Give me some ogg player
on
New MP3 Portables
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've been looking (truly, quickly) at (MP3) players, CD players and stereo systems and I was hoping to see a few advertising OGG playback. So far I haven't been able to find any digital hardware equipment (not a computer) that would play ogg off-the-shelf.
If I'd find a reasonably priced player, preferably CD, that would play ogg I would buy it. I own a relatively small collection of music (~1GB) 80% of which is MP3 but I'm starting to rip my new CDs with ogg.
Anyone knows of CD players that read ogg files on CDs?
Disclaimer: I don't care about people saying "you stupid! just rip your CDs in MP3" because they don't get the point. I don't want to start a fanatic war on ogg vs. mp3 either because it misses the point too. I just want to listen to ogg files because I like it.
I don't know why this guys needs to write a paper on this. There's not secrets about the differences between open source and closed source security.
The number of bugs found (please read exactly as written... *found*, not known) is probably equal. Even though I'm totally for open source, I wouldn't go about saying that open source hackers are 10x better than closed source ones so I'd imagine it's about the same skill-wise. There may be more people hacking open source software, but there's probably more hours put by each coder in closed source so I'd approximate it roughly to be about the same. Result? Assume (realistically) about the same amount of skills and man/hour put into software.
The big difference is obviously that open source bugs are... open source. There are probably more known (read as written... *known*, not found) bugs in open source software because of online bug tracking systems like BugZilla et al. We all get the impression that closed source is less secure (I think like that too) because the only bugs we hear about is the big M$ security holes, especially on slashdot. Reality is that there are probably just as many security flaws occuring open source software, we just don't hear about it as much because not everyone's suscribed to the 10 000+ project mailing lists on sourceforge:o)
Crackers all know where to find information about security flaws, that's not the problem. Where it really matters is how fast you fix those major security flaws. I think this is where open source shows its superiority.
The new perl 6 regexes are crazy. They seem "weird" and awkward compared to the perl 5 ones... but then again I thought the same when I started learning perl (at version 5.6).
A lot of this makes a lot of sense however, especially the default/x to allow for easier reading of code and allow for comments inside the regexes. Some of the new features make the regexes a bit longer to type, but in general they are significantly smaller. There's also a much better and more consistent use of different types of brackets. Not having to look at the end of the regex to understand the whole thing is going to be great. I hate having to skip the regex to look a the flags first.
Brilliant I think. I can't wait for it to come out. I hope they make a perl5->6 translator though:o) I also wonder what the speed of the interpreter is going to be like compared to perl5. Hopefully faster:o)
Yeah and my grand-ma smokes pot flying an f-22 in her wheel-chair hunting a squadron of blue elephant seals.
When is the last time your heard of a unix virus? What's the ratio of unix virus compared to windows one? How much money has windows virii cost versus unix virii.
I've heard rumours in the US that you only pay your lawyer if you win... Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But in Canada, afaik you have to pay your lawyer no matter what so people are less prone to sue for no reasons.
That might not apply to big corps who hire lawyers full time on salary.
CityDesk by our beloved Joel Spolsky seems like it may be powerful enough and quite easy to use (if it lives up to Joel's standards as he claims it does). I haven't tried it myself but you might want to look into it as it seems *much* cheaper than other content management software.
Why use C/C++? yeah they are harder than python, perl, java, etc... but the C familly of languages are probably the most portable languages yet. There is a C compiler for nearly every hardware architechture. Hence an important reason why software like Linux, *BSD and Mozilla use C.
Mozilla's purpose is not to be solely a browser/mail/whatever. Go to http://www.mozilla.org/ and read some of the documents there about the actual planned purpose of the Mozilla project and software.
Freesco which I personnally use on a 486/dx2 with 8mb of ram. It has many functionalities like remote access, dhcp, dns, print server, firewalling, masquerading, bridging, support for many ethernet cards and best of all fits on a floppy (no HD required, but possible to do a HD install) Works like a charm and very easy to setup... almost plug and play (although not like windoze's plug and pray)
Coyote Linux which seems to offer a few more features than freesco, but requires 12mb of ram. Again, fits on a floppy.
SmoothWall which seems to be more of a feature complete firewalling solution includes web-based admin, proxy server and much more. It's larger (30MB or so) but seems fairly easy to use.
