I've always wondered why high end software shouldn't be free for personal use. It's a win-win situation: Free advertising for the provider, free education for the user.
The truth is that companies who use pirated software for commercial use will do so in any case. Software which is used for content creation should be free to learn for all.
Now then... when will the music software industry start catching on?
I think Apple might be doing a Netscape by bloating their OS, I think they have to remember updates sometime AREN'T good things.
I'd say it's pretty probable Apple is positioning OS X against Windows, not GNU/Linux. In that light having a rich featureset is more or less mandatory.
In any case Apple's technology probably bests Microsoft's on many fronts, but I still see the huge x86 installed hardware base as their greatest challenge.
In attempting to be blunt, you've oversimplified the situation to the point that what you've said is frankly wide of the mark.
I realize I was somewhat harsh, but making my point in an overly subtle way would have eliminated all the interresting replies;)
Advertising only works well when it holds newfound attention.
I'm inclined to disagree. Advertising works when it's done right (won't comment on that, no expert on the subject), and there's a market in the first place.
The new design is an excellent front page. All the important points are immediately made to the reader. It sells Mozilla excellently and will get the attention of the user to a degree that even if their initial trials with Mozilla are unsuccessful they will return to what they perceive as a professionally presented project.
An excellent point. I do admit I should have refrased my original comment, since I don't think the site redesign is a bad thing. But I do think that in order to achieve critical mass Mozilla still needs advertising in more ways than one.
The website redesign won't make Mozilla more successful. Advertising is what's needed, plain and simple. How the site looks won't affect people's awareness of Mozilla, advertising will.
Making the site UI more streamlined does make sense though.
I do realize that it's important for sites to provide disclaimers, but shouldn't parents have the ultimate responsibility? Kids shouln't be allowed to browse alone, if you ask me.
Way back in 95(ish) I remeber this "intelligent agent" app, called Rover if I remeber correctly. It was suppose to help you searching the web (ah, the pre Google days).
You could enter criteria, it'd crawl and you could rate the results, so it would learn to do it's thing better...
The thing never really worked though, and I'm still waiting for my voice activated, "Grab me some information on stellar physics, and compile into a simple tutorial please." -style agent.
OK, I'm sort of off topic here, but still, interresting ideas.
Frankly, PHP right now is the.Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations. Perl is just a touch to high-up-there. but PHP seems "just right".
You seem to have misunderstood.Net in a very fundamental way. PHP is a scripting language,.Net is an application platform.
I won't go into all the details but I do recommend you do a little research on the subject, I'm sure you'll agree the two are in no way comparable.
In regard to another reply to the parent comment: Slashdot is actually Perl;)
What is the fundamental difference between a traditional telephone company and purely VoIP-based companies? VoIP is slowly making it's way into traditional phone companies, does this make them less of a phone company?
I'd say the difference is quite minimal for the end user.
I'm just rambling, but I'd sure like to hear my fellow Slashdotters' thoughts.
What's next? Monitor sizes? I love my 19" (18" viewable) monitor!
Monitors are measured by the diameter of the actual physical glass tube inside the monitor. It's a clear and non-ambiguous way to measure things, not perfect, but it's no trickery.
But when Joe Windows formats his new 120 gig HD and finds it only holds 112 GB he's going to feel cheated on those "missing" 8 GB.
A lot of people seems to have objected to my thoughts. I realize the abstract is not the same as the patent, but I still feel that the abstract should be crafted with care to avoid generalizing too much.
Then again I don't know the inner workings of the patent system, and this may actually be the desired effect!
The abstract is not the real patent. it is only there to make skimming them easier, and judging the value of a patent by its abstract is like only looking at the title of a book before judging it.
I'm sure you are right in every respect, but shoudn't the abstract reflect the contents of a patent in a truthful way? If all abstracts are this general how do we differentiate one patent from another in a similar field at all?
A bit from the abstract: Method and system for reporting program failures. The system extracts information about a failure in a program module, such as the location of the failure, and establishes communication with a repository, such as a server.
