right... writing a clean client with RMI and mobile objects is waaaay more difficult than piling up a layer of xml->html transformation rules + bulky layout frameworks + incompatible javascript, combined with forced page reload and session management overhead.
Look. Business logic is the simplest, leanest and nicest part of a web application because it can be done in OOP, a mature technology. Building intefaces from widgets is also a mature technology. Emulating a UI via HTML tags is a new, cumbersome, unnatural, error-prone and very difficult to maintain technology.
I don't know why people do not develop for client-side java. Perhaps M$ has scared them all off.
YMMV however : ) writing a two-page "web application" may indeed be easier with.NET : ))
Funny we just discussed yesterday the unfortunate effect Microsoft has on software.
Maybe Microsoft did a lot of good. I am sure a lot of posts will show that.
Here I would like to stress what a mess Microsoft has made of web applications by meddling with Java and killing off it support in Windows.
I am a web programmer and I know the hurdles encountered when delivering a web application.
My experience says 80% of the development and maintenance efforts go to the presentation layer. Why? Because it is done through the ass. Excuse me, but HTML+JavaScript was not designed as a user interface layer. Implementing thin-clients in Javascript is suicide, a slow and painful one. Re-sending the form to the browser every time an action is made is assinine.
It is ludicruous, the things companies do right now to implement a web user interface. When 20 programmers and 15 designers spend all day explaining to each other what bits in the entangled mess of a page the designer should change to change the interface , it is not programming, it is extremely distorted masochistic masturbation.
Enter client-side java. Thin clients? Easy. Security+sandbox? Yep. Custom widgets? Yep. Direct graphics rendering? You bet. And it can be done in a few weeks by a programmer + UI designer. As a result, half the burden is off the server, the interface is natural and easy to use, maintenance costs are minimal.
Face it, Browser-embedded Java is the answer to all these freaking mammoth problems web development has drowned itself into. This technology is how many? 10 years old?? Why has not it been accepted???
Enter Microsoft.
Had Microsoft not interfered, client-side Java would be as ubiquitous on the desktop as are GNU tools on unix'es, due to its superior design and concept. But no, M$ had to distort it and obstruct it so it never made it to the users' desktops. Instead it promises.NET shit that is even slower and more complex than current implementations.
And this is just one example. Killing off good ideas is M$'s job. Not innovation, not better products, not open standards, not fair play. Microsoft has just killed everyone in the IT and scared the shit out of everyone else. It stands alone on a pile of skulls two stories high.
Moreover, Gaim-Encryption uses public/private keys generated for each user, which is (slightly) better security than encrypting to server. This way your boss cannot snoop on you if you're using the local chat server : )
On the weird side, I noticed significant delays in encrypted ym messages compared to non-encrypted ones... makes one wonder...
Here's an idea (which I've also said before!) - imagine if all those config files were XML based. So you could edit them using a text editor - same as now except slightly more cumbersome to edit.
Let me say it again, XML-based config files are a mess.
They are prone to error: forget a '>' and your config's toast. Of course, you could use an xml validator after you're done, but have you noticed the sudden rise in complexity of the work? Remember, this was supposed to be a _simple_ operation.
Suppose you are a *nix admin and want to edit your config file. I use a utility which keeps its configuration files in xml format and I am getting very frustrated every time I edit one of those. I am afraid I will mess up somewhere and the utility will ignore the rest of the configuration. I had _never_ had such worries with a simple text configuration.
Second, your assertion regarding the openness of the xml-based formats is debatable. Nothing stops a company from concocting an ugly xml schema which they would change every second release in a way that is completely incompatible with previous versions.
Out of sad experience, I believe XML should never be at the user end of an user interface, no matter how uber 1337 the user is. It simply is not an easily editable format, period.
XML is great at other things, like encoding data oblivious to endianness, but config file formats it is not!
But the rise of omnipresent surveillance will be driven as much by ordinary citizens' understandable--even laudatory--desires for security, control, and comfort as by the imperatives of business and government.
Am I the only one who finds the wording offensive? grr... good ordinary citizens opting for control my arse! When stuff like this gets printed in mass media I get pissed off...
...disappears into the nearest bar, mumbling obscenely
You forget that Apple does not have 90%+ of the market. Microsoft is a monopoly and as such it has additional responsibility. Read the summary, it clarifies the point so you don't have to waste your time asking such questions.
