A processor is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of (nano)tubes! And if you don't understand that these tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your program in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by any process that puts into that tube enormous amounts of instructions, enormous amounts of instructions.
For me, when it comes to extensions, one (incompatibility) is too many. Each of the ~14 I have serves a purpose - and I'd rather not go without the functionality provided. (With extensions like ad-block being one of the main reasons I switched to FF in the first place, and why I doubt I'll move back over to IE7).
It's not always the most glamorous part of coding an app, but it needs to be done. Personally, I haven't upgraded (and I won't until everything - esp. my extensions - "just work").. and reports like this suggest that this may be the prudent action.
Good to note. I won't be upgrading until all of the issues are worked out, and all of my extensions function flawlessly with no need for tweaking from me. (ie. I'm waiting for SP1:->)
Uhh.. how is Windows "0Wn3d out of the box"? Out of the box, every Windows machine ships with SP2 (for XP machines, at least) as a bare minimum. Out of the box, you're encouraged to turn on automatic updates. Out of the box, the Windows firewall is turned on (I believe).
Obviously, you haven't taken a Windows machine out of the box lately..
Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?" Dell tried that a few years ago. They discontinued that - why? Because nobody (very few people) opted for Linux.
I'm not extremely familiar with how extensions for Firefox work, but I assume there is some sort of extension API that allows developers to access FF functionality (that seems to be a quite reasonable assumption - it's how it's done almost everywhere else).
Now, the API is like a contract. It says these fuctions are available for you to use, and when you call them, a certain set of things happens and you get a result. The people writing the code to implement the API functions can do whatever they like, optimize/change their implementation as much as they like, so long as the result is the same, and the contract isn't broken.
Further, when the API is extended by new (major) releases, it should not break backward compatibility without a very good reason.
The problem is, I think the FF devs are way too eager and willing to break backwards compatibility. This was acceptable back when FF was prerelease software, but now that it's officially out "in the wild", breaking backwards compatibility should be the last resort. Imagine if the Linux system calls or Windows API functions changed (breaking backwards compatibility) with each new major release - imagine the chaos!
This is a serious problem. Pragmatically, it's not too much of a big deal, so long as all of your extensions are updated by the time the gold version is released.. but what happens when an extension developer decides to stop updating their extension (and this HAS happened, in a few cases I know of..)?
I endorse caution for users that rely on a lot of extensions, as most extensions aren't yet compatible with Firefox 2.0 I thought - at least, based on what people told me at the time - that each new release breaking extensions was supposed to be a thing of the past once FF got out of beta. Hopefully the FF devs fix this.. it's unacceptable.
Any brand new computer sold nowadays (not counting whiteboxes) comes preloaded with at least service pack 2 installed. You are prompted very shortly after taking the machine out of the box (along with other normal setup stuff, like naming your computer, and adding users..) to turn on automatic updates (which is the "recommended" setting).
When I install software on a client's machine, I offer them options and give my personal recommendation based on what I perceive to be their needs. Sometimes that's OSS software, other times it's proprietary.
At the end of the day, I think you should be promoting what will work best for the user. Pushing products without consideration for the user's needs is a disservice.
Heh. Microsoft says, "we can do viral stuff, too"!:-> Seriously, though - it won't be MS who will get in trouble with the CC license, it will be whoever wants to transfer the song..
in one case you are not depriving the maker of anything, Bullshit. In either case, it's taking money directly out of the software developer's pocket. You might as well steal their wallet - the effect is the same.
I think it's reasonable for Microsoft to want to run things by the commission so they don't get into more trouble. I mean, MS has already (on a few occasions) thought that they met the requirements (whether they actually thought that, in good faith, is a seperate question..) only to have the commission say they haven't.. "and would you mind paying up some more $$ in fines please?"
It ends up coming down to whether it's worth risking another $400M+ fine in the EU to launch Vista there.
The EU commission has the attitude of an angry girlfriend/wife - "if you don't know why I'm mad at you, I'm not going to tell you". Damn.. I HATE it when I get that line. Sure MS does too..
If you live within the area of coverage, buy a "wifi modem" (aka. a bridge.. geez. why can't they call things what they are?).. then $29/month for high speed wireless access is pretty damn good (assuming the speed is reasonable.. )
Why, it's conceivable - when the area of coverage expands (not sure how big it'll get) that you could ditch your cell phone and use the wifi connection with a PDA instead..
That said, I live in the suburbs.. so this won't help me at all once they start charging for it..
The analogy doesn't really work that well.. because the source code of a computer program is really the crown jewels for any software company. If that's out in the open, you can't control who will use your software, legally or illegally.
For some areas, notably custom software with a limited appeal to the general public, the open source model makes sense.. but for most software products, it doesn't make sense - they'd probably go out of the business of selling software if they open sourced their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
But it IS just an approximation. It doesn't give the right answers.
Ex: InvSqrt(25) returns 0.19969 instead of the expected result of 0.2. (ie. sqrt(25) = 5, 1/5 = 0.2, for those wondering about the math).
if it's half-finished like KOTOR2 was.
Would it be too much to ask for Obsidian to actually go and fix the bugs/add the missing content as a game update/patch? That would satisfy me..
As it is, maybe I'll pick up KOTOR3 when it's in the bargain bin. But I won't be going out on release day to pick it up like I did with KOTOR2.
