The reason it's taking off is that WAP 2.0 has many advantages over the frankly execrable 1.x series.
1.0 was based on WML and a proprietary binary proxying protocol.
2.0 is based on XHTML Basic, TLS and IPv6. So, basically, WAP 2.0 *is* the web for phones.
Also unlike 1.0, 2.0 appears to work, m-Payment included.
And perhaps most crucially, the WAP branding has been completely abandoned. WAP may be broken in people's minds. But "Vodafone LIVE!" and "O2 Zones" "Orange Wirefree Web" all seem to work perfectly. And that's basically what Vodafone et al. call WAP 2.0
In addition to Reiser4, there are a whole whost of projects that aim to provide all or part of what BFS achieved, Spotlight (MacOS X Tiger) and WinFS will achieve.
And of course, the ambitious Gnome Storage project, being pushed by Seth Nickell. He recently wrote a paper comparing all the technologies, found here:
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/document-indexin g
Bear with me, as this is probably all IANAL cack, but, if Apple don't eventually sue Real, or do and lose, this means that it will be a legal confirmation that "converting" DRM information from one format to another is not circumvention, and thus legal.
In which case, if the community were to create an open, free software DRM spec, it would then be possible to create free software that could legally, and without violating DMCA/EUCD smunge.m4ps between FairPlay and, I dunno, let's call it OpenPlay.
So, provided the player code is distributed in a form which respects the DRM information therein, it would also not be a violation of DMCA/EUCD.
Thus we would have a legal FLOSS.m3p player. And possibly Windows Media as well.
Of course, my reasoning is probably rubbish, based on assumptions and caveats and legal cases that haven't yet happened.
It will only be the first maglev train if you exclude the Hamburg-Berlin-Cologne-(Amsterdam?) maglev train, being built by TransRapid
, under construction in Germany, due to open in 2007.
Don't you just love it when journalists do a bit of research?
Slashdot Mirror
The reason it's taking off is that WAP 2.0 has many advantages over the frankly execrable 1.x series.
1.0 was based on WML and a proprietary binary proxying protocol.
2.0 is based on XHTML Basic, TLS and IPv6. So, basically, WAP 2.0 *is* the web for phones.
Also unlike 1.0, 2.0 appears to work, m-Payment included.
And perhaps most crucially, the WAP branding has been completely abandoned. WAP may be broken in people's minds. But "Vodafone LIVE!" and "O2 Zones" "Orange Wirefree Web" all seem to work perfectly. And that's basically what Vodafone et al. call WAP 2.0
In addition to Reiser4, there are a whole whost of projects that aim to provide all or part of what BFS achieved, Spotlight (MacOS X Tiger) and WinFS will achieve.
o rg/projects/beagle/
n g
This includes Beagler/Dashboard
http://www.nat.org/dashboard
http://www.gnome.
And of course, the ambitious Gnome Storage project, being pushed by Seth Nickell. He recently wrote a paper comparing all the technologies, found here:
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/document-indexi
Those steps in full:
1. Make enormous amounts of money at IPO
2. ???
3. Profit
Step 2 is intentionally left blank as an exercise to the reader.
"I'm feeling wealthy"
Returned 0 of 0 results. Sorry, we're too busy out back rolling around in our cash.
Bear with me, as this is probably all IANAL cack, but, if Apple don't eventually sue Real, or do and lose, this means that it will be a legal confirmation that "converting" DRM information from one format to another is not circumvention, and thus legal.
.m4ps between FairPlay and, I dunno, let's call it OpenPlay.
.m3p player. And possibly Windows Media as well.
In which case, if the community were to create an open, free software DRM spec, it would then be possible to create free software that could legally, and without violating DMCA/EUCD smunge
So, provided the player code is distributed in a form which respects the DRM information therein, it would also not be a violation of DMCA/EUCD.
Thus we would have a legal FLOSS
Of course, my reasoning is probably rubbish, based on assumptions and caveats and legal cases that haven't yet happened.
It was just an idea.
Just tried to phone SCO's sales reps about a Linux license. Looks as if
the sales team are refusing to answer the phone.
The pissed-off sounding help desk kid I got through said he was getting
hundreds of these calls, and had nowhere to divert them.
I suggested this wasn't fair on him. His response: "I just work here".
Ho hum.
Anyway, if you wish to phone to ask about your Linux license, the number
is
+00 1 800 726 8649
Martin
well with the fire connection (Phoenix, Firebird) they could literally 'brand' you. In Soviet Russia, Mozilla already brands you.
Microsoft are working on adding these exotic features to IL.
See theILX research page
Don't you just love it when journalists do a bit of research?