I've been running the 2.1 Beta 2 client from portage. I have yet to have a problem of any sort. I'm running it primarily on Gentoo AMD64. I've also used the deb package provided from the link in my previous post and have not had any problems to speak of there either.
This is a win for Skype because they get some help in creating Linux clients, and it is theoretically a win for the Open Source community as they get a working Skype client.
Skype already provides a working Linux client here. I have used it on both popular (Ubuntu) and not-as-popular (Gentoo and Arch) distributions and it works great.
The idea is to get the Open Source hackers to work out the tricky bits like figuring out which API allows access to the web cam, and which API should be used for audio input/output. The folks working on the various distributions know how this is done, and Skype (apparently) does not.
Skype's official client uses V4L2 for video (the only current video API) and ALSA for audio (the most popular audio API.) I'd say they have it figured out pretty well.
The point I was trying to make is that big companies can still do their testing once a month if they so choose. They will be using WSUS anyway so it would be a simple process. Testing always takes a few days after the patch is released anyway. If a patch is released right away, more machines are protected sooner. It's that simple.
While I don't have hard numbers for you, I can assure you that it is not as risky as RAID-0. This is due to the fact that when a cell wears out the data doesn't go away. You can still read the data, you just can't write to that cell again.
I think the reason for the Patch Tuesday release is to avoid disclosing the vulnerability to all and sundry. Otherwise, if the company doesn't want/to cannot test and deploy patches whenever they get released, there's going to be a period of time during which they have a vulnerability which is not only known, but attackers have the fix for it and can determine exactly what was changed to close it, thus making it very easy to generate an exploit for it.
I don't understand how sitting on a patch for a couple of weeks solves this problem. Any large company is going to be testing the patches internally whether they were released on-cycle or out-of-cycle. Either way, there is going to be a few days with un-patched machines. Waiting until patch Tuesday is irresponsible because the exploit is un-patched for an extra couple of weeks. If there is a patch, there's a hole and if one person was able to find it, chances are someone else did too. Security by obscurity just does not work.
All Microsoft had to do was agree to release a fix within 60 days. That would give them plenty of time to think the patch through and test it thoroughly. Microsoft did not agree to release a fix within 60 days so the exploit was released. Microsoft had their shot to handle this properly but they blew it. It's not Ormandy's fault that Microsoft did not cooperate.
It's also important to note that Ormandy released the exploit on his own, not as a representative of Google. What he does in his free time shouldn't really be Google's business. It's not fair to point fingers at Google because of the actions taken by one of it's employees in their free time.
In your case, the related ideas that (1) You used MS Office in school, (2) You used MS Office at work, (3) You think that "anyone graduating... is going to have used MS Office" are telling. If someone was very poor, only had an opportunity to see Office at school, and was prevented from doing so, then they would be at a disadvantage in proficiency with that particular tool.
Sadly, In the US anyone who is not able to afford a copy of Microsoft Office (or a computer, or whatever) is probably not going to be graduating from anything but High School.
I teach CS, I'm down on MS, and I'm anti-required-laptops. However, tools matter; full abstraction is not a panacea, and usually not remotely feasible in basic education.
When the UI change from Office 2003 to Office 2007 took place it did not matter what office suite someone was used to working with before. Students taught using OpenOffice would have had an equally hard time making the transition. The problem with comparing software with physical tools is that software's operation changes much more frequently than the operation of a wrench. I have no issue with having a class focused on the use of a particular software tool being offered at a post-secondary institution. What I have a problem with is high school English teachers (or typing, or whatever) focusing on teaching students Microsoft office instead of how to write (or type.) Another good example of why this is bad was noted by another poster. I once had a math teacher who focused the class on teaching how to use one particular model (now discontinued, of course) of calculator. I would have been much better off if the use of calculators would have been optional in that class and the focus was on using your brain along with a pencil and paper.
I teach CS, I'm down on MS, and I'm anti-required-laptops. However, tools matter; full abstraction is not a panacea, and usually not remotely feasible in basic education
The best CS teachers I had did not care what editor or IDE was used by their students as long as the code worked correctly. This was beneficial to me as a student as I spent less money on tools (I used FOSS tools) and the class was focused on teaching programming rather than teaching the use of Visual Studio.
