That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion
How is this 'collusion'? What are you implying they are actually doing?
but... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?
Because by and large they are the biggest implementors of those technologies, it makes sense that they do it over groups who's products most people probably never use.
What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, of course nobody is forcing you to use it, if you don't see any reason to use it then don't.
or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?
No, the word 'open' is not tied to 'open source', you don't have to redefine it to use it in a context that doesn't pertain to open source.
Nope, the dialog is presented during the Windows installation, which is done by the end-user in very few cases, since most people don't install windows themselves.
Nope, the dialog is presented during the Windows setup, which is done by the end-user the first time they create their account and log in, the fact that most people don't install windows themselves is completely irrelevant. But i suppose you haven't actually done this which is why you didn't know.
While MS claims that one can change this during the windows installation, average users don't install windows themselves, but have someone else install it for them.
It's during setup, not installation, the setup occurs when the user creates their account and logs in for the first time, the OEM does not do that, the user does.
It amazes me how you think you are entitled to tell a server, which you are requesting data from, that it is not to remember any details of your visit.
If the server wants to keep that data and you've specified that you don't want them to then server can deny the data request, simple problem solved.
It's pretty obvious to me: Google and Facebook, two very big Microsoft competitors, get most of their revenues from online advertising.
Firstly you're wrong, Facebook isn't a Microsoft competitor, they are a partner, in fact Microsoft has a huge investment in Facebook, so either you're intentionally trying to spread FUD or you just didn't know that. As far as Google goes Microsoft makes a huge amount of money in advertising too, disallowing advertisers to acquire tracking information works the same for them in that regard.
Yes we all remember the past, Nokia was king of mobile, Apple had little more than the iPod, Microsoft was evil, Linux had almost no visible presence on consumer handhelds and the best tablet device was an abomination from HP and Microsoft, things change, even if you desperately want to believe they don't.
Its not a crime to ignore the DNT flag. AND, there can never be a law to make it a crime, as microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference.
Wrong, automatic opt-in was never a true indicator either, changing it to automatic opt-out wouldn't be any different in terms of the accuracy of it being representative of the user's preferences. But of course the first time you create an account and log in it asks you if you want to perform 'Express Setup' and explicitly states that doing so will Enable Do Not Track, so it's quite visible.
The accuracy is the fundamental problem, with no error correction (or at least indications that there is an error), which is one of the biggest problems with their approach, it's worse than useless. In the protein folding experiment it got the correct answer just 13 out of 10,000 times.
Poor Microsoft, riding on apples coattails again..
And we have invented a new technology called Vertical Integration, which is phenomenal. It works like magic, you don't need OEMs, it's far more profitable, it ignores 3rd parties, it's super smart, and boy have we patented it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU
It'll be interesting to see how Microsoft manages to make this balance work
Perhaps they don't need to, maybe Desktop and Laptop software is enough for Microsoft as far as OEM licensing goes? Windows Phone hasn't done particularly well in the market so maybe it's time to try going vertically integrated, you avoid hardware fragmentation and reliance on OEMs to deliver quality products, it becomes wholly Microsoft's responsibility, they reap the benefits if they succeed and they only have themselves to blame if they fail. This leaves the OEMs with Android and perhaps things like Bada, webOS and Meego for their smartphone/tablet offerings.
The difficult task is going to be turning around the perception that this could be dumped like the Zune.
The peanut gallery was expecting a MacOS tablet rather than an over sized iPod.
People were expecting that when Steve Jobs announced the 'iPhone runs OS X' at the iPhone unveiling, only to find out shortly after that in actuality it didn't.
You still can't implement other claims from a patent and there's still EEE scenario that goes like: a) patent stuff, b) implement extensions in proprietary branch of the project without contributing to open branch, c) ???, d) PROFIT^WEXTINGUISH
Well that wouldn't be open source then would it, the solution is simple - use the open source version, why are you so desperate to use a proprietary version of it?
MS has gathered a big credit of mistrust in all these years, so it's not easy to believe in their good will now.
You don't need to, that's the whole point of open source!
But that wouldn't make sense because the beauty of open source is that if you don't like the direction that the project steward is taking it in you can just fork it, simple.
And then you not only have to maintain your code, you have to maintain the compiler too. That will help the workflow!
And either doom the fork to incompatibility, or keep playing catch-up, while still being bound to Microsoft, like Mono.
