[VC-1 is] Much better than MPEG-2 no doubt, but probably used just to avoid h.264 licensing fees.
Depends on who you are, of course. If you're not Microsoft, then the licensing terms are pretty similar either way. Both H.264 and VC-1 licensing are handled through the MPEG-LA. There are some-odd 16 patent holders in the VC-1 patent pool, and 24 in H.264's, so there's some cross-company licensing either way, and I'd be willing to bet there are patents used in both codecs.
You're either being incredibly pedantic, or ignorant.
Pedantic. Guilty as charged. DivX also tends to use AVI instead of the 'standard' MPEG-4 container. I'm not implying that DivX can't use an MPEG-4 container; it's just that most DivX movies are in an AVI container.
As for the illegal codec stolen from Microsoft... if that were true, than DivX would have been sued into oblivion already.
VC-1 is said to be good codec, but I certainly don't see it in anything I've tried. It does appear to be lower quality than MPEG-4 codecs, at least at low to medium bitrates.
VC-1 is used in most HD DVDs, and many BD's (especially if it's from Warner). But that's at a fairly high bitrate. A big design goal of VC-1 was to be about as good at compressing as H.264, but requiring less processing power to decode.
" Actually, in practical terms, MPEG-2 looks brilliant in high def given enough bitrate. Nobody sane would notice the difference between MPEG-2 and H.264 if MPEG-2 was fed with enough bitrate. So does uncompressed video. The entire point is that MPEG-2 isn't as efficient as DivX, H.264 or VC-1. But 1080 video does look good in MPEG-2. ATSC television (North America) uses MPEG-2 to deliver 1080i video. Many of the first Blu-ray discs were MPEG-2 as well.
Actually they don't beat MPEG-4 part 2 (ie. divx/xvid) quality wise in practical terms at high bitrates. So unless you're trying to jam the greatest amount of extras or episodes on a high capacity disc, MPEG-4 part 2 is more than sufficient. "Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.
Unfortunately these "high bitrates" are too high to store a feature-length movie in HD on a dual-layer DVD. We're talking over six times the pixel data; DivX, H.264, VC-1 all go a long way to squeeze the image down, but none of them are able to compress a 2 1/2 hour movie at 1920x1080 onto a dual-layer DVD -- not if you want things like multi-channel surround sound, or any of the other "bonus" features that are on the DVD release of the same movie.
Make no mistake: I'm not saying you shouldn't use DivX. But what I am saying is that DivX isn't as efficient at compressing video as H.264 or VC-1, especially at the lower bitrates that would be required to compress a 1920x1080 movie onto a dual-layer DVD.
Doesn't even compare? Surely you're joking. Considering that I have multiple displays capable of 1080p, an HD DVD player (I haven't gotten around to getting a Blu-ray player yet), a DivX-compliant HDMI DVD player, and an excellent 5.1 surround system, the ability to record 1080i television broadcasts, multiple H.264 encoders, DivX, Xvid, generic MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VC-1, Theora, and others, I'm quite well equipped to make comparisons.
DivX on DVD also can't make use of the higher-bitrate Dolby Digital Plus or DTS audio, and definitely couldn't use Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio. The audio alone for TrueHD or DTS Master takes up most (if not all) of a DVD-DL's 8.7 GB.
The new disc formats all use newer and better codecs for video compression than DivX, providing better quality at lower bitrates. DivX was great when the only game in town was MPEG-2. But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX is showing its age. Both H.264 and VC-1 beat out DivX in quality, all while using less space on disc.
Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.
HD DVD and Blu-ray both use better codecs (H.264 and VC-1) than DivX on DVD, and then they use higher bitrates for both audio and video. The audio & visual quality of a DVD-DL+DivX doesn't even compare.
The wikipedia entry for ESX is somewhat more enlightening; no need to summarize it, though - it's easy enough to look up. My point is that VMware's use of the Linux kernel doesn't necessarily mean they've done any GPL violating. I imagine if worst came to worst, VMware could simply use the BSD kernel to do the same task, and sidestep the problem. (Not entirely, though, since there would be lingering questions about if they were violating the GPL when they used the linux kernel)
But you can't help but wonder if there is a GPL violation, and VMware is keeping it a secret to avoid the issue. (I'm sure the same could be said of many proprietary software companies; if nobody knows you used GPL code, it's less likely you'll get called on it).
There is, of course, a way that they aren't violating linux copyrights: They may simply be using the Linux Kernel to get the hardware into a known state prior to loading the VMkernel. Similar projects include LinuxBIOS, and Linux's own kexec (kexec lets you boot a new linux kernel without actually 'booting').
Of course, it is a violation if ESX is actually running a modified Linux Kernel, instead of using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader. Using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader is a done deal; just look up 'kexec' for proof of it. (Though I'm fairly certain kexec isn't what VMware uses).
But even then, remember that ESX is their "enterprise" product, which acts more like a hypervisor, and is not to be confused with VMware Workstation, VMware Player, or VMware Server.
For me, there are mitigating factors. Yes, a lot of the tim somebody is caught well over the existing limit. Having ever lower levels doesn't necessarily do much to help public safety, because, as you imply, just because one has had a little alcohol, it doesn't mean their abilities are impaired enough to be dangerous.
