I acquired one of those signatures, and since it's a original (and the GPL didn't fit on the sheet of paper), it is a transfer of ownership and copyright.
Hereby I re-release it under the standard BSD license.
It depends on your perspective. In the Star Wars utopian world (bear with me, I'm not even a fan) the folks talk to the computer, the computer programs. I agree with this view on the future of programming. What I'm saying is, in the end, be it in 50 ("tech singularity"), 100 or 500 years, it is all about Concept. It is about -what- you want the computer to do, not how it's implemented. To that effect, the movement from (I'm skipping steps) assembler, C, Basic, Visual Foobar and click and drag is natural. This is just another perspective. I don't think there's a good or bad here. It reminds me of my old maths teacher, who was disgruntled with calculators, because the kids didn't learn how do it theirselves anymore. However, they used the available brain capacity to develop theselves on other (higher?) areas, such as programming. You are just the next cycle in the line of generations. You have mastered the programming of "calculators", yet now are disgruntled with people who skip that step. I'm disappointed that in modern times people still fail to see past their own generation, and fear change when there is no good or bad. If you want a "good or bad" statement, I think it's good, because the newer generations now have more available braintime for the end product, the concept, instead of the nuts and bolts.
"It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted."
Funnily it's the tradional enterprise software experts who rage against the "unsecure" "hype" "for which the technology is unfit" that is web 2.0. I doubt their motives, but the marketeers feed them plenty of hype word ammo.
You are saying the Slashdot crowd doesn't understand the costs and other factors of local economies.
This same crowd his been discussing to death and is being subject to outsourcing to India and other cheaper local economies.
I think it is you who is in denial. Your textbook economics come from a time when there was no global economy the scale we're now in, and there was no Internet. It is outdated.
Now you can say, hey, play by my rules and textbook, because I have local costs, you dummy, and stick to the old world, and wither and die.
It won't work because consumers will vote with their wallets.
If another economy offers it cheaper, you better addapt instead of turn into a missionary and try to lock local markets in denial of global forces. It doesn't even matter if you're right. It just won't work.
I agree it is not necessarily a good thing. I live in a country where we have to compete with countries which hardly have any social security and low taxes/loose laws aimed at bringing quick succes at the expensive of the environment or even rights of the people. The consumers vote with their wallets for products produced under the the most poluting, least social local environments.
I'm using this technique to animate avatars in the project seen in the sig (that part is not out of Subversion yet). I also tried to avoid XML in the beginning, to avoid overload, for the same reasons as you point out. However, when things start to get more complex, you need to send multiple values and stuff like parameters, and XML is the answer. For really simple stuff, I agree responseText is sufficient. When more starts to get going on, for starters you need to envelop the messages with order/timestamps. At one point you get such a complex string to parse, you're better of using XML, unless you'd like to reinvent the wheel.
>No he is simply getting less tolerant of "sloppy" programming.
Some argue the entire Linux kernel is a monolitic hack (Tanenbaum).
Some argue that FreeBSD is a much cleaner, secure system.
Combined, some even argue that Linux is the celeberation of sloppy programming.
I'm no expert as they are, but they're all incredible smart people, and they all have credible arguments (for e.g. the above), but only Linus is calling the other incompetent.
Please do my dishes, to prove you're right.
So far I got responses in the range of 'for money' to 'do your own f*cking dishes', which is not satisfactory.
If you don't do my dishes, I consider that a huge insult to all dishwashers. How dare you? You are wrong.
There are many different motivations for os software developers. For instance the "itch", or improving skills. What you get is the result of the itch because it's copyable.
None of these motivations apply for service people. I have yet to find the helldesk person who at evenings gives support because of the challenge, or whatever.
Anyone knows great service is, well, great. You observed it too, and I agree.
But what do you suggest?
You can't possibly expect that people will start volunteer support jobs.
I'd like that, but this is planet Earth.
I don't see a solution, you just note the problem.
Your note suggests you don't want to pay for support, i.e. you want filantropists to work for you. Or helldesk persons who want to train their skills. I also like someone to do my dishes. That would be great.
Uhm, why would anyone spread FUD about what he's currently doing by choice? That's ridiculous and hardly an impressive introduction.
