My experience is that applications designed to run on Windows work well, but application ported to Windows from Unix/Linux often have problems, either bugs, incomplete support, bad installers, or just plain lousy documentation (because the docs all assume *nix).
Windows + IIS + SQLServer probably would have been easy to set up and would have worked for them.
Windows + Apache + Oracle? Well, that assumes the administrators are already familiar with Apache and Oracle on *nix, and can figure out from the FAQs and release notes what they need to do different to get things to work on Windows.
Trying to run *nix-centric software on Windows always seems to have issues. But, the other way around is at least as bad: Apps ported from Windows to *nix usually have bad issues too.
So why the headline that says this is a Windows problem?
As far as I can see, this is always a problem when taking apps away from their native platform.
Every station makes it's own choice on how much power to use.
But I can tell you from experience, when you get a snowy analog picture, it's usually strong enough to get a perfect digitial picture.
The big problem with digital is multipath (ghosts). Sometimes multipath will keep the digital receiver from working, when an analog one would work acceptably.
You don't need to buy a new TV, but you would need a converter box for older TVs if you still want over-the-air reception (Most TVs made from now till the cutover will have the tuner built-in).
Gee... For a $50 converter (est), you get crystal clear digital TV (better picture than most cable or satellite providers give), and you whine about it.
So, you are using rabbit ears (VHF antennae) to receive your digital TV (UHF in the bay area, except for 1 station), and find it doesn't work well?
I have a decent digital receiver and a small indoor UHF area, and can receive all the local digital TV stations in the bay area.
But, there is hope for you: When the switch happens, the TV broadcasters will go full power on the digital stations.
No, we wouldn't do the project at all.
We couldn't afford to re-create something like PostgreSQL from scratch just to make some additions to it, so the company wouldn't be funded at all.
Meanwhile, whenever we make changes to PostgreSQL that improve the base product, we give those changes back. They get some coporate funded enhancements that they wouldn't otherwise get, and we get to build on a software base to start what we want to do, so both sides get something.
With GPL, none of it would happen.
Hmmm... The Company I work started with PostgreSQL (BSD) and releases *some* of what we do back to the comunity under BSD license. Only the core of what make us different is kept proprietary.
If we couldn't do it that way (for example, if PostgresSQL was GPL), we wouldn't do the development at all, and nothing would go back to the community because it wouldn't be worth our investor's money to develop the software at all.
Nowhere has Microsoft said they are going to "trash" your e-mail if it doesn't have sender-id. They said they would flag it as "potential spam".
Sender-id isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing, and over 1 million domains have sender-id records.
Why do you think it would be more for less?
Sure, it costs more, but the picture and sound are much better.
But the real question is, what will you do when the TV networks shut off analog broadcasts?
Your TV won't receive anything over-the-air at that point.
For people like you, who bought their set so long ago, it's not so terrible to upgrade.
The point of the new regulation is so people who buy TVs next year don't find them obsolete two years later.
Somewhere around 1500 stations (almost all stations in the bigger markets) broadcast digitally as well as analog.
Here in San Francisco bay area, we get CBS,ABC,NBC,PBS,WB,UPN,FOX,UNI,SAH,TEL,PAX networks and a few independants.
Few know about it though.
We use Cygwin in production environments. We have been very pleased with the functionality.
But, we have run into one major bug. On hyperthreaded machines or SMP machines the Cygwin1.dll has threading bugs.
These cause random errors, crashes, and hangs.
Since Cygwin is free, and supported by volunteer effort, there isn't any guaranteed support (other than the standard OSS mantra "You have the source, so fix it yourself!")
If you can live without guaranteed support, and understand that there are some bugs, Cygwin is a nice product.
Redhat hasn't sold Cygwin for a long time.
The only Cygwin is the free, unsupported one.
Redhat still supports the project, by hosting web sites and I believe *one* developer who works on it.
Otherwise, It's all supported by volunteers.
Wrong. This just covers the redistributables (not the compiler or things you compile with it).
The idea is you can't make derivitives of those redistributables that would cause Microsoft's code to be GPL'd.
Ok, Microsoft has to offer a version of Windows without WMP in it. Let's say WMP accounts for a few percent of the total cost of Windows, so a version of Windows without WMP would cost, perhaps, about a Euro or two less than the version with WMP.
What manufacturer is going to go for this?
Microsoft will be forced to spend the time and money to produce a Windows without WMP, and then nobody will buy it. What does this change?
There are several things wrong here.
First, it was already known that Baystar invested in SCO to the tune of around $55m.
The memo says Microsoft brought in $86m INCLUDING baystar, so other monies from Microsoft or Microsoft related referrals would only be $31m. And we know microsoft bought a SCO license, which was a good bit of that.
most news talks about the radiation level ON mars.
