And this solves the problem of thousands of existing applications already using the registry how?
I mean, I'm not disputing that the Registry isn't perfect. It has problems! But 'get rid of the registry' doesn't solve anything. It just makes things worse, because you've now broken tons of legacy applications.
Anyone who suggests 'abandoning the use of the registry' has obviously never written Windows software. What do you suggest we replace it with, INI files? What do you suppose we do about the thousands of existing applications that use the registry? How do you suggest we support access controls for individual settings and keys - make a single INI file for each one?
Changes like 'get rid of the registry' are changes you make when you release a new OS, not when you release a service pack. OS X, for example, uses flatfiles to store most (if not all) preferences, but that's something they designed in from the start.
It's pretty annoying how people always suggest blatantly stupid 'solutions' to problems instead of focusing on real fixes like better design and better testing...
His statement that IE7 requiring Longhorn will likely drive MORE users to Firefox seems to be based on slightly flawed logic... after all, Apple requires users to upgrade to the latest version of their OS for most of the new applications they release (like GarageBand) and that doesn't seem to have hurt them any. (The fact that most of the upgrades are free might have something to do with it, I guess...)
Xvid's installer doesn't include source. I was unable to locate the installer source code, or figure out how it actually performed codec installation. I had to reverse-engineer that information myself.
The MPEG-4 licensing issue is interesting; I didn't know that the XviD codec was patent-encumbered like that.
The developer is the person who responded when I emailed the info address at xvid.org. I don't want to name names, because I think that would be rude, but he's listed as a developer. I emailed him again for clarification, but he stood behind his original statement even after I asked him if he really meant what he had said.
The commercial codec was freeware and had no license agreement, so I simply included the entire codec folder. It probably was breaking some law somewhere, but I did my best to research it and could find nothing, so that was better (in my opinion) than the possible threat of some angry XviD developer accusing me of violating the GPL.
I did try ffdshow, but the size of the codec (pretty big compared to xvid) and the stability issues (I couldn't even get the ffdshow theora codec to encode or decode without crashing) made it hard to consider it an option.
The dynamic linking issue is probably my only real gripe with the GPL. It makes it almost impossible for me to realistically consider using the GPL for any of my code. The LGPL is much easier to work with and still provides almost all of the same benefits as the GPL for me as a developer, and my users get the same basic freedoms from it as they would from the GPL (theoretically, they actually get more), so most of my projects are licensed under the LGPL (or occasionally just the plain ol' zlib license).
On a side note, I recently asked one of the XviD developers about including the XviD codec with a LGPL application I had written. I don't directly use the XviD codec; I use the standard Win32 VFW API to load video clips and play them back. I wanted to include XviD in the installer so that my users would have a quality codec ready to go without having to pay any license fees. The developer stated that because XviD is GPL, all of my code (and any scripts my users wrote, as well) had to be GPL, otherwise I would be violating the GPL. Because of this, I ended up having to include a commercial codec with a less insane license instead.
I don't see how fragmenting KHTML is going to help it much... If people code for Safari, and Safari is the only KHTML based browser that acts lke Safari, the what good does it do for anyone else?
However, he stood firm on the company's policy of making the XML schemas for its Office 2003 document standard publicly available provided interested parties sign an agreement with the software heavyweight. "Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.
Isn't this basically the same as me agreeing to the terms of the GPL when I download GPLed source for a library or app that manipulates some open source document format? The only real difference is the terms of the agreement.
If I remember right, WMA bitrates are per-channel, not total. So a 64kbps stereo WMA would actually be 128kbps, which is equivalent to the bitrate Apple uses for the iTunes Music Store, last I checked...
If you look at the list of files removed from this version, it includes a bunch of DLLs and OCXs that are supposed to come standard with Windows - media playback libraries, etc. What purpose does it serve to remove these files? All you're doing is breaking third-party applications that rely on them! I imagine that if you tested various games and multimedia apps on this version of Windows, they wouldn't work. Now I have another problem to worry about when releasing Windows software... how to deal with machines running this Crippleware edition of Windows.
Does Netscape know anything about user interface design? That has to be one of the most horrible interfaces I have ever seen, especially coming from such a big company.
Yeah, totally! How could anybody not know that the A tag is used to make a link? It's totally obvious, especially since Link starts with an L, and Hyperlink starts with an H...
It's not all that suprising. Quicktime's BMP loader had a buffer overflow until around version 6. (I found it when I was testing out the quicktime API). The trivial stuff seems to be the stuff that often doesn't get checked thoroughly for security holes.
I'm a big indie game fiend, so here are some of the tools that I play with or keep an eye on: For the RPG fanatic, there are a few great freeware tools for making RPGs: http://sphere.sf.net/ http://ika.sf.net/ http://www.verge-rpg.com/ All three have a number of quality completed games and tech demos. Then for those who are more interested in platformers and action games: http://gamedev.sourceforge.net/ http://ww w.gamemaker.nl/ Those who love the old school sierra/lucasarts adventure games might want to check out AGS ( http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ ) I also have a freeware game development tool of my own that I'm working on ( http://fury2.luminance.org/ ).
