Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason? That's all I take away from that "analysis" of the format. Is there some sort of predisposition against protecting an investment in your world?
So it's unacceptable for anyone to question your infantile nitpicking of "linux is a kernel", but when you make an obviously wrong analogy, everyone should accept it. Right?
Interesting, I went direct from 35mm SLR to DSLR and really never had the need to buy P&S digitals, but I guess I am surprised that some of them can generate TIFF... the problem with TIFF is that it's HUGE and it takes a while to write to SD or CF or whatever you're using... most low- to mid-end DSLRs can't do TIFF. I didn't think a $200 P&S would have that kind of horsepower.
As to converting from RAW, yes, the problem is that often times you're filing direct and you don't have time to run 400 shots though a RAW converter. Ergo the need for the camera to do TIFF.
Speaking of which, twitter, when you're done doing your "linux is a kernel, wah" slashbot nitpicking maybe you'll find time to get back to this? Thanks so much.
everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW
Actually, in the context of digital photography (which I assume is what you're talking about here, though JPEG is of course not limited to that) "everyone" uses TIFF. Just try to do freelance for a news agency and watch how quickly they ask you for TIFF files, which only the high-end cameras can generate.
I suppose some of the smaller shops or newspapers and whatnot do use RAW, but for Reuters et.al if it's not TIFF you're not getting a paycheck. The same goes for the big stock photography companies and so on.
Well monkey boy, where are the free-as-in-whatever mental interface drivers for GNU/Linux? Or at least some speech recognition that does not suck rocks? Where? Oh, that's right. Nothing remotely useful to replace the GUI or command line has come from outside of commercial software in twenty years. But hey, you're right - what was "M$" thinking when they got rid of the command line? Another personal insult to twitter!
It's a simple point, and arguing that being crippled by damage to the rudder is comparable to being crippled because your software couldn't handle a single divide by zero is to completely miss it.
So the rudder is disabled, but the toilets are still working? I'm sure the sailors were very happy about that. They couldn't carry out their mission anymore, but they could shit to their heart's content.
The intellectual prowess around here never ceases to amaze. Perhaps you could blame "Batman" up there for (incorrectly) picking on the wrong analogy, but that's his problem, not mine.
So twit, are you going to honor me with your incisive rebuttal? I found your supposedly non-existent "gnu/linux" botnet well enough - how about some actual discussion instead of your infantile "oh you must work for M$ and I hate you" bullshit?
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Why do you act like every single response to your posts is a personal insult? What, you think these 10,000 boxes were running "Windoze"? That's kind of a catch 22 for people like you, isn't it? The best IRC software runs on BSD and Linux, or at least I've never seen an IRC server that works well on Windows. Ergo, what were those machines running? BeOS? AmigaOS? Heh.
Don't let your insane hatred of Microsoft blind you to reality. Botnets are not an OS problem, they're a process, people and security problem. You can't change that (or anything else) by claiming everything you think is wrong is Microsoft's fault, or whining that anyone who points out otherwise is employed by them. Your little "if you don't hate everything I do and think the same way I do then you must work for M$" mantra gets more annoying every day.
I think it also has to do with the inevitable negative connotations of the term "hacking" that the mainstream media has perpetuated. "Hacker" has become a synonim for "criminal", unfortunately.
I'm sure it's a huge disappointment to you that "M$" was not mentioned by name - that's probably because Cerf knows the problem can hardly be blamed on Microsoft, and there are a lot of *nix boxes out there that are also part of "big iron" botnets. You might want to look through this. Or Google a bit, if you're interested. You'll find lots of studies by people generally smarter than yourself that do not exonerate "M$" but don't stick them exclusively with the blame either, because it would be disingenuous to do so. I find that even people on Slashdot tend to be a bit more intelligent than to just blame everything on "M$" and be on their merry way.
People like yourself that live in Linux la-la land where everything is Microsoft's fault are going to be the most problematic when/if desktop Linux actually gains any traction among home users. The same group of people who can't be bothered to buy a $25 NAT router and keep their machines patched. What, do you figure botnets just take machines over by osmosis?
Of course it would be ridiculous to claim that Windows is not part of the problem here, but the problem is not as simplistic as you like to portray it.
Here's how it works. Slashdot owes its continued existence to Microsoft. Without Microsoft, Slashdot would be another obscure blog. But over the years the people who run Slashdot have figured out what brings the big bucks in ad revenue: Microsoft bashing.
Now, everybody loves to bash Microsoft. It's the "in" thing to do. Never mind that half that bashing is hyperbolic FUD that the rest of the world (you know, normal people) look at and go "huh?" But Slashdot has turned that into a smooth-running cash flow.
Just go back through their "search" function and find all the Microsoft stories. I'd be comfortable saying that probably 3/5ths of them are either worded in a way that fans the flames, are stupid exagerations, have disingenuous titles that end with a strategic question mark (much like all those Fox News "stories" on neocon pet hate topics) or are just plain FUD. The key here is that most people who read Slashdot never actually read the comments, where occasionally you'll see someone saying that the article in question is stupidity encarnate. No, a million eyeballs already saw the "Bill Gates Kills Kittens?" headline and added it to their "let me tell you why M$ sux" repertoire.
