Choose to not give a fuck about copyright, or use those works that should be in the public domain and don't give a fuck about anyone else's hangups.
It's not about the stuff that's already available to the public, it's about the stuff shelved in some store-room, waiting to see the light of day. Not many will go through the immense effort of digitizing such media if there is no incentive (monetary or otherwise) in doing so. I'm guessing a lot of unreleased stuff is irrevocably lost because of such issues with copyright.
I think perfect grammar makes the whole thing even less convincing. Not many people put that much effort in chat talk. And the whole thing seems too vanilla to me.
...given that the current economic situation is partially due to excessive corporate control of government and as such, the economy itself. Or is it the other way around?
This would've been avoided if these "industry standard" tools were released as open source. It would be interesting to see if such a development will arise from this dispute.
There already exist both commercial and non-commercial anti-virus applications that run on Linux (Wikipedia has a list) which mainly target Windows viruses passing through corporate networks. Some anti-virus solutions target native viruses (virii?), but most are quickly obsoleted via updates anyways. I suspect this is what the Dept. of Education is asking for, and it's not unreasonable.
This whole thing is even more crazy if you take in account that Nokia shelled out more than $400 million for two assets (Symbian and Qt/Trolltech) which are now pushed into irrelevance. Nokia even open-sourced the entire Symbian operating system under the EPL, a huge move unlike what has been done by any company, only to dissolve the Symbian foundation after Mr. Elop joined the company.
What's more, Symbian and Windows phone are not perfect replacements. As some other posters have noted, the hardware requirements for Windows Phone are egregiously high, whilst Symbian is known to be frugal with hardware requirements because it was built from the ground-up to be an operating system for low-power devices. The user-interfaces are radically different.
The main issue with Symbian is that it was hard to develop for. This was supposed to be resolved with Qt, but now what? Nobody will develop for a platform that's going to eventually die.
This is a good read on the whole matter. Writing's a bit crude in some parts but raises some good points.
These charts also illustrate the point. Nokia is alienating both its development community and its customers. Qt is put on the sidelines. Who's going to develop for a dying platform? A lot of people I know buy Symbian because of the generally familiar UI, which is similar to the Series 40 phones. Windows Phone is radically different.
You may remember them from this post on their blog where they provide a detailed description of their technical setup. Their services are excellent, IMO.
The most important asset Google-approved Android devices have is the Android Market. So, how far can a manufacturer go toward replacing Google's applications and services before Google says "No Android Market for you!"? By the way, I believe most Android devices that come out of China don't ship with Android Market so there you go.
...after this and the whole Google fiasco, manufacturers will take a hint and make WPA encryption mandatory. You can't realistically expect users to know how to configure this stuff and it doesn't actually cost the company anything extra.
Seriously, any posting on Nokia/Symbian/MeeGo will have the inevidable person calling Nokia to adopt Android but this one gets the cake, claiming that "Symbian's dead, and MeeGo won't cure ailing Nokia". Nokia's recent press release (Engadet coverage) claims the exact opposite, e.g. that Symbian and MeeGo are gaining unified development environments via Qt and Symbian is now a consolidated effort, unifying the seperate Symbian ^x releases into a constantly evolving release model (which means that older phone models will get constant feature improvements instead of just bug fixes). Nokia had a good Q3 and last I checked, they still held the majority of the mobile phone market. Talk about missing the point.
Why are we giving these people creedence again? Oh yeah, he writes for InfoWorld, that must mean he's on to something.
Slashdot Mirror
Choose to not give a fuck about copyright, or use those works that should be in the public domain and don't give a fuck about anyone else's hangups.
It's not about the stuff that's already available to the public, it's about the stuff shelved in some store-room, waiting to see the light of day. Not many will go through the immense effort of digitizing such media if there is no incentive (monetary or otherwise) in doing so. I'm guessing a lot of unreleased stuff is irrevocably lost because of such issues with copyright.
Not strictly "geek" stuff, but always interesting. Though I guess you already know of it.
