Well, the real question is, are users better off as a result? Personally, I found that most of the computationally intensive graphics were not actually helping me get my work done any faster, switched to a more minimal window manager and did all that I could to reduce the amount of CPU time spent on rendering the GUI (disabling special effects wherever I saw them), and discovered that, in fact, I was correct: none of those effects were actually helping me get my work done.
On the flip side, people tend to be turned off when they see what my screen looks like. It has gotten to the point where I do not mention that this is "Linux," because I do not want new users to get scared. In the end, looking pretty winds up being more important than how efficiently you use computational resources.
I'm not going to argue that on a Linux desktop anyway, the special effects are mostly just that, special effects, but you might get yourself into a situation like in a car; ripping the sound dampening material out makes it more efficient, but is not worth it 99.9% of the time. Animation is used in interfaces on a couple OSs that will go nameless to provide a smooth visual transition from one state to another. It isn't a new concept, it's just easier to do with today's hardware. I think the problem is animation on a Linux desktop is implemented largely just to look cool, not serve a particular purpose. I think they only accidentally achieve the same goal as the source they borrowed the effect from in some cases.
We could probably say color is not necessary in UI design too (the UI, not the rendering of things w/ color information), but that doesn't mean it isn't very useful when the hardware supports it. Repeat with mouse, pixilated graphics, sound, etc..
Monkey patching can be a very powerful approach, if used properly. It makes possible to write very readable code.
Uh.. operator overloading can lead to some very "readable" code too, and they both lead to maintenance nightmares. Hey, if you're the only person that will ever need to read your code and you always remember why you did everything the way you did it, then you're in the clear.
Oh look, another idiot that can't understand the difference between a government's inherent right to privacy & an individual's inherent right to privacy.
All at once you want to debate the inherence and existence of any right, and the need for privacy in terms of governments and individuals? Are you sure? As privacy relates to physical security, EVERYONE _needs_ it. Inherence is a matter of philosophy and not grounds for calling another person an idiot. Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?
essential economic services like money transfers and payment processing sites are apparently allowed to be operated by private companies in an arbitrary and unreliable way and can easily be influenced by governments to their will without legal consequences
LOL "private companies should be told what to do, but not by the government" You cracked me up
This would be hypocritical if wikileaks leaked something like Tiger Woods' sex messages to his mistress or something along the lines of that. Plenty of sites posted that information, and possibly lots of trashy tabloids and gossip magazines - but wikileaks did not.
Obviously there's some real projects out there using Ruby, is it mainly internal stuff? There's some big contenders for things like PHP (wikipedia probably being the biggest). Does Ruby factor in to any public-facing websites of note? Or is it mainly used in the corporate space in the area where you often find tomcat?
More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.
And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.
Has a scientist ever told you to eat more antioxidants so you'd live longer? My gut tells me scientists are smarter than the people you actually hear this stuff from. It's one thing to say X seems to have effect on Y in your body, and another to say doing X will make you live longer.
CA: It's like blaming mechanics for the notion that changing your oil more frequently makes your car last longer. If you actually ask one, they'd tell you plainly, more frequently != more betterer...
Is that it's going to get a little bit harder to run a new business that makes computer products.
I don't think there's anything we can do about this. The general sentiment is that patents make the market "fair" by "protecting inventors." The American people care more about a "fair market" than a "free market" today. If you suggest that no one has a right to make money from their ideas, only their actual products, you're seen as a cold-hearted bastard in the mold of Randroid who believes cigar-chomping fatcats should be able to keep guys working on The Next Big Thing in their garage from getting rich by stealing their ideas.
Nevermind the fact that more often than not, what the patent system really means is that the cigar-chomping fatcat can sue the guy in his garage into bankruptcy 100 times over before he can get his product to market.
Wait, all you free software supporters actually give a flying crap about the market and small "garage based" software businesses now?? REALLY? Did anyone think free software competed with the cigar-chomping fatcats business???
