Observing the existence of a memory leak, and knowing where to fix it in your code, are two VERY different things.
What happened to those "thousands of eyes" that make Open Source so much better than Microsoft? Isn't the argument that with soooooo many "eyes", things like this get fixed on such "high profile" projects? On e would think that this idea would be most productive on a project as visible as FireFox...
The truth is that as fine a product as FireFox is, it's "ownership" has issues with criticism from the hoi polloi. The reason this is an issue is that FireFox sells itself as a browser for the masses, not just a "leet" geek toy. Therefore, one would expect the FireFox leadership to be responsive to the issues that the "masses" have with FireFox. This has been an issue in the past.
Nobody forces you to use Firefox. You can use Opera, Konqueror, links or IE, or any other browser out there...
Maybe not, but in the Windows World, Opera is not a viable alternative to many people who find the Opera UI to be excessively daunting for casual use.
The thing that has irritated me about this is that for a very long time, the FireFox leadership has insisted that there where no memory issues, that it was a specific type of use profile, and that if you knew the secrets of how to tweek the configuration file, performance would improve. This is the lamest of excuses.
FireFox is not sold as some kind of "leet" hacker browser, it's sold as a browser for the people. FireFox leadership needs to be more responsive to the feedback from "AVERAGE" users if they want FireFox to be a major player in the browser world. 10% is nice, but it's still only 10%.
These people believe Apple exists to make them happy, not to make money.
I don't think so. I think they believe that Apple products are better than the rest and fill their needs perfectly, and they are are willing to pay the premium for what they consider the superior experience. More power to them if it makes them happy.
If Harvard's professors really do have a valid defense that is intimidating the RIAA from suing them, they should do some pro-bono work for the other schools that ARE getting sued! Help out your fellow institutions for the betterment of everyone!
One would think that Harvard's position on this would hold some weight with other schools, who seem only too willing to fold. If schools as a group got together at put up a common front to the RIAA, either the RIAA would back off, or there could be a single test case.
Oh come on Mr. Beckerman! I'm certainly not working for the RIAA or any of their carnivorous brothers...
I do think that bringing up the "defendants" medical issues is a distraction of the real issues, even a bit underhanded. I suppose alls fair when dealing with people like the RIAA, but wouldn't it be nice to discuss the merits of their case rather than who has what disease? I'm not the only one to bring this point up, perhaps we all work for the RIAA? Really!
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
Are you suggesting that the RIAA spacifically targets the disabled? I think you're out of line on this. It's not the issue, and infact distracts from the issue. It weakens the "movement" against RIAA-like actions, and takes focus away from the real issues of people like the RIAA and their masters abusing the legal system.
Will you feel the same way about Laura Didio when she admits she was wrong? He's "only" a reporter, but if he can't manage to make even the weakest analysis of the SCO case, he would not have been bad-mouthing Groklaw, Open Source, and IBM's case. He deserves no sympathy.
I wonder about the investors who will now lose pretty well everything they banked on the crapshoot.
They knew the rules, they gambled and lost. Had they done even the weakest analysis of the SCO case, they would have passed. Such is life for those that wish to play that game.
Then there's also the poor employees who will undoubtably suffer as they seek employment elsewhere.
Any of their employees that didn't have a vested interest are already gone. Those that are still around have profited very well indeed by sucking the life out of SCO and shilling for Microsoft. They have been well compensated and will move on to the next scheme. Perhaps they can find employment in the Patent Troll industry.
So a journo got it wrong, not like he's Dan Rather being lead down the garden path and left there by CBS researchers and management.
Yes, and now he wants to redeem himself and hope everyone forgets that he trashed Groklaw and the Open Source Movement. I have no sympathy for him anymore than I will when Laura Didio admits she was wrong.
A lot of people think that this is "selling out". But ignoring the problems "under the hood", Microsoft has done many many studies into how their OS UI is designed, and the result is based on actual user input. An unbiased view accepts that there are many many users who like the Windows UI, and find it quite usable.
Perhaps Ubuntu doesn't look like Windows to be like Windows, but because many users like that kind of UI?
