Correct. You have much better portability by writing software in Mono and then porting back to.NET, although there are plenty of extensions in Mono that don't exist in Microsoft's implementation too.
is a patent mine field
Only because people like you keep saying that it is. In the real world, nobody is suing anybody over this technology. For Microsoft, Mono provides a legitimacy for their language to show that it really is cross platform, open standard. It would be a public relations nightmare if they did an about face on this. The general public won't be able to make the distinction between technology that is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise Agreement and the parts that is not.
No, it is an old tradition. The number four is considered unlucky because in some languages it sounds like the word for death. I am surprised that this version number doesn't get skipped more often. Actually, in computers it would be better to skip version 1.0 since that is often the most buggy release. If you are going to write some new software, go straight to version 2.0 (or version 3.0 for Microsoft).
The problem that Microsoft had with their implementation of ODF was that it did support the standard strictly. Unfortunately, ODF doesn't standardise all the functionality of the OpenOffice.org format. Specifically, the current version doesn't mention any spreadsheet functions at all. The complaints that Microsoft got were not because they didn't impement the standard, but that they didn't implement what OOo wrote.
So in summary, Microsoft Office documents don't use all the features from the ISO standard, and OpenOffice.org documents implements more than their ISO standard. Microsoft needs to update their software while ODF needs to update their standard.
Well sort of. His billions, those in the foundation at least, are invested anywhere and everywhere with a ROI in mind. The interest and tax-free profits thereof are in turn given away.
That is how you create a foundation that will survive more than a few years before running out of money. It is a sustainable solution to the problem of requiring a constant source of money to give away each year. Unfortunately because this is about Bill Gates, people look at this as if it was some evil tax scam rather than the standard way that perpetual trusts outlive their main benefactors.
As for only giving their money away to pharmaceutical companies, I would like to see a citation for that. Health and agricultural development only account for part of what this foundation gives away. Why would money be given to a drug company under the guise of providing clean water?
Actually, I was aware that it was probably bogus. I was going to put the word "allegedly" in there, but I didn't want to have people fixate on that one word about a catastrophe from 10 years ago and allow the focus to move from the Aussies who are in real need right now.
I am glad that you did bring it up though. I was hoping that it would get mentioned.
This is the fundamental problem with Stallman's free software religion.
And yet it still works, but it might just take more time to get there. After all, the problem we are having here is running an open source browser on an open source operating system using open source video drivers. With all that open sourceness going around, this "free software religion" must be getting something right.
The headline writer in TFA said 2010 was the warmest on record, not James Hansen. He said that it was equal top. The second paragraph in your first article states that the NOAA agrees with NASA's results, that the surface temperature for 2010 was tied with 2005.
The second article shows that the delta of the temperatures was the second highest (meaning the change in temperature not absolute temperature). That measures something different than NOAA and NASA.
Your third article shows that the lower atmosphere was tied with 1998. Once again, that is measuring something different than NOAA and NASA, and therefore does not conflict with their findings.
Well let me see, how many programmers to implement WebM in your browser....
Compared with the $6.5 million for the royalties of H.264, that is just a drop in the ocean.
How many cycles to convert current videos and data to new codec....
What video hosting site doesn't automatically convert uploaded videos into whatever format that it requires? Apparently it can't be THAT much of a problem to do. The site that I use at work automatically downloads in whatever format is supported by the browser, meaning it converts the video into ALL of the formats that it uses. The conversion and storage is no problems for them.
How many tech support calls because plug-in is buggy, not up to date or another security problem....
As opposed to the rest of the code that makes up a browser? Once again, just a drop on the ocean!
The difference is that when Microsoft does it, they get condemned for doing so - and quite rightly. So it seems reasonable that Google should also get similar condemnation. It is not a valid defense to just point the finger back at Microsoft just because they have done similar things in the past.
However, the royalties problem does make it difficult for open source browsers. The best solution would be for all browsers to implement WebM as a base. It wouldn't cost much to do without any royalties to be paid. On the other hand, it is easier to support H.264 on low end systems like the iPhone and Windows Phone 7, so I can understand why there might be resistance to that idea.
People giving up that easily are not worth anything to an OS project in any case.
