This makes no sense. A software release is a software release. It doesn't become more ready over time, so I've no idea what you're trying to say here. However, I stand by my statement that Beta 2 was more than usable at the time. I know; I used it.
Then why do we have the whole beta concept? It is used to denote software that is still in some form of testing and not yet ready for production use. Beyond that you do not represent all use cases or operating system and hardware configurations. The fact that beta software worked for you says next to nothing about how well it would work for the rest of the world.
Microsoft do that all the time. Windows Media is not a core product. The operating system is, and it is STILL massively flawed. The only reason it's starting to become more stable now is because they're finally giving up their own way of doing things, and looking to tried and tested unix design philosophies for guidance. This is a FACT, which can be seen clearly in their previous network stack, their previous security implementations, etc. Your argument is wrong.
I would say that being able to play videos and music files is an expected feature of any desktop operating system released today. Given that WMP is part of the core product as it provides an expected feature of the core product.
Windows is flawed for a lot of reasons, but microsoft deciding that it is ok to release non-production-ready software is not one of them. They are trying to support too many different kinds of architecture, are trying to be everything to everyone, and at the same time integrate all of their products with each other. The concept makes for a huge cluster f*** of an implementation because it is working towards two difficult and contradicting purposes. Microsoft has not given up their way of doing things for unix design philosophies, they have just started borrowing some of the better ideas. Not doing so would be stupid.
I never claimed that it was; you failed to follow the discussion.
Bullshit, that is exactly what you were claiming right here:
Given that independent tests show OGG as better than WMA 9, this backs up my argument that they weren't just interested in good, low-cost audio codec. They wanted something proprietary.
There is no reason on earth that they can't drop that codec in favor of another. That's the WHOLE point of having a codec architecture to abstract such things.
No reason except that it is now an expected part of windows, which has a long standing tradition of at least some backwards compatability.
The longer they can drag out the launch of the PS3, the more they can allow the PS2 to act as a cash cow.
I can see where it would be a decent idea to finish up the ps3 and spend extra time hand holding your third party developers through the creation of your launch lineup. To me the 360 had a horrible launch, sony would be doing themselves a big favor with an awesome launch lineup + full backwards compatability.
Well, WM 7 was released in 2000, which is when OGG was in Beta 2.
Beta 2 is still not release ready. Unless you are asking for trouble or trying to destroy your company you do not ship your core product with beta software handling one of the functions that is more important to your users. The fact that OGG is better than WMA 9 means that it is a better codec, not that WMA a malicious attempt to lock people into a proprietary system.
Also I believe WMA was introduced with windows media player 6.1, which was released in 1998. Considering the format has had to stay compatible with previous releases it is no suprise that it is not as high quality, it was production ready in 1998 and was probably built with methods from much earlier.
Well they could just download a better EVERYTHING, if they had the technical skills and the knowledge etc. However, Microsoft has a monopoly, and courts have ruled that they must enable users to access non-MS software as recompense.
People are able to access non-ms software. They can download it and install it. What do you want them to do, include the browser/media player/whatever of every moron with their own software company on the distrobution CD? It would be a logistical nightmare, and at the end of it probably would not be a better solution than "go download it off the net".
That's overly simplistic, and not how the courts have decided it should work in this monopoly situation.
It is not overly simplistic, that is the basic expectation of a media player. No one complains that notepad cannot handle font styles, or different font types for that matter. WMP was put into windows as a basic audio video player and has grown from there to add a limited set of useful features.
Don't be ridiculous; it's common practice to cite examples when explaining something. If I hadn't, you'd be complaining that I was making it up without any facts.
It is common practice to cite relevant examples. In a conversation about bundling media players with an operating system the everything and a kitchen sink worth of extra tools that are bundled on linux but not on windows does not matter.
Well that would make sense, if you credit everyone who buys a PC off-the-shelf with having the ability to track down and install appropriate replacement software. It's fairly obvious to most that this isn't the case, however.
