I've used debian/gentoo/ubuntu extensively. I've found I've never gotten into a mess I can't fix eventually with portage. Sometimes that fix takes a long time or requires using the lower level "ebuild" commands to manually patch source but that's why I use Gentoo on certain machines. As long as you remember to install gentoolkit and run your revdep-rebuilds regularly (and perl-updater/python-updater and etc-update....OK I guess that's a few things to remember) you should get a very very stable system. What I like about portage the best over apt is the ability to install any specific version of the software that's in the tree (or in an overlay).
Apt definitely has the advantage over portage in terms of the ppas. Especially nice gem is "apt-add-repository" where I can give my mother a single line of code to paste into a terminal and she can add any ppa I find to her machine. Yes, I know you can do this with "Software Sources" but explaining how to do something through a GUI is a lot harder than "copy and paste *this*".
If developers can't support their application, then maybe they shouldn't be making and releasing them.
Utter nonsense. An unsupported, buggy, piece of crap software (albeit open source) that serves the needs of maybe only the developer himself is still more valuable to the community at large than never having this software exist at all. Someone could fork the project. Bug fixes could come eventually. Just releasing software doesn't force everyone to use it.
In reality, your comment should be "If developers can't support their application, then maybe I shouldn't be using their application if I need their support."
1. The more google services are available, the more people will have a google account in general. This makes it easier for them to use other google services with ads (like gmail).
2. The more time people spend in the browser (even editing documents) the more likely they will see ads in other tabs/windows. It's been long known Google wants to replace the OS with the browser.
Machine code and C are just two languages - they are a bunch of symbols arranged in some syntax that coveys a series of steps to be executed.
This is the reason software shouldn't be allowed to be patented in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you write a linear algebra system or an iPhone fart program, in the end it's all math.
GET is not less secure than POST. Also encrypting anything client side (using javascript) and then sending it in an AJAX call doesn't really make it more secure either since the client will need to know the encryption method and thus will be able to submit encrypted dummy values as well.
For aesthetic purposes you might not want the user to see the variables being passed via the URI but don't kid yourself into thinking that, because the user can't see the variables in their browser, they cannot be arbitrarily modified.
Pokemon Battle Revolution allows 2 players with NDS and compatible Pokemon games to battle one another. The battles are displayed in 3D on the tv while the players enter their gameplay selections on their individual DS'es.
Re:Memo to the music industry: They started it
on
Who Killed Spotify?
·
· Score: 1
The difference comes down to control. The labels want control of what songs are played and when. They don't have that control over the mp3's on your hardrive.
Patents do not cover "an idea". They cover a specific solution, which for software is a specific algorithm.
Except we see increasingly generic software patents being approved all the time.
Find a different algorithm to produce the same (or similar enough) results, and the patent isn't an issue.
Except this isn't true in the real world. Patent lawsuits can be filed before any source code is subpoenaed. As long as the end product (read running binary) appears to infringe upon a patent, then the actual underlying algorithms don't mean anything.
Once in a great while, some brilliant algorithm will be discovered for doing something that isn't specialized, but in the vast majority of such cases, those algorithms come after years of research work and refinement. Why shouldn't the thinker have some control over their thoughts?
Because algorithms themselves are nothing more than math. Trade secrets and copyright on the original source code should be the only protection warranted on original algorithms.
Yahoo has been one of the most vocal Internet companies to express concern about industry estimates that 0.05% of Internet users will be unable to access Web sites that support both IPv6 and the current standard, IPv4.
So 0.05% of the internet won't be able to access Yahoo. What % of that actually WANT access to it? In this case, it really is "very little" of value was lost.
There are some legitimate concerns with open source, like the skillsets of the people you already have in house, making it work with other applications you are dependent upon, and what the support methodology looks like.
Other than possibly the support part, none of what you said really has to do with open source. Making a big change in your IT infrastructure, regardless as to whether you move to or from open source, will be met with the first two issues you mention. The second issue, I'd argue, is actually slightly easier to solve with open source. The support part really only matters if your IT guys are downloading packages from sourceforge/github (which I'll admit means support will suck). If you buy proper support (say from Novell or Red Hat) you'll probably get as good, or better, than what you'd get from a closed source competitor.
A better way to phrase that first sentence (which is probably originally what you meant):
There are some legitimate concerns with converting a large IT infrastructure from one solution to another, like...
I can't think of anything else more irritating than having to wait for a menu on my development tool to come up.
This problem isn't unique to Java though. On my current-generation iMac, clicking "Help" in Xcode results in at least a 2-3 second wait for the menu to come up. Maybe it's a bug but it's awfully annoying to wait that long to get to the documentation window.
You're describing how the "cloud" should work. Unfortunately for Google, a lot of the core apps for cOS don't have an offline mode. Until web apps get to the level of only using your connection to sync with local storage, we're still in the "cloud == internet connection" stages.
Any problems on your end, at google, or anywhere in between, or if you forget to pay your cellular bill, you're not getting that proposal out to clients, you're not getting your tax returns in on time, you're not getting your paper in on time, etc.
