CCF is not a sponsor. They are the sponsored charity. No endorsement from CCF was needed. Well... a simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
*They* decided to turn down the gift, which CAN be interpreted as having such an opinion.
So CCF had to back-pedal, and release an announcement about how to interpret the decision. Meh. Too late, the dunderheads have spoken very loudly with their actions.
"Someone needs to invest in an open source DRM mechanism. You have people like the BBC who have good intentions regarding the availability of content but the lack of any DRM at all means their hands are tied when it comes to Linux.
If some of the more talented OSS devs got off their high horse, they'd realise that if they were the first to create a true secure DRM format, they would be free to shape it in a way that is best for consumers whilst still being good for content producers. Being first would mean the chances of adoption were much greater."
And now the answer:
Holy shit! I cannot believe I actually read that.... We develop an OPEN platform, in all senses of the word OPEN. Indeed, the ONLY rule is that it cannot be closed. When someone finds a away around this, vast parts are re-licensed to prevent it.
The ONLY purpose of "DRM" is to close off the media. It does not make sense to use "OSS devs" and "create a true secure DRM format" in the same sentence.
Now, its NOT the kernel: the linux kernel remains under an older GPL -- the desktop being targeted is GNOME. Think about that for a millisecond. Now you should be laughing; if not, I'll let you in on the joke here -- the entire stack between the kernel and the X server is controlled by the GNU.
Now, you could go with KDE (QT) and Trolltech -- but I don't think you are going to get a (much) better reception.
Go ahead, try... it's purely political. (those "OSS devs" aren't getting off that high horse).
and yes, I'm shouting. This has been resisted for too long -- its kind of like garbage collection in programming systems.
The slow part is the physical drive. The crypto can be done FASTER than the physical drive, which means, at worst, that an additional processor needs to be assigned.
Indeed, the ONLY time I recommend crypto not be used is when dealing with US border. There I use file crypto on specific projects, along with dd to overwrite freespace and swap (before crossing).
But, if everyone (looking at US citizens) starts USING crypto, a fully encrypted laptop would not raise suspicion.
So, tell me... How is it that a flash application available on-line (from adobe) is able to delete and assign space to those very elements? You are telling me that it is not, in turn, able to access those very items? And, if it can access those items, is this not a far worse security issue than browser cookies?
Just wondering.
Now, add to this (the configuration panel for flash storage being available on-line, accessible without the need of a password) to the actual (closed source) implementation of flash -- aren't alarm bells going off in your head?
Ruby models natural language/thought more closely than PHP. It can even model "meta-linguistic abstraction". Which is also possible in PHP, but much more difficult.
PHP starts off SEEMINGLY SIMPLE, but then shows it nasty warts gradually. Ruby tends to be up-front with the whole mess.
Indeed, this discussion is very old -- witness LISP vs $PICK_A_LANGUAGE over the years.
Indeed, this is the very point that makes Python preferable to Perl, I would say your argument would get much more interesting if you compared and contrasted Python to Ruby.
But you are still blinded by the apparent "niceness" of PHP; just remember these words when you are ready for the next step in enlightenment.
When broadcasting a TV program, there can be no expectation of residuals. Copyright is NOT the reason people working on the program get paid. Advertising is.
Consider the Superbowl -- and the advertising rates for the event, compared to the potential advertising rates for the event re-aired.
All episodes were broadcast to my house "for free" -- and somehow the "TV dudes" made money on it.
I will let you contemplate that for a while.
Mr Seinfeld, and the other cast members will make more money if the program is re-aired. Think on that a while.
Now, discuss why the support people will NOT make residuals. That would be the "ton of people doing location, camera, sound, makeup, wardrobe, props, sound effects, music, editing, special effects and all the other bits of putting it all together" that you implied needed to be protected by copyright -- those that have only a "work for hire" or no interest in the property.
Since I won't be harming any of those people, we MUST be talking about the "maybe five main actors" you mentioned.
Back to you -- why wouldn't Seinfeld have done it for what he was paid?
But, it gets to the matter of what "Open Source" is. I believe that you are promoting the idea that "Open Source" just means "Source", without the idea of "Open".
As an example, is Windows "Open Source" or not? It can be argued that Windows is, because source is made available. Therefore, for some, it is open, and that is the end of the discussion.
