Oops sorry! I didn't read far enough. I just noticed this: I would start to seriously dout the security of Java (right now I have complete faith in it's being 100% vulnerability free). Sorry, now it seems clear the whole post was a joke. Sorry for making fun before;-)
I'm not going to sit here and make pointless arguments about better/worse, but I don't think ActiveX/VB is even supported anymore. Wasn't it's final version about 6 years ago? Its not quite as bad as "Sun has control of internet apps/coding. COBOL can't really compete", but I still find it funny;-)
Ahhh.... that explains it;-) I was wondering what was causing the break from reality;-) And I wish your company well. There are many places where thin clients could do a great job! Sadly, its a bit like mass transit. Even though taking the subway/train/bus/etc is tons cheaper, better for the environment, etc, etc, etc, people just don't want to give up thier cars. I've noticed a bit of the same with terminal/PCs. People just don't want to give up thier PCs.
From the invent of computers to the mid-70s basically 100% of computer users used thin clients (terminals). With the invent of PCs this SLOWLY changed in the 70s - 80s till mid-80s to 90s there was a MASSIVE switch to PCs and away from terminals. Today I'd guess MAYBE 1% of computer users are on terminals. From almost 100% to 1% is a pretty amazing shrikage to me.
Now the last 5-10 years "thin clients" have been a bit of a buzz-word, but how many people do you know of today using a thin-client? I don't know of anyone using a thin-client. We'll thats not entirely true as we do still have an old mainframe which we have a few terminals for (though mostly we use terminal software on PCs).
OK, I understand this reasoning but I just don't agree.
the browser is becoming the app
And has been becoming "the" app for 20 years. Now its great for many things, but replacement for everything??? Don't think so. The browser "taking over" is like the flying car. Its always just around the corner;-)
Couple this with the growth of thin clients
You should have been around in the 70s and 80s;-) Almost everything was thin client (terminals). I assume you weren't around then so trust me. There has been an AMAZING shrinkage in thin clients, not growth.
a full blown $2000 desktop computer
Completely agree, but I think you need to shop around a bit more;-) No they don't need a kick-ass gaming machine, but why spend $300-$500 for some impotent little thin client when for basically the same price you can get a mahcine that can do everything your thin client can plus actually have some balls (just in case needed)?
for 90% a great webmail client is going to be all ppl
At home... maybe. In a corporate environment... no.
Think server-side, think thin clients
Think 1970, think 1980
OK, all that said I do think there are cases where what you suggest may work fine. However, to think this is a wide-spread solution for "normal" cases is fooling yourself. I like the idea of it and I think ideally centralized computing has many advantages. At the same time, I also think a flying car should be doable and would have lots of advantages. However, I'm not betting on seeing either in wide use anytime soon;-)
Yeah, I don't really think its trolling either but also not that relevant. The guy wants info about deploying and supporting linux in a windows environment like you said. I'm just not too sure how a story about one guy sneaking an install of linux on his personal work PC helps much.
OK, but how??? I realize "open and interoperable" is a cool new catch phrase, but how is it relevant here? We are talking about an XML file format right? Which of the below is more "open and interoperable"? And below isn't even a fair comparison as they are implementations of a "standard" (quite a standard to. Maybe I should make my own;-)
<Doc> <Title val="This is the title" font="Arial" size="14"/> <Body val "This is the body" font="Arial" size="10"/> </Doc>
<Doc> <Title> <Value="This is the title"/> <Font="Arial"/> <Size="14"/> </Title> <Body> <Value="This is the body"/> <Font="Arial"/> <Size="10"/> </Body> </Doc>
Now the design of the license would effect a standard format's "openness and interoperability", but I still don't see how the design of the format itself is relevant.
think that a format designed to be open and interoperable will be a better format
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how do you "design" a file format to be open or interoperable?
"Open" - while it seems a pretty vauge word today meaning about anything depending on who is using it, in this context "Open" is basically function of a formats use of licenses/patenets/standards. FTFA it seems its just fine in this reguard, however thats a bit irrelevant to this point. How do you design a file format to be "open"? Being "open" or not seems to have nothing to do with the actual file format's design.
