So they spent enormous amounts of time to build a HTPC, and what's in the list of things that don't work: CSS encrypted DVDs. Which is like every single one.
DRM is killing me. I'd love to run something non-Microsoft, but I personally do not want to sacrifice quality. I want to be able to play the highest quality that's available.
This means WMV9-HD @ 1080p for video and DVD-Audio for audio. (okay, I'm sure some of you will want to debate this, go ahead. Anyone that I show WMV9-HD to is simply blown away.)
One of the most unfortunate things is that you can not run WMV9-HD without using Microsoft binaries. In theory this is something that can be solved, because if I understand it correctly, WMV9 is standardized and it should be able to implement a decoder from the specs.
BUT, the standard most certainly does NOT cover the added DRM layer that a lot of WMV9-HD content has. And Microsoft has no intention to solve that problem. What we need is a DeCSS variant to remove the DRM from WMV9.
I'm unaware of any DVD-Audio playback capabilities under Linux, but again, this is certainly something that's technically possible. Except for, you guessed it, DRM. At the moment there's only one combination available if you want to play DVD-Audio discs that are 'encrypted'; SoundBlaster Audigy (not the lowest end one) and Windows.
For this one, I'm working on a solution (hardware based). The problematic thing is that the encryption scheme allows for key revokation. I think this is specifically designed as a counter act to the Xing key discovery. If they find that we discover the SoundBlaster key (or maybe find some other way to use the SoundBlaster to get the unencrypted data), then they can revoke it, making new content unplayable on the SoundBlaster. This may sound as very hard to believe (it does to me), and I may be wrong. But I don't see how else it would work.
I can understand that on-line sellers may get frustrated from people abandoning shopping carts, but I can think of many reasons, not just price shopping.
First of all, I think an on-line shopping cart is more analogue to simply shopping; picking something up and putting it back down. Most real stores don't have shopping carts. But if they did, and especially if it wasn't considered rude, I think you'd see much more people putting stuff in their car and abandoning their shopping cart when they left the store.
Then there's the issue of availability of other products. For example, I start of at Jameco and find most of the stuff I need, but then my luck runs out. So I go to DigiKey. They turn out to have everything. If there's a few dollars price difference I don't care, I'd rather order from one shop.
Then there's the payment method. If a site supports PayPal, then I favor them, because I don't have to provide them with my CC details. I like that. Or if none of the candidates supports PayPal, I'd look which one is more reputable. Here's a hint for on-line store owners: provide goddam address information and telephone numbers. If you are trying to hide behind the anonimity of the intarweb, then why the hell would I give you my CC number?
Now, what I get frustrated with is how little you still _can_ buy online. I have needed to order a wild variety of things lately, and as soon as you step out of the blatently obvious products, you sometimes hit a brick wall. I mean, if you don't have the infrastructure to deal with on-line sales, let someone else handle it. There's plenty of companies that are more than happy to do it for you.
I wonder if they have any idea how much business they lose by having the 'call to talk with sales' statement./rant
From a man worth 7 billion dollars, it sure seems to me like his statement on how to run a business is pretty reputable.
Well, if you are really interested in basing your decisions on what one guy who represents, what?, like 0.0000001% (ROM) of the population has to say, then I'd recommend a certain Bill in Redmond. Honestly though, it doesn't matter much what either one of them says; it's pretty unlikely that it will make you a 7 billion dollar man.
I personally think that the biz-school bashing is kinda cheap, and frankly I thought we were past that.
It's great it all worked out for Page, but (despite popular believe), biz school can be quite useful. I didn't go, but I would recommend it to anyone that's interested.
1. And here I thought Minix was written by Andy Tanenbaum. (notice the NL in that domain?)
Most of the stuff you are talking about is, with all due respect, old stuff. I'm not going to argue about whether or not Americans are stupid or not (it's a rediculous generalization), I think it's entirely possible that a new generation does not have the level of education than the one before. I think we can all agree that your ancestors where great. You will have to prove yourself.
2. Sure, Americans never lie on their resume. I'll give you that one.
3. How about you don't sit back and wait for Microsoft to do the right thing? It's easier than ever to create 'the next big thing' in your garage/basement. For example, you can get an FPGA development kit for under a $100, with which you can do just amazing things. Quit your fucking whining and start doing something.
