Only if the artist makes it big. Generally, the cost of promoting an artist isn't equalled by the revenue that the artist brings in... Hence, the recording company usually takes the loss.
This would be like me, being a developer, being asked to pay for ALL my development efforts on a product which they tell me they need. Then, after I deliver it, they tell me that I'm going to have to eat it because they spent too much money advertising it and that they are not even going to bother selling it. The flip side of this is, they are taking very little risk and ride freely on the tails of any returns. Furthermore, their fees and any front money get reimbursed before they turn over any money to the bands. This means bands can still take a loss on a record while the RIAA still made money. Again, their downside is always protected. Again, they have ALL the control, little to no risk, and nothing but money.
Wish I knew of any other business that worked like that so I can get a free ride too. In fact, if artists had any business smarts, the first time the RIAA offered someone a deal like that they be laughed out of the room...just as any other industry would do. It's insane! I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.:(
Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.
Imagine this. You sign a 5-disc license with someone. You're first disc sales great. You make another disc. They don't like it. You still owe 3 more discs AND now you're out all the money it took to record/produce it. Now, you're stuck. You can't sale or even attempt to make you're money back as they own the rights to the disc. They won't sale you're latest and all the money you made on the first disc is now spent and down the drain in living and making the second disc. What do you do? Make a third disc? You don't have any money. Okay, so now they front you the money with horrible terms (ownership rights to the previously made disc and you still owe them four more) because they have all the leverage.
You're screwed!
Yes, the RIAA is past its time just like the buggy whip! They are corrupt and no longer serve any purpose.
NextGen, Alteer, Practice Partner, and Medical Manager our all Windows only apps.
Medical Manager is available for SCO and Linux. It's their preferred platform as it runs very will while being hidden in the closet. If fact, I didn't even know they had a version for non-Unix platforms.
I think developers need to decide whether they are selling a product or a service - and not both.
Why can't they do both. I the real world, this is very common. You sale a product and then have a services arm ready to service that product for your customer. This seems like it exactly parallels that. It makes tons of sense if you stop and think of it. You have a product, you sale your product. People need to have the product serviced, so you sale the services.
If they didn't charge for the product, the service rates would have to go up. It's not like you're looking at saving money by not having one or the other. Likewise, if they didn't have a service rate (monthly charge), the product cost would be through the roof as it would more than likely be hundreds of dollars per copy. Not to mention you'd probably have to constantly buy upgrades...something which is already included in your monthly service fee.
Would you like to discuss the usability of RedHat 5.1 as well.
Since 5.1 is no where near as in wide and current use as the version of Nautilus in question is, you're going out of your way to be a jack-ass without any point what-so-ever. Please learn how to read, comprehend, apply facts. Learning how to use deductive reasoning will go a long way toward understanding and following even the most basic of conversations.
Please go away, grow up and see if some day you're able to effectively communicate with people in some meaningful manner. Until then, you're grade school teacher is letting you know you're late for class. Just think, one day you'll be a grown up too. I'm sure you're parents are sooo proud.
Today is 23 Oct 2002 by the way.
Err. Thanks. Now that you know what the date is, you might go a learn that even with the date being the 23rd, the version of Nautilus that I spoke of is in WIDE USE and that will not change for some number of months, if not years. Now then, you're teacher and mommy is calling. I suggest you go play with children your own age.
Ya. For empty and semi-empty (less than a couple dozen entries), it was okay. But the fact that it requires a large cache makes it slow. Also, the fact that it can take a very long time to entry large directories makes it pretty much unusable.
Like I said, I do plan on trying it via the Gnome2 route. I'm just not holding my breath. Nonetheless, I do thank you for the polite followup and the information you provided.
Let's spell this out and see if we can get anything to stick between your ears.
Fact: Nautulas is slow. Fact, the vast majority of people are still using and/or have installed and/or uninstalled the old version. Fact, most people are not running Gnome 2. Fact, if Nautulas is your primary reason for upgrading your system, you're an idiot. Fact, many people actually USE their system for things other than hobbies therefore, upgrading just to try out a filemanager would make you an idiot because the risk/time loss is too great. Fact, everything I said is true. Fact, just because a new release has come out does not invalidate ever user experience in the world with old versions; especially since most everyone still has the old version.
