Brazil has also become the first country to require any company or research institute that receives government financing to develop software to license it as open-source, meaning the underlying software code must be free to all.
This is really a wonderful, wonderful idea. It's a shame more governments haven't adopted this philosophy. Lots of governments just find it so easy to spend money that they didn't "earn". I have to congratulate Brazil on this!
Lots of people say that this doesn't matter; as long as OO.o works well, who cares about what free or un-free components it uses. The article does an excellent job outlining the real issues here.
Although it's true that functionality is important, at what cost? Using java not only adds dependencies, but dependencies that some parties are uncomfortable with. Corporate adoption may be slowed, as OO.o isn't a completely "free, fully functional" product anymore. Some of the core features (wizards) require java. Even though a wizard isn't "core" functionality, they're something that people in a workplace would likely need to use.
Either way, this is a good article... it explains the issues in a very clear way.
Here we go again... just another one of those slashdot posts about how the patent system is clearly flawed... Even I can't help ranting about it! Patents are granted to everybody who applies, and it's just left up to the courts to decide if it's valid or not.
Companies just amass huge patent libraries. Hm... there should really be an exponential cost increase with each patent the company owns. That would prevent big companies from getting thousands and thousands of useless unenforcable patents....patents *do* have a place, they're just mis-used (and the system's broken). If a small developer could get a patent for $20, but then the next patent cost $40 and then $80 and so on, it would really discourage people from getting tons of patents....just a thought (I'm sure it's been suggested before...)
Everyone feels the same way about this - quite doubtful (but still somewhat optimistic inside). Wouldn't it be great to be able to charge your cell phone by exposing it to some sunlight? Solar energy has a lot of 'potential'. Even with its current state, it does have some uses. Eventually, one of these 'breakthroughs' might have some merit, and give the technology the push it needs to become more mainstream.
Re:Maybe something I'll look into
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually I have (It was 2.5 years later). I couldn't find the match, but I was able to find two newer processors that were better *and* cheaper than I paid for the original one =) They weren't top-of-the-line, but acceptable for my needs. Hardware is great like that... the costs are continuously declining.
The same thing might happen with graphics cards. If you can use two mediocre cards instead of one big beefy card, it's possible you might be able to save yourself some money.
Maybe something I'll look into
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 1
I hadn't really thought about SLI before reading this article. Now that I've read it over, it does seem like an interesting technology. It's quite possible that my next motherboard will support two graphics cards.
A point that has been concerning me is that SLI operation cannot be forced in non-compatible games.
That is worrisome..., but as the article mentions, the major games are supported now....and possibly with more people using SLI, more games will be supported with it.
I especially like the idea of being able to wait to buy a second graphics card in a year or 18 months when the price comes down.
Like the poster, I don't think this is a major speedbump....but I also don't think that we're headed for a world where media formats are dominated by MS. They'll be a player in the industry for sure, but it's unlikely they'll have the same kind of dominance they've enjoyed in the operating system market.
Although this is a great step in the right direction, I still think is only going to be limited adoption until open source supports MS Exchange. Outlook/Exchange is so common in companies (big users of groupware) that open source is hurting itself by not supporting it.
Microsoft has never intended to compete on a level playing field. Instead they have tipped the field to favor themselves, sacrificing product quality and user benefit over and over again.
This is a great quote. It explains partially how Microsoft got where they are today, and why their current size and monopoly is unsustainable. Unless they make a fundamental change in their business model, something's going to happen to them.
This is a very positive review for the cell processor. It does seem like a really exciting new piece of technology. It promises a lot, and if it will do everything people say it will do, it really has the possibility to give the entire industry a big leap forward.
That being said, I think it's important not to get too excited about it... it's hard to say if it will live up to everything that people have written about it. I'm a bit skeptical. Until I see some production units doing amazing things, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Yeah, this thread points out a lot of possible reasons that they could have made the decision. Too bad though.. it would've been a great unit:) An add-on works too, I guess
Adding satellite radio to iPods could create an awesome portable media player. I don't own an ipod, but adding this functionality might convince me to buy one. The capability to listen to satellite radio, and my own downloaded songs on a single device is a very attractive combination. I think jobs screwed up here... I think they'd sell tons of those units.
I wonder what google is going to get out of the arrangement. The link says that it doens't mean Wikipedia will have to put ads on their site. It's always possible Google's just trying to do something nice...but I'm a bit skeptical.
I'm really impressed that they had something like that over 60 years ago....that's before computers! Robots now are inherently thought of as computerized I think... it's interesting to see that there really are mechanical versions of them. (I know there are still mechanical robots/machines, but they're almost always controlled by a computer - this one clearly wasn't).
Latency, scheduling issues, what happens if a cell leaves... there are a lot of issues with those processors. They have the potential to be really great, but until I can actually see them or get a lot more information on how exactly they operate, I'm quite skeptical of all the claims people are making about them.
I disagree. They're a big corporation, and although they've done bad (and even some stupid) things, their goal is still to make money for their shareholders. If that goal requires that they be 'clever' and try and change their business model/strategy, I'm guessing they're going to do something. It might take them some time (more time than others), but I'm sure that Microsoft is not going to disappear. They're going to adapt to whatever market conditions present.