Don't you just love how vague this is? It could cover almost anything, including embedded things like elevators, automated ovens and whatnot...
OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but the abstract just goes to show how little is needed these days to patent software. Argh.
so you would rather have to dig out your cellphone and dial from it instead of having you cellphone as a device on your belt and you simply say "dial steve at office" to dial steve's office number and then talk to him through the bluetooth headset?
You seem to have missed my point. I would like to have all the necessary technology integrated into my cellphone, as it's always with me. The dialing bit can naturally be handled by a heaset solution, my phone can do that already.
It's that you call it a cellphone and think of the phone as the central piece where as the "phone" really is a small accessory to the main computer.
If this thing should go mainstream we need to have something tangliable to put it in. PDAs have never really kicked in. I've used a Palm, but since my phone is always in my pocket I end up using the more limited calender etc. on it instead.
What the hardware inside is doing is irrelevant. My watch is actually a computer, despite of the analog interface it has. It stopped working a while back and my clocksmith reset all settings in the memory, now it works again. I still call it a watch though.
My point is simple: I believe beefing up "phones" and adding features from "computers" is a better aproach for mainstream "wearable computing" than dedicated gear. The only crucial bit missing is a display which can be embedded into ones glasses, the rest is pretty much there already.
This is indeed a cool proof of concept, but would you want one?
I'd prefer a lot of computing power in my cell phone, a display integrated into my glasses and interaction via voice commands (think headset) or a wristband keypad.
But that's beside the point. Since you have already had hands-on experience with the device and the company that sells it, could you tell if they will provide low-level technical documentation, so that it would be possible to make use of that in Linux? That sounds like one of those projects I've always been drooling over doing but lacked appropriate hardware.
From what little I've had to do with them I've gotten the impression that they are pretty open about their stuff. Contacting them would make sense. The hardware is quite expensive though, or at least it was when it was bought.
My father has a very rare motor neuron disese, multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). A treatment has been discovered which has reasonable effect, but it is possible he'll be paralysed eventually.
He aquired a device which reads your EEG and uses it to control a computer. Check out http://www.brainfingers.com/ for details. So far he hasn't needed to use it, but in the future it might be a necessity.
Anyway... This seems like ideal technology to combine with the stuff mentioned above. This should be at the OS level after all.
(Just before everyone asks... the device does work, but you need to learn how to control your brainwaves. It's sort of like Palm's Grafiti for your head;)
Ask and you shall receive... Check out HiveCache for grid-based backups for your enterprise.
Thanks for the info, but unfortunately this solution lacks two things I'm looking for: Open sourceness and platform independency.
The idea is right on target though, but I'm still waiting for a solution I can run together with my friends and over the Internet. This also implies public key encryption and an efficient distribution system though:)
The USA also has a good way of claiming innovations as its own, by "Americanising" everything. So, for instance, most people - Americans and non-Americans - think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America.
It's not just technology... Pizza is a prime example. Some (fortunately not that many) Americans think it's an American thing.
Not particularly. If you can't be bothered to perform Google searches I'm not going to do it for you.
Being able to perform Google searches is within my abilities, but I fail to see why you seem to wish to hold on to a piece of information which is freely available.
I'm sure I could find the references you originally implied, but I would be unable to determine if what I find is indeed what you were referring to in the first place. Your comment was far too ambiguous to make it clear what you meant.
I'm sure your arrogance serves you in some way, but I dare say you might find that being helpful instead of arrogant can be quite fulfilling as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wondered why high end software shouldn't be free for personal use. It's a win-win situation: Free advertising for the provider, free education for the user.
The truth is that companies who use pirated software for commercial use will do so in any case. Software which is used for content creation should be free to learn for all.
Now then... when will the music software industry start catching on?
He was being sarcastic.
;)
You can never be that sure if someone is sarcastic, misinformed, or just plain stupid. I try to approach people with an open mind
I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Um... what newsletter? I have a weblog, which is right here. Unless that's what you meant I can't seem to fanthom what you were implying.
