I'd be wary of our very own ACTA-supporting troll. I'm fairly suspicious of his level of understanding increasing THAT much between the time he was prime minister and trolled in support of ACTA and now.
I'm not familiar with Unix itself enough to comment, but with both Linux and *BSD you're able to start and restart services without a reboot and the architecture is such that you're much less likely to end up in a situation where you can't perform whatever action you need to in order to clear the error manually. I'm not sure how I would even go about looking up how to do a lot of that with a Windows box.
And windows does NOT have services.msc where you can start, stop and restart services? Like, apache or mysql, for example...
Just sayin....
of course! nothing the holy almighty unix does is wrong! unix can do no wrong! PS. this applies to linux too, although they're NOT UNIX (tm).
however, if windows contained the unsecure LMHASH, it was microsofts fault to the bone! them fuken a55hats, not respecting our security needs!
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open....
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
It was open in the sense that the major implementers and users collaborated under ISO stewardship to create it. Basically, everybody that mattered had a chance to collaborate. The fact that nobody came knocking on every basement-dwelling opensource evangelist's door asking "hey dude, wanna create a new video format? or do you just wanna rewrite a networking stack or reinvent the wheel or something?" does not make the process any more closed.
Had it not been Google and pie-in-the-sky HTML5 guys creating a buzz over it, none of you dweebs would be the wiser. Nobody would even care, apart from the ones that have a video-based business to conduct (hey, what a coincidence - the ones that participated in the ISO process!). But now that sugar-daddy Google is troubled, every binary-faced "evangelist" feels the need to jump in and start fencing away "teh attakers of teh 0pen g00gle" not even understanding what it takes to create stuff like this.
I mean, before sugardaddy released VP8+Vorbis+Matroska as gSpot..err...webm, everybody was howling about theora and its next incomplete version ptlaragtrewloa which was oh-that-great and should be standardized for ever and ever. Where is all this theora-praising now?
no whining! europeans get 'em even later. AND your mass-produced hollywood "blockbusters" AND the new and "kewl" computer games BUT (sadly) we do get new and more absurd american copyright laws about every half a year:(
I still haven't figured out on what basis SCO is sueing DaimlerChrysler. I mean, they are not a goddamn software company AFAIK. It's as if you buy a book and then someone sues you because the book contained text that the mystical someone thought he had copyright for. Instead of the actual "bad guys" (from SCO's point of view) they sue the unsuspecting customers of the "bad guy". What Else?
Really, while irresponsible parents are trying to ban anything that shows more skin than that on the face, shouldn't you be at least intrigued by the fact that we watch (and quite often have no problem in children watching) people killed but watching a new person being made (technically it can be just that, although I am sure that cinematographic "masterpieces" like "Grand theft anal" have little to do with it) is highly immoral. Heck, even a goddamn nipple is a threat to whole human existence although in your early life it was literally keeping you alive.
Which is more dangerous: Letting children watch a bare nipple/tit or letting 'em watch some poor bastards being slaughtered??
This from the "save our children" point of view, although it is the parents' responsibility actually, not to be enforced by the government.
--------
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be wary of our very own ACTA-supporting troll. I'm fairly suspicious of his level of understanding increasing THAT much between the time he was prime minister and trolled in support of ACTA and now.
I'm not familiar with Unix itself enough to comment, but with both Linux and *BSD you're able to start and restart services without a reboot and the architecture is such that you're much less likely to end up in a situation where you can't perform whatever action you need to in order to clear the error manually. I'm not sure how I would even go about looking up how to do a lot of that with a Windows box.
And windows does NOT have services.msc where you can start, stop and restart services? Like, apache or mysql, for example... Just sayin....
of course! nothing the holy almighty unix does is wrong! unix can do no wrong! PS. this applies to linux too, although they're NOT UNIX (tm). however, if windows contained the unsecure LMHASH, it was microsofts fault to the bone! them fuken a55hats, not respecting our security needs!
Really? Can you contribute code to H.264?
Can you contribute code to IEEE802.3? E.164?
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open. ...
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
It was open in the sense that the major implementers and users collaborated under ISO stewardship to create it. Basically, everybody that mattered had a chance to collaborate. The fact that nobody came knocking on every basement-dwelling opensource evangelist's door asking "hey dude, wanna create a new video format? or do you just wanna rewrite a networking stack or reinvent the wheel or something?" does not make the process any more closed. Had it not been Google and pie-in-the-sky HTML5 guys creating a buzz over it, none of you dweebs would be the wiser. Nobody would even care, apart from the ones that have a video-based business to conduct (hey, what a coincidence - the ones that participated in the ISO process!). But now that sugar-daddy Google is troubled, every binary-faced "evangelist" feels the need to jump in and start fencing away "teh attakers of teh 0pen g00gle" not even understanding what it takes to create stuff like this. I mean, before sugardaddy released VP8+Vorbis+Matroska as gSpot..err...webm, everybody was howling about theora and its next incomplete version ptlaragtrewloa which was oh-that-great and should be standardized for ever and ever. Where is all this theora-praising now?
as a matter of fact it does: press the . key while the focus is on the page and start typing...
no whining! europeans get 'em even later. AND your mass-produced hollywood "blockbusters" AND the new and "kewl" computer games BUT (sadly) we do get new and more absurd american copyright laws about every half a year :(
I still haven't figured out on what basis SCO is sueing DaimlerChrysler. I mean, they are not a goddamn software company AFAIK. It's as if you buy a book and then someone sues you because the book contained text that the mystical someone thought he had copyright for. Instead of the actual "bad guys" (from SCO's point of view) they sue the unsuspecting customers of the "bad guy". What Else?
Really, while irresponsible parents are trying to ban anything that shows more skin than that on the face, shouldn't you be at least intrigued by the fact that we watch (and quite often have no problem in children watching) people killed but watching a new person being made (technically it can be just that, although I am sure that cinematographic "masterpieces" like "Grand theft anal" have little to do with it) is highly immoral. Heck, even a goddamn nipple is a threat to whole human existence although in your early life it was literally keeping you alive. Which is more dangerous: Letting children watch a bare nipple/tit or letting 'em watch some poor bastards being slaughtered?? This from the "save our children" point of view, although it is the parents' responsibility actually, not to be enforced by the government.
--------