You are missing the point. When forced to use your local connection to work, you are limited by the slowest link (your computer). When you VNC into a host server and us the GUI there, you are limited by the servers connections, which typically tend to be in gigabytes, not kbits. It was simply poorly worded, but anyone who's worked remotely via VNC understands the principle. You use the hosting VNC target to do your heavy network lifting and your local laptop/desktop as a dumb terminal to get you into the host server. It doesn't increase your bandwidth per-se but instead increases the bandwidth available to you while removing your slower local link from the equation.
So instead of having to wait for data to transfer for the application to run (e.g. for database connections that the application uses, etc.) you are instead waiting for the application to work over the network.
It doesn't increase the bandwdith, etc. It just changes what the bottleneck affects - or how it affects the applications.
What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The OP didn't buy their iPhone from ATT, however. Near-monopoly communications providers shouldn't be allowed to enter into exclusive agreements in the first place, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to extend that agreement to equipment they never sold/etc.
Supposedly they will charge data plans on ANY phone that meets their requirements for requiring one whether or not they sold the phone. I probably am not getting charged for it as I don't ever do any data over their network period, but if you leave the network enabled then they probably get some data and make the detection that you need it and thereby charge you. So I don't know how they make the determination; but I wouldn't be surprised if their contract with Apple was such that they just detect that the iPhone is there and to keep from sanctions they just go ahead and start charging what is required per the contract.
I do agree that they should not be allowed to do that; but until someone takes them to court over it and wins without settling, they'll probably continue to do so.
No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. GPL source code tends to attract more and more contributors. Over time, you have so many contributors that "going back" to another license becomes practically impossible, because at some point you can't successfully contact them all and get them all to agree to a license change. This was RMS's plan from the start -- for GPL to spread in this fashion. If you don't believe me, go look it up.
When that happens, you can't "go back" to a less restrictive license. To do something as simple as change the license... you have to do a full rewrite.
This is one reason why I'm not a fan of the GPL -- it becomes increasingly unlikely to ever be able make a license change over time, and I think that's an awfully bad thing for people.
Well, there's another solution to the issue - and that is Copyright License Assignment/Agreement (CLA), which by the way the FSF requires. So FSF can change their licenses at any time - they could go proprietary with all the FSF/GNU code if they liked as they own all the copyrights for that code. But whether or not copyright assignments are a good thing is still to be decided.
Linux, on the other hand, is in the situation you refer as they don't use copyright assignments; so everything has to be GPLv2 compatible for licenses. OpenOffice proper (Sun->Oracle->Apache) is under a CLA; as is most Apache software to my understanding; as such Sun could transfer to Oracle which could transfer to Apache all the official OpenOffice code; meanwhile LibreOffice does not have a CLA and as such they cannot necessarily contribute their changes back to OpenOffice (the individual authors have to in order to make the license switch to the Apache license) and they may find themselves in a fractured state as a result at some point. But again - the jury is out on whether that is a good or bad thing.
Neither iPhones nor Android phones require a data plan to operate as far as I'm aware. Mobile providers will certainly tell you that they do, but it simply isn't true. I gave my old G1 to my stepson and disabled its ability to send data thoroughly (disable APNs, disable mobile data, etc). It worked just fine - it would sync on WiFi and otherwise work like a feature phone on the cell network.
AT&T's contract with Apple for getting the iPhone first was that they had to require a data plan with it, and a very specific data plan at that. It's not public about whether any other phone manufacturer did that too, but not likely. More likely than not, AT&T just used it as a way to move all smart phones to requiring data plans, which they do - anything with a keyboard or touch screen requires a data plan of some kind; if just a keyboard then a very cheap text-only plan; but any touch screen requires a full-on data plan.
That's not to say you can't skirt it. I have no data services enabled period on my plan for any of my phones. Yet I have an Nexus One myself (everyone else has a feature phone at the moment); but no data plan for even the Nexus One. AT&T knows about the Nexus One; but again, they don't see any data traffic (I removed the settings, and disabled it so it only uses Wifi for data).
What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The correct solution would then be to pressure law makers to correct the loophole that caused this. I don't begrudge Amazon for seeking out any competitive advantage but at the same time the playing field should be level when there is a presence in the state.
