Slashdot has a scoop on the new AMD65. According to this article at slashdot, the website has not-so-hidden clues that suggest the coming of the AMD65 very soon.
I'm all-for this kind of smart handling, but most ISPs don't write the proxy software (or any other software, usually) they use, so it would have to be implimented in the package they license.
It is much easier for an established ISP to simply implement a transparent proxy, rather than to have all of its clients configure their browser to use a proxy. Remember, only 40% have it configured already. 60% don't. And, of that 60%, maybe 5% have even heard of it before. It really, REALLY sucks to have thousands of customers calling a support desk to configure their browser to use a proxy.
If you look at it from your ISP's standpoint transparent proxies aren't as evil as you make it sound.
99.9% of the ISPs clients aren't trying to do anything tricky, like this. Of those 99.9%, say, only 40% have a proxy server specified. These 40% get to enjoy faster web browsing--which is probably all they're doing anyway. The other 60% enjoy slightly less quick web browsing, but that's they're own fault, right? They're the only ones losing out, right?
Wrong. The ISP has to pay for bandwidth. The ISP doesn't like the proxy only because it makes browsing snappier, it likes the proxy because it also saves them on bandwidth costs! If the other 60% of the clients were using the proxy they might save 10%, or more, on total bandwidth costs.
You could think of it like this, too: that's 10% more bandwidth available for the clients at no additional cost to the company (apart from the capital for the proxy server). Yes, they're not perfect, but they make a difference. When you weigh the pros and cons, well, it's obviously going to be worth it for the ISPs to have it installed.
You could look around for an ISP that doesn't use a transparent proxy but, as you said, they're becoming more popular. Realise that they're not doing to squash your freedom, but instead to provide better service and to save money.
Is there any forums, or online discussions, that cover this sort of thing. I'm thinking, kind of like http://www.macosxhints.com/ but of a less MacOS X specific nature.
Sony makes it sound like Linux for PlayStation 2 is Linux (full stop). I can imagine a press conference where they announce "Linux" and then quickly, and quitely, whisper "for PlayStation 2" off to the side.
While I'm glad to see the source is out for download now, it would have been nice to see it a long time ago. It would be really neat if online services shared their code with a "you can look, and play for yourself, but don't try to make money" sort of license. Not only would it improve the service (because of feedback) but also help others to implement a similar service as a custom solution.
Office for Linux would be interesting. Of course, it wouldn't be open. Likely, Microsoft would pick one distribution on which it will officially support Office for Linux (RedHat?). With RH's crazy compiler, the binaries wouldn't be very portable, either. So, instead of porting Office to Linux, why don't they open the details about how the files are constructed?
Microsoft could be forced to not only open the details for Office documents, but why not Windows Media documents too? They could open details about protocols for Back Office, MSN Messenger, etc. Basically, make the files their software creates, and the protocols their software uses, open. This could make the life of writing new, better, open software that is compatible with the files/protocols more feature complete.
This could be inspiration for a new generation of young hackers. Start small, hacking away with their television set, then gradually move them up to kernel-hacking! It's a natural evolutionary path!
Slashdot Mirror
What a waste of bytes that would be.
Open Office is to Microsoft Office as Microsoft Windows is to ...
Slashdot has a scoop on the new AMD65. According to this article at slashdot, the website has not-so-hidden clues that suggest the coming of the AMD65 very soon.
This must just be the beginning of the movement towards free hardware.
Timothy has posted FIVE stories without a dupe!
I think we should all pitch in and get him one of those rings with the giant candy jewel on it. If not that, at least, some kind of edible jewelery.
My boss pointed out this handy NYTimes Registration Generator page. Makes viewing the times online much more enjoyable.
I'm all-for this kind of smart handling, but most ISPs don't write the proxy software (or any other software, usually) they use, so it would have to be implimented in the package they license.
It is much easier for an established ISP to simply implement a transparent proxy, rather than to have all of its clients configure their browser to use a proxy. Remember, only 40% have it configured already. 60% don't. And, of that 60%, maybe 5% have even heard of it before. It really, REALLY sucks to have thousands of customers calling a support desk to configure their browser to use a proxy.
If you look at it from your ISP's standpoint transparent proxies aren't as evil as you make it sound.
99.9% of the ISPs clients aren't trying to do anything tricky, like this. Of those 99.9%, say, only 40% have a proxy server specified. These 40% get to enjoy faster web browsing--which is probably all they're doing anyway. The other 60% enjoy slightly less quick web browsing, but that's they're own fault, right? They're the only ones losing out, right?
Wrong. The ISP has to pay for bandwidth. The ISP doesn't like the proxy only because it makes browsing snappier, it likes the proxy because it also saves them on bandwidth costs! If the other 60% of the clients were using the proxy they might save 10%, or more, on total bandwidth costs.
You could think of it like this, too: that's 10% more bandwidth available for the clients at no additional cost to the company (apart from the capital for the proxy server). Yes, they're not perfect, but they make a difference. When you weigh the pros and cons, well, it's obviously going to be worth it for the ISPs to have it installed.
You could look around for an ISP that doesn't use a transparent proxy but, as you said, they're becoming more popular. Realise that they're not doing to squash your freedom, but instead to provide better service and to save money.
Is there any forums, or online discussions, that cover this sort of thing. I'm thinking, kind of like http://www.macosxhints.com/ but of a less MacOS X specific nature.
$200 for Linux for PlayStation 2.
$50 for TV output card.
Sony makes it sound like Linux for PlayStation 2 is Linux (full stop). I can imagine a press conference where they announce "Linux" and then quickly, and quitely, whisper "for PlayStation 2" off to the side.
While I'm glad to see the source is out for download now, it would have been nice to see it a long time ago. It would be really neat if online services shared their code with a "you can look, and play for yourself, but don't try to make money" sort of license. Not only would it improve the service (because of feedback) but also help others to implement a similar service as a custom solution.
I wish I had some examples.
Office for Linux would be interesting. Of course, it wouldn't be open. Likely, Microsoft would pick one distribution on which it will officially support Office for Linux (RedHat?). With RH's crazy compiler, the binaries wouldn't be very portable, either. So, instead of porting Office to Linux, why don't they open the details about how the files are constructed?
Microsoft could be forced to not only open the details for Office documents, but why not Windows Media documents too? They could open details about protocols for Back Office, MSN Messenger, etc. Basically, make the files their software creates, and the protocols their software uses, open. This could make the life of writing new, better, open software that is compatible with the files/protocols more feature complete.
Let's now think of all of the clustering possibilities. More power to console farms!
So, AOL purchases DALnet, does that DALnet will Akill itself the next time they decide to Akill AOL?
This could be inspiration for a new generation of young hackers. Start small, hacking away with their television set, then gradually move them up to kernel-hacking! It's a natural evolutionary path!