There are cases where I do approve of very low (or zero) tolerance policies -- but that's in the case of things like bus drivers, airline pilots, and drivers under the legal age to buy alcohol.
Some of the policies promoted by MADD, for instance, I find really bothersome. For instance, breathalyzers required to start any car. There are a lot of non-drinkers who rightly find the idea intrusive and unnecessary.
And of course, there's the issue of 'distracted driving' where the driver isn't under the influence of any drug or alcohol, but is simply not paying attention to the road. I'm more concerned about the lady putting her makeup on at 70 MPH than I am of the guy who had a beer at lunch. (And don't get me started on newspaper/magazine readers, cell phone addicts, etc.)
My basic driving philosophy is "Drive like you mean it." If you're driving a vehicle, that had better be what you intend to do - drive. Time behind the steering wheel is not to be used for personal grooming, watching TV or movies, finding stock tips, or fiddling with electronic devices. If you're driving a vehicle, then drive the vehicle. You're not a passenger, and you shouldn't act like one.
I see, so you're saying that you're actually capable of providing somebody with a lifetime's worth of medical care & hospice, ultimately costing probably 100k/year?
Drunk drivers inflict that sort of damage on innocent people daily. I grew up with a few people who were victims of drunk drivers. One will never leave their hospital bed for the rest of her life. Another suffered enough brain injury that he can't hold down a job; can't even live on his own. He spends about half his time in a mental hospital.
Of course, insurance is just a form of collectivization (socialism being another example), so I guess insurance is out entirely, because it's too similar to socialism.
Insurance doesn't cover the entire cost by a long shot, anyway. They've got to make a profit, after all.
Or do you propose that the victim of your selfish actions should just "suck it up and die" because you couldn't care less?
Being part of a civilization requires social responsibility, and some level of collectivism. Any level of government (formal or informal, small or big) needs the people who are a part of it to have the desire to be 'part' of the group to survive.
Rule of law came about because the vast majority of the people have demanded it. Seat belt laws came about because the medical community (and the insurance companies that pay them) convinced enough of the public that it is a good idea that the laws didn't have enough opposition to keep them from passing.
Laws against drunk driving came about because the (vast) majority of the people who take part in politics demanded them. If you don't know somebody who has been either killed or permanently disabled because of a drunk driver, you're either young or a hermit. The number of people who suffer due to drunk driving (directly or indirectly) is where laws against drunk driving originate. I don't know of an area where laws against intoxicated driving were ever controversial; only the level of what's considered 'drunk' is debated.
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that there are lots of records about traffic accidents. One of the first things police officers check (in the US, at least) is if anybody involved is drunk. The same tests often happen for violent crime. The one thing that is always consistent is that a very disproportional number of auto accidents (or violent crime such as murder, rape, or robbery) happen when alcohol is consumed by one or more of the participants.
Governments (local and national) have real, solid data, gathered over decades and thousands of accidents. After that, it's pretty easy to use statistical methods to determine at what alcohol levels a person becomes more accident prone. The public ends up paying the insurance premiums (both health care and auto). People are maimed for life and end up being a ward of the government, because their body or brain is so injured that they cannot take care of themselves.
Society bears a substantial cost from it.
Property is destroyed, the insurance company won't pay, and the insured either can't or won't pay either.
Society (either public or private) pays for that too.
Of course, a great many believe that they are a "special case" that the rules don't apply to, then formulate blame and bad reasoning based on invalid assumptions and bad data.
The penalties are there to encourage people to act like responsible adults, instead of arrogant ingrates who only care about themselves. Being drunk is no excuse for causing harm to others.
I don't buy the lack of effort argument at all. It's the same battlefield, and the stakes are the same. Everything has penetration attempts, and the payoff is significant even with the smaller market share that OS X or Linux have. The source code to everything that handles the network touches is available online; most of it is from FreeBSD. Even the subject of this article (mDNS) has the full source online, and is an open-source project.
If you aren't exploiting a vulnerability in a piece of software you have the source code for; you're just not trying.
It's not like the Mac (or Linux, for that matter) is a sacred cow to black hats. If anything, the Mac's security record makes it a more desirable target-- to be the first to successfully crack a platform is a big deal, and is worth a lot of prestige, which is almost as good as currency in that world.
There are also high-profile reports (A famous USA Today article comes to mind), which showed Windows XP receiving 341 attacks/hour, and OS X receiving 338. So tell me... how do those 3/hour (or 1% difference) amount to OS X not having been tested?
There are high profile goldmines running OS X, such as the iTunes Music Store. Are you trying to say that the largest online music retailer, whom sells more music than Amazon and Target is somehow ignored by crackers? Again, the crack is not about the free music (that's already pretty easy) -- it's about doing something that's so hard nobody's done it before (compromising a high-profile e-commerce site).
Trying to argue that smart, talented people aren't trying to crack OS X is insane; the argument holds about as much weight as saying that nobody is trying to crack Linux (which is also laughable)
Darwin is largely FreeBSD to begin with. You don't hear about FreeBSD being hacked very often either.
Smugness is in the eye of the beholder; unfortunately, there's often nothing that can be done either way, as a great many people aren't able to accept that something other than their chosen product (or OS in this case) might have something that theirs doesn't.