Which is high, but not so high that people couldn't live.
On the trip, it would be a real problem. The trip to the moon is a few days, and astronauts got a large dose even on that trip.
These links aren't good, as I don't have time to find the actual ones from the people at NASA:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/mars-trip-radiatio n.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/200 3b/060703marsA1852A.htm
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/mars.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/121012.htm
using conventional rockets, a mars trip would take at least 2 years. During that time, NASA has estimated the crew would be irradiated at such a high level that every cell in the body would have received some damage.
There are few solutions to this:
1) Go faster. Requires nuclear propulsion. Not going to happen in my lifetime.
2) Use lots of sheilding with high density materials (e.g. Tungsten). 10x more weight than we can currently send to mars and back.
3) Some new thing nobody has thought of yet.
It's nice to think it's just a matter of money, but it really isn't.
The Microsoft compression looks better to me than any MPEG4, including DivX 5 or Xvid.
But so what? Compressing with any of these algorithms enough to fit a full length movie on to a red-laser DVD means you are going to be over-compressing, and resulting in artifacts.
Blue laser is the way to go. I have no problem with using MPEG2, or MPEG4, or some other compression on blue laser. With the greater bandwidth, you don't need to compress so much, and you end up with minimal artifacts and a great picture.
Microsoft has done a great job on this compression algorithm, it definitely works better than MPEG4.
But I really don't want to see red laser disks become the standard HD DVD, and I don't want to see format wars.
Even with the best compression, red laser disks just don't have enough bandwidth. Sure, you can do 720p, and it looks pretty good, but it has far more artifacts than HDTV. Do we really want an HD DVD format that isn't as good a picture as TV?
Blue laser disks have plenty of space. It's easy to put an MPEG2 compresses 720p or 1080p24 movie on a disk, without overdoing the compression.
Right now, Sony's Blue-Ray seems like the most likely to be a standard for this. And it records as well as plays.
And with better compression algorithms, you could fit even higher res movies on a blue laser disk (1080p60? 2160p24?) in the future.
Format wars are a bad thing.
Support one and only one HD DVD format. And if you want that to be the best, it needs to be blue laser.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is that applications designed to run on Windows work well, but application ported to Windows from Unix/Linux often have problems, either bugs, incomplete support, bad installers, or just plain lousy documentation (because the docs all assume *nix). Windows + IIS + SQLServer probably would have been easy to set up and would have worked for them. Windows + Apache + Oracle? Well, that assumes the administrators are already familiar with Apache and Oracle on *nix, and can figure out from the FAQs and release notes what they need to do different to get things to work on Windows. Trying to run *nix-centric software on Windows always seems to have issues. But, the other way around is at least as bad: Apps ported from Windows to *nix usually have bad issues too. So why the headline that says this is a Windows problem? As far as I can see, this is always a problem when taking apps away from their native platform.
Wrong... They guy you bought windows from might have pirated it, and you might be an innocent victim
Sure, they set a limit. But most stations today broadcast at less than 0.1x of their authorised power on the digital channels.
Every station makes it's own choice on how much power to use. But I can tell you from experience, when you get a snowy analog picture, it's usually strong enough to get a perfect digitial picture. The big problem with digital is multipath (ghosts). Sometimes multipath will keep the digital receiver from working, when an analog one would work acceptably.
Gee... For a $50 converter (est), you get crystal clear digital TV (better picture than most cable or satellite providers give), and you whine about it.
So, you are using rabbit ears (VHF antennae) to receive your digital TV (UHF in the bay area, except for 1 station), and find it doesn't work well? I have a decent digital receiver and a small indoor UHF area, and can receive all the local digital TV stations in the bay area. But, there is hope for you: When the switch happens, the TV broadcasters will go full power on the digital stations.
But... Redistributing it is exactly what we do. That's the only source of revenue for the company.
No, we wouldn't do the project at all. We couldn't afford to re-create something like PostgreSQL from scratch just to make some additions to it, so the company wouldn't be funded at all. Meanwhile, whenever we make changes to PostgreSQL that improve the base product, we give those changes back. They get some coporate funded enhancements that they wouldn't otherwise get, and we get to build on a software base to start what we want to do, so both sides get something. With GPL, none of it would happen.
Hmmm... The Company I work started with PostgreSQL (BSD) and releases *some* of what we do back to the comunity under BSD license. Only the core of what make us different is kept proprietary. If we couldn't do it that way (for example, if PostgresSQL was GPL), we wouldn't do the development at all, and nothing would go back to the community because it wouldn't be worth our investor's money to develop the software at all.
