You need a name that is as easy to pronounce as google. As friendly sounding would be good as well.
You're "competing" on a number of different areas with google, including the name ofcourse.
The first thing that came to my mind when I read the name was: "Typical for geeks who are good at the technical side of things, but are bad at marketing and the human interface/psychology side".
I don't like physical sports because there's a lot of cheating going on there.
There is a lot of cheating going on at "e-sports" as well, but there is none at high-level LAN events because the players only play on pre-checked equipment and everyone can check their screens for wallhacks etc.
Doping in physical sports can be taken without getting caught. Any speed cyclist who wants to have any chance at all will have to take doping. That's what it takes. I think even sports with a good reputation like tennis have cheaters who use doping. With speed cycling, the best cheater wins. Cheaters in society are called criminals, cheaters in sports are just called cheaters but they make me sick nonetheless.
Tennis and basketball need brains as well as physical prowess, but you said that you prefer basketball because of it's physicality.
I like exciting brain-sports like Counter-Strike because it's NOT physically intensive. You know that there are no doping cheaters in Counter-Strike (unless you count caffeine).
The essential thing here is an commentator who knows the game and is smart enough to figure out what just happened.
I play Counter-Strike and when a cunning plan to take out the enemy works, it's one of the greatest feelings in the world. If we could somehow convey that feeling to an audience then it would be very popular.
I have seen an edited replay of a quake 3 match, and that is indeed the way to go because it was much more enjoyable than a live match. Slow motion analysis of some of the action and the voice-over explaining the tactics made it superiour.
Only a very experienced, very smart commentator who is a player him/herself is able to decrypt the complex plans people have working on for weeks instantly. Even then, there's not enough time to explain what the plan was, the game will have moved on to other phases.
So the solution is to "delay"/record a match as a data stream (not just video so you can make any kind of camera shot). That way a team of analysts can figure out what the deep shit was that happened, in a reasonable time, and only an average thinker with good language skills can do the presenting.
Seeing a plan going forward step-by-step, and then at the end seeing it succeed or fail is great, but most non-players need help with seeing the greatness/lameness of the teams. This happens with American football sometimes (from what I've seen) where analysts draw lines on a video replay to explain what happened.
Satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source/Free source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that when Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Free Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java control in return for more hardware sales. That attitude has to shine through in their actions.
Then the Free source community might use Java more than mono's C#, Python, OCaml or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
Neither the article nor the/. summary said anything about patents.
The BBC doesn't NEED to worry about patents because software patents don't exist in Europe. Although we're in danger of getting them because of the US and US companies influencing the European commission
That weird shit only happens in the USA at the moment. Something as good as the BBC is doing would almost certainly be impossible in the US because of patents. When the BBC puts it's public knowledge on the net (wonderful documentaries), it will be illegal to watch/hear that info in the US as soon as a company comes out with a patent infringement claim.
The only reason the rest of the world worries about software patents is because we want the people in the US to be able to use the software we're making. This might not last, as in the case of the BBC codec.
I suggest US men-of-action types fix this situation, start with voting good guys/girls into office.
Matroska is better than ogg. For example, subtitles in Matroska can be in any language of the world because it supports Unicode, ogg doesn't.
Matroska is a cross-platform, patent-free, open-source media file format, which is even newer than OGM. Matroska is not a codec (like MPEG-1, XviD, DivX, or VP3), but a container (like OGM) where you can put video(s) + audio(s) + sub(s). Supported audio formats include Ogg Vorbis, AAC, MP3, and AC3.
I think you and your company are on the right track.
Programs used to be controlled by the user with windows on a desktop. Now, more and more programs are controlled by an interactive webpage while it's running on the server.
There are huge advantages to that, like the ability to run the program from anywhere where you have access to a browser. For example, you can check your webmail without having your PC with you to run your E-Mail program. You just need a simple, web-only, cybercafe with a standard browser. Like you said, zero-install. There are a lot of other advantages and some disadvantages.
It's obvious for you that this is the future of interacting with programs because you build web interfaces for a living, but if you think about it it should become clear for anyone that this is better in most cases. Programs that are real-time like games and video editing need (non MS) window interfaces, but a lot of non-realtime programs can best be controlled by a webpage. I encourage everyone to program interfaces like this, it eases transition to Linux.
Mozilla interfaces are a level higher than the webpage interface. Mozilla needs to be installed, pages don't. You probably know of a lot of interface things that can only be done with higher level interfaces like Mozilla's XUL windows but I think we should put the emphasis on enriching the lower level webpage-only interfaces for programs.
