I realize that more has to be done to StatusNet than to XMPP to make a usable social network, and that they come at it from different angles, but both have key pieces already in place -- federation (which is hard), security, status, profiles, and plug-ins -- so I think either could be taken to the Facebook point with much less effort than starting a new project.
I especially like the XMPP route because some providers already offer this service, and that means more leverage over FB. For example, GMail already offers both XMPP (GTalk) and Buzz, so adapting to the OpenSocial API would be fairly easy. Yahoo! will have more trouble, but it may find itself squeezed out of the webmail business if Y! doesn't make a move and FB continues to push into that market.
I really don't get this. Everyone seems to be talking about Diaspora, which is still vaporware, when there are actual products that work right now. You can either go with the StatusNet + plugins route (implementing OStatus), or you can choose OneSocialWeb (XMPP+extensions). Both are Free software. OSW is Apache licensed, FFS: how much more could you ask for?
Both of these products actually exist and work now. StatusNet is mature. OSW is still alpha, but fairly complete. It would be much better for everyone to hitch their wagons to one of these than to support some college students who may or may not know what they're doing and whose goal appears to be to "scrape Twitter and Flickr." That will never work. You have to be able to post status updates, pictures, videos, and blogs all within the same interface and have people be able to comment on or "Like" directly from that same interface. You can't expect people to leave Facebook for something cobbled together from pieces and lacking half the functionality.
You need to realize when using Buzz that most stuff you post is public. You can change the setting to "private" very easily inside the post (and it remembers the setting for next time), but your public profile is... public. That makes it a little more like Twitter than like Facebook.
Check your profile page and decide if you're comfortable with that.
Google gets a lot of shit from Slashdot (which it should sometimes -- Google is large enough that it needs to be watched carefully), but I want to reach out and say "thank you." I read the ToS for my services and the EULAs for my software, and Google's are generally as fair as I see anywhere. No, they're not perfect, but when graded on a scale with other companies in its class, Google gets an easy "A."
I'm not nitpicking the details: I'm saying that you were utterly wrong when you said that Google only gets revenue from search (with a irrelevant quote to try to back it up), desperately trying to support your claim that Google's revenue from Android was "0." Who wouldn't call you out when you fuck up like that? You certainly would if the shoe were on teh other foot, given that's exactly what you tried to do to the AC you responded to.
Google makes money in the Android store, search, and who knows what else. They opened Android so that the could push toward an open mobile web, where they plan to dominate, but they aren't bleeding cash in order to do that.
Apple dominates the MP3 player market in the U.S., and I'm pretty sure they like it that way. (They don't seem to be trying to become more exclusive.) I'm sure they would do the same for the iPhone, the iPad, and the Mac if they could.
The fee for the Android Market is 30%. If Android gets big enough, Google will be making a lot of money off of that and a great incentive to keep development up.
Apple customer take great pride in making Apple more profitable. They brag about the profit share all the time, as if buying an Apple product made them a major shareholder in the company. I used to see Microsofties act the same way in the 90s -- they were proud to have made BG the richest business owner in the world.
This is not a slam on Apple or its followers; it's just an observation. I find the phenomenon quite interesting and a measure of the success of the company that customers want to tie their wagons to it.
What can I say? You read wrong. Google is not sharing with carriers and handset partners. They do, indeed make money off of the Android market by sharing with developers:
Transaction Fees For applications that you choose to sell in Android Market, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the application price. For example, if you sell your application at a price of $10.00, the fee will be $3.00, and you will receive $7.00 in payment.[1]
Horizontal space is cheap, unless you decide to run two applications side-by-side. This is a scenario which is extremely common for people who are writing a document (HTML, Latex, most programming languages, maybe also 3d editors) and like to have a preview of what they're writing/drawing/programming.
Do you usually do this on 1024x600 netbooks? Because, you know, that's what this interface is designed for. The standard Ubuntu will continue to have top and bottom panels.
May I introduce you to http://freedesktop.org/? Their specifications mean that these "disparate groups" don't actually have to work together to interoperate.
Very similar to this screenshot of Hyperspace, too. It's like convergent evolution: the requirements of a small-but-wide touchscreen almost dictate something like this.
