Most people haven't been able to log in for the past two days, and there's no information on when it'll be fixed. It's working now.
Alas, reliability is rather important for this kind of service. Agreed. However, Weave is still a beta (real beta, not Google beta;-) at this point. I love the direction it's going in -- syncing add-ons is an upcoming feature! -- but it's not ready to be a production replacement for Google Browser Sync or Foxmarks yet.
After AT&T started the first $19.95/month unlimited usage plan, and were quickly copied by their competitors, internet growth took off dramatically. And the lack of growth in wireless data plans is because of the mindset you describe of not wanting to "give away" service for a flat monthly fee. Sounds like Smith and his ilk would just love to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and be rewarded with 7- or 8-figure annual compensation for their "business genius".
Actually, Sony was a member of neither RIAA nor MPAA at the time of the Betamax decision. They bought CBS Records/Columbia Pictures years later. It's an open question whether they would ever have created the VCR market if they were also a record company/movie studio in the 1970s.
They are redirecting to the main google page, as is the base url of http://wifi.google.com/. It's not just slashdotting either, as these were redirecting before the article was available for comment.
Even in the "balkanized" environment today, there are enough users interested in any given approach to Linux to support many alternatives. This in turn leads to innnovations that would not happen in the context of a single dominant distro. I don't see why an expanded Linux market must lead to just a couple of players being dominant.
Perhaps this will end up being more like the market for ISPs, where a handful of large companies have millions of users each, but there's still room for lots of smaller companies offering better tech support or other added value. There's no reason the Debian or Gentoo Foundations will disappear just because Linspire and Red Hat grow larger.
TFA included a sidebar indicating that Fry's advertised Linux systems in the papers, but when the author showed up at the stores they had none in stock -- just the same hardware running XP instead.
Cool, I'll have to check out the local MicroCenter in Cambridge. Now when I'm talking to folks about dumping Windows for Linux I have somewhere to send them to see that this is available on computers sold in stores -- not just downloaded by geeks like me...
It seems to me you need both. What kind of performance and uptime you get on real-world hardware, whether known attacks succeed or fail, can't necessarily be found with a code audit. And viewing the source code may allow you to find potential avenues for new attacks or possible bottlenecks in theoretical performance.
However, de Raadt's dismissive attitude (especially in contrast to the interesting responses of NetBSD's Christos Zoulas in the NewsForge article referenced above) simply shows someone uninterested in actually comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the two major open source *NIX projects. I'm not particularly interested in OS religious wars --if there's something the Linux kernel folks can learn from BSD, or vice versa, we all benefit.
Interesting point. I know the *BSD people believe that their approach of engineering the system as a single product tends to produce better code. I have no reason to doubt that they are quality systems.
I have to think, however, that proven, real-world performance and stability are the main reasons for using these systems in the first place. Place me squarely in the pragmatist camp!
In a NewsForge interview a couple of days ago de Raadt was asked about technical comparisons between Linux and BSD and replied, "I don't know. I have never run Linux."
Slashdot Mirror
After AT&T started the first $19.95/month unlimited usage plan, and were quickly copied by their competitors, internet growth took off dramatically. And the lack of growth in wireless data plans is because of the mindset you describe of not wanting to "give away" service for a flat monthly fee. Sounds like Smith and his ilk would just love to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and be rewarded with 7- or 8-figure annual compensation for their "business genius".
Actually, Sony was a member of neither RIAA nor MPAA at the time of the Betamax decision. They bought CBS Records/Columbia Pictures years later. It's an open question whether they would ever have created the VCR market if they were also a record company/movie studio in the 1970s.
Maybe I missed something...since when does a music CD have a EULA?
They are redirecting to the main google page, as is the base url of http://wifi.google.com/. It's not just slashdotting either, as these were redirecting before the article was available for comment.
Even in the "balkanized" environment today, there are enough users interested in any given approach to Linux to support many alternatives. This in turn leads to innnovations that would not happen in the context of a single dominant distro. I don't see why an expanded Linux market must lead to just a couple of players being dominant.
Perhaps this will end up being more like the market for ISPs, where a handful of large companies have millions of users each, but there's still room for lots of smaller companies offering better tech support or other added value. There's no reason the Debian or Gentoo Foundations will disappear just because Linspire and Red Hat grow larger.
TFA included a sidebar indicating that Fry's advertised Linux systems in the papers, but when the author showed up at the stores they had none in stock -- just the same hardware running XP instead.
Cool, I'll have to check out the local MicroCenter in Cambridge. Now when I'm talking to folks about dumping Windows for Linux I have somewhere to send them to see that this is available on computers sold in stores -- not just downloaded by geeks like me...
It seems to me you need both. What kind of performance and uptime you get on real-world hardware, whether known attacks succeed or fail, can't necessarily be found with a code audit. And viewing the source code may allow you to find potential avenues for new attacks or possible bottlenecks in theoretical performance.
However, de Raadt's dismissive attitude (especially in contrast to the interesting responses of NetBSD's Christos Zoulas in the NewsForge article referenced above) simply shows someone uninterested in actually comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the two major open source *NIX projects. I'm not particularly interested in OS religious wars --if there's something the Linux kernel folks can learn from BSD, or vice versa, we all benefit.
Interesting point. I know the *BSD people believe that their approach of engineering the system as a single product tends to produce better code. I have no reason to doubt that they are quality systems. I have to think, however, that proven, real-world performance and stability are the main reasons for using these systems in the first place. Place me squarely in the pragmatist camp!
In a NewsForge interview a couple of days ago de Raadt was asked about technical comparisons between Linux and BSD and replied, "I don't know. I have never run Linux."
? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml
Suddenly, he's an expert on how bad Linux is?