The article makes a few interesting points.
One thing I disagree with, however, is replacing the entire desktop with a browser. The problem this solution is attempting to solve is valid, however the implementation is terrible.
He's got it backwards: It's not, "The Desktop is the Browser", it should be, "The Browser is the Desktop". The desktop has evolved the way it has for a reason. And it should be noted that the desktop is not a series of static tabs that replace each other when clicked. The Window metaphor has served pretty well for the last few decades because it mostly works. It will be enhanced and modified and eventually replaced, but it is still pretty solid.
Case-in-point is the Symphony distribution's Mezzo, a Mozilla-based desktop environment. The entire interface is built in Javascript and XUL.
The desktop would be able to fetch applications online and cache them in an Applications directory for re-use, meanwhile displaying them just as any other native resident application would be, in a way that is consistent and familiar to users. In a recent interview Mitchell Baker, Firefox's CEO, claimed the company is expecting to support offline web application usage. This means something similar to the WHATWG Web Application 1.0 spec where web-programs can save local sessions. The browser is already moving in this direction, we just need a better way of tying and presenting it to the desktop and users.
The trend of web applications and dev technologies such as Microsoft's recently introduced Silverlight and Adobe's Flex--and of course Mozilla's Application Framework that has been using XML-based UI markup languages for almost a decade--are moves that support this idea.
Doing just simple preliminary research on the party shows that the Norwegian Left have received only 5.9% of the vote in the Norwegian parliamentary election of 2005, which amounts to just 10 seats of a 169 seat parliament.
I remember searching for such a Desktop Environment a year or two ago after experimenting with XUL, I ran across Symphony OS (http://www.symphonyos.com/) which uses the Mozilla platform for rendering and applications. It is called the "Mezzo Desktop Environment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzo_%28desktop_env ironment%29), and is available in Debian package format.
I remember testing a live-cd of symphony about a year ago and it seemed pretty intriguing. I really liked the desktop interface.
But anyway, from what wikipedia says, the Mezzo Desktop Environment is an incomplete platform (whatever that means), and if it is correct there appears to be work unfinished. However, anyone interested in contributing might want to take a peek under the hood and see if that project can be helpful and exactly what is "incomplete" about it.
"Whether your business is large or small, the Apple Volume Licensing Agreement (VLA) provides an easy and cost-effective way to purchase Apple's Mac OS X software. Discounts are based on the number of licenses you are purchasing of each product, and volume pricing starts at only 10 seats."
Mac OS X Server v10.4 Volume Licensing
Mac OS X Server v10.4 10 Client - 10-99 servers, price per license
$449.00
Mac OS X Server v10.4 10 Client - 100-999 servers, price per license
$399.00
Mac OS X Server v10.4 10 Client - 1000+ servers, price per license
$349.00
Mac OS X Server v10.4 Unlim Client - 10-99 servers, price per license
$899.00
Mac OS X Server v10.4 Unlim Client - 100-999 servers, price per license
$799.00
Mac OS X Server v10.4 Unlim Client - 1000+ servers, price per license
$699.00
Does Microsoft even offer an Unlimited Client package, or do they keep charging you?
I agree with you that situation would be excellent from the consumer end, but what do cell carriers have to *gain* by such a move? Perhaps if I wasn't AT&T wireless and, in some hypothetical situation, the iPhone manages a death-grip on the market, I might try a scheme to lure customers away like that. But really it changes their entire business model, and, from the position of power in which they now sit (as many have pointed out), why are they going to throw away a plan that lets them stick it to customers by luring them in with high subsidies, then recouping the costs on lucrative multi-year contract deals?? Not that I like it, but from a business standpoint they currently have a pretty good thing going for them, and I in *today's* market I cannot imagine this changing to that drastic degree.
It might be personally disappointing to you, but if you think it will HURT them to have gone with a carrier, you are out of your mind. Furthermore, It stacks up on capacity with the Nano, which only happens to be the hottest selling iPod out there. Additionally, when compared to other phones in the market, the storage capacity just blows them out of the freaking water, hands down.
That's fine and all, but I really have no idea why you are telling me any of this.
I am not arguing that there should be a standard for tags!
I haven't taken a stance one way or another, I was merely pointing out in my original post that the suggestion of, "screw tags, we have the meta HTML element that works with keywords", is an impractical idea that currently serves to solve a different problem.
Furthermore, I believe you too are confused. The article isn't asking, "Should we create a new system for detailing the contents of an entity on a web-page?". It is asking, "Should we create a standard naming convention for the system that has already been created that details the contents of an entity on a web-page, so as to create interoperability between disparate websites that use tagging systems?" The idea is to keep the meaning of the tag the same, while letting different websites use the same information and collect data under the same headings.