With things like the upcoming vector drawing (SVG) and Javascript for webpages, most tasks can be handled without having clients install Firefox/Mozilla specifically to use your programs. Ofcourse that won't be as bad as requiring clients to install Windows XAML because with Mozilla/Firefox XUL you are locked into something which is Open source and Free, with XAML you'll get raped by Microsoft and will be stuck on Windows.
However, I'm curious about Mozilla/Firefox XUL. As far as I can see, it's like this:
- Native windows are the fastest and know all the tricks - Mozilla/Firefox XUL has a couple of tricks, is cross-platform and is easier to program than native windows. - Standards compliant webpages are limited in interactivity but are the easiest to make and are even more cross-platform (mobile phones can't install Firefox).
Can anyone give me more examples that are only possible using XUL as opposed to standard webpages/XHTML? And what are the chances of XUL being used as native windows for Linux/*BSD? Is it fast enough for games or video editing?
Miguel doesn't just like some of Microsoft's ideas - Miguel wishes he were working for them.
Or maybe he's bitter, maybe he doesn't care about not having become an employee.
What you said was your opinion but you stated it as fact.
I don't know if he's got good or bad intentions or wether he'll be good or harmful to the Libre software community. We don't have enough info yet I think, at least I haven't looked into it deeply enough to make a judgement.
That he failed to get a job at Microsoft doesn't say enough to me. Maybe he just wanted to pay some bills.
Every programmer knows that spaghetti code is bad right? Every part of the program coupled to every other part of the program. You can't change anything anymore without fucking up the program.
Now there is built-in spaghetti code in every US program because of software patents. An unsolvable mess of patents that are linked to other patents that are linked to all programs produced in the US. You can't legally do anything anymore.
Software development in the US will slow to a grinding halt except for the big companies that have enough patents of their own to force cross-patent deals with their competitors.
Patents for the protection of the little guy? Not anymore, ironic.
I think politicians in the US are corrupt and that's why they let big business' dictate new laws to lawmakers.
It's good for the EU economy that Americans are hampering their own economy this way but I don't want to see injustice in any part of the world so I suggest that you become smarter about voting in America. I wish you good luck.
"Diebold knowingly used uncertified software in California elections."
Diebold probably knew a lot more about the things their machines did to lose or reverse votes. I even heard someone at Diebold reconfigured the excel data coming out of the machines to increase believability of the voting results.
I'm not a lawyer so can someone tell me what it takes to become a traitor to the United States of America?
CD-RW disks will last longer than CD-R because of the way it stores it's bits.
CD-R uses a dye that changes color under influence of light. CD-RW uses a phase change material that changes it's properties because of heat. The phase change material won't change color but changes the way light passes through it. Differences in the duration of the laser hitting it will change a bit from one phase to another.
CD-RW disc information is much safer because of these differences. The only problem with CD-RW is that you can accidentally overwrite files you wanted to keep.
"But under our current system of unrestrained capitalism business has found it more profitable to fire a quarter of the workforce, move a quarter of the jobs overseas and crack the whip on the remaining few workers forcing them to work massive hours for stagnant pay."
The answer is to transform into a society without unrestrained capitalism. A mix of socialism and capitalism is better than what you have at the moment (no deep political system discussion please, I'd like to keep this message simple).
I think, what it boils down to, is that the people who are willing to cooperate, people who are altruistic by nature should form "a group". As a group you are in a stronger position to fight injustice and/or evil.
Software built in India or China will not be legal in the US if they don't adhere to these ridiculous software patents.
It will be almost impossible to sell software in the US, whether it's made domestically or internationally, because it's practically impossible to make software that's legal in the US.
The US will become a software 3rd world country if you don't repeal the software patent law.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Imagine this future scenario: Say, America has software patents and Europe doesn't. Now the American companies can't use the software recipies of their competitors (you lose your patent if you don't enforce it if I remember correctly) and so their software is not as good as it could have been without the laws. The European developers can program without the cost of researching their source code or the cost of buying permission of using patented source and can use the best solutions for their software designs.
European software will, slowly but surely, become better and cheaper than American software and American companies won't be able to sell their software successfully in Europe unless they make a special "High quality European version". Because software is mostly used to streamline business processes. Business in America won't run as smoothly as business in Europe because european business' are using more, and higher quality accounting/production/etc. programs. American economy takes a hit.