In other words, Ford Mustang owners tend to see Chevy Corvette owners as smug. Neither side is really willing to appreciate that each has advantages the other doesn't possess, and can't stand it when somebody highlights the advantage. That isn't ever going to change
I don't see how the situation is any different when an operating system is concerned, rather than a brand of vehicle.
Here's a news flash: OS X has advantages over Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD. OS X can brag about security, because there is a far smaller percentage of its users that have infected, compromised, or zombified machines. Ffind reasons to discount that fact is meaningless: It doesn't matter if the number of attackers is smaller; the goal is to not fall victim to an attack, which OS X has an excellent record of doing.
Here's another one: Macintoshes have disadvantages: They don't have as much native software. A virtualization product like VMware or Parallels is a rare sight on Windows, yet is quite common on a Macintosh. There's always some app that only exists for Windows that the user can't live without. So Mac users not only pay $130 for OS X, but also $80 for a virtualization product, and then they have to buy the most expensive license for Windows. Mac software doesn't enjoy the "freedom" that most Linux users enjoy; much of the software for the Mac is closed-source.
Still, you don't have to like it when OS X users dismiss the advantages of other OSes (like the amount of software for Windows, or the freeness of Linux).
Just take the time to realize that's it's a different flavor of the time-honored "Chevy vs Ford" debate. What is "better" depends on the way the beholder sees things, and it's childish to believe that there's only one true way.
Ashton (the interviewer) chose the title that says why linux failed on the desktop without consulting me. If you actually read the interview I never once say that linux failed on the desktop.
Well, now you have a personal understanding of why a lot of people are turning from "mainstream" journalism to alternative sources. The journalistic process isn't exactly honest or honorable, is it?
I did think it odd that after arguing against fair scheduling for quite a while, Ingo, et. al. decided to implement it (and how rapidly it was dropped into the kernel). I've read a few articles about the sudden change of heart. I'm sorry things worked out that way; I can definitely get an idea how disappointing that you didn't even get any credit for championing fair scheduling, nor were you given any involvement in implementing the CFS.
On the other hand, I also recall reading a paper that was given at OLS 2006 that was more or less stating that "Userspace Sucks"; there's a lot of work to be done there.
I do highly parallel processing. The industry as a whole has moved in a different direction (which is, oddly enough one of the reasons the project is shutting down). We use MPI, which is one of the things that mosix was supposed to let you avoid. There are other ways to maintain a system than the "single system image." Mosix had problems with performance, which is an effective way to ensure it won't be used in high performance applications.
And it's no fun to develop something you know isn't going to be used, as the supercomputing 'industry' isn't moving in the same direction that Mosix was heading.
The big thing I'd add is that all of the high performance clusters I've seen don't use Mosix (open or otherwise). The reason is that while mosix makes some administration tasks easier, it doesn't address the single most important thing for a HPC cluster: Performance.
The point of mosix is to avoid using a library (such as an MPI implementation) to handle parallel apps, and to make managing a cluster 'easier'.
The problem is that the performance just isn't there, and that the 'industry' as a whole has overall chosen to use MPI to handle parallelism, and use various other methods to manage the cluster.
Bottom line: The industry they targeted didn't move in the direction mosix was headed (which is exactly why the developers are shutting it down).
There are a lot of PS3 fanboys who play up Blu-ray, since that's about all the PS3 can do with the current PS3 game selection. Since the PS3 is generally being outsold by the Wii, 360, and PS2, making premature claims about the one thing that seems to be going the PS3's way (ie. Blu ray is doing well) seems to be a major outlet for fanboys who can't seem to grasp that the PS3 isn't going to dominate the market the way the PS2 did.
In terms of standalone Blu-ray vs HD DVD player sales, HD DVD has a wide lead, which is only going to increase when Wall-Mart starts selling cheap HD DVD players this fall. (By then the price difference between an HD DVD player and Blu-ray will be around 2-3x), which will be as big a hit to the Blu-ray camp as the PS3 was to HD DVD. (The PS3 is, after all, the #1 selling Blu-ray player).
The format war is far from over, and frankly, there's no reason why it will end. We have multiple console systems, and if you want to play all the games, you have to buy multiple consoles. The market has shown quite clearly that it will support multiple exclusive standards, so I see no reason for either HD DVD or Blu-ray to 'win' or 'lose'.
Frankly, it's not going to matter in a few months anyway. LG already has a (semi-functional) dual-format player, and Samsung (who was previously one of Blu-ray's biggest supporters) is also making a dual-format player. The differences between HD DVD and Blu-ray (outside the physical disc) are small enough to make dual-format players much easier to implement.
With the impending influx of inexpensive HD DVD players from China this fall, HD DVD will be even more compelling to add support for.
Neither format is going either. Just like AAC, MP3, and OGG aren't going to 'win' a format war.
My question is, why encode their name and all, like that?
News flash: Putting the name & email of the person who bought it into the iTunes song isn't some bolt from the blue. Apple has always put the name and email address in every iTunes download, from the first day the iTunes Music store opened in 2003. It's not a secret, nor is it something new and/or specific to iTunes Plus songs. It has always been there.