A game is only as good as it's content. Therefore standardization of the underlying technology makes sense.
Then again, if everyone ends up using the very same technology we'll have a monopoly, which is a whole different thing altogether...
I think Apple might be doing a Netscape by bloating their OS, I think they have to remember updates sometime AREN'T good things.
I'd say it's pretty probable Apple is positioning OS X against Windows, not GNU/Linux. In that light having a rich featureset is more or less mandatory.
In any case Apple's technology probably bests Microsoft's on many fronts, but I still see the huge x86 installed hardware base as their greatest challenge.
This whole SCO mess is probably wearing me out as much as anybody. Still I can't help feeling very sorry for the bulk of the people employed by SCO.
Think about it: Your firm is ridiculed by the entire industry, your management is insane, your future uncertain and your resume marked for life.
Ouch.
In attempting to be blunt, you've oversimplified the situation to the point that what you've said is frankly wide of the mark.
;)
I realize I was somewhat harsh, but making my point in an overly subtle way would have eliminated all the interresting replies
Advertising only works well when it holds newfound attention.
I'm inclined to disagree. Advertising works when it's done right (won't comment on that, no expert on the subject), and there's a market in the first place.
The new design is an excellent front page. All the important points are immediately made to the reader. It sells Mozilla excellently and will get the attention of the user to a degree that even if their initial trials with Mozilla are unsuccessful they will return to what they perceive as a professionally presented project.
An excellent point. I do admit I should have refrased my original comment, since I don't think the site redesign is a bad thing. But I do think that in order to achieve critical mass Mozilla still needs advertising in more ways than one.
The website redesign won't make Mozilla more successful. Advertising is what's needed, plain and simple. How the site looks won't affect people's awareness of Mozilla, advertising will.
Making the site UI more streamlined does make sense though.
I do realize that it's important for sites to provide disclaimers, but shouldn't parents have the ultimate responsibility? Kids shouln't be allowed to browse alone, if you ask me.
Way back in 95(ish) I remeber this "intelligent agent" app, called Rover if I remeber correctly. It was suppose to help you searching the web (ah, the pre Google days).
You could enter criteria, it'd crawl and you could rate the results, so it would learn to do it's thing better...
The thing never really worked though, and I'm still waiting for my voice activated, "Grab me some information on stellar physics, and compile into a simple tutorial please." -style agent.
OK, I'm sort of off topic here, but still, interresting ideas.
Frankly, PHP right now is the .Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations. Perl is just a touch to high-up-there. but PHP seems "just right".
.Net in a very fundamental way. PHP is a scripting language, .Net is an application platform.
;)
You seem to have misunderstood
I won't go into all the details but I do recommend you do a little research on the subject, I'm sure you'll agree the two are in no way comparable.
In regard to another reply to the parent comment: Slashdot is actually Perl
VoIP using P2P technology is a great idea, byt Skype looks like a proprietary solution (correct me if I'm wrong).
Would someone care to enlighten me on VoIP/P2P solutions using open standards?
What is the fundamental difference between a traditional telephone company and purely VoIP-based companies? VoIP is slowly making it's way into traditional phone companies, does this make them less of a phone company?
I'd say the difference is quite minimal for the end user.
I'm just rambling, but I'd sure like to hear my fellow Slashdotters' thoughts.
What's next? Monitor sizes? I love my 19" (18" viewable) monitor!
Monitors are measured by the diameter of the actual physical glass tube inside the monitor. It's a clear and non-ambiguous way to measure things, not perfect, but it's no trickery.
But when Joe Windows formats his new 120 gig HD and finds it only holds 112 GB he's going to feel cheated on those "missing" 8 GB.
This looks like a very cool project indeed... I didn't find mention on the cost though. Estimates? Educated guesses?
A lot of people seems to have objected to my thoughts. I realize the abstract is not the same as the patent, but I still feel that the abstract should be crafted with care to avoid generalizing too much.
Then again I don't know the inner workings of the patent system, and this may actually be the desired effect!
