It's kind of funny, in the past Symantec made a living out of previous versions not running on the newest versions of Windows. Now they seem to be whining that they have to update their applications.
That's not it. Symantec and McAfee are whining because MS is preventing them from installing all the nasty hooks into the kernel their crappy programs use. Several other AV vendors already have products that are working fine with Vista. Symantec and McAfee would rather bitch and moan than fix their broken software, however. It actually has nothing to do with MS providing their own AV solution, or MS having the only solution that works, even though that's what Symantec and McAfee wants us to believe.
Another thing Symantec is whining about is the Windows Security Center, which is basically a control panel applet that monitors your AV solution, firewall, etc. It displays a little notification if something is wrong, like say your virus definitions are out of date. These vendors want to be able to disable the Security Center, and replace it with their own version (Symantec kind of does this already, though the Windows Security Center remains active, therefore the user gets several notifications from different applets, causing confusion - Symantec says the only way to eliminate this confusion is to disable the MS Security Center so they can use their own applet. Not sure how that's supposed to work with products from several vendors, I don't see Symantec opening up their applet to McAfee et al, however). What's next, instead of the Start Menu, every vendor will offer up their own little application launcher? Maybe Microsoft can bring back the Office toolbar, and Adobe can make a nifty little flash app that floats along the bottom of your desktop.
In my opinion Apple lost it when they started running x86.
Well, I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion, however wrong it may be. I don't mean that as flamebait, but I believe things like Apple's recent financial statements prove the move to Intel was the right thing to do. Mac Mini's outperforming Quad G5s on several benchmarks
There were of course reasons behind that change, but if they wanted to go Intel why not the Itanium range instead?
Because Itanic sucks, and costs a fortune.
Having an interesting or "different" platform may appeal to the geeks on Slashdot, but unfortunately it doesn't guarantee success. It's sad that pretty much the only architecture other than x86 to live on is SPARC, but it seems there's no market for all these different architectures. Also, all these architectures were usually tied to a specific OS, which ties the hands of customers.
For the majority of Mac users, the architecture doesn't matter. It's the OS that makes up the Mac experience. PPC->x86 was the third transition for the platform, and each transition was pretty much seamless to the users.
The HP PA-RISC processors lives on in a way in the Itanium processors, but for how long?
PA-RISC doesn't live on in Itanic, it was killed for Itanic. Sad that HP bought into the Intel Kool-Aid.
The clones worked for Power Computing and the other licensees, but not for Apple. Customers were buying cheaper and faster hardware from other companies at the expense of Apple's (already small) market share.
Steve killed them because they were killing Apple.
In all seriousness, do you (pl.) object to (a) The performance of your device being degraded by having the tracking software on there. (b) The broadcasters having the information available as to what pushes your buttons WRT adverts, so they can pitch stuff at you you're more likely to buy or (c) That they can turn this information into increased revenue for themselves.
I really don't object to anything WRT the set top box on my TV, or how the company uses it (Honestly, while they may be monitoring my viewing habits, they sure as hell aren't targeting ads at me - yet). My beef was with the crap EA is bundling with BF 2142 to deliver targeted ads at gamers who already paid $50 for the damn game. This is essentially paying for a premium feed, then being inundated with ads anyway.
In advance of any responses, ponder the following. (a) There's already non-essential code on the box that degrades the absolute performance (TV Guides etc. - go buy a paper if you don't want the "Rich User Experience") (b) You want to see ads for Feminine Hygiene Products and My Little Pony rather than bleeding-edge server technology and X8: The Last Spin-Off? This is what you get if you do/do not (delete as appropriate) have this tech in your box. (c) What would you prefer to pay, your current ad-supported subscription, or a premium non-ad rate? And if the ads were more relevent to your buying habits; would you pay more or less and why?
They don't degrade it to the point that its noticeable, whereas the crap EA is installing along with BF 2142 is likely noticeable at best - at its worst, it'l likely crash your PC. I'd honestly say they really don't have much effect on the operation of the set top box at all (except when you can't watch TV while the damn guide is downloading - I think that's the fault of Bell ExpressVu's broken implementation though)
I actually wouldn't some of those features with my satellite TV subscription. Of course, with my viewing habits, I'd likely be inundated with those damn EA Sports commercials I can't stand ("You don't even know what the five hole is" ARGH!!!!)
