If that happens (and you may well be correct), I predict that Oracle will follow up by attacking LibreOffice with patent claims in order to re-assert OpenOffice's market position.
I think it's plain to see that Oracle is not interested in FOSS principles, fairness, "community spirit", free market competition, patent-free software (regardless of Ellison's past claims) or even (as it seems at present) their reputation with us technical folk; they want to be a highly-profitable, dominant force in big-business IT with reputation with management, and screw everyone else.
Personally, I think (hope) their current seeming disdain for the technical and FOSS community will be a problem for them in the long run, and they will probably end up back-pedalling on their stance to open community projects. I also think they bit off more than they could chew when they bought up Sun, SleepyCat, InnoBase, et al, and may be struggling to know what to do with all the projects they have inherited. After all, it's us geeks who are often in the position to choose which technologies to deploy in an organisation, and it seems there's a lot of us who are going off Oracle pretty quickly.
Nope. Dalvik is not compatible with Java. It can not "correctly execute Java programs". There are tools that can *convert* Java class files and bytecode into Dalvik bytecode, so a subset of all valid Java programs can be converted to run on Dalvik, but the Dalvik VM is utterly incapable of running those programs directly.
It would be like trying to run, say, MIPS machine code on a SPARC CPU. They're very very similar architectures in many ways. Many of the instructions have the same names, and are semantically identical. You could convert it, but it ain't gonna work out of the box. But a MIPS processor is not a SPARC processor, even though they're similar in many ways.
That's not to say that patents on one don't cover the other, but what you said was just plain wrong.
But you can easily argue that the damage was done the second the system was left unsecured:
Let's say he *didnt* break in, or wasn't caught and left no trace. Eventually someone discovers the system is not secure: what do they do? Just close the holes and pretend that everything's OK? No, you assume someone may have broken in and perform the due diligence you just described, at the same cost. Nobody even has to break in for this cost to be incurred, there only needs to be the possibility of break in.
So, is it damage done by the hacker? Or is it damage done by the idiot who set up the system in the first place? Let the lawyers fight it out!
If you were in Ireland, and you shot someone across the border (or anywhere), and killed them, then you are indeed guilty of a crime in Ireland. You were in Ireland. You shot somebody. You killed them. Therefore, you broke Irish law. It doesn't matter that the victim was elsewhere, only that your *act* was illegal, and your illegal action was instigated and took place in Ireland. It is the act of "deliberately causing death" that is illegal, not the "event of someone getting killed", or "the act of killing someone in Ireland, whilst in Ireland"! I confess that I know nothing of Irish law, but this would certainly be the case in Britain due to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (then Great Britain and Ireland) and I believe this act, or an equivalent, still stands in Irish law. If this wasn't the case then you'd be saying that "killing people is fine, so long as you don't kill anyone in Ireland", and that's not what we really want is it? (Obviously there are exceptions for lawful killing in combat at war, etc.)
Of course, from the point of view of Northern Island, you may *simultaneously* be considered guilty of a crime there too, as N.I. considers the murder of its citizens a crime regardless of the location of the murderer or the victim, but if you're not actually there, and the crime is already illegal in the jurisdiction where you are, then there may be little to be gained from extradition, and the jurisdiction is, in my mind at least, clear. (At least, if Justice truly is meant to be blind and the two country's legal systems are relatively compatible.) Perhaps there might be complications involving evidence, witnesses, etc. where extradition might be negotiated to facilitate justice, but in this case, the crime itself really isn't in doubt on either side. Similarly, in the McKinnon case, the crime is not in doubt on either side of the pond.
The real arguments would come when the countries involved have a completely different idea of what's illegal, or where the punishments for the same crime are at odds. It could be argued that this is the case with McKinnon, since the US is quite likely to dish out much harsher penalties than a UK court (in addition to the fact that he will be removed from his home country, family, way of life, etc.) There are also some political issues in that this extradition is being done under a one-sided agreement that the US would not honour if the roles were reversed. (My understanding is that the agreement was signed by the UK, but not by the US.)
Of course, IANAL, and I highly doubt that real-life international law is anywhere near this clear/sane.. Gotta keep it nice and complicated to keep up those international lawyers' fees!
Funnily enough, the very first thing I thought of when I read the headline was "webcrawler"! I did remember it being centered, though,... and sure enough, a few months later than the version you posted...
I'm running a CN400 on Debian etch. I had the same problems with ubuntu, but then I switched to plain old Debian + the latest openchrome driver, and the problem pretty much went away. I do still get the occasional freeze during rewinding in MythTV, but my average uptime is on the order of three or four months. Have you got the latest SVN checkout of the openchrome library?
