News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 7/27/97 | |
I don't know if you know about this (considering how finding information at Microsoft's website is so difficult), but OLE Automation provides a fairly robust method for exporting procedures from objects which are stored in DLLs. There are three things that make this seem better to me: it's object-based instead of function-based, it's an existing standard, and there are already objects out there which support this.
From: poz@simsys.com (Shannon Posniewski);
Sent at 7/28/97; 5:59:02 PM;
Calling DLLs from FrontierThe basic idea is that objects register themselves and point to something called a type library. The type library has all of the declarations for all of the objects, methods, and datatypes. It even has slots for pointing to topics in help files. The type library is embedded in the DLL as a resource. (It does basically what is described as a ProcInfo in Frontier's spec.) Type libraries are hierarchical and can reference each other.
Type libraries can be used for non-automation (COM) object definitions as well. The last place I worked used them for pure COM components. There's also other information which can be put into them for doing compilations and other spookier stuff.
With the Windows development tools around today, making OLE Automation servers is pretty easy. In addition, I see Microsoft slowly making its entire operating system COM-based. Under MS's JavaVM, java objects are COM objects with type libraries-- there's your java connection.
I think Frontier would have a great leg up if it spoke COM/OLE Automation.
ActiveX in Frontier? Coooool?
shannon
P.S. The next logical step is for Frontier to export itself as COM objects. Frontier in my browser? Heck, MS's browser is an ActiveX control, let's make Frontier my browser!
On my web server, CDF Files are defined as application/x-netcdf.
From: jroepcke@main.roepcke.com (Jim Roepcke);
Sent at 7/28/97; 12:46:27 PM;
MIME Type for CDF FilesThis came as a bit of a surprise to me, as it was preconfigured that way on my ISP's server, and I wasn't expecting any type. (I guess it makes sense that there is one, though...)
Anyway, you may want to configure your servers for x-netcdf too, if that's what it's supposed to be.
I used to work for a large law firm. Although Macs are now being marketed as graphics and publishing products, I'll let you in on a secret that Apple apparently doesn't want the rest of us to know: Macs kick butt in managing text-based info. Undoubtably, you've already figured this out, as Frontier and BBEdit are a couple of the slickest text-munchers on the planet.
From: dave@sherm.com (Dave Sherman);
Sent at 7/27/97; 1:09:22 PM;
Re:Carl and the Two GuysFor my purposes as a litigation attorney, the Mac was an astoundingly able tool. MORE was the perfect tool for taking contemporaneous notes of meetings, strategy sessions, depositions, trial notes, etc. I never came across a text document, PC or Mac, that I couldn't bend to my will. (I later used InfoDepot with great success). Several clients and colleagues took a distainful glance when I took out the PowerBook, but they soon clamored for copies of my outlines and prep materials.
But something interesting happened. I became the company "Mac Zealot". I didn't ask anyone else to use Macs. I didn't go out of my way to show my colleagues how the Mac made my life easier. I just did my work and met my client's needs.
Wanna hear something a bit twisted? The "One World, One OS" crowd were convinced that my Mac was more capable than their machines because the Mac was pulling resources and commitment from the DOS platform. If I were to be unselfish and live in the DOS world, then I could help everyone else do what I already did on my PowerBook. Last year, my old firm decided to move to a full Windows 95 system, which will probably be implemented later this year. Glad I moved on.
Here's an amusing story: Using AppleTalk Remote Access, Macs at our firm were able to tie into the email system of our largest client, an electric utility company and its related holding company. I believe we had this link in place since 1991. Couldn't do it on the DOS machines. One of my colleagues got a Mac on her desk so that she could dial in. Her husband, a PC adherent and a VP of the company that she was dialing into, didn't know she had a Mac in her office for more than a year. Kinda strange to hide a Mac from your spouse, no? At the time of the decision to move to all-Wintel, the firm still hadn't determine have to replace the functionality that the Mac users had for years. But why let that stop you from being mainstream?
Or how 'bout a friend of mine who works in your neighborhood. A large company that does PC software. He wanted to keep his Mac in his office, so he purchased a PC-like enclosure at Frye's for camoflage. Worked for about a year and a half, until his boss, admiring the extraordinary resolution of the monitor, noticed the six-color icon in the top left corner.