Schools should teach students how to think, learn and figure things out; not how to use one particular program or operating system. Then the platform used for teaching wouldn't have to be the same one used in the real world. Besides, My learning how to use Office 95 and Office 97 in High school was worthless when 10 years later Office 2007 came around and they changed the entire UI. Luckily, I spent my time in school learning how to learn for myself. The transition wasn't that terrible. Many other people where I work learned by memorizing where the menu options were and ended up being completely lost in Office 2007.
EVERY employer requires M$ Office experience...
This isn't always true either. I doubt the largest employer in the city where I work require any computer skills for the assembly line workers. Neither do the construction companies whose employees are expanding the building I am sitting in. If you are talking about white collar jobs, you might have a point but most of these require a degree of some sort. Anyone graduating with any sort of degree is going to have used Microsoft Office at least a little so what students use in High School is irrelevant to the real world.
1. The iPhone supported HTML5 first (So what, somebody had to)
2. You are jealous that you don't have flash on your iPhone.
3. You are jealous that you can't do wireless tethering on your iPhone so you complain about 3G speeds (which are going to be really slow for you because AT&T sucks)
Basically, Google is still coding its way to parity with WinCE and iPhone OS. Each and every update
Last I checked, WinCE does not support HTML5 or wireless tethering unless you install third-party software. I've been using wireless tethering on my Droid for the better part of the last 6 months using a third party app. If you want to compare features of an operating system you should compare the features without considering third party applications unless they are bundled with the OS.
With the addition of HTML5 support, Android has left Apple far behind as far as built-in features go. It was ahead of the iPhone before this release, but this put the nails in Apple's coffin.
It amazes me that people have all these funny ideas about old cars all having terrible fuel mileage. A 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook easily could push 32mpg on the highway. Ramblers and Studebakers from the 50's and 60's got between 30 and 40MPG as well. Even cars with V8s weren't always the gas guzzlers they are made out to be. 25MPG with a small block Chevy 350 is no where near unheard of. The trick is matching the power of the engine to the weight of the car. Well, that and keeping the accelerator off the floor.
Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed
on
Why We Still Need OSI
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
Since Webkit is a fork of KHTML, that is subject to debate. Rendering with KHTML in Konqueror always worked fine for me long before Apple had anything to do with it. The Gecko rendering engine could have easily been chosen as well if KHTML was not mature enough.
Apple uses the XNU kernel--a sort of Mach/BSD hybrid, not the BSD kernel. OS X does, however, borrow a lot of userspace utilities from FreeBSD and NetBSD.
How, exactly, are they not very open? Anybody can develop open or closed source applications for them without paying anything for the SDK or the development tools. The developer can include the application in any market they would like, or they can make the application available on their website. They can give the application away free or charge for it. The developer has total freedom.
The user has total freedom to download applications from any market or website they would like. They can choose between paid or free apps. They can choose open or closed source applications.
The operating system itself is open-source. Anyone who is interested can download the source, modify it, make it better, do whatever they want and (usually) flash it to their device. The only thing that is not open is the device itself. Some manufacturers insist on locking the device down--but luckily the user is free to choose one that is not locked down as well.
Compare HTC's Android UI with the Droid. I'll take HTC's work over Motorola's any day. Apparently Apple agrees which is why they are suing them.
Actually, the Droid is running the stock Android UI without any modification. Motorola's other Android phones (The Cliq, etc..) use Motorola's MOTOBLUR UI extensions. HTC's phones use the Coverflow UI extensions.
You are correct though in that Motorola's software is generally terrible.
You're putting a lot of words in to my mouth there. I didn't say anything about open source being better than closed source anywhere. I also said nothing bad about DirectX. All I said was it's wrong to use proprietary standards.
I will say again, I am on topic for this particular thread. You have no idea if I have read TFA or not. As far as trolling, the first (off-topic) comment bothered me and I chose to respond...I guess that's feeding the troll isn't it.
Hey dumbass, how about you read the entire comment. You conveniently missed this part
I'm perfectly OK with IE using the GPU to accelerate the rendering of web content as long as the actual web code is written to an open standard and does not require some sort of proprietary windows-only plugin or activex controls or something to work.
