i didnt complain, because the subject did not come up in a place i could complain. moreover, a stance against patents/proprietary already implies that complaint, and i have been doing that for eons.
'open standard' as a term, and a standard that is open, differ, in linguistics. what you describe only means 'open FOR now', since the openness of that standard, is under the control of a private interest.
i had just come home, and i had noticed people jumping with joy in the streets, running naked, flapping their arms like wings in ecstasy. i wasnt able to make anything out of it. but now i have come and read this article, and discovered that the editors in slashdot finally started paying attention to grammar, the biggest problem that society faces, i am able to understand why those people were running about in joy in the streets.
actually i can. and it shows the measure of stupidity of legal system. moreover, if i have enough cash, i can even win too ! further indicators to the stupidity of legal system.
in case you have noticed, im not saying 'open standards'. im saying OPEN.
anything that is owned by private parties, is not open, since the openness depends on the whim of the private party, and the private party is able to reverse the 'open standard' status of the standard at any given point through usage of patents and licensing fees.
with firefox and chrome, half of the web traffic will support webm. the rest will have to follow suit. ah, forgot that opera is also ready to do it, and this puts it more than half. maybe to 60%
it is precisely as thus - ars technica is redefining 'open', in order to make it not open, despite being called open, so that proprietary sources can retain custody of standards, mooching money off of it to the detriment of end users and internet proliferation by raising costs as thus.
no, i dont have the moral obligation to pay any third party for anything i do on the web, while open standards are available, neither as a startup, nor as an end users to which costs are reflecting on indirectly. and if anyone tries to redefine open, like the moron in ars technica does, i will take that person not only as 'not bright', but also an enemy of my freedom and interest as a citizen.
open is open. if any party retains custody of something in the form of ownership, then it means that thing is NOT OPEN. actually the anonymous submitter was quite level headed in his inflammatory summary. i would have directly labeled someone who tried to redefine open, for supporting private interests, as a paid whore.
so, its better to pay for a closed proprietary standard AND also pay the development fees ? are you aware of the issues and problems flash generates in video formats, browsers, content delivery, for example ?
with proprietary standard, you have to wait for the owner to come up with solutions. with an open standard, your developer, who you are paying for its time, can do anything you want.
if you see no advantage in this for web anything 'in general', quit your i.t. job and start selling real estate or something.
no, its not an open standard. because, some party retains the ownership of that standard, so they can collect fees from it. that relegates the ownership of that standard to that party. that means, that party can do anything with that standard at any given point in time, and you cant object to it.
the licensing fees eventually reflect on the end users through development costs and proliferation rate of applications/services. free, is good for me, the end user.
end users dont pay it is it ? and how ? arent you aware that licensing fees as such reflect on the development of applications end users are able to use, and eventually either reduces the proliferation/production of new apps, or raises their prices ?
If you were really a professional web developer your reaction would be "crap, now I'll have to have WebM and H.264 encodings for every video I put on the web, [sarcasm] Thanks Google, way to make standards compliance easy [/sarcasm]"
first, that goes without saying, second, there wont be any such need since microsoft wont be able to do shit, and webm will be standard soon, third, a professional web developer rarely needs to cope up with encoding of videos, since whatever video that is being used on the web generally comes in the form of embedded videos, most of which are youtube, and the projects which are seeking to set up their own video streaming/storage are rare.
as a professional web developer who makes his living from web development, i say no to anything that involves internet explorer. internet explorer has accrued so much karma over the torture of web developers trying to make perfectly standard compliant code of websites fit the standards-ignoring whims of internet explorer that, its name is akin to 'plague' in the eyes of long time web developers. couple this with microsoft glorious, glaring, dazzling reputation in regard to open standards and compliance, and you can understand where i am coming from.
'years long standards/format war' ? really ? with what ? internet explorer lost a lot of share to become head to head with firefox. chrome is eroding ie even more. google has much more reach on the web than anything microsoft, because google had come up embracing the web, even to the point of setting up adsense/adwords to enable small websites and advertisers that everyone on the internet was ignoring and snubbing, including microsoft. from webmaster tools to google analytics, and many more. what microsoft has to show against all these ? internet explorer...
there isnt going to be any format war. microsoft has nothing to wage a war with.
the answer is in the other thread you have replied to.
in addition, in frontline development in which there are money and budgets and real business, there is a certain threshold for 'learning' or becoming familiar with an app code is acceptable. anything that passes over that threshold becomes a loss in regard to budget, and is not acceptable.
drupal crosses that threshold a lot of times. as the other poster which i linked in that other thread, in which you have replied smart assedly without reading it, openly puts forth - drupal may be good for people who are indulged in the messy codebase and merry go rounds of drupal code, and like to tinker with it, however it is not fit for production environment in which there are deadlines, budgets, and quirky requests. developing for real businesses or heavy usage is not a hobby matter in which you can go roundabout for simple stuff, like popping up modules for changing the looks of a form, or (thankfully, in the new versions apparently) using an api for creating a form. anytime a client can come with a spec list for changes and a deadline, and if the app that is being used is not development friendly, developer will find that it will not be feasible with the budget and time given.
not to mention that, to create a simple html form and format its design, to submit something to a page on the website, you have to create a fucking module, or use other roundabout ways.
Slashdot Mirror
yes. as long as it is replaced with an open format that no private party controls.
i didnt complain, because the subject did not come up in a place i could complain. moreover, a stance against patents/proprietary already implies that complaint, and i have been doing that for eons.
'open standard' as a term, and a standard that is open, differ, in linguistics. what you describe only means 'open FOR now', since the openness of that standard, is under the control of a private interest.
