Agreed, but using it from anything but LaTeX (or Lyx, or what-have-you, is quite difficult (at least in my experience--if it were easy-to-use in OOo or whatever word processor is default in a distribution, then, yes, it would be a plus.
What is really needed to help Linux stand out is a set of F/LOSS-licensed fonts that are of even better quality than the default MS stuff--I mean it's essential to be able to show Times New Roman correctly, but what would make Linux (and other free operating systems) stand out is a selection of superb fonts.
Look to Firefox for an example--people didn't choose it (solely) because it was free; they chose it because it works better (for them). I suspect at least some users could be swayed by better default fonts.
If this is an issue, and people are interested in increasing security, then perhaps there could be a viable business in providing this. On the other hand, if you're really concerned about security, is non-dedicated hosting really such a great idea?
If you look at the postal system, people have been using security envelopes or at least sealed envelopes since pretty much the beginning. This is exactly the problem, though--people are accustomed to using envelopes, whereas getting people to use e-mail encryption requires some serious additional effort, which most people aren't willing to put in.
While this particular instance doesn't concern me, it seems that, more and more, we're seeing reasons to start encrypting most data that we send across the Internet--certainly we would encrypt IMAP/POP3 sessions, Jabber and whatnot--why not HTTP as well?
Yes, there might be some performance drawbacks, but, on the whole, it seems to me like the less data we send in plaintext, the less we open ourselves up to identity theft, and being spied on by governments (not necessarily our own, mind you).
So I tend to think that this is just a manifestation of this broader trend towards encryption in all Internet transactions. I think the real question is whether we'll see people using SSL/TLS for things like checking the weather or sports scores.
The question Viacom will ask is, "What value does YouTube add that we don't already have, or could easily develop?" How about the extra traffic to their media from being on a site that a much larger number of people use--one of the problems with each network making its own site to view media is that it's a pain to go to 12 different sites to watch your favorite shows. Centralizing them on YouTube would make this much easier, and possibly draw a bigger audience.
The question is not so much about network neutrality or throttling as much as it is about modifying packets en-route--Comcast et al. now sens (falsified) RST packets, which is almost like a man-in-the-middle attack against peer-to-peer networking--if there's genuinely not enough bandwidth, why not just drop excess packets from P2P streams?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but using it from anything but LaTeX (or Lyx, or what-have-you, is quite difficult (at least in my experience--if it were easy-to-use in OOo or whatever word processor is default in a distribution, then, yes, it would be a plus.
What is really needed to help Linux stand out is a set of F/LOSS-licensed fonts that are of even better quality than the default MS stuff--I mean it's essential to be able to show Times New Roman correctly, but what would make Linux (and other free operating systems) stand out is a selection of superb fonts.
Look to Firefox for an example--people didn't choose it (solely) because it was free; they chose it because it works better (for them). I suspect at least some users could be swayed by better default fonts.
If this is an issue, and people are interested in increasing security, then perhaps there could be a viable business in providing this. On the other hand, if you're really concerned about security, is non-dedicated hosting really such a great idea?
While this particular instance doesn't concern me, it seems that, more and more, we're seeing reasons to start encrypting most data that we send across the Internet--certainly we would encrypt IMAP/POP3 sessions, Jabber and whatnot--why not HTTP as well?
Yes, there might be some performance drawbacks, but, on the whole, it seems to me like the less data we send in plaintext, the less we open ourselves up to identity theft, and being spied on by governments (not necessarily our own, mind you).
So I tend to think that this is just a manifestation of this broader trend towards encryption in all Internet transactions. I think the real question is whether we'll see people using SSL/TLS for things like checking the weather or sports scores.
The question is not so much about network neutrality or throttling as much as it is about modifying packets en-route--Comcast et al. now sens (falsified) RST packets, which is almost like a man-in-the-middle attack against peer-to-peer networking--if there's genuinely not enough bandwidth, why not just drop excess packets from P2P streams?