You sir, are either a troll or an idiot. I leave that determination as an exercise for the reader.
What other free kernels would fit the requirements? BSD? What is the advantage of BSD over Linux? FreeDOS? Good luck locking that down in any way meaningful. When every user is root, nothing is sacred. Not to mention good luck with recent NVIDIA/AMD drivers... Oh wait.. you meant HERD? Seriously?
What issues do you see with scheduling and memory management in the Linux kernel that is so bad? How is that solved with any of the other free kernels?
As far as only supporting a limited set of hardware, of course they are going to compile a very limited set of drivers.
ANY Free kernel would fit the bill, but if they are trying to rush something quick and cheap, ANY free kernel that AMD/NVidia will support is a bigger issue.
Do you suggest that porting/building drivers is a trivial task? If you want current hardware support you pretty much need either Windows, Max OSX or BSD (in a limited sense) if you don't want to use Linux.
I believe that what makes Linux advantageous from Steam's perspective is not what is in it, but what is not in it. It has the advantage of being quite mature without the overhead (licensing/restrictions) of proprietary systems. Also, if you want to promote desktop usage in addition to a dedicated box while not having to double your development/testing investment *and* you want to be free of proprietary systems, what other options do you realistically have?
If this were up to you, what kernel would you use? Why?
While I agree that most desktops are way overpowered you are making an assumption that I don't believe holds true. You are suggesting that since most single programs do not use multiple cores effectively or at all, that all the other cores on a particular machine are sitting idle. Anecdotal evidence suggests many/most users run more than a single program at a time and in that context multi-core machines excel.
Fair enough. What then would a layman call "introduction of testimony from experience(s) outside of the trial to the jury, to directly affect the outcome of the jury's decision" and does that term change if the person responsible for this is the jury foreman?
Why would Samsung go through the effort of setting up this farce when they could just as easily have won the case outright had the jury not been rigged? That makes no sense.
I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.
I am fairly certain you are wrong in this context. If you read the judgement, the other cases either did not pertain to the same thing Apple suggested or the case had been reversed/dropped. Blatantly misrepresenting the order would certainly fall under contempt in a U.S. court, along with most courts.
Other applications that display ads are either free with the stipulation you see the ads or you *PAY* for the ap. MS is trying to have it both ways -- pay them for the OS, oh and we are going to force you to view ads as well.
I am fairly certain that there are anti-trust issues here. If using the desktop software, which you maintain a monopoly on, as a display device for advertisements isn't abusing a monopoly position I don't know what is. I can't think of a more clear example of leveraging your monopoly in one market to enter another.
I could not agree more, however I answered (truthfully) that my distro of choice is Gentoo which I suspect will put me at the very bottom of the list:(
Why is it that when the democrats refuse to compromise they are not pushing hard enough however when the republicans do it they are "being utterly amoral and unwilling to compromise with either the Democrats or reality in general"?
While I agree with your sentiment I have seen where this patch is referred to as a patch against "source code";in your post and even (from the article page comments) "core source code" and I disagree with that. This is a *configuration file* patch. I don't know of anyone other than a home user trying Apache for the first time who uses the default configuration file; not to mention this patch is not even approved by or included with Apache (yet).
This may be an argument in semantics but it seems to me a true source code patch (ie. one in which once the server is compiled no configuration option will allow a setting one way or the other) is much more worrisome than a simple configuration change.
From what I am reading, unless/until this patch is included with Apache by default, this is really a non-issue. Someone who wants to ignore DNT can do it. Someone who wants to honor it can do so as well. This choice is left up to the company that is using the software (and believe me, even if DNT was hard-coded into the source code, sites that don't want to honor it would simply patch Apache internally). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, DNT reminds me of the "Evil Bit" RFC.
Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely. This standard reminds me of the Evil Bit RFC.
I am not sure I see your point. A $40 phone is not competing with a $700 phone; this is probably why there was a percentage based charge issued and not a flat fee.
Either way, Apple has been aware of their obligation all along and has chosen to avoid paying. Also worth mentioning is that Apples counter suit was thrown out with prejudice.
While I believe our patent system is FUBAR, as it stands Apple appears to be in the wrong here.
No other mapping service can get this prime real estate - it's Google only and it's not "uninstallable".
You forget that you are free to choose any of the other search engines out there including MSN errr... Live.... errr... Bing.... errrr... what the hell is Microsofts search called now? Oh yea, Yahoo.
Slashdot Mirror
....I had a first gen Blackberry Storm.
I did as well... that experience turned me away from RIM forever. I still have nightmares.
Ditto on my Archos Internet 70 at about the same time....
You sir, are either a troll or an idiot. I leave that determination as an exercise for the reader.
What other free kernels would fit the requirements? BSD? What is the advantage of BSD over Linux? FreeDOS? Good luck locking that down in any way meaningful. When every user is root, nothing is sacred. Not to mention good luck with recent NVIDIA/AMD drivers... Oh wait.. you meant HERD? Seriously?
