But the forks aren't allowed to call their product 'MySQL'. So pointy-haired bosses won't be any more confused by (or even aware of) these other products, than they are of, say Firefox derivatives like Flock and Camino.
This particular piece of news doesn't look too good on MySQL, but the GP has it right: MySQL is a brand. This is (unfortunately) important. It's on practically every hosted server, people have heard of it and trust it. I've read the arguments that PostgreSQL is superior, but if you're trying to sell FOSS to someone, it really helps if they've heard of the product. (As a web dev, I have a similar problem trying to sell Django to clients who think they want asp.net.)
You can't just go and shovel HTML through a different CSS renderer to get a different interface [emphasis added]
Depends what you mean by "interface". HTML is mostly rich text, and that can be re-purposed quite easily for different devices. This is the main reason for separating out the presentation and interactivity. Without either, you should still have a working website.
Navigation can be a problem, but in essence it's just a list of links (you *are* marking up your nav as a list, of course) so your user-agent should be able to handle that in an appropriate way.
Pagination is purely a matter of taste: by now most people have realised you don't write a book for a single web page, or even as much text as you'd have on a magazine page. Page length should not really be a problem for any specific user agent, even a phone.
Interactivity is a murkier kettle of fish (although it has nothing to do with CSS), but the rise of NoScript is making developers more aware of how their sites should work on user agents where javascript is unavailable (ie they should still work! - the text at least should still be reachable).
I have no idea what you mean about changing the meaning for specific media - sounds like black hat SEO to me.
This is not just theoretical - Opera Mobile, for example, makes a pretty good job of rendering properly built sites for a tiny screen. With many sites, including ones I have built, I find it even preserves enough of the CSS to maintain the general "look" of the site, while nicely reflowing the text. Not sure how it would manage to do that with a table based layout, a pure Flash site, or whatever the heck you have in mind.
Put simply: I utterly disagree with you. From where I'm sitting, as the type of web-enabled devices is diversifying, the recent push for separation of content and presentation is starting to pay off.
HTML was supposed to be a markup language but it is a layout language now. So now we have an ok markup language being shoehorned into a presentation langauge and let's throw some scripting on top of that.
windows only product supporting browsers from Microsoft....(although it's where 99% of the issues will be)
True, but Microsoft acknowledge this now. IE8 is probably the most compliant browser there has ever been with regard to CSS 2.1. If you find an inconsistent rendering between Firefox and IE8, chances are it'll be Firefox that's at fault. This is very good news. We can actually confidently use 'advanced' CSS that has been part of the CSS spec and supported by other browsers for years. (With some graceful degradation for IE6, and maybe a few hacks for IE7.)
However, AFAIK they have barely touched the javascript engine, which is why IE8's ACID 3 score is so low. I was going to say, let's hope that gets remedied quickly, but I realise some people round here would probably prefer Internet Explorer died a horrible but not too protracted death. I just want people to visit my sites with a browser that understands what I'm trying to get it to do. Bring the javascript up to scratch (and get everyone to upgrade - ha!) and it won't really matter what browser people are using.
IANAL but isn't it the case that an outcome judged on "balance of probabilities" (which I believe is the case for libel) is an easier win for the prosecution than one requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt"? Or, to put it another way, since it's easier for an accuser to win such cases, isn't it also easier for them to intimidate with legal threats someone who may be right but who can't afford to go to trial?
The article is making the point that the UK legal system make it impracticable for most people to defend themselves from accusations of libel, no matter whether what they've written is actually libellous or... you know... the truth.
I have the opposite problem. I am on a mailing list which is pretty smart about not sending duplicates. But on a fairly regular basis I forget to "reply all" and have to re-send the mail to the entire list, inevitably resulting in the first recipient complaining about getting two copies of my mail. (Damn, I thought this story was going to turn out to be more interesting. Maybe I ought not to send it.)
the "are you sure you want to delete this file?" dialogue box
Boy, I hate that dialogue box. There's already a recyle bin. Why not add an extra "Are you sure you want me to show you the message asking if you really want to delete this?" dialogue, too?
I win. I always hibernate my machines. I even taught the designers at my achingly ethical workplace how to hibernate their macs (it's even less intuitive than in Vista).
through EU guidelines they have to abide to Dutch consumer laws when the purchase is made in the Netherlands. Or they have to stop selling stuff to the Dutch.
Well, it's called leadership. I hated Tony Blair with a fiery passion, but he had it. Before Iraq he also had trust, which you need in order to say to people things like: in order to keep producing enough energy into the 21st century, we have to invest now in nuclear. I'm your leader, and I say we're going to do it.
But he pushed it too far, not by siding with Bush in itself, but by steamrollering the massive and visible opposition to the war.
Obama currently has a level of trust at least as high as Blair's used to be. It would be good to see him making some of these supposedly unpopular decisions, in such a way that even his detractors have to acknowledge his guts.
Slashdot Mirror
But the forks aren't allowed to call their product 'MySQL'. So pointy-haired bosses won't be any more confused by (or even aware of) these other products, than they are of, say Firefox derivatives like Flock and Camino.
I like your thinking.
This particular piece of news doesn't look too good on MySQL, but the GP has it right: MySQL is a brand. This is (unfortunately) important. It's on practically every hosted server, people have heard of it and trust it. I've read the arguments that PostgreSQL is superior, but if you're trying to sell FOSS to someone, it really helps if they've heard of the product. (As a web dev, I have a similar problem trying to sell Django to clients who think they want asp.net.)