P.S. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
folksonomical
While I agree with your sentiment, I believe you are incorrect. Search engines specifically disregard keywords from the Meta HTML element found nested in the Head element of a page. Alternatively and because there is no penultimate tagging format, search engines do not discern the difference between normal page content and folksonomical tags.
Furthermore, the discussion is not about whether or not to standardize the interface, but rather just to create a common formatting of certain types of tags.
I also find it hilarious that the parents of all my posts in this article are ranked high but the actual content of the parents are based on incorrect assumptions as to the purpose of the article. Oh wait, that's right, it's slashdot.
Well, actually there is a slight problem: most search engines pretty much disregard the keywords meta-data in the header of an HTML file entirely. As stated in wikipedia:
"Search engines began dropping support for META keywords in 1998, and by the early 2000s, most search engines had veered away from reliance on meta elements, and in July 2002 AltaVista, one of the last major search engines to still offer support, finally stopped including them."
Furthermore, Tags have a more flexible approach--as you recognize is needed--than simple document-level meta-data; they can be applied to specific entities on a page instead of the entire page itself. Not only that, but tags vs. header meta-data seem to target two different groups: search engines and people. How many times do you View Page Source to get information about a specific object on the page or the page itself? Not to mention that only the maintainer of the document even likely has access to the meta-data, where on the other hand with tags any user can contribute at any time leaving the potential for a much more robust set of information.
And welcome to every class I have ever taken. I have noticed that, in general, most professors couldn't give a shit less what you already know, your take on their course syllabus is, or where you think the industry is heading and therefore which skillsets are most appropriate to develop.
They want you to do it their way, because they are the professor, dammit! It's also just more practical that way. If you have to teach something, especially something as intricate as computer programming, you have to have everyone on the same page. Imagine trying to cross-debug 100 programs written on 100 differently responding text editors? I understand that it shouldn't matter, but is it really that hard to just not use vi?
Let's just say he has no real purpose for his anti-*nix bent, and just wants to pump out a bunch of yes-men programmers. So what? It doesn't mean you have to follow the path he layed out. Half of college is just showing all the big people that you can jump through their little hoops quite well thank-you-very-much.
Not only that, but I speculate that they *already* have a derivation of OS X running on an ARM processor. Guess what processor the iPod runs: ARM? Does anyone know what OS it is running? The only information available is that the interface of the 1st generation iPod was built by Pixo, whose head-hancho now runs a company by the name of Iventor that designs interfaces for competing products.
I'm not saying it is a sure thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Think about it, like the iPhone, they have a product they expect to continue developing with for a long time. Why not use a software platform that is descendant from existing projects?
You are correct if one thing happens: Apple forgets that it is a hardware company.
I think they will offer some software at a nominal fee, pro application type of stuff. Perhaps businses applications. But the killer consumer apps? Mark my words, free as fuck, my friends...free as fuck!
No, they will "add great value" for the 0.005% of developers who want to run a terminal on their iPhone. The rest of the world wants applications that people can actually use. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of crack-pot interfaces would appear. Actually, wait, there probably simply won't be interfaces. And yeah, I'm throwing out some hyperbole; there will be some really decent applications, a large majority of applications that do great stuff but are unusable to non-slashdotters, and some that plain suck.
Listen, I love OSS, I am a programmer, I hate the idea of being sold a crippled piece of junk just like the rest of you. I want a VoiP phone, I want to say, "fuck you, we're going it OUR way", to the phone companies just like everyone here. I sure as fuck don't want to pay $4.99 for 15 seconds of some shitty song I downloaded because their selection was terrible.
I simply don't think that an application who's greatest value to it's target market is it's simplicity--and NOT it's ability to act like a PalmPilot or whatever the fuck people WANT it to be--easy integration, general "slickness" would actually benefit right away. Customers at least need to get framiliar with it. And you know how people pay 700% markup on shitty purses, badass new sunglasses and stuff? Well yeah, you can do that shit with consumer eletronics now too--read: iPod--, or so I have been told.
My theory is that Apple will keep it closed for some months, let things settle and see how the market adjusts, try not to send other providers and manufacturers into an Apple-must-die tizzy, and then he will allow 3rd party developers if Apple can't deliver on the applications they are assuredly working on as we speak.
If my prediction about them opening up 3rd party developers later is wrong... then fuck 'em. It would have rocked, but what Apple knows how to do is find a niche market and make it into a grand slam without trying to be everything to everyone. That just makes sense to me.
