A few years ago it was unpractical to decode MPEG1-Layer 3 in realtime. A blink of an eye later it was merely unpractical to encode in realtime. Now we have ~100g devices that can decode and encode in realtime for hours on end.
If they (Adobe) don't want any kind of compression then, as we all know, TARGA would do.
If they in fact wants to use compression, but to use different models from the ones provided in the PNG standard, wouldn't it make more sense to extend PNG with said models?
Although it doesn't support.flac files like the Rio Karma, it does support.ogg,
That's pretty close to a contradiction since we have both Ogg FLAC and Ogg Vorbis. You meant to say it supports Vorbis? Or is it just plain FLAC files it doesn't support, but Ogg FLAC is fine?
[...] and doesn't hog my server's resources anymore.
Got any numbers on memory use? I would love to run SA on my home server, but it has "only" got 80MB of RAM. I tried running 2.x, but it seriously brought the system to its knees (swapping)
I must say, Python might be a nice language and all, but as it's making inroads everywhere it's also wrecking havoc on ones ability to convert older hardware into a competent server. YMMV (mailman + bittorrent + (apache + exim + samba) and you're pretty much down to the last few megabytes )
You got it installed? I had a recent 0.9 installation running adblock (dev version, working) and TabBrowserWhatever extentions. I then installed 1.0RC over that, after which nothing works.
First time I start up, nothing in the UI registers. Can't use menus, can't "activate" any UI elements (for instance, you could type an URL in the adress field, but hitting enter wouldn't do anything.)
Second start, and I get a message about "Reactivating plugins" or some such. Instructed it can take "a few minutes". Let it hang around, but after a few hours of nothing I kill it. This repeats every time I try to start Firefox again.
Attempt to fix things by running the uninstaller, and then reinstalling. Now the root window won't even come up, but the firefox process is up, grabbing some 12MB of memory in the background.
Frankly, it pisses me off. Upgrading must work. So people will defend Firefox with "it's a preview". Yeah, but when is upgrading going to get debugged and fixed then? Where not but in the 1.0 preview?
First of all, when uninstalling, I'd expect to be asked whether or not my personal settings are to be removed in addition to the standard installed files. As far as I can see, there's no way to actually uninstall and remove everything automatically. I uninstalled, but still settings hang around. Where? I don't know. Don't feel like hunting around either.
It's no big problem for me since I use Opera, but I'd like a working Firefox installation as "backup".
After these problems I'll just wait for 1.1 or something and see if anything has changed. Sadly I can't be bothered to try and find out what went wrong and maybe add to bugzilla, I got the distinct feeling the developers don't currently care about upgrade issues.
1. Was the Monterey contract between IBM and Caldera?
2. Did it include a Change of Control clause?
3. Did control change from Caldera to The SCO Group?
4. Case closed.
>Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers?
By defrauding investors into believing SCOX had a solid case, when in fact they didn't. Lying through their teeth about "owning UNIX", lying about the pedigree of Linux, lying about everything.
Behind closed doors they pitched this as an "investment opportunity". They probably showed the investors the Berkley Packet Filter code, maybe some standard headers (elf.h, etc). "Look! This is a slam dunk! And there are millions of lines more of that in linux!"
The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.
So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).
I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.
There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.
>Unlike viruses, the user has to actually install them (though that may involve just clicking "yes" in IE).
No, that's wrong. You can get spyware just by visiting a website, which then exploits your browser to install whatever they want to install.
I wouldn't call that "the user has to actually install [it]". I'd call that viral behaviour (even though the installed software doesn't live off a host file or process).
>It used to be that floppy disks were crippled with "copy protection" technology [...] Nowadays these approaches have gone the way of the dinosaur [...]
Bought a game lately? Floppys are gone, but customer-agitating CD-protections are the rule, not the exception.
It won't be as bad as Doom 3 -- just watch the videos.
The real question however is; how scripted will the "interactivity" be. There's nothing I hate more than games that try to give the impression of freedom and "reality", but where no matter what I do, I will always find myself in the exact same situation in the end.
