Of course you have to pay extra - for the option that most people have been clamoring about for a while. The same seems to be true of removal of DRM that wasn't wanted in the first place. Funny how amazon can sell DRM free music for 99 but for apple it costs 1.39.
Everyone is not equal, unfortunately. If they were then the world would be a different place. Your assessment of the implication of the license is far too simplistic.
"What you are whining about is that there is some order at all."
I'm glad you know what I'm thinking, maybe you can suggest what I'd like for dinner?
I don't believe that Software("Ideas") should unilaterally be free. People are entitled to give them away or not. But that is your choice and your rights do not extend any further than that. It is not in anyway acceptable for you to enforce an ideology on me just because I use your idea. That is not freedom - it's a form of distributed peer pressure. As I said to another poster the BSD license is far more reasonable - Use my idea if you like, and do what you would like with it. The GPL is self-encumbering and is just as zealous as Stallman himself "Use my idea, but you have to make yours free too." That's not "free" at all.
"Don't like it? Do you own work."
I do, thanks.
"THIS is the main problem of GPL detractors. They whine that they can't take someone else's stuff and treat it as their own personal property and use it as a means to abuse others."
Maybe some people do - I am not one. What you did is yours, it is not mine, nor will it ever be mine. I will absolutely give you credit. It stops there however. You have no right to tell me what to do with my Ideas, however the GPL does do this, which is why I object to it.
I never suggested that anyone was being forced into selecting GPL code.
Personally I prefer the BSD license IMHO it is a much more pragmatic approach to licensing software to others.
"And, more importantly, my code doesn't become anything other than what I chose it to be. I chose for it to be free code, and it remains free wherever it is used."
It is more than that - your code stays free but then if I choose to use your code - then I must make all of mine free as well. Not only have you preserved your code's right to be free but you have required me to make mine free as well, even if I simply link to your library and not make changes to your code. To me this is not really a "fair" deal.
Fortunately we have a choice to use the GPL and it's products or not.
Actually, Stallman's definition of free is straightforward and intuitive
Yes, if you use Free Code in Your Code, Your Code becomes Free Code.
I would not regard this as intuitive - for the programmer it causes a great deal of headache as the parent mentioned.
Additionally it is easy for Stallman, as leader of this movement to profit from speaking about this Great Idea, he never has to worry where his next paycheck comes from. The reality is that it results in there being no way to protect others Great Ideas from less scrupulious users and/or companies that can easily look at the code and rewrite it (or just copy it).
Code sharing is fine, but I should be free to protect my innovations if I like and not have a zealot who gets paid for telling me that I am not allowed to do so.
I'd go one better. If the taxpayers pay for it, the taxpayers own it.
And this is acutally the case. The federal goverment has an unlimited license to use whatever is developed with their dollars. However, the consumer does not, and it allows the developing institution to license the innovation to anyone but the federal government. Of course, the government doesn't know much about what it owns, so it is difficult to cut out the waste.
The start menu is nice, the 64-bit version of Vista is more widely supported by hardware vendors than XP64 was, printer drivers typically present the biggest challenge. Wireless management is much better on vista than XP. Network management in general though is more confusing. Backup and Restore on Vista is much better as well. The Vista install is very easy, and the recovery tools (if you need them) are more helpful than XP. Alt-tab and being able to click on the application screen is helpful too. Multi-monitor support on Vista is much better than XP. For developers who need to see how their applications are performing - the resource monitor is much, much better than previous versions of windows. UAC is helpful I think, and I leave it on, but it does annoy most people. The clock is much better allowing up to three faces in the task bar. This is really a help as I deal with people in different timezones.
Honestly though, if you are Joe user, there is probably no reason to upgrade - when you get a new computer, just get it installed and not worry about it. Just make sure that you get enough RAM...
"that it might see standard PAL video, at 25 fps, as a series of stills. She tried HDTV (50 fps)"
So she changed the resolution, and the framerate... and so she now does not know if it is the pixel desity or the framerate that made the difference. In addition, it would be good to note the display type as analog and digital displays work differently...
