It's monopoly abuse. Windows has a desktop monopoly. What Ubuntu or Apple does is not that important, they don't have a monopoly. If you do want to talk about the situation of Ubuntu and comparing it to Windows. Windows comes with IE and only IE or now maybe no browser at all (even less choice). Ubuntu comes with several terminal programs on the CD/DVD and you can install an other just and just as easily remove the one that was default.
Then it's not Google Wave, it's more like Mozilla Labs Weave project. A way to have your bookmarks, history, tab-information, etc. synced between all your Firefox/Fennec (Mozilla mobile) browsers:
If your provider which handles the domain doesn't support DNSSEC, nothing will change. If they do do it, they'll probably do it for you. Because it's quiet complicated to get right and needs lots of automatic rekeying.
This isn't quiet true, what is currently implemented is, that recursive nameservers ('caching nameserver' at your ISP, the nameserver IP-addresses you possible get through DHCP, etc.) can verify things. But in reality most probably don't. There isn't a desktop in sight which actually does do verifying, AFAIK.
That's the whole point of the article, if you would read TFA, or stats actually, you would see the Corporate filter shows IE6 has the largest browser share, more then IE7 and especially IE8 or Firefox.
It's still far behind, but Mozilla/Apple and Opera with the EU and later Chrome have really forced Microsoft to 'innovate' (atleast try to not fall even farther behind)
If they did, they should have fined them more, much more, that way they might actually get both, they'll get even more money and maybe they would actually comply and fix the problem.
No, no, no, there really are a lot of people out there who don't know there is a choice. A lot of people think Windows is always part of a computer, they come together. They probably don't even know you could install a different version of Windows, let alone something else.
As a guy who handles webservers in a "production enviroment", I'd just like to say the Windows process model is the problem. Threads are much cheaper than processes on Windows. I think the Linux guys actually do it the right way, processes should be cheap, threads are not as important. This is an old design decision from when Windows was just doing desktop, I guess. Or someone believed some academic that threads are the next big thing or something. I don't know, but having code running on a server in seperate processes, which go away after a while instead of threads in one process, is such a much better model for stability. Because we all know people make mistakes, one of them could mean it crashes the process or leaks memory. With seperate processes you just don't have that problem. Having just the core like with lighttpd as just one process is ok, because it just does one thing and one thing right. It uses seperate processes for running php for example, which get reused for a while or can be seperately killed if something goes wrong.
Because of the process model on Windows, even Apache uses a pool of threads their, which has the same problems. That's the real reason why Apache on Linux is better then IIS on Windows. Stability and ease of problem resolution. The IIS devs, I guess, also figured this out and created application pools because of this, but I still don't see as much "recycling" (as they call it). Maybe this is because of the whole object-orientated development model they usually use, it's what makes startup times slow, it's the same problems you see with Java. Java-programs also need to load many seperated things and they take up memory and that memory is hardly ever reclaimed.
Having seperate processes is also good for security, when you want to confine some code which deals with outside input.
Even IE now is trying to use a multi-process model, like Chrome, because of these kinds of things. IE has so far mostly failed at doing so because again startup performance of processes is so slow. And you see it, every time you open a new tab.
But why do we need a whole industry and a lot of research to patch a language to make it fast ? Instead of using something that is already fast in it's own right ?
Slashdot Mirror
It's monopoly abuse. Windows has a desktop monopoly. What Ubuntu or Apple does is not that important, they don't have a monopoly. If you do want to talk about the situation of Ubuntu and comparing it to Windows. Windows comes with IE and only IE or now maybe no browser at all (even less choice). Ubuntu comes with several terminal programs on the CD/DVD and you can install an other just and just as easily remove the one that was default.
That's probably the same kind of user who also wouldn't install Windows.
They also get an option in the installer which says: install or not install IE
If Microsoft were based in Europe this wouldn't be happening.
I doubt that. Many european companies have been fined by the EU for illegal business practices.
Then it's not Google Wave, it's more like Mozilla Labs Weave project. A way to have your bookmarks, history, tab-information, etc. synced between all your Firefox/Fennec (Mozilla mobile) browsers:
http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/weave/
Actually, you could say they practically wrote the book about: Kama Sutra
Yes, yes, it's probably all about affection.