"Medal of Honour" being a prime example of such scripted game.
Yes. Actually, I would have thought that the reverse (shared cache) would have been news instead.
The point is that you can have very fast inter-CPU communication, the moderboard gets cheaper to produce, you don't have to double the cooling machinery... and they're probably cheaper to produce also (one package instead of two).
I assume the cores are actually produced one-by-one or it'd get big and very expensive.
>it is often PUBLISHERS who add this sort of shit once the game is finished and has left the developers' control.
That might have been a valid excuse four years ago, but today developers who sign licensing deals with publishers KNOW about this issue. You know of all the problems these "protections" cause, all the agitation and disappointed customers.
The simple fact that you, in face of thiss, don't try to excert control of the process is implicit admission that you support and agree with it.
After all, if you didn't, why did you sign away the right to control the copy-prevention process?
And don't give me any of that crying about how hard it is getting a deal, bla, bla. Fine. You can say that, but if you do, you forfeit the right to complain about THE EVIL PUBLISHERS.
Slashdot Mirror
There are actual lossless implementations outside of the research community?
I thought that died The Death Of A Thousand Software Patents :-\
A few years ago it was unpractical to decode MPEG1-Layer 3 in realtime. A blink of an eye later it was merely unpractical to encode in realtime. Now we have ~100g devices that can decode and encode in realtime for hours on end.
If they (Adobe) don't want any kind of compression then, as we all know, TARGA would do.
If they in fact wants to use compression, but to use different models from the ones provided in the PNG standard, wouldn't it make more sense to extend PNG with said models?
Yeah, this sounds like a definite case of "Not Invented Here", with a cynical touch of "We can't control that" and "We can't license that".
Normally I'd say herrie.org, but it seems he's been craxx0red.
The Hacker FAQ.
Although it doesn't support .flac files like the Rio Karma, it does support .ogg,
That's pretty close to a contradiction since we have both Ogg FLAC and Ogg Vorbis. You meant to say it supports Vorbis? Or is it just plain FLAC files it doesn't support, but Ogg FLAC is fine?
[...] and doesn't hog my server's resources anymore.
Got any numbers on memory use? I would love to run SA on my home server, but it has "only" got 80MB of RAM. I tried running 2.x, but it seriously brought the system to its knees (swapping)
I must say, Python might be a nice language and all, but as it's making inroads everywhere it's also wrecking havoc on ones ability to convert older hardware into a competent server. YMMV (mailman + bittorrent + (apache + exim + samba) and you're pretty much down to the last few megabytes )
.. is what I'm going to consider this for the time being. I've seen it reported everywhere, but it's just too absurd to take at face value.
You got it installed? I had a recent 0.9 installation running adblock (dev version, working) and TabBrowserWhatever extentions. I then installed 1.0RC over that, after which nothing works.
First time I start up, nothing in the UI registers. Can't use menus, can't "activate" any UI elements (for instance, you could type an URL in the adress field, but hitting enter wouldn't do anything.)
Second start, and I get a message about "Reactivating plugins" or some such. Instructed it can take "a few minutes". Let it hang around, but after a few hours of nothing I kill it. This repeats every time I try to start Firefox again.
Attempt to fix things by running the uninstaller, and then reinstalling. Now the root window won't even come up, but the firefox process is up, grabbing some 12MB of memory in the background.
Frankly, it pisses me off. Upgrading must work. So people will defend Firefox with "it's a preview". Yeah, but when is upgrading going to get debugged and fixed then? Where not but in the 1.0 preview?
First of all, when uninstalling, I'd expect to be asked whether or not my personal settings are to be removed in addition to the standard installed files. As far as I can see, there's no way to actually uninstall and remove everything automatically. I uninstalled, but still settings hang around. Where? I don't know. Don't feel like hunting around either.
It's no big problem for me since I use Opera, but I'd like a working Firefox installation as "backup".