4. Getting a little desperate to have a good argument, it sounds like.
5. Instead of silly personal attacks on people, how about this; why don't you dedicate some energy to see how you can help to get a government in place that is for the people and not the corporations. You realize that it is your government that is _very_ supportive of Microsoft, and that that government was (supposedly) democratically chosen.
Good point, however I've been stung when an array is actually a pointer to an array... (You get the size of a pointer).
Certainly. That is one of the debatable sides of using sizeof in this case. But if the field was a pointer, then you'd also (most likely) not use a define/const in the first place. (since it most likely is a variable length)
The bigger problem with it is that my code assumes sizeof( char ) is 1. A more proper way of actually writing it would be:
for( int i = 0 ; i < (sizeof( cid.AgentName ) / sizeof( *cid.AgentName )) ; i++ )
which I admit, is getting a little crazy. So what I usually have is one macro:
for( int i = 0 ; i < ELEMENTS_IN_STATIC_ARRAY( cid.AgentName ) ; i++ )
The use of which becomes more obvious when you are dealing with arrays of structs.
Also, when you are writing code, the name is obvious enough that you wouldn't use it on an pointer. When you change the CustomerID.AgentName from a static sized struct to a pointer at some later stage you are most of the time doing it to make the size of AgentName dynamic. This means you have to hunt through the code and see where it's used in either case.
Your search would be easier, because you'd only have to search on the define.
As far as using #define's or const for defining the array size and using that as a definition of the length of the array when iterating, it seems pretty obvious to me that it's a good method. You can't have two defines with different values, at the least you will get warnings.
Sure, but my point was that, unless you use very unique names, and especially when you start pulling in lots of headers, it's entirely possible that you are accidentally using a different define/const than the one you intended.
I've actually seen people getting confused with their own stuff. Using MAX_STR_LEN and MAX_STRING_LENGTH and MAX_STRING_LEN etc. Then inevitably they end up using the wrong define/const when they need it.
But I'll give you this, if you are consistent with using namespaces, the best solution may be to use consts.:-)
The first also allows things like for(int i=0;iAgentNameLen;i++) which makes it very clear that you are iterating throught the agent name.
I would be inclined to use sizeof this instead:
CustomerID cid; for( int i = 0 ; i < sizeof( cid.AgentName ) ; i++ )
cid.AgentName[i] = 0;
It's debatable for sure, but I'm no fan of using a define or const in places like a for loop to depend on the size. The reason is that it's possible that somewhere else there may be a definition of AgentNameLength. What if you accidentally choose the wrong define (or const). When you use sizeof, there's no question that it's correct.
//--- // TODO: gracefully handle wrap-around of SDL_GetTicks() // not implemented yet because it only happens every 40 years //---
tmp = last_update;
last_update = SDL_GetTicks();
tmp = last_update - tmp;
fps_millis_timer += tmp;
fps_counter++;
My philosophy is that: 1) production code is not a tutorial of the C(++) language. It's okay to assume the reader knows their stuff. A bad example:
tmp = last_update;// tmp = last update time
2) production code is not documentation on the APIs that it uses. APIs have their own documentation, the reader either is familiar with it, or can find documentation. A bad example:
last_update = SDL_GetTicks();// now
If the API is only used in one file, then you could point at the documentation right where the header is included. If it's used on a project level, then it should be pointed to at the project documentation. 3) comments are just as much about why you didn't do something a certain way as it is about why you did do something a certain way. 4) the obvious; name your variables correctly. Instead of:
5) if you are implementing using a spec, somewhere in the top of the file describe the revision of the spec. Additional comments can describe the section of the spec that they relate to. For example:
6) NEVER put actual values in comments. For example:
com1.baudrate = 9600;//set baudrate to 9600
The code already shows the actual value, and all too often the comment doesn't get updated. Sometimes it's okay to list the possible values:
out_p16_d8( base + CSR, 0x66 );//0x61 = 1x, 0x62 = 2x, 0x66 = 4x, other val illegal
but I only prefer that when this is the _only_ place where it is used. Otherwise you'd use enums and/or refer to the documentation section/page 7) write top level documentation to explain what the software is actually supposed to do. It's amazing how often this is missing. Write one bloody page that describes to a programmer that doesn't know ANYTHING about the software what the hell it's supposed to do, and how it's accomplishing this. It also helps tremendously if every file has a little description in the header. And I'm not talking about what license the code is distributed under.
