Yes they are. The new style of design allows for less borders between boxes which makes screens more efficient in how they use space. Being able to visually comprehend more on a screen occupying the same physical space is an upgrade.
Moreover once you introduce touch and thus have an inaccurate pointing device borderless works far better since you want the pointing device to be closest center not border and except for circles that's not going to be the same thing.
I had the right hardware for Windows 8, a capacitive / resistive touch screen with a detachable (or swivel keyboard) and it was much nicer than Windows 7. The Windows crowd is incredibly conservative about change. I'm hoping Microsoft helps break them of that.
True. Good point. AFAIK the way Microsoft handles that is you send what you want. Exchange forwards the email to Microsoft. The recipient gets a link they can only open via. their Microsoft Live account. For those with servers using Windows Azure Rights Management it goes through transparently.
So still annoying but getting better. Main thing is it is part of Outlook.
You are right enforcement is difficult. The problem is upstream.
1) We need to have a discussion if as a society we want software patents to exist at all. We may want to consider software to be more like a book and so simply not subject to patents at all. 2) Assuming we do the rules regarding patenting math / code need to be tightened. Most people in the tech field what an innovation to have to be far greater to be worthy of a patent. 3) For this to happen the patent office doesn't do enough research. They need to verify originality. Also going back to the policy that a patent requires submitting a functional prototype. They also can help out in determining if a violation is taking place in advance rather than this being a function of the courts. 4) However they can't do this because there are too many patents. Patents are fundamentally too cheap. Patents need to be much much more expensive to pay for the research requires to enforce 1-3. 5) There needs to be better good faith licensing terms like in Europe. Violations need to be sanely priced but easier to prove.
The big fish hate the current patent regime to the point Obama and many Democrats made a stink about it. The problem for patents are centered on tech and that's a Democratic constituency. The move for more aggressive enforcement is really centered on a group of Republican judges.
I've always thought the best people to handle community signatures is banks. Banks are already trusted. Banks are used to and setup for verifying identity. Generate a key on USB and submit to a bank which verifies your real life keys for a marginal fee. They could also optionally store a copy of the private key for you in case of loss.
For not tied to your real life accounts... there is no need for verification the email provider can just self sign.
I agree with your post. In the 1990s there was a lot of enthusiasm around crypto.
I think what's happening though is groups like Apple and Google have made crypto pretty easy. Since the original article mentions email, for example in Apple's standard / free / included mail.app I can easily:
a) self sign a certificate and include the public key in my email b) send an encrypted email to anyone who has ever sent me their certificate
Similarly with the iPhone / iPad application. That's a pretty good implementation. It isn't perfect since it isn't obvious to the user how to move certificates around systems so multiple devices does lose some user friendliness. This all works automatically with Exchange.
So I think we are getting user friendly it is just taking a long time. Email is an area where I blame Microsoft for not acting like a leader and driving standards.
The Debian developers for whom we have statistics are the people who put together Debian. But there is a lot of overlap most Debian packages are maintained by someone closely associated with the group that writes the software that words on Debian.
Originally we were talking about some fairly mundane features. You aren't. You are talking about stuff that really is fairly complex, I'd say more SaaS than IaaS/PaaS.
Site Recovery is an Azure public cloud recovery solution. If I'm running a private copy of Azure then either:
a) I want to recover to the public Azure in which case Microsoft's Site Recovery works fine b) I want to recover to another private data center in which I want to use a clustering / replication strategy.
AzureAD requires contracts and 3rd party access to work. I imagine Microsoft could give away the management solution but it wouldn't connect to anything.
I don't really see the problem. Having a private Azure and then having Microsoft manage something like my connections to 3rd party SaaS providers doesn't really give them access to much except central access to employee accounts, and those could be hashed to be worthless.
Absolutely I agree that private Azure isn't 100% the same as public but mostly the advantages are on the private side.
Did Bing suck. I did the Bing vs. Google head to head test about 18 month back a few times. (looks like it might still be online at: http://www.bingiton.com/ And I most typically scored 3-Google, 2-Bing with often Bing having some interesting results Google didn't have. For example Bing tends to do better in hitting a better diversity of current information. Bing may be a bit behind possibly and I'm not even comfortable saying that, but sucks no.
ultimately price didn't matter since OEM licenses for Windows were so cheap that people wouldn't even notice the cost built in to the PC
Exactly! That was unexpected. The assumption had been that the Windows license would be around $150-300 where there would be some room to compete on price. The fact that Microsoft went even cheaper than their standard pricing for netbooks was just devastating to Linux on the desktop.
always been a lot of development going on it hasn't been particularly unified so there is a lot of duplicated effort in order to do a bunch of things in slightly different ways.
