Why is this flamebait? The only reason Opera still is around is due to whining to the EU to make noise about itself. If people really wanted to use it, it would have a far more significant market share. Firefox didn't need to whine to the EU to gain it's 25% or so market share against IE. Opera needs to face the fact that a huge ton of people don't want to use their product and no matter how much they whine to the EU it's not going to change.
If they are smart Apple will see more popularity for Opera as another blow to IE and MS dominance, both of which are good for to Apple.
How exactly would letting Opera on the iPhone be a blow to IE and Microsoft dominance? I didn't realize there was an IE for the iPhone nor that Microsoft had any dominance in the iPhone space.
Awarded to the person who discovered the bug that resulted in the most widespread exploitation or affected the most users. Also known as ‘Pwnie for Breaking the Internet.’
*Red Hat Networks Backdoored OpenSSH Packages (CVE-2008-3844)
Credit: unknown
Shortly after Black Hat and Defcon last year, Red Hat noticed that not only had someone backdoored the OpenSSH packages that some of their mirrors were distributing, but managed to sign the packages with Red Hat's own private key. Instead of revoking the key and releasing all new packages, they instead just updated the backdoored packages with clean copies, still signed by the same key, and released a shell script to scan for the MD5 checksums of the affected packages. What makes this eligible for the "mass0wnage" award is that nobody is quite sure how many systems were compromised or what other keys and packages the attackers were able to access. With very little public information available, the real casuality was the public's trust in the integrity of Red Hat's packages.
I had a 80286 system running 32 users for one customer, at a time when Microsoft said it was impossible. That was running SCO Xenix, which was the first good Unix port to the PC.
You mean the same Xenix that was created by Microsoft?
You seem to be conflating VMs and runtime environments with JIT compilation. So according to your logic if I JIT compile C code it will somehow run slower than AOT compiled C code? How does that make any sense?
Why? Most people won't use them. Then what will happen is you same people would be the whining about how Microsoft is "bloating" Windows with all sorts of applications.
Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?
Yeah and it would sell miserably at around $75,000 a piece.
Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.
Considering that you could buy around 30 of the highest end i7s for the same price as a single Power7 I would think you would get far better performance per dollar.
Are those same libraries going to be asserting a copyright on those orphaned works like Google will get to under their settlement? If not, that's a pretty big difference.
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
What success? In 2007 they lost $37 million. Lost around $17 million in 2008. They were also reportedly losing money in the 2009 fiscal year after being bought by Best Buy. I think you and I have very different notions of "success".
They shouldn't.
So then what are your complaints?
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that?
Because you don't reward someone for bad behavior?
How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
Because the solution from their settlement with the Authors Guild doesn't actually benefit everyone? It benefits that guild and Google, but leaves thousand and thousands of other authors out in the cold while Google still gets to make money of their works because of that ridiculous opt-out bullshit. And then Google can turn around and claim copyrights to these orphaned works themselves! Utterly ridiculous if you ask me.
Sure, of course he'll say that. He needs to sell his app.
If that were true Trent Reznor wouldn't still have his app on the app store after blasting Apple pretty hard after they rejected one of the updates a while back.
Would you say bad things about someone who just threatened you?
How was he threatened? They said his app was accepted but they would like him to remove something from his description.
So then how do you explain Trent Reznor? He blasted Apple pretty harshly after an update to his NIN app was rejected. Yet he got his app back on and it's still there today.
It'll probably start with the developers. They'll get sick and tired of paying $99 a year just to develop goddamn cell phone apps. They'll get sick and tired of Apple's unnecessary censorship and app publication restrictions. They'll move to more open platforms.
That's amusing considering the app developer himself says: "Apple is a wonderful company to work with."
It'll continue with the users. Those, such as yourself, who buy Apple products expecting a useful product will become dismayed, never buy another Apple product, and will suggest to other people that they also avoid Apple.
You widely overestimate the impact of the whining of a bunch of Slashtards on Apple's consumers. Why would they get dismayed when Apple has huge customer satisfaction? The world at large doesn't care what a bunch of DRM-whining neckbeards think, no matter how much you wish it so.
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books?
It would be ridiculous. But I don't see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand. Libraries aren't out there scanning copyrighted works and trying to sell ads to make profit off of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this flamebait? The only reason Opera still is around is due to whining to the EU to make noise about itself. If people really wanted to use it, it would have a far more significant market share. Firefox didn't need to whine to the EU to gain it's 25% or so market share against IE. Opera needs to face the fact that a huge ton of people don't want to use their product and no matter how much they whine to the EU it's not going to change.
But how would letting Opera on the iPhone translate into any additional success on the desktop? People can already run Opera on OS X.
No real profit in browsers, wha?
For someone like Google, maybe. Opera is making a piddling amount of profit even in comparison to someone like Red Hat.
So how is Opera operating as a company and how did the Mozilla Foundation raise $78 million in revenue in 2008?
By getting paid by Google to make them the default search engine in the browsers. That's how they make the majority of their money.
If they are smart Apple will see more popularity for Opera as another blow to IE and MS dominance, both of which are good for to Apple.