Here's a hint: the money to run Wikipedia comes from somewhere. If it came from advertising dollars, that money would ultimately be reflected in a increase in the cost of products, but because the conversion of money in your pocket through a retailer's payment processing system to the manufacturer's accounts receivable to the marketing department budget to an advertising agency to an adbuy at Wikipedia is horribly inefficient, the total cost for you, out of pocket, will be much higher than if you just send Wikipedia money. The only difference is you won't be obviously, immediately aware of it.
Please, donate directly.
For related reasons, when you donate money to a charitable or non-profit organization, don't take the gifts. That just increases their cost of acquiring your money, making your donation less efficient (and reducing the amount you can deduct on your taxes because the US government considers that a sale of goods and your donation is just the excess above fair market value for the gift you received). Just give the money.
I don't use the services of the Red Cross _at all_ but somehow I consider that to be a more worthwhile organization to donate to. If I should feel guilty about using Wikipedia without donating, maybe they should be charging something for it. Put another way, would you even consider donating to Wikipedia if you didn't use it.. a lot?
Same goes for PBS (hey, and OSS too). Begging for donations from the people using your "public" service is so ass backwards. Either pay for use, or help _other_ people. Not "please pay for use, pretty please".
Here's a thought experiment. Pick any real charity out there, and imagine for a second that the set of people they are helping completely overlaps the set of people they are begging for donations. That would hardly be a charity any more... we have a name for stuff like that in the software world, "nagware". Now, is that not the most annoying software publishing model in the world?
Considering OpenBSD has performed extensive code audits and this is part of the core code, this is going to bring the argument about the importance of security code audits to the forefront.
It brings up the argument about the importance of open source in terms of security. There, I said it.
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
What the hell does logging into Slashdot prove? Why don't you tell us your real name an address? Then I guess we'll need to see some financial records, and do a quick background check, you know, to make sure you are legit and not on the take.
Attach your account... now that's some real authenticity. So we can judge based post history whether to label an account "good" or "bad"? Rich.
Because if _anything_ can lend more weight to my words, it's what I wanted you to hear me say yesterday. [voice of Cartman talking to minority students] Theeeeeeeeeeeeeenk.
If I were to arrange a thousand people to turn up at the corporate headquarters of Visa, and then simply sit down on the ground outside the main doors, would it be a crime?
So, how can it be a crime if I achieve the same thing in cyberspace?
If you prevent people from entering/exiting the building, or do that on private property without permission, yes. There isn't so much as a sidewalk to stand on in the Internet as far as public space goes, so good luck with your analogy.
I've never understood why America doesn't seem to have an EFTPOS (electronic funds at point of sale) system that doesn't rely on Mastercard/Visa etc. From what I've seen all your 'debit' cards over there are essentially just masquerading as credit cards (i.e. are Visa or Mastercard, with a 16 digit number and an expiry date etc.), just that the funds come from your bank account, not from credit.
In my country EFTPOS is a completely separate thing from MC/Visa debit cards. You get to the checkout, swipe your standard ATM card, type your PIN and you are good to go. But there's no Visa or MC logo on the cards and they don't have a credit-card-like number or expiry date etc. (Note that you CAN also get the Visa/MC debit cards - they are useful for shopping online and overseas trips - but they aren't the only type of cashless payment card).
So where I live it's perfectly possible to have nothing to do with those companies. I don't really use them for anything, other than having one credit card that I basically never use... just there for complete emergencies etc.
Uh, we do? However, consumers are given incentives to make signature debit transactions because the banks make a % of the transaction amount. Consumers are often given %-1 back as a "reward". You are free to ask your bank for a plain debit card, or ATM card or whatever they call it. Or ask that your limit for signature transactions be set to $0 if they can do that for you. If your bank/cu doesn't do any of those? Last I heard there is more than one bank in this country, for Christ's sake, it's not that hard people.
This stuff is glaringly obvious if you research it for more than the five minutes you spend reading/. Read the Interchange Act you bozos. Can I haz mod points to?
