Using that logic BroadBand over cable is a kludge. Coax was intended to carry analog signals, not digital data.
Yeah, it's possible to define this as a kludge, but it can also be considered a spec designed to work within an existing infrastructure. In this case, just like Broadband, it gives a huge benefit and is well thought out and implemented. Sounds good to me.
I kind of parallel this to what happened in the PC industry. There was a lot fast paced improvemnts in hardware, fast enough to obsolete your machine as you were getting it home. Then the fixation on MHz while the software side still hadn't stabalized. Then the point where they are now where they are faster than most people need and still not usable to the average peron.
games advanced fast until it was possible to get 3D environments, then focused all the work on "realistic looking" ones until we get stuff like HL2 and D3. but, the gameplay hasn't kept up for the majority of games. They look nice and play crap.
My translation is "The current design and implementation of Windows is not compatible with the IP protocol" not sure if that's an accurate description of this article, but it's a statement I've considered true for years:)
I guess my main problem is that this "debacle" is what proved he's an ass. It didn't prove anything. If he's an ass (which I don't think he is, but that's a diff argument) that would have been decided long before this. All this proves is he stuck to his original ideas. No sudden showing of fangs. No proof that his methods are anti-free software. He doesn't agree with common free software ideas. that was true from the first day. How is this new situation (which was the comprimise reached by Linus and Larry, not dictated by Larry BTW) proof he an ass?
"... Larry is a good guy...
All of this has been proven to be nonsense."
This I don't understand. Larry did exactly what he said he would do as spelled out in his License. So how is he not a good guy now? He suddenly turned evil by following his word? The judgements were made before this. How does this action change anything besides proving he'll do what he sais. I mean if he had sued ala SCO or something, yeah I could see it. but, he worked to find agreement peacefully.
I guess my prefernce is diff from most people in that I'd like X (at least on Linux) to do more not less. I think it or a superset of it should be THE graphics API for everything, not just to create windows. we've got the window manager concept to actually "manage" the windows anyway
As far as "barfing" I'd rather the kernel provide the lowest level possible access to the vid card and let the X server actually manage the card. when the card locks or the driver code does, the machine keeps going underneath. From my experience it works that way now. X runs with above average privaledge and manages the vid card but crash leaves the machine breathing.
actually X is treated as the video driver for the most part. There,s good and bad with this idea, but it seems to be the mentality steering a lot of choices. Me, I like having the most problematic and changing driver put one layer above the kernal. That way, a crash in it doesn't barf everything else. Plus the ability to share the device across a network for free!
If only X protocol itslelf was allowed to be a general purpose driver instead of being held back by backwards compat, design confusion, desktop-specific kludges etc.
I"d say that depends on the details of all the agreements involved.
The reason I put my comment in was most of the disussion was around wether reverse engineering was "evil" or not which didn't seem to be the issue...
Actually I did RTFA. I didn't say Tridge was bad. If any thing, it would be OSDL that's the issue. And that's IF
I was just irritated everyone kept claiming reverse engineering was fine and moral when that didn't seem to be the issue
Once I waive the cloud of zealot spray away from my face a bit, I still have the same question: How is reverse engineering BK right when the company he worked for said it wouldn't in a legal agreement? Isn't this what happned? moral or immoral doesn't count. BK had a standard clause (look at any software licence and you'll probabaly see it) that said you can use our product as long as you don't use the product against us. OSDL agreed (through Linus I believe) that they wouldn't reverse engineer. They said so in a legal agreement (licence). There is someone under thier pay reverse engineering it.
Argue on the right and wrong of such an agreement in the first place. Argue on the details of how far the agreement reaches. The first is about something in the past. The second is about somethign going on now. But, They are really different arguments. And to claim no problems exists seems kinda funny to me since the licence doesn't just go away because you don't like it.
If that is an answer from an IE developer @ MS, then I have concrete doubts instead of just suspicions.
IE uses the same OS API's as any other program, so it's not insecure, eh? How about adding some thought: IE, a network application, uses system API's and provides API's to other applications and to parts of the OS (or at least to the interface...oh wait, that's part of the OS in windows...)
Maybe I'm just a bit too literal, but that letter still doesn't tell the story in my book. Without knowing what the real 911 is (which is not common knowledge. we're all taught how to dial it, not what dialing does. learnign more takes some digging), this makes it sound like they are closer than they are. There needs to be more information on how this is different from the REAL 911 (if I understand right, what they describe is not real 911, since it doesn't get answered by the same people as 911).