You can substitute VMS in there (I had it on micro-fiche), or any number of other programs.
However, consider what "Open" means -- if the software is platform-locked, it isn't Open in the sense that it can provide a base that lives longer than its platform (imagine a world in which PostScript use was locked to the LaserWriter -- no LaserWriter would mean no PostScript).
In order for this Openness to exist for programs, there must be certain conditions: source must be available, there cannot be a platform lock-in, and there cannot be a usage lock-in (among some other characteristics). Bruce tried to define those necessary pre-conditions in his definition of "Open Source".
Call the variant "Source Available", or something, but please do not dilute the concept of "Open Source".
Of course UI is separate from application -- what is the point of MVC? (as a refresher - Model-View-Controller. Model is the application, View is how it looks, and Controller effects state changes in Model).
Windows applications have "resources" -- including dialog, bitmaps, strings, etc. Haven't you ever used "rc" to bind different resources to a program?
My "boss" is the client who pays for my services. If the client doesn't want to use standard resources and controls... they can request a different "look and feel". To give you some examples (from the last two years):
"I want it to look like Skype". "I want it to look like a keyboard, and drag functions around".
Now, I will concede your first point -- if the developer uses the "Visual Basic" model. The philosophy being "the UI *IS* the application". But I don't really consider this software development. You wouldn't pay me to do it for you (well, you may, but it would be foolish -- you could get someone at 1/3 my rate to do it for you).
A developer will separate the "UI" from the application. The developer can write a UI -- if that's what the boss wants deployed... blame the boss, NOT the developer.
I've had people tell me "the UI must look EXACTLY a certain way", for no particular reason. Can't tell them its a bad UI; they pay the bills.
Not sure I understand. Take a case I am familiar with:
Childrens Choral group does several performance a year (some with the cities orchestra, some not). Each performance is recorded, most are released on CD.
Current technology: mics on the stage, recorded, mixed, released. Takes a couple of weeks.
5.1 technology: add "ambient" mikes to the back of the concert hall. Remix with sub-woofer content separated, encode, release.
An order of magnitude? No... not even twice as difficult. Cost? One more pass through the digital audio data, 2 mics, maybe an additional spare. Two more digital channels. (maybe an additional hard drive).
Of course the costs are increased if "in studio" techniques are used -- even stereo is synthesized in that case (instruments recorded separately, audio engineer has to figure out placement).
Actually, given the typical production cycle, synthesizing the back channels is probably a sensible idea anyway. Fairly easy to do (left back is "attenuate, echo delay left front + attenuate,echo delay longer right front", right back is the reflection, sub is lower frequency, boosted). I'll cook it up myself now.
It's a 1 GB flash -- as compared to a 640MB CD, and that CD is probably not full. There is room to store BOTH the uncompressed audio AND 320kbps MP3 audio.
Of course, that probably cuts into the "video" part.
I'm with the grandparent poster here. I have to buy DVDs to get 5.1 surround music now. That would be a terrific value-add for me. Encoded 5.1 albums, ready to play back on the home system. Along with 2 channel MP3 for playback on the portable (since its portable, I would be fine with 128kbps).
One major advantage that this format has is that (unlike the CD format), it is easy to tailor the size of the medium to the contents. 1 GB now... but if needed, 2 GB, or 4 GB, etc.
I just purchased a 4 GB flash stick from "Tbe Source" for $15 -- including some Golf game. I needed a flash stick to create a recovery USB stick for my Acer Aspire One; so the game wasn't important. But, I could see paying $30 for a 4GB flash with uncompressed WAV, 5.1 surround, and 2 channel MP3 of an album. (or maybe more -- my "buy it now" point would be $30 for something like Pink Floyd; maybe I'd go to $45).
The point of the 5.1 is that it's something that just isn't available on the CD format.
Laws ARE absolute. And governmental power extends from, and defines, those laws.
I do not speed -- 1 kmph or mph over the speed limit is a violation. The speeding law is an absolute. Note that the signs on the highway say "Violators WILL be prosecuted" (at least along the highway I take). The job of governments is to tend law via legislation. As a result, the scrutiny should be even more intense. Enforcement MUST be absolute in the case of the government itself breaking the law.
Nothing else can be tolerated by a democratic society.
So, yes, when it comes to the people who DESIRE to rule following the law TO THE LETTER; and especially ELECTORAL law, yes, I am absolutist.
