Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> - 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000
[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> - 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:25 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <io7rhh$brc$3@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #3220 |
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:01:42 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in >> people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS >> deliberately set out to do. > > IE 6. Why is it still around? Because MS deliberately set out to > encourage companies to use its features (mainly in intranet > applications). > Fair point, though I should point out that IIRC its contemporary rivals were often as bad when it came to standards compliance. I don't remember many standards-compliant browsers before the first release of Opera. Never ascribe to malice things that can equally be achieved by incompetence. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da7a4ab$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3220 |
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:01:42 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in >> people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS >> deliberately set out to do. > > IE 6. Why is it still around? Because MS deliberately set out to > encourage companies to use its features (mainly in intranet > applications). IE 6 is still around due to inertia: partly users who haven't upgraded, but *mostly* developers who *think* users haven't upgraded, and that IE 6 is still the standard to code for. I mean, it's 2011 and I recently came across a site that claimed to only support IE and Netscape. Netscape!!! But if I recall correctly, the proportion of IE users still using IE 6 is about 10%, which makes it about 5% of the total browser share. Between Google (YouTube, Gmail, etc) and Microsoft dropping support for IE 6, I would expect that percentage to rapidly fall. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.374.1302819786.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3219 |
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 08:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- > > compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in > > people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS > > deliberately set out to do. > > IE 6. Why is it still around? Because MS deliberately set out to > encourage companies to use its features (mainly in intranet > applications). > > ChrisA I always thought it was because sys admins don't bother to upgrade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <io7u1u$dbk$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #3222 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:23:01 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 08:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie >> <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> > compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock >> > in people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that >> > MS deliberately set out to do. >> >> IE 6. Why is it still around? Because MS deliberately set out to >> encourage companies to use its features (mainly in intranet >> applications). >> >> ChrisA > > I always thought it was because sys admins don't bother to upgrade. > Its both: a lot of company intranets that rely on IE6 quirks and have never been upgraded and, evidently, there are still office PCs in use that are old enough to have been bought with it installed and never upgraded. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da7a8f5$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3214 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > Microsoft? A little of both. Personally, I think it is *good* that there is a plurality of browsers in the market. In my perfect world, no single browser should capture more than 20% share of users. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.378.1302834693.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3230 |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Personally, I think it is *good* that there is a plurality of browsers in > the market. In my perfect world, no single browser should capture more > than 20% share of users. In *MY* perfect world, choice of browser should be completely up to the user, and web developers should not have to care. You code to the standard, safe in the knowledge that all your users are going to have standards-compliant browsers, and you don't care whether some of them are on Chrome, some on Firefox, some on IE, some on Opera, and some on TwoCansPieceString. And users know that they can choose whatever browser gives them the features they want, without having to worry about whether other sites will fail. We're getting close to that, but we're not yet there. > That doesn't explain Javascript or Flash. Both are popular *despite* > being unreliable and inefficient. The Flash plugin is widely regarded as > a steaming heap of unreliable crap even on Windows. Its reputation on > Linux is even worse. I've tried my hand at writing Flash code. If its next version requires that developers stab themselves with rusty forks and code using their own blood, I think it'd be an improvement over the current one. And from the other end... leaving Flash sites up in my browser is one of the best ways to destroy my battery life. It sucks... power. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <roy-E123F6.22435114042011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3230 |
In article <4da7a8f5$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > > > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > > Microsoft? > > A little of both. > > Personally, I think it is *good* that there is a plurality of browsers in > the market. In my perfect world, no single browser should capture more > than 20% share of users. I was just thinking about this the other day. The browser space is currently a perfect example of why competition is good. Just a few years ago, IE dominated the market to the point where people developing web applications could completely ignore all other browsers. Now, while IE may still be the most popular, they've dropped under 50% share, and falling, while Firefox and Chrome are still gaining. It won't be long before the three pretty much reach parity. And, yeah, Opera and Safari will continue to survive down in the single digits. The upshot of this is that people writing web apps these days are much more likely to be going for standards compliance then for "Works with IE". This is to everybody's benefit. The app developers can concentrate on building their apps, without wasting time fighting the browser wars. The browser makers are free to innovate in all sorts of ways while having a fixed HTML target to shoot for in their rendering engines. Since everybody is working on the same HTML (yeah, OK, big handwave there), new browser projects have a reduced barrier to entry. I can take a flyer and install some new browser to try it out, with a reasonable expectation that it'll render the pages I go to in a reasonable fashion. It's been a long time since I've run across a page that I just couldn't read in my favorite browser d'jour (modulo any internal apps from Big Company IT Department that depend on Active-X). Even if these projects fail, they sometimes have good idea which get incorporated by the Firefoxes and Chromes of the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.370.1302815392.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3198 |
