Dude, there's something wrong with your drivers. I watch movies on both Windows Media Player and VLC 1.0, on Windows 7. One on a DVI output, one on a laptop. No degradation here.
Interestingly, one time I did get a weird error: started Media Player Classic with the CCCP codec pack, the display driver had some kind of crash and the display reset itself to 800x600 and started showing the movie. Looked like ass. Closing Media Player Classic set the display back to normal, and from then on I stuck to VLC for playing anything not supported by WMP (i.e., anything other than WMV, H.264, MPEG-4 and some MOVs).
> So far I haven't seen anything in Vista or 7 that would make me say, "I gotta have that tech!"
WDDM display drivers. The key portions run in user mode, the kernel mode bit is a largely boilerplate provided by Microsoft. Buggy ones don't crash the system, just a flicker and a message that your driver's been restarted. Driver updates don't require a restart.
Better sound mixing. Assign different sound levels to different apps. If you like sounds with your IM, you can now set it to a low level so that you can still hear it, without it being insufferably loud in an office.
I agree it's not perfect. But for the most common use case -- home users who use XP/Vista in the 'usual way' -- it got things right.
I can actually appreciate how Google Chrome installs into %appdata% to avoid requiring admin access to auto-update. But somehow installing apps to %appdata% feels so... wrong.
Indeed, that is exactly what the IE7 and IE8 installers do. So even if someone burnt an old version of IE7/8 to CD and distributed it with a magazine, anyone installing it with a net connection would automatically get updates.
What's funny is that things would be better if that was true. An auto-updated Windows install is pretty secure out of the box these days. Microsoft's SDLC (Secure Development Lifecycle) seems to be showing results -- haven't you noticed how the attack surface of choice on Win32 tends to be apps/plugins these days? (or unpatched Windows installations).
Adobe meanwhile looks like it's dev practices are stuck in 1999.
Does it do that? I use Firefox at work and it auto-updates, but IE7 is my default (for intranet apps). But yes, it is enterprise unfriendly - there's also the small matter of *still* not providing official MSIs and an offical admin/customisation kit.
Still, Firefox's update is amazing for home users. You can be reasonably sure that a majority of home users will be running the latest version within days, thanks to its silent, no-fuss approach to updating. And it works without a ridiculous FirefoxUpdate.exe running constantly in the background.
Windows Update has been distributing display drivers for some time, but the driver provider has to have a deal with Microsoft. It's really convenient - on Windows 7, WDDM display driver updates don't even require a restart. I wish more driver manufacturers made sure their product was distributable via WU. An open API to WU would make things so much simpler.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Many of the alternatives lack key features that make it difficult for many users.
IIRC there are some kinds of PDF Forms which still cause problems in Foxit Reader. Also, because Foxit doesn't have CoolType and Adobe does, PS/OpenType fonts which are not specifically hinted for the screen (and are used by many design shops) look *much* better on Adobe reader than Foxit, making it invaluable for pre-publishing previews.
Also, specifically for Foxit -- it has its own share of vulnerabilities.
That's bothered the heck out of me too! It's almost like Adobe doesn't have a clue about doing proper updates. They should really pay some guys from Mozilla to come and teach 'em. Say what you like about Firefox, it was the first Windows product I've used which devoted a good deal of engineering thought to making updates easy.
Indeed. And given that Windows Update already exists, and given that Microsoft is antitrust-law bound to allow everyone equal access to Windows, why not open up Windows Update to allow it to update all your apps? Microsoft Update (an extension to Windows Update) already updates things like Office,.net, silverlight, etc. So why not publish a white paper on how to get your app included in Windows Update in a fair, non-discriminatory manner?
(Alternatively, folk could band around the open-source GoogleUpdate backend. These days it doesn't even run all the time.)
I for one would love to see the end of lots of different *update.exe apps running on the average user's computer.
Re:So lets see here...
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
People with 1k friends on Facebook don't really have 1k friends. Anyhow, how hard is it to add a message to your Facebook profile / about box saying, "I've moved to $shiny_new_social_network, and you can also find me at my website foo.com"?
