That's what screams bloat to me, although that's the words of the article writer, not the developers. It doesn't give details, so I'm left to interpret what an "information broker" is based on the little description given. What web services do they plan on supporting? IRC? BitTorrent? Instant messaging? POP and IMAP? Anything other than HTTP and FTP and you're leaving browser territory and getting closer to something resembling the Mozilla Suite.
You are confusing a broker with a client (and webservices with internet protocols, but thats for another post). Just like a stock broker doesn't consume the stocks he works with, neither will Firefox consume the data or services. It will just provide a way for content on a web page to be passed directly to a program or service you want to consume that data. Look at Firefox's RSS options, it has a very rudimentary RSS viewer, and has options to add the feed to an external program or web services from google or yahoo. Essentially Firefox will act as a data router, passing data between the web and applications of your choosing, without needing to operate on that data. Since there is already something similar in the codebase (the RSS example), this should cause very little bloat.
This same comment, in one form or another, comes up every time there is a story on a new version of Firefox. I read the article, I skimmed the features list, what bloat is being added? The only thing that seemed that they would cause any excess bloat are the extended bookmarks.
Other than that it's improving the functionality and usability of things that already exist, or building a simple framework that will let other systems (extensions or webservices) provide additional features like microformats and identity management.
They are not bundling a mail client, chat client, html editor, voip phone, or anything else, so stop implying that it's becomnig just like Mozilla.
rom GPLv3 draft 2: "(For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)"
bad idea. this means when BluRay comes out, someone cannot take existing DVD-based GPL code and mod it to work with BluRay if it won't also work with DVD.
While the wording may be so vague as to lead to this conclusion, it is not the intent of the GPLv3. Suppose I take a GPL'd DVD player and modify it so that it can read my special encrypted DVDs. In order to be compatible with GPLv3, I need to either make the decryption key available under the GPL, or allow the encryption key to be changed without rendering the program nonfunctional. The point is that you must distribute under the GPL every part of the program necessary for it function.
Seriously, there may be a technicality here you can use. Do they have evidence that the copyrighted material was reproduced to anyone other than agents acting on the behalf of the RIAA? If all they have is network traffic showing transfer of copyrighted material from the defendant to MediaSentry, and the RIAA has given MediaSentry the right to obtain and store material under their copyright, was a crime actually committed?
To take the technology factor out of it, if the RIAA gave person A explicit rights to obtain copies of any material under their copyright, would it be illegal for me to provide person A with a physical copy of that material? Is it illegal to distribute a copyrighted work back to the owner of the copyright (or someone acting with their consent)?
The linked PDF mentions data retrieved from various sources, but the specifics are not mentioned in the PDF itself. From what I read, he seems to claim that the computer in question was assigned the IP in question, and was not simply behind a NAT router/firewall with that IP. Since he makes no claims of attempts to find traces of MediaSentry software on the HD image, one can only assume that the IP in question was gathered by software scanning network traffic that would have been on the outside of any such router/firewall.
However, the only ways I know of to tell if an IP is assigned to a computer and not a NAT router/firewall, is to get that information directly from the computer or the router/firewall itself. Since I saw no mention of him having access to a router/firewall or logs from a router/firewall, one can only assume that he verified that the IP address was assigned to the computer based on data found on the HD image itself.
Now, if all of these assumptions are correct, the there is only one situations that can satisfy them and the claim that the HD image was clean:
The HD image contains evidence that it was being used by a computer that had the IP in question, and that image contains no traces of of file sharing activity.
Since he wants to check someone else's HD, it seems that he could not verify that the HD image given was attached to a computer using the IP in question, so I am left to wonder how he knows that the IP was not assigned to a NAT router/firewall at the time.
Works fine under qemu (free + opensource), vmware (some products are free), xnu (free + opensource), pearpc (free + opensource)...
I can definitely recommend qemu, I have it running Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper) on a windows XP machine right now and both Ubuntu and Windows are very responsive. Be sure you download and install the kqemu module for windows and use the flag -kernel-kqemu, that makes it run much (> 10x) faster.
The name is a trademark, and I suppose Sun want to keep it for compliant implementations, as has been the case since they started licensing Java to other companies for implementation. The problem is that a restriction that you cannot change the APIs to make them incompatible with other Java implementations would not be compatible with the GPL, so the only way around this for them is to change the name for what is released under the GPL.
