I call BS, I don't think I have ever seen a TV or monitor new enough to have standby that couldn't come up to an acceptable picture in a couple of seconds from a cold (no power) start.
Define "acceptable," and make sure it applies to everyone.
Also. those 'couple" of seconds do matter to some people. You and I may call them idiots with too much time on their hands, but display manufacturers would cal them high cost customers.
Lastly, I would be surprised if full power cycling didn't further reduce service life of the unit.
It is not a trivial problem. Most video display technologies need an amount of stabilization to display images accurately. That requires a constant current load, unless you want to go back to the 50's, 60's, and 70's where the TVs have to warm up before you use them.
I agree that most things don't require "stand-by" power. Hell, I have some USB external hard drives where the switch isn't on the actual power supply, but on the device, meaning that the power supply is always drawing some current even though the device is physically switched off.
That all being said, I'd certainly like the option of turning devices off, I mean really off, easily, i.e. not being required to unplug them.
The article is quite right that RHEL is a "top of the line" corporate support platform. Button downed IT professionals at large banks and businesses buy RHEL, probably never even looking at the price.
Back in RedHat 9.0 days, they had support and free versions. The free version under cut their commercial version. With RHEL, Cent OS provides the perfect answer. RedHat *has* a free version of its REHL that does not dilute its commercial offerings.
As said in other posts, CentOS (which I use) helps RedHat because it is essentially RHEL. Bugs I find get fixed in RHEL. Apps I develop for CentOS are RHEL ready.
I can't see how RedHat loses anything with CentOS. Each customer has a calculated cost. Reduce the numer of customers while maintaining the same income level means more profit. (In general, there are always some exceptions).
I am an inventor, it is too expensive for me to patent my ideas, thus the only patents that I have, have been created during employment. Most all of the people doing the "inventing" on their own find it difficult or impossible to patent.
large corporations and well funded universities spend millions of dollars a year patenting trivial or even not-so-trivial techniques. ("Not so trivial" is still not "non-obvious")
Patents only protect big business from small business, and make competition difficult.
I can fully understand *not* wanting to support the hardware nightmare that is the P.C. market place, but I mean, money is money, and if you have demand, what the hell?
I could see supporting home brewers by stating: Mac OS/X is designed to run on Macintosh hardware and is unsupported on any other platform and may not be returned if t does not work on non-Apple hardware. For home experimenters who acknowledge that OS/X will most likely NOT run on their P.C. and agree to assume all risk, here is a list of OS/X supported peripherals, good luck.
They could sell a couple million extra boxes that way.
Will the vinyl people get a book and learn, please. Really please!!!
(1) "analog" does not mean infinite data density, vinyl does not contain more data than do CDs. CDs contain more information about the sound. Remember, a vinyl record is designed to move a real mass (the needle) at the speed of all the sound waves. There is NO way (physically) the medium can have the dynamic range or data density of a CD.
(2) Vinyl albums are bad, the outer edges move a higher velocity than the inner edges, so the outer edges will sound "better" (assuming there's no dust or particulate matter to hit the needle.)
(3) Vinyl degrades with each use.
(4) CDs better represent the actual recording than do albums. Anyone who says albums "sound better" is using a very subjective measure that shows preference over fact. All that distortion and dynamic compression may sound "better" to someone, but, personally, I prefer my music clear and crisp.
(5) It is easier to add distortion and dynamic compression after the fact, and almost impossible to restore it. If you love the sound of LPs, convert a CD to a low sampling rate MP3, and add a distortion filter, and write it out to a.wav file. Should sound peachy.
(6) I'm 45 years old, I had real to real, lps, 45s, 8track, cassette, CDs, and MP3s. Vinyl belongs in the 70s, it has just as much practical value in this century as the buggy whip.
You can debate theory. You can debate the impact and correlation of facts, but facts are facts and should not be "debated."
The current U.S. administration has been very effective at creating FUD around fact. Facts are those things that have been documented as 100% true. (not "truth" which is, of course different)
Once you allow "facts" to be debated, you allow any discussion of the result of those facts to be derailed. Any discussion then focuses on whether or not the "facts" are true. So the standard M.O. the last 7 years is to question the validity of facts, stall any discussion of the facts because there is question about the fact, and then politicize and censure scientists based on the FUD about the facts.