Private software user in America won't buy software from US companies because it's inferiour to the software they can (illegally) get from Europe. They pirate either the software made in Europe or the "European version" which they can't legally buy or they import the "illegal in US" Open Source programs. US software sales and services are down because of software patents, American economy takes another hit.
Small companies make up more than 80% of all businesses in any given country. In the US, small software companies will die because of software patents, only a few big ones will survive. Software companies will abuse their positions to increase their profits at the cost of their consumers, American business'. American business' won't be able to buy as much software as they like or will have higher operating costs because of it. The few American companies that sell software won't bring in as much economic activity and taxes as a lot of small software companies + big companies. American economy takes another hit.
Other countries like China which present billions of dollars of potential income for the US won't buy American, they'll buy EU or build their own software. Even less economic activity for the US software industry. American economy takes another hit.
The worst thing the European politicians can do for their countries is to allow software patents in Europe. Europe will lose it's competitive advantage over the US software industry. Even worse, their position will be much weaker than that of the US. Because software patenting has been going on for a while in the US, US companies have the most, and the most important patents on software. US companies will be able to kill off most EU software companies using their patent portfolio's and that would be a bad thing for the EU citizens. I think that an EU politician that votes in favor of software patents is either incompetent or influenced by big US software companies. Their job is to act in the best interest of the EU countries and I think the pro-patent politicians are doing the opposite, vote them off before they can profit! Who's got a list?
Software patents are only good for a few big US software companies, bad for everyone else in their country. And even that's doubtful because they're reducing their own market if my scenario above holds water.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Whatever the details are of this deal, satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that when Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Free Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java control in return for more hardware sales. That attitude has to shine through in their actions.
Then the Free source community might use Java more than mono's C#, Python, OCaml or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Imagine this future scenario: Say, America has software patents and Europe doesn't. Now the American companies can't use the software recipies of their competitors (you lose your patent if you don't enforce it if I remember correctly) and so their software is not as good as it could have been without the laws. The European developers can program without the cost of researching their source code or the cost of buying permission of using patented source and can use the best solutions for their software designs.
European software will, slowly but surely, become better and cheaper than American software and American companies won't be able to sell their software successfully in Europe unless they make a special "High quality European version". Because software is mostly used to streamline business processes. Business in America won't run as smoothly as business in Europe because european business' are using more, and higher quality accounting/production/etc. programs. American economy takes a hit.
Private software user in America won't buy software from US companies because it's inferiour to the software they can (illegally) get from Europe. They pirate either the software made in Europe or the "European version" which they can't legally buy or they import the "illegal in US" Open Source programs. US software sales and services are down because of software patents, American economy takes another hit.
Small companies make up more than 80% of all businesses in any given country. In the US, small software companies will die because of software patents, only a few big ones will survive. Software companies will abuse their positions to increase their profits at the cost of their consumers, American business'. American business' won't be able to buy as much software as they like or will have higher operating costs because of it. The few American companies that sell software won't bring in as much economic activity and taxes as a lot of small software companies + big companies. American economy takes another hit.
Other countries like China which present billions of dollars of potential income for the US won't buy American, they'll buy EU or build their own software. Even less economic activity for the US software industry. American economy takes another hit.
The worst thing the European politicians can do for their countries is to allow software patents in Europe. Europe will lose it's competitive advantage over the US software industry. Even worse, their position will be much weaker than that of the US. Because software patenting has been going on for a while in the US, US companies have the most, and the most important patents on software. US companies will be able to kill off most EU software companies using their patent portfolio's and that would be a bad thing for the EU citizens. I think that an EU politician that votes in favor of software patents is either incompetent or influenced by big US software companies.
Software patents are only good for a few big US software companies, bad for everyone else in their country.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Whatever the details are of this deal, satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that wen Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Open Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java in return for more hardware sales. That attitude.
Then the open source might use Java more than mono or Python or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
That's what's happening now and how it should be in my opinion.
Functional programming seems to be what you're describing.
It's a different kind of programming than basic/C++/Java. I'm looking into it at the moment. The OCaml language seems especially interesting.
As I understand it, functional programming can be seen as a higher level of abstraction over other languages. Just like C and Java are a bit closer to human comprehension than assembler, functional programming is farther away from the hardware than C/Java but is still as fast or faster.