As far as silverlight goes, it does also support Macs as well. I don't see where you're getting its not cross platform. Oh, because it only works on 99% of the desktops out there, linux excluded?
99% of desktops, maybe...what about mobile devices, appliances and phones. The desktop isn't the only thing to take into consideration when writing web code anymore.
Please read and reply to comments as they are written in the context of the thread. If you would follow the whole thread, you would see that this whole proprietary/open debate started with
i would like to call the idiot who modded the above flamebait to come and fix the tag block level interpretation issue in ie8. their rendering engine is screwing up, and since it is proprietary, it cant be fixed by community. so we have to wait microsoft to get its ass up and fix their incompetence themselves in some far away point in future.
adding a proprietary directx to the mix will just increase these kind of hellholes, due to adding another dimension to watch out for. and since its proprietary, someone somewhere wont be able to produce a fix and publish it to relieve everyone.
so, the fool that modded the above flamebait, please, come and fix this rendering failure today.
Perhaps you should read the parent to my original post--the person who I was responding to. For some reason he got modded insightful for saying a proprietary so-called standard is OK because Windows/directx has a large install base. I am aware that this is not directly related to TFA but I thought there was a point to be made anyway.
This is nearly as bad as Firefox using your GTK Icon Theme for the back/forward buttons under Linux - it only works on Linux (not Mac and Windows), and even then only if you have GTK and an icon theme installed! It's a travesty! How dare they build a feature that only works on one platform!
That's got to be one of the best examples of the fallacy of false analogy I have ever seen. This discussion has nothing to do with how a CROSS PLATFORM application chooses to display static content. This has everything to do with creating proprietary extensions to established web standards. Would you like a good analogy? Here's one: Silverlight. Microsoft pushes a proprietary technology and It ends up being used. Since this technology isn't cross-platform (Moonlight doesn't support the latest versions right away) web content is not viewable on a great many devices.
Look what happened to the web when IE6 was the dominant browser. Look at how many pages did not render correctly on other browsers because they were written with only IE in mind and not the open standards. I'm perfectly OK with IE using the GPU to accelerate the rendering of web content as long as the actual web code is written to an open standard and does not require some sort of proprietary windows-only plugin or activex controls or something to work.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been running the 2.1 Beta 2 client from portage. I have yet to have a problem of any sort. I'm running it primarily on Gentoo AMD64. I've also used the deb package provided from the link in my previous post and have not had any problems to speak of there either.
This is a win for Skype because they get some help in creating Linux clients, and it is theoretically a win for the Open Source community as they get a working Skype client.
Skype already provides a working Linux client here. I have used it on both popular (Ubuntu) and not-as-popular (Gentoo and Arch) distributions and it works great.
The idea is to get the Open Source hackers to work out the tricky bits like figuring out which API allows access to the web cam, and which API should be used for audio input/output. The folks working on the various distributions know how this is done, and Skype (apparently) does not.
Skype's official client uses V4L2 for video (the only current video API) and ALSA for audio (the most popular audio API.) I'd say they have it figured out pretty well.
The point I was trying to make is that big companies can still do their testing once a month if they so choose. They will be using WSUS anyway so it would be a simple process. Testing always takes a few days after the patch is released anyway. If a patch is released right away, more machines are protected sooner. It's that simple.
While I don't have hard numbers for you, I can assure you that it is not as risky as RAID-0. This is due to the fact that when a cell wears out the data doesn't go away. You can still read the data, you just can't write to that cell again.
I think the reason for the Patch Tuesday release is to avoid disclosing the vulnerability to all and sundry. Otherwise, if the company doesn't want /to cannot test and deploy patches whenever they get released, there's going to be a period of time during which they have a vulnerability which is not only known, but attackers have the fix for it and can determine exactly what was changed to close it, thus making it very easy to generate an exploit for it.
I don't understand how sitting on a patch for a couple of weeks solves this problem. Any large company is going to be testing the patches internally whether they were released on-cycle or out-of-cycle. Either way, there is going to be a few days with un-patched machines. Waiting until patch Tuesday is irresponsible because the exploit is un-patched for an extra couple of weeks. If there is a patch, there's a hole and if one person was able to find it, chances are someone else did too. Security by obscurity just does not work.
Home users will be protected a week earlier.
