But the goal (of some at least) is that Linux be for "Uncle Bob" too. If not, it will never have the market share that Windows or even OS X has for home use. The question is, does having so many different distros available raise the entry level for "Uncle Bob"?
Maybe we just need an "Uncle Bob Linux" distro. At least he would know it hasn't been intentionally crippled.
But keep in mind, it was brought to Google's attention right from the beginning. This isn't something that was recently sprung on them. Even though they were aware of the potential confilict, Google chose to continue the branding of GMail and use it in email addresses.
I'll leave it to the courts to figure out, but this one feels more like the big guy trying to steamroller the little guy, than any kind of extortion attempt.
Word will do reflows based on what printer driver you have, what you selected, version differences between computers, and all sorts of other things.
So what you're saying is with Word, What You See Is What You Get?
You may not realize it, but you just did a pretty good job of defining WYSIWYG. The whole idea is that what's shown on screen will reflect what will print. If the display changes to reflect different printing conditions, that's good.
Not with Word we haven't. I still can't print the exact same Word file on two different printers and get the same pagination.
That has nothing to do with WYSIWYG. The question is, when you change your printer preference, does the pagination of what you're seeing on screen change to what will be printed? If WYS on the screen is WYG on the printer, that's WYSIWYG. If it doesn't change, then there's a problem.
I don't see how anyone could take seriously the idea that google is profitting from the other guys brand-identity (what trademark is supposed to protect.) Who had even heard of their trademark before this?
And for the little guy, that's the problem. Its not about Google profiting from the other guy's brand identity, its about the brand identity the other guy had being completely lost under Google's shadow. That too is what trademark is supposed to protect.
So now this other guy approaches a banking entity and tries to sell them a secure, web based email system called G-Mail. How do you think they will fare?
If Google loses, they'll just rename GMail to GoogleMail. BFD.
That's what I would think, but if its so easy, why haven't they done it? I don't understand why Google didn't simply rename it when it was brought to their attention.
I can see where it would be a big loss for G-Mail, but not for GMail. Google could afford to use a different name. The "small guy" already has a lot invested in it and risks being lost if GMail is allowed to continue.
IMO another win-win for the lawyers, lose-lose for the people they represent.
Sadly, no. I get the same low mortgage rate type crap at work that I get at home. I actually get more of it at work than at home (no 4 year old at work to hand them over to).
As I've pointed out elsewhere, that bandwidth is also helpful if you have several "fast" external devices to connect. One use would be a good old Firewire RAID (that bleeding-edge you mentioned) .
I agree though. For things like a mini, USB is "good enough".
riiiiight... because we all know that those leetle teeny hard drives are soooooo fast, much much faster than the data rate of a regular old firewire 400 connection.
What that means is you don't have to have a separate FW port for every high-(or semi-high-)bandwidth device. Feel free to attach the iPod to the extra port of the external Firewire drive you have that actually contains the music files, and watch the transfer still proceed as fast as the little iPod can handle it.
Compare that with what happens using USB (even comparing USB 2 to FW400).
And just try capturing DV to an external drive over USB while also copying large files from the same drive. Even FW400 does it without dropping a frame.
So they keep on saying, "BEWARE! Macs to be hit by virus any day now! Buy your AV software now. And if you're fed up with malware on your Windows PC, don't bother swtiching, because by the time you do, you'll have the same problem on the Mac!"
This was getting old 5 years ago, even before OS X.
Besides, half the fun of being a Mac user is inviting your Windows using buddies over and showing them what happens when you open that attachment their virus infected PC sent to you. Then LYAO as they panic, then realize you haven't been infected.
Except any more, the Mac user is greeted with a little dialog box that says (paraphrasing), "Unrecognized Application "RootKit" has never been run on this computer before. Would you like to {Abort} {Run Once} {Run it and don't ask me about that one again}. "
Now if you thought you just opened a jpg file, this should give you a little something to think about. Considering that a first-run for a program happens reletively rarely for most users, it isn't too distracting, but adds quite a bit of security.
I was trying to find the article I read a while back describing what methods Software Update uses to be sure it only "talks" to secure Apple servers.
I know there has been pressure for Apple to open up Software Update to include 3rd party updates (something Vista will supposedly do?) but as I understand it, Apple sees it as too much of a security risk.
I'd argue that giving the software company a heads up to find a fix would be more responsible than immediate disclosure. There is no fixed amount of time either. If the company is unresponsive, wait as long as you feel appropriate and go public. If the company responds and appears to be making reasonable efforts to fix it, give them time.
That pretty well sums up my view. As long as the company is sincerely working on it, give them space. Some holes are obviously going to be harder to patch than others, so no set time limit is right IMO.
Then it gets more complicated if there's a simple work-around (say turning off some service) that may work for many sites, but not for all. Then disclosure means some sites can protect themselves and others can assess risk to determine their response. There's no simple answer.
They (at least the non mini/nano) iPods do have video out (currently allows viewing slide shows on TV). All they really need is the hard/software to decode the video, which is why I'm disappointed it wasn't announced.
Slashdot Mirror
But the goal (of some at least) is that Linux be for "Uncle Bob" too. If not, it will never have the market share that Windows or even OS X has for home use. The question is, does having so many different distros available raise the entry level for "Uncle Bob"?
Maybe we just need an "Uncle Bob Linux" distro. At least he would know it hasn't been intentionally crippled.
At least Apple only puts an "i" in front of everything.
Based on the level of technology involved, I'm thinking this one.
