I've been following Mozilla for many years and I got used to them being the good guys in nearly all matters (standards, attitude towards development). Today they are being the jerks crushing a smaller project.
It's so obvious to me that they are wrong... The only right thing to do for mozilla.org is to assume their mistake and rename the browser. For god sake, they haven't even released a version with such a name. That month of research sounds like bullshit when you consider they didn't even go to to google to find out that the name was already taken but another free-software project, not a grocery, not a car, not a company name.
This is not cool. Microsoft (and some other companies) uses standards as a stick to hit his competitors. They use standards to enter a market he doesn't own. They did that with Explorer, with MSN, etc. After owning the market they stopped (in both cases) to pay attention to standards.
This move can only be viewed as two things:
Microsoft's recognition that they don't own the market.
Microsoft's disposition of getting rid of Java in a couple of years.
Your expectations were wrong. The new Linux won't make things faster, it will just (as you put it) make things feel different for interactive processes. The idea is to be able to work without one second pauses when a background process is performing some heavy task.
That's simply not true. It's currently very easy to write all-modern-browsers compatible javascript. Each release browsers are closer and closer to the W3C standards. JavaScript errors are only caused by developer ignorance. If you are a "IE-only" web developers here are some hints to also code for Mozilla.
The problem as I understand it is that the SVG library Mozilla currently uses has a license that's incompatible with the Mozilla license.
A bit inaccurate. The library in question (libart) is LGPL and it's perfectly compatible with the MPL, GPL, etc. The thing is that it's mozilla.org's policy not accepting LGPL code.
You know nothing. Please, try to hide your ignorance a little harder. How could XUL be a wrapper around GTK+ and run in Windows, OSX, OS/2 without GTK+?
XUL is a markup language which is just rendered as an HTML variant by the Gecko layout engine.
XUL bloated? XUL works reasonably fast. I don't know where did you take the idea of XUL being bloated.
When people talk about the ignorant crowd at Slashdot they are talking about you.
You've said you have finally used Smalltalk. Is Smalltalk appropiate for normal applications? From what I've seen everything runs in ths big, square Smalltalk window, and you don't run just your app. You run the whole environment (as apps become part of it). Is this true?
TLS (SSL) does not need the ugly PKI technology to operate. SSL/TLS could very well use PGP keys. The difference is that PGP technology is more well designed and lends better to help building a web of trust.
Some people might say that newbies can't handle the complexity. Well it's the responsibilty of software developers to help them overcome this. Example: As the same PGP keys would be used for mail, the web of trust could be linked to the addressbook handling.
Besides, the current model gives a sense of security which is not real. Do we really trust CA's? When you go to an "internet cafe", do people check that the list of trusted CA's haven't been altered. In this way, PGP would bring the real sense of security/insecurity which is currently "masked".
Re:Only standards are HTML 2.0, 3.0 and 3.2
on
W3C Approves DOM Level 2
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Evidently your knwowledge of these things is pretty limited.
A web page in HTML4 and CSS can be much lighter than one coded in HTML 3.2. The reason for that is that using tables and the font tag is *very* verbose. With CSS you can replace several kB's of <font> along all your site with just a:
There are 65534 other ports wich can be used for VoIP, they must block them too!
Re:What I would like to know is...
on
The End Of Minix?
·
· Score: 2
Because after the different UNIXes splitted, it was very difficult to make new major innovations to the system. Those innovations would have to be very important to be worth of being adopted by POSIX et. al.
It's the same as the PC and the floppy disk. After IBM lost his control over the PC, the system were kind of frozen. We were lucky we could adopt this huge 1.44 Mb drives we have now.
In the case of tty's, there should be several things that aren't implemented:
A sane character model, where all keyboard keys could be transmited
True color
It would be nice to have some more high-level primitives so that ncurses interfaces over ssh work faster
Perhaps some kind of graphics upload to the terminal, so that it would be posible to do: $ cat Logo.gif and see the gif there:)
Some of these things are being implemented by the XMLTerm project, but I don't know the status of it.
In their terms and conditions "Southwest Airlines" also state that they forbid "deep linking", using robots to spider their site, or just using any program to get their pages.
In fact, their license seems to forbids the use of any HTTP user agent to "acquire" some of their pages. Beware, by browsing their site you are risking to get sued =).
Don't shift the point. Both Mozilla and Explorer do things with their form control widgets that are imposible to do with the Windows provided ones. So both need to implement their own toolkits.
Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks
on
Roll Your Own Browser
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No, the ansert for that question is a little known protocol called ACAP, which is designed for remote profiles, profile sharing. e.g. In ACAP a client can register for dynamic updates, so all open applications dynamically change their settings at the same time!
Crap. Current web standards *require* you render your own widgets. You are supposed to alter any aspect of them. So, designing a web browser today is really the same as designing a toolkit! You have element positioning, form widgets, styling.