Incompatibility with what? The only reason you would fork it is if you had a codebase built on it and the mainline version was generating non-compliant javascript.
Kind of like how they say 4" is the perfect screen size justified in the same way they said 3.5" was the perfect screen size. It's great to look at articles from last year making claims like: 'It makes total sense. And that is exactly why we would never see any larger screen iPhone.' http://gizmodo.com/5847981/this-is-why-the-iphones-screen-will-always-be-35-inches
Well, the Apache 2.0-licensed, publicly available (on Git) code may not get you "locked in" and "manipulated to be incompatible", but the version MS will have in IE12, with very cool extensions that they won't give the code to, or may work only on one OS, might make you sorry you jumped on the TypeScript ship.
That doesn't event make sense, if you think they are putting a version into IE then you obviously don't even know what typescript is.
And how about patents? Would you bet against me if I said that Microsoft had a bunch of patents pending related to TypeScript?
They released it under the Apache 2.0 license so patents aren't an issue, moreover typescript just emits javascript so the end result that is actually used is just plain javascript anyway.
Pointing to the Microsoft implementation does not refute the argument that you are bound to the Microsoft implementation.
Like i said, unfamiliar with the concept of open source, you see with an open source project anyone can fork the original implementation, creating their own version that they can modify, use, publish as they see fit. Here's a link to fork typescript. Alternatively you could do a git clone https://git01.codeplex.com/typescript to pull down the source and host it yourself or post it to any other code hosting service if you don't like codeplex.
The beauty of open source is that you don't have to be bound to Microsoft in any way.
Does it matter? Just build your local binary from source and use that, if you're really paranoid then create your own fork at each release, that way if for some reason they come out with a proprietary release and stop doing source releases you can use your own fork or some other community fork, that's the beauty of open source:)
He means in the 'dictating policy and direction' way.
But that wouldn't make sense because the beauty of open source is that if you don't like the direction that the project steward is taking it in you can just fork it, simple.
Slashdot Mirror
you mean like /. does in the comment header ;)
That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion
How is this 'collusion'? What are you implying they are actually doing?
but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?
Because by and large they are the biggest implementors of those technologies, it makes sense that they do it over groups who's products most people probably never use.
What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, of course nobody is forcing you to use it, if you don't see any reason to use it then don't.
or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?
No, the word 'open' is not tied to 'open source', you don't have to redefine it to use it in a context that doesn't pertain to open source.
You can't cite the multiple stores of Android as an advantage
He didn't, but nice strawman anyway :P
Exactly. As long as you stick to Google's walled garden, you're safe.
what about Amazon's app store?
Nope, the dialog is presented during the Windows installation, which is done by the end-user in very few cases, since most people don't install windows themselves.
Nope, the dialog is presented during the Windows setup, which is done by the end-user the first time they create their account and log in, the fact that most people don't install windows themselves is completely irrelevant. But i suppose you haven't actually done this which is why you didn't know.
While MS claims that one can change this during the windows installation, average users don't install windows themselves, but have someone else install it for them.
It's during setup, not installation, the setup occurs when the user creates their account and logs in for the first time, the OEM does not do that, the user does.
It amazes me how you think you are entitled to tell a server, which you are requesting data from, that it is not to remember any details of your visit.
If the server wants to keep that data and you've specified that you don't want them to then server can deny the data request, simple problem solved.
It's pretty obvious to me: Google and Facebook, two very big Microsoft competitors, get most of their revenues from online advertising.
Firstly you're wrong, Facebook isn't a Microsoft competitor, they are a partner, in fact Microsoft has a huge investment in Facebook, so either you're intentionally trying to spread FUD or you just didn't know that. As far as Google goes Microsoft makes a huge amount of money in advertising too, disallowing advertisers to acquire tracking information works the same for them in that regard.
Yes we all remember the past, Nokia was king of mobile, Apple had little more than the iPod, Microsoft was evil, Linux had almost no visible presence on consumer handhelds and the best tablet device was an abomination from HP and Microsoft, things change, even if you desperately want to believe they don't.
Its not a crime to ignore the DNT flag. AND, there can never be a law to make it a crime, as microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference.
Wrong, automatic opt-in was never a true indicator either, changing it to automatic opt-out wouldn't be any different in terms of the accuracy of it being representative of the user's preferences. But of course the first time you create an account and log in it asks you if you want to perform 'Express Setup' and explicitly states that doing so will Enable Do Not Track, so it's quite visible.