My main annoyance is the fact that I use TV-Out almost exclusively (it's a MythTV box), and the OS driver doesn't seem to be able to correctly sync interlaced video. Sometimes it syncs on the odd 50Hz interlaced frames instead of the full 25Hz full-screen refresh (it's a PAL system). Unfortunately, after a brief scan of these new docs, I can't see anything that would indicate an odd-even frame timer, and I don't know that any of it is applicable to the CN400:-(
That's an interesting argument, but abolishing patents would leave a hole in the protection of physical things -- as you say, there is no "copyright" for physical things. But perhaps such a concept could be invented?
Personally, I'd be happy with a world where creative works such as art, software, etc. are protected by copyright and truly novel physical/mechanical inventions are protected by a relatively short term patent system. At the moment, I think patents are applied way too broadly, and for too long. If you can't make a profit on a truly novel and revolutionary idea after say, 10 years, then perhaps it isn't worthy of protection?
> If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
It is: Copyright.
You could have implemented your algorithm, or produced some abstract expression or illustration of it, and sold or licensed that work to your company for the same price. No patent necessary. (Or indeed just sold your services to design, document or implement it for the company.)
If I go to the trouble and effort of writing some software, or even just writing a description or illustration of an algorithm, then that work is automatically protected in copyright law in most countries. Of course, someone can go to the same trouble and effort to write their own, and good luck to them. Competition in a free market is good, isn't it?
With patents, the same thing can be independently invented by two people (both spending the same intellectual "energy"), but only the first to invent, or the first to file (depending on country) gets to have a monopoly, and the other is just unlucky and cannot profit from his own invention, despite having expended the same "energy".
Software algorithms are mathematical in nature, and so are arguably unpatentable, but a particular *expression* of an algorithm might be protected by copyright.
Copyright is also, arguably, easier to define and apply (cheaper too, since unregistered copyright is "free"), and infringement easier to prove. Often it's not clear whether a patent is valid or applicable in a particular situation or "expression" of an idea, whereas it's quite clear what a copyright protects -- a particular expression of a work. If you didn't copy anything, then you know you're in the clear. With patents, you know no such thing without extensive (and expensive) research, analysis and interpretation.
IMHO, copying someone elses *idea* should be allowed, but simply taking a direct copy of the product of someone else's work shouldn't be. (Without permission, of course.)
A combination of copyright and trade secrets (where applicable) is powerful enough protection for software, and doesn't stifle competition.
all they are really proving is that the particular way of doing things that they chose does not work.
Very true. Especially when you consider that the BBC's "What the Ancient's Did fo Us" programme managed to make a fully working version:
http://www.open2.net/whattheancients/greeks.html
There's no video on their website, but I'm sure I remember watching the episode where they successfully demonstrated this thing on a small boat in a haven/harbour, and how it could have been constructed using the technology available at the time.
I remember watching a BBC documentary about HyperText and the Xanadu system years ago. It was written by Douglas Adams, and featured himself and ex-"Doctor Who" Tom Baker. It discussed the Xanadu system and I remember "Kubla Khan" featuring heavily, using a hypertext system to annotate the poem. The only other things that stick in my memory about the programme are Tom Baker's distinctive (and slightly spooky) voice, and a big stack of televisions in a junkyard... not sure what they were!
This was all several years before I ever got my hands on the WWW...
A quick Google search revealed this (includes two Douglas Adams references): http://www.faqs.org/faqs/xanadu-faq/
SCO Lawyer: '...and all the IBM machines' clocks died at *precisely* the same time as our SysV clocks! What further evidence need we present that our code was illegally copied?'
...I heard there's another device which uses electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 700 nanometer range that allows the user to see lifelike 3D images through solid walls at even greater distances, at much higher resolution and without the need for bulky equipment...
I think it was called a "window".
If this device becomes widespread, the potential for privacy invasion would be HUGE!;-)
Personally, I'd like to see some affordable digital cameras with decent *optics*....
You can push the number of pixels/DPI in your CCD through the roof, but until you increase the quality of your lens and focussing arrangements, you're not going to get a better picture.
30 MP won't do anything to improve an image taken with a poorly-focussed low quality lens -- you'll just get a more precise electronic capture of an already cruddy image!