> Ummm, I was coding web apps well before AJAX became "the thing". Am I less experienced at writing things for AJAX, yes, it hasn't really been en vogue as long as JSP/Java. Am I a pretty experienced developer and web developer who picked up AJAX because it could enhance his apps, yes. You (and many others) seem to have this concept that AJAX is something truly different from the web application point of view.
You're giving me the "I'm so experienced you can't possibly compherend, newby". Which is funny when thrown at someone from age-old Gopher times;)
Yes I've been where you've been, and beyond. If you can't see it, that's ok and you're stuck. Which is also funny because the same thing happened when Mosaic 0.9b was released. And when Java was released. Maybe you're just afraid that something comes along that changes the value of your skill set.
The number of cracks will rise because of AJAX hacking.
It's not only the interface and usability which takes a leap in complexity if you want to keep stuff working.
First, you have data communication on the background, for everyone curious to see. Second, there's a leap in usage and development and thus potential for crackers. Last, the average AJAX developer is inexperienced.
Re:Submitter waited for this?
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
I find the interfaces that Google builts seriously flawed, from a usability point from view. This arises from their desire and reputation to build basic, no-nonsense pages. However, if you built -real- web applications which are more complex than search interface-wise, it is a denial to try to continue such a method of building and a denial of age-old interface wishdom. You should design your axioma top-down to contro such complexity, not start with simplicity and keep adding stuff. Then at one point, where Google Search was long finished, your axioma doesn't work anymore and you create more mess with anything you try to patch. Actually, if they'd apply the age-old axioma, their interface would be less cluttered, much more cognitive, and not loaded with custom work-arounds.
Somewhere there must be a dark cynical joke in this.
Here we have Linux, the accumulation of many volunteer hackers, and the only ones earning big, BIG money are... the lawyers.
The GPL didn't mention anything about THAT!
>Even criminals have costs so if they can make a profit after paying their hosting and electricity and hardware and man power with just 25 dollar per 10 thousand machines then the cost and labour of infecting a windows machine must truly be trivial.
There is little to no relation between the investment and the number of captured machines; it is about the 'quality' of the exploit. A kid can do it from the attic using his dad's old computer and no hosting but what botnets and unverified credit card numbers can provide.
Thanks for the bug report, I appreciate that. I'm developing for Firefox/IE, and am planning to patch it for other browsers before release. The same problem occurs in Opera.
Did you expect it to have the same functionality right away?
I think that is invalid argumentation. You dislike AJAX apps, for some reason (why not state it), and then you use this argument. It seems kinda silly.
Even richest-off-all Microsoft, with their follow-don't-lead attitude, do it in versions. We all know how they do it since Word 1.0, Windows 3.0, Internet Explorer 3.0 (breaking-point versions) and need I go on? Would you like to judge the inherent potential of their next phased product line based on the initial versions limitated functionality, and not beyond? How strange. It is a starting point, man!
I'd say if you use this line of argumentation for New Stuff (tm), you're unfit for the field, and Slashdot. Imagine where we'd be if this cynical approach would have been leading the last decades. For starters we'd still be staring at monochrome monitors because VGA will lead nowhere.
I disagree. As someone who was around from Mosaic 0.9b, I find the irony from so called power users towards AJAX rather irritating.
There are two types. One: Oooh, I'm so experienced, I witnessed how, from the David Siegel's "Making Killer Web Site" area, people can make really crap stuff using the tools provided for them. Yes. I can also predict that, if you give them more powerful tools which can brake the important simple "page" concept, it will go wrong. Ajax sucks and is what is "bevel" or "drop shadow" for amateur Photoshop users.
Two: It's all nice and stuff although why use that horrible crap when programming in X is so much superior, and I don't see it particularly changing things.
Reply to one: Go back to DOS, you'll like it. I'm here for the good stuff that comes out of it and like advancement.
Second: You're thinking in the box, and it is a limited box. You're thinking: With Ajax one can have all these little interfaces and stuff like rss feeds updated realtime. I'm thinking that the new paradigm as opposed to one where requests are served, and the user/request is gone/destroyed, will lead to types of applications which are fundamentally different. Now you will ask: what types? and this is of course exactly the question which can't be answered, but paradoxically at the same time provides the "revolutionary" potential. If people wouldn't have become so goddamn cynical. However the fact that people rushed to the gold the end of last century, and the same people rushed away again, is irrelevant to the technial potentials of DHTML/AJAX. It ain't a revolution of course, if you consider now and then, you can order from Amazon and read Slashdot the same way, nor will you wake up one morning with lots of cash, while hopefully Frenchies will not be hurrying you to the guillotine. I'll admit that.