Yeah, if you buy Intel chips. Despite the fact that they are slower clock for clock than the new intel chips, amd's architecture was and is the way to go, which is of course why Intel has copied it (i7). If you properly architect the chips to contain all of the "proper" plumbing, then this becomes less of a problem. Unfortuantely Intel has for the past few years simply cobbled together "cores" that are nothing more than processors that are linked via a partially adequite bus. So when contention goes up they don't perform as well. Most users don't ever consistentnly utilize their cpu at 80% so this hasn't really been a problem for the market at large. This is why amd's solutions have scaled further and for less. As a result companies like Cray have been utilizing opteron chips for their newest super computers.
My gut reaction is to say some glib remark about "free" as in "freedom" regarding his job selection.
However, I quickly realized that he did exercise his freedom, but in another sense. He used his freedom to form a binding contract with his previous employer. Now he's being held to that agreement for better or for worse.
Whoha..hold yer horses. Repeat after me..layer violation.
Or is it? Read on...
No.
I would still argue, yes.
Most services today are fundamentally linked to DNS. DNS is almost as important as routing. No DNS, no world wide web, no web services, no e-mail. Try browsing a web site and click on a link without DNS... broken. The effect of a DNS failure for most applications and humans is an effect indistinguishable from the loss of a router.
Your system of a decentralized naming system is quite exciting. Decentralized means no authority, imagine the fun of mDNS on a global scale where every kiddie in the world would fight over cnn.com.
It's not really decentralized. The implication of merging DNS and Routing is that the routers then become authoritative. Routers are already authoritative, so it seems a natural shift.
One of the very real problems is how to merge the address table, and the naming system such that one can efficiently move across the network.
Sadly I have not spent the necessary cycles to fully formulate the solution to this problem but it strikes me that it is a problem. When a service higher in the stack can cause a perceived total failure of the tiers below it then it is time to think about where that service really belongs.
SMTP is a terrible example. Ultimately the users are the ones opening e-mails, getting browser-jacked and their passwords stolen because they don't know what is in front of them. Sure clients were the problem for a while but that "phase" has passed, developers have learned how to mitigate most attacks.
The only thing that is "wrong" fundamentally with the internet is the separation of DNS and the routing protocol.
For all intents and purposes a DNS failure causes a network outage. It also dramatically increases client latency when it is not configured correctly which look like network issues, but are not.
I'm sure when IPv4 was created the notion of mixing both services was unthinkable due to the additional amount of data needed to move names around at layer 2/3. This is no longer the case and we should really try to move away from a central naming system.
T-Mobile is one of the most customer friendly carriers out there.
For example, if you have your phone for more than 3 months they will unlock it for you so that you can use other SIM cards while travelling. I learned this after paying to unlock my T-Mobile dash.
Additionally, they fully "tolerate" tethering. Again with the Dash, it was a matter of firing up the PAN app and connecting my laptop, no call required.
I don't know if this was just becuase I had a special rate plan but I also found that I was never charged a cent for international data. I can't imagine this was simply because they were that nice, since they are pretty clear about int'l roaming fees.
I'm actually disappointed with ATT, travelling was a hassel with the iPhone and the fact that you get charged just for your phone ringing abroad is absurd. Though i did find that if you forward your calls to another line before you leave the country you will escape those nasty fees.
Certainly not all carriers have T-Mobiles customer centric nature Verizon is pretty adament about controlling how you get things on and off your phone, and ATT isn't much better.
Personally, I think T-Mobile was the best possible choice for Google simply because they are so flexible.
The reality is that e-mail is a fraction of the time that this individual spends his/her time working. There are location dependent tasks such as File Servers Maint., Router Config, LAN Confg., End User Calls, etc. that this person also services. So there is really no "savings" because you still need that person around. Chances are that person is going to provide a level of support above and beyond what any SaaS could offer, especially if the organization hires the right person. So keep the e-mail server and the quality uptime.
'Sound familiar? In this race, Apple is taking a page from Microsoft's book, while Google looks suspiciously like Linux.'"
No, Apple is worse than Microsoft. MS might be heavy handed with their vendors - but they have typically supported their developer base throughout their history. They understood, I think, that fundamentally, developers are a major asset to any "platform". Apple has never had this attitude. It still shows, from time to time they will just shamelessly rebuild someone's idea instead of at least offering that person or company some compensation for their ideas. Apple makes brash changes to their API's forcing developers to fix their software. Microsoft, is still support VB (for better or worse).
