Well ain't that just fascinating. Jon Bosak of Sun created SOAP?
Funny, I don't see his name on the credits.
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
Don Box, DevelopMentor
David Ehnebuske, IBM
Gopal Kakivaya, Microsoft
Andrew Layman, Microsoft
Noah Mendelsohn, Lotus Development Corp.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Microsoft
Satish Thatte, Microsoft
Dave Winer, UserLand Software, Inc.
Wait? Why isn't that interesting. Representatives from IBM and Lotus were involved jointly with Microsoft in delivering this spec.
I rest my case, you don't know what you are talking about.
Microsoft apologist! That always makes me laugh. As if you think it's an insult.
The fact is, I don't have my head stuck up my ass. I see things from a perspective of what actually happens, not some pet conspiracy theory I fabricate in my mind to justify my contempt and hatred.
Oh, sorry... I probably hit too close to home with that statement.:)
Get your head out of your ass and actually look at what is happening around you.
Which is why you don't break interfaces on your components, but rather implement new ones when you need to introduce new parameters or new features.
This will of course be critical with.Net and web services and such, because you don't want to break all your clients or they will call your stuff unreliable.
Yes, considering every post critical of RMS has been labeled as a troll or flamebait, it is absolutely natural to conclude what you just did.
I'm a liberal... What I want to know is, why are you so afraid to acknowledge that Richard Stallman's ideas are based a lot upon the Communist writings of Karl Marx.
Richard Stallman is a Communist, it's readily apparent in all of his writings. That's not meant to demonize him. Theoretically I don't think communism is a fine societal formation.
But the problem is that it only works in theory, it ignores all other facets of the society we currently live in.
Stallman has written that he doesn't think programmers should be paid salaries. He's written that he finds it disgusting that people would even suggest working for money.
He has claimed that he has purposefully not pursued marriage because he realizes if he did he'd have to set his priorities differently. Meaning, he'd have to pursue that evil money in order to care for the family.
I don't know why you would say this is ad hominem, it's all true and is found as revelations in all of his various writings.
But the thing is, his dream is theoretical and it is clearly evident that he does not take into regard evidence within the real world to support his theory.
I think the views RMS expresses are damaging to the industry. He's the polar opposite of what is wrong with the industry today. That is the problem, he suggests replacing one bad thing with another bad thing.
The good is somewhere in the middle, a balance of copyright and consumer interests.
If you disagree, then fine. But please don't sit there and whine about how misunderstood poor RMS is.
In the pre-beta release of Stallman's response he made the claim that the Free version of Kerberos did not interoperate at all with the Microsoft version of Kerberos shipped with Windows 2000.
In this final release he backs down from this position. He removed the lie from the response, but instead he turned the paragraph into simple innuendo without any substantiation.
Well, at least we know one thing. Even though Stallman is to arrogant to come out and apologize for lying, at least he's willing to admit when he's wrong.
Windows Media Player is pretty much tied in terms of marketshare against Real Player. Trying to make the claim that hardly anyone uses it is misleading.
Without real stats, one has to make them up. I would imagine out of one billion computer users this is the breakup of marketshare for audio encoding formats:
900,000,000 use MP3
99,999,990 use WMA
10 use Ogg-Vorbis
I don't see what purpose it would serve Microsoft to taint Ogg when it has no marketshare, and it's an inferior format to the WMA they already ship.
That's a good point. Let's say you did go from WAV->MP3->WAV->OGG... I'll bet you'd have an interesting result with some extra special distortion and phase problems.
Definately better to just leave the MP3 files alone, or reencode from the originals. You definately won't gain anything going from MP3->OGG and it'll just be a waste of time.
First a disclaimer... I have a fairly critical ear and I'm listening using a pair of studio grade Sony MDR-V6 headphones.
I just did a quick compare using "Where it's At" from Beck's Odelay album using MP3, OGG and WMA at 128kbps. To be honest I like using music which contains large amounts of purposeful distortion on the part of the artist because it really screws with these encoders...
OGG is slightly improved over MP3. Although there was considerable distortion in the first couple of passages of the song which really drove me nuts, the distortion throughout the rest of the song was more tolerable.
MP3 as always has this really nasty distortion throughout the song, enough to give me a headache after extended listening(i.e. more than 2 minutes).