We have 19-20 year old Privates/PFCs/LCPLs, E1-E3 etc with at least up to top secret clearances, doing their daily, mundane work on the SIPRNET. Did you think PVT Manning's dumb ass was a fluke? The military is a pyramid that is FULL of E1-E3 at the bottom.
Sure, we need more gov't transparency, but putting more people on the SIPRNET is _RETARDED_, unless by transparency you meant more likely to leak. If anything they need to restrict more access to MOSs only available to those who reenlist. I know it's a shit job, but maybe baby soldiers shouldn't be made intel analysts, all I'm saying. I could go on a rant about access controls on the SIPRNET and whatnot, but the simple fact of the matter is that intel analysts are intended to have access to diplomatic cables as part of their job. That's what analysts do, read shit. That's why all those cables were written, for intel ingestion. For all you know, these cables might not have been on the SIPRNET, but on a more classified network. Manning still might have had access as part of his job.
So fix the _real_ problem. Hand all military intelligence duties to the Marine Corps. Float it around congress for a week and that will light a fire under the Army's butt.
Assenge noted in an interview that the purpose of Wikileaks wasn't to start a revolution but to make it easier for (morally)good companies to do business and to make it harder for (morally) bad companies to do business. The same could be said for government.
If this is truly about morals, then individuals are as good a targets as any virtual entity. Which means concerns about our own privacy and confidentiality are warranted. Would you like to be judged by someone else's morals based on confidential information they stole from you? Hey, if you're (morally) good nobody will report anything on you right?
I'd love to hear the argument for morals applying to companies and governments more than every person if someone wants to give it a go. I'm just another individual like you, just as empowered as you are. Can I steal your confidential information and share with others because I think it's (morally) bad, or what if I do it _just because I can_?
The difference(at least according to design docs, we'll see what happens on release when we come to that) is that ChromeOS devices give one the (advanced; but non-hack) option to tell the command and control system to shove it. Their shipping image, and the one you get if you restore, is built on a no trust model; but if you wish to put a different one on there(including a modified build of the open portions of ChromeOS) that is your call.
With Apple, by contrast, their portables are their OS or nothing, barring hacks that depend on mistakes they did not intend to make, and do tend to correct over time. What you see is what you are stuck with.
Since when was it impossible to run a different OS on Apple's portables, excluding iPods? People not wanting to is another thing. Besides, we're comparing trusted OS to trusted OS here, the ability to install non-trusted OS over the top of it is hardly relevant.
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know this: there is a *lot* of Java out there, being served by Apache based servers. From a strictly business standpoint, Apache is in a good position to know what devs want. And by extension, they know what businesses want. Oracle would be foolish to lose that expertise and insight, to what is a huge market.
Really, what kind of relationship does Apache have with its customers? I think the assumption that Apache knows what businesses want is not based on sound reasoning. It's in the same vein as say for example.. "Linus knows what businesses want because most of them use Linux" which is provably crap.
Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?
Who's judging?
You mutilated your pet's genitalia against its will, you're tax returns are anything but honest, you have thoughts of having sex with your cute coworker and cheating on your significant other, you drive over the speed limit and fail to stop at stop signs. You don't brush your teeth enough and you stink. You lie, you cheat, and deep down inside know you're a hollow shell of a human being.
We can drum up all sorts of really mundane things if we want to. The thing is, I can't judge you because you're an individual I guess, but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.
There's a pretty big difference between whistle blowing and what PVT Manning did. There is also a GIGANTIC difference between whistle blowing and the charades Assange pulls off.
Re:its about DRM and control
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 2
they are convincing people to abandon spdif, for audio, too. the new kids who are brought up with hdmi think there's nothing wrong with it. in fact, the way they mixed audio and video made the whole combo stream all DRMed. we once had mostly free and clear spdif (scms ignored since it was defeatable easily) and then they upped the bitrate so that spdif toslink and copper paths would not easily (or at all) carry the new digital audio formats (blu ray audio and so on). the new codecs are using bitstream audio for all channels which is HUGE overkill for sound tracks on movies, but its a middle finger from the entertainment industry saying 'at least we get to fill up your disks with more bits than we needed'. effectively a DOS attack from them to you, stealing your disk space when you do direct BD rips or keep BD copies around.