You do realize that Northern Virginia is the "Silicon Valley" of the East Coast, don't you? Even Research Triangle (in North Carolina) doesn't add up to as much (beind the third "Silicon Valley").
Given that Comcast has been more proactive about implementing DNSSEC than all the other major ISPs, I was very surprised to learn that they support SOPA, which will make it impossible to for ISPs to implement DNSSEC. I assume that their stance is motivated by the fact that they own half of NBC, and I wonder how their engineering staff plans on handling this situation if the bill is passed.
DNSSEC might make SOPA easier but would require the cert signing party to participate as well to do so...then you just get Microsoft to require valid DNSSEC signatures on all DNS lookups and most of the world will have an issue when the cert is revoked. Of course, the hard core folks will simply move off of Windows as a result...but they probably aren't using Windows already...
The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.
POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).
FYI - POSIX and GNU have nothing to do with each other. POSIX is a standard that is implemented by the OS Kernel. It is implemented by Windows, Linux, and UNIX and numerous other kernels. Just because something is POSIX compliant does not mean it is UNIX.
Also, GNU has nothing to do with Linux proper. Linux proper is just the OS Kernel. it happens to use the GNU GCC compiler; but it could just as easily use another if they took the time to port over all the little details - that is, Linux uses GCC and very heavily uses a lot of its little optimizations to denote things like branching, etc. Otherwise, GNU has nothing to do with Linux. Yes, Linux distributions tend to use the GNU user level tools and the GNU C Library; but that is again the user environment and bears nothing per Linux being Unix.
For example, Android does not use the GNU user tools; yet it runs the Linux kernel.
Now, take FreeBSD for example. FreeBSD IS Unix. And it also uses a lot of the GNU user level tools. So while FSF likes GNU meaning GNU is NOT Unix, that really only applies to their GNU Hurd Kernel, which is still under development. The rest of the tools run on a lot of Unix systems now, mainly because they standardized user-land in an otherwise messy world.
Now, I do quite well agree that UNIX doesn't matter any more. However, POSIX still does - that's one of the reasons why Linux has as much support as it does - it has a very complete implementation of the POSIX standard, so software has a reasonable assurance that it can run on it and other POSIX systems; this allows a lot of UNIX targette software to switch to Linux very easily (and some Windows software). It's the POSIX standard that drives a lot of the functionality behind pure C functions like fopen() and fclose() - they are part of the POSIX standard, as is most of the Standard C Library.
In context, it doesn't really matter - its difference between control and sovereignty, which if you are given free control to do as you please, then you are also given free sovereignty to do as you please as well.
But the reins allow you to reign over the horse to rein where it goes within your reign.
Linux is Unix, Apple (iOS, and OSX) is Unix, Android is Unix... All totally built around the command line...?
Well, Linux is NOT Unix. It does, however, implement a Unix-like environment, but it is not itself Unix. For that, it would have to be certified as a Unix.
OSX is certified as a Unix, and therefore is Unix. iOS, not sure - possible, but not necessarily.
Android is Linux, and as Linux is not Unix, neither is Android; and Android just goes to show that you put a nice GUI on top of Linux and everyone can use it. The main thing holding Linux back from the mainstream has been the inferior quality of the GUIs and expectation that old software continues to run but most people (not necessarily companies - most anyone that grew up in the 1980's and later has been primarily in a monoculture for computers - namely Windows on x86).
Linux doesn't require that a command-line interface be present (see Android). It's just that most Linux users find a command-line to be extremely useful as well - even when they run Windows or Mac. Yes, I use the command-line on every platform I utilize (except Android since it doesn't have one); I also typically install GnuWin32 on Windows systems so I can get a somewhat functional Windows environment (no, powershell doesn't cut it).
I've also introduced a number of people to Linux+KDE - most recently my computer illiterate dad. He won't ever touch the command-line; but he's quite happily now using Linux.
There were a few links, the one I read explained the legal case very clearly but did not explain what OpenDDR was at all. Grandparent mentioned Konami possibly suing, so I assumed openDDR was an open DDR game project that used the WURFL for peripheral support. I guess he was just concerned about the "DDR" initialism being used in any context, but yeah, as people pointed out, if its not in the same field, it doesn't count.
Calm down, I did read TFA and TFS.