It might rain on your parade, but you're joking if you think the Revolution(tm) is over just because the.005% of the population that writes it's own code ostensibly (and I really don't believe that a) it will last or b) people are portraying the situation correctly) will not be able to write their crappy versions of Tetris or Pong or nethack (*shudders*).
Unfortunately, it seems that the real battle here is playing nice enough with the carriers while at the same time attempting to subvert their market. If anything kills the iPhone, it will be Cingular or Verizon.
IMHO it's just a good marketing strategy: The only word we are going to be hearing for the next few weeks is iPhone. iPhone this, iPhone that, iPhone hit my brother Billy with a whiffle-ball bat. Announcing Leopard features now would lose the information in the flood of publicity that is iPhone. As it stands now, I think they feel damn comfortable waiting off a while before announcing any new Leopard features.
*Just added iPhone to my Firefox dictionary
Is this even helpful in a practical sense? I might be wrong, but I figured access speeds are so slow you might as well just store it on the freaking hard drive...
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Interesting, I was going to say the best way to sum them up is that they are both ancient fucking relics with arcane "interfaces". Sure, *nix geeks will love it, and they may even devout a surprisingly pathetic amount of time mastering it because, "technically speaking, it provides a much more robust set of features than any GUI-based program." CLI will always have it's place... much like my half-retarded nephew who lives under the stairs... however as I for one can't wait for the day that intuitive interfaces rule the computing landscape with a soft, friendly fist!!!
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am fairly certain that you miss a message that IMHO was paramount to all the series: they stress all the values of companionship and relationships. The message isn't that Harry relies upon supremely omnipotent figures, or some other sort of external locus of control; it's that he overcomes adversity with the help of his personal relationships. He had a certain cushion early on with Dumbledore and other eminent figures, but the plot is increasingly dependent on his on self determinism, which seems to express the universal eventuality of that growth process of youth. The other balance to the formula for success is those personal relationships. Primarily his friends who have become de facto family or even the legacy of his parents and what their love for him and their love of justice represents. Those figures in his life empower him to reach his potential as a wise young man in pursuit of goodness. In my opinion, it only reflects good family values on a certain easy to understand level.
As previous commenters have said, there seems no point in being pedantic about the contents of the book.
Javascript is anything but dense. The most impressive part about the various flexible agents is that they are easily understandable programming patterns. That makes it very easy to make an assessment for which methodology you will employ.
Slashdot Mirror
The article makes a few interesting points. One thing I disagree with, however, is replacing the entire desktop with a browser. The problem this solution is attempting to solve is valid, however the implementation is terrible. He's got it backwards: It's not, "The Desktop is the Browser", it should be, "The Browser is the Desktop". The desktop has evolved the way it has for a reason. And it should be noted that the desktop is not a series of static tabs that replace each other when clicked. The Window metaphor has served pretty well for the last few decades because it mostly works. It will be enhanced and modified and eventually replaced, but it is still pretty solid. Case-in-point is the Symphony distribution's Mezzo, a Mozilla-based desktop environment. The entire interface is built in Javascript and XUL. The desktop would be able to fetch applications online and cache them in an Applications directory for re-use, meanwhile displaying them just as any other native resident application would be, in a way that is consistent and familiar to users. In a recent interview Mitchell Baker, Firefox's CEO, claimed the company is expecting to support offline web application usage. This means something similar to the WHATWG Web Application 1.0 spec where web-programs can save local sessions. The browser is already moving in this direction, we just need a better way of tying and presenting it to the desktop and users. The trend of web applications and dev technologies such as Microsoft's recently introduced Silverlight and Adobe's Flex--and of course Mozilla's Application Framework that has been using XML-based UI markup languages for almost a decade--are moves that support this idea.
Doing just simple preliminary research on the party shows that the Norwegian Left have received only 5.9% of the vote in the Norwegian parliamentary election of 2005, which amounts to just 10 seats of a 169 seat parliament.
Fun idea, but keep dreaming...
I remember searching for such a Desktop Environment a year or two ago after experimenting with XUL, I ran across Symphony OS (http://www.symphonyos.com/) which uses the Mozilla platform for rendering and applications. It is called the "Mezzo Desktop Environment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzo_%28desktop_env ironment%29), and is available in Debian package format.
I remember testing a live-cd of symphony about a year ago and it seemed pretty intriguing. I really liked the desktop interface.