After these problems I'll just wait for 1.1 or something and see if anything has changed. Sadly I can't be bothered to try and find out what went wrong and maybe add to bugzilla, I got the distinct feeling the developers don't currently care about upgrade issues.
1. Was the Monterey contract between IBM and Caldera?
2. Did it include a Change of Control clause?
3. Did control change from Caldera to The SCO Group?
4. Case closed.
>Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers?
By defrauding investors into believing SCOX had a solid case, when in fact they didn't. Lying through their teeth about "owning UNIX", lying about the pedigree of Linux, lying about everything.
Behind closed doors they pitched this as an "investment opportunity". They probably showed the investors the Berkley Packet Filter code, maybe some standard headers (elf.h, etc). "Look! This is a slam dunk! And there are millions of lines more of that in linux!"
Oh, they really sold this "Linux Lottery" good.
The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.
So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).
I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.
There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.
>..let's stick to some realism.
Yes, let us.
>Unlike viruses, the user has to actually install them (though that may involve just clicking "yes" in IE).
No, that's wrong. You can get spyware just by visiting a website, which then exploits your browser to install whatever they want to install.
I wouldn't call that "the user has to actually install [it]". I'd call that viral behaviour (even though the installed software doesn't live off a host file or process).
Again; no clicking "yes" required.
>It used to be that floppy disks were crippled with "copy protection" technology [...] Nowadays these approaches have gone the way of the dinosaur [...]
Bought a game lately? Floppys are gone, but customer-agitating CD-protections are the rule, not the exception.
All the future formats will be about replacing CDDA with "DRM".
Oh, it will be marketed as being about increased audio-fidelity, but it's all about getting rid of those horrible "insecure" CDs.
I don't remember that from TMMM, but it's a central theme of Bentley's Programming Pearls.
No pause button on file transfers?
Weak.
It won't be as bad as Doom 3 -- just watch the videos.
The real question however is; how scripted will the "interactivity" be. There's nothing I hate more than games that try to give the impression of freedom and "reality", but where no matter what I do, I will always find myself in the exact same situation in the end.
"Medal of Honour" being a prime example of such scripted game.
Yes. Actually, I would have thought that the reverse (shared cache) would have been news instead.
The point is that you can have very fast inter-CPU communication, the moderboard gets cheaper to produce, you don't have to double the cooling machinery... and they're probably cheaper to produce also (one package instead of two).
I assume the cores are actually produced one-by-one or it'd get big and very expensive.
Linux with MWAVE support" is then SCO's property, because it shares code with SCO's "Linux with JFS support."
SCO has never claimed that. I think you've been trying out TSG's crackpipe.
Please cite the relevant legal documentation AND technical documentation to support your assertion.
the minute IBM added this code to UNIX it became part of UNIX
"this code" includes such things as a MWAVE modem driver, which I seriously doubt has ever been ported to AIX.
In short: It's about code that's never been in a UNIX in any way.
>it is often PUBLISHERS who add this sort of shit once the game is finished and has left the developers' control.
That might have been a valid excuse four years ago, but today developers who sign licensing deals with publishers KNOW about this issue. You know of all the problems these "protections" cause, all the agitation and disappointed customers.
The simple fact that you, in face of thiss, don't try to excert control of the process is implicit admission that you support and agree with it.
After all, if you didn't, why did you sign away the right to control the copy-prevention process?
And don't give me any of that crying about how hard it is getting a deal, bla, bla. Fine. You can say that, but if you do, you forfeit the right to complain about THE EVIL PUBLISHERS.
Neither of those games use any copy-prevention mechanism except a simple GetDriveTypeA check. At least, my discs don't. I'm in Europe.
Sounds more like you've got fucked hardware.
>At-rule for matching on site/document URL.
Whee, Mozilla beat Opera to it. I've asked for this (and a lot of other things), but unfortunately they don't listen to me.
(I'd settle for attaching a stylesheet to a bookmark and having it applied to the associated domain.)
Opera has a needlessly vast header area that takes up too much screen real estate
Liar.
I can prove you wrong easily.
HTH. HAND.