Wow, a conspiracy to add too much quality to the media we buy so we are discouraged to make copies of them. So eeeeeeevil. They even put a mandatory scratch resistance layer on DB discs to make them EEeeeeviillly last longer. Personally, I think if you had to buy them, they aren't "rights". You are buying permission and it comes with conditions. If you don't like it, go make movies or something. Yah, the government intervened and decided what a fair amount of permission is, but that does not give it equivalence to any basic rights, you still pay for it.
They aren't rights any more than you have the right to drive on public roads, or the right to surf the Internet, or right to touch a strippers titties.
Why are you still squabbling over fake "rights" that you BOUGHT? Whether the government gives you protection or not, DON'T BUY THE STUFF!
Oracle DB is still at the core of our internal corporate computing because of an excellent licensing deal but we use alternatives for consumer facing services.... Everything about Sun h/w is out of sync with what customers want.
Oracle is almost clueless when it comes to hardware sales and development. Try "www.sun.com"... you get a redirect to the Oracle home page and then you have to search for a link to the server product lineup. It's almost as if they are hiding the fact that they have a hardware product to sell. I don't think the Oracle brain trust knows what to do with Sun h/w and the Solaris o/s.
That's unfair, go to any gigantic company's site. EMC, IBM, HP, GE, Hitachi. These are mega corporations, not storage, hardware, computer, jet, wild guess, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the real question is, are users better off as a result? Personally, I found that most of the computationally intensive graphics were not actually helping me get my work done any faster, switched to a more minimal window manager and did all that I could to reduce the amount of CPU time spent on rendering the GUI (disabling special effects wherever I saw them), and discovered that, in fact, I was correct: none of those effects were actually helping me get my work done.
On the flip side, people tend to be turned off when they see what my screen looks like. It has gotten to the point where I do not mention that this is "Linux," because I do not want new users to get scared. In the end, looking pretty winds up being more important than how efficiently you use computational resources.
I'm not going to argue that on a Linux desktop anyway, the special effects are mostly just that, special effects, but you might get yourself into a situation like in a car; ripping the sound dampening material out makes it more efficient, but is not worth it 99.9% of the time. Animation is used in interfaces on a couple OSs that will go nameless to provide a smooth visual transition from one state to another. It isn't a new concept, it's just easier to do with today's hardware. I think the problem is animation on a Linux desktop is implemented largely just to look cool, not serve a particular purpose. I think they only accidentally achieve the same goal as the source they borrowed the effect from in some cases.
We could probably say color is not necessary in UI design too (the UI, not the rendering of things w/ color information), but that doesn't mean it isn't very useful when the hardware supports it.
Repeat with mouse, pixilated graphics, sound, etc..
Monkey patching can be a very powerful approach, if used properly. It makes possible to write very readable code.
Uh.. operator overloading can lead to some very "readable" code too, and they both lead to maintenance nightmares. Hey, if you're the only person that will ever need to read your code and you always remember why you did everything the way you did it, then you're in the clear.
Oh look, another idiot that can't understand the difference between a government's inherent right to privacy & an individual's inherent right to privacy.
All at once you want to debate the inherence and existence of any right, and the need for privacy in terms of governments and individuals? Are you sure?
As privacy relates to physical security, EVERYONE _needs_ it. Inherence is a matter of philosophy and not grounds for calling another person an idiot. Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?
essential economic services like money transfers and payment processing sites are apparently allowed to be operated by private companies in an arbitrary and unreliable way and can easily be influenced by governments to their will without legal consequences
LOL "private companies should be told what to do, but not by the government"
You cracked me up
It's not unlike developing websites to some degree.
That's a damning statement.
This would be hypocritical if wikileaks leaked something like Tiger Woods' sex messages to his mistress or something along the lines of that. Plenty of sites posted that information, and possibly lots of trashy tabloids and gossip magazines - but wikileaks did not.