I am far less likely to get involved if I don't know what a product is supposed to do. If I have to examine the source just to work out even the most broadest category of hte app, then it is an epic fail for the project. This is hardly rocket science here. At a bare minimum I would like just one paragraph to say it is about. Hell, one sentence would work too! There are an awful lot of projects out there, and I simply don't have time to dedicate to a 3D modelling project if I am actually looking for web server software just because somebody who is interested in that field can't be bothered to write some text. Don't call it Open Source if you have such closed community that is so anti-newcomer that you have to pass a test just to prove your worthiness to be part of the group.
And mention the target operating system. There is no point choosing a package that will never be able to work on my system. Both Linux and Windows software do this a lot. Not so much on the Mac (although it is not unknown).
And while I am complaining, games or custom levels (mods) of other games where they don't specify whether it is single-user only or multi-user only. Two words on the website would save having to do detective work by searching through forums to find the intended audience of a game.
the card breaks. now you have to buy another to get your wireless back again.
How often do video cards ever break? Especially modern ones that have sensors to detect heat (in case the fan breaks). The only time I have had a card that was broken was when some of the pins on the connector got bent, which obviously will not happen in this case.
otoh, if the vendors were smart this would be card-neutral and simply take hdmi or dvi and make that a wireless peer-to-peer link.
I am sure that the vendors would love to make an adaptor that can use used on their competitor's cards too. I can see why it might be possible that the wireless link would perform better if the cards were tailored to use that interface rather than converting to a wired standard and then converting back again.
Eventually there will end up being some sort of standard for these devices, but innovations tend to happen in a non-standard was long before consensus between companies can occur. Early adopters may pay a premium to buy some hardware that is eventually made obsolete, but that is exactly what early adopters do. Bless them!
That is, unfortunately, my experience with KDE generally. They have no concept, ability, or desire to explain to us, the Great Unwashed, how, what, or why.
I find that to be a huge problem with a lot of open source software. I guess the problem is that the developers who create the websites already know what it is about, and it doesn't occur to them that people will come to the site wanting to learn about it. They tend to be easy to spot, because they will have a news page with the changelog in lieu of any description of their product on their homepage.
This problem isn't limited to the free software world either. I am constantly having to battle with people at my work to get good descriptions for their websites because they fail to think about their text from the perspective of a newcomer.
How does the number of users make it a false analogy? I didn't say that a lot of users were affected, just that a lot of programs did try to avoid patent problems (or perhaps wanted to boycott the format in protest). And so what if big companies didn't drop the support? It was more of a problem for the smaller players and open source community. Microsoft and Apple have both licenced H.264 anyway, so the fact that they also licenced GIF does nothing to invalidate my claim.
Besides, if you want to you can just ignore that one paragraph about GIF and my original post still stands correct. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Since it isn't clear MS got that idea yet, I must conclude you're a time traveler from the distant future.
Or someone who has used their latest products. Off the top of my head, Windows 7 has built in support for MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4 part 2 (DivX), MPEG4 part 10 (H.264), MJPEG, MP3 and AAC. A far cry from the old days of just AVI, WMV, WMA and WAV.
I didn't think it was boring, but an interesting sign of the times. However, I can't help but think that the 2000 version (that shows the Batman getting in) looks like he has been forced to drive a rental car. I imagine that it would have the bumper sticker "My other car is actually cool". It would have sensible gadgets like a drink holder and an AM/FM radio to get news reports.
Wow, that is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft would do before it finally got the idea that standards are good. Like the way Windows Movie Maker would only save in WMV format. Although MS used to ignore the standards, only to add them in later rather than blatently removing support in an existing product.
But I can understand why Google might do this. It is annoying that we have the situation (yet again) where you have to choose between one standard that is more commonly used with better device support, and a more open standard (without patents) that is not quite as good (mostly because it doesn't get accelerated). It is the MP3/OGG situation again. And Google's solution is the same that open source audio software did - they will rely on plug-ins like LAME to add support.
Also the similar thing happened when the GIF format patent became a problem. It got dropped from a lot of programs where they didn't want to have to pay for a licence.
I'm not sure why TFA said that it was controversial that Microsoft added H.264 support to Firefox. It seemed quite reasonable to allow Microsoft's patent licence to be used in software installed on their operating system.
Regrettably, I have seen factual reports from a fairly reliable source (The Economist) that exactly what GP said is happening, A lot of flood relief money is sticking to fingers or being routed to the preferted groups rather than the needy groups.