In many ways Slashdot's "coverage" of Microsoft is a bit like Al-Jazeera's "coverage" of the United States and Israel. They also have a captive audience that want and need the targets of their hatred to be evil, so they believe everything the "news" tells them. Except that Slashdot is even better, because the "editors" can simply shrug and say "hey, we just post stuff that other people submit". They've driven off most of the intelligent people who used to discuss interesting things related to free software and technology and now simply feed the vicious (but profitable) circle that exists between them and the "OMFG M$ SUXX LINUX ROXXORZ LOLOL" crowd.
The overwhelming irony of Slashdot is that it is owned by a commercial concern that competes with Microsoft in many ways, has proven itself untrustworthy by closing off the source code for their flagship product and actively promotes products that "simplify" offsourcing. Talk about pet topics? Every time Slashdot posts a story about how evil Microsoft is, about how great open source is (or how terrible it is for open source to be attacked or subverted) or about how damaging offsourcing is, they are in direct contradiction to the corporation that owns them, or are effectively promoting them.
BTW, I'm not claiming no one should criticize Microsoft, or that they are above any such criticism. They do a lot of stupid and wrong things, chief among them being annoyingly toxic to their own customers (in my opinion). There's a difference though between informing your constituence of facts and strategically picking the most inflammatory submissions that cover every story about MS to whip them up into a frenzy in the name of ad impressions - never mind padding them with infantile "editorial" comments.
And don't even get me started on the pseudoscience crap. But there goes my karma anyway.
The statistics are all very nice, but the conclusion is forced.
"Forced"? I thought it was an interesting study. At least the author went trough the all the trouble of quantifying individual contributions, calculating against the overall kernel codebase, etc. What have you done for Linux lately other than obviously bitch and FUD about "M$" on Slashdot all day with all your sockpuppetaccounts?
code is still not being written on behalf of companies.
No one understands it that way, except obviously yourself. The GPL ensures that is not and will never be the case. That's the point. Why do you weasel this into the discussion?
"supporting" M$
You just cannot help yourself, can you? What does Microsoft have to do with all this?
It is just confirmation of old statement that GPL(v2) provides better (at moment best) ground for cooperation between vendors.
I'd be interested to know what (if any) type of pressure can be brought on by vendors that support such a large (65%+) share of kernel development. For example, is IBM or HP one day going to submit a patch that brings some sort of DRM into the kernel? Or some other pet change that they fancy? And what will happen when someone like Cox says "no"? Will they withdraw their support, send an email to their developers and say "stop working on Linux while on our dime"? How long would it take for that loss to be compensated for by people working on their own time?
I can't see how this would happen, but then this is a fairly new development model, at least as far as the corporations are concerned. They still have shareholders and interests to answer to.
That's next to impossible with BSD licensed code most tend to keep closed.
The fact that no one is writing up an analysis for one of the BSDs doesn't mean they do not benefit from the same type of contributions. In many ways corporations are more amenable to BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, you lost me at the second "M$". Try again?
Their "old binary cruft" preserves backwards compatibility. Are you against that for some reason? That's all I take away from that "analysis" of the format. Is there some sort of predisposition against protecting an investment in your world?
If you feel insulted, foe me and/or twitter. I don't really need to interact with another of his net nannies.
Would you like to run your test on a couple more million websites (say 10 million? Nice, round number) and get back to me?
So it's unacceptable for anyone to question your infantile nitpicking of "linux is a kernel", but when you make an obviously wrong analogy, everyone should accept it. Right?
As to converting from RAW, yes, the problem is that often times you're filing direct and you don't have time to run 400 shots though a RAW converter. Ergo the need for the camera to do TIFF.
Speaking of which, twitter, when you're done doing your "linux is a kernel, wah" slashbot nitpicking maybe you'll find time to get back to this? Thanks so much.
Really? And where exactly did you get that from?
Actually, in the context of digital photography (which I assume is what you're talking about here, though JPEG is of course not limited to that) "everyone" uses TIFF. Just try to do freelance for a news agency and watch how quickly they ask you for TIFF files, which only the high-end cameras can generate.
I suppose some of the smaller shops or newspapers and whatnot do use RAW, but for Reuters et.al if it's not TIFF you're not getting a paycheck. The same goes for the big stock photography companies and so on.
Well monkey boy, where are the free-as-in-whatever mental interface drivers for GNU/Linux? Or at least some speech recognition that does not suck rocks? Where? Oh, that's right. Nothing remotely useful to replace the GUI or command line has come from outside of commercial software in twenty years. But hey, you're right - what was "M$" thinking when they got rid of the command line? Another personal insult to twitter!
So the rudder is disabled, but the toilets are still working? I'm sure the sailors were very happy about that. They couldn't carry out their mission anymore, but they could shit to their heart's content.
The intellectual prowess around here never ceases to amaze. Perhaps you could blame "Batman" up there for (incorrectly) picking on the wrong analogy, but that's his problem, not mine.