1. mount a 90mm fan on the front of your 3.5 inch bays.
I would submit that idea next week. And call it Hard Drive Cooling for 0 Cents!
Since all you need to do is get a case that already has one of these (many do). Hey, if fans apparently are free, then they may as well appear in the correct location.
I totally agree with you, just wanted to point out something:
In other words what you and Linus are both completely missing in your ire is the fact that bitmover is entirely microsoftian in this regard.
Actually, I don't remember ever reading a license from Microsoft that said that they could revoke your rights to use the software immediately, for whatever reason they deemed appropriate.
I personally can not understand why Torvalds _ever_ agreed to this. It doesn't matter wether you're an OSS zealot, pragmatic (as Linus proclaims he is) or even a closed source zealot; that's just an insane restriction. It also makes me wonder why people keep saying that BitKeeper was 'free' to Torvalds. It was NOT free, no matter how you look at it.
For that matter, he would have been better of using SourceSafe; we wouldn't have been in this situation.
In other words, they'd have to be at least 12 miles from shore, and possibly (depending on who's doing the interpretation) over 200.
Interesting, and others point that out as well. I wonder how this exactly work on the border (San Diego for example). What if you anchored 1 mile of the coast of Tijuana?
In any case, it sounds this could very well be a bunch of drunk guys talking, as is suggested in the first paragraph: I heard it at a party last night here at the Gartner conference, then did a quick interview with them
Which is why you say this: What's being shown here is exactly why Closed Source is bad.
Sure, it's either black _or_ white, isn't it?
The matter of the fact is that I dislike both Closed Source and the GPL. Although, I do believe that the GPL is a fine license for anyone that doesn't feel that they need compensation for their work, which is really fair enough if they feel that way.
I don't believe the GPL is particularly helpful for coders that do want to make some money by programming. The whole services/systems/support scheme perhaps works pretty good for large scale projects, but I don't think it does anything for small projects.
Anyways, that's my opinion and I'm working on something that I think is a solution. I should actually be working on it instead of debating this BS on slashdot...
Of course the viral nature of the GPL isn't a form of lock-in, right?
That's just M$ speak, and I don't see your point. I mean, what is the 'viral nature' of the GPL? I believe Microsoft calls it that when they are refering to the fact that if you take GPL code, modify/extend it, that you have to release the new code also under GPL _if_ you distribute it. Yeah, that's something that wouldn't be a problem with 'Closed Source'. If I modified the Word code and distributed the new version then... oh wait... I might end up in jail is what might happen.
Actually VOIP over WiFi is more likely to be useful in deserts and other remote areas because those who care can setup their own network. It might not be worthwhile for a cell phone company to put up a cell tower, but a farmer can put a WiFi station on his silo and get pretty good coverage of his ranch. Sure it won't have a large coverage areas, but it covers his needs.
Yeah... Isn't that what cordless phones are all about?
I'm all for solving problems in a more complicated matter than something that has existed for several decades, but you may be a bit off the mark with the 'more likely to be useful' here.
It has nothing to do with being evil. Trusting your data to proprietary protocols/fileformats is irresponsible and/or stupid. You turn over your control of your own information. It actually makes very little sense.
Everybody seems to forget that McVoy contributed more than $500 000 worth of software to the osdl.
Well, I'm actually no Open Source advocate, but I don't see how you can put a price tag on software, like that. Would OSDL have spent that much money if McVoy hadn't contributed the software? How much of a contribution was it really, if he's now revoking it?
It's too bad that this has to happen with Torvalds in the spotlight, but maybe it's for the better in the end. What's being shown here is exactly why Closed Source is bad.
Linus is pissed off at Tridge because he messed up the deal with McVoy and wasn't even trying to produce anything functional to replace BK
What kind of logic is this? I honestly don't know where to begin. You know, at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter. I'll say it again, it's awesome that it's been displayed here in the clear that this is exactly why proprietary formats/protocols are Bad(tm). It's called lock-in and apparently everyone but Torvalds knew about it.
