Not only that, but they're increasingly designed to prevent non-approved maintenance beyond the absolute basics. I've seen patent applications for "smart bolts" that you can only undo with a wrench that can perform the right crypto handshake for precisely this purpose.
There are valid reasons for doing this; some things really aren't user-serviceable, to the extent that anyone messing with them *needs* to know what they're doing or they put other people at risk (brake systems, for instance - unstable dynamic braking systems can be lethal). The conversations I kept hearing when I worked for a large European car manufacturer were more about maintaining the monopoly on the maintenance market, though, and that's just not good.
Most people will never need to download software that isn't in the Ubuntu (or insert favorite distro here) repositories.
This is one of those maxims that sounds right, but inevitably isn't in practice. It's truer to say that all people will mostly only need software that's in the repositories. A stunning array of functionality is covered, but most people have at least one package they need that isn't. That can either be because it's proprietary (like Skype), or because it's too obscure, or because the version that is included is out of date. I've personally had all these problems, and I can't think of anyone I know who hasn't. I know that's not a scientific survey, but it does seem to be true.
These are problems that you just can't solve with the traditional repository-with-periodic-updates model, and generalising to say they're "minor software projects that very few people use" doesn't cut it. Everyone's a member of a fringe group, so cutting off the fringes damages everyone. I think we need a better ad-hoc decentralised repository model, but I haven't devoted much thought to it yet.
There is no need for yet another "standard" to install programs on Linux. And honestly, having RPMs and DEBs keeps all the major distros happy
One very good way to break a Xandros install is to install Debian.debs on it. They both use the same installer format and tools, but packages from one should not be installed on the other. That's the problem LSB is trying to fix.
The way I'd do it is by having two contra-rotating flywheels, one on top of the other. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it gets rid of the most obvious one.
I see no reference (anywhere) to the likely internal resistance of these posited ultracaps. It's great that you can store all that energy in them, but if it all turns to heat when you try to get it out, it's not much use.
Possibly not, but a hybrid approach could work. Approach the market from both ends at once - hook up the most profitable at the same time as you hook up the most remote, and work towards the middle. That way you're never imbalanced.
1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and websites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)
Uh... yes. The fact that the TOS refers to Additional Terms that don't exist, and which are used in Google Docs specifically to override section 11, tells me that yes, this was a mistake.
Urgh. You may be using a different Windows to me. Let me describe my last 24 hours in 5 sentences:
- Uninstalled Visual Studio 2005.
- Installed Visual Studio 2008 overnight.
- Launch VS2008 to start a C# project; this fails, and VS2008 tells me I need to install it *again*.
- Open the add/remove programs control panel, and click "Uninstall/change" on VS2008.
- VS2008's update program crashes before giving me any options.
I'm now wedged without a development environment, losing time and money, because of this "EXCELLENT" installer system. If I have to reinstall Vista to get past this, I'll be *most* displeased.
Unfortunately google is one of the companies that thinks everything must be always done there way and hence the inevitable mess they left behind.
Using this statement to defend Microsoft is unbelievably ironic.
This is +5? Please, read the EULA. Even if this is just Google's usual "content license", it's over-broad; the "Services" are defined so as to include Chrome, whether intentionally or not. At least, that's my reading.
It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.
It looks to me more like someone copy-and-pasted without thinking. Or consulting a lawyer. The EULA defines "Services" to include Google's "products", which would seem to include Chrome.
The problem is that Vista doesn't seem to do it sensibly. Until a few months ago, I had 1GB in my Vista box. It was *dreadful*. Constantly swapping. TF2 took 5 minutes to get to the menu. Visual Studio was almost unusable; luckily I'm mostly a vimmer, so I wasn't affected too badly by that.
The thing is, I didn't realise for quite a while exactly how much of an effect being low on RAM was having. I upgraded to 4GB and it was like a new machine.
XP with 1GB RAM is a joyous, happy beast. Vista? Forget it. It's possible there's a knob I could have tweaked somewhere to improve the situation, but I certainly couldn't find it at the time.
I got around this in Ruby (for XML-RPC, talking to XML-RPC.NET) by generating the C# and Ruby interface code directly from a DSL, so that anyone connecting to the server with a browser can download a working interface definition directly into their project. Fun to do once, never again.
Gah! What is it with people dismissing this out of hand? You're really missing out on what's a very cool concept. Watch this video for enlightenment; it's from SIGGRAPH 2006 and shows the background research that Photosynth came from.
So they get 5 points for taking existing tech, making it look like a new web technology, and create another Windows-only technology in todays mix of browsers and computing devices. yawn.
No.
Watch this video for enlightenment; it's the background research to what's turned into Photosynth.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but they're increasingly designed to prevent non-approved maintenance beyond the absolute basics. I've seen patent applications for "smart bolts" that you can only undo with a wrench that can perform the right crypto handshake for precisely this purpose.
There are valid reasons for doing this; some things really aren't user-serviceable, to the extent that anyone messing with them *needs* to know what they're doing or they put other people at risk (brake systems, for instance - unstable dynamic braking systems can be lethal). The conversations I kept hearing when I worked for a large European car manufacturer were more about maintaining the monopoly on the maintenance market, though, and that's just not good.
Most people will never need to download software that isn't in the Ubuntu (or insert favorite distro here) repositories.