I do credit everyone who buys a PC with having a method of finding and installing replacement software. There is little practical difference between replacement software and new off the shelf software. You do agree that people who buy a PC are generally able to install software on it, right? The fact that it (sometimes) comes off the net instead of a CD is not a huge logical or technical leap.
Well it's a good question, but there is also OGG, which is FREE. So that argument doesn't hold water, which is another reason we must question their motives for doing it another way.
Except that the 1.0 release (read as: stable enough to use in a retail product) of Ogg Vorbis happened in 2002. WMA has been around for a lot longer than that. If it had been around at the time WMA was made I would agree though.
No. A proprietary format (like Microsoft has developed) would do those things. A media player would not.
So having to change a supporting application between OS versions would not be difficult? By hold hostage I meant that the company supplying the media player could dictate an exorbinantly higher cost for licensing of their program. At that point the option becomes either foot the bill or handle all of the additional support requests from people who don't know they should be looking for bar media player instead of the old foo.
BTW: very few people use microsoft's proprietary format. Those that do almost universally expect the content to be run on windows.
Wrong. The fact is that people expect to be able to import their CDs to their media player these days.
In which case they should download a better media player. Just because WMP is on the system and plays videos does not mean that it should handle all of the other user expectations. What part of putting a media player that does not even do what you want constitutes a monopoly practice? Including WMP I have three different players installed right now, and my home computer has even more.
If you've something to say, say it. Vague implications just make you look childish.
You are trying to build microsoft's inclusion of a relatively crappy media player into an argument for monopoly abuse. There is no reason to expect that a media player that was included to provide basic media player capabilities should have every feature under the sun. If people need more than click file and it plays they will go find it.
It's the same discussion, directly answering your point. If you can't follow it, that's your fault, not mine.
How is rattling off all the things that cost extra on windows but are free on linux related to bundled media players? If your point was that linux has a different distrobution model then just say that. I know this is slashdot but bringing up the "free beer, and keg, and table, and dip, and chips, and..." aspect of linux does not help the argument.
Well then we disagree, but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong. Personally, I'll take me industry knowledge over your seemingly short-sighted version.
Hooray for ad hominem, figured we would see one here, honestly thought I would do it first. I have industry knowledge too, it tells me that building a monopoly out of a substandard media player when people can freely download and install better ones is like trying to nail jello to a tree.
Geez Louise, you'd think that with all monopoly discussions at/. for all these years, some people, even the stupid ones, will finally get a fucking clue that a monopoly must play with a different set of rules. How many times must this question be repeated?
Proof by repetion on slashdot? Probably about as useful as regular proof by repetition, but this one has more dick jokes and pointless whining*.
* Yep, whining not whinging, FU british methods of spelling.
You were wrong. IF they wanted to include a media player, they wouldn't need to develop their own. What's more, they wouldn't deliberately leave out codecs for ripping CDs in the most popular audio format, mp3. It's fairly easy to see their motives if you examine their choices.
Why should they include a piece of third party software with their operating system? It allows the company that made it to hold them hostage for future versions, introduces a support dependancy outside of microsoft, and ensures that any necessary security patches have a longer way to go from target of complain (microsoft) to the people able to resolve the complaint (third party vendor). Also what part of being able to play video and music requires that you are able to rip cds? Answer: not one bit. It's fairly easy to see your motives if one examines your choices [of information to leave out].
Most linux distributions have a TOTALLY different distribution model, which also includes free office suites, free email servers, free databases, free proxy servers, etc. In microsoft's model, all of these things are extra, and MUCH more expensive.
This is true. On top of that they should be extra because they are separate products. I was talking about the bundling of a media player though, quit changing subjects. I seriously doubt that a difference in distrobution model is what changes the bundling of media players from "awesome feature of convenience" to "evil monopolizing practice".
