Ah, I do so appreciate the patronizing. In a home environment I think host-based firewalls are easier to configure and diagnose than network-based ones, and thus I would prefer that network equipment not deny any traffic by default.
Too bad the IETF turned around and said that all home routers (like Apple's AirPort) should include deny-by-default stateful IPv6 firewalling. They spent so much effort making IPv6 "just work", and now they're undoing it.
The whole point of the rules is that IBM is using Second Life for business purposes. It's a no-brainer, really: if you're doing business in SL from the office during work hours then obviously you should act like it.
When 10Mb Ethernet came out there was widespread debate about its performance, because computers weren't fast enough to saturate it. It was probably the same for 100Mb, and I know the early 1Gb NICs could only handle ~700Mb.
Google won't bid if evil business models are allowed, so I guess they are tacitly admitting that their open access business model has no hope of competing against the telcos' "lock 'em in, and then lock 'em in some more" business model. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
OSS devs are willing to work for free but can't donate a couple of bucks in license fee donations???
The developers are outnumbered 1000:1 or more by users. To cover patent licenses for something like VLC would cost about $5 per copy times millions of copies. It is unfair to put that burden on the developers (after all, they wrote the software for free), so what percent of VLC users would donate and how much would they donate? I just don't think it would work.
How can you on the one hand advocate that the LOTR movies could be made with donation-based funding yet claim that license fees can't be paid the same way?
I think donations could never cover Hollywood movies or patent licenses on open source software.
Besides, the required donations would be a drop in the bucket to OSS-backers like IBM, Red Hat, Google. Why don't they step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and pay for the license fees?
Now there's an idea, but maybe paying for patent licenses would distract from the message of patent reform that these companies are pushing.
If open standards really are better than closed ones, why do we bother using closed, proprietary codecs? The only conclusion the outsider is apt to draw is that closed code is somehow better.
Yep, VP6, H.264, and VC-1 are much better than Theora. Another problem with open codecs like Vorbis and Theora is that they are not endorsed by "official" standards organizations.
When you license Windows Media stuff from MS, you get a patent license and the source code. So presumably the Fluendo codecs (and Flip4Mac) are based on legally-licensed MS source code.
Yeah, they never used the TPM against us, so let's sweat about something else. Face it; the backlash against Palladium was so great that it'll stay dead.
Red Hat will probably switch to KVM soon, using Xen only for backward compatibility. By calling it "Redhat Virtualization" they can partly conceal the strategy change.
For modelling and simulation work, the loads are high and pretty continuous.
Sure, but this is a minority. I think it's more likely that most servers in the world are running stuff like databases, email, Web, business applications, etc. When there's no work to be done, they just sit idle.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you won't be allowed to put up your own tower in this spectrum.
I thought the purpose of the FCC was to prevent interference.
Ah, I do so appreciate the patronizing. In a home environment I think host-based firewalls are easier to configure and diagnose than network-based ones, and thus I would prefer that network equipment not deny any traffic by default.
Too bad the IETF turned around and said that all home routers (like Apple's AirPort) should include deny-by-default stateful IPv6 firewalling. They spent so much effort making IPv6 "just work", and now they're undoing it.
The whole point of the rules is that IBM is using Second Life for business purposes. It's a no-brainer, really: if you're doing business in SL from the office during work hours then obviously you should act like it.
When 10Mb Ethernet came out there was widespread debate about its performance, because computers weren't fast enough to saturate it. It was probably the same for 100Mb, and I know the early 1Gb NICs could only handle ~700Mb.
The problem is that there currently isn't any spectrum available for open access.
No, if Google buys some 700MHz spectrum in the auction they can set the rules for that spectrum to open access.
There will probably be multiple winners, and Google wants the government to set the terms for all of the winners, including Google's competitors.
Google won't bid if evil business models are allowed, so I guess they are tacitly admitting that their open access business model has no hope of competing against the telcos' "lock 'em in, and then lock 'em in some more" business model. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Someone, somewhere, is going to be making money off of this...
Duh. The component vendors and Quanta are all making money; only OLPC itself is a non-profit organization.
How about the source code? http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/
OSS devs are willing to work for free but can't donate a couple of bucks in license fee donations???
The developers are outnumbered 1000:1 or more by users. To cover patent licenses for something like VLC would cost about $5 per copy times millions of copies. It is unfair to put that burden on the developers (after all, they wrote the software for free), so what percent of VLC users would donate and how much would they donate? I just don't think it would work.
How can you on the one hand advocate that the LOTR movies could be made with donation-based funding yet claim that license fees can't be paid the same way?
I think donations could never cover Hollywood movies or patent licenses on open source software.
Besides, the required donations would be a drop in the bucket to OSS-backers like IBM, Red Hat, Google. Why don't they step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and pay for the license fees?
Now there's an idea, but maybe paying for patent licenses would distract from the message of patent reform that these companies are pushing.
You're talking about millions of dollars in licensing fees; donations will never cover it.
If open standards really are better than closed ones, why do we bother using closed, proprietary codecs? The only conclusion the outsider is apt to draw is that closed code is somehow better.
Yep, VP6, H.264, and VC-1 are much better than Theora. Another problem with open codecs like Vorbis and Theora is that they are not endorsed by "official" standards organizations.
When you license Windows Media stuff from MS, you get a patent license and the source code. So presumably the Fluendo codecs (and Flip4Mac) are based on legally-licensed MS source code.
Sure you can get 15Gbps, but if you start sharing that bandwidth among dozens of servers it wouldn't be all that fast anyway.
None of that stuff works with HD digital cable.
Yeah, they never used the TPM against us, so let's sweat about something else. Face it; the backlash against Palladium was so great that it'll stay dead.
Red Hat will probably switch to KVM soon, using Xen only for backward compatibility. By calling it "Redhat Virtualization" they can partly conceal the strategy change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
The point of the paper is that you could have some malware using 99% of your CPU and it wouldn't even show up in top.
Except in the Grid, where your last mile is more like 10Gbps.
Or there are a lot of missing qualifiers like "over a specific worst-case line that TCP doesn't come close to theoretical maximum performance on".
Yes, this is what FAST TCP is designed for.
Keep dreaming; Apple is well-known for disabling functionality in components that they use.
For modelling and simulation work, the loads are high and pretty continuous.
Sure, but this is a minority. I think it's more likely that most servers in the world are running stuff like databases, email, Web, business applications, etc. When there's no work to be done, they just sit idle.