Interesting. Some people have been trying this already I think.
The big problem is, it isn't like it's "all of us are good friends, versus RIAA". (Though it'd be nice). It isn't safe (legally), to have a whole bunch of people distributing someone's copyrighted work without explicit permission just on the off chance the RIAA will distribute it and then get sued. Because the person who made the work can then turn around and sue all of his "friends".
"dynamic recompilation": translating sections of x86 machine language to Java bytecode...
Which then gets dynamically recompiled by the Java VM into x86 machine language:)
(At least, when running on an actual x86).
Seriously though, this is quite impressive (to have it written in Java). But what are the advantages of this versus QEMU? (Besides a wider range of platforms). I mean... QEMU already offers total sandboxing doesn't it?
I agree with your sentiment. But I don't think it's a very good example.
The problem you outlined can be seen if you just try to write out strcat in C itself. You don't need assembly knowledge to see what it's doing, and why it's bad if you misuse it. (I don't think strcat itself is necessarily bad, though obviously if you're catting lots of things together it's best not to use it, as you pointed out).
Secondly, a knowledge of algorithms is more important to see why it's bad; I wouldn't have thought it's too necessary to know the assembly underneath.
I don't think there really is a specific example of when it is good to know asm. It just is. Whenever you code in C, it's a good feeling to be able to imagine what asm the compiler is going to spit out. It does make you a better programmer. I don't believe it's "premature optimisation" to be coding with that in mind - it's just eternal vigilance.
Asm is less relevant in a way - since what I just described is for coding in C, and other native languages. If you're writing code in C#, Python or Haskell, it isn't really possible to imagine the assembly coming out. But in another way, it's more relevant - because who is writing the JIT compilers and so on? The assembly coders!
The biggest danger is that we get so focussed on the "higher abstractions" that everyone knows how to program in C# and Python, but nobody knows how the assembly code works - and suddenly people who actually know how to write compilers and bytecode interpreters get in short supply!
OK, you say I have it backwards, but then you say that it IS the way I describe because of a lack of choice... I never addressed WHY music was a service in prehistoric times. I just mentinoed it originated that way. Music WAS indeed a service when it was first developed. - Or do you still disagree? If so, please explain.
Yes, I'm saying music was a service when it first developed. It wasn't as good as having CDs, but CDs/tapes/any form of storage was not around in prehistoric times, so they made do with music as service-only.
I think products are better for everyone - it's best if you can create a CD and make money selling copies than if you have to keep performing a service. So, in other words, services are OK, if a service can be made into a buyable product, then it's better for both the producer and consumer.
The real problem is when they take a product, and ARTIFICIALLY make it into a service, as I described earlier. Then it's basically costing consumers that of a service, they're getting money as if it was a service, but they aren't continually rendering a service. They're just selling a product and charging like it's a service.
And yes, I do agree with you overall. I just thought your actual statement was backwards.
I would be quite astounded if there are any Vista-only (non-game) applications for a very long time (2014 at the very earliest). The main reason is that, although Vista does certainly bring in loads of new developer technologies (most notably the WPF API); MS allows you to install them on XP and Server 2003 as well. They get installed as part of the.NET 3.0 framework. So whilst there's already a surprisingly long list of WPF applications, they'll all run on XP or 2003 after you've installed the.NET 3 framework.
Granted, it is a Microsoft game. This only goes to show how bad it is to have the company that makes the OS making the games...
The GP was saying that they don't see any particular reason to upgrade, and so don't see why they should spend the money for what, for them, seems little return. That's hardly the same as having some kind of aversion to using it! To use the same analogy I used before, I'm not planning to upgrade to Photoshop CS3 (because the improvements for me don't justify the price), but if my workplace switches to it, I wouldn't exactly complain.
So if you ignore my point 2, and use this analogy, it's like all the plugins from now on being made only for Photoshop CS3. They could have been made for CS2, but the plugin designers decided to make it for the "latest and greatest". So you are forced to upgrade if you want to use those plugins, even though you don't want any new features of CS3 (besides artificial compatibility with new plugins).