Westley Martínez wrote: > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > Microsoft? My biggest gripe with Microsoft as that they *don't* follow standards, which makes interoperability a nightmare. ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.389.1302859729.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3198 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that >> > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does >> > anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd >> > go to multiple web servers with deceitful hits? >> >> Back in the day, not that many years ago, when it looked like Internet >> Explorer would never dip below 90% market share and web developers coded >> for IE quirks instead of standards as a matter of course, I used to >> fantasize of writing a Windows virus that (apart from propagating) did >> nothing but change the user-agent string on IE. It would have been >> awesome to witness the consternation among web developers. >> >> But thanks to the EU doing what the US DOJ refused to do, and the grass- >> roots popularity of Firefox (plus a fewer well-known even if not often >> used browsers like Safari and Opera), and then Google's scarily efficient >> way they can capture hearts and minds on the Internet, IE's market share >> has been whittled away to the point that there are places in the world >> where IE is a minority browser. A large minority, it is true, but still a >> minority. >> >> Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute >> untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, >> supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently >> removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... >> >> >> >> -- >> Steven > > Web developers will always use the tool they find to be the most > reliable, efficient, and useful, as will consumers. You're kidding. Web developers will usually use what they believe will reach users, without excessive pain or embarrassment - and sometimes with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.363.1302799817.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3180 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > How mamy times have you altered the identity of your web browser so that > the web site would 'work'? You know, stupid messages from the server that > say, "We only support IE 6+, upgrade your browser...", so you tell it > you're using IE 6 and, well no problem. I actually can't even recall the last time I had to deal with that problem, although occasionally I find myself forced to use IE because the site really, truly doesn't work in Firefox. It might work in some other browser, but I'm not going to spend the time trying every FOSS browser in existence just to avoid using IE. Anyway, I would hope that the statisticians who gather this data would be smart enough to discard any site that was reporting 100% usage of one particular browser. Note that user-agent masking is also a rather tech-savvy thing to do. I sincerely doubt that more than a couple percent of the population actually does this. The rest would either grumble about it and start up IE, or just leave the site without looking back. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.283.1302641469.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3036 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:22 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: >> It is not measured in any way, and it is almost impossible to determine therefore in any accurate fashion. There >> really are no data... what we need here is a census of sorts. > > There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to > sales figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it > perfectly accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of > different organizations that do this, sampling hundreds of thousands > of different websites, and they consistently report that the various > versions of Windows have a total usage share ranging from 80% to 90%. > That at least gives us an upper and lower bound with a great deal of > confidence. In the same data, Apple systems range from about 7% to > 15%, and Linux musters a meager 1% to 3%. This data is of course skewed a bit toward computers that people are using web browsers on. Also, something like LWN tends to get more Linux users, while microsoft.com tends to get more windows users. Also, some sites only allow IE (often for rather capricious reasons), so some *ix users tell their browsers to pretend to be IE to get around the restriction - and sometimes it's just easier to pretend to be IE all the time, even when you don't really need to. And IE runs on Solaris, albeit in what is probably now an ancient version. A better measure would probably come from getting various companies managing various links of the internet backbone to set up passive fingerprinting machines. The cost of covering such links would probably be minimal, and the performance impact likely zippo, but the companies doing the work would probably not benefit much - so unless someone like Redhat or Canonical, or even Apple step up and fund it, it probably won't happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/p0f.shtml
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.284.1302642381.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3036 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote: > This data is of course skewed a bit toward computers that people are > using web browsers on. Right, Linux servers are most likely underrepresented. At best the data indicates what the population at large is using on their desktops. > Also, something like LWN tends to get more > Linux users, while microsoft.com tends to get more windows users. That's why it's important to look at a large number of sites and take more than one source of data into account. > Also, some sites only allow IE (often for rather capricious reasons), > so some *ix users tell their browsers to pretend to be IE to get > around the restriction - and sometimes it's just easier to pretend to > be IE all the time, even when you don't really need to. That is one potential issue, although I really doubt that it accounts for more than a couple of percent of the IE usage data. > And IE runs > on Solaris, albeit in what is probably now an ancient version. It also runs on Macs. Fortunately, it is standard practice to include the OS in the user-agent string, so there is no need to guess it based on the browser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.221.1302543114.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2963 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote: > So what is that number? Anecdotes are unreliable; I would like to see > the actual data. The only non-techie I personally know who uses Linux > is my wife, and she only uses it because it's what's installed at > home. My brother-in-law was a Linux fan at one time but has > regressed. The company where I work used to be a Windows shop exclusively, but now we're migrating more and more to Linux. All my devo is now Linux, and my boss is encouraging my coworkers to do the same. That's still anecdotal data though. We use Linux for technological reasons more than anything else. Windows doesn't give us the power of iptables, for instance. