LSB is useless on the desktop since it doesn't specify desktop-related stuff. For example, a minimal LSB-compliant system doesn't include GNOME or KDE.
No, Linus said that Linux won't support OS-independent drivers. If Linux won't use them and Windows won't use them, then it's hardly worth writing such drivers.
Every piece of hardware is equipped with a standardized storage chip, which contains detailed information about the purpose of the device and instructions on how to "talk" to it. Basically I'm looking for a way to enable any OS to figure out a driver on its own.
Like UDI, FCode, or EFI bytecode? It's been tried; Linus said no every time.
It would be interesting to incorporate the drivers onto the pice of hardware. I mean what if insead of including a CD [that these days are filled with crap] with the hardware, that they just put a small flash memory onto the item, and stored the drivers there.
Good idea. That's what the Newton did. Of course, this won't help you with Linux, where the driver API changes every few months.
This may raise the cost of the item, but I would rather have a item that I can use anywhere on any machine without having to search for drivers, or cary a cd around with me.
You're the only one. Everyone else is just looking for the cheapest hardware available.
No really, QuickTime for Java is just a JNI wrapper around regular QuickTime. Notice how QT4J is only for Mac and Windows. JMF can read some QuickTime files, though.
IPv6 doesn't improve security; this is a common myth. (IPSec is "mandatory" in IPv6, but it's not mandatory for you to actually use it. And "mandatory" doesn't mean much since the IETF has no enforcement power.)
The software is worthless if the content owners will not allow it to be used. The idea of DRMed P2P is also questionable; will customers allow their bandwidth to be used for such systems?
Not this again. At the same frame rate, 1080p and 1080i use the same bandwidth (e.g. 60 fields/s == 30 frames/s). It's just a different way to arrange the same number of pixels.
I predict that Blu-ray and HD DVD will support 1080p, which will drive TVs to support it, and then people will want 1080p camcorders. There's more to HDTV than ATSC.
No, because in this example A and B cannot route calls; they can only serve as endpoints. The endpoints are leeching off the supernodes, and if there are too few supernodes the system will collapse.
I guess Cuban's argument makes some sense if you assume that people are renting movies. If people actually want to own movies (assuming that will be allowed in 5 years), hard disks have no advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
LSB is useless on the desktop since it doesn't specify desktop-related stuff. For example, a minimal LSB-compliant system doesn't include GNOME or KDE.
No, Linus said that Linux won't support OS-independent drivers. If Linux won't use them and Windows won't use them, then it's hardly worth writing such drivers.
Every piece of hardware is equipped with a standardized storage chip, which contains detailed information about the purpose of the device and instructions on how to "talk" to it. Basically I'm looking for a way to enable any OS to figure out a driver on its own.
Like UDI, FCode, or EFI bytecode? It's been tried; Linus said no every time.
It would be interesting to incorporate the drivers onto the pice of hardware. I mean what if insead of including a CD [that these days are filled with crap] with the hardware, that they just put a small flash memory onto the item, and stored the drivers there.
Good idea. That's what the Newton did. Of course, this won't help you with Linux, where the driver API changes every few months.
This may raise the cost of the item, but I would rather have a item that I can use anywhere on any machine without having to search for drivers, or cary a cd around with me.
You're the only one. Everyone else is just looking for the cheapest hardware available.
Efficieons aren't socketed, so you have to buy an Efficeon motherboard. Which, for some reason, seem to be really scarce.
No really, QuickTime for Java is just a JNI wrapper around regular QuickTime. Notice how QT4J is only for Mac and Windows. JMF can read some QuickTime files, though.
Lots of people have built Java applet video players. Fluendo isn't claiming to be the first; they're claiming to have the first Theora Java player.
IIRC JMF uses Xv if you have the performance pack installed. I don't think it's included in the JRE, though, which is a pain.
Your argument is interesting... too bad it has nothing to do with the article, which is about cable/sat pay-per-view.
IPv6 doesn't improve security; this is a common myth. (IPSec is "mandatory" in IPv6, but it's not mandatory for you to actually use it. And "mandatory" doesn't mean much since the IETF has no enforcement power.)
The software is worthless if the content owners will not allow it to be used. The idea of DRMed P2P is also questionable; will customers allow their bandwidth to be used for such systems?
Dozens of /8s are available; last time I checked it was about 40% of the total address space.
For years they've been dreading the spectre of easy conversion of DVDs to files on a computer.
It's not clear that these Panasonic DVD burners are useful for ripping DVDs, and they are certainly more expensive than software-only DVD rippers.
Not this again. At the same frame rate, 1080p and 1080i use the same bandwidth (e.g. 60 fields/s == 30 frames/s). It's just a different way to arrange the same number of pixels.
I predict that Blu-ray and HD DVD will support 1080p, which will drive TVs to support it, and then people will want 1080p camcorders. There's more to HDTV than ATSC.
A lot of people want 24 fps 1080p, which uses less bandwidth than 30 fps 1080i.
Indeed. I remember when "the machine you want is always $5000"; today it's more like $2000.
No, because in this example A and B cannot route calls; they can only serve as endpoints. The endpoints are leeching off the supernodes, and if there are too few supernodes the system will collapse.
These guys sure have created a hype machine. There's gotta be a catch in there somewhere.
How would you determine distance? Why would I ever want something on my screen to be harder to see?
Much lower quality, too. Given the slow transcoding, I'm not even sure that copying video to a PMC is faster than burning a DVD.
'nuff said.
It's easier than that; you can just call their bluff and file a counter-notification.
I guess Cuban's argument makes some sense if you assume that people are renting movies. If people actually want to own movies (assuming that will be allowed in 5 years), hard disks have no advantage.
They're thinking DivX is Not Invented Here.