"Interoperable" - OK, this one really confuses me when it comes to a file format. Obviously if talking about applications or complex systems, you really need to think ahead during design about what level and type of interoperability you want/need. Depending on your needs you may need to take time to design nice consistantly named namespaces and APIs to make working with the product from other products easy. Perhaps, you'll want to expose web-services to increase interoperability with other systems. Maybe a goal is to be DB indepent in which case you better not design the system to have lots of logic in stored procedures (or for true independance even use stored procs). There are tons of design decisions like this when designing a complex application or system, but a file format????
As for the use of.Net, consider this: Microsoft wants us all to use.Net, since it's so much more productive, secure, etc. And yet, it's not willing to bet either of the products that generate the vast majority of its money on the technology.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its entirely fair. Certainly we have much better construction materials and techniques than thousands of years ago, but we don't tear down the great wall of China just to see if we can do it better/faster. When sections of the wall need to be repaired or enhanced, we use modern materials and methods.
This is much the same with say Office. Even MS needs to consider the bottom line. What reason is there to rewrite all of Office right now? MS is doing exactly what they are suggesting to others. They've never said "you should throw away all your applications and rewrite them in.NET". They just said, going forward you recommend.NET for most development. Office 12 is actually getting tons of.NET code included. Huge amounts of the whole upcoming Office Server System uses.NET. Almost every product coming out of MS is getting to the point where there is a significant portion in.NET now. However, I don't think anyone ever thought they'd just toss out a code base earning them many-many billions per year and decide to start over.
We are not "yet" using web services to expose functionality of our own apps, but the app I'm currently working on does make use of three (will be more) web services to access functionality/data from other systems.
All they've said is "We do not comment on rumors and speculation". After years of saying "Intel only!!!", it sounds like there may be a change in attitude.
Reminds me a bit of the White Houses change from "Rove and Libby had absolutly nothing to do with the CIA leak case!" to "We don't comment on ongoing investigations". Sometimes its whats not said that means the most.
(sarcasam (making fun of parent post not REAL opinion)) No shit!!! I hate how those handicapped freaks get all the good parking spots. And how come my tax dollars have to pay for some stupid ramp up the courthouse steps for a few old farts in wheelchairs???? Those bleeding heart libs are ruining everything!!!! Why don't we just take those handicapped leeches on society out back, put a bullet in the head and move on for the common good?!?!? I swear, when I pull up the the liquor store just down the road from my trailer and see that handicapped van parked right in front so I have to walk an extra 20 feet, I get sooooo mad I could spit!!!!
Late last year it was reported US and British goverments forced the shutdown of 20 extremist websites in 17 countries. A quick search will show you plenty of these cases, but here is one article .
One thing to point out about this entire thread though. To the best of my knowledge ICANN has never messed with DNS or any such action to take down these sites, its always been governments forcing individual ISPs to shut them down. So the whole argument about taking down websites and the US retaining control of the basic web infrastructure, aren't really related much as the US has never used that method to take down websites (yet). In theory they could and that is worrisome and probably worth a more long-term look at who should control this. Not that I'm terribly in awe of the UN's effectiveness, but since I personally think sites should only be taken down in the most extreme cases (or never) the UN's very ineffectiveness to reach a consensus could actually work in our favor here;-)
right, name one country where it is legal to advocate violence.
That isn't really the point. Many of the Nazi websites advocate violence. Pat Robertson advocated the assasination of Venezuala's president. The point is the US unilaterally decides which advocates of violence are OK and which aren't.
Currently the US, shuts down some "Islamic Extremist" websites. If Germany had control, they'd probably shutdown more Nazi websites. If Venezula had control, they'd probably shutdown Pat Robertson's website.
If the UN is in control, it could at least limit these types of unilateral actions. Not saying it'd be perfect or even better, but I'd think it might be a bit more fair.
Didn't you read the article? Blu-Ray ALSO supports managed copying. It also has an extra layer (BD-ROM+) that they said would not prevent this.
Yeah, I read it and know they say it won't be a problem. I guess the question is do you trust them? Yes, the sad fact is both formats will have DRM shit included. Its just when I see most of the global media conglomerates (think members of *AA) rallying to Blu-ray even though its expected to raise thier manufacturing costs, it makes me worry a bit about why. Yes, it has more storage and other positives but I think the music labels and movie studios have shown time and time again they are MUCH less interested in the technological merits of a format, than the are about how much CONTROL they will have over the use of the format.