What issues do you see with scheduling and memory management in the Linux kernel that is so bad? How is that solved with any of the other free kernels?
As far as only supporting a limited set of hardware, of course they are going to compile a very limited set of drivers.
ANY Free kernel would fit the bill, but if they are trying to rush something quick and cheap, ANY free kernel that AMD/NVidia will support is a bigger issue.
Do you suggest that porting/building drivers is a trivial task? If you want current hardware support you pretty much need either Windows, Max OSX or BSD (in a limited sense) if you don't want to use Linux.
I believe that what makes Linux advantageous from Steam's perspective is not what is in it, but what is not in it. It has the advantage of being quite mature without the overhead (licensing/restrictions) of proprietary systems. Also, if you want to promote desktop usage in addition to a dedicated box while not having to double your development/testing investment *and* you want to be free of proprietary systems, what other options do you realistically have?
If this were up to you, what kernel would you use? Why?
While I agree that most desktops are way overpowered you are making an assumption that I don't believe holds true. You are suggesting that since most single programs do not use multiple cores effectively or at all, that all the other cores on a particular machine are sitting idle. Anecdotal evidence suggests many/most users run more than a single program at a time and in that context multi-core machines excel.
Fair enough. What then would a layman call "introduction of testimony from experience(s) outside of the trial to the jury, to directly affect the outcome of the jury's decision" and does that term change if the person responsible for this is the jury foreman?
Why would Samsung go through the effort of setting up this farce when they could just as easily have won the case outright had the jury not been rigged? That makes no sense.
Excellent article - thanks for pointing this out!
I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.
I am fairly certain you are wrong in this context. If you read the judgement, the other cases either did not pertain to the same thing Apple suggested or the case had been reversed/dropped. Blatantly misrepresenting the order would certainly fall under contempt in a U.S. court, along with most courts.
Other applications that display ads are either free with the stipulation you see the ads or you *PAY* for the ap. MS is trying to have it both ways -- pay them for the OS, oh and we are going to force you to view ads as well.
I am fairly certain that there are anti-trust issues here. If using the desktop software, which you maintain a monopoly on, as a display device for advertisements isn't abusing a monopoly position I don't know what is. I can't think of a more clear example of leveraging your monopoly in one market to enter another.
I just hope I got selected for this beta.
:(
I could not agree more, however I answered (truthfully) that my distro of choice is Gentoo which I suspect will put me at the very bottom of the list
You forgot files, devices, links, shortcuts......
Coming from a guy named Roscoe P. Coltrane, I am going to give TPB the benefit of the doubt! :P
Why is it that when the democrats refuse to compromise they are not pushing hard enough however when the republicans do it they are "being utterly amoral and unwilling to compromise with either the Democrats or reality in general"?
...those who live paycheck to paycheck and can't do it any other way..
You do realize that is over 1/2 of the population of the United States, right?
Please do not feed the trolls. :D
So.. give it a shot.
While I agree with your sentiment I have seen where this patch is referred to as a patch against "source code";in your post and even (from the article page comments) "core source code" and I disagree with that. This is a *configuration file* patch. I don't know of anyone other than a home user trying Apache for the first time who uses the default configuration file; not to mention this patch is not even approved by or included with Apache (yet).
This may be an argument in semantics but it seems to me a true source code patch (ie. one in which once the server is compiled no configuration option will allow a setting one way or the other) is much more worrisome than a simple configuration change.
From what I am reading, unless/until this patch is included with Apache by default, this is really a non-issue. Someone who wants to ignore DNT can do it. Someone who wants to honor it can do so as well. This choice is left up to the company that is using the software (and believe me, even if DNT was hard-coded into the source code, sites that don't want to honor it would simply patch Apache internally). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, DNT reminds me of the "Evil Bit" RFC.
Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely. This standard reminds me of the Evil Bit RFC.
I am not sure I see your point. A $40 phone is not competing with a $700 phone; this is probably why there was a percentage based charge issued and not a flat fee.
Either way, Apple has been aware of their obligation all along and has chosen to avoid paying. Also worth mentioning is that Apples counter suit was thrown out with prejudice.
While I believe our patent system is FUBAR, as it stands Apple appears to be in the wrong here.
1). Posting on Slashdot
:D
2). Hot chick at college
3). Studying computer science
4). Using Python
Which one of these things don't belong?
People are willing to pay HBO the normal cost of HBO ($10-15/month) for the ability to stream HBO.. HBO is not interested.
*sigh*
I have heard many reasons for smoking pot, never have I heard "because it is the tax free alternative".
No other mapping service can get this prime real estate - it's Google only and it's not "uninstallable".
You forget that you are free to choose any of the other search engines out there including MSN errr... Live.... errr... Bing.... errrr... what the hell is Microsofts search called now? Oh yea, Yahoo.
/me bows head and walks away quietly.......