated. Java is unstuck and moving again.
Not really. It is still managed by a totally dysfunctional committee with a totally broken process. Sorry, Java is the COBOL of this decade and the next few. Heck, they even need to go back and undo some of the damage done previously. Autoboxing in Java for example is a disaster and utterly broken. You can't do autoboxing in the compiler it has to be in the VM
Fix your OS
You got your wish. October 26th.
In short, in case your comatose brain didn't get it, TypeScript gives you ECMA 6 with browsers that currently do not support it. Since ECMA 6 is in flux at the moment, expect TypeScript to change accordingly. Really, it is right there, in the articles and everything. ECMA, not vendor specific. Now go ask your mum for your weekly allowance and go get your self some books on Reading 101.
I sent you the CSS3 compatibility link didn't I?
Yes. And? Has anyone ever stated IE9 is perfect? No, it is a very significant improvement on all other IE browsers, something you will probably find 100% consensus about in the web development community. IE 10 is up there with Chrome, and on JavaScript, it is better than Chrome.
It is my wish that Microsoft patch their older browsers for better compliance
Nobody does that. The patch is called IE9 and IE10.
Hence my point, don't frig around adding single-vendor annotations to JScript, spend every ounce of effort fixing the dogs you already have running out on the real world
And you are still spouting nonsense out of your ignorant ass. Really. Check it out. They are not working on JScript at all, they are working on JavaScript, and the annotations they are adding are not single vendor. If you had not been so fucking retarded that you had to go an spout all kinds of nonsense about a technology you have not bothered (I am assuming it must be due to the lack of ability) to read a damned thing about. Hint: The annotations are in line with ECMA future. Check it out and stop being such a fucking idiot.
I'll give them the nod for finally taking the problem seriously starting with IE9
Which seems to be what I am doing. I am not saying much else, am I?
MS: MyComp~1\docume~1\games
Seriously? That's an argument? I mean, seriously? Haven't seen that since the 1990s. Are you complaining about the MS-DOS compatibility of the file names? What would have happened if MS had made backwards compatibility impossible? Seriously? Are you complaining about the disk annotation? You do know that that is optional right?
Unix: hda... Apple: hda..... MS: C:
All of the mentioned items, Unix, Linux and Apple, are Unix variations. Are you complaining that Windows is not Unix? Are you trying to look serious when doing so? I mean, seriously?
That IE pre IE9 was junk will get no counter-arguments from me. It was. I have never argued it was not.
Everyone: Javascript. MS: jscript
BZZZT! Wrong. Everyone Javascript. MS: three different ones, including JavaScript. As of IE10, IE is also very standards compliant at the JavaScript end. Again, I have never argued that MS is best, does best, is the greatest. I use Chrome personally almost exclusively, but MS is in fact doing many right things at the moment.
W7 notebook's docs say you have to have W7pro on the network to be able to network
No, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't. Please read it again.
What other OSes are you running
This is a short list of current and previous operating systems I have used.
Current: Windows 7, Windows 8, I have Ubuntu 11 for all my JBoss development at work (since we deploy on Ubuntu, it's easier to use Ubuntu as the dev platform). I use Open Suse 12 at home for my Ruby development but Windows 7 for other app dev. I have Android on my Samsung Galaxy III and Windows Phone 7 on my LG Windows Phone.
My favorite OS in many was was VAX VMS since it had ACLs and file versioning (yep, full versioning. You could go back to any version of your file by just specifying the version number when opening it) built into the operating system while Unix heads were still arguing that a stream of bytes is always best (it isn't, it was a good idea with the hardware at the time, but it has damaged good file systems for decades since) and rwx------ was plenty secure and flexible (it isn't). I ran DOS from the 2.x days, I replaced it on my AT box with Minix first and later version 0.97 of Linux and then there was Slackware - oh heaven. I was a huge fan of OS/2 particularly OS/Warp which kicked everybody's ass at the time, and had some innovations that neither Linux nor Windows ever will have. An OO desktop for example and a fantastic programming model, even better than the NeXT model. Oh, yeah, and I had a NeXT Cube on my desk at Uni, it looked awesome but was basically (in the end) useless.
Most of this I did while you were still having your butt wiped by your mother.
Wow. That's just funny. "You're holding it wrong". "All the other guys have the same problem". "It's only in very unusual conditions". Same BS we heard about the antenna. Apart from the fact that it was wrong. Sorry, this is quite bad, particularly considering you don't get the same issue with other cameras in the exact same situation. Tried. Tested. iPhone 5 fails.
I don't think he expected that, but also he probably didn't assume that he would be prevented from taking perfectly normal pictures with the iPhone 5, pictures that was quite easy to take with the iPhone 4. It's not like its impossible to take decent photos with the iPhone. Well, the 4s at least.
Looking forward to the new Nokia
Probably meant to be funny, you are right. Color perception in humans is in fact not at all calibrated. We have this brain thing that constantly adjusts our color perception so that we think colors are quite different from what they actually are. Easy to see if you walk into a room at night with white walls. They are yellow if the light is from incandescent bulbs, green if the light is from fluorescent etc.