There is no honor among thieves might be apt.
Who cries when someone mugs Robin Hood?
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
Not when someone pulls the morals card, sorry, no.
Transparency is one thing, morals are another. Assange should know this by now.
Obviously there's some real projects out there using Ruby, is it mainly internal stuff? There's some big contenders for things like PHP (wikipedia probably being the biggest). Does Ruby factor in to any public-facing websites of note? Or is it mainly used in the corporate space in the area where you often find tomcat?
yes
More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.
And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.
Has a scientist ever told you to eat more antioxidants so you'd live longer? My gut tells me scientists are smarter than the people you actually hear this stuff from.
It's one thing to say X seems to have effect on Y in your body, and another to say doing X will make you live longer.
CA:
It's like blaming mechanics for the notion that changing your oil more frequently makes your car last longer. If you actually ask one, they'd tell you plainly, more frequently != more betterer...
Is that it's going to get a little bit harder to run a new business that makes computer products.
I don't think there's anything we can do about this. The general sentiment is that patents make the market "fair" by "protecting inventors." The American people care more about a "fair market" than a "free market" today. If you suggest that no one has a right to make money from their ideas, only their actual products, you're seen as a cold-hearted bastard in the mold of Randroid who believes cigar-chomping fatcats should be able to keep guys working on The Next Big Thing in their garage from getting rich by stealing their ideas.
Nevermind the fact that more often than not, what the patent system really means is that the cigar-chomping fatcat can sue the guy in his garage into bankruptcy 100 times over before he can get his product to market.
Wait, all you free software supporters actually give a flying crap about the market and small "garage based" software businesses now?? REALLY? Did anyone think free software competed with the cigar-chomping fatcats business???
Here's a hint: the money to run Wikipedia comes from somewhere. If it came from advertising dollars, that money would ultimately be reflected in a increase in the cost of products, but because the conversion of money in your pocket through a retailer's payment processing system to the manufacturer's accounts receivable to the marketing department budget to an advertising agency to an adbuy at Wikipedia is horribly inefficient, the total cost for you, out of pocket, will be much higher than if you just send Wikipedia money. The only difference is you won't be obviously, immediately aware of it.
Please, donate directly.
For related reasons, when you donate money to a charitable or non-profit organization, don't take the gifts. That just increases their cost of acquiring your money, making your donation less efficient (and reducing the amount you can deduct on your taxes because the US government considers that a sale of goods and your donation is just the excess above fair market value for the gift you received). Just give the money.
I don't use the services of the Red Cross _at all_ but somehow I consider that to be a more worthwhile organization to donate to.
If I should feel guilty about using Wikipedia without donating, maybe they should be charging something for it. Put another way, would you even consider donating to Wikipedia if you didn't use it.. a lot?
Same goes for PBS (hey, and OSS too). Begging for donations from the people using your "public" service is so ass backwards. Either pay for use, or help _other_ people. Not "please pay for use, pretty please".
Here's a thought experiment. Pick any real charity out there, and imagine for a second that the set of people they are helping completely overlaps the set of people they are begging for donations. That would hardly be a charity any more... we have a name for stuff like that in the software world, "nagware". Now, is that not the most annoying software publishing model in the world?
I constantly see people claim that OSS advocates use this argument. I can't remember the last time I saw an actual OSS advocate actually using it.
I constantly see people claim I don't recall anyone saying FOO [when evidence conflicts with FOO]
Considering OpenBSD has performed extensive code audits and this is part of the core code, this is going to bring the argument about the importance of security code audits to the forefront.
It brings up the argument about the importance of open source in terms of security. There, I said it.
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
What the hell does logging into Slashdot prove? Why don't you tell us your real name an address? Then I guess we'll need to see some financial records, and do a quick background check, you know, to make sure you are legit and not on the take.
Attach your account... now that's some real authenticity. So we can judge based post history whether to label an account "good" or "bad"? Rich.
