You message is useless without some link to back it up (many people have been discovering and publishing that you are wrong).
And another lie is to say that C++ is slower than C. That's absolutely false. Even if you think that C++ exception handling introduces a minor overhead (even if you don't use exceptions), is not uncommon to just disable them (Mozilla does). Other C++ features are designed so as to not impact users who don't use them.
Your message does not make sense. If C and Java ave the same speed... why on earth would you recommend using C? So you are recommending C for doing web pages??
You could have said: "if you care about speeed choose Java, if you care about programmer productivity choose Ruby/Python"... but even that is questiable, because it depends on the size/complexity of the project, the availability of libraries and tools needed for it, and the expertise already present in a given company.
Your message is just another random irrational not thought rant (the ones that some expect to read in Slashdot...)
Was this AVG thing deemed evil? Bad for the internet? Fasterfox it's a very popular Firefox extension that's even worse. Fasterfox downloads every link, not only from a Google search, but from every page you visit. And this thing is offered by Mozilla addons site at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1269 (though it still hasn't bee updated for Firefox 3). I hope someone follows this article's example and remove this thing from the Mozilla's site.
This new release rewrites the plugin used to provide applet support to browsers. One of the new features is the ability of dragging an applet to the desktop, and the applet would stat there. It's really simple and it's very cool. This is coupled with the newly added support for abitrarily shaped applets.
Sun is trying to revitalize applets. There's no reason a Java applet should be slower than flash, and the language is much more powerful.
This is slightly offtopic, but... I live in Argentina. This country has been excluded from Google Maps since its beginning (Google Maps'). It's the only excluded country in Google Maps, I guess.
If you search for it you will see that the map is just a white area. Not even the major cities, or the capital. We only have satellite images. Does anyone reading this know what's going on?
You are talking about "video on demand". For patch distribution, and for file sharing (which is the thing being discussed here) multicast would be great, multiplying the bandwidth available.
You are wrong. Receivers don't need to watch/use the content right away. They can store it, why not? So Microsoft would broadcast the patches again and again in a loop. The clients would store the data as they get it, and wait until they have it all.
You (if you are the same AC) still don't get it. With multicast, anyone can "broadcast", each P2P participant would be able to put a packet in the net, and that single packet will multiply as needed. Internet capacity would be objectively multiplied.
No, it's you the one missing the point. With multicast a "seed" (in BitTorrent terms) would be "multicasting" the same file again and again. Clients would "subscribe" to the transmission at some point, and just wait for it to start over to to get the previous parts. Multiple seeds could arrange for the their transmission to be far from others, to make things even faster. And on top of this, the normal bittorrent would allow for querying single lost packets (multicast is UDP). With this, a couple of seeds could feed an incredibly large amount of users.
The world doesn't end just near your nose. You may have a laptop and you may be happy with "hibernating" it, but many of us need to power off PCs. An office PC I power on every day, my home's PC I power on and off when I get and leave home.
And it's your comment the one that is insulting. You insult lots of experienced Linux users who do care about their machines booting several times slower than an XP pc.
And why is that? Because Linux boots up with a slow and serialized process, in which the whole system (with hyperthreading, gigs of ram, dual core, etc.) sits idel waiting for a single stupid syslog daemon to start, or worse: waiting for a DHCP client to get an IP address!
Standards are supposed to evolve. Have we already got the best email system that can be designed? The best HTML? Besides, new services need new standards.
Companies don't create standards. They only do that when they are forced. Remember the days before the internet, all those products for building an office's lan... there were no standards there, just products. Companies build products, and create proprietary protocol ad-hoc for those products.
If email would have been invented in this commercial Internet era.. we wouldn't have RFC-822. Just as ICQ inventors (Mirabilis) didn't create a standard for Internet presence.
The current internet is to equalitary for them. In their whitepaper they state:
[...] A related issue is that the current Internet does not provide support for differentiating between different packets
on economic grounds. For example, two packets with the same origin and destination will
typically be routed on the same path through the network, even if the packets have very
different values.
"Outrageous! The rich treated the same as the poor!" They want an internet in which a porn movie downloaded by a CEO preempts and disturbs a critical communication from a hospital to an investigation center.