I agree that the Google Apps definitely all need 100% working "offline mode" to make the CR-48 useful for the few periods when you don't have internet (and if you spend more than a small amount of time offline then cOS is definitely not for you). I don't have a device but I'd assume when you lose connection, Google Docs reacts about the same way as it does on any other OS/browser. The textbox remains editable and you can keep typing into it (unless the textbox suddenly becomes read-only or something crazy...). I realise it's not safe to keep working on something if you don't know when/if you can save it though, which is why offline mode is badly needed. I suppose the issue with the article's writer was that he didn't have the document open, then realised without internet access he couldn't open it. But the same issue would occur with any OS/browser that didn't have internet access.
Considering the Cr-48 is just a device Google is giving out for free to get user feedback, I don't think the structural integrity of the machine matters much. Google may sell them later on as developer machines but I hope nobody buys one to test whether it survives the kitchen sink falling on it.
Google is just as much to blame because they're making cOS pretty easy to lock down. Let's just hope they keep their word on the "evil-locked-down-mode" kill switch.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.
Of course not, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so (or for that matter any other software modification), which was the intent of GPLv3.
By "Google's customers" I meant the hardware vendors, not the people buying cOS notebooks from companies like Acer. Anyone who buys a cOS notebook and finds that the distributor is not abiding by the terms of the software distribution licenses (whether they are GPL or otherwise), absolutely have the right to cause a stink.
Exactly. What the GoS (geeks on slashdot) dislike is that Google has the right to make cOS however open/locked down as they want. They never promised us a commercial version of Linux that was going to allow us all to buy cheap netbooks and be sure the hardware works with any distribution of our choice. As many comments here have noted, people were hoping to buy a cheap device with Linux-supported hardware to wipe clean and install the latest Ubuntu (or whatever distribution). Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.
cOS devices will always be a user experience entirely within the browser. I guess a lot of people just don't believe an OS with only 1 running program can work (and maybe it can't) but Google wants to give it a try. In exchange for having to use the web for everything, these devices will probably be pretty cheap since the hardware needed inside won't have to be very beefy, and most companies selling the devices will also be selling a 3G/4G/whatever data plan at a monthly rate.
Alternatively, if you don't want to use an OS that's "just a browser", you could buy a normal computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the GPL... *ducks*
I've used debian/gentoo/ubuntu extensively. I've found I've never gotten into a mess I can't fix eventually with portage. Sometimes that fix takes a long time or requires using the lower level "ebuild" commands to manually patch source but that's why I use Gentoo on certain machines. As long as you remember to install gentoolkit and run your revdep-rebuilds regularly (and perl-updater/python-updater and etc-update....OK I guess that's a few things to remember) you should get a very very stable system. What I like about portage the best over apt is the ability to install any specific version of the software that's in the tree (or in an overlay).
Apt definitely has the advantage over portage in terms of the ppas. Especially nice gem is "apt-add-repository" where I can give my mother a single line of code to paste into a terminal and she can add any ppa I find to her machine. Yes, I know you can do this with "Software Sources" but explaining how to do something through a GUI is a lot harder than "copy and paste *this*".
If developers can't support their application, then maybe they shouldn't be making and releasing them.
Utter nonsense. An unsupported, buggy, piece of crap software (albeit open source) that serves the needs of maybe only the developer himself is still more valuable to the community at large than never having this software exist at all. Someone could fork the project. Bug fixes could come eventually. Just releasing software doesn't force everyone to use it.
In reality, your comment should be "If developers can't support their application, then maybe I shouldn't be using their application if I need their support."
I suspect they benefit in two ways.
I see what you did there....
Machine code and C are just two languages - they are a bunch of symbols arranged in some syntax that coveys a series of steps to be executed.
This is the reason software shouldn't be allowed to be patented in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you write a linear algebra system or an iPhone fart program, in the end it's all math.
GET is not less secure than POST. Also encrypting anything client side (using javascript) and then sending it in an AJAX call doesn't really make it more secure either since the client will need to know the encryption method and thus will be able to submit encrypted dummy values as well.
For aesthetic purposes you might not want the user to see the variables being passed via the URI but don't kid yourself into thinking that, because the user can't see the variables in their browser, they cannot be arbitrarily modified.
vista sucks
About 1,330,000 results (0.23 seconds)
Pokemon Battle Revolution allows 2 players with NDS and compatible Pokemon games to battle one another. The battles are displayed in 3D on the tv while the players enter their gameplay selections on their individual DS'es.
The difference comes down to control. The labels want control of what songs are played and when. They don't have that control over the mp3's on your hardrive.
Soon as I click to read the comments, the ad on the right is for a web scraping solution.
How dare you imply a car analogy for intellectual property would fall flat on its face...
Patents do not cover "an idea". They cover a specific solution, which for software is a specific algorithm.
Except we see increasingly generic software patents being approved all the time.
Find a different algorithm to produce the same (or similar enough) results, and the patent isn't an issue.
