God no. Say byebye to being the leanest and fastest browser around if that happens. If there are features people want, just add them to the main browser. The only useful thing I've seen done with extensions is as a trick to reduce your apparent bug count - have hardly anything in the main browser, if anyone asks for a feature say grab the extension, then disavow responsibility for any bugs.
If it's a distinct, new product, don't expect it to behave like some other distinct category of product.
Anti-monopoly law is the same for any product. Real were happy to pay to license the ipod DRM, but apple said it wasn't for sale. If they have an effective monopoly with the ipod - and I suspect they do - then that's illegal abuse of a monopoly, plain and simple.
No, but if you want to use their format for your music store, they should have to license it to you for a reasonable fee. Currently they're getting an unfair advantage for iTMS, because it's the only store that can sell music in some of the formats the ipod supports.
I am pissed that my 35mm camera film is not accepted by my iPod and that AAA batteries are not easily converted to work in my D cell devices.
Bad analogy. The specs are out there - if apple wanted to make an ipod that played film, they could. Wheras as soon as real discover how to make their songs play on the ipod, apple issues a "security update" and disables it.
Want an ipod, but not iTunes music? FINE!!! Get some mp3s.
What about "Want an ipod, and music that I can get cheaper (or at all) because I accept certain restrictions on it"? DRMed music is a distinct product, and Apple is ensuring only iTMS is able to sell it for the ipod. And that's unfair.
There is much more of a double standard being applied to MS here. Helping out open source more is understandable, but to give Apple a nice deal and not MS is just childishness.
There's no need to decentralize because what they're doing is perfectly legal. They just need foreign support until the investigation in Sweden finishes, then they'll be pretty much invulnerable (you would have to be very brave or stupid to try a second raid after the first finds nothing wrong).
you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that?
And destroy their revenue stream? This way they can get people to pay up every time they get infected.
There have been more than enough windows exploits that didn't require outlook or anything, just RPC holes or similar. Sure, you can turn off services and run antivirus, but why go to the effort when there's no particular need to put it on the network?
Because you reply to no post in particular, and because there is variation of opinion on this topic one could argue that your predictable appeal is ad hominem as well.
Erm, look at the threads above this at a normal threshold. No variation of opinion I can see.
Why are you confident the Firefox team are nice people, but not that MS is?
What we need is not to replace one monopoly with another, we need a spread of browsers such that no single company dominates and the only standards which can succeed are those supported by at least two different groups.
First of all, compression really isn't an issue with digital cameras or image storage. Among other things, the fact that most serious photographers store RAW images is a good indication of that.
All that tells you is it isn't an issue for serious photographers. For me as a consumer with my £100 camera and £20 storage card it certainly is an issue
The linked license appears to be essentially the same as the GPL other than claiming to cover use of the software, and the patent aspects, so I can't see why not.
Except that then you'd also need a way to make sure that nobody but the person you were chatting to could download the file, but that he could get it without needing to call you up for passwords
None of the IM protocols I've seen encrypt file transfers properly, so you wouldn't be any less secure by not having passwords.
And figure out how to remove it from the server once he's downloaded it, but only if the download worked
Not really, just take it off a week or so later. Or even leave it there.
And notify you once he has it so that you can continue to discuss it...
Possibly, but I don't think that helps that much - it doesn't tell you when he's read it.
Or it could just be integrated into the messaging system. After all, tossing binaries over a medium intended for text is part of the grand tradition of "Teh interweb." Always has been, always will be.
It's happened, but it's not a good tradition. Email attachments are still every bit as much a dirty hack as they were when first introduced, and still a frequent source of problems. Besides, a big cause of trouble is that most of the file transfer methods aren't simply encoding it as text, but using a separate protocol, meaning you have to worry about opening more ports and getting this working for multiple systems behind nat is a complete nightmare.
How about this -- what if the IM client did all that work, put it on a (private) server, automatically sent the other user the connection information and password, monitored the transfer, and notified you when it was sent? That would be useful, right? And what if his client handled the password/location/notifying parts for him? Again, useful, right? Oh, well, that's pretty much what happens now. Hmm. Don't really see what your problem is here.
If it were using a standard protocol, and a well tested server for it I would agree with you. Http is known, well understood, and we already have antivirus measures in place for it. None of this is true for funky IM file protocols. And similarly, apache and so forth are well tested and I trust their security a lot more than I do that of some IM client's built-in server.