"ScientiaMobile, the company formed behind the open source library WURFL, an API used to do mobile device detection for web applications, has issued a DMCA takedown notice against the OpenDDR project on Github. ScientiaMobile claims that OpenDDR is 'ripping them off' by forking their database, which used to be licensed under a liberal license. Newer versions of the device database are licensed under restrictive licenses which do not allow any modification or redistribution."
You show me where in that it is
From the 1st link, first two paragraphs (emphasis added):
So... What is WURFL?
WURFL is a Device Description Repository (DDR), i.e. a software component which contains the descriptions of thousands of mobile devices. In its simplest incarnation, WURFL is an XML configuration file plus a set of programming APIs to access the data in real-time environments.
The main scope of the WURFL Project is to be an independent central repository of device information , which Open-Source developers from around the globe can utilize to build their mobile web applications.
From the 2nd link fourth paragraph (emphasis added):
elow some background to explain the origins of the story. OpenDDR project has been made by a group of web & mobile developers aware of the importance for their work of an always up-to-date Device Description Repository (DDR), and of good APIs to access it.
From the 3rd link, first two paragraphs (emphasis added):
Everyone knows it. There is nothing worse than a not tailored content. Just think how frustrating is surfing a very complex website on the small screen of your cellular phone. You probably waste your time zooming and scrolling the pages, but, anyway, it’s clear: if you want a comfortable user experience you need dinamically adaptable contents according to hardware and browser specifications of your device .
That’s the reason why Device Description Repositories (DDR) exist. These are databases that store a huge amount of information concerning mobile phones, tablets, Interactive TVs, set top boxes and any device having a Web browser , in order to allow developers to realize applications extremely enjoyable on each client.
From the fourth link, first and third paragraphs (emphasis added):
When a phone’s web browser visits your site, how can you tell what capabilities that phone has? How can you work out its screensize, whether it can play mp3s, or know if it supports a particular bit of JavaScript?
...
Out of this frustration, a number of databases have been developed to track the capabilities of as many devices as possible. For the longest time, the most popular and accurate was WURFL – the Wireless Universal Resource FiLe.
it's pretty obvious even from TFS that they are not
It specifies that it is used for web applications, but games can be web applications. It does say mobile device detection, and I might have skimmed that as just "device detection", but still, not exactly spelling it out.
Konami have a problem with DDR the outside field of use infringement as there are other uses already out there (e.g. DDR Ram), so they can't argue the uniqueness factor and would have to explicitly argue that that use hurts their games, which would be a lot harder to do as the use has nothing to do with games.
Except it isn't just DDR, its both DDR and DanceDanceRevolution. So, is OpenDDR just "OpenDDR" or does it explain it as an initialism? (not an acronym! )
If they state it as "Open Dance Dance Revolution" then that's a whole different ballgame. And I would argue DDR in the gaming field, especially dance games, implies Dance Dance.
Please read TFA and TFS. OpenDDR has nothing to do with gaming period. The DDR is for Device Description Repository, and they target mobile & web developers, not gamers.
I do agree that if they were in the gaming field there may be an issue; but it's pretty obvious even from TFS that they are not, and if you follow through to the links it is even more so.
Trademarks work very differently than Copyright. For starters, they are limited to a field of use.
The most famous trademarks for consumer products are protected independently of a field of use. See trademark dilution. "Super Mario" would probably qualify as famous, but I'm not so sure about "DDR".
Trademarks outside of the field of use are more rare than those inside a field of use. There is also nothing to prevent multiple fields of use.
However, it is a far harder burden to prove trademark dilution outside the field of use - you first have to show that your trademark was somehow hurt in the field of use by the use outside the field of use. Duable in some cases; not so doable in others. This is also typically more the case when the term is very unique - e.g. there are no other known uses in other fields.
For example, if you used "Super Mario" in a porn flick, then Nintendo would probably go after you as it would hurt the family friendly brand (supposing Super Mario was only in the gaming industry - it's not, it's in the move and TV industries too...)
Konami have a problem with DDR the outside field of use infringement as there are other uses already out there (e.g. DDR Ram), so they can't argue the uniqueness factor and would have to explicitly argue that that use hurts their games, which would be a lot harder to do as the use has nothing to do with games.
Konami once sued Roxor Games for infringing Konami's patents on Dance Dance Revolution. Why can't Konami just send a takedown notice to OpenDDR for using a confusingly similar trademark?