On the BitKeeper website, they aslo say that 2.4 (as well as 2.5) is hosted by BitKeeper.
Seems to me like a good idea to speed up the kernel development pace while still keeping control. And it seems to make Linus happy:o) Looks like he's having fun playing with it.
Abiword saves in lots of formats, including LaTeX, HTML, XHTML, MSWord, rtf, KWord, plain text, and gzipped abiword format.
From LaTeX you can make PostScript (`latex filename.tex && dvips -t letter filename.dvi -o filename.ps`) for quality printing or Adobe PDF (`pdflatex filename.tex`) as well as HTML, rtf, plain text, etc...
But that's beside the point. If you write the docs in plain text you can very easily convert them into various format if you stick with the right tools;o)
Not true. That's a generalization that doesn't apply to even *most* cases. Creating software is not only coding I think would be a more appropriate statement.
One application of software that *REALLY* needs engineering is mission critical software. Software that controls missiles, planes, sattelite, shuttles, pace makers, medical equipment, nuclear reactor control systems, etc.
Without rigourous engineering, logic proofed specifications (using theorem provers like PVS or IMPS) and structured design from requirements to implementation where the implementation agrees with the requirements, and some other fundamental software concepts that I forget, it is practically impossible to design mission critical software without knowing for sure that it won't break. As my teacher often say, testing will find bugs, but it doesn't prove that the software doesn't have bugs. Only formal verification can do this.
Two examples where proper software engineering could have saved a lot of money:
1. Intel's first 586 pentium chip bug that couldn't divide properly every once in a while.
2. Ariane space rocket that had to be destroyed because of improper type checking in the software.
The kind of software that controls those needs engineering because large amounts of money are involved and sometimes humans lives depend on it.
And I don't want to put down computer science, but CS people don't often get the engineering education required to be able to design this kind of software. And that does NOT mean they don't know how to code. Which brings me to the point that software engineering certification shouldn't be given out like MSCE. It's like asking a construction worker to design and supervise building a bridge.
If bridges, buildings, planes, cars, etc. need engineering, why software made to make run planes, neuclear reactors, pace makers, etc. wouldn't?
Canada already has software engineering as a true engineering discipline. McMaster University which I currently attend in S.E. has a program that has been accredited by the Professional Engineers Ontario. Our department is led by Dr. David Parnas, one of the fathers of software engineering (read the Mythical Man-Month by F. P. Brooks or Software Fundamentals by D. Parnas) Many other canadian universities are following with their own S.E. programs including the very strong in computer science University of Waterloo, the world renowned McGill University of Montreal and many others.
I personnally can't wait for the next GameCube's Metroid game. Aside from the gameboy color's version (don't have it and don't plan on it either) it's been an awful lot of time since Super Metroid which in my opinion is one of the best games of all time.
If ever I get money (I'm a poor student:o( I might get my hands on a game cube just for that game.
The third trailer, longer and containing more adult-oriented material than
the first teaser trailer, will be attached to Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone on November 16th.
What??? They're going to show Natalie Portman naked in Harry Potter? Now that'll surely make me go see Harry Potter!
I've never used Progeny, but I've tried to get Debian on machines of many people who wanted to try Linux for the first time. Installing Potato requires quite of bit of knowledge about the hardware of a particular computer before *starting* to install. It's nice to hear that debian will be getting an easier installation program. Definetly a good thing to show that linux isn't *that* scary:o)
Reasons why Unix Operating System rarely get attacked (note: none of these mention unix being invulnerable)
1. File Permissions. On windows anyone can install software. Try doing that in other places then/home/$u when you're not root in Unix. Quite a bit harder.
2. User friendliness. Even though the unix command line is generally easier to use than DOS, it's still not very welcoming. Or try telling a BDU (Brain Dead User) that ed, the standard editor, is better than M$-Word. 24 bytes program baby!
3. Respect and Time. Respect because most Unix users won't try to hack another's machine. If they do, they'll notify the user and the developper for who's software they found a hole in. Time because it takes less time to hack in a windows box than a unix one so why bother... we're all lazy:o)
if linux would do that too. It's free, but you gotta redowload it everytime you want to install it on another machine. Maybe I should submit a feature request...