'open standard' means what you speak of. open does NOT mean 'possible to encumber with patents'. open means open.
i had just come home, and i had noticed people jumping with joy in the streets, running naked, flapping their arms like wings in ecstasy. i wasnt able to make anything out of it. but now i have come and read this article, and discovered that the editors in slashdot finally started paying attention to grammar, the biggest problem that society faces, i am able to understand why those people were running about in joy in the streets.
actually i can. and it shows the measure of stupidity of legal system. moreover, if i have enough cash, i can even win too ! further indicators to the stupidity of legal system.
in case you have noticed, im not saying 'open standards'. im saying OPEN.
anything that is owned by private parties, is not open, since the openness depends on the whim of the private party, and the private party is able to reverse the 'open standard' status of the standard at any given point through usage of patents and licensing fees.
that makes it not OPEN.
with firefox and chrome, half of the web traffic will support webm. the rest will have to follow suit. ah, forgot that opera is also ready to do it, and this puts it more than half. maybe to 60%
you are probably aware that 'much more open' compared to 'more closed', still does not mean open.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1949162&cid=34861568
One of whome is Microsoft, who stands to make a lot of money from it.
that explains it all for me.
it is precisely as thus - ars technica is redefining 'open', in order to make it not open, despite being called open, so that proprietary sources can retain custody of standards, mooching money off of it to the detriment of end users and internet proliferation by raising costs as thus.
no, i dont have the moral obligation to pay any third party for anything i do on the web, while open standards are available, neither as a startup, nor as an end users to which costs are reflecting on indirectly. and if anyone tries to redefine open, like the moron in ars technica does, i will take that person not only as 'not bright', but also an enemy of my freedom and interest as a citizen.
open is open. if any party retains custody of something in the form of ownership, then it means that thing is NOT OPEN. actually the anonymous submitter was quite level headed in his inflammatory summary. i would have directly labeled someone who tried to redefine open, for supporting private interests, as a paid whore.
what kind of bullshit you are smoking ?
so, its better to pay for a closed proprietary standard AND also pay the development fees ? are you aware of the issues and problems flash generates in video formats, browsers, content delivery, for example ?
with proprietary standard, you have to wait for the owner to come up with solutions. with an open standard, your developer, who you are paying for its time, can do anything you want.
if you see no advantage in this for web anything 'in general', quit your i.t. job and start selling real estate or something.
no, its not an open standard. because, some party retains the ownership of that standard, so they can collect fees from it. that relegates the ownership of that standard to that party. that means, that party can do anything with that standard at any given point in time, and you cant object to it.
that is NOWHERE near the definition of 'open'.
so, its not free, and open.
the licensing fees eventually reflect on the end users through development costs and proliferation rate of applications/services. free, is good for me, the end user.
cut bullshit. a standard that is not open, and subject to licensing fees, is NOT open. you cant redefine open.
end users dont pay it is it ? and how ? arent you aware that licensing fees as such reflect on the development of applications end users are able to use, and eventually either reduces the proliferation/production of new apps, or raises their prices ?
not open but, its open ?
If you were really a professional web developer your reaction would be "crap, now I'll have to have WebM and H.264 encodings for every video I put on the web, [sarcasm] Thanks Google, way to make standards compliance easy [/sarcasm]"
first, that goes without saying, second, there wont be any such need since microsoft wont be able to do shit, and webm will be standard soon, third, a professional web developer rarely needs to cope up with encoding of videos, since whatever video that is being used on the web generally comes in the form of embedded videos, most of which are youtube, and the projects which are seeking to set up their own video streaming/storage are rare.
as a professional web developer who makes his living from web development, i say no to anything that involves internet explorer. internet explorer has accrued so much karma over the torture of web developers trying to make perfectly standard compliant code of websites fit the standards-ignoring whims of internet explorer that, its name is akin to 'plague' in the eyes of long time web developers. couple this with microsoft glorious, glaring, dazzling reputation in regard to open standards and compliance, and you can understand where i am coming from.
...
'years long standards/format war' ? really ? with what ? internet explorer lost a lot of share to become head to head with firefox. chrome is eroding ie even more. google has much more reach on the web than anything microsoft, because google had come up embracing the web, even to the point of setting up adsense/adwords to enable small websites and advertisers that everyone on the internet was ignoring and snubbing, including microsoft. from webmaster tools to google analytics, and many more. what microsoft has to show against all these ? internet explorer
there isnt going to be any format war. microsoft has nothing to wage a war with.
the answer is in the other thread you have replied to.
in addition, in frontline development in which there are money and budgets and real business, there is a certain threshold for 'learning' or becoming familiar with an app code is acceptable. anything that passes over that threshold becomes a loss in regard to budget, and is not acceptable.
drupal crosses that threshold a lot of times. as the other poster which i linked in that other thread, in which you have replied smart assedly without reading it, openly puts forth - drupal may be good for people who are indulged in the messy codebase and merry go rounds of drupal code, and like to tinker with it, however it is not fit for production environment in which there are deadlines, budgets, and quirky requests. developing for real businesses or heavy usage is not a hobby matter in which you can go roundabout for simple stuff, like popping up modules for changing the looks of a form, or (thankfully, in the new versions apparently) using an api for creating a form. anytime a client can come with a spec list for changes and a deadline, and if the app that is being used is not development friendly, developer will find that it will not be feasible with the budget and time given.
no, its not a 'no' to his question. it replies to his question, and it has an answer. read it, if you want it.
i refer you to another poster :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1947992&cid=34855044
not to mention that, to create a simple html form and format its design, to submit something to a page on the website, you have to create a fucking module, or use other roundabout ways.