Installing a driver is a completely different thing to running a downloaded file, which was the original statement, no?
And no, I have no idea about Rock Band Network tools, as I like real instruments;) The prohibit sign is something independent from Windows, as it's part of the DVD spec.
That is kind of my point. UAC, the much-maligned feature of Windows, is present just as much in Ubuntu. And no, the "do you want to run this application" is not dependent on whether anything is signed, but rather where the file comes from - if it's from the internet, you are merely asked if you trust where you get it from, which happens in Ubuntu, too. Windows, however, doesn't bitch and moan about certain software not playing nicely with the FOSS community or being proprietary, two things I really don't care about at all. I've yet to see a single piece of software in Windows try to explain away why it can't interoperate with another piece of software due to ideological reasons. Fuck, it's an OS not a political party:-P
To be honest, I've been plagued by issues. VLC's video tears all the time, alt-tabbing takes seconds, FireFox freezes for seconds (sometimes never recovering, requiring killing from the command line), the desktop environment is poorly-designed and sometimes incredibly unresponsive (menus don't appear immediately, requiring mouse-out before mousing over again before they will show). VLC plays everything I can throw at it, but then I'm used to that as I use it exclusively on Windows, but it just does so while looking like crap on Ubuntu. It really is breaking my heart. I've decided to stick with Ubuntu to see if I can get past these issues, but I'm now over 1 week into it, and I'm remembering Windows 7 very fondly indeed. The ability to install software so easily, using the Ubuntu Software Center, is a joy, however.
So out of your example, I can't watch movies properly, and Firefox is a nasty, nasty web-browsing experience. Changing tabs lags soo much, and for some reason "backspace" isn't bound to navigating back in the history, which is just weird.
Thanks for not dismissing me as a troll, too - I really appreciate that. I wish more open discussion on the flaws of various FOSS projects was encouraged more.
That's cool, and restores some of my hope, but why not 64-bit? Windows 64-bit works perfectly, looks fantastic, and plays all the media I want (including Flash) without shitting the bed like Ubuntu 64-bit does. This honestly isn't a troll, but I'm so disheartened by my current Ubuntu experience (still using it, suffering greatly). I heard so much, from all over the internet, but I installed it and it's like being back in 1999 or something. Shit's well archaic. I thought FOSS had made some decent progress? I'd love to run a free OS, so very very much. God damn it.
And boy is the route frequently suboptimal. When I moved from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, the UAC prompts were replaced by prompts telling me how evil certain bits of software are and how Ubuntu can't talk with them, or how certain repositories contain software that violates someone else's ideology. And gnome sucks, but that's another story.
Did you even read your link? You only have to pay for content if you are charging your subscribers, or have over 100,000 subscribers per year. If you have that many subscribers, either you can easily afford to pay for the license, or your business model sucks. If you release software that has an h.264 encoder, again, if you ship more than 100,000 units per year, you have to pay. Oh, and streaming video is entirely royalty-free until December 2015, regardless of the number of subscribers.
FUD is not cool.
WebM is free, but WebM is shit. It's not as good as h.264, and isn't as widely supported in hardware or software. The only reason to choose WebM over h.264 is ideological. By the time you have to worry about license fees, your business model should be getting you enough money to cover the license. That's the whole point. WebM will end up like Theora, which was the h.264-killer-du-jour before WebM turned up on the scene.
If that's the case it sucks double-hard on Ubuntu. I switched from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, as apparently it was all kinds of awesomeness and made Windows 7 look like shit. Flash is an absolute shit-ball, and I'm not surprised there is such animosity towards it in the linux community if my experience is in any way common. As it is, I'm waiting to get my hands on a Windows 7 DVD, then I'll re-install that and at least be able to watch Flash without stuttering, tearing, crashes, and without the CPU melting. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed as when I installed Ubuntu 10.10 on my notebook. I've been pushing for Linux at work, as we use it exclusively on our servers (as I switched our W2k3 server over to Ubuntu 3 months ago), but it looks like I'll hold off. Ouch.
That has not been my experience. I work at a large-ish video sharing website, and I've not noticed the problems you are claiming. Maybe on Linux h.264 video doesn't work very well in Flash, but on Windows (even 64-bit) & OS X it's pretty much flawless. As for mobile phones without flash, simply offering up HTTP or RT(S)P links solves all those problems. The only reason to move to WebM is an ideological one, and comes at a distinct price - WebM is not as good as h.264 (quality/bitrate-wise), and is nowhere near as well-supported in hardware or software. Flahs, if a user has it and wants to use it, is still the best way to stream video to browsers. HTML5 looks promising, but features such as RTMP & dynamic stream-switching are missing, and those are absolutely fantastic features to have available, both as a user and as a developer.
Because this sector of the market is only a few years old, compared to the entire video game market itself which is a few decades old. This is to be expected.
