No... They're just being much more subtle about the fight than the average slashdotter, and realise that the decision is much more likely to change if they don't act like petulant children, but instead do the adult thing and say "well, we're not telling you what you should do, but it really would be nice if you'd reconsider that".
Right, they're literally saying "we don't want to contribute anything back to the other guys because it takes up our time." I stand by my "not exactly model open source citizens" statement.
Notably, the norm when forking is to do so because you think you can take the project in a new and interesting direction, and the generally accepted process is to make your changes as easy to integrate and work with for the original developers as possible. In fact, Apple got a very bad rap for forking (because they thought they could take the project in a new direction), and then making it difficult to integrate their code back into KHTML. Here, google are forking exactly to make it difficult for the original authors to integrate their code, not to take things in a new direction. Given the bad rap Apple (rightly) got about this, I'd suggest it would be the hight of hypocrisy to not give google a much harder time over a worse transgression.
I was more thinking "We don't want to help contribute our improvements to all the other users of WebKit, so we're going to say 'we're forking it' rather than 'we're going to start ignoring the coding standards to make sure everyone gets supported'".
Not exactly the model open source citizens Google are often billed as.
so you actually believe that developers will only develop for WebGL + HLSL to target windows 8 with internet explorer 11?
No, I believe that some developers will use HLSL, and this will mean that there are some IE 11 only web sites out there, and this will mean that IE will gain market share. This is how embrace, extend extinguish worked in the past, and it's how it can work again.
I never claimed it was a problem for google. I claimed it was a boon for them. They get a double benefit:
1) They encourage people to use BSD/MIT licenses, meaning google get to use more code without publishing their own. 2) They get other companies using their patents, and hence get to bill more people, even if those people aren't the open sourcers.
It's actually very clever. It means less open source software is GPLed, because the GPLv3 means that patent rights have to be dismissed. Thus more will be BSDed/MITed. Then, because it's BSDed/MITed, more big companies will actually use the software (because most big companies avoid GPLv3 like the plague). Then those big companies will release a closed version, and have to pay google.
No, the task was not to prove the bible wrong. The task was to prove that the bible is not an accurate literal account of what happened. Even one example where it contradicts itself makes this impossible. No long, exhaustive cross examination is needed.
It's only a discrepancy if one fails to recognise that we are dealing with two separate myths. The fact that they are 2 separate stories will be obvious to any naive (in the sense that they have not since childhood been exposed to harmonising accounts) and objective reader. Even the deities are obviously different, and not merely by name.
And that gets us a different glaring discrepancy. This is claimed to be a literal account of what happened. Yet we have two completely different literal accounts of how humans appear on the planet.
Simple... They're not talking about the exact electrons used being shoved down a wire in a renewable energy based generator. They're saying "we use xW of energy in total, we personally generate 0.75xW of renewable energy".
Which is really sad in my opinion. There are many games that could benefit from life long updates. Updating the engine, offer new content, new maps, new anything game related. I would gladly pay every year to get my favourite game updated with new content.
Which is almost exactly EA's business model... The key is that GP suggested doing it for free which is obviously retarded, as you now have a developer who has to work for the rest of his life without getting paid a dime.
At least in my country –you don't hand your credit card to a minimum wage employee, you put it in the chip and pin machine yourself. Then the question is "do you trust the chip and pin machine", and yes, then it's a case of whether or not you trust the shop... I do in Tesco, I don't in a random kebab shop.
Haha, the great and mighty google who can do no wrong strikes an enormous blow against a standardised protocol, and against open communication, and slashdot's response is "this is great".
No, it requires all browsers to be a thin wrapper around safari's engine which is WebKit. So it very much is WebKit that's required – specifically the WebKit shipped on the device.
Dear person who doesn't understand what anti-competitive behaviour is. The reason MS had to change things was because they were leveraging a monopoly in the OS market to gain a monopoly in the browser market. Apple is not doing this. In fact, if anything, google is the most likely next on the chopping block, because of exploiting their search monopoly to heavily advertise and drive into the browser market.
The trouble is not that you're writing some big blocks, the trouble is you're writing a lot of small blocks. Given the way NAND works, even changing 1 bit requires an entire 'sector' to be erased and re-written.
Actually, that situation is just fine with modern SSDs –they cache such small writes so that they can accumulate them into writing a single block and remapping internally, rather than writing a whole bunch of different blocks for 1 byte changes.
Luckily, while he's about 30 times out for the write endurance on the bad side, he's about 100-1000 times out on the speed at which you're likely to ever write to the things, on the good side, so in reality, SSDs will last about 3-30 times longer than he's indicating in the article. The fact that he's discussing continuous writes at max sata 3 speed suggests that he's really concerned with big ass databases that are writing continuously, and use SLC NAND. The consumer case is in fact much better than that, even despite MLC/TLC.
On the other hand, while you're right that they're an order of magnitude and a half out with that, they're also deliberately 3-4 orders of magnitude or more out with the rate at which you write data, so in reality, the likelihood is actually lifespans much longer than those listed in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
No... They're just being much more subtle about the fight than the average slashdotter, and realise that the decision is much more likely to change if they don't act like petulant children, but instead do the adult thing and say "well, we're not telling you what you should do, but it really would be nice if you'd reconsider that".
Right, they're literally saying "we don't want to contribute anything back to the other guys because it takes up our time." I stand by my "not exactly model open source citizens" statement.
The only goal identified in their blog post announcing this was to be able to remove all the code supporting other people's work.