To me, the VIOP 911 should not be called 911 because it isn't. So, in my opinion, this is basically false advertising until it works just like the real one. If it does't get answered by the same people as 911, then they aren't giving you 911. That letter doesn't tell you how theirs is different, just tells you how theirs works.
just my $.02
Just as a side question....what is to prevent Vonage or some other such company from setting up on port 80? the only technical damage (beyond setting a truely horrible precident) would be some unlikely browser getting confused when it hits port 80 on that one machine and gettign VOIP stuff instead of HTTP.
Just wondering how that would stack up....
This sounds like a good way to implement electronic keys for everything. Think of putting some small device on a neck lanyard or anywhere out of the way (as long as it touches skin) and using that for a key. Touch your car, it unlocks. Touch your PC and it logs in. No more dropping security badges or car keys when trying to get in!
Maybe I'm biased, but just from reading his email, it sounds like he's doing the wrong thing for the right reason. On top of it, since he's doing it for a good (or at least legitimate) reason, he feels he's OK and shouldn't be criticized.
Basically he's trademarking something someone else made, without their permission right? or did I miss something?
Actually, if I understand IE enough (it's possible...) I think a better question (and maybe easier one to find an answer to) would be : Is there a file explorer that can use Firefox to rener webpages? I think that's how MS structured thier setup...the HTML render stuff is called by the shell. The shell can adjust it's appearance slightly depending on options and task (for webpages it changes a little to look like a browser and calls the HTML engine )
A saerch through Linux software with that in mind might turn up something faster...
This looks like a fun gadget to have. I've been wanting to play with a camcorder, but didn't want something that would be useless once I figured out what features I REALLY wanted. This would fit that great....except for two possible killers:
reading between the lines it looks like it uses a format that can't be played back without special work (read extra software or a special DVD player). Also, it uses memory sticks as storage and doesn't transfer to PC without software.
Both aren't horrible, but I hate when ANY gadget sais it needs extra software. it is invariably WINDOWS software, blast it!
someone prove me wrong on those suspicions....please.
I like this as an idea. We base so much on using text to deal with information. Humans don't even think entirely in words.I picture concepts myself more than I think of a nice paragraph about them. This is just getting computers to be able to keep up.
I'm also just tired of the assumption that we have to generate MORE text to allow us to use other types of information. meta data in genral is adding more TEXT to text, pictures, etc. when we already have enough of the stuff! text isn't the only way to represent information. It isn't even close to the most efficient way to do it!
Oh, and speaking of metadata, if computers can process images, maybe we could use pictures as metadata! it works for Movies. one poster describes the whole movie sometimes: type, actors, characters, etc.
At best this seems like poor design happening at the level below the browser. If I read it right, once a window has been brought up, it can be referenced by any page running IN THE SAME BROWSER. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? A fix would be to re-write some design specs on the "pop-up" funtion itself and break all the pages that use it.
In my opinion, lets just turn off pop-ups in general and let the whole idea fade into obscurity. I hate it when pages do that anyway, I want to control where I'm viewing stuff, not the blasted site. What's the use of tabbed browsing when sites pop-up new windows anyway.
I've always wondered about that. Most devices make some kind of noise in RF. Is it possible to make viewers that look at this spectrum? They make 'em for IR, how about RF? then we can use the powerful signal processors we have build in (our vision center) to detect eletronic beasts...
Just a thought...
He's exploring options if I read the article right. He's setup a small gaming center (well, it can be used for anything actually. You just rent the PC and screen) for now. He's researching other setups too. Sounds like he's going at this with a sound bussiness head. The first thing I thought of when I read the part about setting up in warehouses was something we have similar for RC racing around here: you arrange a big enough space (parking lot, conference room, etc.), and then contact a company to come setup cars and a track. One big bundle. Sounds like the racks would be for the same purpose: someone rents the mobil package and his people comes and sets it up. Company team-building events would love stuff like this.
It just seemed like too many people poo-pooing setting up warehouse size arcades when I didn't see that in the article.
OK, I've been waiting for it to come out. Now I want to vote with my wallet. Hopefully a buying surge (even a small one) will show some linux support. Anyone else?
Does ID have an online store?
Slashdot Mirror
Using that logic BroadBand over cable is a kludge. Coax was intended to carry analog signals, not digital data.
Yeah, it's possible to define this as a kludge, but it can also be considered a spec designed to work within an existing infrastructure. In this case, just like Broadband, it gives a huge benefit and is well thought out and implemented. Sounds good to me.