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <O6ynp.24564$yp3.15140@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #2822 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do > to punish them? What do you mean 'just like"....? They are nothing alike. (which is why the community is upset by sone, but not the others: hint) The punishment? ... withdraw support and use of the project as well as continue to aggressively support activism in all areas of freedom for computer science, including but not limited to the following: 1) I, nor my family, will ever purchase another Microsoft anything, from anyone, connected in any way, nor for any reason. Microsoft gets no more money from me, ever. 2) I do not use non-free software at any level nor for any reason at any time regardless of pain or inconvenience. 3) I work hard to advocate for free software alternatives to proprietary software at all levels... including bios and firmware. 4) I help to fund free software initiatives, choices, and development; conversely I refuse to fund (in any way) proprietary software initiatives and projects. 5) I educate the public in my sphere of influence for freedom and freedom choices, including the software engineering venue, and whenever possible persuade users of non-free software and Microsoft collaborative software to use only free software and only frameworks that are removed from Microsoft direction and control. 6) I actively advocate with vendors of free software at all levels to drop non-free software from their distros and to similarly punish Microsoft collaborative software initiatives and projects. (networking, communication, education, awareness training) 7) I write lots and lots of letters... to computer distributors, software houses, &etc., with the message of freedom; a plea for the openness of a free society and sanity in the marketplace of ideas. I make my marketing intentions clear to vendors who would like me to spend my dollars with them ( cards, drivers, printers, cameras, comp hardware desk, notebook, netbook, others) clearly indicating that their products must be open, not require Microsoft proprietary drivers, and be free from non-free software and firmware. Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.137.1302272089.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2827 |
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do > > to punish them? > > What do you mean 'just like"....? They are nothing alike. > > (which is why the community is upset by sone, but not the others: hint) > > The punishment? ... withdraw support and use of the project as well as > continue to aggressively support activism in all areas of freedom for > computer science, including but not limited to the following: > > 1) I, nor my family, will ever purchase another Microsoft anything, from > anyone, connected in any way, nor for any reason. Microsoft gets no more > money from me, ever. > > 2) I do not use non-free software at any level nor for any reason at any > time regardless of pain or inconvenience. > > 3) I work hard to advocate for free software alternatives to proprietary > software at all levels... including bios and firmware. > > 4) I help to fund free software initiatives, choices, and development; > conversely I refuse to fund (in any way) proprietary software > initiatives and projects. > > 5) I educate the public in my sphere of influence for freedom and > freedom choices, including the software engineering venue, and whenever > possible persuade users of non-free software and Microsoft collaborative > software to use only free software and only frameworks that are removed > from Microsoft direction and control. > > 6) I actively advocate with vendors of free software at all levels to > drop non-free software from their distros and to similarly punish > Microsoft collaborative software initiatives and projects. (networking, > communication, education, awareness training) > > 7) I write lots and lots of letters... to computer distributors, > software houses, &etc., with the message of freedom; a plea for the > openness of a free society and sanity in the marketplace of ideas. I > make my marketing intentions clear to vendors who would like me to spend > my dollars with them ( cards, drivers, printers, cameras, comp hardware > desk, notebook, netbook, others) clearly indicating that their products > must be open, not require Microsoft proprietary drivers, and be free > from non-free software and firmware. > > > Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always. Why should a business listen to you? You're not gonna buy any software anyways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.150.1302278436.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2827 |
Westley Martínez wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: >> >> Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always. > > Why should a business listen to you? You're not gonna buy any software > anyways. > From a thread a few months back I can say there are a couple companies with posters on this list that are successful in supporting *and selling* open-source software. ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <90adkqFh74U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2851 |
in 654905 20110408 171055 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >Westley Mart�nez wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: >>> >>> Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always. >> >> Why should a business listen to you? You're not gonna buy any software >> anyways. >> > >From a thread a few months back I can say there are a couple companies >with posters on this list that are successful in supporting *and >selling* open-source software. IBM fits that description ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <inkv5q$sun$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca> |
| In reply to | #2757 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >Perhaps what you mean is, none of the licences granted are *irrevocable*. >But the same applies to the GPL -- break the GPL's (generous) terms, and >you too could find that your licence is revoked. Actually, you could argue since the GPL doesn't meet the legal definition of a contract, it can be revoked unilateraly (but not retroactively) by the copyright holder at any time for any reason. Ross Ridge -- l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU [oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca -()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ db //
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <87vcym6feh.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #2757 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> >
> >> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
> > […]
> >
> > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
> > (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
> > “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
> > entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to
> > restrict the freedom of software recipients.