Thats enough to make me lean toward HD-DVD. I admit I haven't done enough research to really make an informed decision on this, but it seems more tech companies are behind HD-DVD and those companies want to have all kinds of media uses (media centers, streaming whole house audio, etc, etc) so they are mostly interested in the possible uses. And it seems the media companies are mostly lining up behind Blu-ray and they normally don't give a crap about letting you use it in cool ways, they just want to control thier content and NOT let you use it in cool ways.
Maybe, I just need to get fitted for a tinfoil hat;-)
That is the main reason, I'm leaning toward HD-DVD. Blu-Ray seems much better in many ways, but with one of HD-DVD's core mandates is it must allow copying and streaming to other devices it makes me a bit more comfortable. Blu-ray only mentions such things in passing and half-heartedly at best. The recent Sony rootkit actions certainly don't make me any more comfortable with thier Blu-ray either!
Subverting the not-quite-free-market to hurt consumers everywhere!
Don't disagree with anything you are saying, but either I misunderstood your use of the term "free market" or you misunderstand its meaning.
In a true "free market" there are no law or regulations governing commerce. The idea is the market will sort it all out itself. So in a true free market none of these lawsuits against MS would have any merit. Sometimes people seem to confuse "free market" with "fair market". The two are actually quite opposite. All "consumer protection", "anti-trust", etc laws are anti-free market forces.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, not sure why they linked to that blog. The blog does however have a link to the useful info. This is it.
Oops sorry! I didn't read far enough. I just noticed this: I would start to seriously dout the security of Java (right now I have complete faith in it's being 100% vulnerability free). Sorry, now it seems clear the whole post was a joke. Sorry for making fun before ;-)
Sun has control of internet apps/coding. ActiveX/Visual Basic can't really compete.
;-)
ahhhh.......huh? OK lets ignore PHP, Perl, Ruby, etc and go to the heart of it (ActiveX/Visual Basic). Have you heard of this (.NET 1.0) , this (.NET 1.1), or this (.NET 2.0)?
I'm not going to sit here and make pointless arguments about better/worse, but I don't think ActiveX/VB is even supported anymore. Wasn't it's final version about 6 years ago? Its not quite as bad as "Sun has control of internet apps/coding. COBOL can't really compete", but I still find it funny
Ahhh.... that explains it ;-) I was wondering what was causing the break from reality ;-) And I wish your company well. There are many places where thin clients could do a great job! Sadly, its a bit like mass transit. Even though taking the subway/train/bus/etc is tons cheaper, better for the environment, etc, etc, etc, people just don't want to give up thier cars. I've noticed a bit of the same with terminal/PCs. People just don't want to give up thier PCs.
From the invent of computers to the mid-70s basically 100% of computer users used thin clients (terminals). With the invent of PCs this SLOWLY changed in the 70s - 80s till mid-80s to 90s there was a MASSIVE switch to PCs and away from terminals. Today I'd guess MAYBE 1% of computer users are on terminals. From almost 100% to 1% is a pretty amazing shrikage to me.
Now the last 5-10 years "thin clients" have been a bit of a buzz-word, but how many people do you know of today using a thin-client? I don't know of anyone using a thin-client. We'll thats not entirely true as we do still have an old mainframe which we have a few terminals for (though mostly we use terminal software on PCs).
OK, I understand this reasoning but I just don't agree.
;-)
;-) Almost everything was thin client (terminals). I assume you weren't around then so trust me. There has been an AMAZING shrinkage in thin clients, not growth.
;-) No they don't need a kick-ass gaming machine, but why spend $300-$500 for some impotent little thin client when for basically the same price you can get a mahcine that can do everything your thin client can plus actually have some balls (just in case needed)?
;-)
the browser is becoming the app
And has been becoming "the" app for 20 years. Now its great for many things, but replacement for everything??? Don't think so. The browser "taking over" is like the flying car. Its always just around the corner
Couple this with the growth of thin clients
You should have been around in the 70s and 80s
a full blown $2000 desktop computer
Completely agree, but I think you need to shop around a bit more
for 90% a great webmail client is going to be all ppl
At home... maybe. In a corporate environment... no.