Like inhaling toxic smoke is going to be your big worry if the PLANE is ON FIRE.
In an enclosed space with limited exits? Maybe so. Exposure to toxic gas / smoke for even very small periods of time can incapacitate a person enough to prevent them from exiting the aircraft through doors, holes, or the exposed end of the fuselage, if that's the way it turns out. Maybe we should ask why the Air Force's guide to fire fighting with composites is classified.
I imagine that a clever lawyer could point out that they're attempting to sue over a transaction of which they were an active part.
I imagine that they would not sue over content that people downloaded from their honeypot, but rather used information gleaned (such as IPs) to target these people and see what they had downloaded from other torrent sites.
Well-funded governments or criminal organizations could take advantage of this...
Most governments will have the "funds" for this, should they have the interest, I'm not sure "well funded" has anything to do with it. The knowledge for building monster computers from PC hardware ("imagine a Beowulf cluster of those...") is public these days, and a team of mercenary computer scientists is a financial drop in the bucket. Our "enemies" such as Russia, China, and Iran have almost certainly already been working hard on this, it's just that they don't announce their findings in the journals.
They should just design it right in the first place. This is not rocket science.
This is an asinine statement. OSs and the various supporting systems are complicated, often involving many 10,000 of lines of code. Even Linux requires patches, is it because Torvalds and his leigons of OSS bots didn't "design it right in the first place"? It's *not* rocket science, it's *computer science*, and it's not exactly as easy as assembling your little red wagon.
DirecTV employed heavy-handed legal tactics to suppress security and computer science research into satellite and smart card technology.
Typical distorted nonsense from KDawson. DirectTV has issues, but in reality waht's going on here *is not* "computer science research", it's attempting to crack DirectTV's encryption scheme. Why would someone want to do that? It's not to benifit society in significant ways, it's to get free sat TV. Let's be honest, people.
The unfortunate answer is: Because it happened before, under very similar circumstances.
But it is simply not factual to say it has been widespread and effected many people, because it hasn't. That's just not true. It isn't necessary to resort to wild untruths to find dirt on Microsoft. Using anecdotal stories as facts when actual facts don't support the story reduces credibility.
I'm not sure why this is an issue. Microsoft turns off pirated versions of its software. Is the consensus here that they don't have the right to do this?
People are going on and on as if it's a forgone conclusion that this will happen en-mass with legitimate copies of Vista, but this is nothing more than speculation based on MS-hate, not facts.
There are a lot of reasons to "hate" Microsoft, and credibility demands actual facts, so when it comes to pass, we can all say "I told you so". But at the present, this is a non-story.
What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like from another group (reight-leaning xenophobes) with a straight (acting) face.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd. Same set-up here. Must be a version thing.
Dunno, works just fine in my copy of 2007...
The truth is that as fine a product as FireFox is, it's "ownership" has issues with criticism from the hoi polloi. The reason this is an issue is that FireFox sells itself as a browser for the masses, not just a "leet" geek toy. Therefore, one would expect the FireFox leadership to be responsive to the issues that the "masses" have with FireFox. This has been an issue in the past.
Maybe not, but in the Windows World, Opera is not a viable alternative to many people who find the Opera UI to be excessively daunting for casual use.
The thing that has irritated me about this is that for a very long time, the FireFox leadership has insisted that there where no memory issues, that it was a specific type of use profile, and that if you knew the secrets of how to tweek the configuration file, performance would improve. This is the lamest of excuses.
FireFox is not sold as some kind of "leet" hacker browser, it's sold as a browser for the people. FireFox leadership needs to be more responsive to the feedback from "AVERAGE" users if they want FireFox to be a major player in the browser world. 10% is nice, but it's still only 10%.
I don't think so. I think they believe that Apple products are better than the rest and fill their needs perfectly, and they are are willing to pay the premium for what they consider the superior experience. More power to them if it makes them happy.
Apple has always had great hardware and software, but growing trend? They've always been this way.
