|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I think it's to exclude cheats as much as possible.
Hmmm...
I suspect that although that might be true the real driver is money.
Marketing looks better if you can say "it is safer for you" versus "we make more money this way"
|
|
|
|
|
"On this day in 1990, CERN's Tim Berners-Lee laid the foundations for the modern World Wide Web, writing the first web page on a NeXT workstation. Who knew how far it would come? And how much further you might help it go?": O'Reilly
Who? Me?
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
theoldfool wrote: O'Reilly
Oh really?
|
|
|
|
|
No, O'Reilly
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well done, only a day late.
|
|
|
|
|
The beginning of his work that gave us the first HTML page begins with Vannevar Bush's "memex", from a 1945 article he wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
I was teaching computer networking at a tech. college when WWW appeared. Gopher had been in the curriculum for a few years (and the students actually found a lot of useful information on various Gopher sites). We went into all sorts of protocol details - layout of protocol units, exchange procedures etc.
So I presented WWW as an augmented Gopher protocol, and not even very much augmented. The big thing was a new type of content (Gopher already had a few), which required a more fancy presentation. Gopher had facilities for linking from one page to another, but with the 'old' content types, a page would either have a list of annotated links, or informative text. An HTML page could intermix links and information; we did not view it as any earth shaking generalization (which it turned out to be!).
Gopher also allowed user data to be supplied with the request. HTTP POST defined a standard format for this information, which was good thing, making it a lot more useful. Yet we saw it as not that much more than a far more complete specification of the Gopher selector. At the technical level, the differences between Gopher and HTTP 1.0 are surprisingly small - so small that HTTP could, at the functional level, be seen as a Gopher update (although a major one).
If Gopher has been extended with a new 'HTML' page type, alongside with plain text pages, lists of links pages, file transfer, information search functions, ... and the selector format standardized to something like what POST uses, the Gopher protocol could have provided something very WWW-like.
In other words: We were not that greatly impressed by WWW when it arrived to replace Gopher.
We underestimated the effect of the (technically speaking) minor extensions, by orders of magnitude! But for a long time (and I would say that it partially holds even today), the WWW revolution was not on the technical side, but how it is used.
If you read between the lines - to help you a bit, I will drag it up on the the line: The success of HTTP/HTML has a lot to do with promotion. Marketing. CERN was a lot better than U of Minn in their marketing of HTTP/HTML. If they had made it as an extension of Gopher, rather than creating a new protocol, they could probably have succeeded, too. Presenting sa new name sometimes is essential in marketing. (Unless you have invested a lot in the old name - CERN had not. Look at e.g. ethernet or USB - they each cover several more or less completely different protocols, but the standard developers have succeeded in hiding the differences.)
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: In other words: We were not that greatly impressed by WWW when it arrived to replace Gopher.
In my mind nothing is particularly 'great' because everything I have ever researched in detail was just basically a minor improvement over something that was already there.
Or not even an improvement. Just marketed better.
trønderen wrote: has a lot to do with promotion
Yep. Or confusion even.
That is why I learned about the Brontosaurus in school out of science books.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
FTP -> GOPHER -> HTTP
One great feature of FTP is that a control node (C) can initiate a transfer from server A to sever B. Very useful if C was on a slower WAN.
I am not sure if GOPHER supports that operation.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you CERNten?
I'll get my coat, I know the way out.
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Find your way home? I am sure you know the address.
|
|
|
|
|
The NeXT work station on the other hand.....
|
|
|
|
|
theoldfool wrote: Who? Me?
Every day we live, we change the world. That's the words from a 7 year one.
And it is technically correct. You change the world.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember lots of utilites on CD's that came with books on ISAPI, etc. Writing HTTP server and client book samples.
Client-server with a different client.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I well remember sitting in the bar with Tim and Vint, scribbling out protocol outlines on bar napkins, asking the waitress for more napkins and a fresh pen, and taking a swipe at grabbing her... erm, never mind that part. Heady days, they was, and we were full of dreams for saving mankind. Yeah, it was pretty good grass. Then there was Bill, telling the world that no one will ever need more than 64k of RAM. What a buzzkill he was, silly nerd. Good times, good times, indeed; they'll never be back because all of that is illegal now. Poor kids, you have no idea what you're missing... It was the best of times, and the worst of times.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: Yeah, it was pretty good grass. Then there was Bill, telling the world that no one will ever need more than 64k of RAM. What a buzzkill he was, silly nerd.