Slashdot Mirror
Specially because I only use Debian.
Hi, I'm the average user. I have 1,7 brothers and I'm 34% woman.
It's so obvious to me that they are wrong... The only right thing to do for mozilla.org is to assume their mistake and rename the browser. For god sake, they haven't even released a version with such a name. That month of research sounds like bullshit when you consider they didn't even go to to google to find out that the name was already taken but another free-software project, not a grocery, not a car, not a company name.
This is being discussed here.
Your expectations were wrong. The new Linux won't make things faster, it will just (as you put it) make things feel different for interactive processes. The idea is to be able to work without one second pauses when a background process is performing some heavy task.
That's simply not true. It's currently very easy to write all-modern-browsers compatible javascript. Each release browsers are closer and closer to the W3C standards. JavaScript errors are only caused by developer ignorance. If you are a "IE-only" web developers here are some hints to also code for Mozilla.
Slashdot: Microsoft Sends Broken Stylesheets to Opera.
The people: So what, you send broken HTML to everybody!
2.000.000.000.000 vectors?
That would put one vector per pixel in my 1142857142857x857142857142 monitor.
XUL a wrapper around GTK?
You know nothing. Please, try to hide your ignorance a little harder. How could XUL be a wrapper around GTK+ and run in Windows, OSX, OS/2 without GTK+?
XUL is a markup language which is just rendered as an HTML variant by the Gecko layout engine.
XUL bloated? XUL works reasonably fast. I don't know where did you take the idea of XUL being bloated.
When people talk about the ignorant crowd at Slashdot they are talking about you.
You've said you have finally used Smalltalk. Is Smalltalk appropiate for normal applications? From what I've seen everything runs in ths big, square Smalltalk window, and you don't run just your app. You run the whole environment (as apps become part of it). Is this true?
TLS (SSL) does not need the ugly PKI technology to operate. SSL/TLS could very well use PGP keys. The difference is that PGP technology is more well designed and lends better to help building a web of trust.
Some people might say that newbies can't handle the complexity. Well it's the responsibilty of software developers to help them overcome this. Example: As the same PGP keys would be used for mail, the web of trust could be linked to the addressbook handling.
Besides, the current model gives a sense of security which is not real. Do we really trust CA's? When you go to an "internet cafe", do people check that the list of trusted CA's haven't been altered. In this way, PGP would bring the real sense of security/insecurity which is currently "masked".
Evidently your knwowledge of these things is pretty limited.
A web page in HTML4 and CSS can be much lighter than one coded in HTML 3.2. The reason for that is that using tables and the font tag is *very* verbose. With CSS you can replace several kB's of <font> along all your site with just a:
font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: larger; }
Then every <div class=brochure> would have these styling attributes. Suppose you want to make the heading in a brochure red:
<div class=brochure><h2>Buy this!</h2> ....
You don't even need to modify your HTML! You just add to the CSS (shared by all your site):
color: red;
}
That should be read as "h1 inside .title".
As you see, HTML and CSS makes web pages smaller, and more maintainable.
Mozilla already supports almost all of this (if not all). Check the DOM support in Mozilla.
There's no need to route around Panamá. They could just add some bytes to the beginning of each packet (i.e. an IP over IP tunnel).
There are 65534 other ports wich can be used for VoIP, they must block them too!
Because after the different UNIXes splitted, it was very difficult to make new major innovations to the system. Those innovations would have to be very important to be worth of being adopted by POSIX et. al.
It's the same as the PC and the floppy disk. After IBM lost his control over the PC, the system were kind of frozen. We were lucky we could adopt this huge 1.44 Mb drives we have now.
In the case of tty's, there should be several things that aren't implemented:
Some of these things are being implemented by the XMLTerm project, but I don't know the status of it.
In their terms and conditions "Southwest Airlines" also state that they forbid "deep linking", using robots to spider their site, or just using any program to get their pages.
In fact, their license seems to forbids the use of any HTTP user agent to "acquire" some of their pages. Beware, by browsing their site you are risking to get sued =).
We need everybody who cannot connect to Slashdot to leave a message here stating so..!
Thanks!
Have you been to Argentina?
Don't shift the point. Both Mozilla and Explorer do things with their form control widgets that are imposible to do with the Windows provided ones. So both need to implement their own toolkits.
No, the ansert for that question is a little known protocol called ACAP, which is designed for remote profiles, profile sharing. e.g. In ACAP a client can register for dynamic updates, so all open applications dynamically change their settings at the same time!
Crap. Current web standards *require* you render your own widgets. You are supposed to alter any aspect of them. So, designing a web browser today is really the same as designing a toolkit! You have element positioning, form widgets, styling.
Wow...!
:)
According to the article he's able to even walk in a pool! Uhm.. I think he should be taken to the moon, perhaps there we could walk..