And what I've found with Windows is that people take that pig and say "Well, it works well enough, and all the clothes I bought for it fit, so I don't think I should switch over to a real woman. Besides, I hear that real women are very expensive."
Wait, real women are free, if you take the time to get to know them properly. It's the pigs that cost you up front.
So sick of "nobody's forcing you to upgrade" comments. It is extremely ignorant.
1. Future apps will require Vista. They wouldn't have required Vista if there was no Vista, and we'd be happy. As it is, if we want to use these apps (which may be perfectly good or desirable), we are forced to upgrade. (This is especially true of games, which will soon require DX 10 which should not be so tightly integrated into the kernel so as to "not be supported in XP").
Please do not give me the argument that "nobody's forcing me to get new apps or games". The bottom line is: I want new apps and games. I don't want Vista.
2. When companies begin rolling out Vista, people are going to be forced to use it at work. Developers are going to be forced to develop for it. A lot of them are not going to like it.
Sure, I can try to avoid upgrading for as long as possible. But don't give me this "just don't upgrade - it's simple" bullshit.
For Fifteen THOUSAND Years ( I am NOT exagerating) Music was a service that people provided to each other.
Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.
Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems.
I think you have it backwards. Music was a service because it had to be - there was no way to store it. Services are worse than products from a consumer point of view because they have to pay again and again to use them - and they have to be performed repeatedly. They are non-perpetual (have a limited time), need to be continually re-purchased, and can only be listened to or taken advantage of in the limited way which the service provider determines.
Then Edison invents whatever technology evolved into the CD/iPod, and we now have music as products. Products are better from the consumer point of view, because you buy them once and then you own them. You can do what you like with them.
You say the RIAA is selling a service like it is a product. You have it the wrong way round - the RIAA are trying to sell a product (the music) like it is a service. They are trying to charge us again and again to listen to music. They specify the terms on which you can listen to the music. They are giving us "licenses" to use the music instead of giving us the actual product.
The whole problem with DRM and the RIAA is that it turns a product (good for consumer) into a service (bad for consumer; good for people who like to make money over and over again for ostensibly the same thing). The sad thing is, normal service providers (like people who mow your lawn, or perform music live) actually have to work for each service. DRM is actually taking a physical product, slapping a "this is a service" sticker on it, and charging repeatedly - so the cost to the company is that of a product.
But you are right - this is an abhorration of technology that is being corrected - music is a product - it is a physical entity (whether that be a CD or a file) - and it will always be returned to that form. Whether this happens legally or illegally is the RIAA's choice.
I find it hard to believe some of this data. Linux Afficionado: Preferred OS for next server: 72% Linux, 17% Windows.
This is the category for all the people who really do use Linux because they think it's superior - if not on the Desktop, certainly on the server. They often hate Microsoft as well.
I can't believe that 17% of people who believe in Linux as the superior OS would prefer Windows on their server. (By definition).
Interestingly, the UNIX transitioner has a smaller preference for Windows than the Linux afficionado.
Choice quote from the Linux Afficionado: "I would put it on every desktop. I would ban Microsoft®."
Knowing the Linux Afficionado as I do, I don't think he'd say "®"
If you RTFP, what's actually being patented is the idea of using multiple pointers so that the same item can be in more than one linked list at a time.
All functional programming languages (ref Lisp, 1959 and Haskell, 1990, and all the languages in between) use linked lists as their primary data structures (albeit singly-linked lists). Consing data onto the front of a list can be (and often is) done multiple times on the same list, resulting in... an item being in more than one list at a time.
Really? Because that seems to be the rationalle used by all the anti-MS people as a reason to switch from Windows: that the non-Windows OS's are more secure because of their obscurity.
Actually, "security through obscurity" is the term for the security practise of locking up your source code, keeping encryption keys secret, hiding bugs from the public, and hoping nobody finds them.
You know, the Microsoft way?