The best explanation I found was that functional programming is like making an (excel) spreadsheet. When you enter equations into cells you don't exactly tell the PC how to perform that calculation (first get the entered number, convert to a double, then this then that) you just give the cell a certain mathematical equation/function that it needs to perform on the input and you don't care how the computer performs that calculation.
Some advantages are: - Shorter, more understandable programs - Therefore, programming is faster than with other languages - Less bugs - Free multiprocessing/multithreading with some functional languages, so no special programming necessary for that, this is going to be important in the future, especially in game consoles like the PS3
As I said, I'm still looking into it. For example I don't know why more people aren't using functional programming, probably popularity inertia of the current languages.
If you're serious, The Netherlands is good on privacy and freedom and it's safe.
Amsterdam is the best place because the population has this attitude of: "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't bother others".
The most visible oppressive law that got passed was a smoking ban on public transport and buildings, but then again, smoking most often is "bothering others" in a medical sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You need a name that is as easy to pronounce as google. As friendly sounding would be good as well.
You're "competing" on a number of different areas with google, including the name ofcourse.
The first thing that came to my mind when I read the name was: "Typical for geeks who are good at the technical side of things, but are bad at marketing and the human interface/psychology side".
I don't like physical sports because there's a lot of cheating going on there.
There is a lot of cheating going on at "e-sports" as well, but there is none at high-level LAN events because the players only play on pre-checked equipment and everyone can check their screens for wallhacks etc.
Doping in physical sports can be taken without getting caught. Any speed cyclist who wants to have any chance at all will have to take doping. That's what it takes. I think even sports with a good reputation like tennis have cheaters who use doping. With speed cycling, the best cheater wins. Cheaters in society are called criminals, cheaters in sports are just called cheaters but they make me sick nonetheless.
Tennis and basketball need brains as well as physical prowess, but you said that you prefer basketball because of it's physicality.
I like exciting brain-sports like Counter-Strike because it's NOT physically intensive. You know that there are no doping cheaters in Counter-Strike (unless you count caffeine).
The essential thing here is an commentator who knows the game and is smart enough to figure out what just happened.
I play Counter-Strike and when a cunning plan to take out the enemy works, it's one of the greatest feelings in the world. If we could somehow convey that feeling to an audience then it would be very popular.
I have seen an edited replay of a quake 3 match, and that is indeed the way to go because it was much more enjoyable than a live match. Slow motion analysis of some of the action and the voice-over explaining the tactics made it superiour.
Only a very experienced, very smart commentator who is a player him/herself is able to decrypt the complex plans people have working on for weeks instantly. Even then, there's not enough time to explain what the plan was, the game will have moved on to other phases.
So the solution is to "delay"/record a match as a data stream (not just video so you can make any kind of camera shot). That way a team of analysts can figure out what the deep shit was that happened, in a reasonable time, and only an average thinker with good language skills can do the presenting.
Seeing a plan going forward step-by-step, and then at the end seeing it succeed or fail is great, but most non-players need help with seeing the greatness/lameness of the teams. This happens with American football sometimes (from what I've seen) where analysts draw lines on a video replay to explain what happened.
Do it like that and fans will come.
Satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source/Free source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that when Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Free Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java control in return for more hardware sales. That attitude has to shine through in their actions.
Then the Free source community might use Java more than mono's C#, Python, OCaml or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
Neither the article nor the /. summary said anything about patents.
The BBC doesn't NEED to worry about patents because software patents don't exist in Europe. Although we're in danger of getting them because of the US and US companies influencing the European commission
That weird shit only happens in the USA at the moment. Something as good as the BBC is doing would almost certainly be impossible in the US because of patents. When the BBC puts it's public knowledge on the net (wonderful documentaries), it will be illegal to watch/hear that info in the US as soon as a company comes out with a patent infringement claim.
The only reason the rest of the world worries about software patents is because we want the people in the US to be able to use the software we're making. This might not last, as in the case of the BBC codec.
I suggest US men-of-action types fix this situation, start with voting good guys/girls into office.
Matroska is better than ogg. For example, subtitles in Matroska can be in any language of the world because it supports Unicode, ogg doesn't.
Matroska is a cross-platform, patent-free, open-source media file format, which is even newer than OGM. Matroska is not a codec (like MPEG-1, XviD, DivX, or VP3), but a container (like OGM) where you can put video(s) + audio(s) + sub(s). Supported audio formats include Ogg Vorbis, AAC, MP3, and AC3.
I think you and your company are on the right track.