I kind of parallel this to what happened in the PC industry. There was a lot fast paced improvemnts in hardware, fast enough to obsolete your machine as you were getting it home. Then the fixation on MHz while the software side still hadn't stabalized. Then the point where they are now where they are faster than most people need and still not usable to the average peron.
games advanced fast until it was possible to get 3D environments, then focused all the work on "realistic looking" ones until we get stuff like HL2 and D3. but, the gameplay hasn't kept up for the majority of games. They look nice and play crap.
My translation is "The current design and implementation of Windows is not compatible with the IP protocol" not sure if that's an accurate description of this article, but it's a statement I've considered true for years :)
I guess my main problem is that this "debacle" is what proved he's an ass. It didn't prove anything. If he's an ass (which I don't think he is, but that's a diff argument) that would have been decided long before this. All this proves is he stuck to his original ideas. No sudden showing of fangs. No proof that his methods are anti-free software. He doesn't agree with common free software ideas. that was true from the first day. How is this new situation (which was the comprimise reached by Linus and Larry, not dictated by Larry BTW) proof he an ass?
"... Larry is a good guy... All of this has been proven to be nonsense."
This I don't understand. Larry did exactly what he said he would do as spelled out in his License. So how is he not a good guy now? He suddenly turned evil by following his word? The judgements were made before this. How does this action change anything besides proving he'll do what he sais. I mean if he had sued ala SCO or something, yeah I could see it. but, he worked to find agreement peacefully.
I guess my prefernce is diff from most people in that I'd like X (at least on Linux) to do more not less. I think it or a superset of it should be THE graphics API for everything, not just to create windows. we've got the window manager concept to actually "manage" the windows anyway
As far as "barfing" I'd rather the kernel provide the lowest level possible access to the vid card and let the X server actually manage the card. when the card locks or the driver code does, the machine keeps going underneath. From my experience it works that way now. X runs with above average privaledge and manages the vid card but crash leaves the machine breathing.
actually X is treated as the video driver for the most part. There,s good and bad with this idea, but it seems to be the mentality steering a lot of choices. Me, I like having the most problematic and changing driver put one layer above the kernal. That way, a crash in it doesn't barf everything else. Plus the ability to share the device across a network for free!
If only X protocol itslelf was allowed to be a general purpose driver instead of being held back by backwards compat, design confusion, desktop-specific kludges etc.
I"d say that depends on the details of all the agreements involved.
The reason I put my comment in was most of the disussion was around wether reverse engineering was "evil" or not which didn't seem to be the issue...
Actually I did RTFA. I didn't say Tridge was bad. If any thing, it would be OSDL that's the issue. And that's IF
I was just irritated everyone kept claiming reverse engineering was fine and moral when that didn't seem to be the issue
Once I waive the cloud of zealot spray away from my face a bit, I still have the same question: How is reverse engineering BK right when the company he worked for said it wouldn't in a legal agreement? Isn't this what happned? moral or immoral doesn't count. BK had a standard clause (look at any software licence and you'll probabaly see it) that said you can use our product as long as you don't use the product against us. OSDL agreed (through Linus I believe) that they wouldn't reverse engineer. They said so in a legal agreement (licence). There is someone under thier pay reverse engineering it.
Argue on the right and wrong of such an agreement in the first place. Argue on the details of how far the agreement reaches. The first is about something in the past. The second is about somethign going on now. But, They are really different arguments. And to claim no problems exists seems kinda funny to me since the licence doesn't just go away because you don't like it.
Did you see the 802.11 version? finally I can put my RC buggy on the net. Cats watch out! Yippee!
If that is an answer from an IE developer @ MS, then I have concrete doubts instead of just suspicions.
IE uses the same OS API's as any other program, so it's not insecure, eh? How about adding some thought: IE, a network application, uses system API's and provides API's to other applications and to parts of the OS (or at least to the interface...oh wait, that's part of the OS in windows...)
Maybe I'm just a bit too literal, but that letter still doesn't tell the story in my book. Without knowing what the real 911 is (which is not common knowledge. we're all taught how to dial it, not what dialing does. learnign more takes some digging), this makes it sound like they are closer than they are. There needs to be more information on how this is different from the REAL 911 (if I understand right, what they describe is not real 911, since it doesn't get answered by the same people as 911).