But the disc could have a time-bomb on it that disables the software in 2 years! You should probably just stick to playing tic-tac-toe, as that's the only way to be sure it'll still be there in 10 years. Using the old "Who's to say" routine, without evidence, is ridiculous. "Who's to say coming down from these trees would be good for the species?" etc.
We're talking about a language that has been used for centuries, and you're squabbling over a 90-year-old source that accurately describes a very fundamental aspect of said language?
1. I'm British, and I was never taught the US style. Thank fuck, too, as it's clearly illogical. I've only seen it used in material originating from the US. 2. Wikipedia cites sources. If you read something on there, and the source is not cited or reliable, ignore it. That's how it's always worked. It's strange you don't know that.
It's easier, but you can only burn for about 8 minutes before you run out of juice, and all the time you're lifting infrastructure that exists solely for holding oxygen (or oxygenated fuel). Using the atmospheric oxygen lets you burn fuel for, say, 45 minutes (as in Skylon's projections), and if you use a wing alongside, you get lift, too.
Trying to fight against air to lift oxygen through where there is plenty of oxygen seems pretty silly.
Christ. Who the fuck cares? Why are you so arrogant that you think your body is of any importance to anyone else? Scared they might end up on saggy-white-naked-middle-class-nobodies.com?
They'd have to go through and bring all the highways up to par, as they are not designed for cars to consistently do 100MPH on them. They'd also have to make the regulations more stringent, as I'm sure you're a great driver, but lots of people who think they can drive 100MPH all over the place actually can't, by virtue of their skill or their vehicle. There's a lot more to increasing the speed limit than changing signs;)
That's not the point. If you allow dangerous items past security, even if they are in the hands of trusted employees (pilots), they can still wind up in the hands of the bad guys. A disgruntled pilot is not the most pressing issue, but a disgruntled pilot bringing something through security for a bad guy is. Or a pilot bringing a gun, only to be robbed of it in the bathroom. That's the whole point.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't know if that's the case or not. I'm talking about personal experience, not trying to offer a universal critique.
Installing a driver is a completely different thing to running a downloaded file, which was the original statement, no?
And no, I have no idea about Rock Band Network tools, as I like real instruments ;) The prohibit sign is something independent from Windows, as it's part of the DVD spec.
That is kind of my point. UAC, the much-maligned feature of Windows, is present just as much in Ubuntu. And no, the "do you want to run this application" is not dependent on whether anything is signed, but rather where the file comes from - if it's from the internet, you are merely asked if you trust where you get it from, which happens in Ubuntu, too. Windows, however, doesn't bitch and moan about certain software not playing nicely with the FOSS community or being proprietary, two things I really don't care about at all. I've yet to see a single piece of software in Windows try to explain away why it can't interoperate with another piece of software due to ideological reasons. Fuck, it's an OS not a political party :-P
To be honest, I've been plagued by issues. VLC's video tears all the time, alt-tabbing takes seconds, FireFox freezes for seconds (sometimes never recovering, requiring killing from the command line), the desktop environment is poorly-designed and sometimes incredibly unresponsive (menus don't appear immediately, requiring mouse-out before mousing over again before they will show). VLC plays everything I can throw at it, but then I'm used to that as I use it exclusively on Windows, but it just does so while looking like crap on Ubuntu. It really is breaking my heart. I've decided to stick with Ubuntu to see if I can get past these issues, but I'm now over 1 week into it, and I'm remembering Windows 7 very fondly indeed. The ability to install software so easily, using the Ubuntu Software Center, is a joy, however.
So out of your example, I can't watch movies properly, and Firefox is a nasty, nasty web-browsing experience. Changing tabs lags soo much, and for some reason "backspace" isn't bound to navigating back in the history, which is just weird.
Thanks for not dismissing me as a troll, too - I really appreciate that. I wish more open discussion on the flaws of various FOSS projects was encouraged more.
That's cool, and restores some of my hope, but why not 64-bit? Windows 64-bit works perfectly, looks fantastic, and plays all the media I want (including Flash) without shitting the bed like Ubuntu 64-bit does. This honestly isn't a troll, but I'm so disheartened by my current Ubuntu experience (still using it, suffering greatly). I heard so much, from all over the internet, but I installed it and it's like being back in 1999 or something. Shit's well archaic. I thought FOSS had made some decent progress? I'd love to run a free OS, so very very much. God damn it.
Sorry, what does that have to do with the parent's post? Oh, right, nothing. Awesome job, Sparky. You just played into his hands.
And boy is the route frequently suboptimal. When I moved from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, the UAC prompts were replaced by prompts telling me how evil certain bits of software are and how Ubuntu can't talk with them, or how certain repositories contain software that violates someone else's ideology. And gnome sucks, but that's another story.