Torvalds is a smart guy though, he'll figure something out. I'm not worried about that.
If I write an article using the comparison "this is like the Pope saying 'I don't believe in god'"
Then you'd be writing a pretty shitty article. I would suggest something more along the lines of "this is like the Pope saying... not very much at all"
I mean, (hypothetically) this may be news to you, but the guy kicked the bucket not too long ago and there's been no pyrotechnical experiments at the Vatican of significance since; which pretty definetly means we are sans-pope at the moment.
However I do have a goodly bit of management experience and this kind of talk is bad no matter how you slice it.
Is that right? Well, I'm with Bruce here all the way. Sometimes you just have to say it like it is. Sure, in many a company this would stay behind closed doors. So, the doors to the board meeting are 'Open' here. Kinda matches the philosophy of the software.
I'm personally very disturbed by Linus's attitude. IMHO closed protocols/file formats are the worse of all. It's the closed formats that provide the horrible lock-in. I personally don't care if Word is closed source or not, what I care about is if Microsoft decides to discontinue Word, or charge $5K for it, I have no alternative. All my damn files are stored in their format.
What's surprising is that Larry McVoy is proving the exact point, and Trigdell was working on making sure he didn't have that kind of power, yet Torvalds choses Larry's side.
You can be as pragmatic as the next guy, but this smells a lot like there's more going on. And so Torvalds needs to cool it.
Well, I wouldn't get my panties in a knot quite yet.
It says it all in Hollywood "looks" to BitTorrent. I mean, sure. I look at Uranus to park my boot, but is it gonna happen? It'll probably never make it there.
I guess you guys were right all along; there is money to be made by developing Open Source software. There's an entire job available out there!
Seriously though, that was intended as a joke, not flamebait, but the fact that this is front-page slashdot news means... well... not much actually (Oops, there I go again, this is NOT flamebait about Slashdot's, hmmm, interesting choice in news selection, but I seriously digress) Nope, what it means is that it apparently is still fairly exceptional to be paid to work on an Open Source project like this.
But you know, I'm sure y'all will be able to correct me very swiftly.
Slashdot Mirror
Lower your standards and do a job where it is impossible for someone from india to do it.
~Will
Wow, for a second there I was like, Will Wheaton said that??
Who wants to touch someone's cock online?
Yeah! And who wants to choke my chicken?
Oops...
So they spent enormous amounts of time to build a HTPC, and what's in the list of things that don't work: CSS encrypted DVDs. Which is like every single one.
DRM is killing me. I'd love to run something non-Microsoft, but I personally do not want to sacrifice quality. I want to be able to play the highest quality that's available.
This means WMV9-HD @ 1080p for video and DVD-Audio for audio. (okay, I'm sure some of you will want to debate this, go ahead. Anyone that I show WMV9-HD to is simply blown away.)
One of the most unfortunate things is that you can not run WMV9-HD without using Microsoft binaries. In theory this is something that can be solved, because if I understand it correctly, WMV9 is standardized and it should be able to implement a decoder from the specs.
BUT, the standard most certainly does NOT cover the added DRM layer that a lot of WMV9-HD content has. And Microsoft has no intention to solve that problem. What we need is a DeCSS variant to remove the DRM from WMV9.
I'm unaware of any DVD-Audio playback capabilities under Linux, but again, this is certainly something that's technically possible. Except for, you guessed it, DRM. At the moment there's only one combination available if you want to play DVD-Audio discs that are 'encrypted'; SoundBlaster Audigy (not the lowest end one) and Windows.
For this one, I'm working on a solution (hardware based). The problematic thing is that the encryption scheme allows for key revokation. I think this is specifically designed as a counter act to the Xing key discovery. If they find that we discover the SoundBlaster key (or maybe find some other way to use the SoundBlaster to get the unencrypted data), then they can revoke it, making new content unplayable on the SoundBlaster. This may sound as very hard to believe (it does to me), and I may be wrong. But I don't see how else it would work.
I can understand that on-line sellers may get frustrated from people abandoning shopping carts, but I can think of many reasons, not just price shopping.