But I do get what you're saying (that there are more viruses on Windows because it is more popular). This is true, it's a factor. But another huge factor is the fact that Windows is built on a horribly flawed security model. Almost all other OSes (Linux, Mac, FreeBSD) are built upon the UNIX security model, which is far superior from the ground up.
Sounds nasty. But it may have more to do with your burner or burning software (at least in the first case - if it crashes while burning it can not be the fault of the file you're trying to burn).
You're better off asking for help on the Ubuntu forums than on Slashdot.
Note that you had to change the word "monopoly" into "monoculture" in order to apply it to free software.
Because while RMS may be creating somewhat of a "monoculture", it is by no means a "monopoly".
If we imagine a future in which every computer in the world is sold with an end-to-end open source/GPL/FSF solution, you will still never see:
- Documents locked into a particular format, unable to switch - Software which locks you out of media you purchased - Software controlled entirely by a company - Software which nobody understands and therefore nobody can fix or improve
The difference being that code released under the GPL isn't really owned by anyone. It's available to everyone. So that isn't a monopoly.
As for GCC, I think it's quite rare to find code made specifically for GCC. Most of the time, the issues with other compilers are:
- GCC is the most standards-compliant C compiler there is. Other compilers (VC++ included) have difficulty. - Part of this is that GCC is POSIX compliant and VC++ isn't. POSIX is not a monoculture, it is a standard which predates Windows. A lot of open source code is written for POSIX.
The point being that someone could come along and write a new C compiler which is also POSIX compliant and it could be used instead of GCC. It isn't like anyone's protecting trade secrets as to how to write a C compiler. It's just really really hard, which is why nobody does it. That's separate from a "monopoly".
I am the most anti-Microsoft person around, going back to getting burned when they abandoned OS/2.
However, I think this is great news. I wouldn't object to Microsoft becoming the #1 software producer for Linux - by making Office etc. work in Mono and licensing their C# Win32 libraries for a reasonable price. I would probably start using Outlook right away because our corporate overlords insist on Exchange.
Dude, just so you know, you're not the most anti-Microsoft person around.
I read Slashdot because it gives me an exaggerated sense that there are actually people in the world who aren't totally apathetic towards Microsoft, and I enjoy reading hundreds of people pile shit upon them. Please keep them coming.
But I am surprised that MS have come out and said this publically.
They're treading very thin ice here... they have always taken a harsh harsh stance on piracy, yet it's (by their own admission) in their best interests for people to pirate their software. You can't have it both ways, Microsoft.
Basically they have said "Piracy is evil and illegal and it is the worst thing you could possibly do to an honest hard working company such as ourselves"... "but we'd rather you do that than use free software." In other words, software piracy is OK when it suits our interests. In other words, software piracy is better than using free software. Really, what sort of a message is this sending? (Not just to the pirates, but to people who take MS seriously).
This is true. I think a big problem is the distinction between physical media and rights to watch.
If you charge for physical media, and your kid wrecks it, then that's your problem (sorry). If you backed it up, then you solved your problem.
But these days, that isn't what's happening. They think they control your rights. They don't let you back up, because it "isn't within your rights". But it's still on a physical media, which can be wrecked by your kid. Since they're so adamant that you aren't buying media, but rights to view, then you should be able to demand from them replacement media.
In other words, if you buy the media, you get the disc and you're on your own, able to do anything you like with it. If you buy the rights to watch, it has to be a perpetual right as would be the rights to owning land.
What completely boggles me is how can standardisation committees approve this crap?
If an organisation is devoted wholly and entirely to looking at standards and saying "this standard is open, let's give it a stamp of approval; this standard isn't open, we won't approve it" - and they are the world leaders in doing so - how can anyone on the team possibly look at a document which says "it shall operate like Word 5" and take it seriously.
It would be laughable if it wasn't such a huge fuckup. I completely fail to understand how these committes approve it. I do suspect the answer begins with a '$'.