Did you even read your link? You only have to pay for content if you are charging your subscribers, or have over 100,000 subscribers per year. If you have that many subscribers, either you can easily afford to pay for the license, or your business model sucks. If you release software that has an h.264 encoder, again, if you ship more than 100,000 units per year, you have to pay. Oh, and streaming video is entirely royalty-free until December 2015, regardless of the number of subscribers.
FUD is not cool.
WebM is free, but WebM is shit. It's not as good as h.264, and isn't as widely supported in hardware or software. The only reason to choose WebM over h.264 is ideological. By the time you have to worry about license fees, your business model should be getting you enough money to cover the license. That's the whole point. WebM will end up like Theora, which was the h.264-killer-du-jour before WebM turned up on the scene.
If that's the case it sucks double-hard on Ubuntu. I switched from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, as apparently it was all kinds of awesomeness and made Windows 7 look like shit. Flash is an absolute shit-ball, and I'm not surprised there is such animosity towards it in the linux community if my experience is in any way common. As it is, I'm waiting to get my hands on a Windows 7 DVD, then I'll re-install that and at least be able to watch Flash without stuttering, tearing, crashes, and without the CPU melting. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed as when I installed Ubuntu 10.10 on my notebook. I've been pushing for Linux at work, as we use it exclusively on our servers (as I switched our W2k3 server over to Ubuntu 3 months ago), but it looks like I'll hold off. Ouch.
That has not been my experience. I work at a large-ish video sharing website, and I've not noticed the problems you are claiming. Maybe on Linux h.264 video doesn't work very well in Flash, but on Windows (even 64-bit) & OS X it's pretty much flawless. As for mobile phones without flash, simply offering up HTTP or RT(S)P links solves all those problems. The only reason to move to WebM is an ideological one, and comes at a distinct price - WebM is not as good as h.264 (quality/bitrate-wise), and is nowhere near as well-supported in hardware or software. Flahs, if a user has it and wants to use it, is still the best way to stream video to browsers. HTML5 looks promising, but features such as RTMP & dynamic stream-switching are missing, and those are absolutely fantastic features to have available, both as a user and as a developer.
And Flash does work on some mobile phones.
Because this sector of the market is only a few years old, compared to the entire video game market itself which is a few decades old. This is to be expected.
But the disc could have a time-bomb on it that disables the software in 2 years! You should probably just stick to playing tic-tac-toe, as that's the only way to be sure it'll still be there in 10 years. Using the old "Who's to say" routine, without evidence, is ridiculous. "Who's to say coming down from these trees would be good for the species?" etc.
We're talking about a language that has been used for centuries, and you're squabbling over a 90-year-old source that accurately describes a very fundamental aspect of said language?
1. I'm British, and I was never taught the US style. Thank fuck, too, as it's clearly illogical. I've only seen it used in material originating from the US.
2. Wikipedia cites sources. If you read something on there, and the source is not cited or reliable, ignore it. That's how it's always worked. It's strange you don't know that.
You'll be done with your coffee before you manage to get internet access. We're talking about Starbucks and McDonalds here.
Exactly. It's mostly everyone's work, as is all of science.
"Big-L" Libertarians and Teabaggers are separated by a hair's breadth.
"100km is roughly half of a typical LEO altitude" would be more accurate, then. 100km would very well be orbital, if you are going fast enough.
It's easier, but you can only burn for about 8 minutes before you run out of juice, and all the time you're lifting infrastructure that exists solely for holding oxygen (or oxygenated fuel). Using the atmospheric oxygen lets you burn fuel for, say, 45 minutes (as in Skylon's projections), and if you use a wing alongside, you get lift, too.
Trying to fight against air to lift oxygen through where there is plenty of oxygen seems pretty silly.
How did you nonsensical, fantasy of a post get +3, Informative? Weird.
That whole part of the Pacific is part of an active missile test range. They launch missiles from there all the time.
"Jokes on them"? Cunt.
Christ. Who the fuck cares? Why are you so arrogant that you think your body is of any importance to anyone else? Scared they might end up on saggy-white-naked-middle-class-nobodies.com?
They'd have to go through and bring all the highways up to par, as they are not designed for cars to consistently do 100MPH on them. They'd also have to make the regulations more stringent, as I'm sure you're a great driver, but lots of people who think they can drive 100MPH all over the place actually can't, by virtue of their skill or their vehicle. There's a lot more to increasing the speed limit than changing signs ;)
That's not the point. If you allow dangerous items past security, even if they are in the hands of trusted employees (pilots), they can still wind up in the hands of the bad guys. A disgruntled pilot is not the most pressing issue, but a disgruntled pilot bringing something through security for a bad guy is. Or a pilot bringing a gun, only to be robbed of it in the bathroom. That's the whole point.