I don't think this article said anything useful. Clearly MS has to offer at least something if they want to remain in the browser market. It's taking time, but Firefox is gaining more and more ground.
It's not a bad thing if Microsoft wants to innovate with their web browser - more competition is a good thing. It will make everyone's internet experience better. Having two competing browsers is definitely a better playing field than just one monopolistic browser.
That's just hilarious. I can't say I'm surprised... I've never liked Dell. They have a lot of shady practices, and it doesn't seem like they're convinced with offering the best value on hardware. Their support plans might be nice (and I'd assume that's why lots of schools/gov'ts use Dell), but that's not what I need. Heh.. dell...
The code itself is typically very efficient for its task, and it does make the job of developing large-scale applications much easier. But the code that enables all these small pieces of code to interact in a predictable manner adds a small runtime cost. Once again, a small cost repeated many times adds up to a significant performance hit.
Everyone posted complaining about crappy languages, (and in certain cases they do have a point)....but it sure beats programming in assembly. While it's good and all, it really gets hard to follow for large-scale projects. Having maintable code isn't such a horrible thing. (True, if they're compiled intelligently, it shouldn't make such a huge difference..., but you're not going to be able to get a machine to compile assembly as compact as you could write it yourself).
I agree that it's hard to believe he actually believes what he's spitting out. If you look at all he's accomplished, he can't be (as stupid as he seems):)
That being said, he must be saying these types of things just for marketing - to help promote his product.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high -- that's because this system, unlike ours, simply does not keep thousands of people on standby to deal with problems.
Apparently Gates is convinced that Microsoft can fix bugs much faster than Linux, simply because they have more poeple on staff. Clearly there are a number of flaws in that argument... not only do they try and hide and ignore as many bugs as possible, but anyone can look for, identify, and even fix bugs in an open operating system. Gah!
People have always had the impression that computers aren't "reliable and stable". Having this ingrained in them means they accept things like Windows crashes. AS for Linux, it's not seen as user friendly as Windows. Some people have the false impression that it's more difficult to install (well, compiling gentoo is more difficult than installing Windows, but installing RedHat definitely isn't)....and the most obvious reason (that people don't switch to linux/mac) is because everyone else is on Windows! It's what people use at work, and it's what they're most comfortable with.
Slashdot Mirror
Brazil has also become the first country to require any company or research institute that receives government financing to develop software to license it as open-source, meaning the underlying software code must be free to all.
This is really a wonderful, wonderful idea. It's a shame more governments haven't adopted this philosophy. Lots of governments just find it so easy to spend money that they didn't "earn". I have to congratulate Brazil on this!
Lots of people say that this doesn't matter; as long as OO.o works well, who cares about what free or un-free components it uses. The article does an excellent job outlining the real issues here.
Although it's true that functionality is important, at what cost? Using java not only adds dependencies, but dependencies that some parties are uncomfortable with. Corporate adoption may be slowed, as OO.o isn't a completely "free, fully functional" product anymore. Some of the core features (wizards) require java. Even though a wizard isn't "core" functionality, they're something that people in a workplace would likely need to use.
Either way, this is a good article... it explains the issues in a very clear way.
Here we go again... just another one of those slashdot posts about how the patent system is clearly flawed... Even I can't help ranting about it! Patents are granted to everybody who applies, and it's just left up to the courts to decide if it's valid or not.
...patents *do* have a place, they're just mis-used (and the system's broken). If a small developer could get a patent for $20, but then the next patent cost $40 and then $80 and so on, it would really discourage people from getting tons of patents. ...just a thought (I'm sure it's been suggested before...)
Companies just amass huge patent libraries. Hm... there should really be an exponential cost increase with each patent the company owns. That would prevent big companies from getting thousands and thousands of useless unenforcable patents.
Is this a beta candidate? The only thing worse than google having betas for years is a company releasing a beta candidate.
Everyone feels the same way about this - quite doubtful (but still somewhat optimistic inside). Wouldn't it be great to be able to charge your cell phone by exposing it to some sunlight? Solar energy has a lot of 'potential'. Even with its current state, it does have some uses. Eventually, one of these 'breakthroughs' might have some merit, and give the technology the push it needs to become more mainstream.
Actually I have (It was 2.5 years later). I couldn't find the match, but I was able to find two newer processors that were better *and* cheaper than I paid for the original one =) They weren't top-of-the-line, but acceptable for my needs. Hardware is great like that... the costs are continuously declining.
The same thing might happen with graphics cards. If you can use two mediocre cards instead of one big beefy card, it's possible you might be able to save yourself some money.
I hadn't really thought about SLI before reading this article. Now that I've read it over, it does seem like an interesting technology. It's quite possible that my next motherboard will support two graphics cards.
...and possibly with more people using SLI, more games will be supported with it.
A point that has been concerning me is that SLI operation cannot be forced in non-compatible games.
That is worrisome..., but as the article mentions, the major games are supported now.
I especially like the idea of being able to wait to buy a second graphics card in a year or 18 months when the price comes down.
