Three years later MS lawyers will finish raping the dead corpse of Eolas the company. And you know what, I think if they go through their usual routine with Eolas, they'll deserve a standing ovation from Slashdot crowd, too.
After all I've never seen one single example of MS enforcing their patents on anyone, and it would be pretty dumb to think they don't have a nice big pile of them.
It's one thing when you file patents to prevent other people from suing you. It's totally another thing if you file them with the sole intention of suing someone 5 years later.
You'll be surprised. Guess what, the guy who wrote the book really knows how to write secure code, and the book really teaches you a lot without offering many pre-cooked examples. This is a good thing. Helps you code with security in mind.
I see. So all these vital features are either "planned for the next release" (1,2,4) or not planned at all (3). At the same time SVG (which nobody gives a shit about) is included. It's not that I can demand anything from the developers (hey, it's free software), but they definitely should get their priorities right.
Using one single checkbox. Don't be ridiculous. The fact that some third party pieces of software don't work under non-Admin accounts is not a problem MS can address. And it is not their problem at all! It's the problem of respective software manufacturers.
Every single piece of software written by MS in the rencent years works without any problems under non-Admin accounts. The problem with Winamp is not a problem MS can address. If you're concerned about privacy you'll have to sacrifice winamp and use Windows Media Player (with winamp skin if you want).
I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator.
Feel better? From now on quit using Administrator-level account for your day-to-day stuff and learn to use runas command.
Considering that the movies you mentioned are already fucked up, who the heck cares about brown spot. Replace the entire movie with a large brown spot and I swear people will still go to the movie theater if you run a badass advertising campaign.
You can not compare Rubles and dollars here. Considering that back then Russians spent about 10 times less on their multiple space programs than americans, $764M is a heck of a lot more than was economically reasonable.
American space (and military) programs have historically been orders of magnitude more expensive than Russian ones. If we're talking equal prices, for Russians this meant exorbitant costs sucking in the entire space budget.
The high cost of Energia wasnt caused as much by technologies used (as you've pointed out they were totally nailed by then) but by the sheer size of it. Non-standard XXL-sized parts meant that they had to use significantly different manufacturing techniques and a lot more subcontractors, and that (according to the book by one one of the designers) was a disaster due to traditionally bad quality control by subcontractors. On top of that it required its own huge launch pad and landing strip along with all associated equipment. Sure, these are one-time investments (more or less), but they are significant, and even more so if you have 10 times less money than your direct competitor.
So if you were a manager there, what would you have chosen: A huge ambitious shuttle program that's less reliable, more expensive and a PITA to build, or a well-debugged, cheaper, easy-to-make rocket-propelled systems that had an excellent track record and were (and still are) perfectly adequate to support MIR orbital station? I think the answer is clear here.
>> Buran was technically superior, mostly since the Russians >> got to see the US' attempt with the Space Shuttle >> before they designed their own.
FYI, that's also why MiG and SU fighters are superior to their american counterparts. They started out as carbon copies but were then improved a lot, because American stuff in its original form didn't cut the mustard.
The newer MiGs and SUs are another story. I've seen an American military pilot's jaw drop when I showed him a video of SU-30 doing all those "impossible" aerobatic figures. And Russians can build something like this for a "mere" $30M a piece!
Energia was the most expensive booster ever built by Russians (if the same thing was built by NASA it would be the most expensive booster ever built). Boosters required to propel equivalent payloads via more traditional technologies were almost an order of magnitude cheaper and did not require an insane number of subcontractors to build parts (Energia/Buran as far as I know required more than a thousand subcontractors).
At one launch per year (which was a tentative plan) it did not make financial sense to keep Buran around and that's in essence why it was canned and rocket-based stuff was not.
Well, it's one thing to "announce intentions", and another - to actually fly somewhere. There's substantial amount of science and "know how" involved and terrifying number of trial and error experiments must be performed to actually make their dreams a reality.
Right now they only have "intentions" and NASA is absolutely correct in not reacting to them. NASA has proven time after time they can fly whatever wherever given the right financial resources and prioritization of goals. Will they prove this again? You can be sure as heck they will.
And that's their main problem. In order for something to work reliably this something MUST be simple.
USSR had a superior shuttle program, "Buran" which got cancelled because of three simple reasons: 1. It was way more expensive than rocket-based space launches (which kinda defeated the purpose of having a reusable spacecraft). 2. It was less reliable than rocket-based stuff. 3. Russians had proven they can build a better shuttle than Americans (Russian shuttle flew its first flight unmanned and landed all by itself) which back then was a big thing.