The overall effort is to make it compatible with drivers. This release is aimed at emulators. The ultimate goal is to run it on actual hardware, but they don't want to scare people away if it doesn't run on real hardware at the moment (when it provably runs fine in an emulator).
No, MS wants interop, and they seem to realize they need to play with standards.
Play with standards is right.
When MS does interop, it is under their terms. For example, they won't help the Samba project one shred, and go out of their way to make their SMB protocol more confusing to hinder (or "fuck with", as one MS engineer was apparently quoted as saying) Samba.
They refuse to work with the ODF format. It doesn't play by their rules.
But if MS is dictating the terms, sure we'll interop then. That's why they released OOXML to compete with ODF - sure it's "interop" (it's an open format), but it's under MS's terms. It's a format they have control of, their software is 100% compatible with, and they can change at any point.
You won't see MS get interested in interoperability using other people's standards (and when they do, they're trying to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish, a la HTML).
Of course it is. Microsoft as a business survives on the single fact that there is no interop with OSS. If there was, their market share would erode and there would be a slippery slope down to OSS.
They are a bit backed in however, because they have to make it look like they're interested in interop, because everyone wants interop.
The prime example is the Novell deal, which is apparently made out of interop. But if they were actually interested in interop, they might actually start publishing some specifications (such as SMB) instead of just talking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
All the hand-wavey unsupported statements I've heard about Dell have been, "they suck. Don't buy a Dell".
All the actual anecdotal evidence I've heard, such as this and the Vista refund from the other day, have been very positive.
What gives?
I'm planning to buy a laptop, and I don't want Windows. Dell seem like they're really going to be the best bet here.
Interesting. Some people have been trying this already I think.
The big problem is, it isn't like it's "all of us are good friends, versus RIAA". (Though it'd be nice). It isn't safe (legally), to have a whole bunch of people distributing someone's copyrighted work without explicit permission just on the off chance the RIAA will distribute it and then get sued. Because the person who made the work can then turn around and sue all of his "friends".
What choices have we got for laptops?
This is true (I read this on the website after posting).
Also, as demonstrated on the website, being able to run it as a browser applet is quite awesome.
(At least, when running on an actual x86).
Seriously though, this is quite impressive (to have it written in Java). But what are the advantages of this versus QEMU? (Besides a wider range of platforms). I mean... QEMU already offers total sandboxing doesn't it?
I agree with your sentiment. But I don't think it's a very good example.
The problem you outlined can be seen if you just try to write out strcat in C itself. You don't need assembly knowledge to see what it's doing, and why it's bad if you misuse it. (I don't think strcat itself is necessarily bad, though obviously if you're catting lots of things together it's best not to use it, as you pointed out).
Secondly, a knowledge of algorithms is more important to see why it's bad; I wouldn't have thought it's too necessary to know the assembly underneath.
I don't think there really is a specific example of when it is good to know asm. It just is. Whenever you code in C, it's a good feeling to be able to imagine what asm the compiler is going to spit out. It does make you a better programmer. I don't believe it's "premature optimisation" to be coding with that in mind - it's just eternal vigilance.
Asm is less relevant in a way - since what I just described is for coding in C, and other native languages. If you're writing code in C#, Python or Haskell, it isn't really possible to imagine the assembly coming out. But in another way, it's more relevant - because who is writing the JIT compilers and so on? The assembly coders!
The biggest danger is that we get so focussed on the "higher abstractions" that everyone knows how to program in C# and Python, but nobody knows how the assembly code works - and suddenly people who actually know how to write compilers and bytecode interpreters get in short supply!
I think products are better for everyone - it's best if you can create a CD and make money selling copies than if you have to keep performing a service. So, in other words, services are OK, if a service can be made into a buyable product, then it's better for both the producer and consumer.
The real problem is when they take a product, and ARTIFICIALLY make it into a service, as I described earlier. Then it's basically costing consumers that of a service, they're getting money as if it was a service, but they aren't continually rendering a service. They're just selling a product and charging like it's a service.
And yes, I do agree with you overall. I just thought your actual statement was backwards.