WMA still just overall has the best quality of reproduction. It's still a lossy format and there are times of distortion, but overall it just does a much better job of reproducing the music.
Also to mention speed. MP3 encoded the fastest, in around 30 seconds. WMA took 50 seconds. Yet it took nearly 3 minutes to encode the song into OGG format.
Your mileage may vary.
If you can't hear the difference between an MP3 and the CD original, the differences in these formats will not be noticeable to you. In which case the question is do you have the time to wait for OGG to complete your encoding?
Honestly I found the differences between these formats to be quite distinct. I believe I could pinpoint them with 99% accuracy in a double-blind test.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand. Why are you disagreeing and then saying exactly the same thing as I commented?
Heh. Well I say it's better to be a paid troll then an idiot who does this for free. :)
Well ain't that just fascinating. Jon Bosak of Sun created SOAP?
Funny, I don't see his name on the credits.
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
Don Box, DevelopMentor
David Ehnebuske, IBM
Gopal Kakivaya, Microsoft
Andrew Layman, Microsoft
Noah Mendelsohn, Lotus Development Corp.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Microsoft
Satish Thatte, Microsoft
Dave Winer, UserLand Software, Inc.
Wait? Why isn't that interesting. Representatives from IBM and Lotus were involved jointly with Microsoft in delivering this spec.
I rest my case, you don't know what you are talking about.
Microsoft apologist! That always makes me laugh. As if you think it's an insult.
:)
The fact is, I don't have my head stuck up my ass. I see things from a perspective of what actually happens, not some pet conspiracy theory I fabricate in my mind to justify my contempt and hatred.
Oh, sorry... I probably hit too close to home with that statement.
Get your head out of your ass and actually look at what is happening around you.
Who says HTTP has to run over port 80?
Which is why you don't break interfaces on your components, but rather implement new ones when you need to introduce new parameters or new features.
.Net and web services and such, because you don't want to break all your clients or they will call your stuff unreliable.
This will of course be critical with
That's fascinating, considering Microsoft worked with IBM to implement those changes.
I see the crazies are out in full force today...
Yes, considering every post critical of RMS has been labeled as a troll or flamebait, it is absolutely natural to conclude what you just did.
I'm a liberal... What I want to know is, why are you so afraid to acknowledge that Richard Stallman's ideas are based a lot upon the Communist writings of Karl Marx.
You people really need to get a grip.
Win98 was the same price.
Look, you can either prove that windows is more expensive today than 10 years ago... Or you can give up on the stupid argument.
I just priced windows Me...2 3& e=11016940
:(
http://www.bestbuy.com/software/Detail.asp?m=10
$89.95 for the WinMe upgrade. I paid $94.95 for the Win95 upgrade back in 1995.
How is that a price increase?
This is really the crux of the issue. Your facts are not facts at all, they are FUD. FUD intended to stir emotion.
The Appeals court on the other hand is worried only about the actual facts in the case. Not your Peter Pan fantasy dreams.
I'm amazed your post was rated a 5.
Richard Stallman is a Communist, it's readily apparent in all of his writings. That's not meant to demonize him. Theoretically I don't think communism is a fine societal formation.
But the problem is that it only works in theory, it ignores all other facets of the society we currently live in.
Stallman has written that he doesn't think programmers should be paid salaries. He's written that he finds it disgusting that people would even suggest working for money.
He has claimed that he has purposefully not pursued marriage because he realizes if he did he'd have to set his priorities differently. Meaning, he'd have to pursue that evil money in order to care for the family.
I don't know why you would say this is ad hominem, it's all true and is found as revelations in all of his various writings.
But the thing is, his dream is theoretical and it is clearly evident that he does not take into regard evidence within the real world to support his theory.
I think the views RMS expresses are damaging to the industry. He's the polar opposite of what is wrong with the industry today. That is the problem, he suggests replacing one bad thing with another bad thing.
The good is somewhere in the middle, a balance of copyright and consumer interests.
If you disagree, then fine. But please don't sit there and whine about how misunderstood poor RMS is.
Why weren't his comments released under the GPL?
:-)
In the pre-beta release of Stallman's response he made the claim that the Free version of Kerberos did not interoperate at all with the Microsoft version of Kerberos shipped with Windows 2000.
In this final release he backs down from this position. He removed the lie from the response, but instead he turned the paragraph into simple innuendo without any substantiation.