Think server-side, think thin clients
Think 1970, think 1980
OK, all that said I do think there are cases where what you suggest may work fine. However, to think this is a wide-spread solution for "normal" cases is fooling yourself. I like the idea of it and I think ideally centralized computing has many advantages. At the same time, I also think a flying car should be doable and would have lots of advantages. However, I'm not betting on seeing either in wide use anytime soon
Yeah, I don't really think its trolling either but also not that relevant. The guy wants info about deploying and supporting linux in a windows environment like you said. I'm just not too sure how a story about one guy sneaking an install of linux on his personal work PC helps much.
;-)
Plus, GP was pretty funny
and redirect surfers onto porn sites
;-)
Sounds more like a feature to me
OK, but how??? I realize "open and interoperable" is a cool new catch phrase, but how is it relevant here? We are talking about an XML file format right? Which of the below is more "open and interoperable"? And below isn't even a fair comparison as they are implementations of a "standard" (quite a standard to. Maybe I should make my own ;-)
<Doc>
<Title val="This is the title" font="Arial" size="14"/>
<Body val "This is the body" font="Arial" size="10"/>
</Doc>
<Doc>
<Title>
<Value="This is the title"/>
<Font="Arial"/>
<Size="14"/>
</Title>
<Body>
<Value="This is the body"/>
<Font="Arial"/>
<Size="10"/>
</Body>
</Doc>
Now the design of the license would effect a standard format's "openness and interoperability", but I still don't see how the design of the format itself is relevant.
think that a format designed to be open and interoperable will be a better format
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how do you "design" a file format to be open or interoperable?
"Open" - while it seems a pretty vauge word today meaning about anything depending on who is using it, in this context "Open" is basically function of a formats use of licenses/patenets/standards. FTFA it seems its just fine in this reguard, however thats a bit irrelevant to this point. How do you design a file format to be "open"? Being "open" or not seems to have nothing to do with the actual file format's design.
"Interoperable" - OK, this one really confuses me when it comes to a file format. Obviously if talking about applications or complex systems, you really need to think ahead during design about what level and type of interoperability you want/need. Depending on your needs you may need to take time to design nice consistantly named namespaces and APIs to make working with the product from other products easy. Perhaps, you'll want to expose web-services to increase interoperability with other systems. Maybe a goal is to be DB indepent in which case you better not design the system to have lots of logic in stored procedures (or for true independance even use stored procs). There are tons of design decisions like this when designing a complex application or system, but a file format????
As for the use of .Net, consider this: Microsoft wants us all to use .Net, since it's so much more productive, secure, etc. And yet, it's not willing to bet either of the products that generate the vast majority of its money on the technology.
.NET". They just said, going forward you recommend .NET for most development. Office 12 is actually getting tons of .NET code included. Huge amounts of the whole upcoming Office Server System uses .NET. Almost every product coming out of MS is getting to the point where there is a significant portion in .NET now. However, I don't think anyone ever thought they'd just toss out a code base earning them many-many billions per year and decide to start over.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its entirely fair. Certainly we have much better construction materials and techniques than thousands of years ago, but we don't tear down the great wall of China just to see if we can do it better/faster. When sections of the wall need to be repaired or enhanced, we use modern materials and methods.
This is much the same with say Office. Even MS needs to consider the bottom line. What reason is there to rewrite all of Office right now? MS is doing exactly what they are suggesting to others. They've never said "you should throw away all your applications and rewrite them in
We are not "yet" using web services to expose functionality of our own apps, but the app I'm currently working on does make use of three (will be more) web services to access functionality/data from other systems.
And have almost no exception handling, though perhaps (I doubt) they've improved this in 2005.
Actually, 2005 makes huge progress in this requard. FINALLY, T-SQL supports standard TRY...CATCH constructs! A major improvement!
Are we still talking about lawyers here? I'd always thought being an asshat, was a prerequisite for that profession?
All they've said is "We do not comment on rumors and speculation". After years of saying "Intel only!!!", it sounds like there may be a change in attitude.
Reminds me a bit of the White Houses change from "Rove and Libby had absolutly nothing to do with the CIA leak case!" to "We don't comment on ongoing investigations". Sometimes its whats not said that means the most.