Like the poster, I don't think this is a major speedbump. ...but I also don't think that we're headed for a world where media formats are dominated by MS. They'll be a player in the industry for sure, but it's unlikely they'll have the same kind of dominance they've enjoyed in the operating system market.
Although this is a great step in the right direction, I still think is only going to be limited adoption until open source supports MS Exchange. Outlook/Exchange is so common in companies (big users of groupware) that open source is hurting itself by not supporting it.
Microsoft has never intended to compete on a level playing field. Instead they have tipped the field to favor themselves, sacrificing product quality and user benefit over and over again.
This is a great quote. It explains partially how Microsoft got where they are today, and why their current size and monopoly is unsustainable. Unless they make a fundamental change in their business model, something's going to happen to them.
This is a very positive review for the cell processor. It does seem like a really exciting new piece of technology. It promises a lot, and if it will do everything people say it will do, it really has the possibility to give the entire industry a big leap forward.
That being said, I think it's important not to get too excited about it... it's hard to say if it will live up to everything that people have written about it. I'm a bit skeptical. Until I see some production units doing amazing things, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Yeah, this thread points out a lot of possible reasons that they could have made the decision. Too bad though.. it would've been a great unit :) An add-on works too, I guess
Adding satellite radio to iPods could create an awesome portable media player. I don't own an ipod, but adding this functionality might convince me to buy one. The capability to listen to satellite radio, and my own downloaded songs on a single device is a very attractive combination. I think jobs screwed up here... I think they'd sell tons of those units.
I wonder what google is going to get out of the arrangement. The link says that it doens't mean Wikipedia will have to put ads on their site. It's always possible Google's just trying to do something nice ...but I'm a bit skeptical.
I'm really impressed that they had something like that over 60 years ago. ...that's before computers! Robots now are inherently thought of as computerized I think... it's interesting to see that there really are mechanical versions of them. (I know there are still mechanical robots/machines, but they're almost always controlled by a computer - this one clearly wasn't).
Latency, scheduling issues, what happens if a cell leaves... there are a lot of issues with those processors. They have the potential to be really great, but until I can actually see them or get a lot more information on how exactly they operate, I'm quite skeptical of all the claims people are making about them.
I disagree. They're a big corporation, and although they've done bad (and even some stupid) things, their goal is still to make money for their shareholders. If that goal requires that they be 'clever' and try and change their business model/strategy, I'm guessing they're going to do something. It might take them some time (more time than others), but I'm sure that Microsoft is not going to disappear. They're going to adapt to whatever market conditions present.
Even so, calling something meltdown proof doesn't seem like the smart thing to do... it would be quite a tragedy if they found out it wasn't.
:)
Wasn't the titanic supposed to be unsinkable?
(And yeah, I know he's not real)
If Homer Simpson can manage to cause a meltdown in a simulator, I'd be wary of calling anything meltdown proof! :) It just seems like testing fate.
I don't think this article said anything useful. Clearly MS has to offer at least something if they want to remain in the browser market. It's taking time, but Firefox is gaining more and more ground.
It's not a bad thing if Microsoft wants to innovate with their web browser - more competition is a good thing. It will make everyone's internet experience better. Having two competing browsers is definitely a better playing field than just one monopolistic browser.
That's just hilarious. I can't say I'm surprised... I've never liked Dell. They have a lot of shady practices, and it doesn't seem like they're convinced with offering the best value on hardware. Their support plans might be nice (and I'd assume that's why lots of schools/gov'ts use Dell), but that's not what I need. Heh.. dell...
The code itself is typically very efficient for its task, and it does make the job of developing large-scale applications much easier. But the code that enables all these small pieces of code to interact in a predictable manner adds a small runtime cost. Once again, a small cost repeated many times adds up to a significant performance hit.
...but it sure beats programming in assembly. While it's good and all, it really gets hard to follow for large-scale projects. Having maintable code isn't such a horrible thing. (True, if they're compiled intelligently, it shouldn't make such a huge difference..., but you're not going to be able to get a machine to compile assembly as compact as you could write it yourself).
Everyone posted complaining about crappy languages, (and in certain cases they do have a point).
I agree that it's hard to believe he actually believes what he's spitting out. If you look at all he's accomplished, he can't be (as stupid as he seems) :)
That being said, he must be saying these types of things just for marketing - to help promote his product.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high -- that's because this system, unlike ours, simply does not keep thousands of people on standby to deal with problems.
Apparently Gates is convinced that Microsoft can fix bugs much faster than Linux, simply because they have more poeple on staff. Clearly there are a number of flaws in that argument... not only do they try and hide and ignore as many bugs as possible, but anyone can look for, identify, and even fix bugs in an open operating system. Gah!
People have always had the impression that computers aren't "reliable and stable". Having this ingrained in them means they accept things like Windows crashes. AS for Linux, it's not seen as user friendly as Windows. Some people have the false impression that it's more difficult to install (well, compiling gentoo is more difficult than installing Windows, but installing RedHat definitely isn't). ...and the most obvious reason (that people don't switch to linux/mac) is because everyone else is on Windows! It's what people use at work, and it's what they're most comfortable with.