What's worse, Apple is squashing competition from indiviudals and companies alike. Not only are they trying to stifle competition in a MSesq way - but now they are killing the little guy too. I would arge that the individual can be far more innovate than an entire team of coders working day and night. It is the indiviudal's singular understanding of a problem, and vision for a solution that makes the work of one so special. Instead of embracing the potential innovations of the individual, and acknowleding the ideas and learning from them - they simply refuse to let them see the light of day.
I guess then, this makes Apple more like the 10th century Catholic church.
'Sound familiar? In this race, Apple is taking a page from Microsoft's book, while Google looks suspiciously like Linux.'"
No, Apple is worse than Microsoft. MS might be heavy handed with their vendors - but they have typically supported their developer base throughout their history. They understood, I think, that fundamentally, developers are a major asset to any "platform". Apple has never had this attitude. It still shows, from time to time they will just shamelessly rebuild someone's idea instead of at least offering that person or company some compensation for their ideas. Apple makes brash changes to their API's forcing developers to fix their software. Microsoft, is still support VB (for better or worse).
What's worse, Apple is squashing competition from indiviudals and companies alike. Not only are they trying to stifle competition in a MSesq way - but now they are killing the little guy too. I would arge that the individual can be far more innovate than an entire team of coders working day and night. It is the indiviudal's singular understanding of a problem, and vision for a solution that makes the work of one so special. Instead of embracing the potential innovations of the individual, and acknowleding the ideas and learning from them - they simply refuse to let them see the light of day.
I guess then, this makes Apple more like the 10th century Catholic church.
I really wish that they would post most of the messages and their contents online. I think it would be very interesting to see the quality (or lack) of thought in her communications with other people. In the one sent sample in the zip file, it seems like she might actually be a little nutty. great.
No, the rendering engine is "only" a small fraction of where we are going with "the browser". Javascript, API calls, plugin support and other browser specific features are what make the browser application a whole cohesive unit that ultimately the end users deem acceptable.
Trivializing scripting is baffling, since just about everything Google wants to do requires heavy coding and almost all web 2.0 technologies heavily leverage scripting.
The reality is that when we get down to the opening and closing braces of coding for this new browser it is going to be a problem for developers, again.
"It is developed from scratch with a completely new approach on how a browser should be."
From what I've read, it is not from scratch at all. It is cobbled together from a bunch of existing Open Source projects. Reliance on Web Kit will be good. It is not going to be a "completely new approach" - I'm not sure any of us are qualified to make this statement at this juncture. Thought the Mozilla CEO got it right when she said it is going to serve google's purposes.
My take on all this is that this is going to be Google's own proprietary execution engine. Parts may be open source but we won't be able to contribute to the development, it will be cross platform and be mostly javascript based with support for java. There will come a time when a bunch of cool stuff will only run in this execution environment and there will be limited support for other non-google execution containers (e.g. browsers).
This is all in all, a really bad idea. Ultimately we're going to end up with least common denominator applications 5 years from now because google will add a bunch of extensions and capabilities to their browser, but ultimately sites will need to support "everyone else" who decides that google's browser is not "the way".
This is a total disservice to the web community. Mozilla and Firefox has already gained much ground as an alternative platform. Instead of continuing that effort and improving the areas that are required to take the web where they want to go... they go and do this, primarily because their capitalist intentions are not in line with the Good of the people. This is worse than evil - because they have the network and capital to push this browser out to a large number of people, whether those users realize what they are getting or not much like MSFT did with IE.
Ultimately we will end up with an even more fragmented browser market furthering the need for least common denominator code.
The web already has four "major" browsers firefox, IE, safari and opera. Do we really need a new browser? Moreover, do we really need yet another partial implementation of the web standards?
I for one, do not want to code and test for another browser.
Not to mention that by using google's browser, you will give them unadulterated access to your every movement on the web.
They are fundamentally not an appliance manufacture. Almost all of their products that carry OS X can be end user upgraded (without violating any sort of contrct with apple) which effectively nullifies the argument that their hardware are considered applicances. They also run other operating systems, a user configureable option as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you have to pay extra - for the option that most people have been clamoring about for a while. The same seems to be true of removal of DRM that wasn't wanted in the first place. Funny how amazon can sell DRM free music for 99 but for apple it costs 1.39.
"Everyone is equal."
