Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:further proof D. Knuth was right (Score 1) 234

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to have dynamic content in a document description language?
Notice you never hear about exploits-of-the-week like this for LaTeX !

That's a good question. Someone should be asking the people who put Javascript in Netscape the same thing! I mean, there's absolutely no use cases for having dynamic documents!

Comment Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer (Score 1) 542

Take a look at the fundamental model. When you move a window in Windows, the app is notified and it has to respond. Try moving the window of an unresponsive app, it does not redraw because Windows is asking the app to redraw it.

Windows has had a retained-mode graphics system for the past 3 years as long as you don't disable desktop composition.

Comment Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet (Score 1) 465

So really, even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise, that still doesn't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing, you're fine. If you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI.. you're still in the same problem as before.

Unless you're saying that you need Microsoft technology to provide useful software in the general sense, there's no reason to say that not being able to use ADO.NET makes C# any less useful of a language or Mono any less useful of a platform than the fact you can't use ADO.NET with C++ in GCC. Or with CPython. Or with Perl.

The CLI outlines a pretty thorough P/Invoke system which Mono supports, so you can use any DB library or GUI library you want with Mono. You're in no worse of a situation than you are with any other language.

Comment Re:Slippery slope to non-free (Score 2, Interesting) 747

GPL is certainly not the only free license. And what about people that go the "GPL\0for files in the \"GPL\" directory" way?

Well for the latter, obviously we'd fix the bug that allows poison null bytes to break a string, since that's a pretty serious security vulnerability in a web browser.

For the former, all of the following are valid in both HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0:

<link rel="copyright" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html" />

<link rel="copyright" href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php" />

<link rel="copyright" href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/licenses.mspx#Ms-PL" />

And all of the following work in any included ECMAScript file:

// License: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

// License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

// License: http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/licenses.mspx#Ms-PL

You certainly have the freedom to alter your user agent to require any set of licenses you're comfortable with.

Comment Re:Slippery slope to non-free (Score 1) 747

Stallman is perfectly happy avoid using your service and resources. His issue is that he doesn't have an easy way to tell whether or not he *should* avoid you.

Sure he does. If Stallman wants to know whether a site's Javascript is under the GPL, he can just look for the text of the GPL included as a comment on the webpage or in the included JS file; since you're supposed to distribute a copy of the GPL along with any GPL'd code, right? I mean the requirement that the license is distributed along with the program is right there in section 1 of GPLv2.

It'd be fairly trivial for someone to put together a browser extension that refuses to execute any code that doesn't come with a copy of the GPL attached.

If the fact that nearly every HTTP response would end up at least 17k larger if the idea were to take off is too large to swallow; then just include a link to the GPL in one of a page's tags. It'd be just as easy for a user agent to check that as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Working...