Another bombshell hit the beleagured BSDCon community as a netcraft survey puts it below 1% of attended conventions. BSDCon has lost yet more marketshare, with unsold tickets running into the hundreds. The future looks bleak for BSDCon. In fact there is no future because BSDCon is dying. Bah, I can't be bothered anymore.
Dude, it's an exploit that allows taking crypto keys. It could quite well work for ssh. In which case, it's the perfect way to do privilidge escalation once you have a nonprivilidged account. The savannah compromise could have been done using exactly this method. (it was a kernel privilige escalation used instead)
OK, so the overheads are different in different countries, with different record industries. But within the country, I can't imagine the RIAA would be charging apple more than competitors. That's cutting off their nose to spite their face if apple decides to walk out.
If it's as simple as apple licensing from Veridisc, then why wasn't Real able to license the same system from them, and why didn't Apple point them to Veridisc when they tried to license? Real claims to have offered a lot of money, only to be told apple wasn't willing to license. Not that they weren't able to license. The only reason that makes sense for me is if they were making so much money - or thought there was a big enough revenue stream from it in the future - that they thought any reasonable licensing would lose them more money than they got from it.
Imagine if there was a way we could communicate without the internet. Waves travel well through air, perhaps we could make them somehow, and then have others interpret them and understand what we were saying.
It isn't pragmatism. It's looking to make a quick buck. It's not thinking about the long term, and it will bite apple in the ass. It's an example of everything that's wrong with corporations.
No. People bear grudges against telemarketers all the time, even though they're staying entirely within the law. Just because Apple is fulfilling their legal obligations does not mean they aren't being evil.
Safari has not been coded to pass the Acid2 test. There are patches to let it - but they break other parts, probably because it isn't cleanly architectured. I wouldn't be surprised if Konqueror actually had working acid2 compliance in a released version before safari does.
I've found the opposite. Konqueror is wonderfully fast (though javascript=treacle) and great as a general browser, however it falls over at even marginally broken javascript and can't handle heavily borked pages as well as firefox.
No, they focused on the needs of making as much money as possible for their shareholders. If that briefly aligned with the needs of maintaining their monopoly, it was purely coincidental.
Ultimately you can find another motive for everything, but putting it the way the OP did makes sense. After all, Safari isn't really aiming at meeting the needs of the user either.
Yeah, but if you code to the test it makes the test worthless. I don't know how deep the Safari patches go, but it's quite possible it's the equivalent of ati/nvidia tweaking their drivers to make their cards do better on common benchmarks - it doesn't make it any better, it just makes it look better in the test.
An OpenOffice plugin architecture. That's what those files are, and there's no one stopping other JVMs from doing their plugins.
Except I can't find a doc on how to do it. Are other JVMs supposed to contribute their code to OOo? Is there a standard interface available for them to code their plugin to?
No, that is a fact of commercial software development that thinks features are more important than architecture. The KDE way will keep their codebase clean and well documented - they've managed it for what, 7 years? Safari webcore code is looking like a mountain of kludges already, and they've only been working on it for a year or so.
There's the fact that the architecture is the same as kde 3.1. It looks like the safari developers haven't bothered to make any changes to the architecture at all, instead putting a mountain of kludges together to support the new features they want quicky. Which is storing up trouble for later.
Those are bugs in Google maps and gmail, not KHTML. It follows the standards fine, and if google would bother to use them it would work. And initially the exploit worked for non-whitelisted sites (they were able to make a server-side change that stopped that)
At least in my country, the soldiers don't get knives. They have bayonets, but there is serious talk of dropping them because they are hardly ever used. The main reason they're there is psychological - soldiers trained to plunge an edged weapon into a fairly realistic body are more willing to kill.
It's not a public API, it's an API that only works with sun JVM. If it should be done via plugins, then why isn't sun doing it as a plugin? They're giving themselves an unfair advantage, since I don't think OOo even has a plugin system. If this interface is something that doesn't have a standard and needs one, then why not add it to the standard?
That's part of KDE, not mandrake-only. Mini http servers like that are a better alternative than this program, because the receiver can just use their web browser.
They are conservative, but like any company they are entirely devoted to profit. The day they can make more money overall by charging for java licenses is the day they start doing just that, make no mistake. And to my eyes that point would come when they're quite entrenched, popular, with an industry around it, so it would be nontrivial to abandon java and cheaper for most customers to just cough up. It would cost them a lot of goodwill - but goodwill isn't worth that much in the long term, especially if you're going bankrupt.
I guarantee the RIAA contract terms make it impossible or oppressively difficult in any case.
On what grounds do you claim that? Other stores license MS DRM, and use it to sell major-label music. So why would it be any harder for them to licens and use Apple's DRM?
Apple makes almost squat selling music (though I do think it improoved a little bit recently). They make their money selling hardware.
No, that's not true. If that were the case why would they refuse to license the DRM to real? More stores at which you could buy music for your ipod couldn't possibly harm hardware sales. If you look at their statements to shareholders you'll see it's a major profit center. Look at the fact that other stores are selling songs for 10 or even 20 cents cheaper. The overheads are the same, the price difference is pure profit for apple. I know in the UK they make an overall 5p profit per song, which is probably about 7 or 8 cents. Not much on its own, but multiply it by the number of songs they're selling and it's huge.
Re:Which one should we go for?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Apple, of course. It being apple trumps DMCA, illegal abuse of monopolies, being anti-hacker, and so on, which we know outweigh open source.