A stolen iPod has the name and email address of its owner on it if that iPod had any song downloaded from iTunes on it, and always has.
Anybody who cared to look at the "song info" could easily see that. And how do you get to the song info? The same way you would edit the song's tag info (I would say ID3, but that's MP3, not AAC).
Identifying who bought what is nothing new. There's a reason why detectives use the phrase "follow the money."
When you buy a license of pretty much any downloadable software, the license has your name on it. Like it or not, this is a standard and accepted practice for purchased downloads, whether they are media (like songs) or software.
Like it or not, music is copyrighted, and infringing on the rights of the copyright owner is illegal. The ??AA has the right to prosecute those who infringe on their copyrights, and the infringer has no more right to conceal evidence and remain anonymous than Microsoft has to hide its monopoly abuse. If you don't like it, get the law changed. "Civil Disobedience" will only get you so far, and frankly, it hasn't been working in the eyes of the law any more than DRM has been working for DVD's.
Possibly, but vim seems to be moving towards sentience faster than emacs. It's got farther to go, but don't count that scrappy vi clone out in the race to sentience.
Been there, done that. Git currently has issues when you start running above a 2 GB boundary. It's less severe on a 64-bit system than a 32-bit system. On a 64-bit system, you have to be careful to keep your pack files below 2 GB in size, else things blow up horribly (which means you can't use 'git repack -a -d')
I've submitted patches to address the issue, but like quite a few projects, git's maintainers have a pretty full plate, so some things can take a while...
Suffice it to say: even with a repository as large as mine (~4.5 GB worth of packfiles, which is quite a bit larger unpacked), speed is not a problem for git.
I can't wait for you to find out that your computer is infected with a bot, when you get a $450,000 tax bill...
Why do you think a bot would mean you've got a tax bill?
What it means is that the company who profited by your computer's infection is committing tax fraud/evasion. The IRS will then mercilessly hunt down the company who infected your PC, and the company paying for the "advertising service," and instead of getting a slap on the wrist, involved parties get a nice cell in a Federal prison.
Preferably the one in Cuba.
But in all seriousness, historically, one of the most effective ways of bringing something that is "out of control" -- like spam is now, into balance is to tax and regulate it. It's not an ideal solution, but it has been effective in the past.
Well, the obvious past format war (VHS/Betamax) has the following lesson:
* Betamax was introduced in 1975. * Betamax was the most popular format in 1983 -- almost 10 years of dominance. * By 1985, the market turned sharply to VHS.
Things can change over time, and it's still way too early to declare victory. (Sony declared victory in Betamax, BTW...)
I've seen as many stand-alone HD DVD players in stores as Blu-ray (More HD DVD, actually, but not by much).
Sony is hoping the PS3 will boost Blu-ray, and PS3 fanboys are certainly making that case... But the difference in the numbers of PS2's versus stand-alone DVD players should be a good indication of how much influence the PS3 will end up having in the grand scheme of things. (Same goes for the Xbox 360's HD DVD drive)
But with most of the manufacturers in the Blu-ray camp either going dual-format (as is LG and Samsung), or haven't released a Blu-ray player at all (Sharp, for example), it's becoming apparent that Blu-ray isn't an all-powerful juggernaut.
With Wall-Mart throwing their support behind HD DVD, it certainly strengthens HD DVD's position; but these (even lower-cost) players won't hit the market for 4-5 months yet. If a consumer can get an HD DVD player for less than 1/2 the cost of a Blu-ray player, HD DVD starts to look like the winner.
In the end, I expect the following: * Neither format will 'win'. Dual-format disc players will become the standard (ie. LG and Samsung's next generation players), and the studio will press whatever format is most economical for a particular movie. Frankly, I think it immature to claim that "There can be only one" -- video game consoles have pretty much proven that having multiple formats is a sustainable model. * Dual-format discs won't take off; there's no reason to more than double the production cost of the disc when making a dual-format player is much simpler/cheaper.
Well, according to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide", (otherwise known as Wikipedia), while some use arsenic, others do not.
aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) - red and infrared aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) - green aluminium gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) - red, orange-red, orange, and yellow gallium phosphide (GaP) - red, yellow and green gallium nitride (GaN) - green, pure green (or emerald green), and blue also white (if it has an AlGaN Quantum Barrier) indium gallium nitride (InGaN) - near ultraviolet, bluish-green and blue silicon carbide (SiC) as substrate blue silicon (Si) as substrate blue (under development) sapphire (Al2O3) as substrate blue zinc selenide (ZnSe) - blue diamond (C) - ultraviolet aluminium nitride (AlN), aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN) - near to far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm[4])
Which means that you can get red & green using gallium phosphate, and silicon carbide for blue. That gives you white light.
Or, you could use gallium nitride with the AlGaN Quantum Barrier, which also has no arsenic.
Slashdot Mirror
[VC-1 is] Much better than MPEG-2 no doubt, but probably used just to avoid h.264 licensing fees.
Depends on who you are, of course. If you're not Microsoft, then the licensing terms are pretty similar either way. Both H.264 and VC-1 licensing are handled through the MPEG-LA. There are some-odd 16 patent holders in the VC-1 patent pool, and 24 in H.264's, so there's some cross-company licensing either way, and I'd be willing to bet there are patents used in both codecs.