Now then, once you learn to read, you'll easily see that the only person trolling is you. At least I'm not such an idiot to troll by claiming someone is trolling yet can only post as AC.
if you're not going to make a serious effort to at least try the software that you are criticising, don't bother flaming it.
I clearly stated that I'm talking about the previous versions. That was a series effort. I clearly stated that I intend to try the new version. What part of any of these facts do you not understand? Oh...ya...no brain....sorry...I forgot.
Can't believe the zealots running around. In what way is that post a troll? Overrated, maybe, but a troll? Absolutley not!
It specifically states MY experiences with it. Only an zealot with something hide would attempt to moderate this down by means of "troll".
There you have it folks. Even the zealots seem to know I'm telling the truth...they just don't want it known; for whatever reason.
Here are the facts: It's slow. It's a resource hog. It looks nice and has neat functionality. Crashes more than it should (yet, getting better).
Notice a ton of other posts which more or less all the same the same thing. I guess some moron believes that if someone doesn't believe as they do, they are trolling. Overrated? Maybe. A troll? Absolutely not!
Those threads are interesting. Thanks for sharing the links Mr. AC. If I find the complaints are valid, after trying Gnome2 out, I'm betting I wind up switching to KDE (ack!!).
...but nautilus is WAY too slow for serious use. It uses tons of memory, CPU and is just beyond comprehension as to why it's so slow.
For as long as I can remember, I've tried it off and on hoping that it's gotten better. While I must say it's stability has slowly been increasing it's speed seems marginal at best. I'm sorry, but a GUI file manager should be plenty fast on a PII/333 dual CPU all SCSI system. The fact that it's not makes it pretty much a joke at worse and an odd experment at best.
I've not tried Gnome 2 nor the nautilus efforts on Gnome 2 so I will be giving that a chance. Nonetheless, I'm certainly not holding my breath! When they make it perform reasonably on low-end systems (which I don't consider a dual PII/333 to be), only then will it be considered anything more than a curious toy.
Re:What about GPL?? Sources??
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 2
Close.
You are also paying for the associated *services* of creating the distribution. You are allowed to charge for services associated with GPL software. The charge for services business model is common for many companies that use/support GPL software.
In their case, they are not simply collecting GPL software and burning it onto a CD. They have created significant "value added" (regardless as to whether you like it or not) and they are allowed to change for it.
what about mounting a cam on a remote control airplane
People already do this. Mostly for fun, however, I semi-recently read about an ecologist using a remote control electric plane (with cammera; IIRC, it was a modified Wingo or Tipsy) to observe tree top wild life in various jungle preserves. The range was something like 1 1/2 miles and was piloted by means of live video.
ooh, with that right transmission control, one could fly drugs up from south america on a drone aircraft..
This has been done for years now. Large R/C planes are loaded with drugs and flown over the Texas/Mexican boarder. They were discovered when crash remains were found and later they were caught on tape. Eventually, they were followed by helicopters. I don't know if this is still done.
Then, once they go out of business, perhaps people that are interested in making good movies rather than huge incomes will start making movies.
And oh, here's a thought...who forces them to release a DVD in 6mo's??? Seems like they could delay the release of alternate distributions indefinately. Don't think so? Go ask Disney. They did it for a VERY long time.
If it's such a risk...release alternate media 1 or 2 years after the movie comes out.
Wow. That was hard to think of wasn't it. Perhaps if he stopped thinking about his next big rip-off-money-making-flick, such an obvious concept would be obvious to him too.
You said: "All of that being said, the APIs to which you are referring would normally be within the protocol description, and in normal Win32 documentation wouldn't be listed in the list of APIs."
I said:
"That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's."
Basically, since MS doesn't want alternate implementations of some of their technology, much of it is unpublished. That is the reason it is not "in normal Win32 documentation". Again, that's the difference between it being published and unpublished API's. This has nothing to do with the decree.
Since you seem to be a pedant, allow to me spell this out. Unpublished and/or undocumented in this case means, "not generally available for public consumption".