Yes, but some money still gets through to the people who need it. Other money gets taken by some highly paid people high up within the major charities too. But in the end, you just have to treat all that as a cost of getting the aid to the victims of these disasters. In the end, if you don't donate anything because you are too worried that someone might profit from it, then it is not those officials who will suffer - it is the people who have nothing left in the world.
Building on flood areas of rivers and marsh lands ever so happily. Of course its going to flood there.
You know, 75% of the state of Queensland (that is nearly double the size of Texas) has been declared to be in a state of emergency. Are you suggesting that everyone should pack up and move interstate?
A donation to rebuild flooded areas in Pakistan will almost certainly wind up in the pockets of a corrupt government official or anti-Western mullah.
How about you put your racism on hold for a while. I am sure that the big name charities are quite used to dealing with all sorts of officials - corrupt or otherwise.
And do you think the people of Pakistan would be happy to know that you would have made a donation, but didn't on the (possibly imagined) off-chance that some official might get a cut of it. I think that they would rather be able to use some of the money to rebuild their lives than none of the money.
Do they deserve donation money - or is this a classic case of reap what you sow - privatizing profits and socializing losses? Australia and especially conservative Queenslanders are amongst the staunchest climate change denialists [uq.edu.au] out there (from link: "There's been a big swing back towards climate change denialists...").
Wow. This reminds me of seeing the TV footage of people dancing in the streets when the twin towers came down. Do you really believe that the people affected by these floods deserved it? Is this God smiting the wicked people of the world?
I certainly believe that man causes climate change, but I put my feelings on this matter aside and feel sympathy for the thousands of people who have had their lives turned upside down. It is called being human.
Here am I complaining that people judge current products by what was wrong in older versions and you bring up NT 3.5? Well in this case you can legitimately complain about NT 4 because it did have the bug, but my argument is that you shouldn't try to claim that Windows 7 has this bug just because you saw it happen last century.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it does not support everything,
Correct. You have much better portability by writing software in Mono and then porting back to .NET, although there are plenty of extensions in Mono that don't exist in Microsoft's implementation too.
is a patent mine field
Only because people like you keep saying that it is. In the real world, nobody is suing anybody over this technology. For Microsoft, Mono provides a legitimacy for their language to show that it really is cross platform, open standard. It would be a public relations nightmare if they did an about face on this. The general public won't be able to make the distinction between technology that is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise Agreement and the parts that is not.
and is aptly named after a disease.
You can't catch this from just by using software.
No, it is an old tradition. The number four is considered unlucky because in some languages it sounds like the word for death. I am surprised that this version number doesn't get skipped more often. Actually, in computers it would be better to skip version 1.0 since that is often the most buggy release. If you are going to write some new software, go straight to version 2.0 (or version 3.0 for Microsoft).
The problem that Microsoft had with their implementation of ODF was that it did support the standard strictly. Unfortunately, ODF doesn't standardise all the functionality of the OpenOffice.org format. Specifically, the current version doesn't mention any spreadsheet functions at all. The complaints that Microsoft got were not because they didn't impement the standard, but that they didn't implement what OOo wrote.
So in summary, Microsoft Office documents don't use all the features from the ISO standard, and OpenOffice.org documents implements more than their ISO standard. Microsoft needs to update their software while ODF needs to update their standard.
Yeah, that sounds heaps easier than select, drag, drop.
Yes, it does sound easier to me. However, drag and drop works fine too with a pen interface. I just tried it then.
Well sort of. His billions, those in the foundation at least, are invested anywhere and everywhere with a ROI in mind. The interest and tax-free profits thereof are in turn given away.
That is how you create a foundation that will survive more than a few years before running out of money. It is a sustainable solution to the problem of requiring a constant source of money to give away each year. Unfortunately because this is about Bill Gates, people look at this as if it was some evil tax scam rather than the standard way that perpetual trusts outlive their main benefactors.
As for only giving their money away to pharmaceutical companies, I would like to see a citation for that. Health and agricultural development only account for part of what this foundation gives away. Why would money be given to a drug company under the guise of providing clean water?
Actually, I was aware that it was probably bogus. I was going to put the word "allegedly" in there, but I didn't want to have people fixate on that one word about a catastrophe from 10 years ago and allow the focus to move from the Aussies who are in real need right now.
I am glad that you did bring it up though. I was hoping that it would get mentioned.