Ironically the media player wars were exactly about this. Real would become the default player for all sorts of formats, then Quicktime would, and so on. Someone must have learnt their lesson, because these days Real and Windows Media Player play nice, not too sure what Quicktime does (not installed it in some time).
If the media player vendors can learn, why not the browser? And yes, I don't buy the argument that anyone downloading Firefox is looking to make it his default browser. I download Opera and Chrome onto new PCs too, I'd be pissed if I couldn't stop them from becoming my default.
There doesn't have to be a fallback free image. There should be a quality bar. If free content doesn't make the cut, then look for (gratis) licensable images which do. IIRC, wikipedia used to do that (use a nonfree image if a free one wasn't available) until recently, but it might be better to look for licensable images than use random, nonfree unlicensed images.
I do agree it would _change_ Wikipedia's core free-ness, and I myself am not sure how it'd work out - I like it that Wikipedia is free (libre) and remixable. But then I like good photographs too (aargh! it's almost like non-free drivers on Linux!).
> With your modification it would be, "We're collaborating on > this work. You can browse the premium edition here, or you > can take a copy of the second class edition to do whatever you like".
What I'll say to that is, there's no reason libre content has to be second-class. If an illustration meets a quality bar, include it (that's what editors are for, and wikipedia has many of them). If it doesn't, try to use an image licensed to *.wikipedia.org. It would also be trivial to implement a user pref to preferentially show libre images always.
The key point is, you said "we're collaborating on this work". While this is true for _text_ on wikipedia, images (and sound files, etc) are typically _not_ collaborated upon - one typically replaces the other. Which is why I believe a separate licensing scheme that allows licensed multimedia content (but doesn't prefer it) can work, provided the community agrees.
The combination of the NYT's editing and Slashdot's summarizing has been rather unkind to that "they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright" quote, imho.
> If a professional photographer wanted to increase his exposure (no pun intended), he could contribute to wikipedia under a free license.
That's exactly what the guy who the quote was attributed to has done.
The story quoted Jerry Avenaim, who has contributed his photos to Wikipedia, for example here. He says that photographers get paid very little for celebrity shots and make most of their money on resales of their photos (presumably print and online). If a freely licensed version on Wikipedia exists, then many publishers would simply take the wikipedia photo.
Given that Avenaim himself has contributed photos, he's obviously aware of the upsides and the downsides of doing so - he even notes that he gets free publicity out of it. But re his "they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright" quote, it sounds like he meant Wikipedia should have a license that allows photographers to contribute _only to Wikipedia_ (presumably *.wikipedia.org) and still retain rights for usage of that photo anywhere else.
I can see how this could be made to work. Have a 'better' photo for use on wikipedia.org, and point to an alternate free copy for use e.g. when other sites re-use wikipedia. That way photographers can contribute high-quality photos AND get paid, wikipedia gains, AND freedom to reuse is not lost.
However, given that wikipedians are pretty hard-core about free (libre) content, it's unlikely anyone will take him seriously. Which is a pity. Good illustrations really enhance the value of an encyclopedia, but I'm guessing wikipedia won't compromise on its core 'free-ness' thing to get them.
> Microsoft products are subject to forced obsolescence. There are many good examples of this so "renting" is correct.
No, it's dumb. I can run Office 2000 on Windows 7. From a network share - don't even have to install it. And it has DOCX support. Not that DOCX/XLSX support matters - realistically, DOC and XLS will continue to be supported for the next 10 years, and probably more. And saving as RTF, Text etc continue to work.
And I don't even have to install Windows 7. I still have my XP discs and that runs just fine. Hell, my DOS/Windows 3.1 backup disks still work and I can still run IE5 and NN4 (of course, very few sites work).
Of course, what you really want to say is, now that I've paid for my OS/Office suite once, I should never have to pay for upgrades again. But with that line of thinking you shouldn't buy software in the first place, there's plenty of free (and libre) software out there.
Word has had a style inspector since Office 2003 (or possibly Office XP). It'll tell you exactly what formatting has been applied to the text, and it's pretty easy to reset it. Screenshot: http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9540/o2007.png
There is a slight learning curve to Office 2007 coming from 2003. I'm extremely comfortable with Word 2003's menu system and I can see why you would get annoyed. (is the command for Page breaks on the Layout tab or Insert tab? What about the command for inserting watermarks?). My muscle memory still uses the alt key chords for many things though -- things like Alt I B for inserting a page break in Word, and Alt I R for inserting a row in Excel.