[…]
> Let's reword your concern slightly:
No, let's not. You've made a straw man to which I refuse to be held
accountable.
In particular, you're ignoring the distinction I'm drawing: that the
Mono developers knowingly implement techniques covered by software idea
patents that the patent holder demonstrates every intention of wielding
against Mono recipients.
The “community promise” from Microsoft is not binding; if they actually
meant it, they'd grant everyone a binding license, not a promise.
Microsoft have also shown no compunction in the past against using a
front entity to sue Microsoft's rivals, keeping their own hands somewhat
cleaner.
The “community promise” does nothing useful against a transfer of the
patent monopolies to another entitiy. A grant to the community of a full
license in those patents would, since then it wouldn't matter who holds
the patents or who had promised what.
> Perhaps every piece of software should be labeled May Infringe
> Patents.
Perhaps it should, but that's irrelevant here. Mono is *known* to
implement patent-restricted techniques, and the entity holding those
patents has merely made very carefully-worded statements that in no way
diminish the force of those patents against Mono.
<URL:http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono>
> Right. So why single out Mono? Python likely violates "countless" such
> patents, so obviously we can't take the idea of Python being free
> seriously either.
Which entity holds patents on techniques implemented in the work, and on
which specific techniques? For Python, the answer is unknown, so there's
no reasonable way to avoid the threat.
For C# and .NET, the answer *is* known, yet the developers of Mono
choose not to avoid the known threat. So we must avoid it for ourselves,
by avoiding Mono and C#.
That's the difference, and that's why Mono in particular is to be
avoided.
> Look, patent threats are real, but we don't gain anything by
> exaggerating the threat
Agreed. Which is why I focus my attention on works where there are known
patent threats to be avoided.
> and we *especially* don't gain anything by treating one patent holder
> as the Devil Incarnate while ignoring threats from others.
You paint a pretty picture, but it's nothing to do with my position.
--
\ “I knew things were changing when my Fraternity Brothers threw |
`\ a guy out of the house for mocking me because I'm gay.” |
_o__) —postsecret.com, 2010-01-19 |
Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <c8762e47-bf10-4cae-a0ba-ad978d46a26c@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2757 |
On 7 apr, 09:39, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > It's astonishing how anti-Mono FUD just won't die. (Something can be > true, and still FUD. "Oh no, people might *choke* on a peanut, or have an > allergic reaction, we must label every piece of food May Contain Nuts > just in case, because you never know!!!") > Look, patent threats are real, but we don't gain anything by exaggerating > the threat, and we *especially* don't gain anything by treating one patent > holder as the Devil Incarnate while ignoring threats from others. Regardless of source, the obvious conclusion from the patent FUD is this: - Python might infinge on a patent, never use Python. - Mono might infinge on a patent, never use Mono. - Java might infinge on a patent, never use Java. - .NET might infinge on a patent, never use .NET. - The C compiler might infinge on a patent, never use C. - Your code might infinge on a patent, never program anything. - Software on your computer might infinge on a patent, never dear to use it. - Hardware on your computer might infinge on a patent, turn it off. - Risk of litigation is a greater concern than anything a computer can do for you. - Get rid of your computer before you get sued. - A slide ruler is a hell of an invention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web