Quite true. The diversity has allowed the Linux community to experiment and bounce back from failures. But it has also been tremendously taxing on a limited developer base.
I'm not sure if I see the employment requirement. I know for a fact that the enterprise SDK is usable for 1099s and not just W2s. Moreover even if true, the FSF could just ask Apple and get an exemption for themselves. Apple has a long track record of having strict rules and then exempting on a case by case basis where they believed it was good for the ecosystem.
The disruptive aspect of it was supposed to be "freedom"
Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development. The assumption was that given Microsoft dominant position they would use it to raise prices sharply and grow revenue and margins not focus on almost monopolistic marketshare. In other words do on the desktop something much more similar to what they did on server. And then like server Linux would be a cheaper alternative.
Similar this low price strategy meant they didn't have to stratify. Microsoft's with XP was able to unifying their much more robust commercial OS (Win NT 4.0 / 2000) with their terrible home / small business OS (Win 95, 98, ME). They then were able to advance quickly in areas like programming languages (Visual Basic, C#) and create a robust and friendly development platform. They were more successful with web (IE 3.0, 4.0, 4.5)...
In other words in places where Microsoft could have tripped they didn't. Also there was a tendency to underestimate how far ahead Microsoft was on areas like Office Suites so even with FreeSoftware improving at 150-250% of the speed that Office was the number of years required to catch up and overtake was too high.
___
Freedom was generally seen as a means to achieve collaboration and cooperation. It the server space it did. In the desktop space it did but even with collaboration and cooperation Microsoft still outpaced the FreeSoftware community.
iOS is the epitome of everything we need to avoid to have a free society: a single gatekeeper who claims it is illegal for you to even install software they don't approve on your own device.
The FSF could rectify this easily by running their own enterprise server: https://developer.apple.com/pr... for iOS. Then they let people point at their servers and not Apple's (or in addition to Apple's). It could be as open or as closed as they want it to be. Why year after year after year complain about this problem when you could just fix it?
I've liked the FSF since about 1990 but as a public interest lobby lying doesn't help your cause. I don't get even if they don't want to fix it why they can't accurately describe the situation with iOS.
I lost you. You were asking for statistics and I was saying that we have statistics for Debian Developers. Now you are asking for names, names of who for what?
Alfresco is much more serious than what's he asking for. That's a step up from SharePoint. A typical use case would be: company X wants legal to be able to access documents by different dimensions than how they were generated...
Wow are you paranoid! "OpenRC was a good idea, it truly was init.d version 3.0" is my devious plot to discourage people from trying OpenRC?
OpenRC is not keeping up with systemd. As a replacement for initd it is doing fine. That's just not terribly relevant long term because upstream is creating systemd dependencies. Whether a few thousand people do or do not use OpenRC doesn't change that.
systemd is not merely an init system. It is a process management system. Initialization is just one of the states that it manages. The fact that you don't understand the distinction is a start to what is terribly wrong.
In fact it is the portability of software that made UNIX possible and popular to begin with.
No it wasn't. What made UNIX popular was its ability to run on a variety of hardware and thus cut hardware costs, its ties to networking and its PC like boot and configurability. POSIX was a response to the popularity of the commercial Unixs. POSIX likely helped big box UNIX some but certainly it was far from definitive for UNIX's success. As demonstrated by the fact that the most popular UNIX by far, Linux, was not a member of the Open Group.
Why should your software not adhere to standards?
I don't have a problem with standards. I have a problem with a standard designed to solve problems that don't exist anymore. Bad standards are often worse than no standards.
It is equivalent to saying that your website 'works best with IE6' in the application realm.
I wasn't a big fan of IE based websites but had Microsoft been invested in the web and LAMP not existed... the web could have turned into an IE affair. Firefox's popularity was a response to Microsoft understanding that the migration to web was bad for them even if the migration was to IE. For them, better IE than Netscape but better Windows native client than IE.
For instance, to compile gnome now on OpenBSD you need to add an emulation layer for the systemd parts because systemd CANNOT BE PORTED to BSD
That's soft of correct. Something like systemd can be. I mean systemd itself came from launchd which is used by a BSD. There exists a systemd shim for BSD. But ultimately it is quite possible that most Linux software will require a substantial port to work under BSD, very similar to what exists for Windows and OSX.
The thing is these problems were solved so many years ago, and now thanks to Red Hat and their incompetent engineers everything is going to be broke and incompatible.
