Those different file formats exist because it is appropriate to have a file format that suits the purpose of the application./etc/password and/etc/group are designed for exactly the purpose for which they are used, for example. It doesn't make much sense for apache to have a file format similar to, say, exim; they are applications with entirely different purposes.
You have conflated "syntax" and "data model" into "file format". It doesn't make sense for apache to have a file format similar to exim because their data models are different. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't share the same syntax.
You might as well say that there's no reason for Slashdot and Google to have the same syntax (HTML) because they serve completely different purposes. You are looking at the problem at the wrong level.
It isn't quite that simple, though you raise a good point. While it would be possible to represent all of the same information in XML, for example, that is represented in/etc/password, the exim config, and the apache config, it doesn't make sense to do so. While it might even make sense to take the larger and more complicated configs and unify their syntax, it is highly desirable to be able to use standard unix tools such as grep and cut to be able to get information from/etc/password and the like.
P.S. If I were a moderator, I'd mod the parent anonymous post up.
What's the real problem with/etc anyway? If you said "all the different and wacky file formats" then you're missing the forest for the trees. Those different file formats exist because it is appropriate to have a file format that suits the purpose of the application./etc/password and/etc/group are designed for exactly the purpose for which they are used, for example. It doesn't make much sense for apache to have a file format similar to, say, exim; they are applications with entirely different purposes.
The real problem is that the user doesn't automatically know how to correlate a process, configuration file, startup script, etc., and it affects more than just/etc. Suppose I am administering a Debian machine with CUPS, since I happen to have one handy. Something is wrong with printing. I have to somehow know all of the following:
1) Printing services are managed by CUPS. 2) To start and stop printing services, I need to run/etc/init.d/cupsys 3) If that doesn't work properly, the process to kill is named cupsd. 4) The config file for specific printers for CUPS is/etc/cups/printers.conf 5) The config file for the cups service as a whole is/etc/cups/cupsd.conf 6) To manage most things about CUPS (though not browsing and sharing), I don't really want to touch the files in/etc/cups but, rather, connect to http://localhost:631/ with a web browser.
Just for kicks, let's consider the same situation under MacOS X (10.3):
1) I can control pretty much everything about printing services (including browsing and sharing) from the Print & Fax section of the System Preferences 2) If I really need to mess with the config files, they are in/etc/cups, but I never do. 3) If I really need to manually start and stop printing services I use/System/Library/StartupItems/PrintingServices/Prin tingServices, but I never do. 4) If I really need to use the web interface to CUPS, it is still at http://localhost:631/
The really important thing here is that on a Mac, I don't even need to know that printing is handled by CUPS. The down side is that on any *nix, unlike Windows, I don't have a way of seeing all the services my machine is providing (to itself or the net). Of course, under Windows it's pretty hard to tell what a service is really for, or how to configure it. When you get right down to it, each system has some good ideas, but none of them have it right.
I want a system where I can get a list of running services (not just all processes), the ports on which they are listening (I don't care if they are TCP, UDP, Unix domain, whatever passes for IPC on Windows, or even Mach ports), and be able to trivially turn a service on, or off, or configure it with a simple commandline or a click of the mouse.
Give me the Windows services manager (with a console equivalent) with the ability to see through what interfaces (e.g. ports) that service is provided, the ability to configure when and how it is started (e.g. at which runlevel), the ability to configure it directly from there (e.g. bring up a custom configurator, a web browser with the appropriate URL, or a text editor on the right files with a double-click in the list). I don't care where the configuration is on disk (though this better integrate well with backup software), nor how it's stored (though there had better be a human-readable text format that can be exported and imported, if necessary).
Furthermore, there should be a separation of default configuration of user applications and configuration of services. Why does/etc/profile belong in the same place as/etc/inetd.conf? That gets back to the central question, of course, and I think the answer there is that each package should be responsible for managing its own (default and user) configuration and, similarly
The other reason Qt doesn't use STL is simply because when Qt was started the STL hadn't settled yet and was a PITA to use for cross platform stuff. So then made their own. Now they have to continue using and supporting their containers types. Their customers have too much code depending on it now.