---
broad-based features such as homework lock-down, which parents can use to
disable TV, music and other home entertainment until the schoolwork is done.
Imagine this:
Day 1. [bespectacled kid muttering under his breath reading bugtraq] I wonder whether my parents have installed patch 1436-B?
one hour later
[bespectacled kid muttering under his breath while logging in to the master computer] Gosh! they put our cat's name as root password?
one week later...
[stocky kid during lunch to bespectacled kid] hey how about hacking into our house, and I promise not to beat you again?
That it was an open-source project that helped the human genome enter the public domain. See interview with Jim Kent:
Stewart: You were essentially competing with Celera Genomics in a race to assemble the genome, and they had procured what was reportedly the most powerful civilian computer in history for their effort. What tools did you use to beat them to the result?
Kent: 100 800 MhZ Pentium processors with 256 Mb RAM each, running Linux, the gcc compiler, the vim editor, a whiteboard, and occasional ice packs for the wrists.
Grsecurity [www.grsecurity.net] - an ACL system on top of Linux security structure.
You can restrict lots of things, including opening client network ports, secure ports, raw tcp and much more even for root, per userid or gid of process.
And although I did not try that specifically, installation on multiple machines should not be too complex either: one compiled kernel and an acl file in/etc/grsec/
you don't. The best thing you can do is spell out the distribution conditions in the code and hope that the majority of developers will be ethical and civilized enough to respect your terms.
If the price you charge for is not too large (otherwise you are gouging your customers) then I believe you can safely distribute it over the Internet. I trust the small percentage of those who will use your code illegally could not have afforded it anyway.
The right price combined with trust does more than the tightest protections ever conceived.
There is a story by a russian guy where people go into cyberspace offices to work. Except that they are really at home and viewing the virtual world via 3D goggles.
Well there is a lot more to that but this element struck me as an interesting and plausible idea.
A project using BK is always in danger of denying a would-be contributor that works in parallel on anything related to CVS.
The things RMS warned of was spefically, DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF SOURCE. Which is evil.
Let me put it this way. In the worst case (project uses BK, you are incompatible with the free BK license), you have to purchase a TOOL to be able to contribute to an open-source project.
You CANNOT contribute to some open-source project unless you pay some_company for access to it!
There may be numerous reasons why one would not want to purchase access (it not sold in one's local store, the developer does not trust his/her CC# to the internet, etc. etc.)
So I agree with Performer Guy, for other reasons though. I can see project owners running away from BK from now on.
Perhaps you have invented a data-exchange protocol that will allow for faster transmissions. Unless you patent the device to stop IBM (say) from selling for less[, you're screwed,] because they have economy of scale and a better marketing department than you.
...Not to mention the better army of lawyers that will manage to drag the court battle for ages and bleed you off until you give up. UNLESS you are a bigger monster than IBM(say).
The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.
So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.
But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!
Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.
We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else. Copying a dollar bill in a color copier is effectively equivalent to shaving a small fraction off of every other dollar and adding these fractions together to make one dollar. Naturally, we consider this wrong.
By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
---
Please, go on and read the full article. It might offer you some insights.
BTW, do you even pay taxes? I sure do! And to be told that I cannot attempt to profit from the research efforts that my tax dollars paid for means that you are stealing from me twice!
But you can profit! You can use linux and save the money you pay to M$. And help the rest by reducing the virus rampage.
I want the research efforts of government to be open enough that we all have an equal chance of becoming millionaires.
Ah! getting rich off selling someone else's work! What a marvellous and novel idea...
I have a suggestion for you: go to LasVegas, you might just WIN BIG without much effort. : ))
Just after reading the article on yahoo I sent a letter to the address found on sonymusic.com.
If anyone knows of more addresses of sony, please post them in a reply. thanks.
The letter:
Hi,
I read a news story today (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor y&ncid= 582&e=2&cid=582&u=/nm/20020 816/wr_nm/media_copyr ight_dc_4) about the recent action of RIAA against ISPs for not censoring the web. I find it a very dim move on the side of RIAA and would like to let you, a member of RIAA, know of why things happen as they do today and why your record sales plummet.
1. I am not buying any CDs from a RIAA label, for over 2 years now. You guys suck and the music you make is awful. Continuing making stupid moves like the one above is definitely not going to change my attitude. So many other people feel, and if you continue ignoring your customers you will end up a dead company.