Then your original statement should have been more like "Unless thier prior art is valid, this is much sound and fury signifying nothing."
Tell, me how much sense the following makes.
Person 1: "We have prior art showing this patent to be invalid"
Person 2: "Well, unless you have prior art it doens't mean anything!"
Sounds a bit stupid, doesn't it?
RTFA
(sarcasam (making fun of parent post not REAL opinion))
No shit!!! I hate how those handicapped freaks get all the good parking spots. And how come my tax dollars have to pay for some stupid ramp up the courthouse steps for a few old farts in wheelchairs???? Those bleeding heart libs are ruining everything!!!! Why don't we just take those handicapped leeches on society out back, put a bullet in the head and move on for the common good?!?!? I swear, when I pull up the the liquor store just down the road from my trailer and see that handicapped van parked right in front so I have to walk an extra 20 feet, I get sooooo mad I could spit!!!!
Late last year it was reported US and British goverments forced the shutdown of 20 extremist websites in 17 countries. A quick search will show you plenty of these cases, but here is one article .
;-)
One thing to point out about this entire thread though. To the best of my knowledge ICANN has never messed with DNS or any such action to take down these sites, its always been governments forcing individual ISPs to shut them down. So the whole argument about taking down websites and the US retaining control of the basic web infrastructure, aren't really related much as the US has never used that method to take down websites (yet). In theory they could and that is worrisome and probably worth a more long-term look at who should control this. Not that I'm terribly in awe of the UN's effectiveness, but since I personally think sites should only be taken down in the most extreme cases (or never) the UN's very ineffectiveness to reach a consensus could actually work in our favor here
right, name one country where it is legal to advocate violence.
That isn't really the point. Many of the Nazi websites advocate violence. Pat Robertson advocated the assasination of Venezuala's president. The point is the US unilaterally decides which advocates of violence are OK and which aren't.
Currently the US, shuts down some "Islamic Extremist" websites. If Germany had control, they'd probably shutdown more Nazi websites. If Venezula had control, they'd probably shutdown Pat Robertson's website.
If the UN is in control, it could at least limit these types of unilateral actions. Not saying it'd be perfect or even better, but I'd think it might be a bit more fair.
Didn't you read the article? Blu-Ray ALSO supports managed copying. It also has an extra layer (BD-ROM+) that they said would not prevent this.
;-)
Yeah, I read it and know they say it won't be a problem. I guess the question is do you trust them? Yes, the sad fact is both formats will have DRM shit included. Its just when I see most of the global media conglomerates (think members of *AA) rallying to Blu-ray even though its expected to raise thier manufacturing costs, it makes me worry a bit about why. Yes, it has more storage and other positives but I think the music labels and movie studios have shown time and time again they are MUCH less interested in the technological merits of a format, than the are about how much CONTROL they will have over the use of the format.
Thats enough to make me lean toward HD-DVD. I admit I haven't done enough research to really make an informed decision on this, but it seems more tech companies are behind HD-DVD and those companies want to have all kinds of media uses (media centers, streaming whole house audio, etc, etc) so they are mostly interested in the possible uses. And it seems the media companies are mostly lining up behind Blu-ray and they normally don't give a crap about letting you use it in cool ways, they just want to control thier content and NOT let you use it in cool ways.
Maybe, I just need to get fitted for a tinfoil hat
That is the main reason, I'm leaning toward HD-DVD. Blu-Ray seems much better in many ways, but with one of HD-DVD's core mandates is it must allow copying and streaming to other devices it makes me a bit more comfortable. Blu-ray only mentions such things in passing and half-heartedly at best. The recent Sony rootkit actions certainly don't make me any more comfortable with thier Blu-ray either!
Subverting the not-quite-free-market to hurt consumers everywhere!
Don't disagree with anything you are saying, but either I misunderstood your use of the term "free market" or you misunderstand its meaning.
In a true "free market" there are no law or regulations governing commerce. The idea is the market will sort it all out itself. So in a true free market none of these lawsuits against MS would have any merit. Sometimes people seem to confuse "free market" with "fair market". The two are actually quite opposite. All "consumer protection", "anti-trust", etc laws are anti-free market forces.
Here