Looking at the net today, it can be changed to: IT-folks and webmasters not trying to fool you, but trying to be funny.
Up next: Jerry Seinfeld making webpages.
I have to admit though, this one was quite good.
I hope potential employers someday finaly realize that the biggest problem getting me to work for 20-century style businesses who failed to enter the 21th is that they are loaded with suits who gave up their personality and individuality for..what? They should team up to offer style tips for them lemming suits.
That's nice. In the real world the hairdresser earns money, the open source programmer doesn't. Perhaps that's because the hairdresser isn't occupied 99,9% of the time with inventing new styles, with the actual hairdressing part only to pay for his style creation? This is exactly the GNU out-of-touchness with reality, inflicted upon themselves to spindoctor their fanatic points, that bothers me.
Me, I don't see a particular difference between the two licences for programmers.
It will be you and your buddies coding, anyway.
If you want to earn money, buy a lottery ticket. You can earn money with open source, if you're the one in 1 million coders who's lucky.
Me, I don't mind if EvilCorp takes my stuff and tries to sell it with their added value to monkeys on Mars, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how this effects my life, or makes my code less free. BSD is for strong people who believe in themselves.
What gives the MIT/X/BSD licenses the edge for me is that there are no hippies or fanatics around (see: above) telling me what to think and do or otherwise trying to sell me their truth. Really. I find it particularly disturbing that according to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I must be a hippie for the good of mankind and sell T-shirts. This view is outdated, and was out of this world to start with. Although I agree I can think up an argument why humanity needs a free operating system, for 99,9% of the open source projects, humanity will fair just fine without it. Besides that, try to sell this hippie story to a victim of war, poverty or aids in Africa, just to alter that perspective. Last but not least, humanity got out of the situation where they sit around fires and slept in caves, by specializing and inventing money as a means of exchange. For Stallman, programmers need to step out of that. That's fine, but the rest of the world doesn't. My hairdresser doesn't have the same attitude, he wants my money.
Slashdot Mirror
I acquired one of those signatures, and since it's a original (and the GPL didn't fit on the sheet of paper), it is a transfer of ownership and copyright. Hereby I re-release it under the standard BSD license.
It depends on your perspective. In the Star Wars utopian world (bear with me, I'm not even a fan) the folks talk to the computer, the computer programs. I agree with this view on the future of programming. What I'm saying is, in the end, be it in 50 ("tech singularity"), 100 or 500 years, it is all about Concept. It is about -what- you want the computer to do, not how it's implemented. To that effect, the movement from (I'm skipping steps) assembler, C, Basic, Visual Foobar and click and drag is natural. This is just another perspective. I don't think there's a good or bad here. It reminds me of my old maths teacher, who was disgruntled with calculators, because the kids didn't learn how do it theirselves anymore. However, they used the available brain capacity to develop theselves on other (higher?) areas, such as programming. You are just the next cycle in the line of generations. You have mastered the programming of "calculators", yet now are disgruntled with people who skip that step. I'm disappointed that in modern times people still fail to see past their own generation, and fear change when there is no good or bad. If you want a "good or bad" statement, I think it's good, because the newer generations now have more available braintime for the end product, the concept, instead of the nuts and bolts.
"It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted."
Funnily it's the tradional enterprise software experts who rage against the "unsecure" "hype" "for which the technology is unfit" that is web 2.0. I doubt their motives, but the marketeers feed them plenty of hype word ammo.
You are saying the Slashdot crowd doesn't understand the costs and other factors of local economies.
This same crowd his been discussing to death and is being subject to outsourcing to India and other cheaper local economies.
I think it is you who is in denial. Your textbook economics come from a time when there was no global economy the scale we're now in, and there was no Internet. It is outdated.
Now you can say, hey, play by my rules and textbook, because I have local costs, you dummy, and stick to the old world, and wither and die.
It won't work because consumers will vote with their wallets.
If another economy offers it cheaper, you better addapt instead of turn into a missionary and try to lock local markets in denial of global forces. It doesn't even matter if you're right. It just won't work.