As should everyone.
Now this is an especially egregious case -- the law seems to be SELECTIVELY enforced, and there is a possibility of selective bias being introduced.
Not revenge -- control of the democratic process upon which your country is founded.
The Libertarians had been REMOVED from the ballot for this exact offense. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unless somehow you can tell me that (for the purposes of the election) there SHOULD be a procedural difference in the electoral process between Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians? Go ahead, try.
Note the rule: its not about the party itself; limit the discussion to the procedural.
PS. I am not a Libertarian (Socialist, if you must know). But I will defend the process.
The REAL "What The Fuck" is why iTunes should be installing a driver at ALL? Isn't there a generic data-path for USB peripherals like the "iPod" available on Windows Vista(TM)?
If not, then why not? That would be a horrible flaw in Vista. Really, iTunes should not require administrative privilege to install; USB should have a standard handler (much the same as old-time regular serial ports).
For some functions, the OS itself may become involved (storage device on a USB), but for generic devices this shouldn't be needed.
I cannot believe that this is missing in Vista (please correct me). And, if it is present, why isn't iTunes using it?
Its easier to start with SysV, and NO threads. If processes need to share memory, they can do so explicitly with SysV IPC. Of course, as soon as you introduce shared memory, you need to introduce semaphores, which SysV IPC also supports.
Works beauty, and is fully supported on Linux (and Solaris and AIX, etc.).
Of course, Windows probably doesn't do it... So its a loser (but I am sure if the program is popular enough, someone will port it).
Yes, you are correct. Unix started with a process model based on fork() and explicit IPC. Threads were "grafted on" later. It tends to result in more robust software (good multi-threading is HARD).
In Linux a "thread" is a "process", just with more sharing. Thread creation is cheaper in Windows; process creation is cheaper in Linux. I tend to like the isolation that processes offer (multithreading brings with it the joy of variables that can appear to just change by themselves).
There was never any good reason to NOT use multiple processes in a browser, except one. The GUI was "unified" amongst the browser Windows, and it has always been presumed that it would be too difficult to co-ordinate the drawing of multiple browsers. Also, the menu bars and controls would have to assigned to a separate process for each of the browsers. This can be done with an IPC channel, but that code would not have been portable between Unix and Windows at all.
Since process creation was SO expensive in Windows (in days of old), the "thread" or "lightweight thread" approach was used instead (to maximize portability).
It is an amazing testament to Google that they have achieved the multi-process, single UI model (I just don't know how they did the portability part).
"Nobody will argue that a properly implemented multi-threaded software project is going to be less efficient than a new process per job. If you're writing a server to handle 100,000 connections simultaneously you probably want to use threads."
Um... no. 100,000 threads need to be able to share each others stack. The whole idea behind the threading model is to permit DIRECT use of data amongst threads. Without this advantage... well, why use threads? 100,000 threads each need a stack, and this stack must be of "reasonable" size -- so, allocate 1M per stack. The stacks then take 10GB of memory... This is one of the main drivers to go to 64 bit mode in servers.
Or, you have to go to a "lighweight threading" model... (Something more on the order of co-routines)
I use ssh to systems, and may not be using X. Which means that I often "surf the web" in TEXT. 80x24 character. Let me show you google in this mode (leading whitespace suppressed, slashdot anti-lame):
Google (p1 of 2)
Web Images Maps News Video Gmail more v Groups Books Scholar Finance Blogs YouTube Calendar Photos Documents even more
iGoogle | Sign in
Google
_______________________________________________________ Google Search I'm Feeling Lucky Advanced Search Preferences Language Tools Search: (*) the web ( ) pages from Canada
Google.ca offered in: Franais Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google - Go to Google.com
(NORMAL LINK) Use right-arrow or to activate. Arrow keys: Up and Down to move. Right to follow a link; Left to go back. H)elp O)ptions P)rint G)o M)ain screen Q)uit/=search [delete]=history list
Please notice that it works the same as a "GUI" browser -- after all, the information is textual. Web sites that are functional with Lynx? Try BestBuy, USAToday, and many others. Now, let's try one that DOESN'T work -- www.radioshack.com (no reason to pick on them, really, but I wanted an example):
Order any of the products available on this site. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 1-800-THE-SHACK [pixel.gif] Click here to find a Battery [solutions_side_grey.jpg] I'm looking for a replacement battery to fit my: Find it by device type Find it by device type [solutions_r_side_grey.jpg] Or, search by device or battery #: device or battery [go_button.jpg]-Submit Featured Products [solutions_side_grey.jpg] AcomData pureDrive 1TB USB eSATA External Hard Drive Pure, high-performance data storage. Featured Online Promotions: (Online or 1-800-843-7422 only) Save up to 10% off select: (NORMAL LINK) Use right-arrow or to activate. Arrow keys: Up and Down to move. Right to follow a link; Left to go back. H)elp O)ptions P)rint G)o M)ain screen Q)uit/=search [delete]=history list
Compare to the "GUI" equivalent. Now, lets go back to your idea of "control" -- exactly how much control do you think you have over MY browser? Please note that Lynx does NOT execute "Javascript", does not display images, sound, or video. Textual information, baby. Now, I will admit that I can be considered an "edge case" -- but please note that this sort of browsing is ALSO done by Web Spiders that are collecting and indexing your web pages. Which is the first interface for many TO your web page. Don't you want to make it possible for Google (or whatever) to give good search results?
