And what would you use for all of those sites and web apps that have interactive vector-based animation? This is only coming about in HTML5. And what about vector animation with synced sound? This is something SVG doesn't yet support.
And how would you do sites such as these? HTML5 should eventually get to being able to do all these but it isn't there for production use yet and the content creation tools certainly aren't up to scratch yet.
From the article and summary my own conclusion is that this is somewhat of an astroturf for Coverity and more than likely lacks any solid foundation. Certainly there may be bugs, but many are probably of the "Meh" kind.
I totally agree, the fact that they are announcing 'we found all these security bugs but we aren't going to tell you about them until google has a chance to fix them' rather than just speaking directly to google about them stinks of astroturfing.
A system so full of trip switches and self-destruct buttons that not even the producer is able to avoid triggering them.
That's absolute bullshit. Do you even know what happened here? Unauthorized firmware == ban. It's that simple, and quite frankly i prefer that than having the online component of the game full of cheaters. The side-effect you see here is because a retailer failed to honor their agreement, this is not a DRM issue, it's an issue of an opportunistic and untrustworthy retailer not anticipating the consequences of their actions.
When did it become acceptable that a big company can dictate what retailers and end-users can do with their computers which they have paid for and which are rightfully theirs?
Because it was before the release date, it was agreed that these would not be sold until that date because the product was not ready. This is entirely the fault of the retailer.
the difference here is do you ship with a driver/update disc or do you have the console download the necessary updates? obviously the infrastructure for downloading updates is already in place so it's only logical to not ship physical media.
I think the bottom line here is/should be that locking a consumer live account for inserting a purchased game is not a valid course of action.
Of course not, but as the article states, the accounts were locked for unauthorized firmware. The infrastructure wasn't ready yet but this retailer has broken the release date and sold customers an incomplete product, it's the retailers who should be held accountable.
Buying something and open-sourcing it should be considered just as legitimate an "open-source root" as building it from scratch.
Or rather the fact that whether it was conceived as an open source project (open source roots) or open sourced from a closed source project (closed source roots) is irrelevant.
No I mean so often when osx is criticized, a defect or lack of a feature is justified by comparing it to windows. Like osx doesn't need it because windows doesn't have it either.
Without this competitor taking the vast majority of the market, more development effort would be put into GIMP as it would have a much larger user base.
Any product would take a larger market share if its competition is eliminated.
Great, video on the web. Sure if your knowledge of flash doesn't extend past it's ability to be a video container then you would think it is now pointless. However flash is a lot more than that and unfortunately HTML5 content creation tools are rubbish, until such time as there is a CS-quality toolset for creating HTML5 content, SVG supporting audio, we get some method for block invasive HTML5 content, performance gets on par with flash, etc... flash will remain relevant. HTML5 should undoubtedly push flash into the past but it still needs a lot of work from many different vendors and the standards body to actually get there as a viable replacement.
No it isn't, that case was over who owned the copyrights, that isn't being disputed in this case. This is over whether those copyrights have been infringed.
Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.
I don't think you're quite getting it, the lawsuit pertains to the limewire service, a service that provides illegal content, the fact that it is open source makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The most obvious example is in TFA, did open source save the limewire service? No, hence why I said the fact that it's open source makes absolutely no difference.
You are making a marketing claim here--It is absurd to suggest that you know something about marketing that Apple doesn't.
That's not a marketing claim, it's a simple fact. No one is making a purchasing decision based on what i do with my device.
When it comes down to it, all this whining is basically "I wish Apple would decide to make less money in order to make me happy" or put another way, "I wish Apple would give me free money".
Who's asking apple to give them money? No-one, that's an idiotic statement.
As for 'Apple making less money' there's nothing to support that claim whatsoever.
Opening up the capability for people to run arbitrarily buggy/crashy/malicious code on them turns them into "things you have to be careful with" in a very real sense.
So all those android users are very real risk-takers?
Many people on this board feel understandably threatened because Apple is taking the industry in a less hackable direction. But I wonder how much of this is that the hacker community feels threatened by someone making computers and devices intuitive because that attacks the value of their expertise.