2. I am not buying any of SONY hardware, which happens to be very nice hardware by the way. I made this commitment because I do not want to support corporations that think the majority of their customers are evil puny thieves. I am sure many more people feel this way. I had a few choices over the last few years when buying portable cd-roms and cd drives for my computers and my friends and I first made sure I did not buy SONY and also told all my friends not to buy SONY hardware either. There are plenty of hardware manufacturers out there.
So would you listen to some good advice. Continuing to be part of this cartel of thugs (RIAA) is a shame for you and I urge you to get out of it while you have not been totally discredited as a company. Overpricing a bad product (poor content music CDs), calling your customers thieves, attempting to destroy the Internet by imposing ridiculous censorship, lobbying ridiculous laws that stifle the freedom of people is not something people are taking lightly. Sometime in the future, when you see 'FUCK RIAA' posters on the streets, think about your business model. Think about why people dislike your company.
Please, not everyone lives in AmeriKa and has $300 to shell out for an O/S. So would you stop being an ignorant elitist and climb back into your hi-tech cave. Thank you.
And The title says it all: The Cult!
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Umm as I was going to read the article, thinking oh wow let's see some unbiased reporting, I read the title: The Cult of Linux!
I guess then I am a follower of RMS High Templar. So fear my wrath!
Could you be more specific about the compromising gotcha's?
[snip]
also makes it difficult to read--which of course means more debugging time required.
Umm difficult to read depends on who wrote and who is writing. I often find perl code easier to read than c/c++ although I have been programming c/c++ more than perl.
how is this:
# find customer id
$custid = $input =~/.+CUSTID=(\w+)$/;
Slashdot Mirror
right... writing a clean client with RMI and mobile objects is waaaay more difficult than piling up a layer of xml->html transformation rules + bulky layout frameworks + incompatible javascript, combined with forced page reload and session management overhead.
.NET : ))
Look. Business logic is the simplest, leanest and nicest part of a web application because it can be done in OOP, a mature technology. Building intefaces from widgets is also a mature technology. Emulating a UI via HTML tags is a new, cumbersome, unnatural, error-prone and very difficult to maintain technology.
I don't know why people do not develop for client-side java. Perhaps M$ has scared them all off.
YMMV however : ) writing a two-page "web application" may indeed be easier with
Funny we just discussed yesterday the unfortunate effect Microsoft has on software.
.NET shit that is even slower and more complex than current implementations.
Maybe Microsoft did a lot of good. I am sure a lot of posts will show that.
Here I would like to stress what a mess Microsoft has made of web applications by meddling with Java and killing off it support in Windows.
I am a web programmer and I know the hurdles encountered when delivering a web application.
My experience says 80% of the development and maintenance efforts go to the presentation layer. Why? Because it is done through the ass. Excuse me, but HTML+JavaScript was not designed as a user interface layer. Implementing thin-clients in Javascript is suicide, a slow and painful one. Re-sending the form to the browser every time an action is made is assinine.
It is ludicruous, the things companies do right now to implement a web user interface. When 20 programmers and 15 designers spend all day explaining to each other what bits in the entangled mess of a page the designer should change to change the interface , it is not programming, it is extremely distorted masochistic masturbation.
Enter client-side java. Thin clients? Easy. Security+sandbox? Yep. Custom widgets? Yep. Direct graphics rendering? You bet. And it can be done in a few weeks by a programmer + UI designer. As a result, half the burden is off the server, the interface is natural and easy to use, maintenance costs are minimal.
Face it, Browser-embedded Java is the answer to all these freaking mammoth problems web development has drowned itself into. This technology is how many? 10 years old?? Why has not it been accepted???
Enter Microsoft.
Had Microsoft not interfered, client-side Java would be as ubiquitous on the desktop as are GNU tools on unix'es, due to its superior design and concept. But no, M$ had to distort it and obstruct it so it never made it to the users' desktops. Instead it promises
And this is just one example. Killing off good ideas is M$'s job. Not innovation, not better products, not open standards, not fair play. Microsoft has just killed everyone in the IT and scared the shit out of everyone else. It stands alone on a pile of skulls two stories high.
Does this mean I could finally use SCSI-160 drives on my desktop without having to shell out $600 for a server mobo? Way cool!