/rant
First of all, I think an on-line shopping cart is more analogue to simply shopping; picking something up and putting it back down. Most real stores don't have shopping carts. But if they did, and especially if it wasn't considered rude, I think you'd see much more people putting stuff in their car and abandoning their shopping cart when they left the store.
Then there's the issue of availability of other products. For example, I start of at Jameco and find most of the stuff I need, but then my luck runs out. So I go to DigiKey. They turn out to have everything. If there's a few dollars price difference I don't care, I'd rather order from one shop.
Then there's the payment method. If a site supports PayPal, then I favor them, because I don't have to provide them with my CC details. I like that. Or if none of the candidates supports PayPal, I'd look which one is more reputable. Here's a hint for on-line store owners: provide goddam address information and telephone numbers. If you are trying to hide behind the anonimity of the intarweb, then why the hell would I give you my CC number?
Now, what I get frustrated with is how little you still _can_ buy online. I have needed to order a wild variety of things lately, and as soon as you step out of the blatently obvious products, you sometimes hit a brick wall. I mean, if you don't have the infrastructure to deal with on-line sales, let someone else handle it. There's plenty of companies that are more than happy to do it for you.
I wonder if they have any idea how much business they lose by having the 'call to talk with sales' statement.
From a man worth 7 billion dollars, it sure seems to me like his statement on how to run a business is pretty reputable.
Well, if you are really interested in basing your decisions on what one guy who represents, what?, like 0.0000001% (ROM) of the population has to say, then I'd recommend a certain Bill in Redmond. Honestly though, it doesn't matter much what either one of them says; it's pretty unlikely that it will make you a 7 billion dollar man.
I personally think that the biz-school bashing is kinda cheap, and frankly I thought we were past that.
It's great it all worked out for Page, but (despite popular believe), biz school can be quite useful. I didn't go, but I would recommend it to anyone that's interested.
I believe we could work with each other's code without too many problems :)
:-)
Absolutely mate!
So yeah, Minix was written by an American who happens to live in Amsterdam.
;-)
Okay, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out, I knew I was walking on thing ice there
Nice job on the moderation there.
1. And here I thought Minix was written by Andy Tanenbaum. (notice the NL in that domain?)
Most of the stuff you are talking about is, with all due respect, old stuff. I'm not going to argue about whether or not Americans are stupid or not (it's a rediculous generalization), I think it's entirely possible that a new generation does not have the level of education than the one before. I think we can all agree that your ancestors where great. You will have to prove yourself.
2. Sure, Americans never lie on their resume. I'll give you that one.
3. How about you don't sit back and wait for Microsoft to do the right thing? It's easier than ever to create 'the next big thing' in your garage/basement. For example, you can get an FPGA development kit for under a $100, with which you can do just amazing things. Quit your fucking whining and start doing something.
4. Getting a little desperate to have a good argument, it sounds like.
5. Instead of silly personal attacks on people, how about this; why don't you dedicate some energy to see how you can help to get a government in place that is for the people and not the corporations. You realize that it is your government that is _very_ supportive of Microsoft, and that that government was (supposedly) democratically chosen.
Certainly. That is one of the debatable sides of using sizeof in this case. But if the field was a pointer, then you'd also (most likely) not use a define/const in the first place. (since it most likely is a variable length)
The bigger problem with it is that my code assumes sizeof( char ) is 1. A more proper way of actually writing it would be:which I admit, is getting a little crazy. So what I usually have is one macro:and then you can use:The use of which becomes more obvious when you are dealing with arrays of structs.
Also, when you are writing code, the name is obvious enough that you wouldn't use it on an pointer. When you change the CustomerID.AgentName from a static sized struct to a pointer at some later stage you are most of the time doing it to make the size of AgentName dynamic. This means you have to hunt through the code and see where it's used in either case.
Your search would be easier, because you'd only have to search on the define.
As far as using #define's or const for defining the array size and using that as a definition of the length of the array when iterating, it seems pretty obvious to me that it's a good method. You can't have two defines with different values, at the least you will get warnings.
Sure, but my point was that, unless you use very unique names, and especially when you start pulling in lots of headers, it's entirely possible that you are accidentally using a different define/const than the one you intended.
I've actually seen people getting confused with their own stuff. Using MAX_STR_LEN and MAX_STRING_LENGTH and MAX_STRING_LEN etc. Then inevitably they end up using the wrong define/const when they need it.