I doubt very much that you are referring to a statement you heard at that occasion. When Gates was asked about this quote, he did not remember the specific situation, but said that it probably was a statement he made in discussions about how to split the 1 mebi (1024 Ki) address space between OS and user: With that total, giving the OS, drivers etc. 384 Ki, applications 640 Ki - that sounds like a reasonable split. 640 Ki out of 1024 Ki total should be enough for everyone.
I guess that he was right. Giving user processes all of the 1024 Ki would not leave any space at all for an OS. Giving the OS significantly less might lead to a lot of of time consuming page faults in the OS, significantly slowing down the system.
This sounds like a very reasonable context for the most famous quote ever made by Bill Gates. But it is completely unrelated to the work by Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf. Once essential point is that all the early internet work (as well as most of the intermediate work) was done on non-MS platforms: Initially on IBM mainframes, then gradually moving over to DEC, mostly PDP, operating systems, and then to various UNix variants. Windows was a latecomer in the networking world. The Next workstation where Tim Berners-Lee ran the first WWW demos was running Unix. I never heard of Windows being ported to Next.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: But it is completely unrelated to the work by Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf
So? It's a reminiscence (*), which is very much in line with the original post. No need to be judgmental.
(*) Apocryphal and almost certainly fictional, too
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
That they were!
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
How do you setup your attack strategy.
When starting a new game the first thing you should do if you can is to rush to the enemy base and take out the enemy workers. However most often that’s not possible, an average enemy player will take counter measures and prevent you from wining right away.
Because of this you should first scout the enemy base. After that you must imaginary place your attacking units lets say marines in a position PS where their fire range reaches the enemy SCVs. Then you must check if position PS is covered by enemy fire. If it is you don’t scrap you plan to attack the workers with your marines you just take a step back and postpone the attack. Let’s say PS is within enemy tank fire range, you know that since you’ve scouted the area. Keep in mind that this is all imaginary, you haven’t moved your marines from your base yet. So now you have to solve the tank problem. Imaginary you place your tank countermeasure units in a position PS2 where they can reach (inflict damage to) the tanks. You then check if PS2 is exposed to enemy fire. If it is you bring in imaginary countermeasure units 2 into position PS3. Once all that is done you can start building the required units in your base to bring your plan to reality. The only thing here that is not imaginary is the scouting. You start your attack by first placing the adequate units at PS3 then at PS2 and in the end at PS.
[update]
When building each strategy step you should consider not just one but all positions from where your units can reach the target enemy units. If we take for example the marines targeting the SCVs for good results you should consider every spot around the resource collecting site from where the marines can shoot at workers. If all positions are defended you take a step back and consider a solution against the units defending if not you move in with the marines against the SCVs.
[update]
Another update. In the situation described above moving to PS3 is the first priority, moving into position PS2 is the second priority and so on. While you’re preparing to move to PS3 the enemy might attack your base. If that happens you have a new priority, moving combat units to PS4 a defensive position somewhere in your base. Now moving to PS3 becomes a second priority and moving to PS2 the third priority. As a result of the attack on your base the enemy will probably be left with less units ( the layout of enemy units on the map might change as well ) hence an update of your plan to move to PS3 PS2 and PS might be required.
modified 15-Mar-24 7:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
(wrong community ?)
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to post to a game development forum but the edit window was non-responsive, hence I decided to post here. My other threads on the subject are here as well.
modified 13-Nov-23 13:59pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "better". In real life, they don't "kill the workers"; they use them as forced labor. Killing workers, from a philosophical (war) point of view is not a "direct" winning strategy; which is generally a waste of time and resources. "Workers" provide the resources an invading army needs to "live off the land".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not aiming to improve the genre. From the games I’m familiar with I think Age of Empires and Homeworld had enemy conversion units. Both of these games will only let you convert one unit at a time though.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
