Except that the calendar program won't work. I don't mean "will work in local mode but will not sync". I mean "will completely block you out from doing anything". Which means that if you get a tablet for a kid, for example, and don't want to link it to google but want to show them the habit of setting deadlines for their homework assignments, then you can't. This is on ICS.
Sure, when the disk image is served from the host system's buffer cache, why wouldn't it run quickly? Also, what display driver are you using there? Probably not one that requires tens of megs of RAM that are taken away from starved applications.
Google does search. With one of the world's largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service already considered the best on the web at making finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of users. Our dedication to improving search has also allowed us to apply what we've learned to new products, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Maps. As we continue to build new products* while making search better, our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas, and to help users access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives.
Did redhat offer free upgrades? Last I checked, their supported product (RHEL) wasn't free (as in beer) either. Or are they just meaning the laptops will run one of their "community" (ie, bleeding-edge) products, or maybe one of the "almost the same as RH!" knock-offs?
And, as was said here - OSX with fink and darwinports gets you plenty of open-source apps.
I agree parts of OSX aren't Free. And so are some of the apps. But that still leaves plenty to tinker with in Darwin realm.
That's still not "micropayments" in the common sense of the word. A micropayment facilitates, for example, the economical transaction of $0.05 from a reader of an online article to its auther.
Google's system, of which I am a client, mind you, does not enable that. You said yourself money is only transferred when the balance reaches a threshold. This is done precisely because the fees and overhead associated with a credit card transaction (which is the infrastructure used here) are too large to make such a thing practical.
So, yes, google's systems add billions of tiny little numbers efficiently and precisely, and at some points in time, amounts which correspond to sums of some of these numbers change hands on the "real" monetary system. Still, they don't have a micropayment infrastructure deployed in any publicly accessible installation.
That's not "micropayment". That's only transferring billing information between servres which are all owned by google, and charging the client monthly by a standard credit card transaction.
Real micropayment systems have to deal with untrusted (and potentially non-identifiable) parties. Google has zero exeprience doing that.
These are microbenchmarks. They may mean something, and can definitely point out problems, but it's up to you to make the argument how they matter in the real world. That is, find a real application that suffers or benefits from good or bad performance in one of these benchmarks.
For example, if network socekt performance (for example) as tested here is so important, please measure and show me how this affects Apache page-serving speed.
So: they don't know exactly what it will include, they don't know what it will be named, they only started discussing and coding it, and yet they already have announcements and press coverage. And for icing, they throw in "google-style" even though that's poorly defined, and, as a concept, has little applicability on the desktop anyway. Indeed, open source is growing to become a worthy foe to Microsoft in every way.
I remember the times when open-source vaporware only had a puny sourceforge page. We've come a long way since those days!
Just picking random user-agent tracker pages, this trend is confirmed. The base portion for mozilla varies, but the 1% increase in the last month or two is confirmed. See
here
and
here
A 1% drop in IE usage, in itself, does not necessarily mean people are switching to mozilla.
People could be using other things besides moz, including the "browsers" which are just a new skin on IE plus a tabbed interface. They all rely on IE technology so it's hardly a security improvement or a boon to standard compliance.
The important number in that report is the 26% (relative) increase for mozilla. This means there are many more people viewing sites with it, complaning to webmasters (or just to the helpdesk) about problems, and spreading the word.
Another thing we can conclude - the 100% spike in downloads around the security advisories is not all due to new users. Probably a large part of that is people getting firefox 0.9.1 after downloading 0.9 and having problems with it. And then getting 0.9.2 for windows after it came out.
And how exactly does the GPL prevent those vendors from incorporating GPL material into their products?
"Derived works", you'll say. Well, the whole point of this certification is that identically the same source is used, and this is checked at runtime by "cryptographic fingerprints". So there is no issue of changing the source code.
A vendor will not risk submitting their income-producing work to the GPL because of the "derived work" clause, period. They will structure it so it is not derived work; for example, they'll interface in some other way that is considered OK by one of the GPL sub-sub-subclauses. Or they'll come up with a twisted maze of "give me your kernel header files and my installer may or may not be able to build you an interface to my video card".
Alternatively, they'll just give up on using the GPL stuff in the first place. So, develop in-house, or use something with less restrictions.
"given enough bounty dollars, all security vulnerabilities are shallow".
Seriously, this is just the known "cost of doing business" mentality again. If it's cheaper to pay a reward than to develop a secure product in the first place, that's what MS will do.
This is the exact same way they treat regulation - if it's cheapter to break the law and pay some puny court-ordered fine here and there, so be it.