All Microsoft had to do was agree to release a fix within 60 days. That would give them plenty of time to think the patch through and test it thoroughly. Microsoft did not agree to release a fix within 60 days so the exploit was released. Microsoft had their shot to handle this properly but they blew it. It's not Ormandy's fault that Microsoft did not cooperate.
It's also important to note that Ormandy released the exploit on his own, not as a representative of Google. What he does in his free time shouldn't really be Google's business. It's not fair to point fingers at Google because of the actions taken by one of it's employees in their free time.
In your case, the related ideas that (1) You used MS Office in school, (2) You used MS Office at work, (3) You think that "anyone graduating... is going to have used MS Office" are telling. If someone was very poor, only had an opportunity to see Office at school, and was prevented from doing so, then they would be at a disadvantage in proficiency with that particular tool.
Sadly, In the US anyone who is not able to afford a copy of Microsoft Office (or a computer, or whatever) is probably not going to be graduating from anything but High School.
I teach CS, I'm down on MS, and I'm anti-required-laptops. However, tools matter; full abstraction is not a panacea, and usually not remotely feasible in basic education.
When the UI change from Office 2003 to Office 2007 took place it did not matter what office suite someone was used to working with before. Students taught using OpenOffice would have had an equally hard time making the transition. The problem with comparing software with physical tools is that software's operation changes much more frequently than the operation of a wrench. I have no issue with having a class focused on the use of a particular software tool being offered at a post-secondary institution. What I have a problem with is high school English teachers (or typing, or whatever) focusing on teaching students Microsoft office instead of how to write (or type.) Another good example of why this is bad was noted by another poster. I once had a math teacher who focused the class on teaching how to use one particular model (now discontinued, of course) of calculator. I would have been much better off if the use of calculators would have been optional in that class and the focus was on using your brain along with a pencil and paper.
I teach CS, I'm down on MS, and I'm anti-required-laptops. However, tools matter; full abstraction is not a panacea, and usually not remotely feasible in basic education
The best CS teachers I had did not care what editor or IDE was used by their students as long as the code worked correctly. This was beneficial to me as a student as I spent less money on tools (I used FOSS tools) and the class was focused on teaching programming rather than teaching the use of Visual Studio.
EVERY employer requires M$ Office experience...
This isn't always true either. I doubt the largest employer in the city where I work require any computer skills for the assembly line workers. Neither do the construction companies whose employees are expanding the building I am sitting in. If you are talking about white collar jobs, you might have a point but most of these require a degree of some sort. Anyone graduating with any sort of degree is going to have used Microsoft Office at least a little so what students use in High School is irrelevant to the real world.
1. The iPhone supported HTML5 first (So what, somebody had to)
2. You are jealous that you don't have flash on your iPhone.
3. You are jealous that you can't do wireless tethering on your iPhone so you complain about 3G speeds (which are going to be really slow for you because AT&T sucks)
Basically, Google is still coding its way to parity with WinCE and iPhone OS. Each and every update
Last I checked, WinCE does not support HTML5 or wireless tethering unless you install third-party software. I've been using wireless tethering on my Droid for the better part of the last 6 months using a third party app. If you want to compare features of an operating system you should compare the features without considering third party applications unless they are bundled with the OS.
With the addition of HTML5 support, Android has left Apple far behind as far as built-in features go. It was ahead of the iPhone before this release, but this put the nails in Apple's coffin.
In that case, wouldn't that be violating one's right to a jury trial? If the company is making the accusation, shouldn't it be a civil suit then?
IANAL (obviously,) but I would like to think I still remember something from the civics classes I had to take in High School.
A US Citizen has the constitutional right to face his/her accuser. In the case of a traffic camera, the accuser is not a person and cannot be faced.
Just like DRM is the future of music...Oh, wait. The DRM fight can be won.
It amazes me that people have all these funny ideas about old cars all having terrible fuel mileage. A 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook easily could push 32mpg on the highway. Ramblers and Studebakers from the 50's and 60's got between 30 and 40MPG as well. Even cars with V8s weren't always the gas guzzlers they are made out to be. 25MPG with a small block Chevy 350 is no where near unheard of. The trick is matching the power of the engine to the weight of the car. Well, that and keeping the accelerator off the floor.
Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
Since Webkit is a fork of KHTML, that is subject to debate. Rendering with KHTML in Konqueror always worked fine for me long before Apple had anything to do with it. The Gecko rendering engine could have easily been chosen as well if KHTML was not mature enough.
Apple uses the XNU kernel--a sort of Mach/BSD hybrid, not the BSD kernel. OS X does, however, borrow a lot of userspace utilities from FreeBSD and NetBSD.
nd the Android tablets aren't very open either
How, exactly, are they not very open? Anybody can develop open or closed source applications for them without paying anything for the SDK or the development tools. The developer can include the application in any market they would like, or they can make the application available on their website. They can give the application away free or charge for it. The developer has total freedom.
The user has total freedom to download applications from any market or website they would like. They can choose between paid or free apps. They can choose open or closed source applications.
The operating system itself is open-source. Anyone who is interested can download the source, modify it, make it better, do whatever they want and (usually) flash it to their device. The only thing that is not open is the device itself. Some manufacturers insist on locking the device down--but luckily the user is free to choose one that is not locked down as well.
The original XBox used a 700MHz celeron. The XBox 360 uses PPC.
The Arch testing repository contains the latest kernel usually within a day or two of release.
Compare HTC's Android UI with the Droid. I'll take HTC's work over Motorola's any day. Apparently Apple agrees which is why they are suing them.
Actually, the Droid is running the stock Android UI without any modification. Motorola's other Android phones (The Cliq, etc..) use Motorola's MOTOBLUR UI extensions. HTC's phones use the Coverflow UI extensions.
You are correct though in that Motorola's software is generally terrible.
You're putting a lot of words in to my mouth there. I didn't say anything about open source being better than closed source anywhere. I also said nothing bad about DirectX. All I said was it's wrong to use proprietary standards.
I will say again, I am on topic for this particular thread. You have no idea if I have read TFA or not. As far as trolling, the first (off-topic) comment bothered me and I chose to respond...I guess that's feeding the troll isn't it.
I'm perfectly OK with IE using the GPU to accelerate the rendering of web content as long as the actual web code is written to an open standard and does not require some sort of proprietary windows-only plugin or activex controls or something to work.
As far as silverlight goes, it does also support Macs as well. I don't see where you're getting its not cross platform. Oh, because it only works on 99% of the desktops out there, linux excluded?
99% of desktops, maybe...what about mobile devices, appliances and phones. The desktop isn't the only thing to take into consideration when writing web code anymore.
i would like to call the idiot who modded the above flamebait to come and fix the tag block level interpretation issue in ie8. their rendering engine is screwing up, and since it is proprietary, it cant be fixed by community. so we have to wait microsoft to get its ass up and fix their incompetence themselves in some far away point in future. adding a proprietary directx to the mix will just increase these kind of hellholes, due to adding another dimension to watch out for. and since its proprietary, someone somewhere wont be able to produce a fix and publish it to relieve everyone. so, the fool that modded the above flamebait, please, come and fix this rendering failure today.
Perhaps you should read the parent to my original post--the person who I was responding to. For some reason he got modded insightful for saying a proprietary so-called standard is OK because Windows/directx has a large install base. I am aware that this is not directly related to TFA but I thought there was a point to be made anyway.
This is nearly as bad as Firefox using your GTK Icon Theme for the back/forward buttons under Linux - it only works on Linux (not Mac and Windows), and even then only if you have GTK and an icon theme installed! It's a travesty! How dare they build a feature that only works on one platform!
That's got to be one of the best examples of the fallacy of false analogy I have ever seen. This discussion has nothing to do with how a CROSS PLATFORM application chooses to display static content. This has everything to do with creating proprietary extensions to established web standards. Would you like a good analogy? Here's one: Silverlight. Microsoft pushes a proprietary technology and It ends up being used. Since this technology isn't cross-platform (Moonlight doesn't support the latest versions right away) web content is not viewable on a great many devices.
Look what happened to the web when IE6 was the dominant browser. Look at how many pages did not render correctly on other browsers because they were written with only IE in mind and not the open standards. I'm perfectly OK with IE using the GPU to accelerate the rendering of web content as long as the actual web code is written to an open standard and does not require some sort of proprietary windows-only plugin or activex controls or something to work.