Source code is a language that allows programmers to communicate both amongst themselves and to the computer. Consistency is desirable for the same reasons that non-lossy communications channels are desirable over lossy ones. If I can see the exact source code that the author of the code saw, then I have a lower probability of making an error in understanding the source code.
Regulating a specific number of spaces is sub-optimal. It totally removes a coders flexibility to see the code how they prefer.
I don't want to see the code 'how I prefer'; I want to see all the information that the author of the code was trying to communicate to me. This includes the positioning of text.
If you make demands of volunteers, as if you're entitled to anything, you usually deserve the reaction you get. Exceptions are cases where you are actually entitled to something (e.g. GPL compliance).
Seriously, if you're having trouble getting free ad-hoc volunteer support (which you are not by any means entitled to), hire a consultant to help you. I'm sure if you went to Scriptlance or some similar site, you could get a decent rate.
... if you have a bug you'd know it. This one is false, very false. It is quite possible for a bug to exist and to not be demonstrable under any circumstances.
Example: RC4. The keystream was supposedly indistinguishable from random data. People believed this for the good part of a decade, but they were wrong.
There's also that ssh1 key parsing bug that was found a few years ago.
risking the lives of a handful of astronauts is nothing if there's a chance it will make people feel patriotic and boost the presidential approval ratings a little bit more.
I've never quite understood that. What does patriotism have to do with approval of the incumbant? Aren't people proud of the fact that if the people in power screw with them, they have the power to oust them?
It's a common misconception that encryption is supposed to be 'unbreakable' (for some large value of 'unbreakable'), in all instances. In the real world of security (I.E. DoD etc...) it's quite common to have the complexity and difficulty of the cipher or code to match the 'speed value' (to coin a term) of the information. For example, diplomatic messages need to be kept hidden essentially forever - thus strong encryption. Tactical communications between Army formations or Navy ships can have a much lesser grade of encryption applied because their value is almost always rendered moot before they can be broken.
Do you know first-hand that this is true and is the policy?
The 'need' for ultra-strong, resist-attack forever grade encryption for personal use is an artifact of the (not uncommon) geek need to be [bigger|faster|stronger] than anyone else when it comes to computer stuff.
No. Well, yes it is, but it's not only a 'geek artifact'. On the Internet, if we need any cryptography at all, we need the strongest cryptography we can find, because we never know how capable our adversaries are. Actually, we know a little about our adversaries' capabilities: any adversary is capable of at least every attack that has ever been published, and possibly some attacks that haven't. Whenever we design a system using strong cryptography, we are designing the system with knowledge of current attacks. However, the system will be subjected to both current attacks and future attacks, so we need a margin of security[1] that is large enough that we can have confidence that the system will not be practically breakable while it is still in use.
Basically, we need strong cryptography because designing systems against future, unknown attacks using knowledge of current, known attacks. This is harder than it looks.
-----
[1] By "margin of security", I mean, loosely, the difference between the limit of computing power that we assume will be available to any adversary, and the amount of computing power that we assume will be required to break the system.
I don't know, but who says you have to use OO to read/write ODF documents? Heck, with ODF standardized, it suddenly becomes feasible to market a word processor that is designed specifically for the blind.
All this talk about a lack of accessibility features being a reason to stay with MS Office formats is extremely short-sighted.
You're missing the point: What if, in 2106, people are running Debian instead of Windows? Having a wdviewer.exe binary is no better than having an old CD of MS Office (or a copy of Scribble! on a floppy disk) that doesn't run on available hardware.
The fact that an OpenDocument editor could have the necessary features is almost certainly true, and I happen to think the whole argument has a sort of "think of the children" ring to it. But when you propose an actual switchover in an important application, you have to get all your ducks in a row. You can't just tell people not to worry about a real problem just because it could be solved.
Yes, but unlike with proprietary software, if the free software you're considering is missing a feature you need, you don't have to dismiss the software; You can spend some money to get somebody to implement the feature. In the long run, it's still smarter than dealing with MS.