Many people simply accept that worms and other malware is the cost of having
an easy-to-use computing platform. They like the fact that they can
surf/email/edit documents. Once in a while the computer "gets sick", and
someone from their ISP calls them to clean the machine up even though they
can't see what's wrong - maybe browsing is a little slower, but that's all.
If files are lost or ad pop up then it's more annoying. But still, it's like
having a flat tire in your car once in a while.
This in itself is not taken to justify big changes. Like high
linux retraining costs (for corporations) or living with an unsupported and
hard to interoperate computer (for households).
Let's add cryptographic checks to the module loader. The vendors will need to have their modules signed if they want them to be loaded. Before signing, license terms will be verified. This way we can also guarantee that the modules do not affect stability.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the calendar program won't work. I don't mean "will work in local mode but will not sync". I mean "will completely block you out from doing anything". Which means that if you get a tablet for a kid, for example, and don't want to link it to google but want to show them the habit of setting deadlines for their homework assignments, then you can't. This is on ICS.
Sure, when the disk image is served from the host system's buffer cache, why wouldn't it run quickly? Also, what display driver are you using there? Probably not one that requires tens of megs of RAM that are taken away from starved applications.
8Ghz? that's easy. All you need is 4.77Ghz processor, and then you press the turbo button
Duh. A pitchfork.
Sure. And "Two years from now, spam will be solved
I know it when I see it.
This is a quote from the official "Google Philosophy" page. Oh well.
Did redhat offer free upgrades? Last I checked, their supported product (RHEL) wasn't free (as in beer) either. Or are they just meaning the laptops will run one of their "community" (ie, bleeding-edge) products, or maybe one of the "almost the same as RH!" knock-offs?
And, as was said here - OSX with fink and darwinports gets you plenty of open-source apps.
I agree parts of OSX aren't Free. And so are some of the apps. But that still leaves plenty to tinker with in Darwin realm.
No need for a pocket PC even. A $15 USB pc-cellphone connectivity cable is enough.
Google's system, of which I am a client, mind you, does not enable that. You said yourself money is only transferred when the balance reaches a threshold. This is done precisely because the fees and overhead associated with a credit card transaction (which is the infrastructure used here) are too large to make such a thing practical.
So, yes, google's systems add billions of tiny little numbers efficiently and precisely, and at some points in time, amounts which correspond to sums of some of these numbers change hands on the "real" monetary system. Still, they don't have a micropayment infrastructure deployed in any publicly accessible installation.
Real micropayment systems have to deal with untrusted (and potentially non-identifiable) parties. Google has zero exeprience doing that.
This is nothing new. Linux-lovin' IBM is known to do this as well,
From a recent jwz rant on a different (but relevant) project
I see. So her old PC had no wireless, no sound, and flaky video?
For example, if network socekt performance (for example) as tested here is so important, please measure and show me how this affects Apache page-serving speed.
I wonder how many click thieves set their bots to pretend to be IE, as opposed to firefox.
I remember the times when open-source vaporware only had a puny sourceforge page. We've come a long way since those days!
On the surface, this sounds similar to FreeBSD's softupdates. Can you explain how the two approaches differ?
Just picking random user-agent tracker pages, this trend is confirmed. The base portion for mozilla varies, but the 1% increase in the last month or two is confirmed. See here and here
The important number in that report is the 26% (relative) increase for mozilla. This means there are many more people viewing sites with it, complaning to webmasters (or just to the helpdesk) about problems, and spreading the word.
Another thing we can conclude - the 100% spike in downloads around the security advisories is not all due to new users. Probably a large part of that is people getting firefox 0.9.1 after downloading 0.9 and having problems with it. And then getting 0.9.2 for windows after it came out.
"Derived works", you'll say. Well, the whole point of this certification is that identically the same source is used, and this is checked at runtime by "cryptographic fingerprints". So there is no issue of changing the source code.
A vendor will not risk submitting their income-producing work to the GPL because of the "derived work" clause, period. They will structure it so it is not derived work; for example, they'll interface in some other way that is considered OK by one of the GPL sub-sub-subclauses. Or they'll come up with a twisted maze of "give me your kernel header files and my installer may or may not be able to build you an interface to my video card".
Alternatively, they'll just give up on using the GPL stuff in the first place. So, develop in-house, or use something with less restrictions.
I'm having difficulty imagining any other kinds of a free wireless network. What exactly does it take to be an FSF-approved wireless network?
Seriously, this is just the known "cost of doing business" mentality again. If it's cheaper to pay a reward than to develop a secure product in the first place, that's what MS will do.
This is the exact same way they treat regulation - if it's cheapter to break the law and pay some puny court-ordered fine here and there, so be it.
This in itself is not taken to justify big changes. Like high linux retraining costs (for corporations) or living with an unsupported and hard to interoperate computer (for households).
I'm sure this hans't been done before.