Trademarks work very differently than Copyright. For starters, they are limited to a field of use. So DDR would be trademarked in the Gaming community. If OpenDDR tried to enter that field of use, then the trademark would apply. So long as they are not in that field of use, they are free to use the term as they like.
The same applies for Microsoft per Windows - field of use is the software operating system market, and it bares no burden on Anderson Windows to use the term. The same would apply for an automaker if they named a vehicle Linux - the Linux trademark is in the same kind of field of use as Windows for Microsoft.
If you wear glasses or contacts, then you are not physically capable of telling the difference between a Standard and HD images at any reasonable distance from the TV screen for any size TV. Presently, that is the majority of the population. As much as glasses and contacts help, they cannot improve your vision enough to make up the difference.
WTF are you talking about?? That is utterly untrue. My (and may others) actually get *better* than 20/20 vision from wearing contacts. I work in the video industry, have horrible (uncorrectect) vision, and could trivially tell the difference between a 480i and 1080p image from twice the recommended viewing distance.
Then you have an exceptionally good optometrist, and you are in that 1% of people I mentioned. Most are not in your situation.
Much like the right to bear arms does not imply that you have a right to be provided with those arms, I would argue that you have right to not be prevented from using the internet by the government, but that's different from a right to be provided internet access.
To use your example, he's saying that Internet Access it not a human right much like the Right to Bear Arms doesn't say that you have a right to a musket rifle. Rather, the Right to Bear Arms means any means of combat - from a musket rifle to an AK-47 (though yes, the government has limited it somewhat less than that in practice) to Jujitsu.
In the same manner you can't say the Internet is a right, as something may come along that is better and replace it, and then where you be left but with the older more archaic version? (E.g. Internet vs. Internet2 vs. whatever-is-next).
And most of us feel that was stupid anyway. But it was all we could buy when our old tvs finally died.
*Most* of us? Speak for yourself. Unless you are surveying in a retirement home the majority of people you ask will much prefer HD (and flat screens) over big bulky SD CRTs.
If you wear glasses or contacts, then you are not physically capable of telling the difference between a Standard and HD images at any reasonable distance from the TV screen for any size TV. Presently, that is the majority of the population. As much as glasses and contacts help, they cannot improve your vision enough to make up the difference.
If you ought to be wearing glasses or contacts but do not (either you don't know you need to, you are fighting it, or you can't afford to), then you also fall into that category.
In reality, the only people that can truly tell the difference between Standard and HD images is the
Most everyone else that thinks they can see a difference is really only noticing the difference between CRT and LCD screens, or good and bad signals received by either. CRT screens have had for years better than HD resolutions when you look at computer monitors.
Are you just throwing buzzwords around? What in god's name does any of this have to do with phishing?
Well, aside from IIS being easily crackable, and all that...yes, I know with II6 and later they did a good job of cleaning things up and making it more secure than it was before. But that was also a pretty low bar to meet. So don't be surprised when your clients end up getting phished by their own websites.
[Shrug]. That's because you don't don't know what you're talking about, that's all.
I have more than that technical knowledge and I choose IIS. I do so because I'm deploying enterprise applications including WCF web services, WF backend services, and MVC web applications and use IIS/AppFabric to manage them. It would be...silly to run such things on Apache.
It amuses me that Linux guys (of which I am one, though not the dweeby type) think they have a deep technical knowledge about computing and "know" why any Linux solution is better, but if you asked them any in-depth questions about why or about different scenarios they'd just stare at you blankly.
So we all know now to avoid your websites....let the phishing begin...
I'm a Linux guy, but if I needed to add an intranet server in a small shop I would probably do it on whatever existing machine was easiest.
In a lot of cases this will mean the Windows file server which has been in place for years, and installing IIS would be the path of least resistance.
Apache HTTPd is very easy to install and run on Windows systems too. So that's no excuse.
You can usually go about 10 over safely and without police bothering you. Anything higher than that tends to be pushing it.
Namely because that first 0-10mph over is typically just a warning unless its a repeat offender with multiple pull-overs and other issues are involved. So it's not worth it; plus they recognize there needs to be some leeway for differences between vehicle and detectors, vehicular movements due to terrain, and how easy it is for people to pay that close of attention to their speed.