Not natively, yet. It will with Qt 4 (which will have native windows support in the free version). In the meantime there are packaged versions with cygwin, which are easy to install and work fine. I appreciate that's not ideal though.
Slashdot Mirror
Another bombshell hit the beleagured BSDCon community as a netcraft survey puts it below 1% of attended conventions. BSDCon has lost yet more marketshare, with unsold tickets running into the hundreds. The future looks bleak for BSDCon. In fact there is no future because BSDCon is dying. Bah, I can't be bothered anymore.
Dude, it's an exploit that allows taking crypto keys. It could quite well work for ssh. In which case, it's the perfect way to do privilidge escalation once you have a nonprivilidged account. The savannah compromise could have been done using exactly this method. (it was a kernel privilige escalation used instead)
If it's as simple as apple licensing from Veridisc, then why wasn't Real able to license the same system from them, and why didn't Apple point them to Veridisc when they tried to license? Real claims to have offered a lot of money, only to be told apple wasn't willing to license. Not that they weren't able to license. The only reason that makes sense for me is if they were making so much money - or thought there was a big enough revenue stream from it in the future - that they thought any reasonable licensing would lose them more money than they got from it.
The analogy still works. Remember how long the jedi spend training, then compare to normal troops.
Imagine if there was a way we could communicate without the internet. Waves travel well through air, perhaps we could make them somehow, and then have others interpret them and understand what we were saying.
OK, but blasters aren't exactly those either.
It isn't pragmatism. It's looking to make a quick buck. It's not thinking about the long term, and it will bite apple in the ass. It's an example of everything that's wrong with corporations.
No. People bear grudges against telemarketers all the time, even though they're staying entirely within the law. Just because Apple is fulfilling their legal obligations does not mean they aren't being evil.
Safari has not been coded to pass the Acid2 test. There are patches to let it - but they break other parts, probably because it isn't cleanly architectured. I wouldn't be surprised if Konqueror actually had working acid2 compliance in a released version before safari does.
I've found the opposite. Konqueror is wonderfully fast (though javascript=treacle) and great as a general browser, however it falls over at even marginally broken javascript and can't handle heavily borked pages as well as firefox.
Ultimately you can find another motive for everything, but putting it the way the OP did makes sense. After all, Safari isn't really aiming at meeting the needs of the user either.
Yeah, but if you code to the test it makes the test worthless. I don't know how deep the Safari patches go, but it's quite possible it's the equivalent of ati/nvidia tweaking their drivers to make their cards do better on common benchmarks - it doesn't make it any better, it just makes it look better in the test.
Except I can't find a doc on how to do it. Are other JVMs supposed to contribute their code to OOo? Is there a standard interface available for them to code their plugin to?
No, that is a fact of commercial software development that thinks features are more important than architecture. The KDE way will keep their codebase clean and well documented - they've managed it for what, 7 years? Safari webcore code is looking like a mountain of kludges already, and they've only been working on it for a year or so.
There's the fact that the architecture is the same as kde 3.1. It looks like the safari developers haven't bothered to make any changes to the architecture at all, instead putting a mountain of kludges together to support the new features they want quicky. Which is storing up trouble for later.
Those are bugs in Google maps and gmail, not KHTML. It follows the standards fine, and if google would bother to use them it would work. And initially the exploit worked for non-whitelisted sites (they were able to make a server-side change that stopped that)
In the early 20th century samaurai with spears and swords fought off colonists with firearms. That makes lightsabers seems a bit more realistic.
At least in my country, the soldiers don't get knives. They have bayonets, but there is serious talk of dropping them because they are hardly ever used. The main reason they're there is psychological - soldiers trained to plunge an edged weapon into a fairly realistic body are more willing to kill.
It's not a public API, it's an API that only works with sun JVM. If it should be done via plugins, then why isn't sun doing it as a plugin? They're giving themselves an unfair advantage, since I don't think OOo even has a plugin system. If this interface is something that doesn't have a standard and needs one, then why not add it to the standard?
That's part of KDE, not mandrake-only. Mini http servers like that are a better alternative than this program, because the receiver can just use their web browser.
They are conservative, but like any company they are entirely devoted to profit. The day they can make more money overall by charging for java licenses is the day they start doing just that, make no mistake. And to my eyes that point would come when they're quite entrenched, popular, with an industry around it, so it would be nontrivial to abandon java and cheaper for most customers to just cough up. It would cost them a lot of goodwill - but goodwill isn't worth that much in the long term, especially if you're going bankrupt.
On what grounds do you claim that? Other stores license MS DRM, and use it to sell major-label music. So why would it be any harder for them to licens and use Apple's DRM?
Apple makes almost squat selling music (though I do think it improoved a little bit recently). They make their money selling hardware.
No, that's not true. If that were the case why would they refuse to license the DRM to real? More stores at which you could buy music for your ipod couldn't possibly harm hardware sales. If you look at their statements to shareholders you'll see it's a major profit center. Look at the fact that other stores are selling songs for 10 or even 20 cents cheaper. The overheads are the same, the price difference is pure profit for apple. I know in the UK they make an overall 5p profit per song, which is probably about 7 or 8 cents. Not much on its own, but multiply it by the number of songs they're selling and it's huge.
Apple, of course. It being apple trumps DMCA, illegal abuse of monopolies, being anti-hacker, and so on, which we know outweigh open source.
Not natively, yet. It will with Qt 4 (which will have native windows support in the free version). In the meantime there are packaged versions with cygwin, which are easy to install and work fine. I appreciate that's not ideal though.
Yeah, just like C is dead because Borland, MS and everyone else was able to embrace and extend it. Oh, wait.