Slashdot Mirror
I've been looking (truly, quickly) at (MP3) players, CD players and stereo systems and I was hoping to see a few advertising OGG playback. So far I haven't been able to find any digital hardware equipment (not a computer) that would play ogg off-the-shelf.
If I'd find a reasonably priced player, preferably CD, that would play ogg I would buy it. I own a relatively small collection of music (~1GB) 80% of which is MP3 but I'm starting to rip my new CDs with ogg.
Anyone knows of CD players that read ogg files on CDs?
Disclaimer: I don't care about people saying "you stupid! just rip your CDs in MP3" because they don't get the point. I don't want to start a fanatic war on ogg vs. mp3 either because it misses the point too. I just want to listen to ogg files because I like it.
I don't know why this guys needs to write a paper on this. There's not secrets about the differences between open source and closed source security.
... open source. There are probably more known (read as written... *known*, not found) bugs in open source software because of online bug tracking systems like BugZilla et al. We all get the impression that closed source is less secure (I think like that too) because the only bugs we hear about is the big M$ security holes, especially on slashdot. Reality is that there are probably just as many security flaws occuring open source software, we just don't hear about it as much because not everyone's suscribed to the 10 000+ project mailing lists on sourceforge :o)
The number of bugs found (please read exactly as written... *found*, not known) is probably equal. Even though I'm totally for open source, I wouldn't go about saying that open source hackers are 10x better than closed source ones so I'd imagine it's about the same skill-wise. There may be more people hacking open source software, but there's probably more hours put by each coder in closed source so I'd approximate it roughly to be about the same. Result? Assume (realistically) about the same amount of skills and man/hour put into software.
The big difference is obviously that open source bugs are
Crackers all know where to find information about security flaws, that's not the problem. Where it really matters is how fast you fix those major security flaws. I think this is where open source shows its superiority.
The new perl 6 regexes are crazy. They seem "weird" and awkward compared to the perl 5 ones... but then again I thought the same when I started learning perl (at version 5.6).
/x to allow for easier reading of code and allow for comments inside the regexes. Some of the new features make the regexes a bit longer to type, but in general they are significantly smaller. There's also a much better and more consistent use of different types of brackets. Not having to look at the end of the regex to understand the whole thing is going to be great. I hate having to skip the regex to look a the flags first.
:o) I also wonder what the speed of the interpreter is going to be like compared to perl5. Hopefully faster :o)
A lot of this makes a lot of sense however, especially the default
Brilliant I think. I can't wait for it to come out. I hope they make a perl5->6 translator though
Good job Larry, Damian et al.
Yeah and my grand-ma smokes pot flying an f-22 in her wheel-chair hunting a squadron of blue elephant seals.
When is the last time your heard of a unix virus? What's the ratio of unix virus compared to windows one? How much money has windows virii cost versus unix virii.
*flushes the troll*
I've heard rumours in the US that you only pay your lawyer if you win... Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But in Canada, afaik you have to pay your lawyer no matter what so people are less prone to sue for no reasons.
That might not apply to big corps who hire lawyers full time on salary.
CityDesk by our beloved Joel Spolsky seems like it may be powerful enough and quite easy to use (if it lives up to Joel's standards as he claims it does). I haven't tried it myself but you might want to look into it as it seems *much* cheaper than other content management software.
Why use C/C++? yeah they are harder than python, perl, java, etc... but the C familly of languages are probably the most portable languages yet. There is a C compiler for nearly every hardware architechture. Hence an important reason why software like Linux, *BSD and Mozilla use C.
Mozilla's purpose is not to be solely a browser/mail/whatever. Go to http://www.mozilla.org/ and read some of the documents there about the actual planned purpose of the Mozilla project and software.
--
The Hurd:
Complete. Usable. Not Ready. Buggy. Missing Features.
Linux:
Complete. Usable. Ready. Good. ed - The standard editor.
BSD:
Demon. Devil. Red little guy with a fork. Rock solid. No features.
Microsoft:
Complete. User friendly. Always ready. ``Features''. See previous element.
Are all slashdot suscribers invited to the wedding?
I'd sure like to see some Linux-kiss and the bride's open-source-dess.
On the BitKeeper website, they aslo say that 2.4 (as well as 2.5) is hosted by BitKeeper.