Notably, the norm when forking is to do so because you think you can take the project in a new and interesting direction, and the generally accepted process is to make your changes as easy to integrate and work with for the original developers as possible. In fact, Apple got a very bad rap for forking (because they thought they could take the project in a new direction), and then making it difficult to integrate their code back into KHTML. Here, google are forking exactly to make it difficult for the original authors to integrate their code, not to take things in a new direction. Given the bad rap Apple (rightly) got about this, I'd suggest it would be the hight of hypocrisy to not give google a much harder time over a worse transgression.
I was more thinking "We don't want to help contribute our improvements to all the other users of WebKit, so we're going to say 'we're forking it' rather than 'we're going to start ignoring the coding standards to make sure everyone gets supported'".
Not exactly the model open source citizens Google are often billed as.
so you actually believe that developers will only develop for WebGL + HLSL to target windows 8 with internet explorer 11?
No, I believe that some developers will use HLSL, and this will mean that there are some IE 11 only web sites out there, and this will mean that IE will gain market share. This is how embrace, extend extinguish worked in the past, and it's how it can work again.
I don't get why no one else has called this... They're actually already at step 2
1. Embrace WebGL ...
2. Extend WebGL by supporting HLSL shaders
3.
I never claimed it was a problem for google. I claimed it was a boon for them. They get a double benefit:
1) They encourage people to use BSD/MIT licenses, meaning google get to use more code without publishing their own.
2) They get other companies using their patents, and hence get to bill more people, even if those people aren't the open sourcers.
Great strategy.
It's actually very clever. It means less open source software is GPLed, because the GPLv3 means that patent rights have to be dismissed. Thus more will be BSDed/MITed. Then, because it's BSDed/MITed, more big companies will actually use the software (because most big companies avoid GPLv3 like the plague). Then those big companies will release a closed version, and have to pay google.
Cunning indeed.
No, the task was not to prove the bible wrong. The task was to prove that the bible is not an accurate literal account of what happened. Even one example where it contradicts itself makes this impossible. No long, exhaustive cross examination is needed.
It's only a discrepancy if one fails to recognise that we are dealing with two separate myths. The fact that they are 2 separate stories will be obvious to any naive (in the sense that they have not since childhood been exposed to harmonising accounts) and objective reader. Even the deities are obviously different, and not merely by name.
And that gets us a different glaring discrepancy. This is claimed to be a literal account of what happened. Yet we have two completely different literal accounts of how humans appear on the planet.
You're right... 96% share, with your closest competitor having 3% share is *really* similar to 20% share, with one competitor having 35% share.
Simple... They're not talking about the exact electrons used being shoved down a wire in a renewable energy based generator. They're saying "we use xW of energy in total, we personally generate 0.75xW of renewable energy".
F1 2010, F1 2011, F1 2012, ...
All of these are the same game, just charging for updated content, and minor tweaks each year.
The same applies for many other EA games.
Which is really sad in my opinion. There are many games that could benefit from life long updates. Updating the engine, offer new content, new maps, new anything game related. I would gladly pay every year to get my favourite game updated with new content.
Which is almost exactly EA's business model... The key is that GP suggested doing it for free which is obviously retarded, as you now have a developer who has to work for the rest of his life without getting paid a dime.
At least in my country –you don't hand your credit card to a minimum wage employee, you put it in the chip and pin machine yourself. Then the question is "do you trust the chip and pin machine", and yes, then it's a case of whether or not you trust the shop... I do in Tesco, I don't in a random kebab shop.
Haha, the great and mighty google who can do no wrong strikes an enormous blow against a standardised protocol, and against open communication, and slashdot's response is "this is great".
Fucking hypocrites.
Given that a typical netbook is slower than an iPhone, and significantly slower than an iPad, it's maybe not such an issue.
Actually, quite the reverse. If you have more than one browser, the attacker has to find a vulnerability in either, making it much easier to attack.
That said, the argument "it's for security" is still bullshit.
No, it requires all browsers to be a thin wrapper around safari's engine which is WebKit. So it very much is WebKit that's required – specifically the WebKit shipped on the device.
Dear person who doesn't understand what anti-competitive behaviour is. The reason MS had to change things was because they were leveraging a monopoly in the OS market to gain a monopoly in the browser market. Apple is not doing this. In fact, if anything, google is the most likely next on the chopping block, because of exploiting their search monopoly to heavily advertise and drive into the browser market.
I don't get why you'd want this – it's only $100 less than a 13" rMBP, while having 4GB less RAM, a much much smaller SSD, and a far inferior OS.
The trouble is not that you're writing some big blocks, the trouble is you're writing a lot of small blocks. Given the way NAND works, even changing 1 bit requires an entire 'sector' to be erased and re-written.
Actually, that situation is just fine with modern SSDs –they cache such small writes so that they can accumulate them into writing a single block and remapping internally, rather than writing a whole bunch of different blocks for 1 byte changes.
Luckily, while he's about 30 times out for the write endurance on the bad side, he's about 100-1000 times out on the speed at which you're likely to ever write to the things, on the good side, so in reality, SSDs will last about 3-30 times longer than he's indicating in the article. The fact that he's discussing continuous writes at max sata 3 speed suggests that he's really concerned with big ass databases that are writing continuously, and use SLC NAND. The consumer case is in fact much better than that, even despite MLC/TLC.
On the other hand, while you're right that they're an order of magnitude and a half out with that, they're also deliberately 3-4 orders of magnitude or more out with the rate at which you write data, so in reality, the likelihood is actually lifespans much longer than those listed in the article.