Debate science? no thanks. Take a science quiz/test, sure. We already have these idiots debating science, I'd like to see some measure of their understanding of science.
Miguel is not our enemy. My hyperbole aside, I think he is very dangerous as he has influence and makes contributions people may like, but the end result will not be good.
GNOME is an incredible contribution to humanity
Well, that is one opinion. I think gnome is overly complex, poorly designed, and does a bad job at simplifying complexity. Its answer to complexity is to hide it, not be innovative on how it is presented.
he is one of the brightest minds of the FOSS community, LOL, that is ridiculous. At best this is subjective. Define "brightest" as it applies here. If he is not an MS shill, then he's a fool.
people really need to stop saying mean things about him. I'll say what ever I want about whom ever I want as long as it is not libelous or scandalous. To call in question his motives and to project his affect on the F/OSS movement is perfectly reasonable free speech. If he doesn't like what people say about him, he should stop doing stupid things.
The mere fact that we do not agree with everything that Miguel says or does is no reason to speak poorly of him like this.
Tad inconvient? A 10% restocking fee on a $2000 laptop at Best Buy is going to cost me $200
Why would you get charged a restocking fee? It isn't because you are returning it for no reason. You are returning it for cause and most consumer laws forbid these fees within a reasonable amount of time, I think in A it is 7 days.
I have returned lots of things to Best Buy and the "re-stocking" fee is only if there are no problems with it. The EULA, which you did not know the contents of prior to purchase, is a perfect example of where consumer laws protect you. They can not "force" you to accept a binding agreement or force you to pay a restocking fee. You were not made aware and agree to the EULA PRIOR to purchase. You only become aware AFTER purchase. If you do not agree to the EULA, which is a condition of using the product, you have the right to a full refund.
Please!! People wake up, stop being so defeatist. Jeez, why the hell do anything? its probably a lot of work and no guarantee of success, so it isn't worth it! Where would we be with that attitude and apathy?
Give me a break. It doesn't require everyone, and it doesn't depend on "average joe," it only depends on the very small profit margin on computer hardware being sold to become out of balance with slightly elevated unhappy customer returns.
If a small but measurable percentage of people buy a computer, open the box, set the thing up (open all the plastic and manuals, etc.) and return the computer because of the EULA or inherently defective nature of Windows, that machine does not get re-sold at the retail price. The retailers get mad. Retailers demand change from suppliers, and suppliers demand change from OEMs. Downstream OEMs demand change from upstream OEMs. There will be change because it isn't whiny people wanting something, it is bottom line profitability!!!
Regardless of how you feel about Microsoft, it is inarguable that consumers have little actual choice in the market place. Go to a store in the U.S.A. to buy a P.C. it will have Windows on it. You have go out of your way to get a computer WITHOUT windows, don't even talk to me about laptops.
EVERYONE who has issues with having the only choice being Vista or mail-order bare bones should buy their computer at a store and return it because you don't agree with the EULA or that you think Windows is unusable, or that Windows is defective thus the computer is defective.
This is the ONLY way we will get real choice and real competition, when not having he choice costs those denying us choice money.
Printers and user space programs are outside the kernel space. They are built differently, tested differently, deployed differently, and part of different projects with different management.
Think of it like volunteer firemen saying we have no fires to put out, but the police complaining that there's too much crime on the street. You wouldn't expect firemen in general to take the duties of police, would you?
Proprietary technology is considered crucial to entrepreneurial efforts, virtually required by angel investors and venture capitalists. Without it a new venture is vulnerable to free riders who will replicate products or services without having to replicate or contribute to the original inventor's R&D.
That is a common view of course, but do you think the "successful" companies started this way? Nope.
What are you trying to say here? A patent does not "protect" you from another patent.
No I'm saying that is not what they are supposed to do.
Almost any respectable economist will tell you that patents overall promote innovation. A lack of IP protection in third world countries is also a large reason those countries continue to stay third world.