Slashdot Mirror
What if someone ports Vi to Emacs?
I don't think Visual Studio uses variable-width fonts. At least, not by default. Even Microsoft isn't that insane.
Source code is a language that allows programmers to communicate both amongst themselves and to the computer. Consistency is desirable for the same reasons that non-lossy communications channels are desirable over lossy ones. If I can see the exact source code that the author of the code saw, then I have a lower probability of making an error in understanding the source code.
I don't want to see the code 'how I prefer'; I want to see all the information that the author of the code was trying to communicate to me. This includes the positioning of text.
Agreed, but it won't happen unless:
If you make demands of volunteers, as if you're entitled to anything, you usually deserve the reaction you get. Exceptions are cases where you are actually entitled to something (e.g. GPL compliance).
Thanks to AT&T and Google Maps, a black van will arrive shortly.
Seriously, if you're having trouble getting free ad-hoc volunteer support (which you are not by any means entitled to), hire a consultant to help you. I'm sure if you went to Scriptlance or some similar site, you could get a decent rate.
You can, but it'll have been 16 seconds since you hit 'reply'. Forever.
Just what we need... to break the vast majority of URLs on the web. Brillant!
Not quite. Apparently the hashes are an ad-hoc mechanism created specifically for cddb, and there *are* collisions.
Example: RC4. The keystream was supposedly indistinguishable from random data. People believed this for the good part of a decade, but they were wrong.
There's also that ssh1 key parsing bug that was found a few years ago.
I agree, but not in the way you think.
You must be new here.
I've never quite understood that. What does patriotism have to do with approval of the incumbant? Aren't people proud of the fact that if the people in power screw with them, they have the power to oust them?
Bullshit. Corel was having financial hardship when it started its Linux division.
Are sports scores copyrightable? I'd expect them to fall under "mere facts".
Because Linux only runs on x86.
Do you know first-hand that this is true and is the policy?
No. Well, yes it is, but it's not only a 'geek artifact'. On the Internet, if we need any cryptography at all, we need the strongest cryptography we can find, because we never know how capable our adversaries are. Actually, we know a little about our adversaries' capabilities: any adversary is capable of at least every attack that has ever been published, and possibly some attacks that haven't. Whenever we design a system using strong cryptography, we are designing the system with knowledge of current attacks. However, the system will be subjected to both current attacks and future attacks, so we need a margin of security[1] that is large enough that we can have confidence that the system will not be practically breakable while it is still in use.
Basically, we need strong cryptography because designing systems against future, unknown attacks using knowledge of current, known attacks. This is harder than it looks.
-----
[1] By "margin of security", I mean, loosely, the difference between the limit of computing power that we assume will be available to any adversary, and the amount of computing power that we assume will be required to break the system.
You just gave away your lack of understanding of sonames.
Damn. Apparently https://www.werkshop.com/sarahmp3/index.jsp and https://www.werkshop.com/sarahmp3/ aren't the same thing.
Indeed. It's happening, albeit slowly; You can get some artists' music in FLAC format now.
I don't know, but who says you have to use OO to read/write ODF documents? Heck, with ODF standardized, it suddenly becomes feasible to market a word processor that is designed specifically for the blind.
All this talk about a lack of accessibility features being a reason to stay with MS Office formats is extremely short-sighted.
You're missing the point: What if, in 2106, people are running Debian instead of Windows? Having a wdviewer.exe binary is no better than having an old CD of MS Office (or a copy of Scribble! on a floppy disk) that doesn't run on available hardware.
Yes, but unlike with proprietary software, if the free software you're considering is missing a feature you need, you don't have to dismiss the software; You can spend some money to get somebody to implement the feature. In the long run, it's still smarter than dealing with MS.
From the linked page:
It's for a kid's colouring book. I don't think it has to be that accurate.