I think you may want to consider the distinction between a) disagrees with you on tradeoffs b) incompetent
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they are. The new style of design allows for less borders between boxes which makes screens more efficient in how they use space. Being able to visually comprehend more on a screen occupying the same physical space is an upgrade.
Moreover once you introduce touch and thus have an inaccurate pointing device borderless works far better since you want the pointing device to be closest center not border and except for circles that's not going to be the same thing.
I had the right hardware for Windows 8, a capacitive / resistive touch screen with a detachable (or swivel keyboard) and it was much nicer than Windows 7. The Windows crowd is incredibly conservative about change. I'm hoping Microsoft helps break them of that.
True. Good point. AFAIK the way Microsoft handles that is you send what you want. Exchange forwards the email to Microsoft. The recipient gets a link they can only open via. their Microsoft Live account. For those with servers using Windows Azure Rights Management it goes through transparently.
So still annoying but getting better. Main thing is it is part of Outlook.
You are right enforcement is difficult. The problem is upstream.
1) We need to have a discussion if as a society we want software patents to exist at all. We may want to consider software to be more like a book and so simply not subject to patents at all.
2) Assuming we do the rules regarding patenting math / code need to be tightened. Most people in the tech field what an innovation to have to be far greater to be worthy of a patent.
3) For this to happen the patent office doesn't do enough research. They need to verify originality. Also going back to the policy that a patent requires submitting a functional prototype. They also can help out in determining if a violation is taking place in advance rather than this being a function of the courts.
4) However they can't do this because there are too many patents. Patents are fundamentally too cheap. Patents need to be much much more expensive to pay for the research requires to enforce 1-3.
5) There needs to be better good faith licensing terms like in Europe. Violations need to be sanely priced but easier to prove.
The big fish hate the current patent regime to the point Obama and many Democrats made a stink about it. The problem for patents are centered on tech and that's a Democratic constituency. The move for more aggressive enforcement is really centered on a group of Republican judges.
I've always thought the best people to handle community signatures is banks. Banks are already trusted. Banks are used to and setup for verifying identity. Generate a key on USB and submit to a bank which verifies your real life keys for a marginal fee. They could also optionally store a copy of the private key for you in case of loss.
For not tied to your real life accounts... there is no need for verification the email provider can just self sign.
Exchange has an easy to use encryption feature so that's not true.
I agree with your post. In the 1990s there was a lot of enthusiasm around crypto.
I think what's happening though is groups like Apple and Google have made crypto pretty easy. Since the original article mentions email, for example in Apple's standard / free / included mail.app I can easily:
a) self sign a certificate and include the public key in my email
b) send an encrypted email to anyone who has ever sent me their certificate
Similarly with the iPhone / iPad application. That's a pretty good implementation. It isn't perfect since it isn't obvious to the user how to move certificates around systems so multiple devices does lose some user friendliness. This all works automatically with Exchange.
So I think we are getting user friendly it is just taking a long time. Email is an area where I blame Microsoft for not acting like a leader and driving standards.
The Debian developers for whom we have statistics are the people who put together Debian. But there is a lot of overlap most Debian packages are maintained by someone closely associated with the group that writes the software that words on Debian.
Originally we were talking about some fairly mundane features. You aren't. You are talking about stuff that really is fairly complex, I'd say more SaaS than IaaS/PaaS.
Site Recovery is an Azure public cloud recovery solution. If I'm running a private copy of Azure then either:
a) I want to recover to the public Azure in which case Microsoft's Site Recovery works fine
b) I want to recover to another private data center in which I want to use a clustering / replication strategy.
AzureAD requires contracts and 3rd party access to work. I imagine Microsoft could give away the management solution but it wouldn't connect to anything.
I don't really see the problem. Having a private Azure and then having Microsoft manage something like my connections to 3rd party SaaS providers doesn't really give them access to much except central access to employee accounts, and those could be hashed to be worthless.
Absolutely I agree that private Azure isn't 100% the same as public but mostly the advantages are on the private side.
To build any good model you want a dev set, a test set and a blind sets. Azure should split the data out by default.
Did Bing suck. I did the Bing vs. Google head to head test about 18 month back a few times. (looks like it might still be online at: http://www.bingiton.com/ And I most typically scored 3-Google, 2-Bing with often Bing having some interesting results Google didn't have. For example Bing tends to do better in hitting a better diversity of current information. Bing may be a bit behind possibly and I'm not even comfortable saying that, but sucks no.
SharePoint will do that.