Alan Wake
Granted, it is a Microsoft game. This only goes to show how bad it is to have the company that makes the OS making the games...So if you ignore my point 2, and use this analogy, it's like all the plugins from now on being made only for Photoshop CS3. They could have been made for CS2, but the plugin designers decided to make it for the "latest and greatest". So you are forced to upgrade if you want to use those plugins, even though you don't want any new features of CS3 (besides artificial compatibility with new plugins).
So sick of "nobody's forcing you to upgrade" comments. It is extremely ignorant.
1. Future apps will require Vista. They wouldn't have required Vista if there was no Vista, and we'd be happy. As it is, if we want to use these apps (which may be perfectly good or desirable), we are forced to upgrade. (This is especially true of games, which will soon require DX 10 which should not be so tightly integrated into the kernel so as to "not be supported in XP").
Please do not give me the argument that "nobody's forcing me to get new apps or games". The bottom line is: I want new apps and games. I don't want Vista.
2. When companies begin rolling out Vista, people are going to be forced to use it at work. Developers are going to be forced to develop for it. A lot of them are not going to like it.
Sure, I can try to avoid upgrading for as long as possible. But don't give me this "just don't upgrade - it's simple" bullshit.
Then Edison invents whatever technology evolved into the CD/iPod, and we now have music as products. Products are better from the consumer point of view, because you buy them once and then you own them. You can do what you like with them.
You say the RIAA is selling a service like it is a product. You have it the wrong way round - the RIAA are trying to sell a product (the music) like it is a service. They are trying to charge us again and again to listen to music. They specify the terms on which you can listen to the music. They are giving us "licenses" to use the music instead of giving us the actual product.
The whole problem with DRM and the RIAA is that it turns a product (good for consumer) into a service (bad for consumer; good for people who like to make money over and over again for ostensibly the same thing). The sad thing is, normal service providers (like people who mow your lawn, or perform music live) actually have to work for each service. DRM is actually taking a physical product, slapping a "this is a service" sticker on it, and charging repeatedly - so the cost to the company is that of a product.
But you are right - this is an abhorration of technology that is being corrected - music is a product - it is a physical entity (whether that be a CD or a file) - and it will always be returned to that form. Whether this happens legally or illegally is the RIAA's choice.
I find it hard to believe some of this data.
Linux Afficionado: Preferred OS for next server: 72% Linux, 17% Windows.
This is the category for all the people who really do use Linux because they think it's superior - if not on the Desktop, certainly on the server. They often hate Microsoft as well.
I can't believe that 17% of people who believe in Linux as the superior OS would prefer Windows on their server. (By definition).
Interestingly, the UNIX transitioner has a smaller preference for Windows than the Linux afficionado.
Choice quote from the Linux Afficionado: "I would put it on every desktop. I would ban Microsoft®."
Knowing the Linux Afficionado as I do, I don't think he'd say "®"
All functional programming languages (ref Lisp, 1959 and Haskell, 1990, and all the languages in between) use linked lists as their primary data structures (albeit singly-linked lists). Consing data onto the front of a list can be (and often is) done multiple times on the same list, resulting in
You know, the Microsoft way?
But I do get what you're saying (that there are more viruses on Windows because it is more popular). This is true, it's a factor. But another huge factor is the fact that Windows is built on a horribly flawed security model. Almost all other OSes (Linux, Mac, FreeBSD) are built upon the UNIX security model, which is far superior from the ground up.
Sounds nasty. But it may have more to do with your burner or burning software (at least in the first case - if it crashes while burning it can not be the fault of the file you're trying to burn).
You're better off asking for help on the Ubuntu forums than on Slashdot.
Note that you had to change the word "monopoly" into "monoculture" in order to apply it to free software.
Because while RMS may be creating somewhat of a "monoculture", it is by no means a "monopoly".