You're confused. This is not an attempt to take control from the user. This is just an instant-on OS to be put in flash ROM or on SSD as a second OS. This is no different than Hyperspace, Splashtop, or any of the other instant-on OSes. Heck, it's not even any different than a live CD, really.
It's just for when you don't want to boot up your main OS, and you need to get in and get out quickly. Don't read too much into it.
This is specifically for the netbook version and to save space. It is not for standard Ubuntu. UNE already puts the window decoration up into the top panel. This is just continuing that trend. They're not claiming to be inventing anything new here.
We are exactly talking about long-term ability to read document formats. If, in 2035, I have a copy of Windows Vista/Server 2008 and a machine (or VM) to run it in, then I probably have access to MS Ofice 2007, too... so why would the reader be required and what problem would it solve? If I don't have that stuff, then having the reader doesn't help me at all.
There are at least four groups trying to do this. Can't they at least get together to agree on how the standards that get us 95% of the way there (OpenID, ActivityStrea.ms, etc.) get glued together, then go work on their code? We don't need four or five competing, incompatible standards trying to get uptake from the massive monopoly that is Facebook.
But if the other major IM and e-mail players implemented it to keep themselves from being marginalized by Facebook, the solution has instant share (think of it as... oh, I don't know... a social networking standard). If browsers get involved for identity purposes, it's got critical mass.
Indeed. That was it. Wow. Thanks for that. I couldn't remember the name. Interesting that it went on from being a fairly small project to an IBM product.
I guess that KA-Tools became a popular replacement for BPBatch, but KA was still really immature back when I last used BPBatch. Now KA just seems abandoned, probably in favor of gPXE.
Back in the 90s, there used to be a proprietary-but-free scriptable boot system that used multicast (the name started with a "B"). You would boot each computer you wanted to do an installation on, set them to receive multicast, then once the computers were all connected to the server you had put DHCP, TFTP, and FTP on, the server would multicast an install image and a post-installation script.
I seem to remember that this was before Ghost has multicast.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I wish they'd all just sit down and hammer out a spec before getting three competing and incompatible "competitors" to FB.
I realize that more has to be done to StatusNet than to XMPP to make a usable social network, and that they come at it from different angles, but both have key pieces already in place -- federation (which is hard), security, status, profiles, and plug-ins -- so I think either could be taken to the Facebook point with much less effort than starting a new project.
I especially like the XMPP route because some providers already offer this service, and that means more leverage over FB. For example, GMail already offers both XMPP (GTalk) and Buzz, so adapting to the OpenSocial API would be fairly easy. Yahoo! will have more trouble, but it may find itself squeezed out of the webmail business if Y! doesn't make a move and FB continues to push into that market.
Your dad is Eric Schmidt?!? You lucky bastard!
I really don't get this. Everyone seems to be talking about Diaspora, which is still vaporware, when there are actual products that work right now. You can either go with the StatusNet + plugins route (implementing OStatus), or you can choose OneSocialWeb (XMPP+extensions). Both are Free software. OSW is Apache licensed, FFS: how much more could you ask for?
Both of these products actually exist and work now. StatusNet is mature. OSW is still alpha, but fairly complete. It would be much better for everyone to hitch their wagons to one of these than to support some college students who may or may not know what they're doing and whose goal appears to be to "scrape Twitter and Flickr." That will never work. You have to be able to post status updates, pictures, videos, and blogs all within the same interface and have people be able to comment on or "Like" directly from that same interface. You can't expect people to leave Facebook for something cobbled together from pieces and lacking half the functionality.
I hope I'm wrong about this project.
You need to realize when using Buzz that most stuff you post is public. You can change the setting to "private" very easily inside the post (and it remembers the setting for next time), but your public profile is ... public. That makes it a little more like Twitter than like Facebook.
Check your profile page and decide if you're comfortable with that.
More like that Churchill guy was a lot nicer than Adolf. Sure, Churchill was a dick, but he was in a different class.
Google gets a lot of shit from Slashdot (which it should sometimes -- Google is large enough that it needs to be watched carefully), but I want to reach out and say "thank you." I read the ToS for my services and the EULAs for my software, and Google's are generally as fair as I see anywhere. No, they're not perfect, but when graded on a scale with other companies in its class, Google gets an easy "A."
Just wanted to let a Googler know that.