Because if _anything_ can lend more weight to my words, it's what I wanted you to hear me say yesterday. [voice of Cartman talking to minority students] Theeeeeeeeeeeeeenk.
If I were to arrange a thousand people to turn up at the corporate headquarters of Visa, and then simply sit down on the ground outside the main doors, would it be a crime?
So, how can it be a crime if I achieve the same thing in cyberspace?
If you prevent people from entering/exiting the building, or do that on private property without permission, yes. There isn't so much as a sidewalk to stand on in the Internet as far as public space goes, so good luck with your analogy.
I've never understood why America doesn't seem to have an EFTPOS (electronic funds at point of sale) system that doesn't rely on Mastercard/Visa etc. From what I've seen all your 'debit' cards over there are essentially just masquerading as credit cards (i.e. are Visa or Mastercard, with a 16 digit number and an expiry date etc.), just that the funds come from your bank account, not from credit.
In my country EFTPOS is a completely separate thing from MC/Visa debit cards. You get to the checkout, swipe your standard ATM card, type your PIN and you are good to go. But there's no Visa or MC logo on the cards and they don't have a credit-card-like number or expiry date etc. (Note that you CAN also get the Visa/MC debit cards - they are useful for shopping online and overseas trips - but they aren't the only type of cashless payment card).
So where I live it's perfectly possible to have nothing to do with those companies. I don't really use them for anything, other than having one credit card that I basically never use ... just there for complete emergencies etc.
Uh, we do? However, consumers are given incentives to make signature debit transactions because the banks make a % of the transaction amount. Consumers are often given %-1 back as a "reward". You are free to ask your bank for a plain debit card, or ATM card or whatever they call it. Or ask that your limit for signature transactions be set to $0 if they can do that for you. If your bank/cu doesn't do any of those? Last I heard there is more than one bank in this country, for Christ's sake, it's not that hard people.
This stuff is glaringly obvious if you research it for more than the five minutes you spend reading /.
Read the Interchange Act you bozos. Can I haz mod points to?
For example, they wanted to use Windows, and not any flavor of UNIX.
Except they do use UNIX.
and Linux
what the hell are you rambling on about?
agreed. congress is going to step into siprnet too.
http://whatsbrewin.nextgov.com/2010/05/hill_wants_access_to_secret_siprnet.php
its time for more transparency with more people having access to siprnet and cloud based infrastructure supporting public information access to government stored data.
We have 19-20 year old Privates/PFCs/LCPLs, E1-E3 etc with at least up to top secret clearances, doing their daily, mundane work on the SIPRNET. Did you think PVT Manning's dumb ass was a fluke? The military is a pyramid that is FULL of E1-E3 at the bottom.
Sure, we need more gov't transparency, but putting more people on the SIPRNET is _RETARDED_, unless by transparency you meant more likely to leak. If anything they need to restrict more access to MOSs only available to those who reenlist. I know it's a shit job, but maybe baby soldiers shouldn't be made intel analysts, all I'm saying. I could go on a rant about access controls on the SIPRNET and whatnot, but the simple fact of the matter is that intel analysts are intended to have access to diplomatic cables as part of their job. That's what analysts do, read shit. That's why all those cables were written, for intel ingestion. For all you know, these cables might not have been on the SIPRNET, but on a more classified network. Manning still might have had access as part of his job.
So fix the _real_ problem. Hand all military intelligence duties to the Marine Corps. Float it around congress for a week and that will light a fire under the Army's butt.
Assenge noted in an interview that the purpose of Wikileaks wasn't to start a revolution but to make it easier for (morally)good companies to do business and to make it harder for (morally) bad companies to do business. The same could be said for government.
If this is truly about morals, then individuals are as good a targets as any virtual entity. Which means concerns about our own privacy and confidentiality are warranted. Would you like to be judged by someone else's morals based on confidential information they stole from you? Hey, if you're (morally) good nobody will report anything on you right?