A lot of people seem to have trouble finding these tools.
Well, I'm not exactly an expert, but it seems to me that he's just over-reacting. The threat of patent infringement to a one-man development team seems to me like it would be miniscule compared to much larger threats like running out of money or being unable to accomplish your goals.
From what I've seen of the software market today, one-man teams still seem to be a way to make money. You just have to find the right market, and avoid overextending yourself - do a good job on the things you can manage, instead of trying to do everything and doing a crappy job of it. I've seen lots of developers succeed by marketing shareware or selling software over the internet (especially as far as indie games go, for example Starscape).
This is an important consideration. I would love to support the Mozilla foundation in placing an ad like this, because I've been using Firefox and Mozilla regularly for a long time, but...
My primary machine can't run Firefox 1.0PR. Previous versions of Firefox ran, but were extremely unreliable, and 1.0PR won't even start up - Yes, I've nuked my profile, etc... It's some sort of compatibility issue. I've had similar problems with Firefox on other machines, albeit rarely. Mozilla Suite still works fine, however, so I use that.
So, my point? I think Firefox might not be ready for a marketing campaign like this. It might be wise to wait until reaching maybe version 1.1, so that people's first impression is a good one, instead of people getting the same impression about 1.0PR that I got - the impression that it's buggy, incomplete, and hacked together. (I know it's not, but it sure looked that way - I couldn't even close it, it required an End Process in my task manager).
Hey, Microsoft provided the source for the patch, along with the binary? Perhaps this heralds a new age of full-disclosure and openness, with Linux and Windows users walking hand-in-hand towards a freer, safer new world?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like the necessary equipment for this costs money or anything! I'm sure that this will boost internet adoption and make conusmers happy.
And this solves the problem of thousands of existing applications already using the registry how?
I mean, I'm not disputing that the Registry isn't perfect. It has problems! But 'get rid of the registry' doesn't solve anything. It just makes things worse, because you've now broken tons of legacy applications.
Anyone who suggests 'abandoning the use of the registry' has obviously never written Windows software. What do you suggest we replace it with, INI files? What do you suppose we do about the thousands of existing applications that use the registry? How do you suggest we support access controls for individual settings and keys - make a single INI file for each one?
Changes like 'get rid of the registry' are changes you make when you release a new OS, not when you release a service pack. OS X, for example, uses flatfiles to store most (if not all) preferences, but that's something they designed in from the start.
It's pretty annoying how people always suggest blatantly stupid 'solutions' to problems instead of focusing on real fixes like better design and better testing...
Um, did you click the 'show' link on the first revision?
His statement that IE7 requiring Longhorn will likely drive MORE users to Firefox seems to be based on slightly flawed logic... after all, Apple requires users to upgrade to the latest version of their OS for most of the new applications they release (like GarageBand) and that doesn't seem to have hurt them any. (The fact that most of the upgrades are free might have something to do with it, I guess...)
Xvid's installer doesn't include source. I was unable to locate the installer source code, or figure out how it actually performed codec installation. I had to reverse-engineer that information myself.
The MPEG-4 licensing issue is interesting; I didn't know that the XviD codec was patent-encumbered like that.
The developer is the person who responded when I emailed the info address at xvid.org. I don't want to name names, because I think that would be rude, but he's listed as a developer. I emailed him again for clarification, but he stood behind his original statement even after I asked him if he really meant what he had said.
The commercial codec was freeware and had no license agreement, so I simply included the entire codec folder. It probably was breaking some law somewhere, but I did my best to research it and could find nothing, so that was better (in my opinion) than the possible threat of some angry XviD developer accusing me of violating the GPL.
I did try ffdshow, but the size of the codec (pretty big compared to xvid) and the stability issues (I couldn't even get the ffdshow theora codec to encode or decode without crashing) made it hard to consider it an option.
The dynamic linking issue is probably my only real gripe with the GPL. It makes it almost impossible for me to realistically consider using the GPL for any of my code. The LGPL is much easier to work with and still provides almost all of the same benefits as the GPL for me as a developer, and my users get the same basic freedoms from it as they would from the GPL (theoretically, they actually get more), so most of my projects are licensed under the LGPL (or occasionally just the plain ol' zlib license).
On a side note, I recently asked one of the XviD developers about including the XviD codec with a LGPL application I had written. I don't directly use the XviD codec; I use the standard Win32 VFW API to load video clips and play them back. I wanted to include XviD in the installer so that my users would have a quality codec ready to go without having to pay any license fees. The developer stated that because XviD is GPL, all of my code (and any scripts my users wrote, as well) had to be GPL, otherwise I would be violating the GPL. Because of this, I ended up having to include a commercial codec with a less insane license instead.