The cable/satellite companies don't install software on my TV that causes it to slow down and crash, all in the name of finding ads that should appeal to me.
According to the blog entry, they're partnering with EI Solutions. It doesn't really say if they create the actual products, or if they're just responsible for the implementation.
I had JUST read this on Google's blog, and when I clicked back to Slashdot, boom: deja vu on the top of the front page (and not from a dupe!:P).
This is obviously a sign that you should submit it, and it'll make the front page tomorrow!:)
Re:Doublespeak he can't avoid...
on
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
On the other hand he can't say "we can't adopt Microsoft's proprietary DRM instead of our own proprietary DRM because: (A) Microsoft will crush us, and (B) Microsoft's DRM is too effective for customers to put up with... the main reason we can get away with what we're doing in the iTunes Store is because everyone knows our DRM is little more than 'honor system'."
Maybe it's actually (C) Microsoft fucked everybody over who went with their PlaysForSure DRM, but we saw it coming, and developed our own system (probably not the reason, but it would be perfectly valid).
I think Apple knows it's DRM is really a joke, but it's enough to appease the RIAA. Much as Jobs might want to throw that into the RIAAs face, I think he knows the RIAA would be too stupid to agree, and there's no way they'd let Apple strip the DRM from the iTunes store.
And that is the problem with the argument, people are so self-centric it doesn't occur to them that Hormel has been using "spam" (SPiced hAM) since the 1930's, which I think predates all unsolicited email (for the exception of p3n1$ en1@rg3m3n+ emails, which predates everything).
And they waited until now to apply for a trademark? Maybe they've only themselves to blame...
But that's the thing, proprietary license *ARE* lawful, but I can object to them on moral grounds.
Don't use it. There's plenty of other web browsers available. Don't scream bloody murder because THEIR terms of use don't mesh with YOUR morals. Hell, the license is so liberal, you can even take their code, and change it to do whatever you want. If you used it to create Ultimate Baby Seal Slaughterama, that's fine. So long as you put your name on it, not Mozilla's.
The same way I can object to some stupid company being upset that omg, someone might tarnish our image if they can just patch it willy-nilly.
I'd certainly be upset if you pretended to me, and sullied MY image.
If I hacked into your slashdot account, and posted messages that conflict with your point of view, would you not be upset?
IT'S OPEN SOURCE. Names want to be free!
It's software. It doesn't want anything. Actually, it can't. Much like information can't want to be free.
So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.
You can't know that. Being he only served 8 years, I imagine it was a crime of passion, rather than a premeditated act. I don't know what set him off the first time, but what's to say he won't react exactly the same way if he's ever put into that situation (or a similar situation) again?
Except that's not what they're asking. Their demands are confined strictly to their program, not all of the software on your system.
If you demanded that upon starting up Speex, it display your picture, that'd be perfectly valid. As for bowing down, I don't know. Are you going to pay airfare to fly everyone to your palace, or is that the users' problem?:)
So long as they're lawful, any terms of use are valid. It's up to the users (distributors, etc). If they want to use the software, they'll agree to the terms.
As far as I understand it, Mozilla have been helping Debian. Actually, the entire discussion has been about helping Debian to comply with Mozilla's terms. By bringing it to Debian's attention now they hope to resolve it before release. If Debian releases their modified Firefox, there's always the possibility of lawsuits or other such nastiness (IANAL, but I know trademarks can be lost if left undefended. I don't know if this situation would qualify, however). Even if there is no legal action, Mozilla would have to request the packages be removed, which would impact Debian users. Getting this resolved now greatly benefits the Debian community.
I also think by requesting approval on the changes Debian is making would help as well. More eyes on the code would identify more bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Gordon Ramsay would probably make for an interesting chef. Or maybe Wolfgang Puck.
Stephen Yan would be my nostalgic choice, but I don't think he has the star power they're looking for.
It's kind of funny, in the past Symantec made a living out of previous versions not running on the newest versions of Windows. Now they seem to be whining that they have to update their applications.
That's not it. Symantec and McAfee are whining because MS is preventing them from installing all the nasty hooks into the kernel their crappy programs use. Several other AV vendors already have products that are working fine with Vista. Symantec and McAfee would rather bitch and moan than fix their broken software, however. It actually has nothing to do with MS providing their own AV solution, or MS having the only solution that works, even though that's what Symantec and McAfee wants us to believe.