Note that if your site uses "Flash", that flash won't be indexed. Even TV is indexed (well, the text in the captions is indexed), but Flash Video?
Panel using CPU cycles in Gnome? Sure, it must be significant. So, for your viewing pleasure, "top" on Fedora 9, Gnome, running on a Thinkpad T43 with 1.5G of RAM. Running with Sticky Notes, Search, a Drawer, Insert Char, Lock, Force Quit, Brightness, Encrypt, SSH selector, XKill, Volume, Date, Network, Bluetooth, Desktop Search, Updater, Firefox, Email, Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Presenter in the upper panel, and Show Desktop, CPU Speed, Load and Virtual Desktops in the lower panel.
Sure, the panel things may be processes (see the 150 total, but they really aren't taking any CPU. (I do run Fedora on a Panasonic Toughbook as well -- only 400Mhz PII, but this was the lappy I have with me on this trip).
The ruling was that merely downloading and making available are not enough to infringe copyright. This is probably limited to music; the personal copy provision is explicit in that only music is covered (not even audio books).
The decision was appealed, and stood.
Making available on a folder on the hard disk was important. The personal copy provision allows for downloading. But the Copyright Act has a "no telecommunication" provision. That part of the ruling was put aside (too bad), and is still open.
But merely downloading is not enough to infringe copyright in Canada.
Really? And how would Comcast know who is the "highest bandwidth (ab)user"? If Comcast offers (for example) 10MBps of bandwidth, and I actually USE 10MBps of bandwidth, am I an abuser? If I am using it to download 4GB of the latest Fedora release? (Bittorrent, http, ftp, whatever).
If this were hindered, I imagine that many people would be upset. Comcast ADVERTISES bandwidth -- if customers were not actually permitted to USE it, I imagine that lawsuits would follow.
Which means that the definition has to change. Bandwidth*Time perhaps? But, that's a "cap". Perhaps limiting by services? But that's what Comcast tried to do, and has been told not to.
It isn't. It is a MIPS derivative design, running Linux (normally). Just like Godson and Godson-2. Not Windows. There may be "ip infringement", but I think the designers are being careful.
Slashdot Mirror
CCF is not a sponsor. They are the sponsored charity. No endorsement from CCF was needed. Well... a simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
*They* decided to turn down the gift, which CAN be interpreted as having such an opinion.
So CCF had to back-pedal, and release an announcement about how to interpret the decision. Meh. Too late, the dunderheads have spoken very loudly with their actions.
You bring home your fabulous new EEE or Aspire One, and try to install that 9.99 program... and that goofy card-making program.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Waiting..
It doesn't have an optical drive.
Quoting:
"Someone needs to invest in an open source DRM mechanism. You have people like the BBC who have good intentions regarding the availability of content but the lack of any DRM at all means their hands are tied when it comes to Linux.
If some of the more talented OSS devs got off their high horse, they'd realise that if they were the first to create a true secure DRM format, they would be free to shape it in a way that is best for consumers whilst still being good for content producers. Being first would mean the chances of adoption were much greater."
