This is *exactly* the kind of thing Microsoft has done in the past. Not just once, but repeatedly. The most obvious one was Java
That was adding their own proprietary extensions to existing proprietary technology, this is releasing their proprietary technology as open source. Not quite sure what you're suggesting is similar between the two much less "exactly" the same kind of thing.
And there's still nothing preventing them from changing their attitude and discontinuing support
Discontinuing support for what? If it's open source then the open source philosophy of maintaining it yourself or paying somebody to do it applies. If you require corporate support for open source code then what is the point of open source at all?
I don't mind ads based on what I post. I mind ads based on what I *don't* post, i.e. data that's extracted from my behavior. What I post is public. What I don't post is private. Not that hard.
Your behavior is public though. If you're not putting it out there then there is no data for them to extract.
Privacy is a RIGHT that should be compromised only under specific circumstances, at my discretion.
That's a very broad statement, you don't have a right to privacy in everything you do. I'm not sure why you would have an expectation of privacy with things you put on the public internet or when you go out shopping in public places. If you want privacy then use encryption, once you send data out on to the public net it is going through many hops that you don't control, you should be assuming that data is not private unless you are using an encrypted channel of communication between yourself and the target and - obviously - that you trust that target to keep that data private.
From a security perspective, even just having and being able to inspect the code is insufficient if you need top-notch security: you had better also be compiling that code yourself.
With a verified compiler no less. We have seen ever more sophisticated malware these days, certainly a malicious compiler could easily slip vulnerabilities into the binary.
Strange that AMD offered Nvidia to be a part of development and Nvidia said no.
Why support a vendor-specific API when you can improve the existing vendor-agnostic ones? DirectX 12 introduces many of the types of improvements that Mantle does and OpenGL 4.5 has also moved in that direction too. The typical performance improvement we are seeing with Mantle is in the 5-10% range and squeezing 5-10% extra out of OpenGL using the new direct state access to avoid binding overhead is pretty straightforward.
But it does if you're not on a CGNAT, which is most people.
and in my experience, the upgrade from CGNAT to a static IP runs more than "only a dollar or two per month".
Even the worst case I've seen was only $10 a month, really not that big a deal if you value storing your data on your system.
True, if you happen to live in a country where CGNAT and other blocks on incoming connections are uncommon, and if you are willing to buy a low-power server to be left on all the time (as opposed to suspending when inactive), then you can sync to home.
Get a NAS, they are a cheap low power server and you're set. If you are behind a CGNAT then get a static IP. It is nowhere near cost-prohibitive.
But just because your ISP doesn't use CGNAT today doesn't mean it'll continue to not use CGNAT next year.
Then I'll pay a couple bucks a month for a static IP, it's no big deal. CGNAT is just a stop gap to resolve the IPv4 issue in the interim anyway.
Well the original comment was that you should sync with your computer. Which is perfectly possible and is of minimal cost, you can even use a dynamic DNS service (dirt cheap at only a dollar or two per month) so your assertion that it is cost prohibitive certainly does not seem to be true. Rather using some existing free service requires to effort from the user so they take the path of least resistance, but that doesn't exactly do anything to refute the original post.
Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite.
And yet the price of physical products is more than just the physical resources to produce them, all the development costs are amortized in price of the product as well. The cost of the physical component of virtual goods does not need to be included in the price but that doesn't mean all the development costs are free.
People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous.
Yes totally, Microsoft isn't posting record profits, Oracle, VMWare, Symantec, Adobe, Autodesk totally dont make any money selling software and iTunes isn't making any money. Seriously you couldn't be more out of touch with reality.
ISPs that use CGNAT charge extra to forward a port.
That 'you may have an ISP that is using a CGNAT so in that case it could cost a little more' is a far cry from 'it doesn't work if you're behind a NAT'.
That doesn't work if your home computer cannot accept incoming TCP connections due to being behind NAT.
There are lots of situations in which it doesn't work but enumerating them is pointless, rather look at the ways in which it can be made to work. For example using port forwarding.
I bought a computer that comes with shitty Windows 8 installed. I paid the "Microsoft Tax" at the OEM level.
If you don't want it then get a refund for it, there is lots of documentation on the net about how to go about this.
Fucking excuse me if I prefer Win 7 - which I also paid an OEM license for 5 years ago.
So now you're discovering the difference between and OEM license and a retail license.
Wait you want me to pay a THIRD time?
Well you can get a refund on the first OEM charge so that brings it to 2 times. And if you had the forethought to buy a retail copy instead of an OEM you could still use that license, though maybe 2 OEM copies is cheaper than a retail? If so then the fact that you pay twice is irrelevant.
“As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes product key activation data voluntarily provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given product key is activated”
In other words, Microsoft Windows is bugged and phones home...
And how do you suppose they are going to activate the product over the internet if you don't provide them a product key and an IP address with which to communicate with you?
Uh it's right there, in the link under the aptly named "License.txt".