Also mcdonalds has been accused of unfair bundling of meat-like-products in their hamburgers. When a spokesman attempted to state that a burger patty is an intrinsic part of the hamburger experience representatives from vegetarians-r-teh-win were quick to point out that the meat product is not necessary.
Because the whole reason Media Player is packaged with windows is so microsoft can dominate digital audio/video formats.
Funny, I thought it was so they could play audio and videos out of the box. Most linux distrobutions include a media player for just this reason, why is it bad when microsoft does it?
Marketing has always been Google's core source of revenue.
One of the other replies to the GP talked about this being the result of personal project time. I think that is where things start for this. Above all else google is about selling targetted advertisements. They do pretty well with search, they are even better with it in gmail.
The goal, as I see it, in offering all these services is to get a working single sign on feature. Google wants to be able to see your web page, blog, email, searches, chat logs, shopping history, travel trends, and whatever other information they can get their hands on to tailor ads specifically to you. If they have the best web mail/blog/... on the market then that information is available to them.
If you're a budding entrepreneur and you can't raise $20K for seed funding you really should stick to being a wage slave.
Beyond that they require that you have at least two people on the project, and prefer three. If you and a buddy (or two) cannot raise 20K in funding you seriously should stick to being a wage slave.
I want to like paul graham, I really do, he just gives me that creepy feeling that I also get from any of the pyramid scheme head honchos I have seen. All his answers are just too easy for me to trust it. Dunno who that says something about.
...it can't hold a candle to KDE for configuration. I mean, why would I want all these Gnome developers making choices for me? Seriously, they have a foot for their project icon, what kind of design sensibility comes up with that?
Personally, I feels XUL's only achilles heel is javascript.
Be honest with yourself here, how much of your experience with javascript involves those craptacular "this is how you do a rollover" tutorials? There are a lot of examples of people trying to use it like a real language, and when treated that way it is much nicer to work with.
Remember that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. By aiding China, Google is as guilty in the issue as the Chinese government.
Argumentum ad Cliche, followed by guilt by association. You sir are a true master of fallacious argument.
Seriously though, the morality of what google is doing is a matter of opinion. I believe that providing more search results (aka chances for true information to fall through the cracks) is better than not providing anything. That said, I see all of this as still being a matter of opinion. At some time much later when we can examine this from hindsight we can declare a winner in this particular morality contest. Until then you might want to learn how to make an argument to help yourself.*
*When you do feel free to come back and criticize all of the poor argument methods I have used here.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew he had not when he was asking if they were thinking. Anyone who has would know that answer.
[inane, illogical defense of blogs, probably incorporating the terms "web 2.0" and "ferret"]
Then why do we have the whole beta concept? It is used to denote software that is still in some form of testing and not yet ready for production use. Beyond that you do not represent all use cases or operating system and hardware configurations. The fact that beta software worked for you says next to nothing about how well it would work for the rest of the world.
Microsoft do that all the time. Windows Media is not a core product. The operating system is, and it is STILL massively flawed. The only reason it's starting to become more stable now is because they're finally giving up their own way of doing things, and looking to tried and tested unix design philosophies for guidance. This is a FACT, which can be seen clearly in their previous network stack, their previous security implementations, etc. Your argument is wrong.
I would say that being able to play videos and music files is an expected feature of any desktop operating system released today. Given that WMP is part of the core product as it provides an expected feature of the core product.
Windows is flawed for a lot of reasons, but microsoft deciding that it is ok to release non-production-ready software is not one of them. They are trying to support too many different kinds of architecture, are trying to be everything to everyone, and at the same time integrate all of their products with each other. The concept makes for a huge cluster f*** of an implementation because it is working towards two difficult and contradicting purposes. Microsoft has not given up their way of doing things for unix design philosophies, they have just started borrowing some of the better ideas. Not doing so would be stupid.
I never claimed that it was; you failed to follow the discussion.