That would be a more compelling argument if Qt4 were intended to be binary- or source-compatible with Qt3. It isn't. The API is changing, and it need not support their legacy STL replacement anymore.
Don't forget the Danger Hiptop, a.k.a. T-Mobile Sidekick. You can sign up to be a developer at no cost, and you'll be able to load your programs on your phone if you can convince Danger that what you are developing is of any real interest (not that tough). The SDK is Java so it works anywhere, and program loading is done via USB.
You can use ssh with explicit port forwarding, but it sounds like you'd benefit from using it as a SOCKS proxy. OpenSSH can provide a SOCKS4 proxy with the -D switch and PuTTY can provide a SOCKS5 proxy. I've found that this works quite nicely for most purposes.
Theodore Sturgeon (an SF author) said that 90% of everything is crap. This is known as Sturgeon's law, and tends to be pretty accurate regardless of context. The Sci-Fi channel is no exception. On the up side, it's usually possible to determine just from the previews/trailers/commercials which of their shows will be bad and which will not.
I've been very happy with the two Stargate series. I actually liked the two Dune miniseries (they weren't great, and I liked the David Lynch version better, but they had their appeal). The Battlestar Galactica miniseries was excellent and I have high hopes for the upcoming series. Farscape was fantastic, and I was very happy with the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries that came after long work on the part of the fans. On the other hand, 100% (with very little margin of error) of their original movies (not miniseries) are pure shit. Much of the stuff they play during the day (Dark Shadows, anyone?) is godawful. So it works out... 90% of the programming on the Sci-Fi Channel is crap.
I wouldn't normally think of this, but I was just at my parents' house for Thanksgiving and one of their pipes sprung a leak, resulting in a puddle in the basement. (It's lucky I was there, actually, since my parents don't go to the basement with any regularity. The guest room is in the basement, however, and I noticed the puddle before it became a flood.) They tried to find a plumber the day after Thanksgiving, and all they could find was someone who wanted $240/hour for emergency service. Fortunately, I was able to patch it temporarily with some rubber and a hose clamp.
It got me thinking, though, that I could do cut-rate (only $150/hour!) emergency plumbing and significantly improve my income. I wouldn't even have to be that good, just good enough to patch things until a real plumber was available for reasonable rates. Mostly idle thinking, but...
Gee, that's great. Fantastic. Except I have Linux running on a PowerPC. What's that? I'm SOL because those closed-source DLLs are for a different processor? Darn. Maybe this is a good thing after all.
...but I find it a little surprising that there is no mention of a concession over at JohnKerry.com. There is also no denial of a concession, so maybe it's just lazy Kerry people figuring that their work is done now.
In both the first presidential debate and the (only) vice-presidential debate the moderator asked a couple of questions that were essentially traps. They were opportunities for the candidate receiving the question to go really negative on his opponent. I found that surprising. I did not find it surprising that none of the candidates fell for it.
Most of the rest of the questions were fairly predictable, and they didn't matter a whole lot since the candidates were about 30% question-oriented and 70% speech-and-talking-points oriented.
Actually, that's an average. Bush was even heavier on the talking points than that, and Kerry significantly more question-oriented. On the other hand, Cheney was more question-oriented and Edwards went for the talking points a lot.
Apparently you didn't listen to the intro to the debate by the moderator. The general topic of the debate (e.g. foreign policy) is known ahead of time, but the questions are devised by the moderator and no one else hears them before the debate, including the candidates.
I can't quite figure out from either Apple's materials or the Ars review whether it will do what I want in my parents' house. There are two Macs (well, three, but the third is irrelevant): an iBook and a G4 tower. There is a LinkSys WRT54G which is physically connected to the G4 tower and is a WAP for the iBook. It sounds like it should be possible to install the open source firmware on the WRT54G and make it the primary WAP for the Airport Express to bridge with WDS. Great.
One question, however, is whether the G4 tower will be able to use AirTunes to play music through the Airport Express, even though its only access to the Airport Express is through its physical connection to the WRT54G's network. It sounds like once the WDS bridge is in place it will just work, but I'm far from sure.