Here's more info on Buran: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm
So XFS apparently has pieces of code in it that belong to SCO. Even if they don't own XFS, they still own that code, and SGI deliberately misled people into believing that they aren't bound by any pay-to-use license by releasing XFS in Linux kernel.
So there you go, you have a Linux box with unpaid for portions of SCO code running on it. This creates an interesting legal precedent with very dangerous consequences.
Where's the guarantee that Linux is not tainted with some other obscure company's (SOOC for short) code? Where's the guarantee that programmers working on the kernel didn't use good old copy & paste in "tough" places? And most importantly, when Linux is mainstream enough, where's the guarantee that SOOC will not sue for frikkin billions for code theft / patent infingement / licensing agreement violations?
The code that SGI (and IBM) have released was released under GPL. So essentially it was re-licensed under a different non-revokable license. Even if you remove the code from future releases, the code that was released before is still in breach of the licensing agreement and since it's GPL it can be used by other people (call them insane).
They've already done this with XP. I may get modded down for this but in my experience XP has been MORE stable than Linux. From what I know from people who use MacOS X every day, XP is more stable than that lickable POS, too.
Please download it off some obscure site, then satisfy its dependencies then satisfy the dependencies of its dependencies only to find out that it either blows up when you use sht command or would not compile due to bugs in the code/different GCC version/missing files.
Man when will they switch to numbering schemes even remotely resembling anything real? Come on, the version is based on kernel 2.4.x - name it version 2.4.x, that's it. Not 9.2 or 22.34!
Come on, people. I've never seen anything worse than Crystal in my life. The reports are mediocre, and the charts suck so hard, I fail to convey it verbally.
Anyone who paid $10K for this junk needs immediate psychiatrical attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Three years later MS lawyers will finish raping the dead corpse of Eolas the company. And you know what, I think if they go through their usual routine with Eolas, they'll deserve a standing ovation from Slashdot crowd, too.
After all I've never seen one single example of MS enforcing their patents on anyone, and it would be pretty dumb to think they don't have a nice big pile of them.
It's one thing when you file patents to prevent other people from suing you. It's totally another thing if you file them with the sole intention of suing someone 5 years later.
You'll be surprised. Guess what, the guy who wrote the book really knows how to write secure code, and the book really teaches you a lot without offering many pre-cooked examples. This is a good thing. Helps you code with security in mind.
I see. So all these vital features are either "planned for the next release" (1,2,4) or not planned at all (3). At the same time SVG (which nobody gives a shit about) is included. It's not that I can demand anything from the developers (hey, it's free software), but they definitely should get their priorities right.
1. Adjustment layers
2. 48-bit color support (and don't point me to buggy cinepaint)
3. COLOR MANAGEMENT.
4. L*a*b color space
Sheesh.
Using one single checkbox. Don't be ridiculous. The fact that some third party pieces of software don't work under non-Admin accounts is not a problem MS can address. And it is not their problem at all! It's the problem of respective software manufacturers.
Every single piece of software written by MS in the rencent years works without any problems under non-Admin accounts. The problem with Winamp is not a problem MS can address. If you're concerned about privacy you'll have to sacrifice winamp and use Windows Media Player (with winamp skin if you want).
I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator. I don't have to log into Windows as Administrator.
Feel better? From now on quit using Administrator-level account for your day-to-day stuff and learn to use runas command.
Considering that the movies you mentioned are already fucked up, who the heck cares about brown spot. Replace the entire movie with a large brown spot and I swear people will still go to the movie theater if you run a badass advertising campaign.
You can not compare Rubles and dollars here. Considering that back then Russians spent about 10 times less on their multiple space programs than americans, $764M is a heck of a lot more than was economically reasonable.
American space (and military) programs have historically been orders of magnitude more expensive than Russian ones. If we're talking equal prices, for Russians this meant exorbitant costs sucking in the entire space budget.
The high cost of Energia wasnt caused as much by technologies used (as you've pointed out they were totally nailed by then) but by the sheer size of it. Non-standard XXL-sized parts meant that they had to use significantly different manufacturing techniques and a lot more subcontractors, and that (according to the book by one one of the designers) was a disaster due to traditionally bad quality control by subcontractors. On top of that it required its own huge launch pad and landing strip along with all associated equipment. Sure, these are one-time investments (more or less), but they are significant, and even more so if you have 10 times less money than your direct competitor.
