Actually, there are tools to generate new variants. I'm surprised they don't use the botnets directly to build it on the fly before they distribute it.
I've actually seem stories with other numbers as well, where most of the new malware for windows is coming out for Windows 7; Windows XP already has enough malware and people don't seem to be writing any new ones. The old ones already work fine I guess.
The companies* involved in the W3C could not agree on a video codec, I still wonder if Google had completed their aqusition of On2 before the W3C discussions, would it have mattered ?
Actually the IMG-tag also does not have anything in the specifications about BMP, XPM, JPEG, GIF or PNG so it isn't all that strange.
* Of which some are obviously members of the MPEG LA, like Apple and Microsoft if I remember correctly.
Maybe more importantly, when will Youtube automatically use HTML5/WebM when the browser supports it.
As I understand it, all new uploads are already converted WebM.
3 months ago Youtube had already converted 30% of the videos, which make up 99% of all views.
At the last Google I/O someone working on the new Youtube 'player' mentioned embedded worked and it looks like they are now very close to releasing it.
You say this now. But this is about the long haul. There is already hardware that supports WebM.
Because most people buy their smartphones with a plan, replacement rates are high.
The numbers say: after 3 years of use, 82.6% will have been replaced (and 18% after the first year).
So if you add it to every Android phone today and the Android phones remain populair, in 3 years almost all Android phones people are using support it in hardware.
Or the other way around, so you can remove the proxies in X-years and your webservers logs don't say: proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address.
Well, Google is one of the few large organisations that also tries to use open specifications.
Opera and Mozilla are the other 2.
But Google is kind of split in half.
They are saying they want to do web-apps based on an open specifications and they have Android and the app store that comes with it.
The open specifications are behind as always, but this is normal. A single vendor can come up with their proprietary system any time they want and change it any time they want, a specification supported by multiple vendors takes time.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem for IE9 adoption is obvious: Microsoft has no IE9 for Windows XP.
Actually, there are tools to generate new variants. I'm surprised they don't use the botnets directly to build it on the fly before they distribute it.
Performance ? Downloading all the files and images again when visiting a site is probably a lot slower. ;-)
But I guess that is what you want as you want privacy.
I've actually seem stories with other numbers as well, where most of the new malware for windows is coming out for Windows 7; Windows XP already has enough malware and people don't seem to be writing any new ones. The old ones already work fine I guess.
Actually, someone did create a Java-applet ones used for getting the MAC addresses of website visitors.
You do know Firefox has an option 'clear cache whre Firefox closes' ?:
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Options%20window%20-%20Privacy%20panel?as=u
The companies* involved in the W3C could not agree on a video codec, I still wonder if Google had completed their aqusition of On2 before the W3C discussions, would it have mattered ?
Actually the IMG-tag also does not have anything in the specifications about BMP, XPM, JPEG, GIF or PNG so it isn't all that strange.
* Of which some are obviously members of the MPEG LA, like Apple and Microsoft if I remember correctly.
h.264 hasn't been removed from Chrome yet. So it is really nice you tested it, but it was to early.
Probably after Chrome 13, AFAIK.
Maybe more importantly, when will Youtube automatically use HTML5/WebM when the browser supports it.
As I understand it, all new uploads are already converted WebM.
3 months ago Youtube had already converted 30% of the videos, which make up 99% of all views.
At the last Google I/O someone working on the new Youtube 'player' mentioned embedded worked and it looks like they are now very close to releasing it.
This video, shot at Mozilla, explains about the origin of Ogg Theora (which was based on VP3) and thus also WebM (which was based on VP8):
http://air.mozilla.org/open-video-codec-discussion-at-mozilla/
'We need a more "European" system' where software patents don't apply. Or atleast a whole lot less, there are always exceptions.
You say this now. But this is about the long haul. There is already hardware that supports WebM.
Because most people buy their smartphones with a plan, replacement rates are high.
The numbers say: after 3 years of use, 82.6% will have been replaced (and 18% after the first year).
So if you add it to every Android phone today and the Android phones remain populair, in 3 years almost all Android phones people are using support it in hardware.
They do, but their are not happy with the way it is handled now in Linux distributions. They want to improve it.
Actually, it hasn't worked fine. That is exactly why Debian want to change it.
You may not be a distribution developer, but the folks are Fedora/RedHat and Debian/Ubuntu and so on, so have to deal with it.
If something is easy for you, that doesn't mean they didn't spend a lot of time on it to make it so.
I don't know of any IE6 specific problems, I do know that Windows XP supports IPv6. Which kind of works.
Or the other way around, so you can remove the proxies in X-years and your webservers logs don't say: proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address.
Many are already delivering IPv6 to their servers. Some set it up with AAAA-records in DNS. Some have been doing that for 4 or 5 years.
Well, on that site it is really easy to compare browsers, as you may know Chrome will remove a few video codecs:
http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=chrome+13&b2=chrome+14
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
So that is why it is dropping.
It is all based on things that can be checked/tested. The farther future numbers are very unclear.
This is what it says:
var isSupported = !isMobile && (isChrome || (isSafari && isMac));
view-source:http://www.allisnotlo.st/static/js/ImportJS.js
Which is just stupid.
http://caniuse.com/
It depends, if you look at the numbers:
"Calculation of support for currently selected criteria" (Recommendation, Proposed Rec., Candidate Rec., Working Draft, Other):
Current:
IE9: 58%
Firefox 5: 84%
Safari 5.1: 82%
Chrome 12: 89%
Opera 11.5: 76%
Near Future:
IE9: 58%
Firefox 6: 87%
Safari 5.1: 82%
Chrome 13: 89%
Opera 12.0: 79%
Farther future:
IE 10: 71%
Firefox 7: 87%
Safari 6: 82%
Chrome 14: 88%
Opera 12.1: 79%
Many do say it is easier to learn git if you've never used a VCS before.
I actually expected this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
I think having a good GUI would help a lot.
I don't use Chrome either.
If you don't want Firefox, have you considered Opera ?
Well, Google is one of the few large organisations that also tries to use open specifications.
Opera and Mozilla are the other 2.
But Google is kind of split in half.
They are saying they want to do web-apps based on an open specifications and they have Android and the app store that comes with it.
The open specifications are behind as always, but this is normal. A single vendor can come up with their proprietary system any time they want and change it any time they want, a specification supported by multiple vendors takes time.