Another question is whether the iBook could play a song over AirTunes that is being shared by iTunes on the G4 tower. Again, it seems like it should just work, but I'm not sure.
Changing the default SSID doesn't help. Unlike Netgear, Linksys routers have no way to stop broadcasting the SSID. WEP helps but most people don't bother.
That is wholly inaccurate. The WRT54G supports turning off SSID broadcast (I've tested it and it actually does stop broadcasting). It also supports WPA in addition to WEP.
...was Professor John Hughes, currently on sabbatical from Brown University. In case anyone cares. Brown's graphics group, which includes Dr. Hughes, has been doing sketch-based 3D for around a decade. I worked in that group for a time.
It does not spread anything except information. The announcement states that
a) SCO has attacked Free Software
b) Many people have asked that the FSF remove SCO support
c) The FSF has not chosen to do so yet, out of respect for GCC's users.
That's not FUD.
We will have a further announcement concerning continuing support of SCO Unix by GCC before our next release.
It leaves SCO users with vast uncertainty concerning the future of GCC on the SCO platform. The announcement encourages the fear that the next GCC version will simply not work on the SCO platform, raising doubts about its long-term viability.
That is, most assuredly, FUD. I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, I'm just calling it what it is.
The FSF need not (and should not) remove SCO support from GCC. Indeed, as pointed out in this comment, it would be against FSF policy. The announcement itself, however, spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. One can argue whether the FSF should engage in FUD tactics at all, but it is worth noting that no action beyond the announcement itself is necessary.
While I agree with much of what you said, I'd like to point out one thing: you mention that Microsoft has 'failed' by having a lack of focus. I think it depends on what you mean by 'fail'.
I didn't say that Microsoft had failed. I said that lack of focus is one of its failings. The distinction is important. Windows isn't a failed product, it is a poor product. The same is true of Word. I will mention that, in contrast, Excel is neither a failed nor a poor product; I claim it is because it has a strong focus.
Word makes them tons of money and is used by tens of millions of people. While it is bloated and unfocused, the projects that you mentioned as focused tend to be hard to use, and only used by a small user group (outside of the slashdot crowd how many people use Ruby, or administrate Apache?).
That is, in fact, my central argument. Ruby has a small audience, but it serves that audience very well. Apache, if you include its various subprojects, has a fairly large audience, yet each subproject serves a single audience well. There is nothing wrong with serving a small audience well, and I claim that it is better than serving a large audience poorly. The City of Lost Children is a much better movie than Spiderman, yet which one has the larger audience (and larger revenues)? Targetting a narrow audience means thoroughly satisfying a group of people. People outside your audience can find satisfaction elsewhere.
Personally, I like the smaller, focused projects, but maybe if you want OSS to become ubiquitous, or at least as ubiquitous as Microsoft software, it should try to be all things to all people. It will never get there, but unfortunately this *may* be the only way to really get OSS to the masses.
You are approaching it from the wrong angle. The masses will use OSS if and when the software focuses on them and satisfies them. OpenOffice is an excellent step, in that it serves the needs of those who must deal with MS Office documents. That's its audience. It would not serve that audience by adding a Google search bar, for example. Mozilla can be used as a web development tool, or a web browser, or an email client, but its service any one of those audiences is mediocre to good, rather than excellent, because it is not sufficiently focused on any one of them. Firebird/Phoenix/whatever can truly focus on web browsing and, thus, truly serve that audience.
What's missing from open source software has little to do with the software itself, but with the approach to it.
Consider a sampling of successful and focused OSS projects: Perl, Python, Ruby, Linux, Apache, GCC, GNU file/text tools. What is it about themthat makes them successful? They focus on a single audience. Perl, Python, Ruby, and GCC focus on developers, and serve them well. Apache focuses on web serving (and, in its subprojects, web development), and does it well. The GNU utilities focus on the Unix user, and provides the expected interface well. Linux focuses on providing OS support for a wide variety of hardware (I am speaking solely of the kernel and its modules here), and does it well.
