Slashdot Mirror
Google and Their Server Farm
JR writes "CNet has a very interesting story about Google, operating systems, and where Google may be going. The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm."
I believe you mean "the X Window System", or "X". (Wrongly) putting the word "Windows" next to it is repugnant to many.
Anyway, the network component of X was too far ahead of its time for general use, as high-bandwidth Internet access is only just becoming the standard.
Remember this discussion?
Microsoft is the thick client. If you can make the thin client do what the the thick client does, then you you win and Microsoft loses.
Microsoft has tried to sabotage the internet by letting the browser stagnate. If they can prevent the browser from doing what Excel or Word does, then they win. If Google can make it do what Office does, then Microsoft loses.
Microsoft does everthing it can to protect the Microsoft API.
AJAX over TCP using Firefox is MICROSOFT'S WORST NIGHTMARE.
> Frankly, the Google cache is blatantly illegal
The DMCA specifically allows caching, so it's more in a gray area than blatent.
You like Google and MacOS X? You'll like this then: http://labs.google.com/googlex/ ;-)
Animoog.org
Javascript DOES run locally, unlike most of the thin client platforms (like X or citrix), so theoretically you should be able to operate on locally stored files. In practice, stuff like sandboxing and the limitations of javascript get in the way, but to say that photo editing is impossible because the data must be loaded from the server as well is inaccurate at best.
By the way, there are strong indications google is developing their own browser based on firefox. Imagine if google managed to get a large enough segment of the market. Imagine they provided a whole new range of controls that allow the stuff javascript sucks at right now. Imagine if they provided activex controls for backwards compatibility with IE. Imagine that they built a set of web apps on top of that. It's possible. Not likely, but possible.
I think youve completely overlooked certain aspects of copyright law. Google's cache is, by the legal definition, an 'archive', with the rights accorded by 17 USC 108 . They are permitted to create single (and triplicate, although I doubt that applies) copies of works for preservation and public viewing under a few restrictions. In perusing this section of the law it seems that Google IS breaking the law, but only in that their cache page header doesnt "includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy". A simple matter to rectify, I am surprised it slipped by their legal department.
Except that people can easily buy enough power to satisfy their needs for a small premimum on top of what a terminal costs. Look at around at the so called thin-clients available. Even the thinnest of them has enough power to be a "fat-client" with substantial processing power.
A cheap, small, completely silent, cool, and very low power consumption 'thin client' running for instance a VIA Eden 533MHz with several (1-4) GB flash memory IS a good investment if bandwidth is less of a problem than space and power.
For a just little more money you can buy a faster machine with much more hard disk storage space but it will consume several times more power, which is a problem if you are running on your UPS' batteries several times a day. Power is also expensive compared to the purchase price of the machine.
Google is aiming in the right direction if it wants to conquer the third world and European and Asian inner city small businesses.
Not entirely true. I work on the Sun Ray firmware for a living -- and I can tell you without reservation that Sun Ray thin clients (sometimes called ultra-thin) are *really* thin.
These devices have a 100MHz processor, 4MB RAM, and between 512K and 2MB of flash.
There are some compelling arguments both for and against thin-clients. Running totally stateless can be very attractive -- you never have to worry about lost data, and IT departments love the supportability. (If a user's unit fails, just issue him a new one. With SunRay/Comet, your session and your apps are still running on the server and the only lost time is waiting for the replacement unit to power on (about 10 seconds).
Thin clients aren't going to be useful for power users who need high-end graphics, streaming video, etc., or individuals that want full control over their own data. But for the typical corporate user who just needs a few business applications, they can really be an ideal solution.
A. Asks content from sites and stores it
B. Modifies the content in trivial ways
C. Redistributes the content to any receiver
A. This must be legal, or all receivers of content on the web are infringing on copyright law.
B. This must be legal, because in order to download data from the site, no legal agreement must be signed and there is no legal obligation to not modify the content.
C. This should be just as legal as a router's redistribution of the content of the site to the other routers, and nobody sane even considers applying copyright law to automatic redistribution of content for technical reasons. This should also be legal because again, there is no legal obligation on the side of the receiver to not redistribute the content.
So which of A, B or C are illegal, and why?
Caching is a specific capability of HTTP. The web is desigined around having caching servers. If you make information available via HTTP, then you are allowing it to be accessed via HTTP, which means you are allowing caching.
HTTP does not require caching, however: If you dont want caching, set the approiate HTTP headers. Dont complain that you dont understand the technology that you are using.
If you can get a DA interested, then yes.
You are aware, are you not, that the district attorney only concerns himself with cases in which the state is a party?
Otherwise you need to hire a lawyer.
Need to? That depends entirely on the situation. The question is whether or not you have to, and the answer is no.
In any case, you'll probably need to register your copyright
Copyright law hasn't required registration of works for more than 30 years.
Google to its own rescue