Nonsense, you don't think repressive governments have anything to do with it do you?
Patents increase the rate of technological advancement
This is provably false in the current international economic state, it is IP lawyer dogma.
The patent system was intended to be sort of a shopping gallery for people with ideas to link up with people with capital so that industry could be born.
These days, almost no business is started patent first, patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
The modern engineer and scientist almost *NEVER* looks at patents, therefor the supposed "obviousness" they are supposed convey is a fiction. They hinder innovation by allowing trivial and obvious techniques developed by matter of course by those skilled in the art to cancel truly innovative inventions.
Patents were originally for the encouragement of scientific advancement and innovation for a fledgling nation. We are now in a position where the very mechanism we put in place to help us is harming us.
Patents no longer encourage innovation, they destroy it. Unless the U.S.A. wants to continue its disastrous economic slide, it had better do something pretty quickly. HUGE international companies with no economic loyalty or tax revenue to the U.S.A. are seeking to prevent american companies from doing business.
Maybe patents have some value for the truly "non-trivial" things, but everything I've seen and heard the last few years is that mainly trivial landmine and submarine patents are getting approved because they are flooding the patent office.
The patent examiners are no longer guarding against bogus patents, the work load is too high, the pressure to allow patents is too high, and they are relying on the courts to do their job.
I *used* to save docs to RTF for long term storage, and native format for normal use, but now am using ODF because since its standardization I have at least as good a chance of being able to read them in a 10 years as RTF.
Slashdot Mirror
I call BS, I don't think I have ever seen a TV or monitor new enough to have standby that couldn't come up to an acceptable picture in a couple of seconds from a cold (no power) start.
Define "acceptable," and make sure it applies to everyone.
Also. those 'couple" of seconds do matter to some people. You and I may call them idiots with too much time on their hands, but display manufacturers would cal them high cost customers.
Lastly, I would be surprised if full power cycling didn't further reduce service life of the unit.
It is not a trivial problem. Most video display technologies need an amount of stabilization to display images accurately. That requires a constant current load, unless you want to go back to the 50's, 60's, and 70's where the TVs have to warm up before you use them.
I agree that most things don't require "stand-by" power. Hell, I have some USB external hard drives where the switch isn't on the actual power supply, but on the device, meaning that the power supply is always drawing some current even though the device is physically switched off.
That all being said, I'd certainly like the option of turning devices off, I mean really off, easily, i.e. not being required to unplug them.
I was going to post, and CentOS comes out in 5...4...3...2...
When people can communicate without government or big business listening, it must be illegal and it emboldens the terrorists!! It has to be stopped!!
The article is quite right that RHEL is a "top of the line" corporate support platform. Button downed IT professionals at large banks and businesses buy RHEL, probably never even looking at the price.
Back in RedHat 9.0 days, they had support and free versions. The free version under cut their commercial version. With RHEL, Cent OS provides the perfect answer. RedHat *has* a free version of its REHL that does not dilute its commercial offerings.
As said in other posts, CentOS (which I use) helps RedHat because it is essentially RHEL. Bugs I find get fixed in RHEL. Apps I develop for CentOS are RHEL ready.
I can't see how RedHat loses anything with CentOS. Each customer has a calculated cost. Reduce the numer of customers while maintaining the same income level means more profit. (In general, there are always some exceptions).
What hard? I have it on DVD. What's not to like?
The movie "Safe House" with Patrick Stewart had something similar.
This is exactly the problem with patents:
I am an inventor, it is too expensive for me to patent my ideas, thus the only patents that I have, have been created during employment. Most all of the people doing the "inventing" on their own find it difficult or impossible to patent.
large corporations and well funded universities spend millions of dollars a year patenting trivial or even not-so-trivial techniques. ("Not so trivial" is still not "non-obvious")
Patents only protect big business from small business, and make competition difficult.
How is your suggestion any different than the existing situation?
The current situation is of questionable legality under the DMCA. What I suggest is an open hacker "friendly" Apple corp.
I can fully understand *not* wanting to support the hardware nightmare that is the P.C. market place, but I mean, money is money, and if you have demand, what the hell?