This is the fundamental problem with Stallman's free software religion.
And yet it still works, but it might just take more time to get there. After all, the problem we are having here is running an open source browser on an open source operating system using open source video drivers. With all that open sourceness going around, this "free software religion" must be getting something right.
The headline writer in TFA said 2010 was the warmest on record, not James Hansen. He said that it was equal top. The second paragraph in your first article states that the NOAA agrees with NASA's results, that the surface temperature for 2010 was tied with 2005.
The second article shows that the delta of the temperatures was the second highest (meaning the change in temperature not absolute temperature). That measures something different than NOAA and NASA.
Your third article shows that the lower atmosphere was tied with 1998. Once again, that is measuring something different than NOAA and NASA, and therefore does not conflict with their findings.
And what exactly was it trying to embrace and extend? The format originated at Microsoft, so there was nothing which they could embrace in this case.
There were plenty of people who cried foul over Microsoft's Office Open XML format.
Well let me see, how many programmers to implement WebM in your browser....
Compared with the $6.5 million for the royalties of H.264, that is just a drop in the ocean.
How many cycles to convert current videos and data to new codec....
What video hosting site doesn't automatically convert uploaded videos into whatever format that it requires? Apparently it can't be THAT much of a problem to do. The site that I use at work automatically downloads in whatever format is supported by the browser, meaning it converts the video into ALL of the formats that it uses. The conversion and storage is no problems for them.
How many tech support calls because plug-in is buggy, not up to date or another security problem....
As opposed to the rest of the code that makes up a browser? Once again, just a drop on the ocean!
The difference is that when Microsoft does it, they get condemned for doing so - and quite rightly. So it seems reasonable that Google should also get similar condemnation. It is not a valid defense to just point the finger back at Microsoft just because they have done similar things in the past.
However, the royalties problem does make it difficult for open source browsers. The best solution would be for all browsers to implement WebM as a base. It wouldn't cost much to do without any royalties to be paid. On the other hand, it is easier to support H.264 on low end systems like the iPhone and Windows Phone 7, so I can understand why there might be resistance to that idea.
People giving up that easily are not worth anything to an OS project in any case.
I am far less likely to get involved if I don't know what a product is supposed to do. If I have to examine the source just to work out even the most broadest category of hte app, then it is an epic fail for the project. This is hardly rocket science here. At a bare minimum I would like just one paragraph to say it is about. Hell, one sentence would work too! There are an awful lot of projects out there, and I simply don't have time to dedicate to a 3D modelling project if I am actually looking for web server software just because somebody who is interested in that field can't be bothered to write some text. Don't call it Open Source if you have such closed community that is so anti-newcomer that you have to pass a test just to prove your worthiness to be part of the group.
And mention the target operating system. There is no point choosing a package that will never be able to work on my system. Both Linux and Windows software do this a lot. Not so much on the Mac (although it is not unknown).
And while I am complaining, games or custom levels (mods) of other games where they don't specify whether it is single-user only or multi-user only. Two words on the website would save having to do detective work by searching through forums to find the intended audience of a game.
the card breaks. now you have to buy another to get your wireless back again.
How often do video cards ever break? Especially modern ones that have sensors to detect heat (in case the fan breaks). The only time I have had a card that was broken was when some of the pins on the connector got bent, which obviously will not happen in this case.
otoh, if the vendors were smart this would be card-neutral and simply take hdmi or dvi and make that a wireless peer-to-peer link.
I am sure that the vendors would love to make an adaptor that can use used on their competitor's cards too. I can see why it might be possible that the wireless link would perform better if the cards were tailored to use that interface rather than converting to a wired standard and then converting back again.
Eventually there will end up being some sort of standard for these devices, but innovations tend to happen in a non-standard was long before consensus between companies can occur. Early adopters may pay a premium to buy some hardware that is eventually made obsolete, but that is exactly what early adopters do. Bless them!
That is, unfortunately, my experience with KDE generally. They have no concept, ability, or desire to explain to us, the Great Unwashed, how, what, or why.
I find that to be a huge problem with a lot of open source software. I guess the problem is that the developers who create the websites already know what it is about, and it doesn't occur to them that people will come to the site wanting to learn about it. They tend to be easy to spot, because they will have a news page with the changelog in lieu of any description of their product on their homepage.