So twit, are you going to honor me with your incisive rebuttal? I found your supposedly non-existent "gnu/linux" botnet well enough - how about some actual discussion instead of your infantile "oh you must work for M$ and I hate you" bullshit?
Ah, I didn't know "by instruments" implied that level of sophistication nowadays.
You're not thinking about an instrument landing here?
They killed Kenny! Bastards!
Don't let your insane hatred of Microsoft blind you to reality. Botnets are not an OS problem, they're a process, people and security problem. You can't change that (or anything else) by claiming everything you think is wrong is Microsoft's fault, or whining that anyone who points out otherwise is employed by them. Your little "if you don't hate everything I do and think the same way I do then you must work for M$" mantra gets more annoying every day.
I think it also has to do with the inevitable negative connotations of the term "hacking" that the mainstream media has perpetuated. "Hacker" has become a synonim for "criminal", unfortunately.
People like yourself that live in Linux la-la land where everything is Microsoft's fault are going to be the most problematic when/if desktop Linux actually gains any traction among home users. The same group of people who can't be bothered to buy a $25 NAT router and keep their machines patched. What, do you figure botnets just take machines over by osmosis?
Of course it would be ridiculous to claim that Windows is not part of the problem here, but the problem is not as simplistic as you like to portray it.
Now, everybody loves to bash Microsoft. It's the "in" thing to do. Never mind that half that bashing is hyperbolic FUD that the rest of the world (you know, normal people) look at and go "huh?" But Slashdot has turned that into a smooth-running cash flow.
Just go back through their "search" function and find all the Microsoft stories. I'd be comfortable saying that probably 3/5ths of them are either worded in a way that fans the flames, are stupid exagerations, have disingenuous titles that end with a strategic question mark (much like all those Fox News "stories" on neocon pet hate topics) or are just plain FUD. The key here is that most people who read Slashdot never actually read the comments, where occasionally you'll see someone saying that the article in question is stupidity encarnate. No, a million eyeballs already saw the "Bill Gates Kills Kittens?" headline and added it to their "let me tell you why M$ sux" repertoire.
In many ways Slashdot's "coverage" of Microsoft is a bit like Al-Jazeera's "coverage" of the United States and Israel. They also have a captive audience that want and need the targets of their hatred to be evil, so they believe everything the "news" tells them. Except that Slashdot is even better, because the "editors" can simply shrug and say "hey, we just post stuff that other people submit". They've driven off most of the intelligent people who used to discuss interesting things related to free software and technology and now simply feed the vicious (but profitable) circle that exists between them and the "OMFG M$ SUXX LINUX ROXXORZ LOLOL" crowd.
The overwhelming irony of Slashdot is that it is owned by a commercial concern that competes with Microsoft in many ways, has proven itself untrustworthy by closing off the source code for their flagship product and actively promotes products that "simplify" offsourcing. Talk about pet topics? Every time Slashdot posts a story about how evil Microsoft is, about how great open source is (or how terrible it is for open source to be attacked or subverted) or about how damaging offsourcing is, they are in direct contradiction to the corporation that owns them, or are effectively promoting them.
BTW, I'm not claiming no one should criticize Microsoft, or that they are above any such criticism. They do a lot of stupid and wrong things, chief among them being annoyingly toxic to their own customers (in my opinion). There's a difference though between informing your constituence of facts and strategically picking the most inflammatory submissions that cover every story about MS to whip them up into a frenzy in the name of ad impressions - never mind padding them with infantile "editorial" comments.
And don't even get me started on the pseudoscience crap. But there goes my karma anyway.
"We kill you less often than Dell" - Apple
Oh, I'm sure no one can force anything on the maintainer.
"Forced"? I thought it was an interesting study. At least the author went trough the all the trouble of quantifying individual contributions, calculating against the overall kernel codebase, etc. What have you done for Linux lately other than obviously bitch and FUD about "M$" on Slashdot all day with all your sockpuppet accounts?
No one understands it that way, except obviously yourself. The GPL ensures that is not and will never be the case. That's the point. Why do you weasel this into the discussion?
You just cannot help yourself, can you? What does Microsoft have to do with all this?
I'd be interested to know what (if any) type of pressure can be brought on by vendors that support such a large (65%+) share of kernel development. For example, is IBM or HP one day going to submit a patch that brings some sort of DRM into the kernel? Or some other pet change that they fancy? And what will happen when someone like Cox says "no"? Will they withdraw their support, send an email to their developers and say "stop working on Linux while on our dime"? How long would it take for that loss to be compensated for by people working on their own time?
I can't see how this would happen, but then this is a fairly new development model, at least as far as the corporations are concerned. They still have shareholders and interests to answer to.
The fact that no one is writing up an analysis for one of the BSDs doesn't mean they do not benefit from the same type of contributions. In many ways corporations are more amenable to BSD.
"Accusation"? You're kidding, right? Here, they even have an AdWords FAQ entry for that: Will my ads show on parked domain sites?.
Rakes in millions (billions?) from shady parked domain farms that run AdWords.