I agree it is not necessarily a good thing. I live in a country where we have to compete with countries which hardly have any social security and low taxes/loose laws aimed at bringing quick succes at the expensive of the environment or even rights of the people. The consumers vote with their wallets for products produced under the the most poluting, least social local environments.
I'm using this technique to animate avatars in the project seen in the sig (that part is not out of Subversion yet). I also tried to avoid XML in the beginning, to avoid overload, for the same reasons as you point out. However, when things start to get more complex, you need to send multiple values and stuff like parameters, and XML is the answer. For really simple stuff, I agree responseText is sufficient. When more starts to get going on, for starters you need to envelop the messages with order/timestamps. At one point you get such a complex string to parse, you're better of using XML, unless you'd like to reinvent the wheel.
>No he is simply getting less tolerant of "sloppy" programming.
Some argue the entire Linux kernel is a monolitic hack (Tanenbaum).
Some argue that FreeBSD is a much cleaner, secure system.
Combined, some even argue that Linux is the celeberation of sloppy programming.
I'm no expert as they are, but they're all incredible smart people, and they all have credible arguments (for e.g. the above), but only Linus is calling the other incompetent.
Please do my dishes, to prove you're right.
So far I got responses in the range of 'for money' to 'do your own f*cking dishes', which is not satisfactory.
If you don't do my dishes, I consider that a huge insult to all dishwashers. How dare you? You are wrong.
None of these motivations apply for service people. I have yet to find the helldesk person who at evenings gives support because of the challenge, or whatever.
But what do you suggest?
You can't possibly expect that people will start volunteer support jobs.
I'd like that, but this is planet Earth.
I don't see a solution, you just note the problem.
Your note suggests you don't want to pay for support, i.e. you want filantropists to work for you. Or helldesk persons who want to train their skills. I also like someone to do my dishes. That would be great.
Why http when you got gopher?
Uhm, why would anyone spread FUD about what he's currently doing by choice? That's ridiculous and hardly an impressive introduction.
> Ummm, I was coding web apps well before AJAX became "the thing". Am I less experienced at writing things for AJAX, yes, it hasn't really been en vogue as long as JSP/Java. Am I a pretty experienced developer and web developer who picked up AJAX because it could enhance his apps, yes. You (and many others) seem to have this concept that AJAX is something truly different from the web application point of view.
You're giving me the "I'm so experienced you can't possibly compherend, newby". Which is funny when thrown at someone from age-old Gopher times ;)
Yes I've been where you've been, and beyond. If you can't see it, that's ok and you're stuck. Which is also funny because the same thing happened when Mosaic 0.9b was released. And when Java was released. Maybe you're just afraid that something comes along that changes the value of your skill set.
The number of cracks will rise because of AJAX hacking.
It's not only the interface and usability which takes a leap in complexity if you want to keep stuff working.
First, you have data communication on the background, for everyone curious to see. Second, there's a leap in usage and development and thus potential for crackers. Last, the average AJAX developer is inexperienced.
I find the interfaces that Google builts seriously flawed, from a usability point from view. This arises from their desire and reputation to build basic, no-nonsense pages. However, if you built -real- web applications which are more complex than search interface-wise, it is a denial to try to continue such a method of building and a denial of age-old interface wishdom. You should design your axioma top-down to contro such complexity, not start with simplicity and keep adding stuff. Then at one point, where Google Search was long finished, your axioma doesn't work anymore and you create more mess with anything you try to patch. Actually, if they'd apply the age-old axioma, their interface would be less cluttered, much more cognitive, and not loaded with custom work-arounds.
Somewhere there must be a dark cynical joke in this.
Here we have Linux, the accumulation of many volunteer hackers, and the only ones earning big, BIG money are... the lawyers.
The GPL didn't mention anything about THAT!
There is little to no relation between the investment and the number of captured machines; it is about the 'quality' of the exploit. A kid can do it from the attic using his dad's old computer and no hosting but what botnets and unverified credit card numbers can provide.
Thanks for the bug report, I appreciate that. I'm developing for Firefox/IE, and am planning to patch it for other browsers before release. The same problem occurs in Opera.
I think that is invalid argumentation. You dislike AJAX apps, for some reason (why not state it), and then you use this argument. It seems kinda silly.
