One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!
Back-up your data and, when you bike,
always wear white.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
Sun apparently wants to know which of the following are most important for Java's stock html viewer, typically used in help sections of Java apps (like mine, no less):
from the blog asking for responses... Specifically, [the Java Client group members] want to know the importance of:
HTML 4.x and CSS 2.x XHTML 1.x and CSS 2.x XML and CSS 2.X Look and feel consistency Printing Support Native browser rendering Using custom rendering JavaScript support
Ha, are you kidding? All of them, dang it, minus maybe native browser rendering. That seems to be part of the black box we [non-in-house Java engineer] programmers shouldn't be worried about. Make the rest work, and if the JDIC route of using native browser engines is the best route, sure, take it, though IE on Windows leaves me with with a not-so-secure feeling.
It's hard to believe Java has grown to this mature a state with such a poor built-in html viewer, barely rendering a pretty plain jane version of html 3.2, not that Mac OS has done much better until very recently. This is one place among many where VB really shines. Heck, we've even been able Mozilla in VB apps for quite some time!
By the way, we're nearly at 20,000 hits here at mfn and this is the 997th post. Nearly Hall of Fame numbers there, were blogs to be measured solely by numbers like that. Of course half of the hits are probably from me and the other half from robots (actually a surprising number are from real users via Google, Yahoo, & friends), but there you have it. And still ad-less, yo. I wonder if donating both cents I'd get from Google Adwords to charity would make it okay...
> Regarding mfn post, since about 2003 the sysadmins at [University X] Math have > had desktop sharing available on the machines they administer so they > could see a user's desktop on their screen while the user is looking > at it, and show him/her how to do something. It's built into KDE, but > I don't recall there being a GNOME counterpart. All handled over ssh, > etc. It basically made VNC an integrated part of the system. > > Not sure if that's exactly what you were interested in, but I could > certainly see a system like RedHat or Novell/SuSE offering paid > support just using that functionality that's been around for a while. > > [Emailer's name]
Ok, let's put this another way: If Red Hat thought user support via desktop 'intervention' was a priority, they'd be offering it now. I'm not sure they aren't, but it appears Microsoft is going to be shortly. For some reason it strikes me as a model that would work with MS and not so much for Linux vendors. This feeling is based almost exclusively on relatively irrational 'hunches'. ;^)
It's obviously not a matter of #if# Linux can mirror desktops securely; it obviously can, and I've played with the same [free as in free] tools on OS X. The question is if the service is going to be as easily available to business users using Linux as it will be for those using MS. I doubt it.
Look, I realize this story at Slashdot is mostly there to prod Linux zealots to flame from the far corners of the earth, but one bit of the story quote deserves some investigation:
When Windows Live comes in, we will see further integration between the server and online technical support areas, thereby making the troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and reducing overhead costs for the company.
This is an area where Windows and, therefore, of course, Microsoft really could do some damage. If you have a busted server and could securely have some master admin help you out, seeing what you see on the box's desktop, etc, as part of your paid maintenance, well, you'd really be in business. I don't know how many times I've drummed my head into a wall trying to find the exactly right string of words to Google up an answer to an admin question. Having a paid expert on call to instant message or, better, video chat while s/he looks at my box (again, assuming the pie in the sky secure connection), hopefully solving the tough questions in minutes, not hours, would be worth quite a bit of dough.
I'm not sure open source products have the impetus, as things now stand, to provide that same level of support.
Please note that the $100 laptops -- not yet in production -- will not be available for sale. The laptops will only be distributed to schools directly through large government initiatives.
Okay, now there's a bad idea. Why not sell the blamed things for $220 and reinvest the cash to start churning out free laptops? Was impressed that Jobs offered OS X for free for the things. Though I understand completely with why they declined -- and they should have, imo -- perhaps this means OS X on Intel is pretty snappy/speedy?
posted by ruffin
at 11/15/2005 09:03:00 PM
From the Wikipedia: This article incorporates text from the 1911 Encyclop?dia Britannica, which is in the public domain.
Ah, the power of the public domain. You can use horribly out of date, sometimes inaccurate (at least within the context of today's prevalent beliefs) information without fear of commercial reprisal. Not such a bad idea for the beginnings of an entry on the French Revolution, perhaps, but the way the Wikipedia works it's hard to tell what's what, in context. That is to say, adding info from 1911 Encycs seems to add a touch o' ethos over your plain jane Wikipedia entry, but ultimately it just makes determining the authority of an entry more complicated.
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting comparision to take this sort of public domain foundation for works such as the nearly postmodern wikipedia and place it beside other projects, most notably for me Mac OS X, that have created their foundations from open source. The open source foundations are copylefted -- copyrighted and protected -- so they are in one way a different beast than pub dom, but functionally they're awfully similar. It will make for an intriguing study (aka, something to watch over the next few decades) to see how well open source creates a contemporary alternative to 'closed property' in fields outside of computer code. And why is the medium of code so much more open source/copyleft friendly? Why is the industry of programming a source for so much of this sort of content?
Another off the tip o' the cerebellum [sic] post on your friendly neighborhood freakinname.
posted by ruffin
at 11/08/2005 11:14:00 AM
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author