Everyone is not equal, unfortunately. If they were then the world would be a different place. Your assessment of the implication of the license is far too simplistic.
"What you are whining about is that there is some order at all."
I'm glad you know what I'm thinking, maybe you can suggest what I'd like for dinner?
I don't believe that Software("Ideas") should unilaterally be free. People are entitled to give them away or not. But that is your choice and your rights do not extend any further than that. It is not in anyway acceptable for you to enforce an ideology on me just because I use your idea. That is not freedom - it's a form of distributed peer pressure. As I said to another poster the BSD license is far more reasonable - Use my idea if you like, and do what you would like with it. The GPL is self-encumbering and is just as zealous as Stallman himself "Use my idea, but you have to make yours free too." That's not "free" at all.
"Don't like it? Do you own work."
I do, thanks.
"THIS is the main problem of GPL detractors. They whine that they can't take someone else's stuff and treat it as their own personal property and use it as a means to abuse others."
Maybe some people do - I am not one. What you did is yours, it is not mine, nor will it ever be mine. I will absolutely give you credit. It stops there however. You have no right to tell me what to do with my Ideas, however the GPL does do this, which is why I object to it.
"At no point are you being forced to do anything"
I never suggested that anyone was being forced into selecting GPL code.
Personally I prefer the BSD license IMHO it is a much more pragmatic approach to licensing software to others.
"And, more importantly, my code doesn't become anything other than what I chose it to be. I chose for it to be free code, and it remains free wherever it is used."
It is more than that - your code stays free but then if I choose to use your code - then I must make all of mine free as well. Not only have you preserved your code's right to be free but you have required me to make mine free as well, even if I simply link to your library and not make changes to your code. To me this is not really a "fair" deal.
Fortunately we have a choice to use the GPL and it's products or not.
Actually, Stallman's definition of free is straightforward and intuitive
Yes, if you use Free Code in Your Code, Your Code becomes Free Code.
I would not regard this as intuitive - for the programmer it causes a great deal of headache as the parent mentioned.
Additionally it is easy for Stallman, as leader of this movement to profit from speaking about this Great Idea, he never has to worry where his next paycheck comes from. The reality is that it results in there being no way to protect others Great Ideas from less scrupulious users and/or companies that can easily look at the code and rewrite it (or just copy it).
Code sharing is fine, but I should be free to protect my innovations if I like and not have a zealot who gets paid for telling me that I am not allowed to do so.
I'd go one better. If the taxpayers pay for it, the taxpayers own it.
And this is acutally the case. The federal goverment has an unlimited license to use whatever is developed with their dollars. However, the consumer does not, and it allows the developing institution to license the innovation to anyone but the federal government. Of course, the government doesn't know much about what it owns, so it is difficult to cut out the waste.
The start menu is nice, the 64-bit version of Vista is more widely supported by hardware vendors than XP64 was, printer drivers typically present the biggest challenge. Wireless management is much better on vista than XP. Network management in general though is more confusing. Backup and Restore on Vista is much better as well. The Vista install is very easy, and the recovery tools (if you need them) are more helpful than XP. Alt-tab and being able to click on the application screen is helpful too. Multi-monitor support on Vista is much better than XP. For developers who need to see how their applications are performing - the resource monitor is much, much better than previous versions of windows. UAC is helpful I think, and I leave it on, but it does annoy most people. The clock is much better allowing up to three faces in the task bar. This is really a help as I deal with people in different timezones.
Honestly though, if you are Joe user, there is probably no reason to upgrade - when you get a new computer, just get it installed and not worry about it. Just make sure that you get enough RAM...
"that it might see standard PAL video, at 25 fps, as a series of stills. She tried HDTV (50 fps)"
So she changed the resolution, and the framerate... and so she now does not know if it is the pixel desity or the framerate that made the difference. In addition, it would be good to note the display type as analog and digital displays work differently...
Yeah, if you buy Intel chips. Despite the fact that they are slower clock for clock than the new intel chips, amd's architecture was and is the way to go, which is of course why Intel has copied it (i7). If you properly architect the chips to contain all of the "proper" plumbing, then this becomes less of a problem. Unfortuantely Intel has for the past few years simply cobbled together "cores" that are nothing more than processors that are linked via a partially adequite bus. So when contention goes up they don't perform as well. Most users don't ever consistentnly utilize their cpu at 80% so this hasn't really been a problem for the market at large. This is why amd's solutions have scaled further and for less. As a result companies like Cray have been utilizing opteron chips for their newest super computers.