Even richest-off-all Microsoft, with their follow-don't-lead attitude, do it in versions. We all know how they do it since Word 1.0, Windows 3.0, Internet Explorer 3.0 (breaking-point versions) and need I go on? Would you like to judge the inherent potential of their next phased product line based on the initial versions limitated functionality, and not beyond? How strange. It is a starting point, man!
I'd say if you use this line of argumentation for New Stuff (tm), you're unfit for the field, and Slashdot. Imagine where we'd be if this cynical approach would have been leading the last decades. For starters we'd still be staring at monochrome monitors because VGA will lead nowhere.
The Internet for consumers is a hack. Will you get off?
There are two types. One: Oooh, I'm so experienced, I witnessed how, from the David Siegel's "Making Killer Web Site" area, people can make really crap stuff using the tools provided for them. Yes. I can also predict that, if you give them more powerful tools which can brake the important simple "page" concept, it will go wrong. Ajax sucks and is what is "bevel" or "drop shadow" for amateur Photoshop users.
Two: It's all nice and stuff although why use that horrible crap when programming in X is so much superior, and I don't see it particularly changing things.
Reply to one: Go back to DOS, you'll like it. I'm here for the good stuff that comes out of it and like advancement.
Second: You're thinking in the box, and it is a limited box. You're thinking: With Ajax one can have all these little interfaces and stuff like rss feeds updated realtime. I'm thinking that the new paradigm as opposed to one where requests are served, and the user/request is gone/destroyed, will lead to types of applications which are fundamentally different. Now you will ask: what types? and this is of course exactly the question which can't be answered, but paradoxically at the same time provides the "revolutionary" potential. If people wouldn't have become so goddamn cynical. However the fact that people rushed to the gold the end of last century, and the same people rushed away again, is irrelevant to the technial potentials of DHTML/AJAX. It ain't a revolution of course, if you consider now and then, you can order from Amazon and read Slashdot the same way, nor will you wake up one morning with lots of cash, while hopefully Frenchies will not be hurrying you to the guillotine. I'll admit that.
Looking at the net today, it can be changed to: IT-folks and webmasters not trying to fool you, but trying to be funny.
Up next: Jerry Seinfeld making webpages.
I have to admit though, this one was quite good.
I hope potential employers someday finaly realize that the biggest problem getting me to work for 20-century style businesses who failed to enter the 21th is that they are loaded with suits who gave up their personality and individuality for..what? They should team up to offer style tips for them lemming suits.
$500,000,000 has my name all written over it :) :) :)
That's nice. In the real world the hairdresser earns money, the open source programmer doesn't. Perhaps that's because the hairdresser isn't occupied 99,9% of the time with inventing new styles, with the actual hairdressing part only to pay for his style creation? This is exactly the GNU out-of-touchness with reality, inflicted upon themselves to spindoctor their fanatic points, that bothers me.
Me, I don't see a particular difference between the two licences for programmers.
It will be you and your buddies coding, anyway.
If you want to earn money, buy a lottery ticket. You can earn money with open source, if you're the one in 1 million coders who's lucky.
Me, I don't mind if EvilCorp takes my stuff and tries to sell it with their added value to monkeys on Mars, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how this effects my life, or makes my code less free. BSD is for strong people who believe in themselves.
What gives the MIT/X/BSD licenses the edge for me is that there are no hippies or fanatics around (see: above) telling me what to think and do or otherwise trying to sell me their truth. Really. I find it particularly disturbing that according to Stallman, if I'm a hairdresser or a butcher I can sell my services, if I'm a programmer I must be a hippie for the good of mankind and sell T-shirts. This view is outdated, and was out of this world to start with. Although I agree I can think up an argument why humanity needs a free operating system, for 99,9% of the open source projects, humanity will fair just fine without it. Besides that, try to sell this hippie story to a victim of war, poverty or aids in Africa, just to alter that perspective. Last but not least, humanity got out of the situation where they sit around fires and slept in caves, by specializing and inventing money as a means of exchange. For Stallman, programmers need to step out of that. That's fine, but the rest of the world doesn't. My hairdresser doesn't have the same attitude, he wants my money.
I'd love to see it happen. It would be a celebrity deathmatch! Fine entertainment for sure.
What weapons would they pick? So far I got:
Balmer: chair
Anyone?