Programs used to be controlled by the user with windows on a desktop. Now, more and more programs are controlled by an interactive webpage while it's running on the server.
There are huge advantages to that, like the ability to run the program from anywhere where you have access to a browser. For example, you can check your webmail without having your PC with you to run your E-Mail program. You just need a simple, web-only, cybercafe with a standard browser. Like you said, zero-install. There are a lot of other advantages and some disadvantages.
It's obvious for you that this is the future of interacting with programs because you build web interfaces for a living, but if you think about it it should become clear for anyone that this is better in most cases. Programs that are real-time like games and video editing need (non MS) window interfaces, but a lot of non-realtime programs can best be controlled by a webpage. I encourage everyone to program interfaces like this, it eases transition to Linux.
Mozilla interfaces are a level higher than the webpage interface. Mozilla needs to be installed, pages don't. You probably know of a lot of interface things that can only be done with higher level interfaces like Mozilla's XUL windows but I think we should put the emphasis on enriching the lower level webpage-only interfaces for programs.
With things like the upcoming vector drawing (SVG) and Javascript for webpages, most tasks can be handled without having clients install Firefox/Mozilla specifically to use your programs. Ofcourse that won't be as bad as requiring clients to install Windows XAML because with Mozilla/Firefox XUL you are locked into something which is Open source and Free, with XAML you'll get raped by Microsoft and will be stuck on Windows.
However, I'm curious about Mozilla/Firefox XUL. As far as I can see, it's like this:
- Native windows are the fastest and know all the tricks
- Mozilla/Firefox XUL has a couple of tricks, is cross-platform and is easier to program than native windows.
- Standards compliant webpages are limited in interactivity but are the easiest to make and are even more cross-platform (mobile phones can't install Firefox).
Can anyone give me more examples that are only possible using XUL as opposed to standard webpages/XHTML? And what are the chances of XUL being used as native windows for Linux/*BSD? Is it fast enough for games or video editing?
Miguel doesn't just like some of Microsoft's ideas - Miguel wishes he were working for them.
Or maybe he's bitter, maybe he doesn't care about not having become an employee.
What you said was your opinion but you stated it as fact.
I don't know if he's got good or bad intentions or wether he'll be good or harmful to the Libre software community. We don't have enough info yet I think, at least I haven't looked into it deeply enough to make a judgement.
That he failed to get a job at Microsoft doesn't say enough to me. Maybe he just wanted to pay some bills.
Every programmer knows that spaghetti code is bad right? Every part of the program coupled to every other part of the program. You can't change anything anymore without fucking up the program.
Now there is built-in spaghetti code in every US program because of software patents. An unsolvable mess of patents that are linked to other patents that are linked to all programs produced in the US. You can't legally do anything anymore.
Software development in the US will slow to a grinding halt except for the big companies that have enough patents of their own to force cross-patent deals with their competitors.
Patents for the protection of the little guy? Not anymore, ironic.
I think politicians in the US are corrupt and that's why they let big business' dictate new laws to lawmakers.
It's good for the EU economy that Americans are hampering their own economy this way but I don't want to see injustice in any part of the world so I suggest that you become smarter about voting in America. I wish you good luck.
"Diebold knowingly used uncertified software in California elections."
Diebold probably knew a lot more about the things their machines did to lose or reverse votes. I even heard someone at Diebold reconfigured the excel data coming out of the machines to increase believability of the voting results.
I'm not a lawyer so can someone tell me what it takes to become a traitor to the United States of America?
CD-RW disks will last longer than CD-R because of the way it stores it's bits.
CD-R uses a dye that changes color under influence of light. CD-RW uses a phase change material that changes it's properties because of heat. The phase change material won't change color but changes the way light passes through it. Differences in the duration of the laser hitting it will change a bit from one phase to another.
CD-RW disc information is much safer because of these differences. The only problem with CD-RW is that you can accidentally overwrite files you wanted to keep.
"But under our current system of unrestrained capitalism business has found it more profitable to fire a quarter of the workforce, move a quarter of the jobs overseas and crack the whip on the remaining few workers forcing them to work massive hours for stagnant pay."
The answer is to transform into a society without unrestrained capitalism. A mix of socialism and capitalism is better than what you have at the moment (no deep political system discussion please, I'd like to keep this message simple).
I think, what it boils down to, is that the people who are willing to cooperate, people who are altruistic by nature should form "a group". As a group you are in a stronger position to fight injustice and/or evil.