Another thing Symantec is whining about is the Windows Security Center, which is basically a control panel applet that monitors your AV solution, firewall, etc. It displays a little notification if something is wrong, like say your virus definitions are out of date. These vendors want to be able to disable the Security Center, and replace it with their own version (Symantec kind of does this already, though the Windows Security Center remains active, therefore the user gets several notifications from different applets, causing confusion - Symantec says the only way to eliminate this confusion is to disable the MS Security Center so they can use their own applet. Not sure how that's supposed to work with products from several vendors, I don't see Symantec opening up their applet to McAfee et al, however). What's next, instead of the Start Menu, every vendor will offer up their own little application launcher? Maybe Microsoft can bring back the Office toolbar, and Adobe can make a nifty little flash app that floats along the bottom of your desktop.
Netscape turned into a bloated steaming pile of shit at version 4.
Con: You've shown how Western society values electronics more than charity/equity.
That's nice. I don't give a fuck about charity. Let them buy their own electronics.
Con: Most people in the world don't have a telephone.
That's actually a pro - who wouldn't want to be able to do away with their phone?
And where exactly are you going to fit a DL360 on your desk?
I hope you don't intend on conversing with anyone in the same room as that box, either.. those fans are LOUD
for all the guild knows, the person just didn't want to raid, even though they were needed.
And? If I want to knit woolen bags on my alt rather than raid, the guild can fuck off, I'm going to knit my woolen bags.
In my opinion Apple lost it when they started running x86.
Well, I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion, however wrong it may be. I don't mean that as flamebait, but I believe things like Apple's recent financial statements prove the move to Intel was the right thing to do. Mac Mini's outperforming Quad G5s on several benchmarks
There were of course reasons behind that change, but if they wanted to go Intel why not the Itanium range instead?
Because Itanic sucks, and costs a fortune.
Having an interesting or "different" platform may appeal to the geeks on Slashdot, but unfortunately it doesn't guarantee success. It's sad that pretty much the only architecture other than x86 to live on is SPARC, but it seems there's no market for all these different architectures. Also, all these architectures were usually tied to a specific OS, which ties the hands of customers.
For the majority of Mac users, the architecture doesn't matter. It's the OS that makes up the Mac experience. PPC->x86 was the third transition for the platform, and each transition was pretty much seamless to the users.
The HP PA-RISC processors lives on in a way in the Itanium processors, but for how long?
PA-RISC doesn't live on in Itanic, it was killed for Itanic. Sad that HP bought into the Intel Kool-Aid.
The clones worked for Power Computing and the other licensees, but not for Apple. Customers were buying cheaper and faster hardware from other companies at the expense of Apple's (already small) market share.
Steve killed them because they were killing Apple.
Apple sells Mac OS X for $129. Quadruple the market share is going to make up for the millions of dollars they make on Mac hardware?
In all seriousness, do you (pl.) object to
(a) The performance of your device being degraded by having the tracking software on there.
(b) The broadcasters having the information available as to what pushes your buttons WRT adverts, so they can pitch stuff at you you're more likely to buy
or
(c) That they can turn this information into increased revenue for themselves.
I really don't object to anything WRT the set top box on my TV, or how the company uses it (Honestly, while they may be monitoring my viewing habits, they sure as hell aren't targeting ads at me - yet). My beef was with the crap EA is bundling with BF 2142 to deliver targeted ads at gamers who already paid $50 for the damn game. This is essentially paying for a premium feed, then being inundated with ads anyway.
In advance of any responses, ponder the following.
(a) There's already non-essential code on the box that degrades the absolute performance (TV Guides etc. - go buy a paper if you don't want the "Rich User Experience")
(b) You want to see ads for Feminine Hygiene Products and My Little Pony rather than bleeding-edge server technology and X8: The Last Spin-Off? This is what you get if you do/do not (delete as appropriate) have this tech in your box.
(c) What would you prefer to pay, your current ad-supported subscription, or a premium non-ad rate? And if the ads were more relevent to your buying habits; would you pay more or less and why?