It certainly seems FAR more focused on 'apple won't let me do XYZ' than 'damn apple! they make doing XYZ too easy and user-friendly'. Apple make great devices, i bought and ipad for my mum, i later got one myself and my wife has had every iphone iteration, but the artificial limitations on them are the thing that annoys me.
No matter how skilled and well meaning you are, what you do with your iProduct affects how that product is perceived in the marketplace.
Rubbish, what i do with my device has no impact on how it's perceived in the marketplace.
So if you don't want to alter your stuff, that's fine, all you need to do is to do nothing, but to say that others shouldn't because you don't feel like it is rather deplorable on your part.
I read it as him not having any self-control to stop himself from hacking, as opposed to him 'not feeling like it'. But then there are many groups of people who will blame others for their lack of self-control and demand that procedures/laws/enforcement be put in place to save them from themselves, even if they know that's what's happening.
your phone that costs $500 and requires a $2,000 service contract, or are you just trying to make a point in the most ridiculous way possible?
Sounds like you're trying to make your point in the most ridiculous way possible, i mean who is paying $500 for a phone AND a ~$2000 service contract, it's one or the other.
How so? That's just the publication of source code. You certainly can't - for example - provide/run an application/service that infringes the patents, copyrights, etc... of another party just because it's open source. Otherwise all limewire would have to do is open-source their software and they'd be back in business.
Slashdot Mirror
If your business site requires Flash to view (specifically, the "no Flash==blank page" type), you're not getting my business
Really? People are actually discriminating based on their choice of web technologies now?
And what would you use for all of those sites and web apps that have interactive vector-based animation? This is only coming about in HTML5. And what about vector animation with synced sound? This is something SVG doesn't yet support.
And how would you do sites such as these? HTML5 should eventually get to being able to do all these but it isn't there for production use yet and the content creation tools certainly aren't up to scratch yet.
There is simply no need, as any site worthy of a mobile device, offers a mobile version, which never uses flash.
Worthy of a mobile device? What does that even mean?
From the article and summary my own conclusion is that this is somewhat of an astroturf for Coverity and more than likely lacks any solid foundation. Certainly there may be bugs, but many are probably of the "Meh" kind.
I totally agree, the fact that they are announcing 'we found all these security bugs but we aren't going to tell you about them until google has a chance to fix them' rather than just speaking directly to google about them stinks of astroturfing.
A system so full of trip switches and self-destruct buttons that not even the producer is able to avoid triggering them.
That's absolute bullshit. Do you even know what happened here? Unauthorized firmware == ban. It's that simple, and quite frankly i prefer that than having the online component of the game full of cheaters. The side-effect you see here is because a retailer failed to honor their agreement, this is not a DRM issue, it's an issue of an opportunistic and untrustworthy retailer not anticipating the consequences of their actions.
When did it become acceptable that a big company can dictate what retailers and end-users can do with their computers which they have paid for and which are rightfully theirs?
Because it was before the release date, it was agreed that these would not be sold until that date because the product was not ready. This is entirely the fault of the retailer.
So the end user has to complain to the retailer, who then must go through the process - with Microsoft - of having the user's account re-instated.
the difference here is do you ship with a driver/update disc or do you have the console download the necessary updates? obviously the infrastructure for downloading updates is already in place so it's only logical to not ship physical media.
I think the bottom line here is/should be that locking a consumer live account for inserting a purchased game is not a valid course of action.
Of course not, but as the article states, the accounts were locked for unauthorized firmware. The infrastructure wasn't ready yet but this retailer has broken the release date and sold customers an incomplete product, it's the retailers who should be held accountable.
oh no, you're so inept that you can't comprehend the post because of a rogue apostrophe.
Buying something and open-sourcing it should be considered just as legitimate an "open-source root" as building it from scratch.
Or rather the fact that whether it was conceived as an open source project (open source roots) or open sourced from a closed source project (closed source roots) is irrelevant.
Probably not many.
Well 88 were found in the kernel, which is a linux kernel. But who knows how many of those are in the actual linux kernel mainline.