Yeah, why the fuck aren't fines calculated as a percentage of company cash/income instead of fixed amounts?
Big companies should be fined more for illegal activities than small companies, hence, percentage fines are in order.
Software built in India or China will not be legal in the US if they don't adhere to these ridiculous software patents.
It will be almost impossible to sell software in the US, whether it's made domestically or internationally, because it's practically impossible to make software that's legal in the US.
The US will become a software 3rd world country if you don't repeal the software patent law.
I suspect US and Japanese software development will slow to a grinding halt.
Eternal vigilance is required. Perhaps the time you are most vulnerable is when you think you have *finally* won.
If you watch naruto's battles, you already know this to be true.
Eternal vigilance IS required, only the level of vigilance is up to you.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Imagine this future scenario:
Say, America has software patents and Europe doesn't. Now the American companies can't use the software recipies of their competitors (you lose your patent if you don't enforce it if I remember correctly) and so their software is not as good as it could have been without the laws. The European developers can program without the cost of researching their source code or the cost of buying permission of using patented source and can use the best solutions for their software designs.
European software will, slowly but surely, become better and cheaper than American software and American companies won't be able to sell their software successfully in Europe unless they make a special "High quality European version". Because software is mostly used to streamline business processes. Business in America won't run as smoothly as business in Europe because european business' are using more, and higher quality accounting/production/etc. programs. American economy takes a hit.
Private software user in America won't buy software from US companies because it's inferiour to the software they can (illegally) get from Europe. They pirate either the software made in Europe or the "European version" which they can't legally buy or they import the "illegal in US" Open Source programs. US software sales and services are down because of software patents, American economy takes another hit.
Small companies make up more than 80% of all businesses in any given country. In the US, small software companies will die because of software patents, only a few big ones will survive. Software companies will abuse their positions to increase their profits at the cost of their consumers, American business'. American business' won't be able to buy as much software as they like or will have higher operating costs because of it. The few American companies that sell software won't bring in as much economic activity and taxes as a lot of small software companies + big companies. American economy takes another hit.
Other countries like China which present billions of dollars of potential income for the US won't buy American, they'll buy EU or build their own software. Even less economic activity for the US software industry. American economy takes another hit.
The worst thing the European politicians can do for their countries is to allow software patents in Europe. Europe will lose it's competitive advantage over the US software industry. Even worse, their position will be much weaker than that of the US. Because software patenting has been going on for a while in the US, US companies have the most, and the most important patents on software. US companies will be able to kill off most EU software companies using their patent portfolio's and that would be a bad thing for the EU citizens. I think that an EU politician that votes in favor of software patents is either incompetent or influenced by big US software companies. Their job is to act in the best interest of the EU countries and I think the pro-patent politicians are doing the opposite, vote them off before they can profit! Who's got a list?
Software patents are only good for a few big US software companies, bad for everyone else in their country. And even that's doubtful because they're reducing their own market if my scenario above holds water.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Whatever the details are of this deal, satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that when Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Free Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java control in return for more hardware sales. That attitude has to shine through in their actions.
Then the Free source community might use Java more than mono's C#, Python, OCaml or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
Dude, stop lying to yourself!
You can't resist a G5 powerbook and you know it!
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Imagine this future scenario:
Say, America has software patents and Europe doesn't. Now the American companies can't use the software recipies of their competitors (you lose your patent if you don't enforce it if I remember correctly) and so their software is not as good as it could have been without the laws. The European developers can program without the cost of researching their source code or the cost of buying permission of using patented source and can use the best solutions for their software designs.
European software will, slowly but surely, become better and cheaper than American software and American companies won't be able to sell their software successfully in Europe unless they make a special "High quality European version". Because software is mostly used to streamline business processes. Business in America won't run as smoothly as business in Europe because european business' are using more, and higher quality accounting/production/etc. programs. American economy takes a hit.
Private software user in America won't buy software from US companies because it's inferiour to the software they can (illegally) get from Europe. They pirate either the software made in Europe or the "European version" which they can't legally buy or they import the "illegal in US" Open Source programs. US software sales and services are down because of software patents, American economy takes another hit.
Small companies make up more than 80% of all businesses in any given country. In the US, small software companies will die because of software patents, only a few big ones will survive. Software companies will abuse their positions to increase their profits at the cost of their consumers, American business'. American business' won't be able to buy as much software as they like or will have higher operating costs because of it. The few American companies that sell software won't bring in as much economic activity and taxes as a lot of small software companies + big companies. American economy takes another hit.