My gut reaction is to say some glib remark about "free" as in "freedom" regarding his job selection.
However, I quickly realized that he did exercise his freedom, but in another sense. He used his freedom to form a binding contract with his previous employer. Now he's being held to that agreement for better or for worse.
It is legal to export, to the right parties. You also need to get an export license.
Whoha..hold yer horses. Repeat after me..layer violation.
Or is it? Read on...
No.
I would still argue, yes.
Most services today are fundamentally linked to DNS. DNS is almost as important as routing. No DNS, no world wide web, no web services, no e-mail. Try browsing a web site and click on a link without DNS... broken. The effect of a DNS failure for most applications and humans is an effect indistinguishable from the loss of a router.
Your system of a decentralized naming system is quite exciting. Decentralized means no authority, imagine the fun of mDNS on a global scale where every kiddie in the world would fight over cnn.com.
It's not really decentralized. The implication of merging DNS and Routing is that the routers then become authoritative. Routers are already authoritative, so it seems a natural shift.
One of the very real problems is how to merge the address table, and the naming system such that one can efficiently move across the network.
Sadly I have not spent the necessary cycles to fully formulate the solution to this problem but it strikes me that it is a problem. When a service higher in the stack can cause a perceived total failure of the tiers below it then it is time to think about where that service really belongs.
SMTP is a terrible example. Ultimately the users are the ones opening e-mails, getting browser-jacked and their passwords stolen because they don't know what is in front of them. Sure clients were the problem for a while but that "phase" has passed, developers have learned how to mitigate most attacks.
The only thing that is "wrong" fundamentally with the internet is the separation of DNS and the routing protocol.
For all intents and purposes a DNS failure causes a network outage. It also dramatically increases client latency when it is not configured correctly which look like network issues, but are not.
I'm sure when IPv4 was created the notion of mixing both services was unthinkable due to the additional amount of data needed to move names around at layer 2/3. This is no longer the case and we should really try to move away from a central naming system.
Has been windows' stink hole for the last 10 years. Lets hope that most people have learned they need to cover it up.
T-Mobile is one of the most customer friendly carriers out there.
For example, if you have your phone for more than 3 months they will unlock it for you so that you can use other SIM cards while travelling. I learned this after paying to unlock my T-Mobile dash.
Additionally, they fully "tolerate" tethering. Again with the Dash, it was a matter of firing up the PAN app and connecting my laptop, no call required.
I don't know if this was just becuase I had a special rate plan but I also found that I was never charged a cent for international data. I can't imagine this was simply because they were that nice, since they are pretty clear about int'l roaming fees.
I'm actually disappointed with ATT, travelling was a hassel with the iPhone and the fact that you get charged just for your phone ringing abroad is absurd. Though i did find that if you forward your calls to another line before you leave the country you will escape those nasty fees.
Certainly not all carriers have T-Mobiles customer centric nature Verizon is pretty adament about controlling how you get things on and off your phone, and ATT isn't much better.
Personally, I think T-Mobile was the best possible choice for Google simply because they are so flexible.
The reality is that e-mail is a fraction of the time that this individual spends his/her time working. There are location dependent tasks such as File Servers Maint., Router Config, LAN Confg., End User Calls, etc. that this person also services. So there is really no "savings" because you still need that person around. Chances are that person is going to provide a level of support above and beyond what any SaaS could offer, especially if the organization hires the right person. So keep the e-mail server and the quality uptime.
It might be a maintenance problem yet... was the part replaced at the proper time?
And of course, why is there not a redundant one?
'Sound familiar? In this race, Apple is taking a page from Microsoft's book, while Google looks suspiciously like Linux.'"
No, Apple is worse than Microsoft. MS might be heavy handed with their vendors - but they have typically supported their developer base throughout their history. They understood, I think, that fundamentally, developers are a major asset to any "platform". Apple has never had this attitude. It still shows, from time to time they will just shamelessly rebuild someone's idea instead of at least offering that person or company some compensation for their ideas. Apple makes brash changes to their API's forcing developers to fix their software. Microsoft, is still support VB (for better or worse).
