1. 2

    He and the W3C only has as much power as we assign to them. If we convince companies like Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft (hey, crazier things have happened) to fight against this standard and the W3C, then we can challenge the legitimacy of a decision users seem to wholesale disagree with.

    1. 5

      If we convince companies like Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft

      Who’s “we”? I think in Chrome you can’t even disable EME anymore to “protest”. The only thing I can do is never buy anything with DRM, and so far I managed to avoid doing that. I only started buying DVDs after their DRM was broken. For the web: if youtube-dl doesn’t work I don’t watch it.

      …users seem to wholesale disagree…

      Filter bubble: I don’t think users wholesale disagree.They just want to watch Netflix and HBO on their iPad and couldn’t care less about DRM if it allows for them more or less to do what they want. They don’t care if watching video doesn’t work on some nerd’s BSD machine or that libraries will have trouble archiving the content for future generations.

      1. 2

        So you’re saying Lee and the W3C only have the power assigned to them by enormous multinational corporations owning the browsers we don’t even pay money for?

        1. 1

          No, I’m saying they’re a consortium browser vendors choose to follow. Microsoft has a long history of ignoring web standards, for example.

        2. 1

          If “we” do this then aren’t we setting a very dangerous principle for these huge companies to, once again, go forward with nonstandard implementations of everything?

          We just got to a point where HTML5 is reasonably stable across most browsers and the latest JavaScript is making it’s way in.

          I’m not saying I’m for DRM, I’m just saying I’m worried about giving Google and Microsoft the a-ok to just ignore the standard when “we” don’t like it.

        1. 3

          This is why I wish the languages I use C and C++ would dictate a single coding standard and just fail to compile anything else. It doesn’t matter which coding standard is used, you get used to it, but reading say Linux kernel code is almost like a different language compared to say C examples using Win32. Boost or C++11 examples are probably different to QT example code.

          It might have been better if they had been forced to follow the same standard.

          1. 2

            The problem with standards isn’t their goal, it’s what happens when someone who is not-you is writing them. Some crazy thing may make it into said standard and we’ll all be using 1 tab and 2 spaces. Or even worse, we might need to default to k&r function definitions. Yuck!

            Standards are good because things become uniform but are also bad because they are the defacto lowest common denominator.

            1. 1

              But most of the commonly used C/C++ coding standards are at least readable, even k&r :) so as long as there aren’t security issues with the if/switch/case/goto usage/braces/indentation then it should be fine, even tabs or weird number of spaces :P No matter which style you, use eventually it will become second nature and all of code will look weird. So hypothetically it would be great if those other styles didn’t even compile.

          1. 0

            If I had to guess I’d say definetly. Probably a lot of embeded DSP systems use it (if they are running Linux). That’s just a guess and I’d also be interested in hearing anything from people who’ve setup such systems.

            1. 4

              The x32 ABI requires an amd64 processor. I don’t think most DSP systems run on that.

            1. 3

              The project seems to be rather defunct. There a lot of pull requests for fixes that have all been ignored. There haven’t been commits since September of 2015.

              1. 2

                Even if slightly, or even extremely out of date, the material in this is a good primer for the kind of stuff you should be looking into if you want to write an OS. Stuff like grub, theory about os design, and other topics seem to be well covered in this document. It would be nice if it was updated but I think it still holds some value even if it isn’t up to date.

              1. 1

                I don’t think emphasising the syntax of a language makes it easier to read. I think it does quite the opposite. For example idomatic python doesn’t really read like code. It uses the langauge structures of python as part of an expression of the meaning of the code. For instance if you had:

                for account in database(outstanding_payments=True):
                    print(account.name)
                

                reads like “for every account in our database that has outstanding payments print the name of the account” which is perfectly readable. On the other hand:

                FOR account IN database
                    IF account.hasOutstandingPayments() 
                        IO.print(account.getName())
                    }
                }
                

                I don’t see this example as being more readable or maintainable. I don’t know why but I think the added complexity provided from named params and the way the keywords flow with the rest of the code is an important piece of why the python code looks nice.

                1. 4

                  If you’re interested in this topic and want a great way to get started you should check out the Broken Thorns tutorial. There are a few others but this single resource is very consice and is interspliced with a good amount of theory as well as all of the implementation.