Slashdot Mirror
God no. Say byebye to being the leanest and fastest browser around if that happens. If there are features people want, just add them to the main browser. The only useful thing I've seen done with extensions is as a trick to reduce your apparent bug count - have hardly anything in the main browser, if anyone asks for a feature say grab the extension, then disavow responsibility for any bugs.
If it's a distinct, new product, don't expect it to behave like some other distinct category of product.
Anti-monopoly law is the same for any product. Real were happy to pay to license the ipod DRM, but apple said it wasn't for sale. If they have an effective monopoly with the ipod - and I suspect they do - then that's illegal abuse of a monopoly, plain and simple.
No, but if you want to use their format for your music store, they should have to license it to you for a reasonable fee. Currently they're getting an unfair advantage for iTMS, because it's the only store that can sell music in some of the formats the ipod supports.
Bad analogy. The specs are out there - if apple wanted to make an ipod that played film, they could. Wheras as soon as real discover how to make their songs play on the ipod, apple issues a "security update" and disables it.
What about "Want an ipod, and music that I can get cheaper (or at all) because I accept certain restrictions on it"? DRMed music is a distinct product, and Apple is ensuring only iTMS is able to sell it for the ipod. And that's unfair.
There is much more of a double standard being applied to MS here. Helping out open source more is understandable, but to give Apple a nice deal and not MS is just childishness.
There's no need to decentralize because what they're doing is perfectly legal. They just need foreign support until the investigation in Sweden finishes, then they'll be pretty much invulnerable (you would have to be very brave or stupid to try a second raid after the first finds nothing wrong).
Because apache is more of a "real" application. I know I use apache as a rough benchmark of "the port of linux to x is basically working".
And destroy their revenue stream? This way they can get people to pay up every time they get infected.
Microsoft can innovate. Just look at Bob!
Are you listening slashdot?
IIRC those are the only ones who could afford to pay for certification.
There have been more than enough windows exploits that didn't require outlook or anything, just RPC holes or similar. Sure, you can turn off services and run antivirus, but why go to the effort when there's no particular need to put it on the network?
Because you reply to no post in particular, and because there is variation of opinion on this topic one could argue that your predictable appeal is ad hominem as well.
Erm, look at the threads above this at a normal threshold. No variation of opinion I can see.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Practically every time I use it.
Have you looked for cameras using JPEG2000 compression?
I looked at the available specs for all the cameras in my price range, didn't see any advertising jpeg2000.
Doesn't your battery run out long before your card is full?
Nope.
What we need is not to replace one monopoly with another, we need a spread of browsers such that no single company dominates and the only standards which can succeed are those supported by at least two different groups.
All that tells you is it isn't an issue for serious photographers. For me as a consumer with my £100 camera and £20 storage card it certainly is an issue
They made a deal with KDE years ago, it becomes BSD licensed if anything like that happens.
The linked license appears to be essentially the same as the GPL other than claiming to cover use of the software, and the patent aspects, so I can't see why not.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Yes, I always wait on a cliff for people going by having a conversation so I can drop the lovely Eve on them.
Which is precisely the stupidity I was complaining about in my original post.
Whether the news story is about why it's slow, or so on. You fail reading.
None of the IM protocols I've seen encrypt file transfers properly, so you wouldn't be any less secure by not having passwords.
And figure out how to remove it from the server once he's downloaded it, but only if the download worked
Not really, just take it off a week or so later. Or even leave it there.
And notify you once he has it so that you can continue to discuss it...
Possibly, but I don't think that helps that much - it doesn't tell you when he's read it.
Or it could just be integrated into the messaging system. After all, tossing binaries over a medium intended for text is part of the grand tradition of "Teh interweb." Always has been, always will be.
It's happened, but it's not a good tradition. Email attachments are still every bit as much a dirty hack as they were when first introduced, and still a frequent source of problems. Besides, a big cause of trouble is that most of the file transfer methods aren't simply encoding it as text, but using a separate protocol, meaning you have to worry about opening more ports and getting this working for multiple systems behind nat is a complete nightmare.
How about this -- what if the IM client did all that work, put it on a (private) server, automatically sent the other user the connection information and password, monitored the transfer, and notified you when it was sent? That would be useful, right? And what if his client handled the password/location/notifying parts for him? Again, useful, right? Oh, well, that's pretty much what happens now. Hmm. Don't really see what your problem is here.
If it were using a standard protocol, and a well tested server for it I would agree with you. Http is known, well understood, and we already have antivirus measures in place for it. None of this is true for funky IM file protocols. And similarly, apache and so forth are well tested and I trust their security a lot more than I do that of some IM client's built-in server.