Moreover, Gaim-Encryption uses public/private keys generated for each user, which is (slightly) better security than encrypting to server. This way your boss cannot snoop on you if you're using the local chat server : )
On the weird side, I noticed significant delays in encrypted ym messages compared to non-encrypted ones... makes one wonder...
Wow thanks for letting me know. Until now I had no clue why the option exists in my kernel.
<XML> />
<based>
<config files="are">
<a mess="."
</config>
</based>
</XML>
Let me say it again, XML-based config files are a mess.
They are prone to error: forget a '>' and your config's toast. Of course, you could use an xml validator after you're done, but have you noticed the sudden rise in complexity of the work? Remember, this was supposed to be a _simple_ operation.
Suppose you are a *nix admin and want to edit your config file. I use a utility which keeps its configuration files in xml format and I am getting very frustrated every time I edit one of those. I am afraid I will mess up somewhere and the utility will ignore the rest of the configuration. I had _never_ had such worries with a simple text configuration.
Second, your assertion regarding the openness of the xml-based formats is debatable. Nothing stops a company from concocting an ugly xml schema which they would change every second release in a way that is completely incompatible with previous versions.
Out of sad experience, I believe XML should never be at the user end of an user interface, no matter how uber 1337 the user is. It simply is not an easily editable format, period. XML is great at other things, like encoding data oblivious to endianness, but config file formats it is not!
But the rise of omnipresent surveillance will be driven as much by ordinary citizens' understandable--even laudatory--desires for security, control, and comfort as by the imperatives of business and government.
Am I the only one who finds the wording offensive? grr... good ordinary citizens opting for control my arse! When stuff like this gets printed in mass media I get pissed off...
You forget that Apple does not have 90%+ of the market. Microsoft is a monopoly and as such it has additional responsibility. Read the summary, it clarifies the point so you don't have to waste your time asking such questions.
broad-based features such as homework lock-down, which parents can use to disable TV, music and other home entertainment until the schoolwork is done.
Imagine this:
Day 1.
[bespectacled kid muttering under his breath reading bugtraq] I wonder whether my parents have installed patch 1436-B?
one hour later
[bespectacled kid muttering under his breath while logging in to the master computer] Gosh! they put our cat's name as root password?one week later...
[stocky kid during lunch to bespectacled kid] hey how about hacking into our house, and I promise not to beat you again?
Stewart: You were essentially competing with Celera Genomics in a race to assemble the genome, and they had procured what was reportedly the most powerful civilian computer in history for their effort. What tools did you use to beat them to the result?
Kent: 100 800 MhZ Pentium processors with 256 Mb RAM each, running Linux, the gcc compiler, the vim editor, a whiteboard, and occasional ice packs for the wrists.
Well, today it seems hard. But once it gets ubiquitous, what stops Michelin (or any other company) from refining the technology?
Even if it has some good uses like tracking stolen tires, this seems to me like another "good intention" paving the road to hell...
Besides, there are other ways to secure your tires. Like: screw one round bolt with a hole in it so only you can remove it.
Finally, I'd rather get my wheels stolen than live in a country where all my moves are tracked.
Except that most of the movie has already been paid for by including a McDonalds or a Ferrari car in one of the frames : )
Grsecurity [www.grsecurity.net] - an ACL system on top of Linux security structure.
/etc/grsec/
You can restrict lots of things, including opening client network ports, secure ports, raw tcp and much more even for root, per userid or gid of process.
And although I did not try that specifically, installation on multiple machines should not be too complex either: one compiled kernel and an acl file in
The answer is:
you don't. The best thing you can do is spell out the distribution conditions in the code and hope that the majority of developers will be ethical and civilized enough to respect your terms.
If the price you charge for is not too large (otherwise you are gouging your customers) then I believe you can safely distribute it over the Internet. I trust the small percentage of those who will use your code illegally could not have afforded it anyway.
The right price combined with trust does more than the tightest protections ever conceived.
There is a story by a russian guy where people go into cyberspace offices to work. Except that they are really at home and viewing the virtual world via 3D goggles.
Well there is a lot more to that but this element struck me as an interesting and plausible idea.
A project using BK is always in danger of denying a would-be contributor that works in parallel on anything related to CVS.
The things RMS warned of was spefically, DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF SOURCE. Which is evil.
Let me put it this way. In the worst case (project uses BK, you are incompatible with the free BK license), you have to purchase a TOOL to be able to contribute to an open-source project.
