As I understand it one of the missing features of this card is hardware encoding. Since hosting video on linux servers is pretty popular you'd have expected them to at least support that out of the box.
Server farms is also another area where linux and graphics are used often.
I'm sure that are a lot more reasons but your mistake is assuming that the cards are going to be purely used in desktops.
After RTFA it seems more that there are a ton of features missing rather then delayed. Here's an excerpt from the article..
They include Video Processing Accelerators - never coming to Linux, Color Processing Accelerators - never coming to Linux, Skin Tone Enhancements - never coming to Linux, Adaptive Contrast Enhancement - never coming to Linux, Total Color Control - never coming to Linux, Video Decode in hardware - Q1, Video Encode in hardware - Q1, 3D acceleration - Q1 sooner rather than later and a host of software to use it - never coming to Linux.
How could anyone whine about the cost of software going up. Right now it's at rock bottom to purchase consumer software, more expensive software across the board would be a good thing assuming the money goes to the right people (haha).
If you replace the phone with an alarm clock you wouldn't have fixed the issue of daylight savings time which specifically requires you to change the time on your clock. So instead of the phone screwing up and making you late you have yourself forgotten to change the time making you late. In either instance you're still late regardless of how you keep the time.
So it starts off reasonable.. "copyright violation against terms of service" then turns into a "we're saving innocent people" speech which makes them loose all creditability. So yeah, I'm not buying their story with that saving lives part tacked on the end.
They don't think everything should be open. That's the point of wikileaks in the first place.
A way for people to release secrets about the evil doings of whatever while censoring them to protect individuals, and state secrets. Before wikileaks people would simply go to the papers which would do a poor job of redacting.
If the US is fucking another country over then I'm sure said country would like to know. You're too busy looking at it from a US viewpoint without realising that wikileaks caters to the world, not just the US interests.
The GPP was making a separate point about regulation of the internet. He didn't mention government regulation. You yourself didn't mention it either until I provided you with the answer you were looking for.
It's irrelevant to the GPP's point. The problem is too much regulation and centralisation of the internet infrastructure with no way for average joe to become a peer without being an ISP.
There will never be a "year of linux desktop" same as how there was never a "year of firefox web browser". You'll know it has happened when everyone has it.
The contract probably isn't at all valid. What is valid is that he is suing companies over breaking spamming laws. He probably only has it as extra legal padding.
You don't happen to work as a spammer do you? I don't see how any reasonable person could think this is morally wrong.
I also don't see anything morally wrong with your example you gave either however it isn't exactly equal to what this guy is doing since he has evidence.
Everyone's tired of the internet being treated like a toilet (except you it seems) by companies. If this dude can clean it up a little then that's good by me regardless of what reasons he has to do it.
The submitter of this summary tacked the humble bundle on this news piece horribly. In actual fact the opposable thumbs piece makes no mention of it and for good reason. It doesn't make sense within the context of lowering prices and users expectations.
The humble bundle was pay what you want hence there is no influence from the developer putting a cheap price tag on their produce thereby cheapening other indy games. In fact the humble bundle mentions that if you bought all the games then you'd normally be paying around $60 for them. The fact that most people only paid $5 to $10 for the humble bundle has nothing to do with raising people's expectations for similarly low prices on other games.
In a large scale wireless mesh network system one could easily be anonymous if they connected in different areas and didn't give away identifying information or used encryption.
In an ISP bound Freenet internet you'd still have to worry about what your ISP is doing to your internet connection because you're not a peer. The power is still in their hands and they can cut you off for any reason.
There's nothing stopping you from using both solutions however I think it's unrealistic to think that if everyone started using Freenet and being anonymous then it would solve the internet's infrastructure problems because you still have the number one issue, your ISP is your only "peer".
I agree however the problem isn't that people need anonymity on the internet with something like Freenet. What needs to happen is that the original peer to peer structure of the internet needs to come back so that ISPs and governments can not filter and close down site's they disagree with such as wikileaks.
Part of the problem could be solved with something like a city wide mesh networking using a protocol like OLSR. That way an ISP can never filter out a site the mesh simply routes around the damage. If eveyone's ISPs are filtered you could simply redirect censored traffic through a proxy.
Being anonymous really isn't a factor in who controls the internet.
In England they seem to do this to some extent. When I take out 1000+ GBP in cash the bank asks you politely what it was for. Some people might take offence to that but they're simply making sure you're not about to give it all to some scammer.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it one of the missing features of this card is hardware encoding. Since hosting video on linux servers is pretty popular you'd have expected them to at least support that out of the box.
Server farms is also another area where linux and graphics are used often.
I'm sure that are a lot more reasons but your mistake is assuming that the cards are going to be purely used in desktops.
After RTFA it seems more that there are a ton of features missing rather then delayed. Here's an excerpt from the article..