Still, getting through large docs and spreadsheets was just so much faster in Office 2007 (not to mention prettier) that I was able to justify the slight learning curve. The Home tab really does make many common operations faster, as do the live previews (reminded me a lot of Lotus's old Office suite) and the fade-in menu that appears on selecting text.
> What I can't see is how they intend to compete with free (Openoffice)
Simple. By giving away Office Web Edition for free on the web, via live.com. (This was mentioned quite widely in the tech press but the/. summary doesn't mention in specifically.) Frankly, given that I prefer Google Docs over OpenOffice, if Office Web is any good it'll be the 800lb gorilla in the market.
> I am a non-US citizen. If I visit the USA and get murdered, mugged or raped there, does that mean the law gives me no protection?
No, that's precisely the point. A person who's in the US, even illegally, has many rights. But what about a non-US citizen on non-US soil? Does he enjoy American civil rights? The law never thought to consider this case, and that's exactly why they put foreign detainees in Cuba.
_Normally_ laws are made for a country's own citizens and applied on its own soil. That's why Guantanamo is a (legal) hack in the precise Comp.Sci sense of the word -- using existing rulesets to do something 'legal' but icky. A bit like Duff's Device, if you will.
Guantanamo does something any right-thinking citizen would say "waitaminnit, that's just *wrong*", but still it's legal because people no one thought to write a law against it. However, the bigger point about Guantanamo is that the US populace's moral sense still evidently works, because now people started saying "well, if there isn't a law against it, there should be". That's what ought to give you some cheer.
> I'd say the Guantanamo affair is proof that 9/11 has provided a way > to get around the Bill of Rights (though not specifically the first amendment).
Given the reaction to Guantanamo, I'd say it hardly provided a workaround. The Bush administration was hounded by critics until the very end, and even Bush admitted he wanted to close it (and given the troubles Obama's having closing it, I'm inclined to agree that it's complicated).
Also, Guantanamo is a very specific legal hack. It takes advantage of the fact that non-US citizens do not have rights outside US soil. American citizens could not get sent there without the government breaking the law.
I don't know how the US stands *constitutionally* in this regard, but I'm going to speculate that if the installed powers wanted to curtail basic rights in a time of great distress (war, terrorist attacks, etc) they would have no trouble doing so, even if that amounted to bypass any kind of legislation or "constitutional promise". I believe the situation is similar in any democracy of the world...
The first amendment (in fact, the bill of rights) is notoriously difficult to work around in the US. There is not enough recent history of martial law being imposed (indeed, it can't be invoked except by Congress) but even when a "state of emergency" is declared, the bill of rights doesn't go away. New Orleans found that out after confiscating guns post-Katrina. Note that neither WW2 nor 9/11 affected the First Amendment in any way.
Now, reading about censorship in Portugal I do see that it's done a great job in ensuring freedom of speech. However, I wonder how it can reconcile that with imprisoning people for insulting national symbols (including other countries' symbols). Surely, this must be unconstitutional?
My understanding of free speech laws in most liberal democracies is that most of them give large grants of power to the government of the day, so that they can squelch free speech if they feel it's necessary in the public interest. The most famous of these laws are the German laws banning holocaust denial, or laws in India about speech that "inflame inter-religion tensions". I understand why these countries take these positions, but it does bring about a chilling effect. Countries with specific traumatic histories are not the only ones, even relatively liberal Canada and Sweden have had similar cases.
I'm not sure how Portugal's constitution guarantees freedom of speech. For example, Section II Article 37 grants freedom of expression, but I'm not sure if the government can frame laws to curtail it to maintain public order, for example. (Most European countries have such laws on the books and have used them on a number of occasions).
By contrast, in the US, any law the government tries to pass can be challenged if it violates the 1st amendment -- it isn't something the government of the day can "work around". Libel laws do exist, but are notoriously weak because the law deliberately skews in favor of free speech.