And now the answer:
Holy shit! I cannot believe I actually read that.... We develop an OPEN platform, in all senses of the word OPEN. Indeed, the ONLY rule is that it cannot be closed. When someone finds a away around this, vast parts are re-licensed to prevent it.
The ONLY purpose of "DRM" is to close off the media. It does not make sense to use "OSS devs" and "create a true secure DRM format" in the same sentence.
Now, its NOT the kernel: the linux kernel remains under an older GPL -- the desktop being targeted is GNOME. Think about that for a millisecond. Now you should be laughing; if not, I'll let you in on the joke here -- the entire stack between the kernel and the X server is controlled by the GNU.
Now, you could go with KDE (QT) and Trolltech -- but I don't think you are going to get a (much) better reception.
Go ahead, try... it's purely political. (those "OSS devs" aren't getting off that high horse).
USE THE CRYPTO
and yes, I'm shouting. This has been resisted for too long -- its kind of like garbage collection in programming systems.
The slow part is the physical drive. The crypto can be done FASTER than the physical drive, which means, at worst, that an additional processor needs to be assigned.
Indeed, the ONLY time I recommend crypto not be used is when dealing with US border. There I use file crypto on specific projects, along with dd to overwrite freespace and swap (before crossing).
But, if everyone (looking at US citizens) starts USING crypto, a fully encrypted laptop would not raise suspicion.
So, tell me... How is it that a flash application available on-line (from adobe) is able to delete and assign space to those very elements? You are telling me that it is not, in turn, able to access those very items? And, if it can access those items, is this not a far worse security issue than browser cookies?
Just wondering.
Now, add to this (the configuration panel for flash storage being available on-line, accessible without the need of a password) to the actual (closed source) implementation of flash -- aren't alarm bells going off in your head?
And you are wrong.
Ruby models natural language/thought more closely than PHP. It can even model "meta-linguistic abstraction". Which is also possible in PHP, but much more difficult.
PHP starts off SEEMINGLY SIMPLE, but then shows it nasty warts gradually. Ruby tends to be up-front with the whole mess.
Indeed, this discussion is very old -- witness LISP vs $PICK_A_LANGUAGE over the years.
Indeed, this is the very point that makes Python preferable to Perl, I would say your argument would get much more interesting if you compared and contrasted Python to Ruby.
But you are still blinded by the apparent "niceness" of PHP; just remember these words when you are ready for the next step in enlightenment.
When broadcasting a TV program, there can be no expectation of residuals. Copyright is NOT the reason people working on the program get paid. Advertising is.
Consider the Superbowl -- and the advertising rates for the event, compared to the potential advertising rates for the event re-aired.
Jerry Seinfeld - wow...
All episodes were broadcast to my house "for free" -- and somehow the "TV dudes" made money on it.
I will let you contemplate that for a while.
Mr Seinfeld, and the other cast members will make more money if the program is re-aired. Think on that a while.
Now, discuss why the support people will NOT make residuals. That would be the "ton of people doing location, camera, sound, makeup, wardrobe, props, sound effects, music, editing, special effects and all the other bits of putting it all together" that you implied needed to be protected by copyright -- those that have only a "work for hire" or no interest in the property.
Since I won't be harming any of those people, we MUST be talking about the "maybe five main actors" you mentioned.
Back to you -- why wouldn't Seinfeld have done it for what he was paid?
But, it gets to the matter of what "Open Source" is. I believe that you are promoting the idea that "Open Source" just means "Source", without the idea of "Open".
As an example, is Windows "Open Source" or not? It can be argued that Windows is, because source is made available. Therefore, for some, it is open, and that is the end of the discussion.
You can substitute VMS in there (I had it on micro-fiche), or any number of other programs.
However, consider what "Open" means -- if the software is platform-locked, it isn't Open in the sense that it can provide a base that lives longer than its platform (imagine a world in which PostScript use was locked to the LaserWriter -- no LaserWriter would mean no PostScript).
In order for this Openness to exist for programs, there must be certain conditions: source must be available, there cannot be a platform lock-in, and there cannot be a usage lock-in (among some other characteristics). Bruce tried to define those necessary pre-conditions in his definition of "Open Source".
Call the variant "Source Available", or something, but please do not dilute the concept of "Open Source".
Of course UI is separate from application -- what is the point of MVC? (as a refresher - Model-View-Controller. Model is the application, View is how it looks, and Controller effects state changes in Model).