Have you played CODMW2 on 360?
Yes, regularly.
Plenty of cheaters.
How so? Sounds like bullshit.
DRM'd up the ass.
What does that even mean?
No I mean so often when osx is criticized, a defect or lack of a feature is justified by comparing it to windows. Like osx doesn't need it because windows doesn't have it either.
bubble?
Without this competitor taking the vast majority of the market, more development effort would be put into GIMP as it would have a much larger user base.
Any product would take a larger market share if its competition is eliminated.
HTML5 video is here.
Adobe has no further reason to exist.
Great, video on the web. Sure if your knowledge of flash doesn't extend past it's ability to be a video container then you would think it is now pointless. However flash is a lot more than that and unfortunately HTML5 content creation tools are rubbish, until such time as there is a CS-quality toolset for creating HTML5 content, SVG supporting audio, we get some method for block invasive HTML5 content, performance gets on par with flash, etc... flash will remain relevant. HTML5 should undoubtedly push flash into the past but it still needs a lot of work from many different vendors and the standards body to actually get there as a viable replacement.
Uh, this lawsuit is exactly like SCO/IBM
No it isn't, that case was over who owned the copyrights, that isn't being disputed in this case. This is over whether those copyrights have been infringed.
Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.
I don't think you're quite getting it, the lawsuit pertains to the limewire service, a service that provides illegal content, the fact that it is open source makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The most obvious example is in TFA, did open source save the limewire service? No, hence why I said the fact that it's open source makes absolutely no difference.
You are making a marketing claim here--It is absurd to suggest that you know something about marketing that Apple doesn't.
That's not a marketing claim, it's a simple fact. No one is making a purchasing decision based on what i do with my device.
When it comes down to it, all this whining is basically "I wish Apple would decide to make less money in order to make me happy" or put another way, "I wish Apple would give me free money".
Who's asking apple to give them money? No-one, that's an idiotic statement.
As for 'Apple making less money' there's nothing to support that claim whatsoever.
than Apple does...I assume you are sitting on $100 billion because of that, right?
Nice attempt to justify your failure of an argument.
That's exactly my point! See the posts I was replying too, open source provides no protection against these sorts of lawsuits.
Opening up the capability for people to run arbitrarily buggy/crashy/malicious code on them turns them into "things you have to be careful with" in a very real sense.
So all those android users are very real risk-takers?
Many people on this board feel understandably threatened because Apple is taking the industry in a less hackable direction. But I wonder how much of this is that the hacker community feels threatened by someone making computers and devices intuitive because that attacks the value of their expertise.
It certainly seems FAR more focused on 'apple won't let me do XYZ' than 'damn apple! they make doing XYZ too easy and user-friendly'. Apple make great devices, i bought and ipad for my mum, i later got one myself and my wife has had every iphone iteration, but the artificial limitations on them are the thing that annoys me.
No matter how skilled and well meaning you are, what you do with your iProduct affects how that product is perceived in the marketplace.
Rubbish, what i do with my device has no impact on how it's perceived in the marketplace.
So if you don't want to alter your stuff, that's fine, all you need to do is to do nothing, but to say that others shouldn't because you don't feel like it is rather deplorable on your part.
I read it as him not having any self-control to stop himself from hacking, as opposed to him 'not feeling like it'. But then there are many groups of people who will blame others for their lack of self-control and demand that procedures/laws/enforcement be put in place to save them from themselves, even if they know that's what's happening.
your phone that costs $500 and requires a $2,000 service contract, or are you just trying to make a point in the most ridiculous way possible?
Sounds like you're trying to make your point in the most ridiculous way possible, i mean who is paying $500 for a phone AND a ~$2000 service contract, it's one or the other.
Actually that does matter. In Bernstein v. United_States the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that source code is Constitutionally protected speech.
How so? That's just the publication of source code. You certainly can't - for example - provide/run an application/service that infringes the patents, copyrights, etc... of another party just because it's open source. Otherwise all limewire would have to do is open-source their software and they'd be back in business.