Ooh kay. That's funny.. why?
It's all gibberish to me..
A processor is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of (nano)tubes! And if you don't understand that these tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your program in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by any process that puts into that tube enormous amounts of instructions, enormous amounts of instructions.
How about - in the link about the new features - actually talking about the new features? Instead of just a blogger bashing Media Player?
How about someone try it out and see if the "audio fingerprinting" works? That seems like a VERY useful feature, IMO!
They really ought to have these settings in a menu.. rather than an obscure option set in a text file.
For me, when it comes to extensions, one (incompatibility) is too many. Each of the ~14 I have serves a purpose - and I'd rather not go without the functionality provided. (With extensions like ad-block being one of the main reasons I switched to FF in the first place, and why I doubt I'll move back over to IE7).
It's not always the most glamorous part of coding an app, but it needs to be done.
Personally, I haven't upgraded (and I won't until everything - esp. my extensions - "just work").. and reports like this suggest that this may be the prudent action.
Good to note. I won't be upgrading until all of the issues are worked out, and all of my extensions function flawlessly with no need for tweaking from me. (ie. I'm waiting for SP1 :->)
Uhh.. how is Windows "0Wn3d out of the box"? Out of the box, every Windows machine ships with SP2 (for XP machines, at least) as a bare minimum. Out of the box, you're encouraged to turn on automatic updates. Out of the box, the Windows firewall is turned on (I believe).
Obviously, you haven't taken a Windows machine out of the box lately..
Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?"
Dell tried that a few years ago. They discontinued that - why? Because nobody (very few people) opted for Linux.
I'm not extremely familiar with how extensions for Firefox work, but I assume there is some sort of extension API that allows developers to access FF functionality (that seems to be a quite reasonable assumption - it's how it's done almost everywhere else).
Now, the API is like a contract. It says these fuctions are available for you to use, and when you call them, a certain set of things happens and you get a result. The people writing the code to implement the API functions can do whatever they like, optimize/change their implementation as much as they like, so long as the result is the same, and the contract isn't broken.
Further, when the API is extended by new (major) releases, it should not break backward compatibility without a very good reason.
The problem is, I think the FF devs are way too eager and willing to break backwards compatibility. This was acceptable back when FF was prerelease software, but now that it's officially out "in the wild", breaking backwards compatibility should be the last resort. Imagine if the Linux system calls or Windows API functions changed (breaking backwards compatibility) with each new major release - imagine the chaos!
This is a serious problem. Pragmatically, it's not too much of a big deal, so long as all of your extensions are updated by the time the gold version is released.. but what happens when an extension developer decides to stop updating their extension (and this HAS happened, in a few cases I know of..)?
I endorse caution for users that rely on a lot of extensions, as most extensions aren't yet compatible with Firefox 2.0
I thought - at least, based on what people told me at the time - that each new release breaking extensions was supposed to be a thing of the past once FF got out of beta. Hopefully the FF devs fix this.. it's unacceptable.
Any brand new computer sold nowadays (not counting whiteboxes) comes preloaded with at least service pack 2 installed. You are prompted very shortly after taking the machine out of the box (along with other normal setup stuff, like naming your computer, and adding users..) to turn on automatic updates (which is the "recommended" setting).
No further comment needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_middle
Have illegal content.
Why is Slashdot encouraging piracy?
When I install software on a client's machine, I offer them options and give my personal recommendation based on what I perceive to be their needs. Sometimes that's OSS software, other times it's proprietary.
At the end of the day, I think you should be promoting what will work best for the user. Pushing products without consideration for the user's needs is a disservice.
Well, it certainly does. Enter d_jedi's exhibit number 10243*.
*number made up.
Heh. Microsoft says, "we can do viral stuff, too"! :->
Seriously, though - it won't be MS who will get in trouble with the CC license, it will be whoever wants to transfer the song..
in one case you are not depriving the maker of anything,
Bullshit. In either case, it's taking money directly out of the software developer's pocket. You might as well steal their wallet - the effect is the same.
I think it's reasonable for Microsoft to want to run things by the commission so they don't get into more trouble. I mean, MS has already (on a few occasions) thought that they met the requirements (whether they actually thought that, in good faith, is a seperate question..) only to have the commission say they haven't.. "and would you mind paying up some more $$ in fines please?"
It ends up coming down to whether it's worth risking another $400M+ fine in the EU to launch Vista there.
The EU commission has the attitude of an angry girlfriend/wife - "if you don't know why I'm mad at you, I'm not going to tell you". Damn.. I HATE it when I get that line. Sure MS does too..
If you live within the area of coverage, buy a "wifi modem" (aka. a bridge.. geez. why can't they call things what they are?).. then $29/month for high speed wireless access is pretty damn good (assuming the speed is reasonable.. )
Why, it's conceivable - when the area of coverage expands (not sure how big it'll get) that you could ditch your cell phone and use the wifi connection with a PDA instead..
That said, I live in the suburbs.. so this won't help me at all once they start charging for it..
The analogy doesn't really work that well.. because the source code of a computer program is really the crown jewels for any software company. If that's out in the open, you can't control who will use your software, legally or illegally.
For some areas, notably custom software with a limited appeal to the general public, the open source model makes sense.. but for most software products, it doesn't make sense - they'd probably go out of the business of selling software if they open sourced their stuff.