You also said: The settlement specifically talks about APIs seperately from communications protocols.
That may be but only shows how naive the lawyers were on technology matters when they wrote it. At best, it is ambigious which, I'm sure, is one of many reasons why MS is in such a hurry to accept it. Basically it has zero meaning, zero impact, and is completely ambigious to further tie up further govenerment action, forever.
So in other words, no one should ever "coin a phrase". Oh wait, that's wrong as obviously everyone that speaks English need to go back to school as obviously you can create coins from phrases. Duh, what was I thinking.
Further followup will be ignored as you are clearly looking to fight rather than learn or simply understand someone else's point of view.
From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level.
Well, first of all, the article actually doesn't make the distinction even though you do. Second of all, you clearly don't understand what is being talked about. It seems you ignored the example I gave on forms (API) and evelopes (protocol). In hind site, I do see that I overlooked attempting to clarify that often people refer to a "protocol" generically even though it's actually comprised of two or three parts. Those parts are protocol (transport and encoding of that transport), flow (how, when and why transport is used) and message format (how and what messages are to be encoded -- often conforms to an "API").
Now then, once you understand that, there really isn't a distinction between "APIs and protocols", as referred to in the article, as they are often tightely coupled. In this case, SAMBA basically makes a series of requests for remote execution requests (aka RPCs). In this case, they want to know what RPC's (API's) they can use, what data they need to pass and can expect back, and when it makes sense to use those API's (RPC's). The inverse is also true. From this, you should be able to understand you're barking up the wrong tree (aka. wrong).
You also said, "...but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side...", which is again, very incorrect. Basically, a windows system can make a request (RPC) to the implementations API to perform an action of some type. In this case, the API is REQUIRED to match on BOTH SIDES in order for them to correctly communicate and function.
"Since Samba doesn't run on Windows...", has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
"...because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux" has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand and futher shows how little you know and understand on the topic at hand. It doesn't matter that their print services are implemented different but it DOES MATTER that a SAMBA system can make a request via the API (RPC) to queue something for printing (inverse true too).
You also went on to say, "which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol", which is again, very incorrect so long as you understand that you have to use the API over the protocol!!!!!
That's EXACTLY what people refer to when they call it an "illegal monopoly". It means that they are a monopoly that is breaking the law. Thus, the phrase, "illegal monopoly".
You are correct! It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is, however, illegal to have an illegal monopoly, which is exactly what MS has been declared.
A protocol is the flow of data and an agreement on the type of data that will be transported within that flow.
An API is an interface allowing one entity to interact with another entity. Normally that interaction causes an action of some type to be taken.
Now then, it is certainly possible to have a known protocol with an unknown API. Knowing the protocol alone does little for you. Likewise, the inverse is also true. Knowing what the API is and how to use it does little good if you are unable to convey your intentions if you don't know what the protocol is.
I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).
You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.
Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.
So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.
We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
Mozilla is a huge memory pig. When I unload it I typicaly see anywhere from 40M - 120M of my memory being returned to the system. AFAIK, Mozilla has some serious memory leaks or has the absolutely worse possible cache implementation anyone could create. If the problem isn't either of those two, Mozilla has some serious core problems.
Anything that can be done to address the memory foot print is a HUGE win for Mozilla.
Oh ya, nitro is also a commonly added to fuel used by internal combustion remote control cars and planes. I currently have a gallon of fuel which is 15% nitro. Higher nitro contents can be obtained. Some people even mix their own fuel for their R/C hobby.
This top fuel link should explain all your questions and more.
Please do note that I am not talking about nitroglycerin. That's an extremly unstable high explosive. That would be a death wish as it's sensitive to shock, vibration and heat which is exactly what you're going to see on race cars. What I'm talking about is nitromethane which is often simply referred to as nitro. Even still, nitromethane is highly volatile which is why they "cut" by 10%. One laste note, this is distinct "stuff" and should not be confused with NO2 either, even though NO2 does have racing applications as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if the artist makes it big. Generally, the cost of promoting an artist isn't equalled by the revenue that the artist brings in... Hence, the recording company usually takes the loss.