Bullshit, that is exactly what you were claiming right here:
There is no reason on earth that they can't drop that codec in favor of another. That's the WHOLE point of having a codec architecture to abstract such things.No reason except that it is now an expected part of windows, which has a long standing tradition of at least some backwards compatability.
I can see where it would be a decent idea to finish up the ps3 and spend extra time hand holding your third party developers through the creation of your launch lineup. To me the 360 had a horrible launch, sony would be doing themselves a big favor with an awesome launch lineup + full backwards compatability.
Beta 2 is still not release ready. Unless you are asking for trouble or trying to destroy your company you do not ship your core product with beta software handling one of the functions that is more important to your users. The fact that OGG is better than WMA 9 means that it is a better codec, not that WMA a malicious attempt to lock people into a proprietary system.
Also I believe WMA was introduced with windows media player 6.1, which was released in 1998. Considering the format has had to stay compatible with previous releases it is no suprise that it is not as high quality, it was production ready in 1998 and was probably built with methods from much earlier.
So how do I get it to use two different fonts on a page? Maybe I was not really clear about what I meant.
People are able to access non-ms software. They can download it and install it. What do you want them to do, include the browser/media player/whatever of every moron with their own software company on the distrobution CD? It would be a logistical nightmare, and at the end of it probably would not be a better solution than "go download it off the net".
That's overly simplistic, and not how the courts have decided it should work in this monopoly situation.
It is not overly simplistic, that is the basic expectation of a media player. No one complains that notepad cannot handle font styles, or different font types for that matter. WMP was put into windows as a basic audio video player and has grown from there to add a limited set of useful features.
Don't be ridiculous; it's common practice to cite examples when explaining something. If I hadn't, you'd be complaining that I was making it up without any facts.
It is common practice to cite relevant examples. In a conversation about bundling media players with an operating system the everything and a kitchen sink worth of extra tools that are bundled on linux but not on windows does not matter.
Well that would make sense, if you credit everyone who buys a PC off-the-shelf with having the ability to track down and install appropriate replacement software. It's fairly obvious to most that this isn't the case, however.
I do credit everyone who buys a PC with having a method of finding and installing replacement software. There is little practical difference between replacement software and new off the shelf software. You do agree that people who buy a PC are generally able to install software on it, right? The fact that it (sometimes) comes off the net instead of a CD is not a huge logical or technical leap.
Only for the american pronunciation.
Except that the 1.0 release (read as: stable enough to use in a retail product) of Ogg Vorbis happened in 2002. WMA has been around for a lot longer than that. If it had been around at the time WMA was made I would agree though.
So having to change a supporting application between OS versions would not be difficult? By hold hostage I meant that the company supplying the media player could dictate an exorbinantly higher cost for licensing of their program. At that point the option becomes either foot the bill or handle all of the additional support requests from people who don't know they should be looking for bar media player instead of the old foo.
BTW: very few people use microsoft's proprietary format. Those that do almost universally expect the content to be run on windows.
Wrong. The fact is that people expect to be able to import their CDs to their media player these days.
In which case they should download a better media player. Just because WMP is on the system and plays videos does not mean that it should handle all of the other user expectations. What part of putting a media player that does not even do what you want constitutes a monopoly practice? Including WMP I have three different players installed right now, and my home computer has even more.
If you've something to say, say it. Vague implications just make you look childish.
You are trying to build microsoft's inclusion of a relatively crappy media player into an argument for monopoly abuse. There is no reason to expect that a media player that was included to provide basic media player capabilities should have every feature under the sun. If people need more than click file and it plays they will go find it.
It's the same discussion, directly answering your point. If you can't follow it, that's your fault, not mine.
How is rattling off all the things that cost extra on windows but are free on linux related to bundled media players? If your point was that linux has a different distrobution model then just say that. I know this is slashdot but bringing up the "free beer, and keg, and table, and dip, and chips, and..." aspect of linux does not help the argument.