One would think that Harvard's position on this would hold some weight with other schools, who seem only too willing to fold. If schools as a group got together at put up a common front to the RIAA, either the RIAA would back off, or there could be a single test case.
I do think that bringing up the "defendants" medical issues is a distraction of the real issues, even a bit underhanded. I suppose alls fair when dealing with people like the RIAA, but wouldn't it be nice to discuss the merits of their case rather than who has what disease? I'm not the only one to bring this point up, perhaps we all work for the RIAA? Really!
Than why include it? Clearly it's a distraction that has no relevence to the case.
Are you suggesting that the RIAA spacifically targets the disabled? I think you're out of line on this. It's not the issue, and infact distracts from the issue. It weakens the "movement" against RIAA-like actions, and takes focus away from the real issues of people like the RIAA and their masters abusing the legal system.
Will you feel the same way about Laura Didio when she admits she was wrong? He's "only" a reporter, but if he can't manage to make even the weakest analysis of the SCO case, he would not have been bad-mouthing Groklaw, Open Source, and IBM's case. He deserves no sympathy.
They knew the rules, they gambled and lost. Had they done even the weakest analysis of the SCO case, they would have passed. Such is life for those that wish to play that game.
Any of their employees that didn't have a vested interest are already gone. Those that are still around have profited very well indeed by sucking the life out of SCO and shilling for Microsoft. They have been well compensated and will move on to the next scheme. Perhaps they can find employment in the Patent Troll industry.
Yes, and now he wants to redeem himself and hope everyone forgets that he trashed Groklaw and the Open Source Movement. I have no sympathy for him anymore than I will when Laura Didio admits she was wrong.
Perhaps Ubuntu doesn't look like Windows to be like Windows, but because many users like that kind of UI?
In an enclosed space with limited exits? Maybe so. Exposure to toxic gas / smoke for even very small periods of time can incapacitate a person enough to prevent them from exiting the aircraft through doors, holes, or the exposed end of the fuselage, if that's the way it turns out. Maybe we should ask why the Air Force's guide to fire fighting with composites is classified.
I'm sorry, how is the parent a "troll"?
I imagine that they would not sue over content that people downloaded from their honeypot, but rather used information gleaned (such as IPs) to target these people and see what they had downloaded from other torrent sites.
Maybe we should be playing the same game: What's good for the goose, and all.
Most governments will have the "funds" for this, should they have the interest, I'm not sure "well funded" has anything to do with it. The knowledge for building monster computers from PC hardware ("imagine a Beowulf cluster of those...") is public these days, and a team of mercenary computer scientists is a financial drop in the bucket. Our "enemies" such as Russia, China, and Iran have almost certainly already been working hard on this, it's just that they don't announce their findings in the journals.
This is an asinine statement. OSs and the various supporting systems are complicated, often involving many 10,000 of lines of code. Even Linux requires patches, is it because Torvalds and his leigons of OSS bots didn't "design it right in the first place"? It's *not* rocket science, it's *computer science*, and it's not exactly as easy as assembling your little red wagon.
Typical distorted nonsense from KDawson. DirectTV has issues, but in reality waht's going on here *is not* "computer science research", it's attempting to crack DirectTV's encryption scheme. Why would someone want to do that? It's not to benifit society in significant ways, it's to get free sat TV. Let's be honest, people.
But it is simply not factual to say it has been widespread and effected many people, because it hasn't. That's just not true. It isn't necessary to resort to wild untruths to find dirt on Microsoft. Using anecdotal stories as facts when actual facts don't support the story reduces credibility.
People are going on and on as if it's a forgone conclusion that this will happen en-mass with legitimate copies of Vista, but this is nothing more than speculation based on MS-hate, not facts.
There are a lot of reasons to "hate" Microsoft, and credibility demands actual facts, so when it comes to pass, we can all say "I told you so". But at the present, this is a non-story.
Technocrat.net
There are lots of alternatives to Amazon, which is the Wal-Mart of the book sales industry. For example Powell's Books.
What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like from another group (reight-leaning xenophobes) with a straight (acting) face.