There seem to be lots of el-cheapo cameras out there claiming "n MEGAPIXELS!!!" but with lenses that are little better than the bottom of coke bottles...;)
I agree about increasing the size of the CCDs -- but for a different reason: it easier to focus images using cheaper hardware, irrespective of the actual "DPI" of the CCD.
"Look, we don't know what's going on out there. It may just be a down [transatlantic cable]. But if it's not, I want you there...as an advisor. That's all.
"You wouldn't be going in with the [ISPs]. I can guarantee your safety..."
But what about a kettle lead? The female end plugs into a male socket! Would that be a new verb: socketing?
Would you have us socketing our sockets into our plugs? Can a cable even have sockets? If I'm holding the socket end of a cable, where do I plug it in? What if a cable had sockets (female) on both ends? Would I plug 2 sockets into 2 other sockets? If I asked you to "pass me the socket", which of the four items would you give me?
In soviet russia, plugs socket into you!
My brain hurts.
Code is already protected by copyright law. Nobody else can copy it for far longer than the duration of a patent. (Actual duration varies around the world, but mostly the best part of a century).
What other protection would your "code patent" provide that goes beyond existing copyright law, and that wouldn't also be protecting the idea behind the code?
(feel free to use this as a template for your own complaints!)
How many of your readership think it would be morally or legally acceptable for me to take another person's intellectual property without payment or consent and base my product on it? If you break copyright laws, shouldn't you be able to get away with it?
Obviously, this is nonsense. Yet the writer of the "Linux's Hit Men" article is implying that this is exactly what technology companies should be doing!
This is simply a question of licensing. If you base a product on GPL licensed software, the terms of the GPL state that you must also distribute your modified version under the terms of the GPL, thus making it available to the public. You may still sell your product for a profit, and by releasing the source you can benefit from the bug fixes and improvements that may be contributed by the free software community.
If you're not prepared to do this, then you are free to develop your own software, or license software technology elsewhere.
Why should complying with the terms of the GPL be any different from complying from the terms of any other licence?
Of course, the GPL is no different to a commercial software license -- you are free to accept or reject its terms, and these terms are written in plain and simple language in the licence itself. (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.ph p)
The author of this biased and ill-informed article implies that companies should be able to steal the intellectual property of others, merely because that software was available for free! What nonsense!
The Free Software Foundation serves to protect the intellectual property rights of free software developers who do not want to see their hard work stolen, but who may lack the funds and/or time to pursue legal action against infringers. They do a great job at this, and don't deserve to be tarnished with the image of zealous communists that this article portrays.
GPL software gives you a huge head start by providing you with mature, proven software on which to base your product, but you must be willing to give back to the community that developed it.
Oh c'mon, a nice little hack like that with something as simple as paper clip? I can't see how you can count that against the book. I think it's rather a neat idea. (And probably still works).
Even though the software and hardware used is now obsolete by modern standards, The Cuckoo's Egg (which happened to be on the shelf directly above my monitor as I read the article) is an excellent account of a hacker solving a mystery using the technology available to him. He had to think outside the box and improvise with what was available.
The outdated equipment just makes it more impressive, in my opinion. (A technological ancient legend...)
Innovative enough to get patent protection, according to their home page! Good ol' US patent office.;)
"The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time. "
Unless you're using Opera with pop-ups disabled. And their examples don't download completely before playing anyway.
If you read my other post (above in main thread), you'll see I have also used X in a similar way extensively, and I actually agree with most of your points. But I believe it can be done more efficiently than in the current architecture. An X server running on Win32 is a very nice environment to work in.
I know all the above layers are not part of "X itself", but they are a kind of byproduct. you can't have a decent desktop environment based on X without a whole wodge of layers between the app and X. It isn't necessarily X that slows everything down, BUT the nature of the X window system compels you to use these layers, and the limited scope of X means that it is not possible to implement such layers in an optimal way.
A limitation in any of those software layers propogates all the way to the top of the stack (software design 101), so improving the X architecture to provide things like AA fonts, better image caching, faster (and more useful) graphics operations and features (like alpha channel) as standard allows higher software levels to take advantage of those features.
However, I also believe that we could do away with most of those layers if you take a step back and look at the whole picture and have a bit of a rethink.
I also think that Linux badly needs a unified display architecture with a common set of libraries for framebuffer access and video driver development regardless of whether you're running X, or any other display API.
Basically, I don't believe in "good enough". I want the best! I know its a difficult problem -- no-one will use a new desktop/display environment until it has decent support; and no-one will support something that isn't being used... I guess we just have to keep on improving X and see what happens. I don't think at this stage it's possible to create a new desktop that blows people away with awe such that they'll shift environments...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think a company as large, rich and as resourceful as Oracle would find it hard to anything it wants ;-)
Such action wouldn't necessarily come directly from Oracle.