I don't see how fragmenting KHTML is going to help it much... If people code for Safari, and Safari is the only KHTML based browser that acts lke Safari, the what good does it do for anyone else?
If I use code that's licensed under the GPL, I have to agree to the terms of the GPL, yes?
And if I violate the GPL, I lose the right to use that work under the license, yes?
However, he stood firm on the company's policy of making the XML schemas for its Office 2003 document standard publicly available provided interested parties sign an agreement with the software heavyweight. "Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.
Isn't this basically the same as me agreeing to the terms of the GPL when I download GPLed source for a library or app that manipulates some open source document format? The only real difference is the terms of the agreement.
If I remember right, WMA bitrates are per-channel, not total. So a 64kbps stereo WMA would actually be 128kbps, which is equivalent to the bitrate Apple uses for the iTunes Music Store, last I checked...
Just install Tab Browser Extensions and enable Session Management. Then when Firefox gets too fat, you can just close it and reopen it.
Well, based on the quality of their telephone network, I wouldn't be suprised if it is the same guy.
If you look at the list of files removed from this version, it includes a bunch of DLLs and OCXs that are supposed to come standard with Windows - media playback libraries, etc. What purpose does it serve to remove these files? All you're doing is breaking third-party applications that rely on them! I imagine that if you tested various games and multimedia apps on this version of Windows, they wouldn't work. Now I have another problem to worry about when releasing Windows software... how to deal with machines running this Crippleware edition of Windows.
FYI, OpenOffice.org (at least 1.13 that I have installed here on my Windows box) inserts Smart Quotes by default, just like Word.
/. and in the editor.
Copy-Pasted from OpenOffice:
"Hello"
Copy-Pasted from Word:
"Hello"
Their output looks exactly the same, both in the input box here on
So, if the 'Smart Quotes' feature is such a problem, why does OpenOffice enable it by default?
Does Netscape know anything about user interface design? That has to be one of the most horrible interfaces I have ever seen, especially coming from such a big company.
Yeah, totally! How could anybody not know that the A tag is used to make a link? It's totally obvious, especially since Link starts with an L, and Hyperlink starts with an H...
It's not all that suprising. Quicktime's BMP loader had a buffer overflow until around version 6. (I found it when I was testing out the quicktime API). The trivial stuff seems to be the stuff that often doesn't get checked thoroughly for security holes.
SmartFTP is also a pretty nice FTP client that's free for personal use.
I'm a big indie game fiend, so here are some of the tools that I play with or keep an eye on:
http://www.verge-rpg.com/w w.gamemaker.nl/
For the RPG fanatic, there are a few great freeware tools for making RPGs:
http://sphere.sf.net/
http://ika.sf.net/
All three have a number of quality completed games and tech demos.
Then for those who are more interested in platformers and action games:
http://gamedev.sourceforge.net/
http://w
Those who love the old school sierra/lucasarts adventure games might want to check out AGS ( http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ )
I also have a freeware game development tool of my own that I'm working on ( http://fury2.luminance.org/ ).
A lot of people seem to have trouble finding these tools.
How can these exploits be unpatched if SP2 isn't vulnerable? Or do they mean that while the other windows versions are exploitable, SP2 just crashes?
And another one, as seen from Telnet in Windows XP:
/images/landing_pages_new/webinar_land2-1.jpg
C:\>telnet www.sco.com 80
GET
JFIF d d Ducky Adobe d ä
Well, I'm not exactly an expert, but it seems to me that he's just over-reacting. The threat of patent infringement to a one-man development team seems to me like it would be miniscule compared to much larger threats like running out of money or being unable to accomplish your goals.
From what I've seen of the software market today, one-man teams still seem to be a way to make money. You just have to find the right market, and avoid overextending yourself - do a good job on the things you can manage, instead of trying to do everything and doing a crappy job of it. I've seen lots of developers succeed by marketing shareware or selling software over the internet (especially as far as indie games go, for example Starscape).
This is an important consideration. I would love to support the Mozilla foundation in placing an ad like this, because I've been using Firefox and Mozilla regularly for a long time, but...
My primary machine can't run Firefox 1.0PR. Previous versions of Firefox ran, but were extremely unreliable, and 1.0PR won't even start up - Yes, I've nuked my profile, etc... It's some sort of compatibility issue. I've had similar problems with Firefox on other machines, albeit rarely. Mozilla Suite still works fine, however, so I use that.
So, my point? I think Firefox might not be ready for a marketing campaign like this. It might be wise to wait until reaching maybe version 1.1, so that people's first impression is a good one, instead of people getting the same impression about 1.0PR that I got - the impression that it's buggy, incomplete, and hacked together. (I know it's not, but it sure looked that way - I couldn't even close it, it required an End Process in my task manager).
Hey, Microsoft provided the source for the patch, along with the binary? Perhaps this heralds a new age of full-disclosure and openness, with Linux and Windows users walking hand-in-hand towards a freer, safer new world?
No, probably not.