Copyright (c) Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Microsoft Open Technologies would like to thank its contributors, a list
of whom are at http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex....
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may
obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions
and limitations under the License.
Isaac committed a change to remove the gendered pronoun.
No that change was submitted by Alex Gaynor, rejected by Ben and accepted by Isaac.
If I saw that change in my codebase, I'd be having a standing meeting really quick.
With who?
Changing a pronoun is not worth of developer resources.
It's not up to you, Joyent or Ben Noordhuis to dictate what a developer does.
I would have reversed it too -- we don't need everyone's principled opinions infiltrating the codebase and starting problems between people's values and beliefs.
Personally I wouldn't have spent effort making the change but I don't see any reason to revert it either.
You need to get it through your head that monopolies are not illegal by themselves. The abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
Right and leveraging a monopoly (itunes music store) in order to gain advantage in another market (portable media players) is illegal.
Fact is there were and still are lots of alternatives to music purchasing
Irrelevant, there was no viable competition, just like in the 90s with Windows when there were tons of alternative PC operating systems none of which were viable alternatives to Windows.
The rest of your statements are sophomoric. You're not old enough to remember the bad old days of Microsoft.
Wrong, this sort of dismissal just demonstrates your inability to refute them. Obviously it is you who fails to understand what those days were like. Feel free to try to refute them, but obviously you can't refute facts.
Go and educate yourself on monopolies and anti-trust rather than just projecting your incorrect idea of what they should be.
Samsung? little, it's more for the FOSS tinkerer concerned with binary blobs that don't always work between OS revisions.
Right, which answers the question of why they don't do it.
The benefit being porting the latest Lollipop to an unsupported 3 year old handset rather than dumping it to landfill when its 24 month contract expires.
No, Google Play Services was created so you could run the latest applications with the latest features without having to update the operating system, that was the whole point of it. It's not garbage just because it can't run the latest OS.
Slashdot Mirror
This is *exactly* the kind of thing Microsoft has done in the past. Not just once, but repeatedly. The most obvious one was Java
That was adding their own proprietary extensions to existing proprietary technology, this is releasing their proprietary technology as open source. Not quite sure what you're suggesting is similar between the two much less "exactly" the same kind of thing.
And there's still nothing preventing them from changing their attitude and discontinuing support
Discontinuing support for what? If it's open source then the open source philosophy of maintaining it yourself or paying somebody to do it applies. If you require corporate support for open source code then what is the point of open source at all?
Every iPod ever made could play non-DRMd MP3 files. If Real was in fact trying to sell MP3 files their wouldn't be a problem.
No, even Apple made it quite clear that the music industry was the reason they had to sell DRM'd music, why would Real be exempt from that?
The best software to revive old Hardware ? Linux.
Well that depends on the hardware, it's highly likely you won't find Linux drivers for that hardware making it pretty much useless.
I don't mind ads based on what I post. I mind ads based on what I *don't* post, i.e. data that's extracted from my behavior. What I post is public. What I don't post is private. Not that hard.
Your behavior is public though. If you're not putting it out there then there is no data for them to extract.
Privacy is a RIGHT that should be compromised only under specific circumstances, at my discretion.
That's a very broad statement, you don't have a right to privacy in everything you do. I'm not sure why you would have an expectation of privacy with things you put on the public internet or when you go out shopping in public places. If you want privacy then use encryption, once you send data out on to the public net it is going through many hops that you don't control, you should be assuming that data is not private unless you are using an encrypted channel of communication between yourself and the target and - obviously - that you trust that target to keep that data private.
But we have seen GHash hit the 51% mark a few times already...oh but we trust them not to do anything malicious.
From a security perspective, even just having and being able to inspect the code is insufficient if you need top-notch security: you had better also be compiling that code yourself.
With a verified compiler no less. We have seen ever more sophisticated malware these days, certainly a malicious compiler could easily slip vulnerabilities into the binary.
Also from your link:
(transitive) To cancel or end a scheduled event, project or course
Strange that AMD offered Nvidia to be a part of development and Nvidia said no.
Why support a vendor-specific API when you can improve the existing vendor-agnostic ones? DirectX 12 introduces many of the types of improvements that Mantle does and OpenGL 4.5 has also moved in that direction too. The typical performance improvement we are seeing with Mantle is in the 5-10% range and squeezing 5-10% extra out of OpenGL using the new direct state access to avoid binding overhead is pretty straightforward.
Dynamic DNS doesn't work on CGNAT ISPs
But it does if you're not on a CGNAT, which is most people.
and in my experience, the upgrade from CGNAT to a static IP runs more than "only a dollar or two per month".
Even the worst case I've seen was only $10 a month, really not that big a deal if you value storing your data on your system.
True, if you happen to live in a country where CGNAT and other blocks on incoming connections are uncommon, and if you are willing to buy a low-power server to be left on all the time (as opposed to suspending when inactive), then you can sync to home.