If that happens (and you may well be correct), I predict that Oracle will follow up by attacking LibreOffice with patent claims in order to re-assert OpenOffice's market position.
I think it's plain to see that Oracle is not interested in FOSS principles, fairness, "community spirit", free market competition, patent-free software (regardless of Ellison's past claims) or even (as it seems at present) their reputation with us technical folk; they want to be a highly-profitable, dominant force in big-business IT with reputation with management, and screw everyone else.
Personally, I think (hope) their current seeming disdain for the technical and FOSS community will be a problem for them in the long run, and they will probably end up back-pedalling on their stance to open community projects. I also think they bit off more than they could chew when they bought up Sun, SleepyCat, InnoBase, et al, and may be struggling to know what to do with all the projects they have inherited. After all, it's us geeks who are often in the position to choose which technologies to deploy in an organisation, and it seems there's a lot of us who are going off Oracle pretty quickly.
"How about a nice game of chess?"
Nope. Dalvik is not compatible with Java. It can not "correctly execute Java programs". There are tools that can *convert* Java class files and bytecode into Dalvik bytecode, so a subset of all valid Java programs can be converted to run on Dalvik, but the Dalvik VM is utterly incapable of running those programs directly.
It would be like trying to run, say, MIPS machine code on a SPARC CPU. They're very very similar architectures in many ways. Many of the instructions have the same names, and are semantically identical. You could convert it, but it ain't gonna work out of the box. But a MIPS processor is not a SPARC processor, even though they're similar in many ways.
That's not to say that patents on one don't cover the other, but what you said was just plain wrong.
But you can easily argue that the damage was done the second the system was left unsecured:
Let's say he *didnt* break in, or wasn't caught and left no trace. Eventually someone discovers the system is not secure: what do they do? Just close the holes and pretend that everything's OK? No, you assume someone may have broken in and perform the due diligence you just described, at the same cost. Nobody even has to break in for this cost to be incurred, there only needs to be the possibility of break in.
So, is it damage done by the hacker? Or is it damage done by the idiot who set up the system in the first place? Let the lawyers fight it out!
In Ireland, killing a human being is illegal.
If you were in Ireland, and you shot someone across the border (or anywhere), and killed them, then you are indeed guilty of a crime in Ireland. You were in Ireland. You shot somebody. You killed them. Therefore, you broke Irish law. It doesn't matter that the victim was elsewhere, only that your *act* was illegal, and your illegal action was instigated and took place in Ireland. It is the act of "deliberately causing death" that is illegal, not the "event of someone getting killed", or "the act of killing someone in Ireland, whilst in Ireland"! I confess that I know nothing of Irish law, but this would certainly be the case in Britain due to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (then Great Britain and Ireland) and I believe this act, or an equivalent, still stands in Irish law. If this wasn't the case then you'd be saying that "killing people is fine, so long as you don't kill anyone in Ireland", and that's not what we really want is it? (Obviously there are exceptions for lawful killing in combat at war, etc.)
Of course, from the point of view of Northern Island, you may *simultaneously* be considered guilty of a crime there too, as N.I. considers the murder of its citizens a crime regardless of the location of the murderer or the victim, but if you're not actually there, and the crime is already illegal in the jurisdiction where you are, then there may be little to be gained from extradition, and the jurisdiction is, in my mind at least, clear. (At least, if Justice truly is meant to be blind and the two country's legal systems are relatively compatible.) Perhaps there might be complications involving evidence, witnesses, etc. where extradition might be negotiated to facilitate justice, but in this case, the crime itself really isn't in doubt on either side. Similarly, in the McKinnon case, the crime is not in doubt on either side of the pond.
The real arguments would come when the countries involved have a completely different idea of what's illegal, or where the punishments for the same crime are at odds. It could be argued that this is the case with McKinnon, since the US is quite likely to dish out much harsher penalties than a UK court (in addition to the fact that he will be removed from his home country, family, way of life, etc.) There are also some political issues in that this extradition is being done under a one-sided agreement that the US would not honour if the roles were reversed. (My understanding is that the agreement was signed by the UK, but not by the US.)
Of course, IANAL, and I highly doubt that real-life international law is anywhere near this clear/sane.. Gotta keep it nice and complicated to keep up those international lawyers' fees!