This problem isn't limited to the free software world either. I am constantly having to battle with people at my work to get good descriptions for their websites because they fail to think about their text from the perspective of a newcomer.
How does the number of users make it a false analogy? I didn't say that a lot of users were affected, just that a lot of programs did try to avoid patent problems (or perhaps wanted to boycott the format in protest). And so what if big companies didn't drop the support? It was more of a problem for the smaller players and open source community. Microsoft and Apple have both licenced H.264 anyway, so the fact that they also licenced GIF does nothing to invalidate my claim.
Besides, if you want to you can just ignore that one paragraph about GIF and my original post still stands correct. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Since it isn't clear MS got that idea yet, I must conclude you're a time traveler from the distant future.
Or someone who has used their latest products. Off the top of my head, Windows 7 has built in support for MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4 part 2 (DivX), MPEG4 part 10 (H.264), MJPEG, MP3 and AAC. A far cry from the old days of just AVI, WMV, WMA and WAV.
I didn't think it was boring, but an interesting sign of the times. However, I can't help but think that the 2000 version (that shows the Batman getting in) looks like he has been forced to drive a rental car. I imagine that it would have the bumper sticker "My other car is actually cool". It would have sensible gadgets like a drink holder and an AM/FM radio to get news reports.
Wow, that is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft would do before it finally got the idea that standards are good. Like the way Windows Movie Maker would only save in WMV format. Although MS used to ignore the standards, only to add them in later rather than blatently removing support in an existing product.
But I can understand why Google might do this. It is annoying that we have the situation (yet again) where you have to choose between one standard that is more commonly used with better device support, and a more open standard (without patents) that is not quite as good (mostly because it doesn't get accelerated). It is the MP3/OGG situation again. And Google's solution is the same that open source audio software did - they will rely on plug-ins like LAME to add support.
Also the similar thing happened when the GIF format patent became a problem. It got dropped from a lot of programs where they didn't want to have to pay for a licence.
I'm not sure why TFA said that it was controversial that Microsoft added H.264 support to Firefox. It seemed quite reasonable to allow Microsoft's patent licence to be used in software installed on their operating system.
Regrettably, I have seen factual reports from a fairly reliable source (The Economist) that exactly what GP said is happening, A lot of flood relief money is sticking to fingers or being routed to the preferted groups rather than the needy groups.
Yes, but some money still gets through to the people who need it. Other money gets taken by some highly paid people high up within the major charities too. But in the end, you just have to treat all that as a cost of getting the aid to the victims of these disasters. In the end, if you don't donate anything because you are too worried that someone might profit from it, then it is not those officials who will suffer - it is the people who have nothing left in the world.
Building on flood areas of rivers and marsh lands ever so happily. Of course its going to flood there.
You know, 75% of the state of Queensland (that is nearly double the size of Texas) has been declared to be in a state of emergency. Are you suggesting that everyone should pack up and move interstate?
A donation to rebuild flooded areas in Pakistan will almost certainly wind up in the pockets of a corrupt government official or anti-Western mullah.
How about you put your racism on hold for a while. I am sure that the big name charities are quite used to dealing with all sorts of officials - corrupt or otherwise.
And do you think the people of Pakistan would be happy to know that you would have made a donation, but didn't on the (possibly imagined) off-chance that some official might get a cut of it. I think that they would rather be able to use some of the money to rebuild their lives than none of the money.
Do they deserve donation money - or is this a classic case of reap what you sow - privatizing profits and socializing losses? Australia and especially conservative Queenslanders are amongst the staunchest climate change denialists [uq.edu.au] out there (from link: "There's been a big swing back towards climate change denialists...").
Wow. This reminds me of seeing the TV footage of people dancing in the streets when the twin towers came down. Do you really believe that the people affected by these floods deserved it? Is this God smiting the wicked people of the world?
I certainly believe that man causes climate change, but I put my feelings on this matter aside and feel sympathy for the thousands of people who have had their lives turned upside down. It is called being human.
sarah palin blaming
Well she could have at least warned the Australian public that the floods were on the way. I'm sure that she can see Queensland from Alaska!
Here am I complaining that people judge current products by what was wrong in older versions and you bring up NT 3.5? Well in this case you can legitimately complain about NT 4 because it did have the bug, but my argument is that you shouldn't try to claim that Windows 7 has this bug just because you saw it happen last century.