The question is how to address, well, addresses. How do they find nodes on a network and who authorizes this as legit?
The second part would basically have to be done by a form of web of trust along with first contact verification (you might not know who runs slashdot, but you know you are connecting to the same site as you did the first time around). Addresses would be much more decentralized then current DNS and you'd basically have to take your pick of an address authority that suits you.
You are right about unique human readable names, but identity can be reasonably (if imperfectly) managed with the use of webs of trust. I'd imagine the DNS (or equivalent) would be managed by competing defacto authorities and you pick the one that is in line with your views of how things should be done.
Of course the big "gotcha" with the BSD/GPL codecs is that MPEG-LA has over 2000 patents that pretty much cover everything one has to do to get video to go from a file on a medium to a picture on a screen
The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?
How do people manage to conveniently forget that there are two guys? If one of them wants to bring the plane down, the other would probably try to stop him. Thus having a weapon would still be advantageous even to a malicious pilot.
US centric much? Sound like it is more likely to result the US banks cutting themselves of off everyone else. In short, the strict interpretation won't happen, they wouldn't be able to deal with that easily.
Looking at the HURD documentation, It looks like HURD doesn't even run on bare metal, but runs on top of GNU Mach microkernel.
That's how it was always intended to be, they were aimed to high trying to innovate at the wrong step. If I understand it right just about everyone believed microkernel architectures were the next big thing back then, so it's an understandable mistake. It turned out to be more difficult to make it work than anticipated and Linux quickly took over with it's more traditional architecture, the rest is history.
It yeah, its better than I said it was; for HURD. But also much worse since TRIX, the first GNU Kernel, developed back in the 1970s.
However GNU only picked it up in 1986 and abandoned it as unsuited. So TRIX was developed in the 70s (GNU wasn't around back then BTW) and found unusable by GNU in the 80s leading to an attempt to develop HURD in 1990. I don't see how this reflects too badly on them.
And having a distro that works only on hardware like that by default (but still has the ability to load blobs when necessary) makes it easier to find that it, since people will be talking about their experiences.
No. Hurd was started in 1990, Linux in 1991. The GNU project had about 7 years of development and a lot of it was adapted to run on Linux for a feature complete OS.
About why Mozilla decided not to ship Firefox that heavily depends on external components.
I'm not missing any codecs, most certainly not the h264 codec.
I listed it among things that can go wrong if they did, I certainly did not say that the cause got OPs and your problems was simultaneously "integration issues, OS provided codec flakiness, missing codecs, etc." and I have no idea why you decided I did.
What's going on?
It's for Microsoft to sort out, not for Mozilla (and certainly not me) that was one of my points.
HURD didn't go anywhere before Linux and the other free Unix derivites came on the scene
A whole year, they should have had it finished by 1991!
and even with all that code now available to steal from, it still hasn't gone anywhere.
Theft doesn't work that way, but you knew that. Different kernel designs don't work that way either, I hope you know that.
Guess where they will be 10 years from now.
There isn't much urgency to bring out another production quality free software kernel for a Unix like OS, why do you expect them to try? As someone already said, it's a research project more then anything now and has been for a while.
And that is part of the reason Mozilla isn't doing it, they don't want to deal with all the integration issues, OS provided codec flakiness, missing codecs, etc. They very much strive to provide a turnkey browser without optional might work if you are lucky components. That's what add-ons are for and Microsoft covering their platform is really the ideal solution in this case.
I didn't say Gish was unfinished, now did I? The reasoning given with the Gish update (that is, that they didn't have access to the bundle data, not that you only got that one version with the bundle) was what gave me cause for concern here, AC cleared that up though, this time it's handled.
It looked rather thrown together compared to the original bundle, thanks for the info. I was mainly looking at Osmos as I enjoyed the demo a great deal, don't care for Machinarium, Braid doesn't even have a demo that I can see (nor does it mention Linux, implying a port in progress). With Cortex Command and Revenge of the Titans being alpha/beta and no word on updates for bundle purchases... what reason is there to get it? After all, charity will take direct donations.
At least two games (Revenge of the Titans is apparently beta).
If "pick what you pay" is supposed to be an excuse, instead of an opportunity for donations and developer support, then they might as well not have bothered...
Cortex Command has the following disclaimer on their site:
Please note that Cortex Command is currently a work in progress and NOT a finished product! The campaign mode and missions are not yet present in the version available right now. However, you may buy a discounted license today, which will unlock the features of all future versions up to and including the final with the full campaign in it!