But I'll give you this, if you are consistent with using namespaces, the best solution may be to use consts.
Cheers.
yeah. Nothing can cause quite the same thrill as declaring a global "int i".
That was modded (+1, Funny), but I think it was a serious comment. It wasn't a bad rule of thumb, either.
Heh, it would have been funny if he'd said "Variable names should be inversely proportional to the size of their scope within the code."
for(int i=0;iAgentNameLen;i++)
which makes it very clear that you are iterating throught the agent name.
I would be inclined to use sizeof this instead:It's debatable for sure, but I'm no fan of using a define or const in places like a for loop to depend on the size. The reason is that it's possible that somewhere else there may be a definition of AgentNameLength. What if you accidentally choose the wrong define (or const). When you use sizeof, there's no question that it's correct.
1) production code is not a tutorial of the C(++) language. It's okay to assume the reader knows their stuff. A bad example:2) production code is not documentation on the APIs that it uses. APIs have their own documentation, the reader either is familiar with it, or can find documentation. A bad example:If the API is only used in one file, then you could point at the documentation right where the header is included. If it's used on a project level, then it should be pointed to at the project documentation.
3) comments are just as much about why you didn't do something a certain way as it is about why you did do something a certain way.
4) the obvious; name your variables correctly. Instead of:use5) if you are implementing using a spec, somewhere in the top of the file describe the revision of the spec. Additional comments can describe the section of the spec that they relate to.
For example:6) NEVER put actual values in comments. For example:The code already shows the actual value, and all too often the comment doesn't get updated.
Sometimes it's okay to list the possible values:but I only prefer that when this is the _only_ place where it is used. Otherwise you'd use enums and/or refer to the documentation section/page
7) write top level documentation to explain what the software is actually supposed to do. It's amazing how often this is missing. Write one bloody page that describes to a programmer that doesn't know ANYTHING about the software what the hell it's supposed to do, and how it's accomplishing this. It also helps tremendously if every file has a little description in the header. And I'm not talking about what license the code is distributed under.
I get pretty bored skydiving too.
... wow, a spider
Heh, ADD at it's finest. It's no surprise most comments are about
1. mount a 90mm fan on the front of your 3.5 inch bays.
I would submit that idea next week. And call it Hard Drive Cooling for 0 Cents!
Since all you need to do is get a case that already has one of these (many do). Hey, if fans apparently are free, then they may as well appear in the correct location.
I totally agree with you, just wanted to point out something:
In other words what you and Linus are both completely missing in your ire is the fact that bitmover is entirely microsoftian in this regard.
Actually, I don't remember ever reading a license from Microsoft that said that they could revoke your rights to use the software immediately, for whatever reason they deemed appropriate.
I personally can not understand why Torvalds _ever_ agreed to this. It doesn't matter wether you're an OSS zealot, pragmatic (as Linus proclaims he is) or even a closed source zealot; that's just an insane restriction. It also makes me wonder why people keep saying that BitKeeper was 'free' to Torvalds. It was NOT free, no matter how you look at it.
For that matter, he would have been better of using SourceSafe; we wouldn't have been in this situation.
In other words, they'd have to be at least 12 miles from shore, and possibly (depending on who's doing the interpretation) over 200.
Interesting, and others point that out as well. I wonder how this exactly work on the border (San Diego for example). What if you anchored 1 mile of the coast of Tijuana?
In any case, it sounds this could very well be a bunch of drunk guys talking, as is suggested in the first paragraph: I heard it at a party last night here at the Gartner conference, then did a quick interview with them
Well, I'm actually no Open Source advocate
... oh wait... I might end up in jail is what might happen.
Which is why you say this:
What's being shown here is exactly why Closed Source is bad.
Sure, it's either black _or_ white, isn't it?
The matter of the fact is that I dislike both Closed Source and the GPL. Although, I do believe that the GPL is a fine license for anyone that doesn't feel that they need compensation for their work, which is really fair enough if they feel that way.
I don't believe the GPL is particularly helpful for coders that do want to make some money by programming. The whole services/systems/support scheme perhaps works pretty good for large scale projects, but I don't think it does anything for small projects.