Assuming you can actually get it that fast.
The accuracy is the fundamental problem, with no error correction (or at least indications that there is an error), which is one of the biggest problems with their approach, it's worse than useless. In the protein folding experiment it got the correct answer just 13 out of 10,000 times.
Poor Microsoft, riding on apples coattails again..
And we have invented a new technology called Vertical Integration, which is phenomenal. It works like magic, you don't need OEMs, it's far more profitable, it ignores 3rd parties, it's super smart, and boy have we patented it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU
It'll be interesting to see how Microsoft manages to make this balance work
Perhaps they don't need to, maybe Desktop and Laptop software is enough for Microsoft as far as OEM licensing goes? Windows Phone hasn't done particularly well in the market so maybe it's time to try going vertically integrated, you avoid hardware fragmentation and reliance on OEMs to deliver quality products, it becomes wholly Microsoft's responsibility, they reap the benefits if they succeed and they only have themselves to blame if they fail. This leaves the OEMs with Android and perhaps things like Bada, webOS and Meego for their smartphone/tablet offerings.
The difficult task is going to be turning around the perception that this could be dumped like the Zune.
The peanut gallery was expecting a MacOS tablet rather than an over sized iPod.
People were expecting that when Steve Jobs announced the 'iPhone runs OS X' at the iPhone unveiling, only to find out shortly after that in actuality it didn't.
You still can't implement other claims from a patent and there's still EEE scenario that goes like: a) patent stuff, b) implement extensions in proprietary branch of the project without contributing to open branch, c) ???, d) PROFIT^WEXTINGUISH
Well that wouldn't be open source then would it, the solution is simple - use the open source version, why are you so desperate to use a proprietary version of it?
MS has gathered a big credit of mistrust in all these years, so it's not easy to believe in their good will now.
You don't need to, that's the whole point of open source!
But that wouldn't make sense because the beauty of open source is that if you don't like the direction that the project steward is taking it in you can just fork it, simple.
And then you not only have to maintain your code, you have to maintain the compiler too. That will help the workflow!
So gcc, llvm, javac, etc... are all bad too then.
And either doom the fork to incompatibility, or keep playing catch-up, while still being bound to Microsoft, like Mono.
Incompatibility with what? The only reason you would fork it is if you had a codebase built on it and the mainline version was generating non-compliant javascript.
Kind of like how they say 4" is the perfect screen size justified in the same way they said 3.5" was the perfect screen size. It's great to look at articles from last year making claims like:
'It makes total sense. And that is exactly why we would never see any larger screen iPhone.'
http://gizmodo.com/5847981/this-is-why-the-iphones-screen-will-always-be-35-inches
I'd agree with you, except I can't think of an open standard they supported without perverting to their advantage when they had the chance.
Apache 2.0 licensed code != open standard
Well, the Apache 2.0-licensed, publicly available (on Git) code may not get you "locked in" and "manipulated to be incompatible", but the version MS will have in IE12, with very cool extensions that they won't give the code to, or may work only on one OS, might make you sorry you jumped on the TypeScript ship.
That doesn't event make sense, if you think they are putting a version into IE then you obviously don't even know what typescript is.
And how about patents? Would you bet against me if I said that Microsoft had a bunch of patents pending related to TypeScript?
They released it under the Apache 2.0 license so patents aren't an issue, moreover typescript just emits javascript so the end result that is actually used is just plain javascript anyway.
Pointing to the Microsoft implementation does not refute the argument that you are bound to the Microsoft implementation.
Like i said, unfamiliar with the concept of open source, you see with an open source project anyone can fork the original implementation, creating their own version that they can modify, use, publish as they see fit. Here's a link to fork typescript. Alternatively you could do a git clone https://git01.codeplex.com/typescript to pull down the source and host it yourself or post it to any other code hosting service if you don't like codeplex.
The beauty of open source is that you don't have to be bound to Microsoft in any way.
Under Apache license for all future versions?
Does it matter? Just build your local binary from source and use that, if you're really paranoid then create your own fork at each release, that way if for some reason they come out with a proprietary release and stop doing source releases you can use your own fork or some other community fork, that's the beauty of open source :)
He means in the 'dictating policy and direction' way.
But that wouldn't make sense because the beauty of open source is that if you don't like the direction that the project steward is taking it in you can just fork it, simple.
What about them?