To me, the VIOP 911 should not be called 911 because it isn't. So, in my opinion, this is basically false advertising until it works just like the real one. If it does't get answered by the same people as 911, then they aren't giving you 911. That letter doesn't tell you how theirs is different, just tells you how theirs works.
just my $.02
Just as a side question....what is to prevent Vonage or some other such company from setting up on port 80? the only technical damage (beyond setting a truely horrible precident) would be some unlikely browser getting confused when it hits port 80 on that one machine and gettign VOIP stuff instead of HTTP.
Just wondering how that would stack up....
This sounds like a good way to implement electronic keys for everything. Think of putting some small device on a neck lanyard or anywhere out of the way (as long as it touches skin) and using that for a key. Touch your car, it unlocks. Touch your PC and it logs in. No more dropping security badges or car keys when trying to get in!
Maybe I'm biased, but just from reading his email, it sounds like he's doing the wrong thing for the right reason. On top of it, since he's doing it for a good (or at least legitimate) reason, he feels he's OK and shouldn't be criticized.
Basically he's trademarking something someone else made, without their permission right? or did I miss something?
Actually, if I understand IE enough (it's possible...) I think a better question (and maybe easier one to find an answer to) would be : Is there a file explorer that can use Firefox to rener webpages? I think that's how MS structured thier setup...the HTML render stuff is called by the shell. The shell can adjust it's appearance slightly depending on options and task (for webpages it changes a little to look like a browser and calls the HTML engine )
A saerch through Linux software with that in mind might turn up something faster...
Actually I think it's "The Society of Insanely Power Hungry Psychopaths" but other than that, bang on :)
;)
I personally think if Bill had been a paper pusher instead of a bit pusher he'd be making Bush look like a nice guy right now
This looks like a fun gadget to have. I've been wanting to play with a camcorder, but didn't want something that would be useless once I figured out what features I REALLY wanted. This would fit that great....except for two possible killers:
reading between the lines it looks like it uses a format that can't be played back without special work (read extra software or a special DVD player). Also, it uses memory sticks as storage and doesn't transfer to PC without software.
Both aren't horrible, but I hate when ANY gadget sais it needs extra software. it is invariably WINDOWS software, blast it!
someone prove me wrong on those suspicions....please.
I like this as an idea. We base so much on using text to deal with information. Humans don't even think entirely in words.I picture concepts myself more than I think of a nice paragraph about them. This is just getting computers to be able to keep up.
I'm also just tired of the assumption that we have to generate MORE text to allow us to use other types of information. meta data in genral is adding more TEXT to text, pictures, etc. when we already have enough of the stuff! text isn't the only way to represent information. It isn't even close to the most efficient way to do it!
Oh, and speaking of metadata, if computers can process images, maybe we could use pictures as metadata! it works for Movies. one poster describes the whole movie sometimes: type, actors, characters, etc.
At best this seems like poor design happening at the level below the browser. If I read it right, once a window has been brought up, it can be referenced by any page running IN THE SAME BROWSER. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? A fix would be to re-write some design specs on the "pop-up" funtion itself and break all the pages that use it.
In my opinion, lets just turn off pop-ups in general and let the whole idea fade into obscurity. I hate it when pages do that anyway, I want to control where I'm viewing stuff, not the blasted site. What's the use of tabbed browsing when sites pop-up new windows anyway.
"... I always did my best work in high school when my cable modem was acting screwy or I was forced off the computer...." [emphasis mine]
Anyone else think that sentense was put in there just to be mean? Or am I just feeling old and grumpy?
I've always wondered about that. Most devices make some kind of noise in RF. Is it possible to make viewers that look at this spectrum? They make 'em for IR, how about RF? then we can use the powerful signal processors we have build in (our vision center) to detect eletronic beasts...
Just a thought...
He's exploring options if I read the article right. He's setup a small gaming center (well, it can be used for anything actually. You just rent the PC and screen) for now. He's researching other setups too. Sounds like he's going at this with a sound bussiness head. The first thing I thought of when I read the part about setting up in warehouses was something we have similar for RC racing around here: you arrange a big enough space (parking lot, conference room, etc.), and then contact a company to come setup cars and a track. One big bundle. Sounds like the racks would be for the same purpose: someone rents the mobil package and his people comes and sets it up. Company team-building events would love stuff like this.
It just seemed like too many people poo-pooing setting up warehouse size arcades when I didn't see that in the article.
OK, I've been waiting for it to come out. Now I want to vote with my wallet. Hopefully a buying surge (even a small one) will show some linux support.
Anyone else?
Does ID have an online store?