Anyways, that's my opinion and I'm working on something that I think is a solution. I should actually be working on it instead of debating this BS on slashdot...
Of course the viral nature of the GPL isn't a form of lock-in, right?
That's just M$ speak, and I don't see your point. I mean, what is the 'viral nature' of the GPL? I believe Microsoft calls it that when they are refering to the fact that if you take GPL code, modify/extend it, that you have to release the new code also under GPL _if_ you distribute it. Yeah, that's something that wouldn't be a problem with 'Closed Source'. If I modified the Word code and distributed the new version then
Actually VOIP over WiFi is more likely to be useful in deserts and other remote areas because those who care can setup their own network. It might not be worthwhile for a cell phone company to put up a cell tower, but a farmer can put a WiFi station on his silo and get pretty good coverage of his ranch. Sure it won't have a large coverage areas, but it covers his needs.
Yeah... Isn't that what cordless phones are all about?
I'm all for solving problems in a more complicated matter than something that has existed for several decades, but you may be a bit off the mark with the 'more likely to be useful' here.
Larry McAvoy
;-)
You may have misspelled his name. I believe it's Larry McAvoid.
Proprietary isn't (always) evil!
It has nothing to do with being evil. Trusting your data to proprietary protocols/fileformats is irresponsible and/or stupid. You turn over your control of your own information. It actually makes very little sense.
Everybody seems to forget that McVoy contributed more than $500 000 worth of software to the osdl.
Well, I'm actually no Open Source advocate, but I don't see how you can put a price tag on software, like that. Would OSDL have spent that much money if McVoy hadn't contributed the software? How much of a contribution was it really, if he's now revoking it?
It's too bad that this has to happen with Torvalds in the spotlight, but maybe it's for the better in the end. What's being shown here is exactly why Closed Source is bad.
Linus is pissed off at Tridge because he messed up the deal with McVoy and wasn't even trying to produce anything functional to replace BK
What kind of logic is this? I honestly don't know where to begin. You know, at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter. I'll say it again, it's awesome that it's been displayed here in the clear that this is exactly why proprietary formats/protocols are Bad(tm). It's called lock-in and apparently everyone but Torvalds knew about it.
Torvalds is a smart guy though, he'll figure something out. I'm not worried about that.
If I write an article using the comparison "this is like the Pope saying 'I don't believe in god'"
... not very much at all"
Then you'd be writing a pretty shitty article. I would suggest something more along the lines of "this is like the Pope saying
I mean, (hypothetically) this may be news to you, but the guy kicked the bucket not too long ago and there's been no pyrotechnical experiments at the Vatican of significance since; which pretty definetly means we are sans-pope at the moment.
However I do have a goodly bit of management experience and this kind of talk is bad no matter how you slice it.
Is that right? Well, I'm with Bruce here all the way. Sometimes you just have to say it like it is. Sure, in many a company this would stay behind closed doors. So, the doors to the board meeting are 'Open' here. Kinda matches the philosophy of the software.
I'm personally very disturbed by Linus's attitude. IMHO closed protocols/file formats are the worse of all. It's the closed formats that provide the horrible lock-in. I personally don't care if Word is closed source or not, what I care about is if Microsoft decides to discontinue Word, or charge $5K for it, I have no alternative. All my damn files are stored in their format.
What's surprising is that Larry McVoy is proving the exact point, and Trigdell was working on making sure he didn't have that kind of power, yet Torvalds choses Larry's side.
You can be as pragmatic as the next guy, but this smells a lot like there's more going on. And so Torvalds needs to cool it.
Well, I wouldn't get my panties in a knot quite yet.
It says it all in Hollywood "looks" to BitTorrent. I mean, sure. I look at Uranus to park my boot, but is it gonna happen? It'll probably never make it there.
I guess you guys were right all along; there is money to be made by developing Open Source software. There's an entire job available out there!
... well ... not much actually (Oops, there I go again, this is NOT flamebait about Slashdot's, hmmm, interesting choice in news selection, but I seriously digress) Nope, what it means is that it apparently is still fairly exceptional to be paid to work on an Open Source project like this.
Seriously though, that was intended as a joke, not flamebait, but the fact that this is front-page slashdot news means
But you know, I'm sure y'all will be able to correct me very swiftly.