Red Hat seems to be left as the sole successful high profile champion of an open source business model.
Mozilla?
What would stop Sun from merging any interesting development made on any of these forks back into their version?
Depends what you mean by "interface". HTML is mostly rich text, and that can be re-purposed quite easily for different devices. This is the main reason for separating out the presentation and interactivity. Without either, you should still have a working website.
Navigation can be a problem, but in essence it's just a list of links (you *are* marking up your nav as a list, of course) so your user-agent should be able to handle that in an appropriate way.
Pagination is purely a matter of taste: by now most people have realised you don't write a book for a single web page, or even as much text as you'd have on a magazine page. Page length should not really be a problem for any specific user agent, even a phone.
Interactivity is a murkier kettle of fish (although it has nothing to do with CSS), but the rise of NoScript is making developers more aware of how their sites should work on user agents where javascript is unavailable (ie they should still work! - the text at least should still be reachable).
I have no idea what you mean about changing the meaning for specific media - sounds like black hat SEO to me.
This is not just theoretical - Opera Mobile, for example, makes a pretty good job of rendering properly built sites for a tiny screen. With many sites, including ones I have built, I find it even preserves enough of the CSS to maintain the general "look" of the site, while nicely reflowing the text. Not sure how it would manage to do that with a table based layout, a pure Flash site, or whatever the heck you have in mind.
Put simply: I utterly disagree with you. From where I'm sitting, as the type of web-enabled devices is diversifying, the recent push for separation of content and presentation is starting to pay off.
HTML was supposed to be a markup language but it is a layout language now. So now we have an ok markup language being shoehorned into a presentation langauge and let's throw some scripting on top of that.
Erm, ever heard of CSS?
I HATE authors forcing font sizes smaller than I am comfortable with. [emphasis added]
Then stop using IE6. It's the only current browser where the font size can be forced (by setting it in pixels rather than a scalable unit).
The only way you're not going to have to test on each browser is when there's only one browser and it stops rev'ing versions.
That was essentially the situation before Firefox came along. So sue Mozilla!
windows only product supporting browsers from Microsoft....(although it's where 99% of the issues will be)
True, but Microsoft acknowledge this now. IE8 is probably the most compliant browser there has ever been with regard to CSS 2.1. If you find an inconsistent rendering between Firefox and IE8, chances are it'll be Firefox that's at fault. This is very good news. We can actually confidently use 'advanced' CSS that has been part of the CSS spec and supported by other browsers for years. (With some graceful degradation for IE6, and maybe a few hacks for IE7.)
However, AFAIK they have barely touched the javascript engine, which is why IE8's ACID 3 score is so low. I was going to say, let's hope that gets remedied quickly, but I realise some people round here would probably prefer Internet Explorer died a horrible but not too protracted death. I just want people to visit my sites with a browser that understands what I'm trying to get it to do. Bring the javascript up to scratch (and get everyone to upgrade - ha!) and it won't really matter what browser people are using.
That was some fun little experiment.
IANAL but isn't it the case that an outcome judged on "balance of probabilities" (which I believe is the case for libel) is an easier win for the prosecution than one requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt"? Or, to put it another way, since it's easier for an accuser to win such cases, isn't it also easier for them to intimidate with legal threats someone who may be right but who can't afford to go to trial?
In the immortal words of Eminem: "How much damage can you do with a pen?"
Whoosh!
The article is making the point that the UK legal system make it impracticable for most people to defend themselves from accusations of libel, no matter whether what they've written is actually libellous or... you know... the truth.
Doesn't matter if they were "combatants" or not - torture is still against the Geneva Convention.
There is no-one who deserves the death penalty.
I could back up my position with words, but why bother when you didn't?
if you hit Reply to All when you mean Reply
I have the opposite problem. I am on a mailing list which is pretty smart about not sending duplicates. But on a fairly regular basis I forget to "reply all" and have to re-send the mail to the entire list, inevitably resulting in the first recipient complaining about getting two copies of my mail. (Damn, I thought this story was going to turn out to be more interesting. Maybe I ought not to send it.)
Just where it's meant to be.
the "are you sure you want to delete this file?" dialogue box
Boy, I hate that dialogue box. There's already a recyle bin. Why not add an extra "Are you sure you want me to show you the message asking if you really want to delete this?" dialogue, too?
I win. I always hibernate my machines. I even taught the designers at my achingly ethical workplace how to hibernate their macs (it's even less intuitive than in Vista).
There may be an infinitesimal amount of humour in there...
No, it's the title of the next James Bond.
through EU guidelines they have to abide to Dutch consumer laws when the purchase is made in the Netherlands. Or they have to stop selling stuff to the Dutch.
Seems they chose option b)
It is common sense because the company providing you with internet access is free to terminate that access for any reason at all, or no reason
That's what you get for living in the "free West". In Soviet Russia, you terminate your own services.
Well, it's called leadership. I hated Tony Blair with a fiery passion, but he had it. Before Iraq he also had trust, which you need in order to say to people things like: in order to keep producing enough energy into the 21st century, we have to invest now in nuclear. I'm your leader, and I say we're going to do it.
But he pushed it too far, not by siding with Bush in itself, but by steamrollering the massive and visible opposition to the war.
Obama currently has a level of trust at least as high as Blair's used to be. It would be good to see him making some of these supposedly unpopular decisions, in such a way that even his detractors have to acknowledge his guts.