This is one of those maxims that sounds right, but inevitably isn't in practice. It's truer to say that all people will mostly only need software that's in the repositories. A stunning array of functionality is covered, but most people have at least one package they need that isn't. That can either be because it's proprietary (like Skype), or because it's too obscure, or because the version that is included is out of date. I've personally had all these problems, and I can't think of anyone I know who hasn't. I know that's not a scientific survey, but it does seem to be true.
These are problems that you just can't solve with the traditional repository-with-periodic-updates model, and generalising to say they're "minor software projects that very few people use" doesn't cut it. Everyone's a member of a fringe group, so cutting off the fringes damages everyone. I think we need a better ad-hoc decentralised repository model, but I haven't devoted much thought to it yet.
There is no need for yet another "standard" to install programs on Linux. And honestly, having RPMs and DEBs keeps all the major distros happy
One very good way to break a Xandros install is to install Debian .debs on it. They both use the same installer format and tools, but packages from one should not be installed on the other. That's the problem LSB is trying to fix.
The way I'd do it is by having two contra-rotating flywheels, one on top of the other. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it gets rid of the most obvious one.
I see no reference (anywhere) to the likely internal resistance of these posited ultracaps. It's great that you can store all that energy in them, but if it all turns to heat when you try to get it out, it's not much use.
I dunno... I quite like "rouge device" meaning "hostile", with its "red team" overtones. Of course, it'd be great if that's what the GP meant.
What, watch-straps?
http://oakley.com/pd/4167
Possibly not, but a hybrid approach could work. Approach the market from both ends at once - hook up the most profitable at the same time as you hook up the most remote, and work towards the middle. That way you're never imbalanced.
Yes! That's how we know it's telling the truth!
*head asplode*
GPS satellites orbit at around 20200km
Hm... that would make for one heck of a long baseline array...
That's the assumption, but just imagine if it wasn't :-)
I wonder how easy it is for them to switch encryption algos on the older birds?
When has the cost to produce entertainment ever figured in the cost to the consumer?
Not bullshit. Read section 1.1.
1.1 Your use of Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and websites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)
Chrome is both a "product" and "software", no?
Why is it that Chrome is close sourced?
It's not.
Why is it on Windows, and NOT Linux, and Mac's?
They haven't got round to it yet.
What was on the minds of the people that said, "OK", about this Copy Write nonsense?
Nothing. They goofed.
What was on the minds of the people that said, lets rip off some person of their digital image?
Nothing. There are no such people.
Uh... yes. The fact that the TOS refers to Additional Terms that don't exist, and which are used in Google Docs specifically to override section 11, tells me that yes, this was a mistake.
Urgh. You may be using a different Windows to me. Let me describe my last 24 hours in 5 sentences:
- Uninstalled Visual Studio 2005.
- Installed Visual Studio 2008 overnight.
- Launch VS2008 to start a C# project; this fails, and VS2008 tells me I need to install it *again*.
- Open the add/remove programs control panel, and click "Uninstall/change" on VS2008.
- VS2008's update program crashes before giving me any options.
I'm now wedged without a development environment, losing time and money, because of this "EXCELLENT" installer system. If I have to reinstall Vista to get past this, I'll be *most* displeased.
Unfortunately google is one of the companies that thinks everything must be always done there way and hence the inevitable mess they left behind.
Using this statement to defend Microsoft is unbelievably ironic.
That's the one thing that annoys me about my eee 701 - I have to press 3 keys to get a | character. On a linux machine. Yeah, that was smart...
I give it a week before there's an AdBlock port of some sort. It's just too juicy a target.
This is +5? Please, read the EULA. Even if this is just Google's usual "content license", it's over-broad; the "Services" are defined so as to include Chrome, whether intentionally or not. At least, that's my reading.
It does not mention the terms in this article, which clearly seem related to google services and not the browser.
It looks to me more like someone copy-and-pasted without thinking. Or consulting a lawyer. The EULA defines "Services" to include Google's "products", which would seem to include Chrome.
The problem is that Vista doesn't seem to do it sensibly. Until a few months ago, I had 1GB in my Vista box. It was *dreadful*. Constantly swapping. TF2 took 5 minutes to get to the menu. Visual Studio was almost unusable; luckily I'm mostly a vimmer, so I wasn't affected too badly by that.
The thing is, I didn't realise for quite a while exactly how much of an effect being low on RAM was having. I upgraded to 4GB and it was like a new machine.
XP with 1GB RAM is a joyous, happy beast. Vista? Forget it. It's possible there's a knob I could have tweaked somewhere to improve the situation, but I certainly couldn't find it at the time.
I got around this in Ruby (for XML-RPC, talking to XML-RPC.NET) by generating the C# and Ruby interface code directly from a DSL, so that anyone connecting to the server with a browser can download a working interface definition directly into their project. Fun to do once, never again.
Why not cameras that use different wavelengths of light, etc? For example, one that works in visible light, and one that works in infrared?
Why? What would this give you?
How about the use of different polarized lenses to block certain wavelengths of light?
This is already done to capture specular information.
Or the revolutionary invention of a flash on an extension lead.
Gah! What is it with people dismissing this out of hand? You're really missing out on what's a very cool concept. Watch this video for enlightenment; it's from SIGGRAPH 2006 and shows the background research that Photosynth came from.
So they get 5 points for taking existing tech, making it look like a new web technology, and create another Windows-only technology in todays mix of browsers and computing devices. yawn.
No.
Watch this video for enlightenment; it's the background research to what's turned into Photosynth.