You're either being incredibly pedantic, or ignorant.
Pedantic. Guilty as charged. DivX also tends to use AVI instead of the 'standard' MPEG-4 container. I'm not implying that DivX can't use an MPEG-4 container; it's just that most DivX movies are in an AVI container.
As for the illegal codec stolen from Microsoft... if that were true, than DivX would have been sued into oblivion already.
VC-1 is said to be good codec, but I certainly don't see it in anything I've tried. It does appear to be lower quality than MPEG-4 codecs, at least at low to medium bitrates.
VC-1 is used in most HD DVDs, and many BD's (especially if it's from Warner). But that's at a fairly high bitrate. A big design goal of VC-1 was to be about as good at compressing as H.264, but requiring less processing power to decode.
" Actually, in practical terms, MPEG-2 looks brilliant in high def given enough bitrate. Nobody sane would notice the difference between MPEG-2 and H.264 if MPEG-2 was fed with enough bitrate.
So does uncompressed video. The entire point is that MPEG-2 isn't as efficient as DivX, H.264 or VC-1. But 1080 video does look good in MPEG-2. ATSC television (North America) uses MPEG-2 to deliver 1080i video. Many of the first Blu-ray discs were MPEG-2 as well.
Actually they don't beat MPEG-4 part 2 (ie. divx/xvid) quality wise in practical terms at high bitrates. So unless you're trying to jam the greatest amount of extras or episodes on a high capacity disc, MPEG-4 part 2 is more than sufficient. "Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.
Unfortunately these "high bitrates" are too high to store a feature-length movie in HD on a dual-layer DVD. We're talking over six times the pixel data; DivX, H.264, VC-1 all go a long way to squeeze the image down, but none of them are able to compress a 2 1/2 hour movie at 1920x1080 onto a dual-layer DVD -- not if you want things like multi-channel surround sound, or any of the other "bonus" features that are on the DVD release of the same movie.
Make no mistake: I'm not saying you shouldn't use DivX. But what I am saying is that DivX isn't as efficient at compressing video as H.264 or VC-1, especially at the lower bitrates that would be required to compress a 1920x1080 movie onto a dual-layer DVD.
Doesn't even compare? Surely you're joking.
Considering that I have multiple displays capable of 1080p, an HD DVD player (I haven't gotten around to getting a Blu-ray player yet), a DivX-compliant HDMI DVD player, and an excellent 5.1 surround system, the ability to record 1080i television broadcasts, multiple H.264 encoders, DivX, Xvid, generic MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VC-1, Theora, and others, I'm quite well equipped to make comparisons.
DivX on DVD also can't make use of the higher-bitrate Dolby Digital Plus or DTS audio, and definitely couldn't use Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio. The audio alone for TrueHD or DTS Master takes up most (if not all) of a DVD-DL's 8.7 GB.
The new disc formats all use newer and better codecs for video compression than DivX, providing better quality at lower bitrates. DivX was great when the only game in town was MPEG-2. But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX is showing its age. Both H.264 and VC-1 beat out DivX in quality, all while using less space on disc.
Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.
HD DVD and Blu-ray both use better codecs (H.264 and VC-1) than DivX on DVD, and then they use higher bitrates for both audio and video. The audio & visual quality of a DVD-DL+DivX doesn't even compare.
The wikipedia entry for ESX is somewhat more enlightening; no need to summarize it, though - it's easy enough to look up. My point is that VMware's use of the Linux kernel doesn't necessarily mean they've done any GPL violating. I imagine if worst came to worst, VMware could simply use the BSD kernel to do the same task, and sidestep the problem. (Not entirely, though, since there would be lingering questions about if they were violating the GPL when they used the linux kernel)
But you can't help but wonder if there is a GPL violation, and VMware is keeping it a secret to avoid the issue. (I'm sure the same could be said of many proprietary software companies; if nobody knows you used GPL code, it's less likely you'll get called on it).
There is, of course, a way that they aren't violating linux copyrights: They may simply be using the Linux Kernel to get the hardware into a known state prior to loading the VMkernel. Similar projects include LinuxBIOS, and Linux's own kexec (kexec lets you boot a new linux kernel without actually 'booting').
Of course, it is a violation if ESX is actually running a modified Linux Kernel, instead of using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader. Using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader is a done deal; just look up 'kexec' for proof of it. (Though I'm fairly certain kexec isn't what VMware uses).
But even then, remember that ESX is their "enterprise" product, which acts more like a hypervisor, and is not to be confused with VMware Workstation, VMware Player, or VMware Server.
For me, there are mitigating factors. Yes, a lot of the tim somebody is caught well over the existing limit. Having ever lower levels doesn't necessarily do much to help public safety, because, as you imply, just because one has had a little alcohol, it doesn't mean their abilities are impaired enough to be dangerous.
There are cases where I do approve of very low (or zero) tolerance policies -- but that's in the case of things like bus drivers, airline pilots, and drivers under the legal age to buy alcohol.
Some of the policies promoted by MADD, for instance, I find really bothersome. For instance, breathalyzers required to start any car. There are a lot of non-drinkers who rightly find the idea intrusive and unnecessary.