The politics of using a Mac in the business world. Arg. In 1988, I created a collection-tracking database in 4th Dimension; the managing director decided we should support the mainsteam platform, so he ordered one of the IS people to spend a few weeks moving the work into dBase II. Oh, well. I impressed the "Powers That Be" with high-caliber party memos (don't underestimate the power of social events to make an impact), but I was kept out of discussion on the firm's brochures and PR materials for fear that I would suggest using a Mac. Although my Mac "bias" made me unsuited to sit on the technology committee, I was given the opportunity to help the firm develop a web page. A couple days later, I had a prototype. Everyone said, "That's nice," didn't hear anything else for a number of months. The IS director decided that her department should control the project, so they just took the general template, made a one-page Web business card, and posted it on the Net. Oh, well.
I confess a certain bitterness that the Mac has been perceived as a threat to non-technical people who dearly fear being left outside the mainstream of technology. Since I'm an adherent of a low-market share religion, I don't mind as much being outside the perceived norm. But it clearly scares the bejesus out of most folks. The situation has confounded me since 1988, when I first brought my Mac Plus into the office. I'm tired of the continued disrespect for the Mac platform, and I think the "zealots" are as well.
A word about passion. I wish people had more passion in their lives. I kinda like when people stand up and fight to preserve a choice. Sometimes it isn't pretty, sometimes people get hurt, sometimes the "enemy is us," as Pogo observed. But it's the essence of humanity. Better to flow passion through a relatively benign issue like platform preference, than through more serious issues like money, ethnic strife, or state-sponsored religions.
You've had some oblique references to Guy Kawasaki in recent postings; I don't know whether you have a problem with his approach or not. As you may know, Guy's father an elected official in Hawaii, and Guy had a lot of exposure to Hawaii's unique style of retail, one-on-one politics. When I lived in Hawaii, I joined up with a gubernatorial campaign's grassroot effort, and the experience taught me a lot about myself and the people with whom I share this world. When I first joined the campaign, I did so because the candidate seemed to share my perspective of the world, and I was initially impressed by the top tier advisors. But as time wore on, I realized that those at the top, though good folks, weere distracted by ambition and image. The grassroots, the people in the trenches, were the unseen heros. Guy seems to understand the power of the people as a force. My wife and I have coopted his techniques for other causes, with great effect.
I think Apple (and every organization) suffers the same problem. The magic will usually not start at the executive suite, but from the engineers who make great products and customers who appreciate them. And as I learned from my campaign experience, the leaders will follow if the people are willing to lead.
Recommended reading: Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky.
Happy trails, and thanks for the kind words.
Dave
PS: You should visit Hawaii during the election season. Might be cool if sign waving, Hawaii-style, caught on in the rest of the country.
So far, who have the recent management changes at Apple really made any difference to? Isn't it like when Ovitz left Disney? It was very important to the Ovitz and Eisner families, and that was about it.
From: fredb@compuserve.com (Fred Ballard);
Sent at 7/27/97; 1:40:09 PM;
Questions about reporting on AppleI guess this line of thought leads to another question: although the changes at Apple may lead over time to changes affecting more than a small group of people, why was it important to find out about the changes the moment they happened, even before they were announced?
Do you know if there is there a place the meta-content scheme (proposed by Apple) for doing this?
From: deanp@peg.apc.org (dean perry);
Sent at 7/28/97; 2:35:26 AM;
Re:"siteChanges"Benefits that I can see are that the same script that cruises for changes could also "mark-up" other meta-info.
(didn't N.S. announce support for this scheme??)
Some of the responses in your piece, Anyone But Microsoft are simply wrong on the facts.
From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight);
Sent at 7/27/97; 9:32:09 AM;
Re:""Anyone But Microsoft""First, VirtualPC runs quite slowly even on 166Mhz or so PowerPcs. The idea that one could run production in Windows NT under VirtualPC at scale is simply ludicrous. It will take at least 300Mhz or faster Macs to do that even with just credible speed, and the cost and availability of such machines, as well as market penetration rates, means that we'll have Rhapsody running blazing fast well before any practical NT penetration via PC emulation via VirtualPC. IF I believed Windows NT was
the preferred OS, I would certainly run it on a native platform, not an emulated Mac.
The second ludicrous notion is that Microsoft simply makes good applications and systems, puts them out there, and lets the market decide. As has been repeatedly well documented, Microsoft seems to have one of the most sophisticated predatory pre-announcement strategies on the planet, often announcing products long in advance, or with extremely unrealistic release dates when competitors are about to ship genuine product advances.
They attempt (and have been caught red-handed at) some of the most dubious coercion strategies one can imagine, ranging from threatening competitors such as Apple if they don't do what Microsoft wants (see the
accounts of the MacBasic debacle), through reading people's computer contents and sending the information back to Microsoft, to disabling competitive applications on installing Microsoft software. It's not a pretty picture.