The good thing is that Spotify premium (9euro/month) really isn't a lot for the service they provide. Since an year ago that I started using Spotify it's been pretty much my only music player. Now that they're getting the mobile clients out too its just getting better (also Symbian version coming soon, now just windows mobile!).
And like with every Spotify news here, for those who are going to ask why spotify is supposedly so much better than last.fm or pandora or other web radios. Spotify isn't a radio. It's more like a huge music library where you can search for any song and listen to them as you please. If you like to, you can even just repeat one song all the time. It's more like your WinAmp or other music player, just that the music is streamed and you have access to huge amount of songs.
Their technology seems to work great too. When you select a new song it starts playing *right away*. Just like listening from your own hard drive. The UI is simple and lightweight but still good. You can also easily paste links to songs, albums and playlists. For pretty much everyone I know its became the way to listen to music, and a great way for music labels to kill piracy. Finally a product that is actually better and more convenient than pirating, and I'm happily paying the 9 euros for the premium account.
As mobile side I'm just waiting for their Windows Mobile client for my HTC. The nice thing is that mobile 3g internet is really cheap here too: unlimited (yes, really) 384 kbit/s is 5e a month, while unlimited 5Mbit/s is 35e a month. Since I have them anyway, I can just stream all the songs normally while sitting in a car or anywhere.
And yes, its only available in Europe currently. But they plan to launch in USA this year too.
Did you actually notice what the article here is about? It's about MS giving code to open source, like you write about IBM.
Your comment about "omg they're not giving win7 source as open source" is useless, and so is the comments about Visual c++ and C# (which, btw, are documented good and can be implemented as open source like mono project). So get off your fucking high horse and see its good when they give something. They're obviously not going to open source Windows 7, but all the other attempts help open source even if its just some code. Its not as black/white as you seem to think.
Many think I'm blindly hating on Microsoft here. No. Blindly hating on Microsoft usually involves simply hating Microsoft simply because its "trendy" without actually understanding WHY I'm hating Microsoft. I *know* why I hate Microsoft, and in my opinion, it's a damn fine reason (Or reasons.). I don't trust Microsoft because I am all-too-familiar with their past behavior. And this looks like just another case of Microsoft starting the "embrace" in "embrace, extend, extinguish." They did in with so many other things in the same way it looks like they're doing it with FOSS. And I'm expected to NOT be suspicious of Microsoft when they do this? Their history has taught me one big thing: Microsoft "helps" until they get what they want, then they get backstabbing.
Now I'm not sure if you're talking about your ex-gf, but that sure as hell can be applied to them aswell:-)
Is it otherwise all black/white world for you too? Of course they keep their main business as closed source, but *it is* improvement if they open their source, even if under other license. I actually like to defense open source and tell about how its good for everybody, but it makes me ashamed when it goes to bitching like this and for the thinking "nothing is good enough".
Too many open source people people have the thinking that its the only possible way and theres no midway between open/closed source. Yeah mod me as troll, but *it is* the truth. Both have their advantages, and also their disadvantages.
So now its not just bloat software, but they're going to spam us with stupid things? Instead of actually doing whats needed, lightweight and protective antivirus?
Even if they take the best ideas elsewhere, MS products are usually solid and just work. Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason. Windows is still the major mostly used OS in desktop (mac, the only competitor, doesn't really come even close).
Even if you have original ideas, you have to know how to put them together. Now to do something other than car analogy. Even if you have the best ketchup in the world, you cant make your hamburger better if its all burned up, rotten and full of bugs and worms. You need the *whole* thing to be good.
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has it's own 501c open source foundation.
As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too:)
Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source will anyone take them seriously?
How have they actually attacked Linux? The same way that Linux attackes Windows, aka competition? Competition is good and will only improve products.
Just because Microsoft's main business model is in closed source, it doesn't mean a company that big cant contribute to open source at all. Their Bing search engine actually ignored MSN's Live platform, while providing that service to Facebook and Twitter.
The interesting thing is that MS really seems like trying to change their old ways, and if you look at it they're been pretty successful. Looks like they're dividing their different business aspects; Windows, xbox360, games, Bing.. They all are quite separate and are getting even more so, with only minor links between them.
Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.
One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers - everything just seems fast and responsive. Chrome isn't that far, but you can still see how things like opening new tabs takes some time and isn't "instant". Firefox is also behind on UI responsiveness, and I probably dont have to mention IE (3-5 secs to open new tab, seriously?).
This is what MS tried to improve in Win7 too. Even if its not really faster technically but just feels so, it improves usability a lot.
The study is bogus because it doesn't account for those situations.
And your comment is bogus because almost no one of the WoW players know its filesharing when the updates come. Filesharing by name has become something you share copyrighted files with, aka warez. "Filesharing" has happened since the internet and also http we're developed. Slashdot shares html and image files to you too. But filesharing has got the meaning of sharing warez.