And of course, there's the issue of 'distracted driving' where the driver isn't under the influence of any drug or alcohol, but is simply not paying attention to the road. I'm more concerned about the lady putting her makeup on at 70 MPH than I am of the guy who had a beer at lunch. (And don't get me started on newspaper/magazine readers, cell phone addicts, etc.)
My basic driving philosophy is "Drive like you mean it." If you're driving a vehicle, that had better be what you intend to do - drive. Time behind the steering wheel is not to be used for personal grooming, watching TV or movies, finding stock tips, or fiddling with electronic devices. If you're driving a vehicle, then drive the vehicle. You're not a passenger, and you shouldn't act like one.
I see, so you're saying that you're actually capable of providing somebody with a lifetime's worth of medical care & hospice, ultimately costing probably 100k/year?
Drunk drivers inflict that sort of damage on innocent people daily. I grew up with a few people who were victims of drunk drivers. One will never leave their hospital bed for the rest of her life. Another suffered enough brain injury that he can't hold down a job; can't even live on his own. He spends about half his time in a mental hospital.
Of course, insurance is just a form of collectivization (socialism being another example), so I guess insurance is out entirely, because it's too similar to socialism.
Insurance doesn't cover the entire cost by a long shot, anyway. They've got to make a profit, after all.
Or do you propose that the victim of your selfish actions should just "suck it up and die" because you couldn't care less?
Being part of a civilization requires social responsibility, and some level of collectivism. Any level of government (formal or informal, small or big) needs the people who are a part of it to have the desire to be 'part' of the group to survive.
Rule of law came about because the vast majority of the people have demanded it. Seat belt laws came about because the medical community (and the insurance companies that pay them) convinced enough of the public that it is a good idea that the laws didn't have enough opposition to keep them from passing.
Laws against drunk driving came about because the (vast) majority of the people who take part in politics demanded them. If you don't know somebody who has been either killed or permanently disabled because of a drunk driver, you're either young or a hermit. The number of people who suffer due to drunk driving (directly or indirectly) is where laws against drunk driving originate. I don't know of an area where laws against intoxicated driving were ever controversial; only the level of what's considered 'drunk' is debated.
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that there are lots of records about traffic accidents. One of the first things police officers check (in the US, at least) is if anybody involved is drunk. The same tests often happen for violent crime. The one thing that is always consistent is that a very disproportional number of auto accidents (or violent crime such as murder, rape, or robbery) happen when alcohol is consumed by one or more of the participants.
Governments (local and national) have real, solid data, gathered over decades and thousands of accidents. After that, it's pretty easy to use statistical methods to determine at what alcohol levels a person becomes more accident prone. The public ends up paying the insurance premiums (both health care and auto). People are maimed for life and end up being a ward of the government, because their body or brain is so injured that they cannot take care of themselves.
Society bears a substantial cost from it.
Property is destroyed, the insurance company won't pay, and the insured either can't or won't pay either.
Society (either public or private) pays for that too.
Of course, a great many believe that they are a "special case" that the rules don't apply to, then formulate blame and bad reasoning based on invalid assumptions and bad data.
The penalties are there to encourage people to act like responsible adults, instead of arrogant ingrates who only care about themselves. Being drunk is no excuse for causing harm to others.
I don't buy the lack of effort argument at all. It's the same battlefield, and the stakes are the same. Everything has penetration attempts, and the payoff is significant even with the smaller market share that OS X or Linux have. The source code to everything that handles the network touches is available online; most of it is from FreeBSD. Even the subject of this article (mDNS) has the full source online, and is an open-source project.
If you aren't exploiting a vulnerability in a piece of software you have the source code for; you're just not trying.
It's not like the Mac (or Linux, for that matter) is a sacred cow to black hats. If anything, the Mac's security record makes it a more desirable target-- to be the first to successfully crack a platform is a big deal, and is worth a lot of prestige, which is almost as good as currency in that world.
There are also high-profile reports (A famous USA Today article comes to mind), which showed Windows XP receiving 341 attacks/hour, and OS X receiving 338. So tell me... how do those 3/hour (or 1% difference) amount to OS X not having been tested?
There are high profile goldmines running OS X, such as the iTunes Music Store. Are you trying to say that the largest online music retailer, whom sells more music than Amazon and Target is somehow ignored by crackers? Again, the crack is not about the free music (that's already pretty easy) -- it's about doing something that's so hard nobody's done it before (compromising a high-profile e-commerce site).
Trying to argue that smart, talented people aren't trying to crack OS X is insane; the argument holds about as much weight as saying that nobody is trying to crack Linux (which is also laughable)
Darwin is largely FreeBSD to begin with. You don't hear about FreeBSD being hacked very often either.
Smugness is in the eye of the beholder; unfortunately, there's often nothing that can be done either way, as a great many people aren't able to accept that something other than their chosen product (or OS in this case) might have something that theirs doesn't.
In other words, Ford Mustang owners tend to see Chevy Corvette owners as smug. Neither side is really willing to appreciate that each has advantages the other doesn't possess, and can't stand it when somebody highlights the advantage. That isn't ever going to change
I don't see how the situation is any different when an operating system is concerned, rather than a brand of vehicle.