That's just one of the other side effects of those hallucinogenic drugs.
But keep in mind, it was brought to Google's attention right from the beginning. This isn't something that was recently sprung on them. Even though they were aware of the potential confilict, Google chose to continue the branding of GMail and use it in email addresses.
I'll leave it to the courts to figure out, but this one feels more like the big guy trying to steamroller the little guy, than any kind of extortion attempt.
Word will do reflows based on what printer driver you have, what you selected, version differences between computers, and all sorts of other things.
So what you're saying is with Word, What You See Is What You Get?
You may not realize it, but you just did a pretty good job of defining WYSIWYG. The whole idea is that what's shown on screen will reflect what will print. If the display changes to reflect different printing conditions, that's good.
Not with Word we haven't. I still can't print the exact same Word file on two different printers and get the same pagination.
That has nothing to do with WYSIWYG. The question is, when you change your printer preference, does the pagination of what you're seeing on screen change to what will be printed? If WYS on the screen is WYG on the printer, that's WYSIWYG. If it doesn't change, then there's a problem.
I'm sure they will when its posted again in a couple days. This was just the public beta.
I don't see how anyone could take seriously the idea that google is profitting from the other guys brand-identity (what trademark is supposed to protect.) Who had even heard of their trademark before this?
And for the little guy, that's the problem. Its not about Google profiting from the other guy's brand identity, its about the brand identity the other guy had being completely lost under Google's shadow. That too is what trademark is supposed to protect.
So now this other guy approaches a banking entity and tries to sell them a secure, web based email system called G-Mail. How do you think they will fare?
There is nothing called "Intellectual Property".
Anything Albert Einstein owned was intellectual property. Anything GWB owns is not.
Yeah, but being the innovative guy I am, I'm applying for a TM on i-Tunes.
If Google loses, they'll just rename GMail to GoogleMail. BFD.
That's what I would think, but if its so easy, why haven't they done it? I don't understand why Google didn't simply rename it when it was brought to their attention.
I can see where it would be a big loss for G-Mail, but not for GMail. Google could afford to use a different name. The "small guy" already has a lot invested in it and risks being lost if GMail is allowed to continue.
IMO another win-win for the lawyers, lose-lose for the people they represent.
So if I'm at my computer listening to music stored on my Nano over USB2, and access files on the drive, there will be no break in the music?
I don't have the setup to try this, just wondering.
Sadly, no. I get the same low mortgage rate type crap at work that I get at home. I actually get more of it at work than at home (no 4 year old at work to hand them over to).
As I've pointed out elsewhere, that bandwidth is also helpful if you have several "fast" external devices to connect. One use would be a good old Firewire RAID (that bleeding-edge you mentioned) .
I agree though. For things like a mini, USB is "good enough".
riiiiight... because we all know that those leetle teeny hard drives are soooooo fast, much much faster than the data rate of a regular old firewire 400 connection.
What that means is you don't have to have a separate FW port for every high-(or semi-high-)bandwidth device. Feel free to attach the iPod to the extra port of the external Firewire drive you have that actually contains the music files, and watch the transfer still proceed as fast as the little iPod can handle it.
Compare that with what happens using USB (even comparing USB 2 to FW400).
And just try capturing DV to an external drive over USB while also copying large files from the same drive. Even FW400 does it without dropping a frame.
We just haven't seen any in the past 5 years.
So they keep on saying, "BEWARE! Macs to be hit by virus any day now! Buy your AV software now. And if you're fed up with malware on your Windows PC, don't bother swtiching, because by the time you do, you'll have the same problem on the Mac!"
This was getting old 5 years ago, even before OS X.
Besides, half the fun of being a Mac user is inviting your Windows using buddies over and showing them what happens when you open that attachment their virus infected PC sent to you. Then LYAO as they panic, then realize you haven't been infected.
We seem to see this strategy about every 3 months.
Except any more, the Mac user is greeted with a little dialog box that says (paraphrasing), "Unrecognized Application "RootKit" has never been run on this computer before. Would you like to {Abort} {Run Once} {Run it and don't ask me about that one again}. "
Now if you thought you just opened a jpg file, this should give you a little something to think about. Considering that a first-run for a program happens reletively rarely for most users, it isn't too distracting, but adds quite a bit of security.
I was trying to find the article I read a while back describing what methods Software Update uses to be sure it only "talks" to secure Apple servers.
I know there has been pressure for Apple to open up Software Update to include 3rd party updates (something Vista will supposedly do?) but as I understand it, Apple sees it as too much of a security risk.
I'd argue that giving the software company a heads up to find a fix would be more responsible than immediate disclosure. There is no fixed amount of time either. If the company is unresponsive, wait as long as you feel appropriate and go public. If the company responds and appears to be making reasonable efforts to fix it, give them time.
That pretty well sums up my view. As long as the company is sincerely working on it, give them space. Some holes are obviously going to be harder to patch than others, so no set time limit is right IMO.
Then it gets more complicated if there's a simple work-around (say turning off some service) that may work for many sites, but not for all. Then disclosure means some sites can protect themselves and others can assess risk to determine their response. There's no simple answer.
What, you missed the Dalmation and Flower Power iMacs?
They (at least the non mini/nano) iPods do have video out (currently allows viewing slide shows on TV). All they really need is the hard/software to decode the video, which is why I'm disappointed it wasn't announced.
You may have that backwords. Apple makes money on the iPods, not on the iTMS. The iTMS exhists for the sole purpose of selling iPods.