The internet as we have it is an open field. A dumb, simple, protocol so that people can innovate in the sides. This enabled us to be independent from ISP and to design new protocols (Gnutella, Bittorrent, etc.). Of course, they now say that this "dumbness" produced lack of innovation:
Resistance to change is compounded by the end-to-end design philosophy that makes the
Internet "smart" at the edges and "dumb" in the middle. While a dumb infrastructure led to
rapid growth, it doesn't have the flexibility or intelligence to allow new ideas to be tested
and deployed. There are many examples of how the dumbness of the network has led to
ossification, such as the long time it took to deploy IPv6, multicast, and the very limited
deployment of differentiated qualities of service. Deploying these well-known ideas has
been hard enough; deploying radically new architectures is unthinkable today.
It's not clear to me how having a more complex internet in the middle will be able to ease its growth. It
seems as the opposite, as more complex middleware will be more complex to upgrade and setup. In fact, the main reason the current internet has "ossificated" *is* dumbness in the middle, but other kind of dumbness. The
commercial companies' dumb administrators, dumb managers, who didn't care to provide us multicast, IPv6, mobile ip, IPsec, etc.
The Internet as we have it could never had happened if it were for the private sector. It's too open, private companies don't
like standards. See how the classical internet infrastructure got frozen when the commercial companies took over internet in the last century. HTTP, IMAP, POP, HTML, etc. got stuck in their last versions. It's because Internet needs a strong *public* presence. Companies can exist, provide service, but Internet needs a strong presence by the people (in the form of the state..? Universities? I don't know...)
This group is not aiming at a better, utopic, internet. They are trying to recapture what they've lost when their CCITT (X.25, X.400, X.500) network wreck.
No. ODF has several real, factual, benefits. It might have been originated in a single product but... it reuses existing standard technologies (SVG, CSS...). It has properly designed XML tags that act as "markup", in OpenDocument xml tags act as container for chunks of data. ODF tries to separate content from style.
And about your RTF suggestion... can I draw diagrams with RTF? Can I have a ToC? Can I do complex styling? Can I have a "galery" of styles? Can I include images? No. RTF is not a solution.
Try, if you can, to either use a technology that abstracts you from the UI or simply isolate your core logic from the interface. That way you could provide both a web (or graphical) ui and a text ui. If they see the GUI is more usable they could end up with it.
Another tip: You could suggest creating a web application and make a Lynx (or Links) friendly webapp. Those text web browsers will run over telnet and they will be very friendly for them, as they share the "form orientation" of AS/400 form oriented 3270 terminals.
Slashdot Mirror
You message is useless without some link to back it up (many people have been discovering and publishing that you are wrong).
And another lie is to say that C++ is slower than C. That's absolutely false. Even if you think that C++ exception handling introduces a minor overhead (even if you don't use exceptions), is not uncommon to just disable them (Mozilla does). Other C++ features are designed so as to not impact users who don't use them.
How come this what modded as insightful?
Your message does not make sense. If C and Java ave the same speed... why on earth would you recommend using C? So you are recommending C for doing web pages??
You could have said: "if you care about speeed choose Java, if you care about programmer productivity choose Ruby/Python"... but even that is questiable, because it depends on the size/complexity of the project, the availability of libraries and tools needed for it, and the expertise already present in a given company.
Your message is just another random irrational not thought rant (the ones that some expect to read in Slashdot...)
Don't post Interesting things next to Funny stuff, it confuses the moderators!
Was this AVG thing deemed evil? Bad for the internet? Fasterfox it's a very popular Firefox extension that's even worse. Fasterfox downloads every link, not only from a Google search, but from every page you visit. And this thing is offered by Mozilla addons site at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1269 (though it still hasn't bee updated for Firefox 3). I hope someone follows this article's example and remove this thing from the Mozilla's site.
Let's hope the next such article uses normal units, so we can focus on the article itself instead.
This new release rewrites the plugin used to provide applet support to browsers. One of the new features is the ability of dragging an applet to the desktop, and the applet would stat there. It's really simple and it's very cool. This is coupled with the newly added support for abitrarily shaped applets.
Sun is trying to revitalize applets. There's no reason a Java applet should be slower than flash, and the language is much more powerful.
This is slightly offtopic, but... I live in Argentina. This country has been excluded from Google Maps since its beginning (Google Maps'). It's the only excluded country in Google Maps, I guess.
If you search for it you will see that the map is just a white area. Not even the major cities, or the capital. We only have satellite images. Does anyone reading this know what's going on?
Why did Google choose such a crappy database? Is there any secret reason?
I quit. =)
You are talking about "video on demand". For patch distribution, and for file sharing (which is the thing being discussed here) multicast would be great, multiplying the bandwidth available.
Uh? We were talking about patches distribution. And maybe offline movie downloads, but not "video on demand"... Where were you?