:(
This would be like me, being a developer, being asked to pay for ALL my development efforts on a product which they tell me they need. Then, after I deliver it, they tell me that I'm going to have to eat it because they spent too much money advertising it and that they are not even going to bother selling it. The flip side of this is, they are taking very little risk and ride freely on the tails of any returns. Furthermore, their fees and any front money get reimbursed before they turn over any money to the bands. This means bands can still take a loss on a record while the RIAA still made money. Again, their downside is always protected. Again, they have ALL the control, little to no risk, and nothing but money.
Wish I knew of any other business that worked like that so I can get a free ride too. In fact, if artists had any business smarts, the first time the RIAA offered someone a deal like that they be laughed out of the room...just as any other industry would do. It's insane! I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.
Their only expenses are production and promotion.
Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.
Imagine this. You sign a 5-disc license with someone. You're first disc sales great. You make another disc. They don't like it. You still owe 3 more discs AND now you're out all the money it took to record/produce it. Now, you're stuck. You can't sale or even attempt to make you're money back as they own the rights to the disc. They won't sale you're latest and all the money you made on the first disc is now spent and down the drain in living and making the second disc. What do you do? Make a third disc? You don't have any money. Okay, so now they front you the money with horrible terms (ownership rights to the previously made disc and you still owe them four more) because they have all the leverage.
You're screwed!
Yes, the RIAA is past its time just like the buggy whip! They are corrupt and no longer serve any purpose.
NextGen, Alteer, Practice Partner, and Medical Manager our all Windows only apps.
Medical Manager is available for SCO and Linux. It's their preferred platform as it runs very will while being hidden in the closet. If fact, I didn't even know they had a version for non-Unix platforms.
I think developers need to decide whether they are selling a product or a service - and not both.
Why can't they do both. I the real world, this is very common. You sale a product and then have a services arm ready to service that product for your customer. This seems like it exactly parallels that. It makes tons of sense if you stop and think of it. You have a product, you sale your product. People need to have the product serviced, so you sale the services.
If they didn't charge for the product, the service rates would have to go up. It's not like you're looking at saving money by not having one or the other. Likewise, if they didn't have a service rate (monthly charge), the product cost would be through the roof as it would more than likely be hundreds of dollars per copy. Not to mention you'd probably have to constantly buy upgrades...something which is already included in your monthly service fee.
Would you like to discuss the usability of RedHat 5.1 as well.
Since 5.1 is no where near as in wide and current use as the version of Nautilus in question is, you're going out of your way to be a jack-ass without any point what-so-ever. Please learn how to read, comprehend, apply facts. Learning how to use deductive reasoning will go a long way toward understanding and following even the most basic of conversations.
Please go away, grow up and see if some day you're able to effectively communicate with people in some meaningful manner. Until then, you're grade school teacher is letting you know you're late for class. Just think, one day you'll be a grown up too. I'm sure you're parents are sooo proud.
Today is 23 Oct 2002 by the way.
Err. Thanks. Now that you know what the date is, you might go a learn that even with the date being the 23rd, the version of Nautilus that I spoke of is in WIDE USE and that will not change for some number of months, if not years. Now then, you're teacher and mommy is calling. I suggest you go play with children your own age.
Ya. For empty and semi-empty (less than a couple dozen entries), it was okay. But the fact that it requires a large cache makes it slow. Also, the fact that it can take a very long time to entry large directories makes it pretty much unusable.
Like I said, I do plan on trying it via the Gnome2 route. I'm just not holding my breath. Nonetheless, I do thank you for the polite followup and the information you provided.
I see a brain didn't come with your body.
Let's spell this out and see if we can get anything to stick between your ears.
Fact: Nautulas is slow. Fact, the vast majority of people are still using and/or have installed and/or uninstalled the old version. Fact, most people are not running Gnome 2. Fact, if Nautulas is your primary reason for upgrading your system, you're an idiot. Fact, many people actually USE their system for things other than hobbies therefore, upgrading just to try out a filemanager would make you an idiot because the risk/time loss is too great. Fact, everything I said is true. Fact, just because a new release has come out does not invalidate ever user experience in the world with old versions; especially since most everyone still has the old version.