Except this isn't true in the real world. Patent lawsuits can be filed before any source code is subpoenaed. As long as the end product (read running binary) appears to infringe upon a patent, then the actual underlying algorithms don't mean anything.
Once in a great while, some brilliant algorithm will be discovered for doing something that isn't specialized, but in the vast majority of such cases, those algorithms come after years of research work and refinement. Why shouldn't the thinker have some control over their thoughts?
Because algorithms themselves are nothing more than math. Trade secrets and copyright on the original source code should be the only protection warranted on original algorithms.
Good companies like Ubuntu and Microsoft would never do shit like this.
You do know funny mods don't get you karma right? Ubuntu's not a company and Microsoft is hardly a "good" one...
Yahoo has been one of the most vocal Internet companies to express concern about industry estimates that 0.05% of Internet users will be unable to access Web sites that support both IPv6 and the current standard, IPv4.
So 0.05% of the internet won't be able to access Yahoo. What % of that actually WANT access to it? In this case, it really is "very little" of value was lost.
There are some legitimate concerns with open source, like the skillsets of the people you already have in house, making it work with other applications you are dependent upon, and what the support methodology looks like.
Other than possibly the support part, none of what you said really has to do with open source. Making a big change in your IT infrastructure, regardless as to whether you move to or from open source, will be met with the first two issues you mention. The second issue, I'd argue, is actually slightly easier to solve with open source. The support part really only matters if your IT guys are downloading packages from sourceforge/github (which I'll admit means support will suck). If you buy proper support (say from Novell or Red Hat) you'll probably get as good, or better, than what you'd get from a closed source competitor.
A better way to phrase that first sentence (which is probably originally what you meant):
There are some legitimate concerns with converting a large IT infrastructure from one solution to another, like ...
If you were standing in Antarctica, and looked up I doubt you'd see Russia. ;-)
The lake, which lies four kilometers below the icy surface of Antarctica
I think Russia is more than four kilometers "below" Antarctica...
I can't think of anything else more irritating than having to wait for a menu on my development tool to come up.
This problem isn't unique to Java though. On my current-generation iMac, clicking "Help" in Xcode results in at least a 2-3 second wait for the menu to come up. Maybe it's a bug but it's awfully annoying to wait that long to get to the documentation window.
For some reason I just can't shake the idea you think Slashdot would be prime for this....
You're describing how the "cloud" should work. Unfortunately for Google, a lot of the core apps for cOS don't have an offline mode. Until web apps get to the level of only using your connection to sync with local storage, we're still in the "cloud == internet connection" stages.
Any problems on your end, at google, or anywhere in between, or if you forget to pay your cellular bill, you're not getting that proposal out to clients, you're not getting your tax returns in on time, you're not getting your paper in on time, etc.
I agree that the Google Apps definitely all need 100% working "offline mode" to make the CR-48 useful for the few periods when you don't have internet (and if you spend more than a small amount of time offline then cOS is definitely not for you). I don't have a device but I'd assume when you lose connection, Google Docs reacts about the same way as it does on any other OS/browser. The textbox remains editable and you can keep typing into it (unless the textbox suddenly becomes read-only or something crazy...). I realise it's not safe to keep working on something if you don't know when/if you can save it though, which is why offline mode is badly needed. I suppose the issue with the article's writer was that he didn't have the document open, then realised without internet access he couldn't open it. But the same issue would occur with any OS/browser that didn't have internet access.
Considering the Cr-48 is just a device Google is giving out for free to get user feedback, I don't think the structural integrity of the machine matters much. Google may sell them later on as developer machines but I hope nobody buys one to test whether it survives the kitchen sink falling on it.
You mean the hardware vendors?
Google is just as much to blame because they're making cOS pretty easy to lock down. Let's just hope they keep their word on the "evil-locked-down-mode" kill switch.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.
Of course not, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so (or for that matter any other software modification), which was the intent of GPLv3.
By "Google's customers" I meant the hardware vendors, not the people buying cOS notebooks from companies like Acer. Anyone who buys a cOS notebook and finds that the distributor is not abiding by the terms of the software distribution licenses (whether they are GPL or otherwise), absolutely have the right to cause a stink.
Exactly. What the GoS (geeks on slashdot) dislike is that Google has the right to make cOS however open/locked down as they want. They never promised us a commercial version of Linux that was going to allow us all to buy cheap netbooks and be sure the hardware works with any distribution of our choice. As many comments here have noted, people were hoping to buy a cheap device with Linux-supported hardware to wipe clean and install the latest Ubuntu (or whatever distribution). Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.
cOS devices will always be a user experience entirely within the browser. I guess a lot of people just don't believe an OS with only 1 running program can work (and maybe it can't) but Google wants to give it a try. In exchange for having to use the web for everything, these devices will probably be pretty cheap since the hardware needed inside won't have to be very beefy, and most companies selling the devices will also be selling a 3G/4G/whatever data plan at a monthly rate.
Alternatively, if you don't want to use an OS that's "just a browser", you could buy a normal computer.