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find many countries which grant similar levels of protection to speech (including speech that may be unpopular).
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, there's something wrong with your drivers. I watch movies on both Windows Media Player and VLC 1.0, on Windows 7. One on a DVI output, one on a laptop. No degradation here.
Interestingly, one time I did get a weird error: started Media Player Classic with the CCCP codec pack, the display driver had some kind of crash and the display reset itself to 800x600 and started showing the movie. Looked like ass. Closing Media Player Classic set the display back to normal, and from then on I stuck to VLC for playing anything not supported by WMP (i.e., anything other than WMV, H.264, MPEG-4 and some MOVs).
> So far I haven't seen anything in Vista or 7 that would make me say, "I gotta have that tech!"
WDDM display drivers. The key portions run in user mode, the kernel mode bit is a largely boilerplate provided by Microsoft. Buggy ones don't crash the system, just a flicker and a message that your driver's been restarted. Driver updates don't require a restart.
Better sound mixing. Assign different sound levels to different apps. If you like sounds with your IM, you can now set it to a low level so that you can still hear it, without it being insufferably loud in an office.
I agree it's not perfect. But for the most common use case -- home users who use XP/Vista in the 'usual way' -- it got things right.
I can actually appreciate how Google Chrome installs into %appdata% to avoid requiring admin access to auto-update. But somehow installing apps to %appdata% feels so ... wrong.
Indeed, that is exactly what the IE7 and IE8 installers do. So even if someone burnt an old version of IE7/8 to CD and distributed it with a magazine, anyone installing it with a net connection would automatically get updates.
What's funny is that things would be better if that was true. An auto-updated Windows install is pretty secure out of the box these days. Microsoft's SDLC (Secure Development Lifecycle) seems to be showing results -- haven't you noticed how the attack surface of choice on Win32 tends to be apps/plugins these days? (or unpatched Windows installations).
Adobe meanwhile looks like it's dev practices are stuck in 1999.
Does it do that? I use Firefox at work and it auto-updates, but IE7 is my default (for intranet apps). But yes, it is enterprise unfriendly - there's also the small matter of *still* not providing official MSIs and an offical admin/customisation kit.
Still, Firefox's update is amazing for home users. You can be reasonably sure that a majority of home users will be running the latest version within days, thanks to its silent, no-fuss approach to updating. And it works without a ridiculous FirefoxUpdate.exe running constantly in the background.
Windows Update has been distributing display drivers for some time, but the driver provider has to have a deal with Microsoft. It's really convenient - on Windows 7, WDDM display driver updates don't even require a restart. I wish more driver manufacturers made sure their product was distributable via WU. An open API to WU would make things so much simpler.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Many of the alternatives lack key features that make it difficult for many users.
IIRC there are some kinds of PDF Forms which still cause problems in Foxit Reader. Also, because Foxit doesn't have CoolType and Adobe does, PS/OpenType fonts which are not specifically hinted for the screen (and are used by many design shops) look *much* better on Adobe reader than Foxit, making it invaluable for pre-publishing previews.
Also, specifically for Foxit -- it has its own share of vulnerabilities.
That's bothered the heck out of me too! It's almost like Adobe doesn't have a clue about doing proper updates. They should really pay some guys from Mozilla to come and teach 'em. Say what you like about Firefox, it was the first Windows product I've used which devoted a good deal of engineering thought to making updates easy.
Indeed. And given that Windows Update already exists, and given that Microsoft is antitrust-law bound to allow everyone equal access to Windows, why not open up Windows Update to allow it to update all your apps? Microsoft Update (an extension to Windows Update) already updates things like Office, .net, silverlight, etc. So why not publish a white paper on how to get your app included in Windows Update in a fair, non-discriminatory manner?
(Alternatively, folk could band around the open-source GoogleUpdate backend. These days it doesn't even run all the time.)
I for one would love to see the end of lots of different *update.exe apps running on the average user's computer.
People with 1k friends on Facebook don't really have 1k friends. Anyhow, how hard is it to add a message to your Facebook profile / about box saying, "I've moved to $shiny_new_social_network, and you can also find me at my website foo.com"?