I actually had several feelings about this summery, because:
1) Usually pro-filesharers try to make it sound like filesharing is usual activity and try go for most or 70-90% user share 2) The summary tries to paint this study bad because it "downsides" the amount of filesharers 3) The rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics and other studies are made in what case.
So could someone please explain *why* is it a questionable research. It is like every other study where you study small amount of people and make estimates based on it to reflect whole population. Usually this amount of people also gives somewhat correct results on the whole population. Theres some error margin, but its close enough.
So what is the point of this story? That statistics researches use only minor subset or people to do their research instead of asking from everyone? They always have.
Let me add to this that in EU its also illegal if countries prevent other companies to work with certain country or inside them, ie. limit free trade. But companies can choose itself obviously.
However, they do have many resellers who are allowed to sell services to other countries too. I do not know OVH's reasoning for this, but maybe they want to limit their own business and customer service to those countries only.
And there's nothing illegal limiting your business to selected countries if you want to do so. It's only illegal if you limit it based on race, skin color and in most countries based on gender.
The fact is that unlimited is easy and more convenient than trying to calculate if the limits are enough. And these are $3 hosting packages, you can be pretty sure that you wont be allowed to host lets say YouTube on it. It's not just the bandwidth, but all the server resources it would consume.
Same thing with dedicated servers on providers that dont have quota. It doesn't mean you're now on a 10gbit line and you can use it as you please. Instead of quotas, your bandwidth is 100mbit and usually on a shared line. You can usually burst it up to 100mbit, but if others need more bandwidth it will be shared. Dedicated bandwidth costs ~10x more and isn't usually needed anyway, as long as they dont *really* oversell the line too much.
With everything its about bringing down the costs for users by sharing the expensive resources. It works good most of the time. If you know it wont work for you, then you can get the more expensive dedicated bandwidth and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
The good thing is that Spotify premium (9euro/month) really isn't a lot for the service they provide. Since an year ago that I started using Spotify it's been pretty much my only music player. Now that they're getting the mobile clients out too its just getting better (also Symbian version coming soon, now just windows mobile!).
And like with every Spotify news here, for those who are going to ask why spotify is supposedly so much better than last.fm or pandora or other web radios. Spotify isn't a radio. It's more like a huge music library where you can search for any song and listen to them as you please. If you like to, you can even just repeat one song all the time. It's more like your WinAmp or other music player, just that the music is streamed and you have access to huge amount of songs.
Their technology seems to work great too. When you select a new song it starts playing *right away*. Just like listening from your own hard drive. The UI is simple and lightweight but still good. You can also easily paste links to songs, albums and playlists. For pretty much everyone I know its became the way to listen to music, and a great way for music labels to kill piracy. Finally a product that is actually better and more convenient than pirating, and I'm happily paying the 9 euros for the premium account.
As mobile side I'm just waiting for their Windows Mobile client for my HTC. The nice thing is that mobile 3g internet is really cheap here too: unlimited (yes, really) 384 kbit/s is 5e a month, while unlimited 5Mbit/s is 35e a month. Since I have them anyway, I can just stream all the songs normally while sitting in a car or anywhere.
And yes, its only available in Europe currently. But they plan to launch in USA this year too.
Did you actually notice what the article here is about? It's about MS giving code to open source, like you write about IBM.
Your comment about "omg they're not giving win7 source as open source" is useless, and so is the comments about Visual c++ and C# (which, btw, are documented good and can be implemented as open source like mono project). So get off your fucking high horse and see its good when they give something. They're obviously not going to open source Windows 7, but all the other attempts help open source even if its just some code. Its not as black/white as you seem to think.
Many think I'm blindly hating on Microsoft here. No. Blindly hating on Microsoft usually involves simply hating Microsoft simply because its "trendy" without actually understanding WHY I'm hating Microsoft. I *know* why I hate Microsoft, and in my opinion, it's a damn fine reason (Or reasons.). I don't trust Microsoft because I am all-too-familiar with their past behavior. And this looks like just another case of Microsoft starting the "embrace" in "embrace, extend, extinguish." They did in with so many other things in the same way it looks like they're doing it with FOSS. And I'm expected to NOT be suspicious of Microsoft when they do this? Their history has taught me one big thing: Microsoft "helps" until they get what they want, then they get backstabbing.
Now I'm not sure if you're talking about your ex-gf, but that sure as hell can be applied to them aswell :-)
And did they actually sue anyone?
Is it otherwise all black/white world for you too? Of course they keep their main business as closed source, but *it is* improvement if they open their source, even if under other license. I actually like to defense open source and tell about how its good for everybody, but it makes me ashamed when it goes to bitching like this and for the thinking "nothing is good enough".
Too many open source people people have the thinking that its the only possible way and theres no midway between open/closed source. Yeah mod me as troll, but *it is* the truth. Both have their advantages, and also their disadvantages.
and still modded as troll :-)
Seems its going really bad for Symantec, with all their stupid spammy marketing efforts..