But anyway, from what wikipedia says, the Mezzo Desktop Environment is an incomplete platform (whatever that means), and if it is correct there appears to be work unfinished. However, anyone interested in contributing might want to take a peek under the hood and see if that project can be helpful and exactly what is "incomplete" about it.
Or visit this handy link: http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCu stom?qprm=78313&family=VolLicense
From the Mac OS X section:
Mac OS X Server v10.4 Volume Licensing
Does Microsoft even offer an Unlimited Client package, or do they keep charging you?
I agree with you that situation would be excellent from the consumer end, but what do cell carriers have to *gain* by such a move? Perhaps if I wasn't AT&T wireless and, in some hypothetical situation, the iPhone manages a death-grip on the market, I might try a scheme to lure customers away like that. But really it changes their entire business model, and, from the position of power in which they now sit (as many have pointed out), why are they going to throw away a plan that lets them stick it to customers by luring them in with high subsidies, then recouping the costs on lucrative multi-year contract deals?? Not that I like it, but from a business standpoint they currently have a pretty good thing going for them, and I in *today's* market I cannot imagine this changing to that drastic degree.
Doesn't anyone else remember the CNET article from '05 citing that Wikipedia was más o menos as accurate as Britannica?? http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
It might be personally disappointing to you, but if you think it will HURT them to have gone with a carrier, you are out of your mind. Furthermore, It stacks up on capacity with the Nano, which only happens to be the hottest selling iPod out there. Additionally, when compared to other phones in the market, the storage capacity just blows them out of the freaking water, hands down.
Nikola Tesla beat you to the punch by about 100 years or so. (Edison can suck it!)
That goes for pretty much anything, really. It's like humans walk around with a double-sided mirror in front of their faces.
That's fine and all, but I really have no idea why you are telling me any of this.
I am not arguing that there should be a standard for tags!
I haven't taken a stance one way or another, I was merely pointing out in my original post that the suggestion of, "screw tags, we have the meta HTML element that works with keywords", is an impractical idea that currently serves to solve a different problem.
Furthermore, I believe you too are confused. The article isn't asking, "Should we create a new system for detailing the contents of an entity on a web-page?". It is asking, "Should we create a standard naming convention for the system that has already been created that details the contents of an entity on a web-page, so as to create interoperability between disparate websites that use tagging systems?" The idea is to keep the meaning of the tag the same, while letting different websites use the same information and collect data under the same headings.
P.S. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
folksonomical While I agree with your sentiment, I believe you are incorrect. Search engines specifically disregard keywords from the Meta HTML element found nested in the Head element of a page. Alternatively and because there is no penultimate tagging format, search engines do not discern the difference between normal page content and folksonomical tags. Furthermore, the discussion is not about whether or not to standardize the interface, but rather just to create a common formatting of certain types of tags. I also find it hilarious that the parents of all my posts in this article are ranked high but the actual content of the parents are based on incorrect assumptions as to the purpose of the article. Oh wait, that's right, it's slashdot.
Furthermore, Tags have a more flexible approach--as you recognize is needed--than simple document-level meta-data; they can be applied to specific entities on a page instead of the entire page itself. Not only that, but tags vs. header meta-data seem to target two different groups: search engines and people. How many times do you View Page Source to get information about a specific object on the page or the page itself? Not to mention that only the maintainer of the document even likely has access to the meta-data, where on the other hand with tags any user can contribute at any time leaving the potential for a much more robust set of information.
And welcome to every class I have ever taken. I have noticed that, in general, most professors couldn't give a shit less what you already know, your take on their course syllabus is, or where you think the industry is heading and therefore which skillsets are most appropriate to develop. They want you to do it their way, because they are the professor, dammit! It's also just more practical that way. If you have to teach something, especially something as intricate as computer programming, you have to have everyone on the same page. Imagine trying to cross-debug 100 programs written on 100 differently responding text editors? I understand that it shouldn't matter, but is it really that hard to just not use vi? Let's just say he has no real purpose for his anti-*nix bent, and just wants to pump out a bunch of yes-men programmers. So what? It doesn't mean you have to follow the path he layed out. Half of college is just showing all the big people that you can jump through their little hoops quite well thank-you-very-much.
That employer is fucking retarded. Lack of social skill is no guarantee for intellectual capabilities or technical skills.
Not only that, but I speculate that they *already* have a derivation of OS X running on an ARM processor. Guess what processor the iPod runs: ARM? Does anyone know what OS it is running? The only information available is that the interface of the 1st generation iPod was built by Pixo, whose head-hancho now runs a company by the name of Iventor that designs interfaces for competing products. I'm not saying it is a sure thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Think about it, like the iPhone, they have a product they expect to continue developing with for a long time. Why not use a software platform that is descendant from existing projects?