Ironically the media player wars were exactly about this. Real would become the default player for all sorts of formats, then Quicktime would, and so on. Someone must have learnt their lesson, because these days Real and Windows Media Player play nice, not too sure what Quicktime does (not installed it in some time).
If the media player vendors can learn, why not the browser? And yes, I don't buy the argument that anyone downloading Firefox is looking to make it his default browser. I download Opera and Chrome onto new PCs too, I'd be pissed if I couldn't stop them from becoming my default.
There doesn't have to be a fallback free image. There should be a quality bar. If free content doesn't make the cut, then look for (gratis) licensable images which do. IIRC, wikipedia used to do that (use a nonfree image if a free one wasn't available) until recently, but it might be better to look for licensable images than use random, nonfree unlicensed images.
I do agree it would _change_ Wikipedia's core free-ness, and I myself am not sure how it'd work out - I like it that Wikipedia is free (libre) and remixable. But then I like good photographs too (aargh! it's almost like non-free drivers on Linux!).
> With your modification it would be, "We're collaborating on
> this work. You can browse the premium edition here, or you
> can take a copy of the second class edition to do whatever you like".
What I'll say to that is, there's no reason libre content has to be second-class. If an illustration meets a quality bar, include it (that's what editors are for, and wikipedia has many of them). If it doesn't, try to use an image licensed to *.wikipedia.org. It would also be trivial to implement a user pref to preferentially show libre images always.
The key point is, you said "we're collaborating on this work". While this is true for _text_ on wikipedia, images (and sound files, etc) are typically _not_ collaborated upon - one typically replaces the other. Which is why I believe a separate licensing scheme that allows licensed multimedia content (but doesn't prefer it) can work, provided the community agrees.
The combination of the NYT's editing and Slashdot's summarizing has been rather unkind to that "they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright" quote, imho.
> If a professional photographer wanted to increase his exposure (no pun intended), he could contribute to wikipedia under a free license.
That's exactly what the guy who the quote was attributed to has done.
The story quoted Jerry Avenaim, who has contributed his photos to Wikipedia, for example here. He says that photographers get paid very little for celebrity shots and make most of their money on resales of their photos (presumably print and online). If a freely licensed version on Wikipedia exists, then many publishers would simply take the wikipedia photo.
Given that Avenaim himself has contributed photos, he's obviously aware of the upsides and the downsides of doing so - he even notes that he gets free publicity out of it. But re his "they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright" quote, it sounds like he meant Wikipedia should have a license that allows photographers to contribute _only to Wikipedia_ (presumably *.wikipedia.org) and still retain rights for usage of that photo anywhere else.
I can see how this could be made to work. Have a 'better' photo for use on wikipedia.org, and point to an alternate free copy for use e.g. when other sites re-use wikipedia. That way photographers can contribute high-quality photos AND get paid, wikipedia gains, AND freedom to reuse is not lost.
However, given that wikipedians are pretty hard-core about free (libre) content, it's unlikely anyone will take him seriously. Which is a pity. Good illustrations really enhance the value of an encyclopedia, but I'm guessing wikipedia won't compromise on its core 'free-ness' thing to get them.
That's a quote from Idiocracy, not flamebait.
> Microsoft products are subject to forced obsolescence. There are many good examples of this so "renting" is correct.
No, it's dumb. I can run Office 2000 on Windows 7. From a network share - don't even have to install it. And it has DOCX support. Not that DOCX/XLSX support matters - realistically, DOC and XLS will continue to be supported for the next 10 years, and probably more. And saving as RTF, Text etc continue to work.
And I don't even have to install Windows 7. I still have my XP discs and that runs just fine. Hell, my DOS/Windows 3.1 backup disks still work and I can still run IE5 and NN4 (of course, very few sites work).
Of course, what you really want to say is, now that I've paid for my OS/Office suite once, I should never have to pay for upgrades again. But with that line of thinking you shouldn't buy software in the first place, there's plenty of free (and libre) software out there.