Just earlier we had this http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/04/1648254/Symantec-Wants-To-Use-Victims-To-Hunt-Computer-Criminals
So now its not just bloat software, but they're going to spam us with stupid things? Instead of actually doing whats needed, lightweight and protective antivirus?
How Much Is Your Online Identity Worth?
So we should all post it here for them to hack us? :)
But if you change the girl.. does that mean you have to share her with everyone?
(as a sidenote, i like the freebsd girl http://nerijus.raguvele.lt/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/freebsd.jpg )
Even if they take the best ideas elsewhere, MS products are usually solid and just work. Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason. Windows is still the major mostly used OS in desktop (mac, the only competitor, doesn't really come even close).
Even if you have original ideas, you have to know how to put them together. Now to do something other than car analogy. Even if you have the best ketchup in the world, you cant make your hamburger better if its all burned up, rotten and full of bugs and worms. You need the *whole* thing to be good.
Now the most interesting part is still to be solved... how do you get girls with open source?
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has it's own 501c open source foundation.
As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too :)
Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source will anyone take them seriously?
How have they actually attacked Linux? The same way that Linux attackes Windows, aka competition? Competition is good and will only improve products.
Just because Microsoft's main business model is in closed source, it doesn't mean a company that big cant contribute to open source at all. Their Bing search engine actually ignored MSN's Live platform, while providing that service to Facebook and Twitter.
The interesting thing is that MS really seems like trying to change their old ways, and if you look at it they're been pretty successful. Looks like they're dividing their different business aspects; Windows, xbox360, games, Bing.. They all are quite separate and are getting even more so, with only minor links between them.
For that matter, does this work through software that emulate LAN over internet, like hamachi?
But yeah, just because it works only inside lan, doesn't mean it cant come with some malware or worm.
Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.
Yes, because video encoding in the background and UI responsiveness in browsers is exactly the same thing.
And this is something that is only about programming and design, not the computer.
"I told you NOT to mess on MY server!"
A point well taken, but there's a degree of normalcy shift you need to expect when you live around the corner from Bungie.
Yeah, knowing you live around some game developer studio is more usual to normal people than knowing what AK-47 looks like.
One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers - everything just seems fast and responsive. Chrome isn't that far, but you can still see how things like opening new tabs takes some time and isn't "instant". Firefox is also behind on UI responsiveness, and I probably dont have to mention IE (3-5 secs to open new tab, seriously?).
This is what MS tried to improve in Win7 too. Even if its not really faster technically but just feels so, it improves usability a lot.
The study is bogus because it doesn't account for those situations.
And your comment is bogus because almost no one of the WoW players know its filesharing when the updates come. Filesharing by name has become something you share copyrighted files with, aka warez. "Filesharing" has happened since the internet and also http we're developed. Slashdot shares html and image files to you too. But filesharing has got the meaning of sharing warez.
1176 people compared to 10 comes a lot closer to real truth. Close enough to have just a few % error margin, so in statistics it works good.
I actually had several feelings about this summery, because:
1) Usually pro-filesharers try to make it sound like filesharing is usual activity and try go for most or 70-90% user share
2) The summary tries to paint this study bad because it "downsides" the amount of filesharers
3) The rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics and other studies are made in what case.
So could someone please explain *why* is it a questionable research. It is like every other study where you study small amount of people and make estimates based on it to reflect whole population. Usually this amount of people also gives somewhat correct results on the whole population. Theres some error margin, but its close enough.
So what is the point of this story? That statistics researches use only minor subset or people to do their research instead of asking from everyone? They always have.
Let me add to this that in EU its also illegal if countries prevent other companies to work with certain country or inside them, ie. limit free trade. But companies can choose itself obviously.
However, they do have many resellers who are allowed to sell services to other countries too. I do not know OVH's reasoning for this, but maybe they want to limit their own business and customer service to those countries only.
And there's nothing illegal limiting your business to selected countries if you want to do so. It's only illegal if you limit it based on race, skin color and in most countries based on gender.
The fact is that unlimited is easy and more convenient than trying to calculate if the limits are enough. And these are $3 hosting packages, you can be pretty sure that you wont be allowed to host lets say YouTube on it. It's not just the bandwidth, but all the server resources it would consume.
Same thing with dedicated servers on providers that dont have quota. It doesn't mean you're now on a 10gbit line and you can use it as you please. Instead of quotas, your bandwidth is 100mbit and usually on a shared line. You can usually burst it up to 100mbit, but if others need more bandwidth it will be shared. Dedicated bandwidth costs ~10x more and isn't usually needed anyway, as long as they dont *really* oversell the line too much.
With everything its about bringing down the costs for users by sharing the expensive resources. It works good most of the time. If you know it wont work for you, then you can get the more expensive dedicated bandwidth and so on.
It's just one inconvenience out of the way.
An unlimited quota, which is limited to 300 kb/s total for all of your users, is not unlimited.
Yeah, that is the only problem with hosting whole YouTube on a $3 shared hosting account.