You are correct if one thing happens: Apple forgets that it is a hardware company. I think they will offer some software at a nominal fee, pro application type of stuff. Perhaps businses applications. But the killer consumer apps? Mark my words, free as fuck, my friends...free as fuck!
No, they will "add great value" for the 0.005% of developers who want to run a terminal on their iPhone. The rest of the world wants applications that people can actually use. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of crack-pot interfaces would appear. Actually, wait, there probably simply won't be interfaces. And yeah, I'm throwing out some hyperbole; there will be some really decent applications, a large majority of applications that do great stuff but are unusable to non-slashdotters, and some that plain suck. Listen, I love OSS, I am a programmer, I hate the idea of being sold a crippled piece of junk just like the rest of you. I want a VoiP phone, I want to say, "fuck you, we're going it OUR way", to the phone companies just like everyone here. I sure as fuck don't want to pay $4.99 for 15 seconds of some shitty song I downloaded because their selection was terrible. I simply don't think that an application who's greatest value to it's target market is it's simplicity--and NOT it's ability to act like a PalmPilot or whatever the fuck people WANT it to be--easy integration, general "slickness" would actually benefit right away. Customers at least need to get framiliar with it. And you know how people pay 700% markup on shitty purses, badass new sunglasses and stuff? Well yeah, you can do that shit with consumer eletronics now too--read: iPod--, or so I have been told. My theory is that Apple will keep it closed for some months, let things settle and see how the market adjusts, try not to send other providers and manufacturers into an Apple-must-die tizzy, and then he will allow 3rd party developers if Apple can't deliver on the applications they are assuredly working on as we speak. If my prediction about them opening up 3rd party developers later is wrong... then fuck 'em. It would have rocked, but what Apple knows how to do is find a niche market and make it into a grand slam without trying to be everything to everyone. That just makes sense to me.
It might rain on your parade, but you're joking if you think the Revolution(tm) is over just because the .005% of the population that writes it's own code ostensibly (and I really don't believe that a) it will last or b) people are portraying the situation correctly) will not be able to write their crappy versions of Tetris or Pong or nethack (*shudders*).
Unfortunately, it seems that the real battle here is playing nice enough with the carriers while at the same time attempting to subvert their market. If anything kills the iPhone, it will be Cingular or Verizon.
IMHO it's just a good marketing strategy: The only word we are going to be hearing for the next few weeks is iPhone. iPhone this, iPhone that, iPhone hit my brother Billy with a whiffle-ball bat. Announcing Leopard features now would lose the information in the flood of publicity that is iPhone. As it stands now, I think they feel damn comfortable waiting off a while before announcing any new Leopard features. *Just added iPhone to my Firefox dictionary
Is this even helpful in a practical sense? I might be wrong, but I figured access speeds are so slow you might as well just store it on the freaking hard drive...
Interesting, I was going to say the best way to sum them up is that they are both ancient fucking relics with arcane "interfaces". Sure, *nix geeks will love it, and they may even devout a surprisingly pathetic amount of time mastering it because, "technically speaking, it provides a much more robust set of features than any GUI-based program." CLI will always have it's place... much like my half-retarded nephew who lives under the stairs... however as I for one can't wait for the day that intuitive interfaces rule the computing landscape with a soft, friendly fist!!!
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am fairly certain that you miss a message that IMHO was paramount to all the series: they stress all the values of companionship and relationships. The message isn't that Harry relies upon supremely omnipotent figures, or some other sort of external locus of control; it's that he overcomes adversity with the help of his personal relationships. He had a certain cushion early on with Dumbledore and other eminent figures, but the plot is increasingly dependent on his on self determinism, which seems to express the universal eventuality of that growth process of youth. The other balance to the formula for success is those personal relationships. Primarily his friends who have become de facto family or even the legacy of his parents and what their love for him and their love of justice represents. Those figures in his life empower him to reach his potential as a wise young man in pursuit of goodness. In my opinion, it only reflects good family values on a certain easy to understand level. As previous commenters have said, there seems no point in being pedantic about the contents of the book.
Javascript is anything but dense. The most impressive part about the various flexible agents is that they are easily understandable programming patterns. That makes it very easy to make an assessment for which methodology you will employ.
You shouldn't. Check out the screenshots http://www.ability.com/v4/newv4.php?ln=uk
It looks exactly like MS Office.
I suppose, if you have had those experiences. Personally, I have not.