If we imagine a future in which every computer in the world is sold with an end-to-end open source/GPL/FSF solution, you will still never see:
- Documents locked into a particular format, unable to switch
- Software which locks you out of media you purchased
- Software controlled entirely by a company
- Software which nobody understands and therefore nobody can fix or improve
The difference being that code released under the GPL isn't really owned by anyone. It's available to everyone. So that isn't a monopoly.
As for GCC, I think it's quite rare to find code made specifically for GCC. Most of the time, the issues with other compilers are:
- GCC is the most standards-compliant C compiler there is. Other compilers (VC++ included) have difficulty.
- Part of this is that GCC is POSIX compliant and VC++ isn't. POSIX is not a monoculture, it is a standard which predates Windows. A lot of open source code is written for POSIX.
The point being that someone could come along and write a new C compiler which is also POSIX compliant and it could be used instead of GCC. It isn't like anyone's protecting trade secrets as to how to write a C compiler. It's just really really hard, which is why nobody does it. That's separate from a "monopoly".
I read Slashdot because it gives me an exaggerated sense that there are actually people in the world who aren't totally apathetic towards Microsoft, and I enjoy reading hundreds of people pile shit upon them. Please keep them coming.
The statement itself is obvious as day.
... "but we'd rather you do that than use free software." In other words, software piracy is OK when it suits our interests. In other words, software piracy is better than using free software. Really, what sort of a message is this sending? (Not just to the pirates, but to people who take MS seriously).
But I am surprised that MS have come out and said this publically.
They're treading very thin ice here... they have always taken a harsh harsh stance on piracy, yet it's (by their own admission) in their best interests for people to pirate their software. You can't have it both ways, Microsoft.
Basically they have said "Piracy is evil and illegal and it is the worst thing you could possibly do to an honest hard working company such as ourselves"
This is true. I think a big problem is the distinction between physical media and rights to watch.
If you charge for physical media, and your kid wrecks it, then that's your problem (sorry). If you backed it up, then you solved your problem.
But these days, that isn't what's happening. They think they control your rights. They don't let you back up, because it "isn't within your rights". But it's still on a physical media, which can be wrecked by your kid. Since they're so adamant that you aren't buying media, but rights to view, then you should be able to demand from them replacement media.
In other words, if you buy the media, you get the disc and you're on your own, able to do anything you like with it. If you buy the rights to watch, it has to be a perpetual right as would be the rights to owning land.
What completely boggles me is how can standardisation committees approve this crap?
If an organisation is devoted wholly and entirely to looking at standards and saying "this standard is open, let's give it a stamp of approval; this standard isn't open, we won't approve it" - and they are the world leaders in doing so - how can anyone on the team possibly look at a document which says "it shall operate like Word 5" and take it seriously.
It would be laughable if it wasn't such a huge fuckup. I completely fail to understand how these committes approve it. I do suspect the answer begins with a '$'.
The overall effort is to make it compatible with drivers. This release is aimed at emulators. The ultimate goal is to run it on actual hardware, but they don't want to scare people away if it doesn't run on real hardware at the moment (when it provably runs fine in an emulator).
When MS does interop, it is under their terms. For example, they won't help the Samba project one shred, and go out of their way to make their SMB protocol more confusing to hinder (or "fuck with", as one MS engineer was apparently quoted as saying) Samba.
They refuse to work with the ODF format. It doesn't play by their rules.
But if MS is dictating the terms, sure we'll interop then. That's why they released OOXML to compete with ODF - sure it's "interop" (it's an open format), but it's under MS's terms. It's a format they have control of, their software is 100% compatible with, and they can change at any point.
You won't see MS get interested in interoperability using other people's standards (and when they do, they're trying to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish, a la HTML).
Of course it is. Microsoft as a business survives on the single fact that there is no interop with OSS. If there was, their market share would erode and there would be a slippery slope down to OSS.
They are a bit backed in however, because they have to make it look like they're interested in interop, because everyone wants interop.
The prime example is the Novell deal, which is apparently made out of interop. But if they were actually interested in interop, they might actually start publishing some specifications (such as SMB) instead of just talking about it.