Now consider some less focused, yet still popular, OSS projects: GNOME, KDE, Mozilla. They try to be all things to all people. This is, indeed, one of Microsoft's (many) failings: for example, Windows attempts to be a home, workstation, and server OS using the same interface, and Word attempts to provide word processing for Grandma as well as document creation for technical authors and collaborative document management for corporate teams and everything in between. They are mediocre for all of their supposed purposes.
Mozilla is a bloated pig because it can be used for so many different things. (I happen to use much of the bloat, but that doesn't justify its lack of focus.) This is why it is being broken up into separate tools, and rightly so.
Ultimately, compelling software is compelling not because of how many people can find a use for it, but how well it serves some particular audience. This is the inverse of the "right tool for the job" platitude: make your tool the right one for some job, not a tolerable one for several jobs.
I will point out what I believe is (much of) the proximate cause of this tendency to lack focus. The mantra "release early, release often" encourages a lack of focus; once a community of users springs up (which is vital for a successful OSS project) they begin pushing and pulling the developers to support this feature or that. One hopes that some of the users will actually contribute code, which means that features that stray from the focus of the tool may be harder not to include than to include. If the developers do not keep a firm grasp of their focus, it will stray.
This is not to say one should not "release early, release often," but that one must maintain focus in the midst of users and contributors who have their own goals. I applaud the mutt team for keeping it a MUA, and nothing more. Sure, I'd like to see NNTP support, but there are perfectly good newsreading tools out there and, instead, mutt development can focus on being the best MUA it can be. I applaud Linus for rejecting innumerable patches when they don't fit his focus for the kernel. Project leads must discipline themselves if they wish to produce compelling software.
On the one hand, I'm surprised it doesn't support Java since it runs all its apps in Java. On the other hand, I'm not surprised since Java applets generally assume full standard edition packages available, and the Sidekick only has a subset (maybe J2ME?).
I am just about to order the T-Mobile Sidekick (a.k.a. the Danger Hiptop). It has an actual keyboard, and an ssh client is promised (a beta is available with the SDK, which is available through the developers program).
"writing about a flat earth should not be considered true science fiction"
Fortunately I don't see Terry Pratchett as SF either:)
I recommend Terry Pratchett's Strata, which is science fiction and deals rather scientifically with a flat Earth.
alpha channel and transparency
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
The following was pointed out when MacOS X was just coming out:
"On the other hand (and this was actually pointed out by an Apple engineer), people in the print industry pay good money for paper opaque enough not to let other pages show through, while OS X spends valuable CPU cycles to enable the opposite effect."
--Scot Hacker
While alpha transparency is pretty, it really isn't much of a benefit for a user interface (i.e. communicating with the user).
...competitive ballroom dancing? Due to a tradition of recruiting from the computer science department (where there is an ample supply of males), there are actually a fair number of computer types on the team. Of course, we compete against MIT, whose team is just full of that sort...
The problem with the proposal has nothing to do with the right of reply, per se. It has to do with the burden on the publisher. If the publisher is required to also verify, edit, and publish all responses, that's a huge burden. If the responder is required to do the editing and publishing, and the original publisher has no responsibility to verify, just to link to the response, it isn't a problem.
Sure, it means that blogs will have to have a place at the bottom of each entry for response links, but the links can be no more than "response #1" and "response #2." How much of a burden is that, really? How does it suppress free speech to require linking to responders, especially when the original publisher has no obligation to verify that the responses come from any specific party?
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. If I were a moderator, I'd mod the parent anonymous post up.
What's the real problem with /etc anyway? If you said "all the different and wacky file formats" then you're missing the forest for the trees. Those different file formats exist because it is appropriate to have a file format that suits the purpose of the application. /etc/password and /etc/group are designed for exactly the purpose for which they are used, for example. It doesn't make much sense for apache to have a file format similar to, say, exim; they are applications with entirely different purposes.
/etc. Suppose I am administering a Debian machine with CUPS, since I happen to have one handy. Something is wrong with printing. I have to somehow know all of the following:
/etc/init.d/cupsys /etc/cups/printers.conf /etc/cups/cupsd.conf /etc/cups but, rather, connect to http://localhost:631/ with a web browser.