Here's a news flash: OS X has advantages over Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD. OS X can brag about security, because there is a far smaller percentage of its users that have infected, compromised, or zombified machines. Ffind reasons to discount that fact is meaningless: It doesn't matter if the number of attackers is smaller; the goal is to not fall victim to an attack, which OS X has an excellent record of doing.
Here's another one: Macintoshes have disadvantages: They don't have as much native software. A virtualization product like VMware or Parallels is a rare sight on Windows, yet is quite common on a Macintosh. There's always some app that only exists for Windows that the user can't live without. So Mac users not only pay $130 for OS X, but also $80 for a virtualization product, and then they have to buy the most expensive license for Windows. Mac software doesn't enjoy the "freedom" that most Linux users enjoy; much of the software for the Mac is closed-source.
Still, you don't have to like it when OS X users dismiss the advantages of other OSes (like the amount of software for Windows, or the freeness of Linux).
Just take the time to realize that's it's a different flavor of the time-honored "Chevy vs Ford" debate. What is "better" depends on the way the beholder sees things, and it's childish to believe that there's only one true way.
Ashton (the interviewer) chose the title that says why linux failed on the desktop without consulting me. If you actually read the interview I never once say that linux failed on the desktop.
Well, now you have a personal understanding of why a lot of people are turning from "mainstream" journalism to alternative sources. The journalistic process isn't exactly honest or honorable, is it?
I did think it odd that after arguing against fair scheduling for quite a while, Ingo, et. al. decided to implement it (and how rapidly it was dropped into the kernel). I've read a few articles about the sudden change of heart. I'm sorry things worked out that way; I can definitely get an idea how disappointing that you didn't even get any credit for championing fair scheduling, nor were you given any involvement in implementing the CFS.
On the other hand, I also recall reading a paper that was given at OLS 2006 that was more or less stating that "Userspace Sucks"; there's a lot of work to be done there.
I do highly parallel processing. The industry as a whole has moved in a different direction (which is, oddly enough one of the reasons the project is shutting down). We use MPI, which is one of the things that mosix was supposed to let you avoid. There are other ways to maintain a system than the "single system image." Mosix had problems with performance, which is an effective way to ensure it won't be used in high performance applications.
And it's no fun to develop something you know isn't going to be used, as the supercomputing 'industry' isn't moving in the same direction that Mosix was heading.
The big thing I'd add is that all of the high performance clusters I've seen don't use Mosix (open or otherwise). The reason is that while mosix makes some administration tasks easier, it doesn't address the single most important thing for a HPC cluster: Performance.
The point of mosix is to avoid using a library (such as an MPI implementation) to handle parallel apps, and to make managing a cluster 'easier'.
The problem is that the performance just isn't there, and that the 'industry' as a whole has overall chosen to use MPI to handle parallelism, and use various other methods to manage the cluster.
Bottom line: The industry they targeted didn't move in the direction mosix was headed (which is exactly why the developers are shutting it down).
What are you on? It's gotta be some good stuff.
Ethics in the entertainment biz? Right. After that, we can take the wet out of water.
There are a lot of PS3 fanboys who play up Blu-ray, since that's about all the PS3 can do with the current PS3 game selection. Since the PS3 is generally being outsold by the Wii, 360, and PS2, making premature claims about the one thing that seems to be going the PS3's way (ie. Blu ray is doing well) seems to be a major outlet for fanboys who can't seem to grasp that the PS3 isn't going to dominate the market the way the PS2 did.
In terms of standalone Blu-ray vs HD DVD player sales, HD DVD has a wide lead, which is only going to increase when Wall-Mart starts selling cheap HD DVD players this fall. (By then the price difference between an HD DVD player and Blu-ray will be around 2-3x), which will be as big a hit to the Blu-ray camp as the PS3 was to HD DVD. (The PS3 is, after all, the #1 selling Blu-ray player).
The format war is far from over, and frankly, there's no reason why it will end. We have multiple console systems, and if you want to play all the games, you have to buy multiple consoles. The market has shown quite clearly that it will support multiple exclusive standards, so I see no reason for either HD DVD or Blu-ray to 'win' or 'lose'.
Frankly, it's not going to matter in a few months anyway. LG already has a (semi-functional) dual-format player, and Samsung (who was previously one of Blu-ray's biggest supporters) is also making a dual-format player. The differences between HD DVD and Blu-ray (outside the physical disc) are small enough to make dual-format players much easier to implement.
With the impending influx of inexpensive HD DVD players from China this fall, HD DVD will be even more compelling to add support for.
Neither format is going either. Just like AAC, MP3, and OGG aren't going to 'win' a format war.
My question is, why encode their name and all, like that?
News flash: Putting the name & email of the person who bought it into the iTunes song isn't some bolt from the blue. Apple has always put the name and email address in every iTunes download, from the first day the iTunes Music store opened in 2003. It's not a secret, nor is it something new and/or specific to iTunes Plus songs. It has always been there.
A stolen iPod has the name and email address of its owner on it if that iPod had any song downloaded from iTunes on it, and always has.
Anybody who cared to look at the "song info" could easily see that. And how do you get to the song info? The same way you would edit the song's tag info (I would say ID3, but that's MP3, not AAC).