Now then, once you learn to read, you'll easily see that the only person trolling is you. At least I'm not such an idiot to troll by claiming someone is trolling yet can only post as AC.
if you're not going to make a serious effort to at least try the software that you are criticising, don't bother flaming it.
I clearly stated that I'm talking about the previous versions. That was a series effort. I clearly stated that I intend to try the new version. What part of any of these facts do you not understand? Oh...ya...no brain....sorry...I forgot.
Can't believe the zealots running around. In what way is that post a troll? Overrated, maybe, but a troll? Absolutley not!
It specifically states MY experiences with it. Only an zealot with something hide would attempt to moderate this down by means of "troll".
There you have it folks. Even the zealots seem to know I'm telling the truth...they just don't want it known; for whatever reason.
Here are the facts:
It's slow.
It's a resource hog.
It looks nice and has neat functionality.
Crashes more than it should (yet, getting better).
Notice a ton of other posts which more or less all the same the same thing. I guess some moron believes that if someone doesn't believe as they do, they are trolling. Overrated? Maybe. A troll? Absolutely not!
Those threads are interesting. Thanks for sharing the links Mr. AC. If I find the complaints are valid, after trying Gnome2 out, I'm betting I wind up switching to KDE (ack!!).
...but nautilus is WAY too slow for serious use. It uses tons of memory, CPU and is just beyond comprehension as to why it's so slow.
For as long as I can remember, I've tried it off and on hoping that it's gotten better. While I must say it's stability has slowly been increasing it's speed seems marginal at best. I'm sorry, but a GUI file manager should be plenty fast on a PII/333 dual CPU all SCSI system. The fact that it's not makes it pretty much a joke at worse and an odd experment at best.
I've not tried Gnome 2 nor the nautilus efforts on Gnome 2 so I will be giving that a chance. Nonetheless, I'm certainly not holding my breath! When they make it perform reasonably on low-end systems (which I don't consider a dual PII/333 to be), only then will it be considered anything more than a curious toy.
Close.
You are also paying for the associated *services* of creating the distribution. You are allowed to charge for services associated with GPL software. The charge for services business model is common for many companies that use/support GPL software.
In their case, they are not simply collecting GPL software and burning it onto a CD. They have created significant "value added" (regardless as to whether you like it or not) and they are allowed to change for it.
what about mounting a cam on a remote control airplane
People already do this. Mostly for fun, however, I semi-recently read about an ecologist using a remote control electric plane (with cammera; IIRC, it was a modified Wingo or Tipsy) to observe tree top wild life in various jungle preserves. The range was something like 1 1/2 miles and was piloted by means of live video.
ooh, with that right transmission control, one could fly drugs up from south america on a drone aircraft..
This has been done for years now. Large R/C planes are loaded with drugs and flown over the Texas/Mexican boarder. They were discovered when crash remains were found and later they were caught on tape. Eventually, they were followed by helicopters. I don't know if this is still done.
Ever concerned that it will be stolen while you are away?
Then, once they go out of business, perhaps people that are interested in making good movies rather than huge incomes will start making movies.
And oh, here's a thought...who forces them to release a DVD in 6mo's??? Seems like they could delay the release of alternate distributions indefinately. Don't think so? Go ask Disney. They did it for a VERY long time.
If it's such a risk...release alternate media 1 or 2 years after the movie comes out.
Wow. That was hard to think of wasn't it. Perhaps if he stopped thinking about his next big rip-off-money-making-flick, such an obvious concept would be obvious to him too.
What was his point again...
You said: "All of that being said, the APIs to which you are referring would normally be within the protocol description, and in normal Win32 documentation wouldn't be listed in the list of APIs."
I said: "That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's."
Basically, since MS doesn't want alternate implementations of some of their technology, much of it is unpublished. That is the reason it is not "in normal Win32 documentation". Again, that's the difference between it being published and unpublished API's. This has nothing to do with the decree.
Since you seem to be a pedant, allow to me spell this out. Unpublished and/or undocumented in this case means, "not generally available for public consumption".
You also said:
The settlement specifically talks about APIs seperately from communications protocols.