I could see supporting home brewers by stating: Mac OS/X is designed to run on Macintosh hardware and is unsupported on any other platform and may not be returned if t does not work on non-Apple hardware. For home experimenters who acknowledge that OS/X will most likely NOT run on their P.C. and agree to assume all risk, here is a list of OS/X supported peripherals, good luck.
They could sell a couple million extra boxes that way.
Will the vinyl people get a book and learn, please. Really please!!!
.wav file. Should sound peachy.
(1) "analog" does not mean infinite data density, vinyl does not contain more data than do CDs. CDs contain more information about the sound. Remember, a vinyl record is designed to move a real mass (the needle) at the speed of all the sound waves. There is NO way (physically) the medium can have the dynamic range or data density of a CD.
(2) Vinyl albums are bad, the outer edges move a higher velocity than the inner edges, so the outer edges will sound "better" (assuming there's no dust or particulate matter to hit the needle.)
(3) Vinyl degrades with each use.
(4) CDs better represent the actual recording than do albums. Anyone who says albums "sound better" is using a very subjective measure that shows preference over fact. All that distortion and dynamic compression may sound "better" to someone, but, personally, I prefer my music clear and crisp.
(5) It is easier to add distortion and dynamic compression after the fact, and almost impossible to restore it. If you love the sound of LPs, convert a CD to a low sampling rate MP3, and add a distortion filter, and write it out to a
(6) I'm 45 years old, I had real to real, lps, 45s, 8track, cassette, CDs, and MP3s. Vinyl belongs in the 70s, it has just as much practical value in this century as the buggy whip.
When ever a republican does anything bad, they will site some obscure instance where Bill Clinton did it or that it is Bill Clinton's fault.
You can debate theory. You can debate the impact and correlation of facts, but facts are facts and should not be "debated."
The current U.S. administration has been very effective at creating FUD around fact. Facts are those things that have been documented as 100% true. (not "truth" which is, of course different)
Once you allow "facts" to be debated, you allow any discussion of the result of those facts to be derailed. Any discussion then focuses on whether or not the "facts" are true. So the standard M.O. the last 7 years is to question the validity of facts, stall any discussion of the facts because there is question about the fact, and then politicize and censure scientists based on the FUD about the facts.
Debate science? no thanks. Take a science quiz/test, sure. We already have these idiots debating science, I'd like to see some measure of their understanding of science.
Miguel is not our enemy.
My hyperbole aside, I think he is very dangerous as he has influence and makes contributions people may like, but the end result will not be good.
GNOME is an incredible contribution to humanity
Well, that is one opinion. I think gnome is overly complex, poorly designed, and does a bad job at simplifying complexity. Its answer to complexity is to hide it, not be innovative on how it is presented.
he is one of the brightest minds of the FOSS community,
LOL, that is ridiculous. At best this is subjective. Define "brightest" as it applies here. If he is not an MS shill, then he's a fool.
people really need to stop saying mean things about him.
I'll say what ever I want about whom ever I want as long as it is not libelous or scandalous. To call in question his motives and to project his affect on the F/OSS movement is perfectly reasonable free speech. If he doesn't like what people say about him, he should stop doing stupid things.
The mere fact that we do not agree with everything that Miguel says or does is no reason to speak poorly of him like this.
That's just too bad.
Miguel de Icaza is like Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House or Representatives. Supposedly on our side but defending the actions of the opposing party.
He is a cancer and everything he proposes is dangerous for Linux and F/OSS in general.
In these days of equivocation and acceptance of ideologically contrary situations as long it is "inconvenient" to object, we get what we deserve.
This is how our movement dies.
Tad inconvient? A 10% restocking fee on a $2000 laptop at Best Buy is going to cost me $200
Why would you get charged a restocking fee? It isn't because you are returning it for no reason. You are returning it for cause and most consumer laws forbid these fees within a reasonable amount of time, I think in A it is 7 days.