/etc/cups, but I never do. /System/Library/StartupItems/PrintingServices/Prin tingServices, but I never do.
/etc/profile belong in the same place as /etc/inetd.conf? That gets back to the central question, of course, and I think the answer there is that each package should be responsible for managing its own (default and user) configuration and, similarly
The real problem is that the user doesn't automatically know how to correlate a process, configuration file, startup script, etc., and it affects more than just
1) Printing services are managed by CUPS.
2) To start and stop printing services, I need to run
3) If that doesn't work properly, the process to kill is named cupsd.
4) The config file for specific printers for CUPS is
5) The config file for the cups service as a whole is
6) To manage most things about CUPS (though not browsing and sharing), I don't really want to touch the files in
Just for kicks, let's consider the same situation under MacOS X (10.3):
1) I can control pretty much everything about printing services (including browsing and sharing) from the Print & Fax section of the System Preferences
2) If I really need to mess with the config files, they are in
3) If I really need to manually start and stop printing services I use
4) If I really need to use the web interface to CUPS, it is still at http://localhost:631/
The really important thing here is that on a Mac, I don't even need to know that printing is handled by CUPS. The down side is that on any *nix, unlike Windows, I don't have a way of seeing all the services my machine is providing (to itself or the net). Of course, under Windows it's pretty hard to tell what a service is really for, or how to configure it. When you get right down to it, each system has some good ideas, but none of them have it right.
I want a system where I can get a list of running services (not just all processes), the ports on which they are listening (I don't care if they are TCP, UDP, Unix domain, whatever passes for IPC on Windows, or even Mach ports), and be able to trivially turn a service on, or off, or configure it with a simple commandline or a click of the mouse.
Give me the Windows services manager (with a console equivalent) with the ability to see through what interfaces (e.g. ports) that service is provided, the ability to configure when and how it is started (e.g. at which runlevel), the ability to configure it directly from there (e.g. bring up a custom configurator, a web browser with the appropriate URL, or a text editor on the right files with a double-click in the list). I don't care where the configuration is on disk (though this better integrate well with backup software), nor how it's stored (though there had better be a human-readable text format that can be exported and imported, if necessary).
Furthermore, there should be a separation of default configuration of user applications and configuration of services. Why does
That would be a more compelling argument if Qt4 were intended to be binary- or source-compatible with Qt3. It isn't. The API is changing, and it need not support their legacy STL replacement anymore.
Don't forget the Danger Hiptop, a.k.a. T-Mobile Sidekick. You can sign up to be a developer at no cost, and you'll be able to load your programs on your phone if you can convince Danger that what you are developing is of any real interest (not that tough). The SDK is Java so it works anywhere, and program loading is done via USB.
You can use ssh with explicit port forwarding, but it sounds like you'd benefit from using it as a SOCKS proxy. OpenSSH can provide a SOCKS4 proxy with the -D switch and PuTTY can provide a SOCKS5 proxy. I've found that this works quite nicely for most purposes.
Theodore Sturgeon (an SF author) said that 90% of everything is crap. This is known as Sturgeon's law, and tends to be pretty accurate regardless of context. The Sci-Fi channel is no exception. On the up side, it's usually possible to determine just from the previews/trailers/commercials which of their shows will be bad and which will not.
I've been very happy with the two Stargate series. I actually liked the two Dune miniseries (they weren't great, and I liked the David Lynch version better, but they had their appeal). The Battlestar Galactica miniseries was excellent and I have high hopes for the upcoming series. Farscape was fantastic, and I was very happy with the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries that came after long work on the part of the fans. On the other hand, 100% (with very little margin of error) of their original movies (not miniseries) are pure shit. Much of the stuff they play during the day (Dark Shadows, anyone?) is godawful. So it works out... 90% of the programming on the Sci-Fi Channel is crap.