Nowhere has Microsoft said they are going to "trash" your e-mail if it doesn't have sender-id. They said they would flag it as "potential spam". Sender-id isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing, and over 1 million domains have sender-id records.
Why do you think so? CRTs and LCDs last a long time, and we aren't changing the standard again anytime soon. Maybe you bought junk?
Why do you think it would be more for less? Sure, it costs more, but the picture and sound are much better. But the real question is, what will you do when the TV networks shut off analog broadcasts? Your TV won't receive anything over-the-air at that point. For people like you, who bought their set so long ago, it's not so terrible to upgrade. The point of the new regulation is so people who buy TVs next year don't find them obsolete two years later.
Somewhere around 1500 stations (almost all stations in the bigger markets) broadcast digitally as well as analog. Here in San Francisco bay area, we get CBS,ABC,NBC,PBS,WB,UPN,FOX,UNI,SAH,TEL,PAX networks and a few independants. Few know about it though.
The Threading problems have been reported.
Right now, the primary developers don't have a hyperthreaded or SMP machine free to use to reproduce the problem.
We use Cygwin in production environments.
We have been very pleased with the functionality.
But, we have run into one major bug. On hyperthreaded machines or SMP machines the Cygwin1.dll has threading bugs.
These cause random errors, crashes, and hangs.
Since Cygwin is free, and supported by volunteer effort, there isn't any guaranteed support (other than the standard OSS mantra "You have the source, so fix it yourself!")
If you can live without guaranteed support, and understand that there are some bugs, Cygwin is a nice product.
Redhat hasn't sold Cygwin for a long time. The only Cygwin is the free, unsupported one. Redhat still supports the project, by hosting web sites and I believe *one* developer who works on it. Otherwise, It's all supported by volunteers.
Wrong. This just covers the redistributables (not the compiler or things you compile with it). The idea is you can't make derivitives of those redistributables that would cause Microsoft's code to be GPL'd.
Ok, Microsoft has to offer a version of Windows without WMP in it. Let's say WMP accounts for a few percent of the total cost of Windows, so a version of Windows without WMP would cost, perhaps, about a Euro or two less than the version with WMP. What manufacturer is going to go for this? Microsoft will be forced to spend the time and money to produce a Windows without WMP, and then nobody will buy it. What does this change?
There are several things wrong here. First, it was already known that Baystar invested in SCO to the tune of around $55m. The memo says Microsoft brought in $86m INCLUDING baystar, so other monies from Microsoft or Microsoft related referrals would only be $31m. And we know microsoft bought a SCO license, which was a good bit of that.
most news talks about the radiation level ON mars. Which is high, but not so high that people couldn't live. On the trip, it would be a real problem. The trip to the moon is a few days, and astronauts got a large dose even on that trip. These links aren't good, as I don't have time to find the actual ones from the people at NASA: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/mars-trip-radiatio n.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/200 3b/060703marsA1852A.htm
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/mars.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/121012.htm
using conventional rockets, a mars trip would take at least 2 years. During that time, NASA has estimated the crew would be irradiated at such a high level that every cell in the body would have received some damage. There are few solutions to this: 1) Go faster. Requires nuclear propulsion. Not going to happen in my lifetime. 2) Use lots of sheilding with high density materials (e.g. Tungsten). 10x more weight than we can currently send to mars and back. 3) Some new thing nobody has thought of yet. It's nice to think it's just a matter of money, but it really isn't.
The Microsoft compression looks better to me than any MPEG4, including DivX 5 or Xvid. But so what? Compressing with any of these algorithms enough to fit a full length movie on to a red-laser DVD means you are going to be over-compressing, and resulting in artifacts. Blue laser is the way to go. I have no problem with using MPEG2, or MPEG4, or some other compression on blue laser. With the greater bandwidth, you don't need to compress so much, and you end up with minimal artifacts and a great picture.
Microsoft has done a great job on this compression algorithm, it definitely works better than MPEG4. But I really don't want to see red laser disks become the standard HD DVD, and I don't want to see format wars. Even with the best compression, red laser disks just don't have enough bandwidth. Sure, you can do 720p, and it looks pretty good, but it has far more artifacts than HDTV. Do we really want an HD DVD format that isn't as good a picture as TV? Blue laser disks have plenty of space. It's easy to put an MPEG2 compresses 720p or 1080p24 movie on a disk, without overdoing the compression. Right now, Sony's Blue-Ray seems like the most likely to be a standard for this. And it records as well as plays. And with better compression algorithms, you could fit even higher res movies on a blue laser disk (1080p60? 2160p24?) in the future. Format wars are a bad thing. Support one and only one HD DVD format. And if you want that to be the best, it needs to be blue laser.