I have returned lots of things to Best Buy and the "re-stocking" fee is only if there are no problems with it. The EULA, which you did not know the contents of prior to purchase, is a perfect example of where consumer laws protect you. They can not "force" you to accept a binding agreement or force you to pay a restocking fee. You were not made aware and agree to the EULA PRIOR to purchase. You only become aware AFTER purchase. If you do not agree to the EULA, which is a condition of using the product, you have the right to a full refund.
Please!! People wake up, stop being so defeatist. Jeez, why the hell do anything? its probably a lot of work and no guarantee of success, so it isn't worth it! Where would we be with that attitude and apathy?
Give me a break. It doesn't require everyone, and it doesn't depend on "average joe," it only depends on the very small profit margin on computer hardware being sold to become out of balance with slightly elevated unhappy customer returns.
If a small but measurable percentage of people buy a computer, open the box, set the thing up (open all the plastic and manuals, etc.) and return the computer because of the EULA or inherently defective nature of Windows, that machine does not get re-sold at the retail price. The retailers get mad. Retailers demand change from suppliers, and suppliers demand change from OEMs. Downstream OEMs demand change from upstream OEMs. There will be change because it isn't whiny people wanting something, it is bottom line profitability!!!
So, besides having to pay for it the first time, we should have to pay the restocking fee for it, too?
ME, ME, ME, ME, ME. Yes, I'm sorry, but nothing changes unless people do something, and most of the time "doing something" may be a tad inconvenient.
Regardless of how you feel about Microsoft, it is inarguable that consumers have little actual choice in the market place. Go to a store in the U.S.A. to buy a P.C. it will have Windows on it. You have go out of your way to get a computer WITHOUT windows, don't even talk to me about laptops.
EVERYONE who has issues with having the only choice being Vista or mail-order bare bones should buy their computer at a store and return it because you don't agree with the EULA or that you think Windows is unusable, or that Windows is defective thus the computer is defective.
This is the ONLY way we will get real choice and real competition, when not having he choice costs those denying us choice money.
Printers and user space programs are outside the kernel space. They are built differently, tested differently, deployed differently, and part of different projects with different management.
Think of it like volunteer firemen saying we have no fires to put out, but the police complaining that there's too much crime on the street. You wouldn't expect firemen in general to take the duties of police, would you?
Proprietary technology is considered crucial to entrepreneurial efforts, virtually required by angel investors and venture capitalists. Without it a new venture is vulnerable to free riders who will replicate products or services without having to replicate or contribute to the original inventor's R&D.
That is a common view of course, but do you think the "successful" companies started this way? Nope.
What are you trying to say here? A patent does not "protect" you from another patent.
No I'm saying that is not what they are supposed to do.
Almost any respectable economist will tell you that patents overall promote innovation. A lack of IP protection in third world countries is also a large reason those countries continue to stay third world.
Nonsense, you don't think repressive governments have anything to do with it do you?
Patents increase the rate of technological advancement
This is provably false in the current international economic state, it is IP lawyer dogma.
The patent system was intended to be sort of a shopping gallery for people with ideas to link up with people with capital so that industry could be born.
These days, almost no business is started patent first, patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
The modern engineer and scientist almost *NEVER* looks at patents, therefor the supposed "obviousness" they are supposed convey is a fiction. They hinder innovation by allowing trivial and obvious techniques developed by matter of course by those skilled in the art to cancel truly innovative inventions.
Patents were originally for the encouragement of scientific advancement and innovation for a fledgling nation. We are now in a position where the very mechanism we put in place to help us is harming us.
Patents no longer encourage innovation, they destroy it. Unless the U.S.A. wants to continue its disastrous economic slide, it had better do something pretty quickly. HUGE international companies with no economic loyalty or tax revenue to the U.S.A. are seeking to prevent american companies from doing business.
Maybe patents have some value for the truly "non-trivial" things, but everything I've seen and heard the last few years is that mainly trivial landmine and submarine patents are getting approved because they are flooding the patent office.
The patent examiners are no longer guarding against bogus patents, the work load is too high, the pressure to allow patents is too high, and they are relying on the courts to do their job.
I *used* to save docs to RTF for long term storage, and native format for normal use, but now am using ODF because since its standardization I have at least as good a chance of being able to read them in a 10 years as RTF.