Other countries like China which present billions of dollars of potential income for the US won't buy American, they'll buy EU or build their own software. Even less economic activity for the US software industry. American economy takes another hit.
The worst thing the European politicians can do for their countries is to allow software patents in Europe. Europe will lose it's competitive advantage over the US software industry. Even worse, their position will be much weaker than that of the US. Because software patenting has been going on for a while in the US, US companies have the most, and the most important patents on software. US companies will be able to kill off most EU software companies using their patent portfolio's and that would be a bad thing for the EU citizens. I think that an EU politician that votes in favor of software patents is either incompetent or influenced by big US software companies.
Software patents are only good for a few big US software companies, bad for everyone else in their country.
Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.
Whatever the details are of this deal, satisfying the Open Source community is the only logical way to go for Sun.
Sun is a hardware company, they sell high-price, high quality servers. They sell their own processors which are incompatible with Intel.
To make everyone compatible with their servers they release the Java platform out into the world. Now everyone can run their programs on Sun hardware and hardware sales increase. As far as I know they don't make a lot of money out of software sales compared to their hardware sales.
So their strategy rests on the fact that everyone is running programs on the Java platform. Sun needs to spread Java as far and wide as possible so they get the most possible customers for their hardware.
A growing number of computer users are switching to open source, especially on the server side of the market. Open source software is going to grow bigger in the future so this group is important to have as a customer for Sun.
Here's the big one. The open source community don't want Sun to "pull a Microsoft" on them! Who's to say that wen Sun has spread the Java platform everywhere, they won't abuse their position to treat users the same way Microsoft is treating it's users?
I'm not sure if Sun has completely embraced the idea of giving away the platform to increase hardware sales. They seem to want it both ways. Control of the platform as well as the increased hardware sales. I've heard people say that the Java spec can't be implemented in an open source way because of something in the license. I heard Sun was having arguments with the Blackdown team over their open source Java implementation.
Sun has blocked Microsoft from Embracing and Extending the Java platform in the past using their power over the Java platform, this was a good thing, it ensured that Java was not fragmented and stayed a powerful platform to make users compatible with their servers. However, it seems that now, Sun must let go of some of it's power to satisfy the Open Source community and keep them as hardware customers. Strenght against fragmentation is good, but letting the Java platform become a little more open doesn't have to mean that it'll become weak against attacks. As long as Sun convinces the Open Source community that it can't hijack the Java platform for evil in the future, those people will use Java. Sun doesn't have to go much farther than that in my opinion but Sun has to make it clear to everyone they ARE basically giving away java in return for more hardware sales. That attitude.
Then the open source might use Java more than mono or Python or whatever in the future. IBM sells services, Sun sells high-end hardware to more geeks, Microsoft slowly dies and everyone's happy.
That's what's happening now and how it should be in my opinion.
Let's call them Music Cartel from now on, just like they are calling us "stealers of intellectual property", only we're right and they're wrong.
Functional programming seems to be what you're describing.
It's a different kind of programming than basic/C++/Java. I'm looking into it at the moment. The OCaml language seems especially interesting.
As I understand it, functional programming can be seen as a higher level of abstraction over other languages. Just like C and Java are a bit closer to human comprehension than assembler, functional programming is farther away from the hardware than C/Java but is still as fast or faster.
The best explanation I found was that functional programming is like making an (excel) spreadsheet. When you enter equations into cells you don't exactly tell the PC how to perform that calculation (first get the entered number, convert to a double, then this then that) you just give the cell a certain mathematical equation/function that it needs to perform on the input and you don't care how the computer performs that calculation.
Some advantages are:
- Shorter, more understandable programs
- Therefore, programming is faster than with other languages
- Less bugs
- Free multiprocessing/multithreading with some functional languages, so no special programming necessary for that, this is going to be important in the future, especially in game consoles like the PS3
As I said, I'm still looking into it. For example I don't know why more people aren't using functional programming, probably popularity inertia of the current languages.
A slashdot story about functional languages
If you're serious, The Netherlands is good on privacy and freedom and it's safe.
Amsterdam is the best place because the population has this attitude of: "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't bother others".
The most visible oppressive law that got passed was a smoking ban on public transport and buildings, but then again, smoking most often is "bothering others" in a medical sense.
Even if that was possible,
SAFETY FIRST!