I'd love to hear the argument for morals applying to companies and governments more than every person if someone wants to give it a go. I'm just another individual like you, just as empowered as you are. Can I steal your confidential information and share with others because I think it's (morally) bad, or what if I do it _just because I can_?
some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life
Can I have some of your overflowing Insightful points? Good lord.
The difference(at least according to design docs, we'll see what happens on release when we come to that) is that ChromeOS devices give one the (advanced; but non-hack) option to tell the command and control system to shove it. Their shipping image, and the one you get if you restore, is built on a no trust model; but if you wish to put a different one on there(including a modified build of the open portions of ChromeOS) that is your call.
With Apple, by contrast, their portables are their OS or nothing, barring hacks that depend on mistakes they did not intend to make, and do tend to correct over time. What you see is what you are stuck with.
Since when was it impossible to run a different OS on Apple's portables, excluding iPods? People not wanting to is another thing.
Besides, we're comparing trusted OS to trusted OS here, the ability to install non-trusted OS over the top of it is hardly relevant.
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know this: there is a *lot* of Java out there, being served by Apache based servers. From a strictly business standpoint, Apache is in a good position to know what devs want. And by extension, they know what businesses want. Oracle would be foolish to lose that expertise and insight, to what is a huge market.
Really, what kind of relationship does Apache have with its customers? I think the assumption that Apache knows what businesses want is not based on sound reasoning. It's in the same vein as say for example .. "Linus knows what businesses want because most of them use Linux" which is provably crap.
Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?
Who's judging?
You mutilated your pet's genitalia against its will, you're tax returns are anything but honest, you have thoughts of having sex with your cute coworker and cheating on your significant other, you drive over the speed limit and fail to stop at stop signs. You don't brush your teeth enough and you stink. You lie, you cheat, and deep down inside know you're a hollow shell of a human being.
We can drum up all sorts of really mundane things if we want to. The thing is, I can't judge you because you're an individual I guess, but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.
There's a pretty big difference between whistle blowing and what PVT Manning did. There is also a GIGANTIC difference between whistle blowing and the charades Assange pulls off.
they are convincing people to abandon spdif, for audio, too. the new kids who are brought up with hdmi think there's nothing wrong with it. in fact, the way they mixed audio and video made the whole combo stream all DRMed. we once had mostly free and clear spdif (scms ignored since it was defeatable easily) and then they upped the bitrate so that spdif toslink and copper paths would not easily (or at all) carry the new digital audio formats (blu ray audio and so on). the new codecs are using bitstream audio for all channels which is HUGE overkill for sound tracks on movies, but its a middle finger from the entertainment industry saying 'at least we get to fill up your disks with more bits than we needed'. effectively a DOS attack from them to you, stealing your disk space when you do direct BD rips or keep BD copies around.
Wow, a conspiracy to add too much quality to the media we buy so we are discouraged to make copies of them. So eeeeeeevil. They even put a mandatory scratch resistance layer on DB discs to make them EEeeeeviillly last longer.
Personally, I think if you had to buy them, they aren't "rights". You are buying permission and it comes with conditions. If you don't like it, go make movies or something. Yah, the government intervened and decided what a fair amount of permission is, but that does not give it equivalence to any basic rights, you still pay for it.
They aren't rights any more than you have the right to drive on public roads, or the right to surf the Internet, or right to touch a strippers titties.
Why are you still squabbling over fake "rights" that you BOUGHT? Whether the government gives you protection or not, DON'T BUY THE STUFF!
Oracle DB is still at the core of our internal corporate computing because of an excellent licensing deal but we use alternatives for consumer facing services. ...
Everything about Sun h/w is out of sync with what customers want.
Oracle is almost clueless when it comes to hardware sales and development. Try "www.sun.com"... you get a redirect to the Oracle home page and then you have to search for a link to the server product lineup. It's almost as if they are hiding the fact that they have a hardware product to sell. I don't think the Oracle brain trust knows what to do with Sun h/w and the Solaris o/s.
That's unfair, go to any gigantic company's site. EMC, IBM, HP, GE, Hitachi. These are mega corporations, not storage, hardware, computer, jet, wild guess, etc.