How exactly would letting Opera on the iPhone be a blow to IE and Microsoft dominance? I didn't realize there was an IE for the iPhone nor that Microsoft had any dominance in the iPhone space.
So Opera once again is going to try to use the EU to shove their product into the faces of people who clearly don't want to use it?
That would be "anti-competitive" behavior does not require a monopoly.
At least with RHEL I know a about their security procedures (quite rigorious).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good joke. From here:
Pwnie for Mass 0wnage
Awarded to the person who discovered the bug that resulted in the most widespread exploitation or affected the most users. Also known as ‘Pwnie for Breaking the Internet.’
*Red Hat Networks Backdoored OpenSSH Packages (CVE-2008-3844)
Credit: unknown
Shortly after Black Hat and Defcon last year, Red Hat noticed that not only had someone backdoored the OpenSSH packages that some of their mirrors were distributing, but managed to sign the packages with Red Hat's own private key. Instead of revoking the key and releasing all new packages, they instead just updated the backdoored packages with clean copies, still signed by the same key, and released a shell script to scan for the MD5 checksums of the affected packages. What makes this eligible for the "mass0wnage" award is that nobody is quite sure how many systems were compromised or what other keys and packages the attackers were able to access. With very little public information available, the real casuality was the public's trust in the integrity of Red Hat's packages.
Yeah, that sounds real rigorous.
I had a 80286 system running 32 users for one customer, at a time when Microsoft said it was impossible. That was running SCO Xenix, which was the first good Unix port to the PC.
You mean the same Xenix that was created by Microsoft?
Sorry, dinner's ready or I'd go on with a lot more.
Your mom calling you to come up from the basement?
What kind of stock broker system doesn't have redundancy to handle if a server goes down?
I've never seen a JIT C compiler, so I can't fairly answer your question.
Then you haven't looked very hard.
That said, JIT still means there's a step before execution, so likely, yes.
Huh? JITing effects start-up time not execution time.
You seem to be conflating VMs and runtime environments with JIT compilation. So according to your logic if I JIT compile C code it will somehow run slower than AOT compiled C code? How does that make any sense?
Why? Most people won't use them. Then what will happen is you same people would be the whining about how Microsoft is "bloating" Windows with all sorts of applications.
At 8-10% penetration? And that's only if you aggregate all Linux based OSes together.
However, the team that did the first one went out of their way to point out that they were NOT AT ALL involved with this one.
You mean except for the fact that at least 5 members of the original team worked on the sequel?
The multiplayer is set before the original game. The single player happens 10 years after.
Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?
Yeah and it would sell miserably at around $75,000 a piece.
Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.
Considering that you could buy around 30 of the highest end i7s for the same price as a single Power7 I would think you would get far better performance per dollar.
Are those same libraries going to be asserting a copyright on those orphaned works like Google will get to under their settlement? If not, that's a pretty big difference.
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
What success? In 2007 they lost $37 million. Lost around $17 million in 2008. They were also reportedly losing money in the 2009 fiscal year after being bought by Best Buy. I think you and I have very different notions of "success".
They shouldn't.
So then what are your complaints?
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that?
Because you don't reward someone for bad behavior?
How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
Because the solution from their settlement with the Authors Guild doesn't actually benefit everyone? It benefits that guild and Google, but leaves thousand and thousands of other authors out in the cold while Google still gets to make money of their works because of that ridiculous opt-out bullshit. And then Google can turn around and claim copyrights to these orphaned works themselves! Utterly ridiculous if you ask me.
Sure, of course he'll say that. He needs to sell his app.
If that were true Trent Reznor wouldn't still have his app on the app store after blasting Apple pretty hard after they rejected one of the updates a while back.
Would you say bad things about someone who just threatened you?
How was he threatened? They said his app was accepted but they would like him to remove something from his description.
So then how do you explain Trent Reznor? He blasted Apple pretty harshly after an update to his NIN app was rejected. Yet he got his app back on and it's still there today.
I suppose it’s logical, and I’m not complaining; Apple is a wonderful company to work with.
From the horses mouth.
It'll probably start with the developers. They'll get sick and tired of paying $99 a year just to develop goddamn cell phone apps. They'll get sick and tired of Apple's unnecessary censorship and app publication restrictions. They'll move to more open platforms.
That's amusing considering the app developer himself says: "Apple is a wonderful company to work with."
It'll continue with the users. Those, such as yourself, who buy Apple products expecting a useful product will become dismayed, never buy another Apple product, and will suggest to other people that they also avoid Apple.
You widely overestimate the impact of the whining of a bunch of Slashtards on Apple's consumers. Why would they get dismayed when Apple has huge customer satisfaction? The world at large doesn't care what a bunch of DRM-whining neckbeards think, no matter how much you wish it so.
You know it's rather funny to see all the whining and bitching and demonizing of Apple over this when the app developer himself says:
I suppose it’s logical, and I’m not complaining; Apple is a wonderful company to work with. I took out the offending bit from the description.
How would you feel if a library had to get permission from copyright holders before offering books?
It would be ridiculous. But I don't see how this has any bearing on the matter at hand. Libraries aren't out there scanning copyrighted works and trying to sell ads to make profit off of them.