For that matter you can run the entire Azure suite in your private location: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Exactly! That was unexpected. The assumption had been that the Windows license would be around $150-300 where there would be some room to compete on price. The fact that Microsoft went even cheaper than their standard pricing for netbooks was just devastating to Linux on the desktop.
Quite true. The diversity has allowed the Linux community to experiment and bounce back from failures. But it has also been tremendously taxing on a limited developer base.
I'm not sure if I see the employment requirement. I know for a fact that the enterprise SDK is usable for 1099s and not just W2s. Moreover even if true, the FSF could just ask Apple and get an exemption for themselves. Apple has a long track record of having strict rules and then exempting on a case by case basis where they believed it was good for the ecosystem.
Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development. The assumption was that given Microsoft dominant position they would use it to raise prices sharply and grow revenue and margins not focus on almost monopolistic marketshare. In other words do on the desktop something much more similar to what they did on server. And then like server Linux would be a cheaper alternative.
Similar this low price strategy meant they didn't have to stratify. Microsoft's with XP was able to unifying their much more robust commercial OS (Win NT 4.0 / 2000) with their terrible home / small business OS (Win 95, 98, ME). They then were able to advance quickly in areas like programming languages (Visual Basic, C#) and create a robust and friendly development platform. They were more successful with web (IE 3.0, 4.0, 4.5)...
In other words in places where Microsoft could have tripped they didn't. Also there was a tendency to underestimate how far ahead Microsoft was on areas like Office Suites so even with FreeSoftware improving at 150-250% of the speed that Office was the number of years required to catch up and overtake was too high.
___
Freedom was generally seen as a means to achieve collaboration and cooperation. It the server space it did. In the desktop space it did but even with collaboration and cooperation Microsoft still outpaced the FreeSoftware community.
I don't get the FSF on this
The FSF could rectify this easily by running their own enterprise server: https://developer.apple.com/pr... for iOS. Then they let people point at their servers and not Apple's (or in addition to Apple's). It could be as open or as closed as they want it to be. Why year after year after year complain about this problem when you could just fix it?
I've liked the FSF since about 1990 but as a public interest lobby lying doesn't help your cause. I don't get even if they don't want to fix it why they can't accurately describe the situation with iOS.
I lost you. You were asking for statistics and I was saying that we have statistics for Debian Developers. Now you are asking for names, names of who for what?
Alfresco is much more serious than what's he asking for. That's a step up from SharePoint. A typical use case would be: company X wants legal to be able to access documents by different dimensions than how they were generated...
It is built into SharePoint / Office the same way if everything is configured right.
It is. That was sloppy on part I was mainly making the point that systemd does quite a bit more than initialize and shutdown.
At least on Gentoo OpenRC uses the /etc/init.d directories.
That's just not true. Debian stable is probably on par with RHEL. It certainly was slower than many of the others that were more fluid.
Anyway you don't really have a point. You are just spouting insults.
Wow are you paranoid! "OpenRC was a good idea, it truly was init.d version 3.0" is my devious plot to discourage people from trying OpenRC?
OpenRC is not keeping up with systemd. As a replacement for initd it is doing fine. That's just not terribly relevant long term because upstream is creating systemd dependencies. Whether a few thousand people do or do not use OpenRC doesn't change that.
systemd is not merely an init system. It is a process management system. Initialization is just one of the states that it manages. The fact that you don't understand the distinction is a start to what is terribly wrong.
No it wasn't. What made UNIX popular was its ability to run on a variety of hardware and thus cut hardware costs, its ties to networking and its PC like boot and configurability. POSIX was a response to the popularity of the commercial Unixs. POSIX likely helped big box UNIX some but certainly it was far from definitive for UNIX's success. As demonstrated by the fact that the most popular UNIX by far, Linux, was not a member of the Open Group.
I don't have a problem with standards. I have a problem with a standard designed to solve problems that don't exist anymore. Bad standards are often worse than no standards.
I wasn't a big fan of IE based websites but had Microsoft been invested in the web and LAMP not existed... the web could have turned into an IE affair. Firefox's popularity was a response to Microsoft understanding that the migration to web was bad for them even if the migration was to IE. For them, better IE than Netscape but better Windows native client than IE.
That's soft of correct. Something like systemd can be. I mean systemd itself came from launchd which is used by a BSD. There exists a systemd shim for BSD. But ultimately it is quite possible that most Linux software will require a substantial port to work under BSD, very similar to what exists for Windows and OSX.
I think you may want to consider the distinction between
a) disagrees with you on tradeoffs
b) incompetent