Considering that the original Humble Bundle didn't receive the updated version of Gish, this sounds like a bad deal...
Slashdot Mirror
A small one that basically matches public keys to their owners would be enough.
Imagine local users polling their 5kbpts for long range connections. There are interesting advantages to decentralization.
f. RONJA
Not governed by radio spectrum authorities, but still cable free.
The second part would basically have to be done by a form of web of trust along with first contact verification (you might not know who runs slashdot, but you know you are connecting to the same site as you did the first time around). Addresses would be much more decentralized then current DNS and you'd basically have to take your pick of an address authority that suits you.
You are right about unique human readable names, but identity can be reasonably (if imperfectly) managed with the use of webs of trust. I'd imagine the DNS (or equivalent) would be managed by competing defacto authorities and you pick the one that is in line with your views of how things should be done.
On that note, I'm surprised RONJA hasn't even been mentioned yet.
Or so they would want everyone to believe. They might have over 2000 patents stuffed into the standards but that is altogether different.
How do people manage to conveniently forget that there are two guys? If one of them wants to bring the plane down, the other would probably try to stop him. Thus having a weapon would still be advantageous even to a malicious pilot.
Not modern though.
Or a one time pad. You don't need to each have a hard drive full of random bits to periodically exchange AES keys.
US centric much? Sound like it is more likely to result the US banks cutting themselves of off everyone else. In short, the strict interpretation won't happen, they wouldn't be able to deal with that easily.
That's how it was always intended to be, they were aimed to high trying to innovate at the wrong step. If I understand it right just about everyone believed microkernel architectures were the next big thing back then, so it's an understandable mistake. It turned out to be more difficult to make it work than anticipated and Linux quickly took over with it's more traditional architecture, the rest is history.
However GNU only picked it up in 1986 and abandoned it as unsuited. So TRIX was developed in the 70s (GNU wasn't around back then BTW) and found unusable by GNU in the 80s leading to an attempt to develop HURD in 1990. I don't see how this reflects too badly on them.
"Something" is not the same as "imprisoned". The something in question probably means much more shady things.
And having a distro that works only on hardware like that by default (but still has the ability to load blobs when necessary) makes it easier to find that it, since people will be talking about their experiences.
Imagine all the progress if Compaq hadn't "stolen" from IBM!
No. Hurd was started in 1990, Linux in 1991. The GNU project had about 7 years of development and a lot of it was adapted to run on Linux for a feature complete OS.
About why Mozilla decided not to ship Firefox that heavily depends on external components.
I listed it among things that can go wrong if they did, I certainly did not say that the cause got OPs and your problems was simultaneously "integration issues, OS provided codec flakiness, missing codecs, etc." and I have no idea why you decided I did.
It's for Microsoft to sort out, not for Mozilla (and certainly not me) that was one of my points.
A whole year, they should have had it finished by 1991!
Theft doesn't work that way, but you knew that. Different kernel designs don't work that way either, I hope you know that.
There isn't much urgency to bring out another production quality free software kernel for a Unix like OS, why do you expect them to try? As someone already said, it's a research project more then anything now and has been for a while.
And that is part of the reason Mozilla isn't doing it, they don't want to deal with all the integration issues, OS provided codec flakiness, missing codecs, etc. They very much strive to provide a turnkey browser without optional might work if you are lucky components. That's what add-ons are for and Microsoft covering their platform is really the ideal solution in this case.
Thanks! It looks like updates are handled this time around, so the deal is looking much better now.
I didn't say Gish was unfinished, now did I? The reasoning given with the Gish update (that is, that they didn't have access to the bundle data, not that you only got that one version with the bundle) was what gave me cause for concern here, AC cleared that up though, this time it's handled.
Thanks, IMHO that should be more prominent but I guess not many people cared about the Gish update, so...
It looked rather thrown together compared to the original bundle, thanks for the info. I was mainly looking at Osmos as I enjoyed the demo a great deal, don't care for Machinarium, Braid doesn't even have a demo that I can see (nor does it mention Linux, implying a port in progress). With Cortex Command and Revenge of the Titans being alpha/beta and no word on updates for bundle purchases... what reason is there to get it? After all, charity will take direct donations.
At least two games (Revenge of the Titans is apparently beta).
If "pick what you pay" is supposed to be an excuse, instead of an opportunity for donations and developer support, then they might as well not have bothered...
Considering that the original Humble Bundle didn't receive the updated version of Gish, this sounds like a bad deal...