They don't degrade it to the point that its noticeable, whereas the crap EA is installing along with BF 2142 is likely noticeable at best - at its worst, it'l likely crash your PC. I'd honestly say they really don't have much effect on the operation of the set top box at all (except when you can't watch TV while the damn guide is downloading - I think that's the fault of Bell ExpressVu's broken implementation though)
I actually wouldn't some of those features with my satellite TV subscription. Of course, with my viewing habits, I'd likely be inundated with those damn EA Sports commercials I can't stand ("You don't even know what the five hole is" ARGH!!!!)
The cable/satellite companies don't install software on my TV that causes it to slow down and crash, all in the name of finding ads that should appeal to me.
According to the blog entry, they're partnering with EI Solutions. It doesn't really say if they create the actual products, or if they're just responsible for the implementation.
I had JUST read this on Google's blog, and when I clicked back to Slashdot, boom: deja vu on the top of the front page (and not from a dupe! :P).
:)
This is obviously a sign that you should submit it, and it'll make the front page tomorrow!
On the other hand he can't say "we can't adopt Microsoft's proprietary DRM instead of our own proprietary DRM because: (A) Microsoft will crush us, and (B) Microsoft's DRM is too effective for customers to put up with... the main reason we can get away with what we're doing in the iTunes Store is because everyone knows our DRM is little more than 'honor system'."
Maybe it's actually (C) Microsoft fucked everybody over who went with their PlaysForSure DRM, but we saw it coming, and developed our own system (probably not the reason, but it would be perfectly valid).
I think Apple knows it's DRM is really a joke, but it's enough to appease the RIAA. Much as Jobs might want to throw that into the RIAAs face, I think he knows the RIAA would be too stupid to agree, and there's no way they'd let Apple strip the DRM from the iTunes store.
No, they're lottery balls, which are still legal.
It's those poker chips that plug up the tubes. But those are illegal now, right?
Indeed, it appears to have been filed under the Developers section.
Considering that twisted little weasel is fucking the globe, doesn't that say what Debian thinks of everyone? :)
And that is the problem with the argument, people are so self-centric it doesn't occur to them that Hormel has been using "spam" (SPiced hAM) since the 1930's, which I think predates all unsolicited email (for the exception of p3n1$ en1@rg3m3n+ emails, which predates everything).
And they waited until now to apply for a trademark? Maybe they've only themselves to blame...
But that's the thing, proprietary license *ARE* lawful, but I can object to them on moral grounds.
Don't use it. There's plenty of other web browsers available. Don't scream bloody murder because THEIR terms of use don't mesh with YOUR morals. Hell, the license is so liberal, you can even take their code, and change it to do whatever you want. If you used it to create Ultimate Baby Seal Slaughterama, that's fine. So long as you put your name on it, not Mozilla's.
The same way I can object to some stupid company being upset that omg, someone might tarnish our image if they can just patch it willy-nilly.
I'd certainly be upset if you pretended to me, and sullied MY image.
If I hacked into your slashdot account, and posted messages that conflict with your point of view, would you not be upset?
IT'S OPEN SOURCE. Names want to be free!
It's software. It doesn't want anything. Actually, it can't. Much like information can't want to be free.
In Europe, the UK (Isn't the UK in Europe?) and Australia, It's being called "Canis Canem Edit", which is Latin for "Dog Eat Dog."
See ya
So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.
You can't know that. Being he only served 8 years, I imagine it was a crime of passion, rather than a premeditated act. I don't know what set him off the first time, but what's to say he won't react exactly the same way if he's ever put into that situation (or a similar situation) again?
Except that's not what they're asking. Their demands are confined strictly to their program, not all of the software on your system.
:)
If you demanded that upon starting up Speex, it display your picture, that'd be perfectly valid. As for bowing down, I don't know. Are you going to pay airfare to fly everyone to your palace, or is that the users' problem?
So long as they're lawful, any terms of use are valid. It's up to the users (distributors, etc). If they want to use the software, they'll agree to the terms.
As far as I understand it, Mozilla have been helping Debian. Actually, the entire discussion has been about helping Debian to comply with Mozilla's terms. By bringing it to Debian's attention now they hope to resolve it before release. If Debian releases their modified Firefox, there's always the possibility of lawsuits or other such nastiness (IANAL, but I know trademarks can be lost if left undefended. I don't know if this situation would qualify, however). Even if there is no legal action, Mozilla would have to request the packages be removed, which would impact Debian users. Getting this resolved now greatly benefits the Debian community.
I also think by requesting approval on the changes Debian is making would help as well. More eyes on the code would identify more bugs.