The abstract is not the real patent. it is only there to make skimming them easier, and judging the value of a patent by its abstract is like only looking at the title of a book before judging it.
I'm sure you are right in every respect, but shoudn't the abstract reflect the contents of a patent in a truthful way? If all abstracts are this general how do we differentiate one patent from another in a similar field at all?
A bit from the abstract: Method and system for reporting program failures. The system extracts information about a failure in a program module, such as the location of the failure, and establishes communication with a repository, such as a server.
Don't you just love how vague this is? It could cover almost anything, including embedded things like elevators, automated ovens and whatnot...
OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but the abstract just goes to show how little is needed these days to patent software. Argh.
so you would rather have to dig out your cellphone and dial from it instead of having you cellphone as a device on your belt and you simply say "dial steve at office" to dial steve's office number and then talk to him through the bluetooth headset?
You seem to have missed my point. I would like to have all the necessary technology integrated into my cellphone, as it's always with me. The dialing bit can naturally be handled by a heaset solution, my phone can do that already.
It's that you call it a cellphone and think of the phone as the central piece where as the "phone" really is a small accessory to the main computer.
If this thing should go mainstream we need to have something tangliable to put it in. PDAs have never really kicked in. I've used a Palm, but since my phone is always in my pocket I end up using the more limited calender etc. on it instead.
What the hardware inside is doing is irrelevant. My watch is actually a computer, despite of the analog interface it has. It stopped working a while back and my clocksmith reset all settings in the memory, now it works again. I still call it a watch though.
My point is simple: I believe beefing up "phones" and adding features from "computers" is a better aproach for mainstream "wearable computing" than dedicated gear. The only crucial bit missing is a display which can be embedded into ones glasses, the rest is pretty much there already.
This is indeed a cool proof of concept, but would you want one?
I'd prefer a lot of computing power in my cell phone, a display integrated into my glasses and interaction via voice commands (think headset) or a wristband keypad.
Thoughts?
But that's beside the point. Since you have already had hands-on experience with the device and the company that sells it, could you tell if they will provide low-level technical documentation, so that it would be possible to make use of that in Linux? That sounds like one of those projects I've always been drooling over doing but lacked appropriate hardware.
From what little I've had to do with them I've gotten the impression that they are pretty open about their stuff. Contacting them would make sense. The hardware is quite expensive though, or at least it was when it was bought.
My father has a very rare motor neuron disese, multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). A treatment has been discovered which has reasonable effect, but it is possible he'll be paralysed eventually.
;)
He aquired a device which reads your EEG and uses it to control a computer. Check out http://www.brainfingers.com/ for details. So far he hasn't needed to use it, but in the future it might be a necessity.
Anyway... This seems like ideal technology to combine with the stuff mentioned above. This should be at the OS level after all.
(Just before everyone asks... the device does work, but you need to learn how to control your brainwaves. It's sort of like Palm's Grafiti for your head
Ask and you shall receive... Check out HiveCache for grid-based backups for your enterprise.
:)
Thanks for the info, but unfortunately this solution lacks two things I'm looking for: Open sourceness and platform independency.
The idea is right on target though, but I'm still waiting for a solution I can run together with my friends and over the Internet. This also implies public key encryption and an efficient distribution system though
The USA also has a good way of claiming innovations as its own, by "Americanising" everything. So, for instance, most people - Americans and non-Americans - think that most technological innovation during the last century has been American, whereas in actual fact much of it was just "absorbed" by America.
It's not just technology... Pizza is a prime example. Some (fortunately not that many) Americans think it's an American thing.
Not particularly. If you can't be bothered to perform Google searches I'm not going to do it for you.
Being able to perform Google searches is within my abilities, but I fail to see why you seem to wish to hold on to a piece of information which is freely available.
I'm sure I could find the references you originally implied, but I would be unable to determine if what I find is indeed what you were referring to in the first place. Your comment was far too ambiguous to make it clear what you meant.
I'm sure your arrogance serves you in some way, but I dare say you might find that being helpful instead of arrogant can be quite fulfilling as well.