Funnily enough, the very first thing I thought of when I read the headline was "webcrawler"! I did remember it being centered, though, ...
and sure enough, a few months later than the version you posted...
http://web.archive.org/web/19961219104127/http://webcrawler.com/
Very "googlesque", I'd say.
p.s. also worth checking your X-Config too: here's my VIA video settings (tailored for TV-out...)
Section "Device"
Identifier "VIA Unichrome Pro II"
Driver "via"
Option "ActiveDevice" "TV"
Option "TVType" "PAL"
Option "TVOutput" "S-Video"
Option "TVDeflicker" "0"
#Option "TVDotCrawl" "true"
Option "EnableAGPDMA" "true"
Option "AccelMethod" "XAA" # XAA - safe, EXA - CRASH
#Option "EXANoComposite" "false" # disable exp. compositing
Option "DisplaySize" "400 300"
EndSection
I'm running a CN400 on Debian etch. I had the same problems with ubuntu, but then I switched to plain old Debian + the latest openchrome driver, and the problem pretty much went away. I do still get the occasional freeze during rewinding in MythTV, but my average uptime is on the order of three or four months. Have you got the latest SVN checkout of the openchrome library?
This tutorial should work on ubuntu too:
http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Compiling+the+source+code+on+Debian
My main annoyance is the fact that I use TV-Out almost exclusively (it's a MythTV box), and the OS driver doesn't seem to be able to correctly sync interlaced video. Sometimes it syncs on the odd 50Hz interlaced frames instead of the full 25Hz full-screen refresh (it's a PAL system). Unfortunately, after a brief scan of these new docs, I can't see anything that would indicate an odd-even frame timer, and I don't know that any of it is applicable to the CN400 :-(
That's an interesting argument, but abolishing patents would leave a hole in the protection of physical things -- as you say, there is no "copyright" for physical things. But perhaps such a concept could be invented?
Personally, I'd be happy with a world where creative works such as art, software, etc. are protected by copyright and truly novel physical/mechanical inventions are protected by a relatively short term patent system. At the moment, I think patents are applied way too broadly, and for too long. If you can't make a profit on a truly novel and revolutionary idea after say, 10 years, then perhaps it isn't worthy of protection?
> If the same intellectual "energy" goes into creating an algorithm as it does, say, a widget, should it not be awarded *some* protection?
It is: Copyright.
You could have implemented your algorithm, or produced some abstract expression or illustration of it, and sold or licensed that work to your company for the same price. No patent necessary. (Or indeed just sold your services to design, document or implement it for the company.)
If I go to the trouble and effort of writing some software, or even just writing a description or illustration of an algorithm, then that work is automatically protected in copyright law in most countries. Of course, someone can go to the same trouble and effort to write their own, and good luck to them. Competition in a free market is good, isn't it?
With patents, the same thing can be independently invented by two people (both spending the same intellectual "energy"), but only the first to invent, or the first to file (depending on country) gets to have a monopoly, and the other is just unlucky and cannot profit from his own invention, despite having expended the same "energy".
Software algorithms are mathematical in nature, and so are arguably unpatentable, but a particular *expression* of an algorithm might be protected by copyright.
Copyright is also, arguably, easier to define and apply (cheaper too, since unregistered copyright is "free"), and infringement easier to prove. Often it's not clear whether a patent is valid or applicable in a particular situation or "expression" of an idea, whereas it's quite clear what a copyright protects -- a particular expression of a work. If you didn't copy anything, then you know you're in the clear. With patents, you know no such thing without extensive (and expensive) research, analysis and interpretation.
IMHO, copying someone elses *idea* should be allowed, but simply taking a direct copy of the product of someone else's work shouldn't be. (Without permission, of course.)
A combination of copyright and trade secrets (where applicable) is powerful enough protection for software, and doesn't stifle competition.
Very true. Especially when you consider that the BBC's "What the Ancient's Did fo Us" programme managed to make a fully working version:
http://www.open2.net/whattheancients/greeks.html
There's no video on their website, but I'm sure I remember watching the episode where they successfully demonstrated this thing on a small boat in a haven/harbour, and how it could have been constructed using the technology available at the time.
Can anyone else confirm this?
I remember watching a BBC documentary about HyperText and the Xanadu system years ago. It was written by Douglas Adams, and featured himself and ex-"Doctor Who" Tom Baker. It discussed the Xanadu system and I remember "Kubla Khan" featuring heavily, using a hypertext system to annotate the poem. The only other things that stick in my memory about the programme are Tom Baker's distinctive (and slightly spooky) voice, and a big stack of televisions in a junkyard... not sure what they were!