How could anyone whine about the cost of software going up. Right now it's at rock bottom to purchase consumer software, more expensive software across the board would be a good thing assuming the money goes to the right people (haha).
If you replace the phone with an alarm clock you wouldn't have fixed the issue of daylight savings time which specifically requires you to change the time on your clock. So instead of the phone screwing up and making you late you have yourself forgotten to change the time making you late. In either instance you're still late regardless of how you keep the time.
pfft like having an implementation ever stopped anyone filing a patent.
So it starts off reasonable.. "copyright violation against terms of service" then turns into a "we're saving innocent people" speech which makes them loose all creditability. So yeah, I'm not buying their story with that saving lives part tacked on the end.
Evil is the wrong word but you already know what I meant. Have fun arguing with yourself though.
They don't think everything should be open. That's the point of wikileaks in the first place.
A way for people to release secrets about the evil doings of whatever while censoring them to protect individuals, and state secrets. Before wikileaks people would simply go to the papers which would do a poor job of redacting.
If the US is fucking another country over then I'm sure said country would like to know. You're too busy looking at it from a US viewpoint without realising that wikileaks caters to the world, not just the US interests.
The GPP was making a separate point about regulation of the internet. He didn't mention government regulation. You yourself didn't mention it either until I provided you with the answer you were looking for.
It's irrelevant to the GPP's point. The problem is too much regulation and centralisation of the internet infrastructure with no way for average joe to become a peer without being an ISP.
Why should I waste my time doing your research, I have better things to do then educate ignorant lazy people.
Even slashdot has reported it happening, use the search feature.
Yeah, or you could just use a book and help your kid read instead of letting a computer do your job as a parent...
There will never be a "year of linux desktop" same as how there was never a "year of firefox web browser". You'll know it has happened when everyone has it.
Oh jeeze do you never read up on this stuff? It's already happened to sites such as youtube. Your whole post is bunk.
Well how about the fact that you need to buy IP addresses and AS numbers from ARIN to simply be a peer on the internet. Those cost upward of $1000.
So no, you can't connect to whomever and however you want because your ISP (the gatekeeper) won't let you route properly through their networks.
These are NOT legitimate companies. They make their sales via spam. Get rid of the companies, get rid of the money, get rid of the spam.
The contract probably isn't at all valid. What is valid is that he is suing companies over breaking spamming laws. He probably only has it as extra legal padding.
Both you and Opportunist with you're lame "what if" situations completely ignore that the emails are commercial spam. He's not suing legit email.
When that happens wake me up otherwise your lame "what if"'s are over complicated nonsense.
You don't happen to work as a spammer do you? I don't see how any reasonable person could think this is morally wrong.
I also don't see anything morally wrong with your example you gave either however it isn't exactly equal to what this guy is doing since he has evidence.
Everyone's tired of the internet being treated like a toilet (except you it seems) by companies. If this dude can clean it up a little then that's good by me regardless of what reasons he has to do it.
The submitter of this summary tacked the humble bundle on this news piece horribly. In actual fact the opposable thumbs piece makes no mention of it and for good reason. It doesn't make sense within the context of lowering prices and users expectations.
The humble bundle was pay what you want hence there is no influence from the developer putting a cheap price tag on their produce thereby cheapening other indy games. In fact the humble bundle mentions that if you bought all the games then you'd normally be paying around $60 for them. The fact that most people only paid $5 to $10 for the humble bundle has nothing to do with raising people's expectations for similarly low prices on other games.
In a large scale wireless mesh network system one could easily be anonymous if they connected in different areas and didn't give away identifying information or used encryption.
In an ISP bound Freenet internet you'd still have to worry about what your ISP is doing to your internet connection because you're not a peer. The power is still in their hands and they can cut you off for any reason.
There's nothing stopping you from using both solutions however I think it's unrealistic to think that if everyone started using Freenet and being anonymous then it would solve the internet's infrastructure problems because you still have the number one issue, your ISP is your only "peer".
Correct me if I am wrong however I don't think 802.11s is designed for large scale mesh networking in the thousands of peers range.
I agree however the problem isn't that people need anonymity on the internet with something like Freenet. What needs to happen is that the original peer to peer structure of the internet needs to come back so that ISPs and governments can not filter and close down site's they disagree with such as wikileaks.
Part of the problem could be solved with something like a city wide mesh networking using a protocol like OLSR. That way an ISP can never filter out a site the mesh simply routes around the damage. If eveyone's ISPs are filtered you could simply redirect censored traffic through a proxy.
Being anonymous really isn't a factor in who controls the internet.
It's because the main slashdot servers are just recovering from an FBI raid.
In England they seem to do this to some extent. When I take out 1000+ GBP in cash the bank asks you politely what it was for. Some people might take offence to that but they're simply making sure you're not about to give it all to some scammer.