What's worse, Apple is squashing competition from indiviudals and companies alike. Not only are they trying to stifle competition in a MSesq way - but now they are killing the little guy too. I would arge that the individual can be far more innovate than an entire team of coders working day and night. It is the indiviudal's singular understanding of a problem, and vision for a solution that makes the work of one so special. Instead of embracing the potential innovations of the individual, and acknowleding the ideas and learning from them - they simply refuse to let them see the light of day.
I guess then, this makes Apple more like the 10th century Catholic church.
'Sound familiar? In this race, Apple is taking a page from Microsoft's book, while Google looks suspiciously like Linux.'"
No, Apple is worse than Microsoft. MS might be heavy handed with their vendors - but they have typically supported their developer base throughout their history. They understood, I think, that fundamentally, developers are a major asset to any "platform". Apple has never had this attitude. It still shows, from time to time they will just shamelessly rebuild someone's idea instead of at least offering that person or company some compensation for their ideas. Apple makes brash changes to their API's forcing developers to fix their software. Microsoft, is still support VB (for better or worse).
What's worse, Apple is squashing competition from indiviudals and companies alike. Not only are they trying to stifle competition in a MSesq way - but now they are killing the little guy too. I would arge that the individual can be far more innovate than an entire team of coders working day and night. It is the indiviudal's singular understanding of a problem, and vision for a solution that makes the work of one so special. Instead of embracing the potential innovations of the individual, and acknowleding the ideas and learning from them - they simply refuse to let them see the light of day.
I guess then, this makes Apple more like the 10th century Catholic church.
I really wish that they would post most of the messages and their contents online. I think it would be very interesting to see the quality (or lack) of thought in her communications with other people. In the one sent sample in the zip file, it seems like she might actually be a little nutty. great.
Google is writing their own, called V8...
"Also, the more open source browsers we have, the more transparent those implementations become - further fueling the standards conversation."
I seriously doubt all of this browser is going to be Open Source.
No, the rendering engine is "only" a small fraction of where we are going with "the browser". Javascript, API calls, plugin support and other browser specific features are what make the browser application a whole cohesive unit that ultimately the end users deem acceptable.
Trivializing scripting is baffling, since just about everything Google wants to do requires heavy coding and almost all web 2.0 technologies heavily leverage scripting.
The reality is that when we get down to the opening and closing braces of coding for this new browser it is going to be a problem for developers, again.
"It is developed from scratch with a completely new approach on how a browser should be."
From what I've read, it is not from scratch at all. It is cobbled together from a bunch of existing Open Source projects. Reliance on Web Kit will be good. It is not going to be a "completely new approach" - I'm not sure any of us are qualified to make this statement at this juncture. Thought the Mozilla CEO got it right when she said it is going to serve google's purposes.
My take on all this is that this is going to be Google's own proprietary execution engine. Parts may be open source but we won't be able to contribute to the development, it will be cross platform and be mostly javascript based with support for java. There will come a time when a bunch of cool stuff will only run in this execution environment and there will be limited support for other non-google execution containers (e.g. browsers).
This is all in all, a really bad idea. Ultimately we're going to end up with least common denominator applications 5 years from now because google will add a bunch of extensions and capabilities to their browser, but ultimately sites will need to support "everyone else" who decides that google's browser is not "the way".
This is a total disservice to the web community. Mozilla and Firefox has already gained much ground as an alternative platform. Instead of continuing that effort and improving the areas that are required to take the web where they want to go... they go and do this, primarily because their capitalist intentions are not in line with the Good of the people. This is worse than evil - because they have the network and capital to push this browser out to a large number of people, whether those users realize what they are getting or not much like MSFT did with IE.
Ultimately we will end up with an even more fragmented browser market furthering the need for least common denominator code.
The web already has four "major" browsers firefox, IE, safari and opera. Do we really need a new browser? Moreover, do we really need yet another partial implementation of the web standards?
I for one, do not want to code and test for another browser.
Not to mention that by using google's browser, you will give them unadulterated access to your every movement on the web.
They are fundamentally not an appliance manufacture. Almost all of their products that carry OS X can be end user upgraded (without violating any sort of contrct with apple) which effectively nullifies the argument that their hardware are considered applicances. They also run other operating systems, a user configureable option as well.