You CANNOT contribute to some open-source project unless you pay some_company for access to it!
There may be numerous reasons why one would not want to purchase access (it not sold in one's local store, the developer does not trust his/her CC# to the internet, etc. etc.)
So I agree with Performer Guy, for other reasons though. I can see project owners running away from BK from now on.
A different and more documented view can be found here:
r ig ht.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copy
Just a few relevant snippets:
The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.
So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.
But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!
Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.
We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else. Copying a dollar bill in a color copier is effectively equivalent to shaving a small fraction off of every other dollar and adding these fractions together to make one dollar. Naturally, we consider this wrong.
By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
---
Please, go on and read the full article. It might offer you some insights.
But you can profit! You can use linux and save the money you pay to M$. And help the rest by reducing the virus rampage.
I want the research efforts of government to be open enough that we all have an equal chance of becoming millionaires.Ah! getting rich off selling someone else's work! What a marvellous and novel idea...
I have a suggestion for you: go to LasVegas, you might just WIN BIG without much effort. : ))
sighJust after reading the article on yahoo I sent a letter to the address found on sonymusic.com.
r y&ncid= 582&e=2&cid=582&u=/nm/20020r ight_dc_4) about the recent action of RIAA against ISPs
If anyone knows of more addresses of sony, please post them in a reply. thanks.
The letter:
Hi,
I read a news story today
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto
816/wr_nm/media_copy
for not censoring the web. I find it a very dim move on the side of RIAA and
would like to let you, a member of RIAA, know of why things happen as they
do today and why your record sales plummet.
1. I am not buying any CDs from a RIAA label, for over 2 years now. You guys
suck and the music you make is awful. Continuing making stupid moves like the
one above is definitely not going to change my attitude. So many other people
feel, and if you continue ignoring your customers you will end up a dead
company.
2. I am not buying any of SONY hardware, which happens to be very nice
hardware by the way. I made this commitment because I do not want to support
corporations that think the majority of their customers are evil puny thieves. I
am sure many more people feel this way. I had a few choices over the last few
years when buying portable cd-roms and cd drives for my computers and my friends
and I first made sure I did not buy SONY and also told all my friends not to buy
SONY hardware either. There are plenty of hardware manufacturers out there.
So would you listen to some good advice. Continuing to be part of this cartel of
thugs (RIAA) is a shame for you and I urge you to get out of it while you have
not been totally discredited as a company. Overpricing a bad product (poor
content music CDs), calling your customers thieves, attempting to destroy the
Internet by imposing ridiculous censorship, lobbying ridiculous laws that stifle
the freedom of people is not something people are taking lightly. Sometime in
the future, when you see 'FUCK RIAA' posters on the streets, think about your
business model. Think about why people dislike your company.
Why not get off this sinking ship NOW?
Sincerely,
Alexandru Botezatu,
Sotfware engineer,
Europe.
Moreover, even if you made the effort and deleted it, a critical update from M$ at one point would reinstall it without asking.
Perhaps the only thing the RIAA want is to wreak havoc on the Internet so they could maintain their distribution channel?
The Internet as an open, unregulated and friendly network is the biggest threat to their current business model.
Perhaps there are other entities/companies that find the mere existence of Internet (as it has been so far) a big inconvenience.
Please, not everyone lives in AmeriKa and has $300 to shell out for an O/S. So would you stop being an ignorant elitist and climb back into your hi-tech cave. Thank you.
Umm as I was going to read the article, thinking oh wow let's see some unbiased reporting, I read the title: The Cult of Linux!
I guess then I am a follower of RMS High Templar. So fear my wrath!
Could you be more specific about the compromising gotcha's?
[snip] also makes it difficult to read--which of course means more debugging time required.Umm difficult to read depends on who wrote and who is writing. I often find perl code easier to read than c/c++ although I have been programming c/c++ more than perl.
how is this:
# find customer id$custid = $input =~
more difficult than:
pos = strstr( input, "CUSTID=" );if( pos > 0 ){
pos1 = pos+7;
while( (input[pos1++] > 'a' && input[pos1] < 'Z') || (input[pos1] > '0' && input[pos1] < '9') );
}
custid = new char[ pos1-pos+1 ];
strncpy( custid, input+pos, pos1-pos );
custid[ pos1-pos ] = 0;