/
This was all several years before I ever got my hands on the WWW...
A quick Google search revealed this (includes two Douglas Adams references):
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/xanadu-faq
The year: 2038...
SCO Lawyer: '...and all the IBM machines' clocks died at *precisely* the same time as our SysV clocks! What further evidence need we present that our code was illegally copied?'
IBM Laywer: '...*ack*... my heart!'
...I heard there's another device which uses electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 700 nanometer range that allows the user to see lifelike 3D images through solid walls at even greater distances, at much higher resolution and without the need for bulky equipment...
;-)
I think it was called a "window".
If this device becomes widespread, the potential for privacy invasion would be HUGE!
Personally, I'd like to see some affordable digital cameras with decent *optics*....
;)
You can push the number of pixels/DPI in your CCD through the roof, but until you increase the quality of your lens and focussing arrangements, you're not going to get a better picture.
30 MP won't do anything to improve an image taken with a poorly-focussed low quality lens -- you'll just get a more precise electronic capture of an already cruddy image!
There seem to be lots of el-cheapo cameras out there claiming "n MEGAPIXELS!!!" but with lenses that are little better than the bottom of coke bottles...
I agree about increasing the size of the CCDs -- but for a different reason: it easier to focus images using cheaper hardware, irrespective of the actual "DPI" of the CCD.
"We've lost contact with [Britain]...
"Look, we don't know what's going on out there. It may just be a down [transatlantic cable]. But if it's not, I want you there...as an advisor. That's all.
"You wouldn't be going in with the [ISPs]. I can guarantee your safety..."
OK. Which end? ;-)
But what about a kettle lead? The female end plugs into a male socket! Would that be a new verb: socketing? Would you have us socketing our sockets into our plugs? Can a cable even have sockets? If I'm holding the socket end of a cable, where do I plug it in? What if a cable had sockets (female) on both ends? Would I plug 2 sockets into 2 other sockets? If I asked you to "pass me the socket", which of the four items would you give me? In soviet russia, plugs socket into you! My brain hurts.
Code is already protected by copyright law. Nobody else can copy it for far longer than the duration of a patent. (Actual duration varies around the world, but mostly the best part of a century).
What other protection would your "code patent" provide that goes beyond existing copyright law, and that wouldn't also be protecting the idea behind the code?
(feel free to use this as a template for your own complaints!)
Oh c'mon, a nice little hack like that with something as simple as paper clip? I can't see how you can count that against the book. I think it's rather a neat idea. (And probably still works).
Even though the software and hardware used is now obsolete by modern standards, The Cuckoo's Egg (which happened to be on the shelf directly above my monitor as I read the article) is an excellent account of a hacker solving a mystery using the technology available to him. He had to think outside the box and improvise with what was available.
The outdated equipment just makes it more impressive, in my opinion. (A technological ancient legend...)
Innovative enough to get patent protection, according to their home page! Good ol' US patent office. ;)
"The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time. "
Unless you're using Opera with pop-ups disabled. And their examples don't download completely before playing anyway.
They must be so proud of themselves.
If you read my other post (above in main thread), you'll see I have also used X in a similar way extensively, and I actually agree with most of your points. But I believe it can be done more efficiently than in the current architecture. An X server running on Win32 is a very nice environment to work in.
I know all the above layers are not part of "X itself", but they are a kind of byproduct. you can't have a decent desktop environment based on X without a whole wodge of layers between the app and X. It isn't necessarily X that slows everything down, BUT the nature of the X window system compels you to use these layers, and the limited scope of X means that it is not possible to implement such layers in an optimal way.
A limitation in any of those software layers propogates all the way to the top of the stack (software design 101), so improving the X architecture to provide things like AA fonts, better image caching, faster (and more useful) graphics operations and features (like alpha channel) as standard allows higher software levels to take advantage of those features.
However, I also believe that we could do away with most of those layers if you take a step back and look at the whole picture and have a bit of a rethink.
I also think that Linux badly needs a unified display architecture with a common set of libraries for framebuffer access and video driver development regardless of whether you're running X, or any other display API.
Basically, I don't believe in "good enough". I want the best! I know its a difficult problem -- no-one will use a new desktop/display environment until it has decent support; and no-one will support something that isn't being used... I guess we just have to keep on improving X and see what happens. I don't think at this stage it's possible to create a new desktop that blows people away with awe such that they'll shift environments...
Ho hum.