Word has had a style inspector since Office 2003 (or possibly Office XP). It'll tell you exactly what formatting has been applied to the text, and it's pretty easy to reset it. Screenshot: http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9540/o2007.png
There is a slight learning curve to Office 2007 coming from 2003. I'm extremely comfortable with Word 2003's menu system and I can see why you would get annoyed. (is the command for Page breaks on the Layout tab or Insert tab? What about the command for inserting watermarks?). My muscle memory still uses the alt key chords for many things though -- things like Alt I B for inserting a page break in Word, and Alt I R for inserting a row in Excel.
Still, getting through large docs and spreadsheets was just so much faster in Office 2007 (not to mention prettier) that I was able to justify the slight learning curve. The Home tab really does make many common operations faster, as do the live previews (reminded me a lot of Lotus's old Office suite) and the fade-in menu that appears on selecting text.
Threaded mail has been in Outlook since at least Outlook 2000. Conversation view is more like Gmail's "threads".
> What I can't see is how they intend to compete with free (Openoffice)
Simple. By giving away Office Web Edition for free on the web, via live.com. (This was mentioned quite widely in the tech press but the /. summary doesn't mention in specifically.) Frankly, given that I prefer Google Docs over OpenOffice, if Office Web is any good it'll be the 800lb gorilla in the market.
> I am a non-US citizen. If I visit the USA and get murdered, mugged or raped there, does that mean the law gives me no protection?
No, that's precisely the point. A person who's in the US, even illegally, has many rights. But what about a non-US citizen on non-US soil? Does he enjoy American civil rights? The law never thought to consider this case, and that's exactly why they put foreign detainees in Cuba.
_Normally_ laws are made for a country's own citizens and applied on its own soil. That's why Guantanamo is a (legal) hack in the precise Comp.Sci sense of the word -- using existing rulesets to do something 'legal' but icky. A bit like Duff's Device, if you will.
Guantanamo does something any right-thinking citizen would say "waitaminnit, that's just *wrong*", but still it's legal because people no one thought to write a law against it. However, the bigger point about Guantanamo is that the US populace's moral sense still evidently works, because now people started saying "well, if there isn't a law against it, there should be". That's what ought to give you some cheer.
> I'd say the Guantanamo affair is proof that 9/11 has provided a way
> to get around the Bill of Rights (though not specifically the first amendment).
Given the reaction to Guantanamo, I'd say it hardly provided a workaround. The Bush administration was hounded by critics until the very end, and even Bush admitted he wanted to close it (and given the troubles Obama's having closing it, I'm inclined to agree that it's complicated).
Also, Guantanamo is a very specific legal hack. It takes advantage of the fact that non-US citizens do not have rights outside US soil. American citizens could not get sent there without the government breaking the law.
The first amendment (in fact, the bill of rights) is notoriously difficult to work around in the US. There is not enough recent history of martial law being imposed (indeed, it can't be invoked except by Congress) but even when a "state of emergency" is declared, the bill of rights doesn't go away. New Orleans found that out after confiscating guns post-Katrina. Note that neither WW2 nor 9/11 affected the First Amendment in any way.
Now, reading about censorship in Portugal I do see that it's done a great job in ensuring freedom of speech. However, I wonder how it can reconcile that with imprisoning people for insulting national symbols (including other countries' symbols). Surely, this must be unconstitutional?
My understanding of free speech laws in most liberal democracies is that most of them give large grants of power to the government of the day, so that they can squelch free speech if they feel it's necessary in the public interest. The most famous of these laws are the German laws banning holocaust denial, or laws in India about speech that "inflame inter-religion tensions". I understand why these countries take these positions, but it does bring about a chilling effect. Countries with specific traumatic histories are not the only ones, even relatively liberal Canada and Sweden have had similar cases.
I'm not sure how Portugal's constitution guarantees freedom of speech. For example, Section II Article 37 grants freedom of expression, but I'm not sure if the government can frame laws to curtail it to maintain public order, for example. (Most European countries have such laws on the books and have used them on a number of occasions).
By contrast, in the US, any law the government tries to pass can be challenged if it violates the 1st amendment -- it isn't something the government of the day can "work around". Libel laws do exist, but are notoriously weak because the law deliberately skews in favor of free speech.
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find many countries which grant similar levels of protection to speech (including speech that may be unpopular).