:o) Looks like he's having fun playing with it.
Seems to me like a good idea to speed up the kernel development pace while still keeping control. And it seems to make Linus happy
-Dacmot
Abiword saves in lots of formats, including LaTeX, HTML, XHTML, MSWord, rtf, KWord, plain text, and gzipped abiword format.
;o)
From LaTeX you can make PostScript (`latex filename.tex && dvips -t letter filename.dvi -o filename.ps`) for quality printing or Adobe PDF (`pdflatex filename.tex`) as well as HTML, rtf, plain text, etc...
But that's beside the point. If you write the docs in plain text you can very easily convert them into various format if you stick with the right tools
My 2 cents
Creating Software is not Engineering
Not true. That's a generalization that doesn't apply to even *most* cases. Creating software is not only coding I think would be a more appropriate statement.
One application of software that *REALLY* needs engineering is mission critical software. Software that controls missiles, planes, sattelite, shuttles, pace makers, medical equipment, nuclear reactor control systems, etc.
Without rigourous engineering, logic proofed specifications (using theorem provers like PVS or IMPS) and structured design from requirements to implementation where the implementation agrees with the requirements, and some other fundamental software concepts that I forget, it is practically impossible to design mission critical software without knowing for sure that it won't break. As my teacher often say, testing will find bugs, but it doesn't prove that the software doesn't have bugs. Only formal verification can do this.
Two examples where proper software engineering could have saved a lot of money:
1. Intel's first 586 pentium chip bug that couldn't divide properly every once in a while.
2. Ariane space rocket that had to be destroyed because of improper type checking in the software.
The kind of software that controls those needs engineering because large amounts of money are involved and sometimes humans lives depend on it.
And I don't want to put down computer science, but CS people don't often get the engineering education required to be able to design this kind of software. And that does NOT mean they don't know how to code. Which brings me to the point that software engineering certification shouldn't be given out like MSCE. It's like asking a construction worker to design and supervise building a bridge.
If bridges, buildings, planes, cars, etc. need engineering, why software made to make run planes, neuclear reactors, pace makers, etc. wouldn't?
Canada already has software engineering as a true engineering discipline. McMaster University which I currently attend in S.E. has a program that has been accredited by the Professional Engineers Ontario. Our department is led by Dr. David Parnas, one of the fathers of software engineering (read the Mythical Man-Month by F. P. Brooks or Software Fundamentals by D. Parnas) Many other canadian universities are following with their own S.E. programs including the very strong in computer science University of Waterloo, the world renowned McGill University of Montreal and many others.
I personnally can't wait for the next GameCube's Metroid game. Aside from the gameboy color's version (don't have it and don't plan on it either) it's been an awful lot of time since Super Metroid which in my opinion is one of the best games of all time.
:o( I might get my hands on a game cube just for that game.
If ever I get money (I'm a poor student
The third trailer, longer and containing more adult-oriented material than
the first teaser trailer, will be attached to Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone on November 16th.
What??? They're going to show Natalie Portman naked in Harry Potter? Now that'll surely make me go see Harry Potter!
If there is someone who knows how to write software it's Microsoft. (get it?)
I've never used Progeny, but I've tried to get Debian on machines of many people who wanted to try Linux for the first time. Installing Potato requires quite of bit of knowledge about the hardware of a particular computer before *starting* to install. It's nice to hear that debian will be getting an easier installation program. Definetly a good thing to show that linux isn't *that* scary :o)
Reasons why Unix Operating System rarely get attacked (note: none of these mention unix being invulnerable)
/home/$u when you're not root in Unix. Quite a bit harder.
:o)
1. File Permissions. On windows anyone can install software. Try doing that in other places then
2. User friendliness. Even though the unix command line is generally easier to use than DOS, it's still not very welcoming. Or try telling a BDU (Brain Dead User) that ed, the standard editor, is better than M$-Word. 24 bytes program baby!
3. Respect and Time. Respect because most Unix users won't try to hack another's machine. If they do, they'll notify the user and the developper for who's software they found a hole in. Time because it takes less time to hack in a windows box than a unix one so why bother... we're all lazy
Man... you've never seen Lynx going...
if linux would do that too. It's free, but you gotta redowload it everytime you want to install it on another machine. Maybe I should submit a feature request...