I'm not nitpicking the details: I'm saying that you were utterly wrong when you said that Google only gets revenue from search (with a irrelevant quote to try to back it up), desperately trying to support your claim that Google's revenue from Android was "0." Who wouldn't call you out when you fuck up like that? You certainly would if the shoe were on teh other foot, given that's exactly what you tried to do to the AC you responded to.
Google makes money in the Android store, search, and who knows what else. They opened Android so that the could push toward an open mobile web, where they plan to dominate, but they aren't bleeding cash in order to do that.
Apple dominates the MP3 player market in the U.S., and I'm pretty sure they like it that way. (They don't seem to be trying to become more exclusive.) I'm sure they would do the same for the iPhone, the iPad, and the Mac if they could.
A huge number of devices will get OTA upgrades to 2.0 or 2.1 by fall.
Windows loses to OS X. Yay! ;)
The fee for the Android Market is 30%. If Android gets big enough, Google will be making a lot of money off of that and a great incentive to keep development up.
Apple customer take great pride in making Apple more profitable. They brag about the profit share all the time, as if buying an Apple product made them a major shareholder in the company. I used to see Microsofties act the same way in the 90s -- they were proud to have made BG the richest business owner in the world.
This is not a slam on Apple or its followers; it's just an observation. I find the phenomenon quite interesting and a measure of the success of the company that customers want to tie their wagons to it.
What can I say? You read wrong. Google is not sharing with carriers and handset partners. They do, indeed make money off of the Android market by sharing with developers:
Transaction Fees
For applications that you choose to sell in Android Market, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the application price. For example, if you sell your application at a price of $10.00, the fee will be $3.00, and you will receive $7.00 in payment.[1]
Horizontal space is cheap, unless you decide to run two applications side-by-side. This is a scenario which is extremely common for people who are writing a document (HTML, Latex, most programming languages, maybe also 3d editors) and like to have a preview of what they're writing/drawing/programming.
Do you usually do this on 1024x600 netbooks? Because, you know, that's what this interface is designed for. The standard Ubuntu will continue to have top and bottom panels.
May I introduce you to http://freedesktop.org/? Their specifications mean that these "disparate groups" don't actually have to work together to interoperate.
Very similar to this screenshot of Hyperspace, too. It's like convergent evolution: the requirements of a small-but-wide touchscreen almost dictate something like this.
You're confused. This is not an attempt to take control from the user. This is just an instant-on OS to be put in flash ROM or on SSD as a second OS. This is no different than Hyperspace, Splashtop, or any of the other instant-on OSes. Heck, it's not even any different than a live CD, really.
It's just for when you don't want to boot up your main OS, and you need to get in and get out quickly. Don't read too much into it.
This is specifically for the netbook version and to save space. It is not for standard Ubuntu. UNE already puts the window decoration up into the top panel. This is just continuing that trend. They're not claiming to be inventing anything new here.
We are exactly talking about long-term ability to read document formats. If, in 2035, I have a copy of Windows Vista/Server 2008 and a machine (or VM) to run it in, then I probably have access to MS Ofice 2007, too ... so why would the reader be required and what problem would it solve? If I don't have that stuff, then having the reader doesn't help me at all.
What platforms do these readers work on?
There are at least four groups trying to do this. Can't they at least get together to agree on how the standards that get us 95% of the way there (OpenID, ActivityStrea.ms, etc.) get glued together, then go work on their code? We don't need four or five competing, incompatible standards trying to get uptake from the massive monopoly that is Facebook.
But if the other major IM and e-mail players implemented it to keep themselves from being marginalized by Facebook, the solution has instant share (think of it as ... oh, I don't know ... a social networking standard). If browsers get involved for identity purposes, it's got critical mass.
Indeed. That was it. Wow. Thanks for that. I couldn't remember the name. Interesting that it went on from being a fairly small project to an IBM product.
I guess that KA-Tools became a popular replacement for BPBatch, but KA was still really immature back when I last used BPBatch. Now KA just seems abandoned, probably in favor of gPXE.
Back in the 90s, there used to be a proprietary-but-free scriptable boot system that used multicast (the name started with a "B"). You would boot each computer you wanted to do an installation on, set them to receive multicast, then once the computers were all connected to the server you had put DHCP, TFTP, and FTP on, the server would multicast an install image and a post-installation script.
I seem to remember that this was before Ghost has multicast.