I'll like to quote Linus Torvalds, when he was talking on a very different matter: these people are dump, stupid and ugly.
Sorry for not being a native english speaker and thanks for the pointer. :-)
If your provider which handles the domain doesn't support DNSSEC, nothing will change. If they do do it, they'll probably do it for you. Because it's quiet complicated to get right and needs lots of automatic rekeying.
This isn't quiet true, what is currently implemented is, that recursive nameservers ('caching nameserver' at your ISP, the nameserver IP-addresses you possible get through DHCP, etc.) can verify things. But in reality most probably don't. There isn't a desktop in sight which actually does do verifying, AFAIK.
No it doesn't it's still IE8 trying to render like IE7. Trust me, I _am_ a webdev.
That's the whole point of the article, if you would read TFA, or stats actually, you would see the Corporate filter shows IE6 has the largest browser share, more then IE7 and especially IE8 or Firefox.
Time to upgrade to XP ! ;-)
I can't say I'm impressed with Vista, 2008 or 7, actually I think 2000 is better then XP.
But as some point you just have to switch, Ubuntu is definitely my first choice right now.
I agree, Vista isn't the only reason that Windows 7 is a better version of Windows, part of it is competition.
It's still far behind, but Mozilla/Apple and Opera with the EU and later Chrome have really forced Microsoft to 'innovate' (atleast try to not fall even farther behind)
the EU has an entire subset of the law which applies only to monopolies, and especially non-complying monopoly-abusers.
If they did, they should have fined them more, much more, that way they might actually get both, they'll get even more money and maybe they would actually comply and fix the problem.
No, no, no, there really are a lot of people out there who don't know there is a choice. A lot of people think Windows is always part of a computer, they come together. They probably don't even know you could install a different version of Windows, let alone something else.
Euh... but:
1. opera is in business to make money
2. mozilla is in business to spread open web standards and forge innovation, IE/Microsoft is not helping in that department
That's because Norton is paying the OEM's a small amount of money and Microsoft hasn't been able to convince the OEM's because of it.
You read my mind. Didn't know anyone could. ;-)
As a guy who handles webservers in a "production enviroment", I'd just like to say the Windows process model is the problem. Threads are much cheaper than processes on Windows. I think the Linux guys actually do it the right way, processes should be cheap, threads are not as important. This is an old design decision from when Windows was just doing desktop, I guess. Or someone believed some academic that threads are the next big thing or something. I don't know, but having code running on a server in seperate processes, which go away after a while instead of threads in one process, is such a much better model for stability. Because we all know people make mistakes, one of them could mean it crashes the process or leaks memory. With seperate processes you just don't have that problem. Having just the core like with lighttpd as just one process is ok, because it just does one thing and one thing right. It uses seperate processes for running php for example, which get reused for a while or can be seperately killed if something goes wrong.
Because of the process model on Windows, even Apache uses a pool of threads their, which has the same problems. That's the real reason why Apache on Linux is better then IIS on Windows. Stability and ease of problem resolution. The IIS devs, I guess, also figured this out and created application pools because of this, but I still don't see as much "recycling" (as they call it). Maybe this is because of the whole object-orientated development model they usually use, it's what makes startup times slow, it's the same problems you see with Java. Java-programs also need to load many seperated things and they take up memory and that memory is hardly ever reclaimed.
Having seperate processes is also good for security, when you want to confine some code which deals with outside input.
Even IE now is trying to use a multi-process model, like Chrome, because of these kinds of things. IE has so far mostly failed at doing so because again startup performance of processes is so slow. And you see it, every time you open a new tab.
"In a highly active codebase it's hard to overstate the value of reducing the number of merge conflicts that have to be handled manually."
Euh, this is used for the Linux kernel development.
From an article in 2008 (http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/how-participate-linux-community):
at a rate approaching 1,000 changes ("patches," or "changesets") per day.
And I've seen number (although I can't find them right now) that kernel development rate increases over time.
Merges is actually the one thing Linus cared most about when he created git.
"Perforce is a client/server system. The server manages a central database and a master repository of file versions."
"Git is a free distributed revision control"
To get a cruel comparison and an idea of what distributed is useful for, you should possible watch this video by Linus himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
distributed is really really useful.
But why do we need a whole industry and a lot of research to patch a language to make it fast ? Instead of using something that is already fast in it's own right ?