I think perfect grammar makes the whole thing even less convincing. Not many people put that much effort in chat talk. And the whole thing seems too vanilla to me.
Money not spent on software doesn't magically disappear.
...given that the current economic situation is partially due to excessive corporate control of government and as such, the economy itself. Or is it the other way around?
Actually, here they are:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
With Cursed GTK. Archive.org doesn't seem to have the screenshots, so here's a screenshot found on a random site.
This would've been avoided if these "industry standard" tools were released as open source. It would be interesting to see if such a development will arise from this dispute.
Make them 18!
Website is here.
A preview video is here.
I have no idea how expensive this stuff is.
There already exist both commercial and non-commercial anti-virus applications that run on Linux (Wikipedia has a list) which mainly target Windows viruses passing through corporate networks. Some anti-virus solutions target native viruses (virii?), but most are quickly obsoleted via updates anyways. I suspect this is what the Dept. of Education is asking for, and it's not unreasonable.
Symbian was released under the EPL (which was later changed to a mostly-closed license) in 2010.
Full source code dump is available here and some other stuff are available here.
This whole thing is even more crazy if you take in account that Nokia shelled out more than $400 million for two assets (Symbian and Qt/Trolltech) which are now pushed into irrelevance. Nokia even open-sourced the entire Symbian operating system under the EPL, a huge move unlike what has been done by any company, only to dissolve the Symbian foundation after Mr. Elop joined the company.
What's more, Symbian and Windows phone are not perfect replacements. As some other posters have noted, the hardware requirements for Windows Phone are egregiously high, whilst Symbian is known to be frugal with hardware requirements because it was built from the ground-up to be an operating system for low-power devices. The user-interfaces are radically different.
The main issue with Symbian is that it was hard to develop for. This was supposed to be resolved with Qt, but now what? Nobody will develop for a platform that's going to eventually die.
The aforementioned charts
This is a good read on the whole matter. Writing's a bit crude in some parts but raises some good points.
These charts also illustrate the point. Nokia is alienating both its development community and its customers. Qt is put on the sidelines. Who's going to develop for a dying platform? A lot of people I know buy Symbian because of the generally familiar UI, which is similar to the Series 40 phones. Windows Phone is radically different.
Ugh.
Is it legally binding?
http://www.backblaze.com/
You may remember them from this post on their blog where they provide a detailed description of their technical setup. Their services are excellent, IMO.
The most important asset Google-approved Android devices have is the Android Market. So, how far can a manufacturer go toward replacing Google's applications and services before Google says "No Android Market for you!"? By the way, I believe most Android devices that come out of China don't ship with Android Market so there you go.
http://www.theonion.com/video/internet-archaeologists-find-ruins-of-friendster-c,14389/
...after this and the whole Google fiasco, manufacturers will take a hint and make WPA encryption mandatory. You can't realistically expect users to know how to configure this stuff and it doesn't actually cost the company anything extra.
Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)
Ugh.
Seriously, any posting on Nokia/Symbian/MeeGo will have the inevidable person calling Nokia to adopt Android but this one gets the cake, claiming that "Symbian's dead, and MeeGo won't cure ailing Nokia". Nokia's recent press release (Engadet coverage) claims the exact opposite, e.g. that Symbian and MeeGo are gaining unified development environments via Qt and Symbian is now a consolidated effort, unifying the seperate Symbian ^x releases into a constantly evolving release model (which means that older phone models will get constant feature improvements instead of just bug fixes). Nokia had a good Q3 and last I checked, they still held the majority of the mobile phone market. Talk about missing the point.
Why are we giving these people creedence again? Oh yeah, he writes for InfoWorld, that must mean he's on to something.
Just because they sued doesn't mean they have a valid case (assuming the case hasn't yet gone through the preliminaries).
Now, let's get working!
http://kakaroto.homelinux.net/2010/08/psjailbreak-usb-gadget-kernel-driver/
There you go. Still not released, but well underway (check the blog for updates).
The summary (conveniently?) left out the part where it says that this package is only included on OEM installations, not normal installs.