Identifying who bought what is nothing new. There's a reason why detectives use the phrase "follow the money."
When you buy a license of pretty much any downloadable software, the license has your name on it. Like it or not, this is a standard and accepted practice for purchased downloads, whether they are media (like songs) or software.
Like it or not, music is copyrighted, and infringing on the rights of the copyright owner is illegal. The ??AA has the right to prosecute those who infringe on their copyrights, and the infringer has no more right to conceal evidence and remain anonymous than Microsoft has to hide its monopoly abuse. If you don't like it, get the law changed. "Civil Disobedience" will only get you so far, and frankly, it hasn't been working in the eyes of the law any more than DRM has been working for DVD's.
That's why Reagan officially put a stop to CIA-sponsored assassinations early in his first term.
Besides, it's so much safer, cheaper, and easier to get a desperate bum to do it for you, and they're just as dead in the end.
Possibly, but vim seems to be moving towards sentience faster than emacs. It's got farther to go, but don't count that scrappy vi clone out in the race to sentience.
None of my repositories have outgrown git
Been there, done that. Git currently has issues when you start running above a 2 GB boundary. It's less severe on a 64-bit system than a 32-bit system. On a 64-bit system, you have to be careful to keep your pack files below 2 GB in size, else things blow up horribly (which means you can't use 'git repack -a -d')
I've submitted patches to address the issue, but like quite a few projects, git's maintainers have a pretty full plate, so some things can take a while...
Suffice it to say: even with a repository as large as mine (~4.5 GB worth of packfiles, which is quite a bit larger unpacked), speed is not a problem for git.
I take it on a case-by-case basis. Having done both hardware and software development, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to fix the hardware.
You know, that whole Microsoft vs. Sony is probably the hardest question an informed consumer could choose.
On one hand you have a software company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other software products from the same company.
On the other hand, you have a hardware company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other hardware products from the same company.
Tough call. Obviously, many choose neither.
I can't wait for you to find out that your computer is infected with a bot, when you get a $450,000 tax bill...
Why do you think a bot would mean you've got a tax bill?
What it means is that the company who profited by your computer's infection is committing tax fraud/evasion. The IRS will then mercilessly hunt down the company who infected your PC, and the company paying for the "advertising service," and instead of getting a slap on the wrist, involved parties get a nice cell in a Federal prison.
Preferably the one in Cuba.
But in all seriousness, historically, one of the most effective ways of bringing something that is "out of control" -- like spam is now, into balance is to tax and regulate it. It's not an ideal solution, but it has been effective in the past.
Well, the obvious past format war (VHS/Betamax) has the following lesson:
* Betamax was introduced in 1975.
* Betamax was the most popular format in 1983 -- almost 10 years of dominance.
* By 1985, the market turned sharply to VHS.
Things can change over time, and it's still way too early to declare victory. (Sony declared victory in Betamax, BTW...)
I've seen as many stand-alone HD DVD players in stores as Blu-ray (More HD DVD, actually, but not by much).
Sony is hoping the PS3 will boost Blu-ray, and PS3 fanboys are certainly making that case... But the difference in the numbers of PS2's versus stand-alone DVD players should be a good indication of how much influence the PS3 will end up having in the grand scheme of things. (Same goes for the Xbox 360's HD DVD drive)
But with most of the manufacturers in the Blu-ray camp either going dual-format (as is LG and Samsung), or haven't released a Blu-ray player at all (Sharp, for example), it's becoming apparent that Blu-ray isn't an all-powerful juggernaut.
With Wall-Mart throwing their support behind HD DVD, it certainly strengthens HD DVD's position; but these (even lower-cost) players won't hit the market for 4-5 months yet. If a consumer can get an HD DVD player for less than 1/2 the cost of a Blu-ray player, HD DVD starts to look like the winner.
In the end, I expect the following:
* Neither format will 'win'. Dual-format disc players will become the standard (ie. LG and Samsung's next generation players), and the studio will press whatever format is most economical for a particular movie. Frankly, I think it immature to claim that "There can be only one" -- video game consoles have pretty much proven that having multiple formats is a sustainable model.
* Dual-format discs won't take off; there's no reason to more than double the production cost of the disc when making a dual-format player is much simpler/cheaper.
Well, according to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide", (otherwise known as Wikipedia), while some use arsenic, others do not.
aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) - red and infrared
aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) - green
aluminium gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) - red, orange-red, orange, and yellow
gallium phosphide (GaP) - red, yellow and green
gallium nitride (GaN) - green, pure green (or emerald green), and blue also white (if it has an AlGaN Quantum Barrier)
indium gallium nitride (InGaN) - near ultraviolet, bluish-green and blue
silicon carbide (SiC) as substrate blue
silicon (Si) as substrate blue (under development)
sapphire (Al2O3) as substrate blue
zinc selenide (ZnSe) - blue
diamond (C) - ultraviolet
aluminium nitride (AlN), aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN) - near to far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm[4])
Which means that you can get red & green using gallium phosphate, and silicon carbide for blue. That gives you white light.
Or, you could use gallium nitride with the AlGaN Quantum Barrier, which also has no arsenic.