So if you were a manager there, what would you have chosen: A huge ambitious shuttle program that's less reliable, more expensive and a PITA to build, or a well-debugged, cheaper, easy-to-make rocket-propelled systems that had an excellent track record and were (and still are) perfectly adequate to support MIR orbital station? I think the answer is clear here.
>> Buran was technically superior, mostly since the Russians
>> got to see the US' attempt with the Space Shuttle
>> before they designed their own.
FYI, that's also why MiG and SU fighters are superior to their american counterparts. They started out as carbon copies but were then improved a lot, because American stuff in its original form didn't cut the mustard.
The newer MiGs and SUs are another story. I've seen an American military pilot's jaw drop when I showed him a video of SU-30 doing all those "impossible" aerobatic figures. And Russians can build something like this for a "mere" $30M a piece!
Energia was the most expensive booster ever built by Russians (if the same thing was built by NASA it would be the most expensive booster ever built). Boosters required to propel equivalent payloads via more traditional technologies were almost an order of magnitude cheaper and did not require an insane number of subcontractors to build parts (Energia/Buran as far as I know required more than a thousand subcontractors).
At one launch per year (which was a tentative plan) it did not make financial sense to keep Buran around and that's in essence why it was canned and rocket-based stuff was not.
Well, it's one thing to "announce intentions", and another - to actually fly somewhere. There's substantial amount of science and "know how" involved and terrifying number of trial and error experiments must be performed to actually make their dreams a reality.
Right now they only have "intentions" and NASA is absolutely correct in not reacting to them. NASA has proven time after time they can fly whatever wherever given the right financial resources and prioritization of goals. Will they prove this again? You can be sure as heck they will.
And that's their main problem. In order for something to work reliably this something MUST be simple.
USSR had a superior shuttle program, "Buran" which got cancelled because of three simple reasons:
1. It was way more expensive than rocket-based space launches (which kinda defeated the purpose of having a reusable spacecraft).
2. It was less reliable than rocket-based stuff.
3. Russians had proven they can build a better shuttle than Americans (Russian shuttle flew its first flight unmanned and landed all by itself) which back then was a big thing.
Here's more info on Buran: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm
So XFS apparently has pieces of code in it that belong to SCO. Even if they don't own XFS, they still own that code, and SGI deliberately misled people into believing that they aren't bound by any pay-to-use license by releasing XFS in Linux kernel.
So there you go, you have a Linux box with unpaid for portions of SCO code running on it. This creates an interesting legal precedent with very dangerous consequences.
Where's the guarantee that Linux is not tainted with some other obscure company's (SOOC for short) code? Where's the guarantee that programmers working on the kernel didn't use good old copy & paste in "tough" places? And most importantly, when Linux is mainstream enough, where's the guarantee that SOOC will not sue for frikkin billions for code theft / patent infingement / licensing agreement violations?
Anyone who's using XFS owes $699 to SCO?
The code that SGI (and IBM) have released was released under GPL. So essentially it was re-licensed under a different non-revokable license. Even if you remove the code from future releases, the code that was released before is still in breach of the licensing agreement and since it's GPL it can be used by other people (call them insane).
They've already done this with XP. I may get modded down for this but in my experience XP has been MORE stable than Linux. From what I know from people who use MacOS X every day, XP is more stable than that lickable POS, too.
Please download it off some obscure site, then satisfy its dependencies then satisfy the dependencies of its dependencies only to find out that it either blows up when you use sht command or would not compile due to bugs in the code/different GCC version/missing files.
build
As far as I know. They build (and test) it several times a day. Probably every check-in causes at least a partial rebuild and test verification.
Only they copied the hardware, too. I guess the intelligence was much better. Hint - in most cases they didn't even have to reverse engineer.
And Linux is a kernel.
Man when will they switch to numbering schemes even remotely resembling anything real? Come on, the version is based on kernel 2.4.x - name it version 2.4.x, that's it. Not 9.2 or 22.34!
Come on, people. I've never seen anything worse than Crystal in my life. The reports are mediocre, and the charts suck so hard, I fail to convey it verbally.
Anyone who paid $10K for this junk needs immediate psychiatrical attention.
This was probably posted on a computer built by Intel while listening to music recorded by Sony through Sony stereo. :0)
Even though the site is perfectly fine, I CAN'T access it without hitting their stupid "finder" for some reason.