I wouldn't normally think of this, but I was just at my parents' house for Thanksgiving and one of their pipes sprung a leak, resulting in a puddle in the basement. (It's lucky I was there, actually, since my parents don't go to the basement with any regularity. The guest room is in the basement, however, and I noticed the puddle before it became a flood.) They tried to find a plumber the day after Thanksgiving, and all they could find was someone who wanted $240/hour for emergency service. Fortunately, I was able to patch it temporarily with some rubber and a hose clamp.
It got me thinking, though, that I could do cut-rate (only $150/hour!) emergency plumbing and significantly improve my income. I wouldn't even have to be that good, just good enough to patch things until a real plumber was available for reasonable rates. Mostly idle thinking, but...
I believe you missed the parent post to which I was responding.
Gee, that's great. Fantastic. Except I have Linux running on a PowerPC. What's that? I'm SOL because those closed-source DLLs are for a different processor? Darn. Maybe this is a good thing after all.
...but I find it a little surprising that there is no mention of a concession over at JohnKerry.com. There is also no denial of a concession, so maybe it's just lazy Kerry people figuring that their work is done now.
In both the first presidential debate and the (only) vice-presidential debate the moderator asked a couple of questions that were essentially traps. They were opportunities for the candidate receiving the question to go really negative on his opponent. I found that surprising. I did not find it surprising that none of the candidates fell for it.
Most of the rest of the questions were fairly predictable, and they didn't matter a whole lot since the candidates were about 30% question-oriented and 70% speech-and-talking-points oriented.
Actually, that's an average. Bush was even heavier on the talking points than that, and Kerry significantly more question-oriented. On the other hand, Cheney was more question-oriented and Edwards went for the talking points a lot.
Apparently you didn't listen to the intro to the debate by the moderator. The general topic of the debate (e.g. foreign policy) is known ahead of time, but the questions are devised by the moderator and no one else hears them before the debate, including the candidates.
I can't quite figure out from either Apple's materials or the Ars review whether it will do what I want in my parents' house. There are two Macs (well, three, but the third is irrelevant): an iBook and a G4 tower. There is a LinkSys WRT54G which is physically connected to the G4 tower and is a WAP for the iBook. It sounds like it should be possible to install the open source firmware on the WRT54G and make it the primary WAP for the Airport Express to bridge with WDS. Great.
One question, however, is whether the G4 tower will be able to use AirTunes to play music through the Airport Express, even though its only access to the Airport Express is through its physical connection to the WRT54G's network. It sounds like once the WDS bridge is in place it will just work, but I'm far from sure.
Another question is whether the iBook could play a song over AirTunes that is being shared by iTunes on the G4 tower. Again, it seems like it should just work, but I'm not sure.
That is wholly inaccurate. The WRT54G supports turning off SSID broadcast (I've tested it and it actually does stop broadcasting). It also supports WPA in addition to WEP.
...was Professor John Hughes, currently on sabbatical from Brown University. In case anyone cares. Brown's graphics group, which includes Dr. Hughes, has been doing sketch-based 3D for around a decade. I worked in that group for a time.
That is, most assuredly, FUD. I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, I'm just calling it what it is.
The FSF need not (and should not) remove SCO support from GCC. Indeed, as pointed out in this comment, it would be against FSF policy. The announcement itself, however, spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. One can argue whether the FSF should engage in FUD tactics at all, but it is worth noting that no action beyond the announcement itself is necessary.
I didn't say that Microsoft had failed. I said that lack of focus is one of its failings. The distinction is important. Windows isn't a failed product, it is a poor product. The same is true of Word. I will mention that, in contrast, Excel is neither a failed nor a poor product; I claim it is because it has a strong focus.
That is, in fact, my central argument. Ruby has a small audience, but it serves that audience very well. Apache, if you include its various subprojects, has a fairly large audience, yet each subproject serves a single audience well. There is nothing wrong with serving a small audience well, and I claim that it is better than serving a large audience poorly. The City of Lost Children is a much better movie than Spiderman, yet which one has the larger audience (and larger revenues)? Targetting a narrow audience means thoroughly satisfying a group of people. People outside your audience can find satisfaction elsewhere.