PhoneME is Sun's name for their implementation of the Java ME specification, not a renaming of Java. Glassfish is Sun's name for their implementation of the Java EE specification, which is also being released under the GPL. Sun will use it's trademark rights to the Java brand to ensure that only compatible implementations can call themselves Java, this is not a violation of the GPL. Anybody can fork the GPL'd source, make it incompatible, redistribute it, and call it anything they want except "Java". You will find this is the case with nearly all open-source products.
Mozilla also provides the Rhino Javascript engine for integration into Java apps. Adobe has donated their Actionscript virtual machine to Mozilla, so it will be getting better soon.
Well then how did they get away with this? Do they distribute a binary version of the interface, or do you have to compile it yourself before linking it to the kernel?
What Linus is saying may not exclude the possibility of a single kernel dev suing Nvidia for GPL license violations or possible copyright infringent.
Nobody can sue nVidia for violating the Linux license, because nVidia does not distribute Linux. The only objection a kernel dev might have would be with a distro like Ubuntu packaging nVidia drivers with their Linux distro. However, even that is questionable, because the GPL doesn't apply to software that is distributed along side of GPL'd software, only ones that link to or are derived from GPL software. You yourself pointed out that nVidia's binary code does not link directly to the kernel, but through a GPL'd interface, making it comply with the GPL of the kernel.
One of the great strengths of OSS compared to proprietary software is the ability to make use of older hardware.
Indeed, that is still one of the strengths of OSS. Firefox is no exception, and this alpha will run happily on older hardware. It won't, however, run on older software. If all you want is the ability to run OSS on old hardware, get yourself a nice lightweight Linux distro, it should run FF3 just fine.
If you want to do one of the many other things Google is able to do, oops, first you have to figure out how to find it, then you have to figure out which of the many offerings to use, then you have to figure out how to use it. And because all those other things are not on the home page but, instead, are hidden away in various mysterious places, extra clicks and operations are required for even simple tasks -- if you can remember how to get to them.
Hmm, you're looking for something on the internet, don't know where it is, need a simple way to get to it? I know, Google it!
Seriously, are looking for the link to Gmail? Just search for Gmail, it's right at the top! Google Groups? Images? Video? Word processing? Spreadsheets? They're all at the freakin top of the list! It's like complaining that you have to use the iPod's click wheel to access iPod features, instead of having a button for every track.
I think you are confusing Software as a Service with Data as a Service. In your example, keep the data secured in your own network, but why install MS Office on every computer when you can subscribe to MS Office service for a low monthly cost? Your Word docs can stay local, but your Word install is remote. Zero-day MS Word exploit? Yours can be patched the instant MS has the patch available, no need for a Sys Admin to keep your workstations up to date.
That is the promise that SaaS holds. In the end, all you'll need for yourself is your data and your bandwidth. Much easier to obtain and maintain that an entire software library.
Your post is modded funny, but I'm still not convinced you meant it that way. While I could argue that zero does represent a quantity, it's much easier just to point out that programmers count by offset, not quantity. Therefore, the character at 0 offset is the first in a string, of an element at 0 offset in an array is the first in the array.
You say you have a need for desktop publishing and film editing, but then you refer to F/OSS programs that were not designed for either. Maybe an apples to apples comparison is more appropriate?
For desktop publishing, Scribus seems to be the most acclaimed F/OSS program.
http://www.scribus.net/
For Video editing, Cinellera seems to be more in line with Final Cut Pro.
http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing a broker with a client (and webservices with internet protocols, but thats for another post). Just like a stock broker doesn't consume the stocks he works with, neither will Firefox consume the data or services. It will just provide a way for content on a web page to be passed directly to a program or service you want to consume that data. Look at Firefox's RSS options, it has a very rudimentary RSS viewer, and has options to add the feed to an external program or web services from google or yahoo. Essentially Firefox will act as a data router, passing data between the web and applications of your choosing, without needing to operate on that data. Since there is already something similar in the codebase (the RSS example), this should cause very little bloat.
This same comment, in one form or another, comes up every time there is a story on a new version of Firefox. I read the article, I skimmed the features list, what bloat is being added? The only thing that seemed that they would cause any excess bloat are the extended bookmarks.
Other than that it's improving the functionality and usability of things that already exist, or building a simple framework that will let other systems (extensions or webservices) provide additional features like microformats and identity management.
They are not bundling a mail client, chat client, html editor, voip phone, or anything else, so stop implying that it's becomnig just like Mozilla.