Windows applications have "resources" -- including dialog, bitmaps, strings, etc. Haven't you ever used "rc" to bind different resources to a program?
My "boss" is the client who pays for my services. If the client doesn't want to use standard resources and controls... they can request a different "look and feel". To give you some examples (from the last two years):
"I want it to look like Skype". "I want it to look like a keyboard, and drag functions around".
Now, I will concede your first point -- if the developer uses the "Visual Basic" model. The philosophy being "the UI *IS* the application". But I don't really consider this software development. You wouldn't pay me to do it for you (well, you may, but it would be foolish -- you could get someone at 1/3 my rate to do it for you).
A developer will separate the "UI" from the application. The developer can write a UI -- if that's what the boss wants deployed... blame the boss, NOT the developer.
I've had people tell me "the UI must look EXACTLY a certain way", for no particular reason. Can't tell them its a bad UI; they pay the bills.
Not sure I understand. Take a case I am familiar with:
Childrens Choral group does several performance a year (some with the cities orchestra, some not). Each performance is recorded, most are released on CD.
Current technology: mics on the stage, recorded, mixed, released. Takes a couple of weeks.
5.1 technology: add "ambient" mikes to the back of the concert hall. Remix with sub-woofer content separated, encode, release.
An order of magnitude? No... not even twice as difficult. Cost? One more pass through the digital audio data, 2 mics, maybe an additional spare. Two more digital channels. (maybe an additional hard drive).
Of course the costs are increased if "in studio" techniques are used -- even stereo is synthesized in that case (instruments recorded separately, audio engineer has to figure out placement).
Actually, given the typical production cycle, synthesizing the back channels is probably a sensible idea anyway. Fairly easy to do (left back is "attenuate, echo delay left front + attenuate,echo delay longer right front", right back is the reflection, sub is lower frequency, boosted). I'll cook it up myself now.
Thanks for your input!
Why?
It's a 1 GB flash -- as compared to a 640MB CD, and that CD is probably not full. There is room to store BOTH the uncompressed audio AND 320kbps MP3 audio.
Of course, that probably cuts into the "video" part.
I'm with the grandparent poster here. I have to buy DVDs to get 5.1 surround music now. That would be a terrific value-add for me. Encoded 5.1 albums, ready to play back on the home system. Along with 2 channel MP3 for playback on the portable (since its portable, I would be fine with 128kbps).
One major advantage that this format has is that (unlike the CD format), it is easy to tailor the size of the medium to the contents. 1 GB now... but if needed, 2 GB, or 4 GB, etc.
I just purchased a 4 GB flash stick from "Tbe Source" for $15 -- including some Golf game. I needed a flash stick to create a recovery USB stick for my Acer Aspire One; so the game wasn't important. But, I could see paying $30 for a 4GB flash with uncompressed WAV, 5.1 surround, and 2 channel MP3 of an album. (or maybe more -- my "buy it now" point would be $30 for something like Pink Floyd; maybe I'd go to $45).
The point of the 5.1 is that it's something that just isn't available on the CD format.
Laws ARE absolute. And governmental power extends from, and defines, those laws.
I do not speed -- 1 kmph or mph over the speed limit is a violation. The speeding law is an absolute. Note that the signs on the highway say "Violators WILL be prosecuted" (at least along the highway I take). The job of governments is to tend law via legislation. As a result, the scrutiny should be even more intense. Enforcement MUST be absolute in the case of the government itself breaking the law.
Nothing else can be tolerated by a democratic society.
So, yes, when it comes to the people who DESIRE to rule following the law TO THE LETTER; and especially ELECTORAL law, yes, I am absolutist.
As should everyone.
Now this is an especially egregious case -- the law seems to be SELECTIVELY enforced, and there is a possibility of selective bias being introduced.
Not revenge -- control of the democratic process upon which your country is founded.
The Libertarians had been REMOVED from the ballot for this exact offense. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unless somehow you can tell me that (for the purposes of the election) there SHOULD be a procedural difference in the electoral process between Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians? Go ahead, try.
Note the rule: its not about the party itself; limit the discussion to the procedural.
PS. I am not a Libertarian (Socialist, if you must know). But I will defend the process.