Well then we disagree, but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong. Personally, I'll take me industry knowledge over your seemingly short-sighted version.
Hooray for ad hominem, figured we would see one here, honestly thought I would do it first. I have industry knowledge too, it tells me that building a monopoly out of a substandard media player when people can freely download and install better ones is like trying to nail jello to a tree.
Proof by repetion on slashdot? Probably about as useful as regular proof by repetition, but this one has more dick jokes and pointless whining*.
* Yep, whining not whinging, FU british methods of spelling.
Why should they include a piece of third party software with their operating system? It allows the company that made it to hold them hostage for future versions, introduces a support dependancy outside of microsoft, and ensures that any necessary security patches have a longer way to go from target of complain (microsoft) to the people able to resolve the complaint (third party vendor). Also what part of being able to play video and music requires that you are able to rip cds? Answer: not one bit. It's fairly easy to see your motives if one examines your choices [of information to leave out].
Most linux distributions have a TOTALLY different distribution model, which also includes free office suites, free email servers, free databases, free proxy servers, etc. In microsoft's model, all of these things are extra, and MUCH more expensive.
This is true. On top of that they should be extra because they are separate products. I was talking about the bundling of a media player though, quit changing subjects. I seriously doubt that a difference in distrobution model is what changes the bundling of media players from "awesome feature of convenience" to "evil monopolizing practice".
You sicko, why are using cold dead fingers to...oh wait...I get it now...nevermind.
Misuse of words can be pointed out humorously, without acting like a blowhard. (i'm looking at you /. grammar nazis)
Attacking england by boat during a really bad storm is a terrible idea.
Nobody likes a guy in robes administering hot poker enemas.
Also mcdonalds has been accused of unfair bundling of meat-like-products in their hamburgers. When a spokesman attempted to state that a burger patty is an intrinsic part of the hamburger experience representatives from vegetarians-r-teh-win were quick to point out that the meat product is not necessary.
Funny, I thought it was so they could play audio and videos out of the box. Most linux distrobutions include a media player for just this reason, why is it bad when microsoft does it?
*ducks*
One of the other replies to the GP talked about this being the result of personal project time. I think that is where things start for this. Above all else google is about selling targetted advertisements. They do pretty well with search, they are even better with it in gmail.
The goal, as I see it, in offering all these services is to get a working single sign on feature. Google wants to be able to see your web page, blog, email, searches, chat logs, shopping history, travel trends, and whatever other information they can get their hands on to tailor ads specifically to you. If they have the best web mail/blog/... on the market then that information is available to them.
Good thing it is a video game, otherwise I would be upset at the useless life lessons being promoted here.
Beyond that they require that you have at least two people on the project, and prefer three. If you and a buddy (or two) cannot raise 20K in funding you seriously should stick to being a wage slave.
I want to like paul graham, I really do, he just gives me that creepy feeling that I also get from any of the pyramid scheme head honchos I have seen. All his answers are just too easy for me to trust it. Dunno who that says something about.
Making others feel unintelligent is the opiate of stupid people.
Dance my pretties, dance.
Be honest with yourself here, how much of your experience with javascript involves those craptacular "this is how you do a rollover" tutorials? There are a lot of examples of people trying to use it like a real language, and when treated that way it is much nicer to work with.
Argumentum ad Cliche, followed by guilt by association. You sir are a true master of fallacious argument.
Seriously though, the morality of what google is doing is a matter of opinion. I believe that providing more search results (aka chances for true information to fall through the cracks) is better than not providing anything. That said, I see all of this as still being a matter of opinion. At some time much later when we can examine this from hindsight we can declare a winner in this particular morality contest. Until then you might want to learn how to make an argument to help yourself.*
*When you do feel free to come back and criticize all of the poor argument methods I have used here.
I did, but it seemed like every time I tried to get intimate I either got a virus or had to deal with it nattering at me in the morning.