The wording was only an example, I'm not sure if that text is even part of the GPLv3 drafts or not.
I can't wait for Steve Jobs's new book: "If I did profit from backdating stock options, here's how I did it".
Seriously, there may be a technicality here you can use. Do they have evidence that the copyrighted material was reproduced to anyone other than agents acting on the behalf of the RIAA? If all they have is network traffic showing transfer of copyrighted material from the defendant to MediaSentry, and the RIAA has given MediaSentry the right to obtain and store material under their copyright, was a crime actually committed?
To take the technology factor out of it, if the RIAA gave person A explicit rights to obtain copies of any material under their copyright, would it be illegal for me to provide person A with a physical copy of that material? Is it illegal to distribute a copyrighted work back to the owner of the copyright (or someone acting with their consent)?
The linked PDF mentions data retrieved from various sources, but the specifics are not mentioned in the PDF itself. From what I read, he seems to claim that the computer in question was assigned the IP in question, and was not simply behind a NAT router/firewall with that IP. Since he makes no claims of attempts to find traces of MediaSentry software on the HD image, one can only assume that the IP in question was gathered by software scanning network traffic that would have been on the outside of any such router/firewall.
However, the only ways I know of to tell if an IP is assigned to a computer and not a NAT router/firewall, is to get that information directly from the computer or the router/firewall itself. Since I saw no mention of him having access to a router/firewall or logs from a router/firewall, one can only assume that he verified that the IP address was assigned to the computer based on data found on the HD image itself.
Now, if all of these assumptions are correct, the there is only one situations that can satisfy them and the claim that the HD image was clean:
The HD image contains evidence that it was being used by a computer that had the IP in question, and that image contains no traces of of file sharing activity.
Since he wants to check someone else's HD, it seems that he could not verify that the HD image given was attached to a computer using the IP in question, so I am left to wonder how he knows that the IP was not assigned to a NAT router/firewall at the time.
Mozilla also provides the Rhino Javascript engine for integration into Java apps. Adobe has donated their Actionscript virtual machine to Mozilla, so it will be getting better soon.
Well then how did they get away with this? Do they distribute a binary version of the interface, or do you have to compile it yourself before linking it to the kernel?
Nobody can sue nVidia for violating the Linux license, because nVidia does not distribute Linux. The only objection a kernel dev might have would be with a distro like Ubuntu packaging nVidia drivers with their Linux distro. However, even that is questionable, because the GPL doesn't apply to software that is distributed along side of GPL'd software, only ones that link to or are derived from GPL software. You yourself pointed out that nVidia's binary code does not link directly to the kernel, but through a GPL'd interface, making it comply with the GPL of the kernel.
Indeed, that is still one of the strengths of OSS. Firefox is no exception, and this alpha will run happily on older hardware. It won't, however, run on older software. If all you want is the ability to run OSS on old hardware, get yourself a nice lightweight Linux distro, it should run FF3 just fine.
Hmm, you're looking for something on the internet, don't know where it is, need a simple way to get to it? I know, Google it!
Seriously, are looking for the link to Gmail? Just search for Gmail, it's right at the top! Google Groups? Images? Video? Word processing? Spreadsheets? They're all at the freakin top of the list! It's like complaining that you have to use the iPod's click wheel to access iPod features, instead of having a button for every track.
I think you are confusing Software as a Service with Data as a Service. In your example, keep the data secured in your own network, but why install MS Office on every computer when you can subscribe to MS Office service for a low monthly cost? Your Word docs can stay local, but your Word install is remote. Zero-day MS Word exploit? Yours can be patched the instant MS has the patch available, no need for a Sys Admin to keep your workstations up to date.
That is the promise that SaaS holds. In the end, all you'll need for yourself is your data and your bandwidth. Much easier to obtain and maintain that an entire software library.
Your post is modded funny, but I'm still not convinced you meant it that way. While I could argue that zero does represent a quantity, it's much easier just to point out that programmers count by offset, not quantity. Therefore, the character at 0 offset is the first in a string, of an element at 0 offset in an array is the first in the array.
You say you have a need for desktop publishing and film editing, but then you refer to F/OSS programs that were not designed for either. Maybe an apples to apples comparison is more appropriate? For desktop publishing, Scribus seems to be the most acclaimed F/OSS program. http://www.scribus.net/ For Video editing, Cinellera seems to be more in line with Final Cut Pro. http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3
Azureus already has an option to prioritize the beginning of a file.