Get a NAS, they are a cheap low power server and you're set. If you are behind a CGNAT then get a static IP. It is nowhere near cost-prohibitive.
But just because your ISP doesn't use CGNAT today doesn't mean it'll continue to not use CGNAT next year.
Then I'll pay a couple bucks a month for a static IP, it's no big deal. CGNAT is just a stop gap to resolve the IPv4 issue in the interim anyway.
Well the original comment was that you should sync with your computer. Which is perfectly possible and is of minimal cost, you can even use a dynamic DNS service (dirt cheap at only a dollar or two per month) so your assertion that it is cost prohibitive certainly does not seem to be true. Rather using some existing free service requires to effort from the user so they take the path of least resistance, but that doesn't exactly do anything to refute the original post.
Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite.
And yet the price of physical products is more than just the physical resources to produce them, all the development costs are amortized in price of the product as well. The cost of the physical component of virtual goods does not need to be included in the price but that doesn't mean all the development costs are free.
People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous.
Yes totally, Microsoft isn't posting record profits, Oracle, VMWare, Symantec, Adobe, Autodesk totally dont make any money selling software and iTunes isn't making any money. Seriously you couldn't be more out of touch with reality.
Sure, as long as he receives adequate compensation for the time, effort, and resources he went through for that return.
When do you ever get that when you return anything?
"Windows 8 Tells Microsoft About Everything You Install, Not Very Securely"
Well that's completely unrelated to your first comment, not sure if you understand that or just want to now discuss something else.
Assuming you read the article, you'll see it is SmartScreen, which you can turn off.
ISPs that use CGNAT charge extra to forward a port.
That 'you may have an ISP that is using a CGNAT so in that case it could cost a little more' is a far cry from 'it doesn't work if you're behind a NAT'.
That's why it should sync with YOUR computer, not the global corporate overlord's computer.
Or encrypt the data with your own encryption key and store it with whatever cloud storage provider you have chosen.
That doesn't work if your home computer cannot accept incoming TCP connections due to being behind NAT.
There are lots of situations in which it doesn't work but enumerating them is pointless, rather look at the ways in which it can be made to work. For example using port forwarding.
So get windows, unless you've got a better solution?
I bought a computer that comes with shitty Windows 8 installed. I paid the "Microsoft Tax" at the OEM level.
If you don't want it then get a refund for it, there is lots of documentation on the net about how to go about this.
Fucking excuse me if I prefer Win 7 - which I also paid an OEM license for 5 years ago.
So now you're discovering the difference between and OEM license and a retail license.
Wait you want me to pay a THIRD time?
Well you can get a refund on the first OEM charge so that brings it to 2 times. And if you had the forethought to buy a retail copy instead of an OEM you could still use that license, though maybe 2 OEM copies is cheaper than a retail? If so then the fact that you pay twice is irrelevant.
“As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes product key activation data voluntarily provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given product key is activated”
In other words, Microsoft Windows is bugged and phones home ...
And how do you suppose they are going to activate the product over the internet if you don't provide them a product key and an IP address with which to communicate with you?
What's the license?
Uh it's right there, in the link under the aptly named "License.txt".
Copyright (c) Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. Microsoft Open Technologies would like to thank its contributors, a list of whom are at http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex....
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
Isaac committed a change to remove the gendered pronoun.
No that change was submitted by Alex Gaynor, rejected by Ben and accepted by Isaac.
If I saw that change in my codebase, I'd be having a standing meeting really quick.
With who?
Changing a pronoun is not worth of developer resources.
It's not up to you, Joyent or Ben Noordhuis to dictate what a developer does.
I would have reversed it too -- we don't need everyone's principled opinions infiltrating the codebase and starting problems between people's values and beliefs.
Personally I wouldn't have spent effort making the change but I don't see any reason to revert it either.
You need to get it through your head that monopolies are not illegal by themselves. The abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
Right and leveraging a monopoly (itunes music store) in order to gain advantage in another market (portable media players) is illegal.
Fact is there were and still are lots of alternatives to music purchasing
Irrelevant, there was no viable competition, just like in the 90s with Windows when there were tons of alternative PC operating systems none of which were viable alternatives to Windows.
The rest of your statements are sophomoric. You're not old enough to remember the bad old days of Microsoft.
Wrong, this sort of dismissal just demonstrates your inability to refute them. Obviously it is you who fails to understand what those days were like. Feel free to try to refute them, but obviously you can't refute facts.
Go and educate yourself on monopolies and anti-trust rather than just projecting your incorrect idea of what they should be.
Samsung? little, it's more for the FOSS tinkerer concerned with binary blobs that don't always work between OS revisions.
Right, which answers the question of why they don't do it.
The benefit being porting the latest Lollipop to an unsupported 3 year old handset rather than dumping it to landfill when its 24 month contract expires.
No, Google Play Services was created so you could run the latest applications with the latest features without having to update the operating system, that was the whole point of it. It's not garbage just because it can't run the latest OS.