The REAL "What The Fuck" is why iTunes should be installing a driver at ALL? Isn't there a generic data-path for USB peripherals like the "iPod" available on Windows Vista(TM)?
If not, then why not? That would be a horrible flaw in Vista. Really, iTunes should not require administrative privilege to install; USB should have a standard handler (much the same as old-time regular serial ports).
For some functions, the OS itself may become involved (storage device on a USB), but for generic devices this shouldn't be needed.
I cannot believe that this is missing in Vista (please correct me). And, if it is present, why isn't iTunes using it?
Its easier to start with SysV, and NO threads. If processes need to share memory, they can do so explicitly with SysV IPC. Of course, as soon as you introduce shared memory, you need to introduce semaphores, which SysV IPC also supports.
Works beauty, and is fully supported on Linux (and Solaris and AIX, etc.).
Of course, Windows probably doesn't do it... So its a loser (but I am sure if the program is popular enough, someone will port it).
Yes, you are correct. Unix started with a process model based on fork() and explicit IPC. Threads were "grafted on" later. It tends to result in more robust software (good multi-threading is HARD).
In Linux a "thread" is a "process", just with more sharing. Thread creation is cheaper in Windows; process creation is cheaper in Linux. I tend to like the isolation that processes offer (multithreading brings with it the joy of variables that can appear to just change by themselves).
There was never any good reason to NOT use multiple processes in a browser, except one. The GUI was "unified" amongst the browser Windows, and it has always been presumed that it would be too difficult to co-ordinate the drawing of multiple browsers. Also, the menu bars and controls would have to assigned to a separate process for each of the browsers. This can be done with an IPC channel, but that code would not have been portable between Unix and Windows at all.
Since process creation was SO expensive in Windows (in days of old), the "thread" or "lightweight thread" approach was used instead (to maximize portability).
It is an amazing testament to Google that they have achieved the multi-process, single UI model (I just don't know how they did the portability part).
"Nobody will argue that a properly implemented multi-threaded software project is going to be less efficient than a new process per job. If you're writing a server to handle 100,000 connections simultaneously you probably want to use threads."
Um... no. 100,000 threads need to be able to share each others stack. The whole idea behind the threading model is to permit DIRECT use of data amongst threads. Without this advantage... well, why use threads? 100,000 threads each need a stack, and this stack must be of "reasonable" size -- so, allocate 1M per stack. The stacks then take 10GB of memory... This is one of the main drivers to go to 64 bit mode in servers.
Or, you have to go to a "lighweight threading" model... (Something more on the order of co-routines)
Your other two points I agree with.
Looks good? LOOKS GOOD? How about function?
I use ssh to systems, and may not be using X. Which means that I often "surf the web" in TEXT. 80x24 character. Let me show you google in this mode (leading whitespace suppressed, slashdot anti-lame):
Google (p1 of 2)
Web Images Maps News Video Gmail more v
Groups Books Scholar Finance Blogs
YouTube Calendar Photos Documents
even more
iGoogle | Sign in
Google
_______________________________________________________
Google Search I'm Feeling Lucky Advanced Search
Preferences
Language Tools
Search: (*) the web ( ) pages from Canada
Google.ca offered in: Franais
Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google - Go to
Google.com
(NORMAL LINK) Use right-arrow or to activate. /=search [delete]=history list
Arrow keys: Up and Down to move. Right to follow a link; Left to go back.
H)elp O)ptions P)rint G)o M)ain screen Q)uit
Please notice that it works the same as a "GUI" browser -- after all, the information is textual. Web sites that are functional with Lynx? Try BestBuy, USAToday, and many others. Now, let's try one that DOESN'T work -- www.radioshack.com (no reason to pick on them, really, but I wanted an example):
RadioShack- Audio/Video Electronics, MP3, LCD TVs, GPS, Digita (p1 of 8)
Order any of the products available on this site. 24 hours a day, 7 /=search [delete]=history list
days a week. 1-800-THE-SHACK
[pixel.gif]
Click here to find a Battery
[solutions_side_grey.jpg]
I'm looking for a replacement battery to fit my:
Find it by device type
Find it by device type
[solutions_r_side_grey.jpg]
Or, search by device or battery #:
device or battery [go_button.jpg]-Submit
Featured Products
[solutions_side_grey.jpg]
AcomData pureDrive 1TB USB eSATA External Hard Drive
Pure, high-performance
data storage.