You are approaching it from the wrong angle. The masses will use OSS if and when the software focuses on them and satisfies them. OpenOffice is an excellent step, in that it serves the needs of those who must deal with MS Office documents. That's its audience. It would not serve that audience by adding a Google search bar, for example. Mozilla can be used as a web development tool, or a web browser, or an email client, but its service any one of those audiences is mediocre to good, rather than excellent, because it is not sufficiently focused on any one of them. Firebird/Phoenix/whatever can truly focus on web browsing and, thus, truly serve that audience.What's missing from open source software has little to do with the software itself, but with the approach to it.
Consider a sampling of successful and focused OSS projects: Perl, Python, Ruby, Linux, Apache, GCC, GNU file/text tools. What is it about themthat makes them successful? They focus on a single audience. Perl, Python, Ruby, and GCC focus on developers, and serve them well. Apache focuses on web serving (and, in its subprojects, web development), and does it well. The GNU utilities focus on the Unix user, and provides the expected interface well. Linux focuses on providing OS support for a wide variety of hardware (I am speaking solely of the kernel and its modules here), and does it well.
Now consider some less focused, yet still popular, OSS projects: GNOME, KDE, Mozilla. They try to be all things to all people. This is, indeed, one of Microsoft's (many) failings: for example, Windows attempts to be a home, workstation, and server OS using the same interface, and Word attempts to provide word processing for Grandma as well as document creation for technical authors and collaborative document management for corporate teams and everything in between. They are mediocre for all of their supposed purposes.
Mozilla is a bloated pig because it can be used for so many different things. (I happen to use much of the bloat, but that doesn't justify its lack of focus.) This is why it is being broken up into separate tools, and rightly so.
Ultimately, compelling software is compelling not because of how many people can find a use for it, but how well it serves some particular audience. This is the inverse of the "right tool for the job" platitude: make your tool the right one for some job, not a tolerable one for several jobs.
I will point out what I believe is (much of) the proximate cause of this tendency to lack focus. The mantra "release early, release often" encourages a lack of focus; once a community of users springs up (which is vital for a successful OSS project) they begin pushing and pulling the developers to support this feature or that. One hopes that some of the users will actually contribute code, which means that features that stray from the focus of the tool may be harder not to include than to include. If the developers do not keep a firm grasp of their focus, it will stray.
This is not to say one should not "release early, release often," but that one must maintain focus in the midst of users and contributors who have their own goals. I applaud the mutt team for keeping it a MUA, and nothing more. Sure, I'd like to see NNTP support, but there are perfectly good newsreading tools out there and, instead, mutt development can focus on being the best MUA it can be. I applaud Linus for rejecting innumerable patches when they don't fit his focus for the kernel. Project leads must discipline themselves if they wish to produce compelling software.
On the one hand, I'm surprised it doesn't support Java since it runs all its apps in Java. On the other hand, I'm not surprised since Java applets generally assume full standard edition packages available, and the Sidekick only has a subset (maybe J2ME?).
I am just about to order the T-Mobile Sidekick (a.k.a. the Danger Hiptop). It has an actual keyboard, and an ssh client is promised (a beta is available with the SDK, which is available through the developers program).
Fortunately I don't see Terry Pratchett as SF either
I recommend Terry Pratchett's Strata, which is science fiction and deals rather scientifically with a flat Earth.
While alpha transparency is pretty, it really isn't much of a benefit for a user interface (i.e. communicating with the user).
Now, I wouldn't advocate taking up ballroom simply because there tends to be a shortage of men, but I will mention that I got to know my fiancée by being on the team with her.
The problem with the proposal has nothing to do with the right of reply, per se. It has to do with the burden on the publisher. If the publisher is required to also verify, edit, and publish all responses, that's a huge burden. If the responder is required to do the editing and publishing, and the original publisher has no responsibility to verify, just to link to the response, it isn't a problem.
Sure, it means that blogs will have to have a place at the bottom of each entry for response links, but the links can be no more than "response #1" and "response #2." How much of a burden is that, really? How does it suppress free speech to require linking to responders, especially when the original publisher has no obligation to verify that the responses come from any specific party?