That may be but only shows how naive the lawyers were on technology matters when they wrote it. At best, it is ambigious which, I'm sure, is one of many reasons why MS is in such a hurry to accept it. Basically it has zero meaning, zero impact, and is completely ambigious to further tie up further govenerment action, forever.
He violated federal law that was in place prior to 9/11. Deserved what he got.
Translation: He's a moron.
That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's.
So in other words, no one should ever "coin a phrase". Oh wait, that's wrong as obviously everyone that speaks English need to go back to school as obviously you can create coins from phrases. Duh, what was I thinking.
Further followup will be ignored as you are clearly looking to fight rather than learn or simply understand someone else's point of view.
Grown ups tend to have better things to do.
From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level.
Well, first of all, the article actually doesn't make the distinction even though you do. Second of all, you clearly don't understand what is being talked about. It seems you ignored the example I gave on forms (API) and evelopes (protocol). In hind site, I do see that I overlooked attempting to clarify that often people refer to a "protocol" generically even though it's actually comprised of two or three parts. Those parts are protocol (transport and encoding of that transport), flow (how, when and why transport is used) and message format (how and what messages are to be encoded -- often conforms to an "API").
Now then, once you understand that, there really isn't a distinction between "APIs and protocols", as referred to in the article, as they are often tightely coupled. In this case, SAMBA basically makes a series of requests for remote execution requests (aka RPCs). In this case, they want to know what RPC's (API's) they can use, what data they need to pass and can expect back, and when it makes sense to use those API's (RPC's). The inverse is also true. From this, you should be able to understand you're barking up the wrong tree (aka. wrong).
You also said, "...but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side...", which is again, very incorrect. Basically, a windows system can make a request (RPC) to the implementations API to perform an action of some type. In this case, the API is REQUIRED to match on BOTH SIDES in order for them to correctly communicate and function.
"Since Samba doesn't run on Windows...", has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. "...because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux" has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand and futher shows how little you know and understand on the topic at hand. It doesn't matter that their print services are implemented different but it DOES MATTER that a SAMBA system can make a request via the API (RPC) to queue something for printing (inverse true too).
You also went on to say, "which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol", which is again, very incorrect so long as you understand that you have to use the API over the protocol!!!!!
Hmm...you seem to be WAY out there.
How you use a monopoly can be illegal
That's EXACTLY what people refer to when they call it an "illegal monopoly". It means that they are a monopoly that is breaking the law. Thus, the phrase, "illegal monopoly".
Not very hard to understand at all.
You are correct! It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is, however, illegal to have an illegal monopoly, which is exactly what MS has been declared.
You're close!
A protocol is the flow of data and an agreement on the type of data that will be transported within that flow.
An API is an interface allowing one entity to interact with another entity. Normally that interaction causes an action of some type to be taken.
Now then, it is certainly possible to have a known protocol with an unknown API. Knowing the protocol alone does little for you. Likewise, the inverse is also true. Knowing what the API is and how to use it does little good if you are unable to convey your intentions if you don't know what the protocol is.
I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).
You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.
Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.
So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.
We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
Mozilla is a huge memory pig. When I unload it I typicaly see anywhere from 40M - 120M of my memory being returned to the system. AFAIK, Mozilla has some serious memory leaks or has the absolutely worse possible cache implementation anyone could create. If the problem isn't either of those two, Mozilla has some serious core problems.
Anything that can be done to address the memory foot print is a HUGE win for Mozilla.
Oh ya, nitro is also a commonly added to fuel used by internal combustion remote control cars and planes. I currently have a gallon of fuel which is 15% nitro. Higher nitro contents can be obtained. Some people even mix their own fuel for their R/C hobby.
This top fuel link should explain all your questions and more.
Please do note that I am not talking about nitroglycerin. That's an extremly unstable high explosive. That would be a death wish as it's sensitive to shock, vibration and heat which is exactly what you're going to see on race cars. What I'm talking about is nitromethane which is often simply referred to as nitro. Even still, nitromethane is highly volatile which is why they "cut" by 10%. One laste note, this is distinct "stuff" and should not be confused with NO2 either, even though NO2 does have racing applications as well.