Featured Online Promotions:
(Online or 1-800-843-7422 only)
Save up to 10% off select:
(NORMAL LINK) Use right-arrow or to activate.
Arrow keys: Up and Down to move. Right to follow a link; Left to go back.
H)elp O)ptions P)rint G)o M)ain screen Q)uit
Compare to the "GUI" equivalent. Now, lets go back to your idea of "control" -- exactly how much control do you think you have over MY browser? Please note that Lynx does NOT execute "Javascript", does not display images, sound, or video. Textual information, baby. Now, I will admit that I can be considered an "edge case" -- but please note that this sort of browsing is ALSO done by Web Spiders that are collecting and indexing your web pages. Which is the first interface for many TO your web page. Don't you want to make it possible for Google (or whatever) to give good search results?
Note that if your site uses "Flash", that flash won't be indexed. Even TV is indexed (well, the text in the captions is indexed), but Flash Video?
Just something to think about.
Blice
Panel using CPU cycles in Gnome? Sure, it must be significant. So, for your viewing pleasure, "top" on Fedora 9, Gnome, running on a Thinkpad T43 with 1.5G of RAM. Running with Sticky Notes, Search, a Drawer, Insert Char, Lock, Force Quit, Brightness, Encrypt, SSH selector, XKill, Volume, Date, Network, Bluetooth, Desktop Search, Updater, Firefox, Email, Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Presenter in the upper panel, and Show Desktop, CPU Speed, Load and Virtual Desktops in the lower panel.
Sure, the panel things may be processes (see the 150 total, but they really aren't taking any CPU. (I do run Fedora on a Panasonic Toughbook as well -- only 400Mhz PII, but this was the lappy I have with me on this trip).
Tasks: 150 total, 1 running, 149 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 15.6%us, 8.2%sy, 4.4%ni, 55.2%id, 16.2%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 1553868k total, 986592k used, 567276k free, 61004k buffers
Swap: 2031608k total, 0k used, 2031608k free, 520864k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2583 root 20 0 146m 49m 18m S 3.9 3.3 1:11.27 X
2087 root 20 0 9520 1672 668 S 1.9 0.1 0:00.02 sendmail
5467 fred 20 0 130m 22m 12m S 1.9 1.5 0:06.49 gnome-terminal
22364 fred 20 0 2268 932 696 R 1.9 0.1 0:00.01 top
1 root 20 0 2112 632 540 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.99 init
2 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd
3 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/0
4 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.09 ksoftirqd/0
5 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0
6 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.41 events/0
7 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper
59 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.12 kblockd/0
61 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kacpid
62 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kacpi_notify
143 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 cqueue
145 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 ksuspend_usbd
150 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khubd
[fred@localhost ~]$
Actually, it has been decided in court. http://www.cippic.ca/file-sharing-lawsuits/
The ruling was that merely downloading and making available are not enough to infringe copyright. This is probably limited to music; the personal copy provision is explicit in that only music is covered (not even audio books).
The decision was appealed, and stood.
Making available on a folder on the hard disk was important. The personal copy provision allows for downloading. But the Copyright Act has a "no telecommunication" provision. That part of the ruling was put aside (too bad), and is still open.
But merely downloading is not enough to infringe copyright in Canada.
Really? And how would Comcast know who is the "highest bandwidth (ab)user"? If Comcast offers (for example) 10MBps of bandwidth, and I actually USE 10MBps of bandwidth, am I an abuser? If I am using it to download 4GB of the latest Fedora release? (Bittorrent, http, ftp, whatever).
If this were hindered, I imagine that many people would be upset. Comcast ADVERTISES bandwidth -- if customers were not actually permitted to USE it, I imagine that lawsuits would follow.
Which means that the definition has to change. Bandwidth*Time perhaps? But, that's a "cap". Perhaps limiting by services? But that's what Comcast tried to do, and has been told not to.
Yes, it runs Linux. That would be its "preferred" mode.
4 core (10 watt) or 8 core (20 watt) CPU, MIPS 64 bit architecture, with special instructions to assist in translating x86 instructions.
It isn't. It is a MIPS derivative design, running Linux (normally). Just like Godson and Godson-2. Not Windows. There may be "ip infringement", but I think the designers are being careful.