You are wrong. Receivers don't need to watch/use the content right away. They can store it, why not? So Microsoft would broadcast the patches again and again in a loop. The clients would store the data as they get it, and wait until they have it all.
You (if you are the same AC) still don't get it. With multicast, anyone can "broadcast", each P2P participant would be able to put a packet in the net, and that single packet will multiply as needed. Internet capacity would be objectively multiplied.
No, it's you the one missing the point. With multicast a "seed" (in BitTorrent terms) would be "multicasting" the same file again and again. Clients would "subscribe" to the transmission at some point, and just wait for it to start over to to get the previous parts. Multiple seeds could arrange for the their transmission to be far from others, to make things even faster. And on top of this, the normal bittorrent would allow for querying single lost packets (multicast is UDP). With this, a couple of seeds could feed an incredibly large amount of users.
People would assume that on the US, not true for other countries in which people are more free to think.
The world doesn't end just near your nose. You may have a laptop and you may be happy with "hibernating" it, but many of us need to power off PCs. An office PC I power on every day, my home's PC I power on and off when I get and leave home.
And it's your comment the one that is insulting. You insult lots of experienced Linux users who do care about their machines booting several times slower than an XP pc.
And why is that? Because Linux boots up with a slow and serialized process, in which the whole system (with hyperthreading, gigs of ram, dual core, etc.) sits idel waiting for a single stupid syslog daemon to start, or worse: waiting for a DHCP client to get an IP address!
The law mus state that, after a patent has been granted, the patent holder has 3 years to use it. If it doesn't, the patent becomes void.
Standards are supposed to evolve. Have we already got the best email system that can be designed? The best HTML? Besides, new services need new standards.
Companies don't create standards. They only do that when they are forced. Remember the days before the internet, all those products for building an office's lan... there were no standards there, just products. Companies build products, and create proprietary protocol ad-hoc for those products.
If email would have been invented in this commercial Internet era.. we wouldn't have RFC-822. Just as ICQ inventors (Mirabilis) didn't create a standard for Internet presence.
"Outrageous! The rich treated the same as the poor!" They want an internet in which a porn movie downloaded by a CEO preempts and disturbs a critical communication from a hospital to an investigation center.
The internet as we have it is an open field. A dumb, simple, protocol so that people can innovate in the sides. This enabled us to be independent from ISP and to design new protocols (Gnutella, Bittorrent, etc.). Of course, they now say that this "dumbness" produced lack of innovation:
It's not clear to me how having a more complex internet in the middle will be able to ease its growth. It seems as the opposite, as more complex middleware will be more complex to upgrade and setup. In fact, the main reason the current internet has "ossificated" *is* dumbness in the middle, but other kind of dumbness. The commercial companies' dumb administrators, dumb managers, who didn't care to provide us multicast, IPv6, mobile ip, IPsec, etc.
The Internet as we have it could never had happened if it were for the private sector. It's too open, private companies don't like standards. See how the classical internet infrastructure got frozen when the commercial companies took over internet in the last century. HTTP, IMAP, POP, HTML, etc. got stuck in their last versions. It's because Internet needs a strong *public* presence. Companies can exist, provide service, but Internet needs a strong presence by the people (in the form of the state..? Universities? I don't know...)
This group is not aiming at a better, utopic, internet. They are trying to recapture what they've lost when their CCITT (X.25, X.400, X.500) network wreck.
Who is modding this as a troll? (!!!) We really do need to "metamoderate".
They should have licensed their work as this:
No. ODF has several real, factual, benefits. It might have been originated in a single product but... it reuses existing standard technologies (SVG, CSS...). It has properly designed XML tags that act as "markup", in OpenDocument xml tags act as container for chunks of data. ODF tries to separate content from style.
And about your RTF suggestion... can I draw diagrams with RTF? Can I have a ToC? Can I do complex styling? Can I have a "galery" of styles? Can I include images? No. RTF is not a solution.
Is it the only solution to all this to attack key Microsoft executives while they are sleeping?
Try, if you can, to either use a technology that abstracts you from the UI or simply isolate your core logic from the interface. That way you could provide both a web (or graphical) ui and a text ui. If they see the GUI is more usable they could end up with it.
Another tip: You could suggest creating a web application and make a Lynx (or Links) friendly webapp. Those text web browsers will run over telnet and they will be very friendly for them, as they share the "form orientation" of AS/400 form oriented 3270 terminals.
In the "View" menu, tell Thunderbird to show the message body as "Simple HTML" (or even plain text).