Well, at least we know one thing. Even though Stallman is to arrogant to come out and apologize for lying, at least he's willing to admit when he's wrong.
Whatever...
Track 8 "Where it's at" from the Beck Odelay album.
Machine is a Compaq PIII-550.
C:\usr\test>oggenc test.wav
Opening with wav module: WAV file reader
Encoding "test.ogg" [100.0%] [ 0m00s remaining] /
Done encoding file "test.ogg"
File length: 5m 30.0s
Elapsed time: 2m 45.0s
Rate: 2.0054
Average bitrate: 121.8 kb/s
C:\usr\test>oggenc -v
OggEnc v0.7 (libvorbis beta4)
If you listen to the resulting file you will hear incredible distortion in the first passage. I would call it a reverb effect.
My statements are accurate, your attempt to deflect criticism through ad hominem does not help your argument.
Windows Media Player is pretty much tied in terms of marketshare against Real Player. Trying to make the claim that hardly anyone uses it is misleading.
Without real stats, one has to make them up. I would imagine out of one billion computer users this is the breakup of marketshare for audio encoding formats:
900,000,000 use MP3
99,999,990 use WMA
10 use Ogg-Vorbis
I don't see what purpose it would serve Microsoft to taint Ogg when it has no marketshare, and it's an inferior format to the WMA they already ship.
Interesting, in my comparison Ogg was nowhere near the quality of WMA.
But then I only did 160kbps.
I'm confused. What point are you trying to make?
Most music players already support WMA, at least Winamp, Sonique that you mention definately do.
That's a good point. Let's say you did go from WAV->MP3->WAV->OGG... I'll bet you'd have an interesting result with some extra special distortion and phase problems.
Definately better to just leave the MP3 files alone, or reencode from the originals. You definately won't gain anything going from MP3->OGG and it'll just be a waste of time.
Interesting, but I've already pointed out you were wrong in claiming Powerpoint is no longer bundled.
Your entire argument is based off of points 2 and 4 which remain unsupported by evidence.
It's not that your argument is complicated, it's just well... wrong. I don't know how one can get any simpler than that.
First a disclaimer... I have a fairly critical ear and I'm listening using a pair of studio grade Sony MDR-V6 headphones.
I just did a quick compare using "Where it's At" from Beck's Odelay album using MP3, OGG and WMA at 128kbps. To be honest I like using music which contains large amounts of purposeful distortion on the part of the artist because it really screws with these encoders...
OGG is slightly improved over MP3. Although there was considerable distortion in the first couple of passages of the song which really drove me nuts, the distortion throughout the rest of the song was more tolerable.
MP3 as always has this really nasty distortion throughout the song, enough to give me a headache after extended listening(i.e. more than 2 minutes).
WMA still just overall has the best quality of reproduction. It's still a lossy format and there are times of distortion, but overall it just does a much better job of reproducing the music.
Also to mention speed. MP3 encoded the fastest, in around 30 seconds. WMA took 50 seconds. Yet it took nearly 3 minutes to encode the song into OGG format.
Your mileage may vary.
If you can't hear the difference between an MP3 and the CD original, the differences in these formats will not be noticeable to you. In which case the question is do you have the time to wait for OGG to complete your encoding?
Honestly I found the differences between these formats to be quite distinct. I believe I could pinpoint them with 99% accuracy in a double-blind test.
I am curious where you ever got the idea that Powerpoint should ship for free.
Umm, dBase was already dead by the time Access was introduced.
Borland was pushing Paradox.
The dBase III users who were disgruntled by dBase IV(for good reason) moved to FoxPro.
Clipper was extremely popular because it would compile your resulting app into a redistributable executable.
Access's secret to success at the time was that it was relational and it had wonderful report generation facilities.
I still hate it to this day, but admit that it is useful.
Hi, I am a MS-defender and I'm here to flame you.
Powerpoint ships with Standard, Professional and Premium.
It does not ship with Small Business edition, but then they ship you Publisher instead which is likely of more use to a small business.
So it appears you are wrong.
On the other hand if Powerpoint was included in every bundle, I would argue that I'm wasting my money because I have no use for it.
It's a zero sum argument, neither side really has a good point that doesn't have an opposite counterpoint equally as good.
"Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, contrib.net, and even /. "
Is even one of these companies profitable?
If they aren't profitable, how long do you think this gravy train is going to last?