My customer's use WinXP, so we have to continue supporting WinXP.
WinXP is what our code-base is designed for, so I have to have it.
Our PCs are old and management is increasingly cutting funds for upgrades - most of my colleagues get a new PC once every 8 years or so - typically when their current one cannot perform its duties any longer (e.g. failed hardware that is non-replaceable).
Some of our required business applications are so old that XP is required, though we have found the Compatibility mode in Win7/XP to work okay too.
If I could dictate to the customer what to use, I'd move them off Windows entirely, and the same for everyone in our organization.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the point. When forced to use your local connection to work, you are limited by the slowest link (your computer). When you VNC into a host server and us the GUI there, you are limited by the servers connections, which typically tend to be in gigabytes, not kbits. It was simply poorly worded, but anyone who's worked remotely via VNC understands the principle. You use the hosting VNC target to do your heavy network lifting and your local laptop/desktop as a dumb terminal to get you into the host server. It doesn't increase your bandwidth per-se but instead increases the bandwidth available to you while removing your slower local link from the equation.
So instead of having to wait for data to transfer for the application to run (e.g. for database connections that the application uses, etc.) you are instead waiting for the application to work over the network.
It doesn't increase the bandwdith, etc. It just changes what the bottleneck affects - or how it affects the applications.
What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The OP didn't buy their iPhone from ATT, however. Near-monopoly communications providers shouldn't be allowed to enter into exclusive agreements in the first place, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to extend that agreement to equipment they never sold/etc.
Supposedly they will charge data plans on ANY phone that meets their requirements for requiring one whether or not they sold the phone. I probably am not getting charged for it as I don't ever do any data over their network period, but if you leave the network enabled then they probably get some data and make the detection that you need it and thereby charge you. So I don't know how they make the determination; but I wouldn't be surprised if their contract with Apple was such that they just detect that the iPhone is there and to keep from sanctions they just go ahead and start charging what is required per the contract.
I do agree that they should not be allowed to do that; but until someone takes them to court over it and wins without settling, they'll probably continue to do so.
No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. GPL source code tends to attract more and more contributors. Over time, you have so many contributors that "going back" to another license becomes practically impossible, because at some point you can't successfully contact them all and get them all to agree to a license change. This was RMS's plan from the start -- for GPL to spread in this fashion. If you don't believe me, go look it up.
When that happens, you can't "go back" to a less restrictive license. To do something as simple as change the license... you have to do a full rewrite.
This is one reason why I'm not a fan of the GPL -- it becomes increasingly unlikely to ever be able make a license change over time, and I think that's an awfully bad thing for people.
Well, there's another solution to the issue - and that is Copyright License Assignment/Agreement (CLA), which by the way the FSF requires. So FSF can change their licenses at any time - they could go proprietary with all the FSF/GNU code if they liked as they own all the copyrights for that code. But whether or not copyright assignments are a good thing is still to be decided.
Linux, on the other hand, is in the situation you refer as they don't use copyright assignments; so everything has to be GPLv2 compatible for licenses. OpenOffice proper (Sun->Oracle->Apache) is under a CLA; as is most Apache software to my understanding; as such Sun could transfer to Oracle which could transfer to Apache all the official OpenOffice code; meanwhile LibreOffice does not have a CLA and as such they cannot necessarily contribute their changes back to OpenOffice (the individual authors have to in order to make the license switch to the Apache license) and they may find themselves in a fractured state as a result at some point. But again - the jury is out on whether that is a good or bad thing.
AT&T's contract with Apple for getting the iPhone first was that they had to require a data plan with it, and a very specific data plan at that. It's not public about whether any other phone manufacturer did that too, but not likely. More likely than not, AT&T just used it as a way to move all smart phones to requiring data plans, which they do - anything with a keyboard or touch screen requires a data plan of some kind; if just a keyboard then a very cheap text-only plan; but any touch screen requires a full-on data plan.
That's not to say you can't skirt it. I have no data services enabled period on my plan for any of my phones. Yet I have an Nexus One myself (everyone else has a feature phone at the moment); but no data plan for even the Nexus One. AT&T knows about the Nexus One; but again, they don't see any data traffic (I removed the settings, and disabled it so it only uses Wifi for data).
What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The correct solution would then be to pressure law makers to correct the loophole that caused this. I don't begrudge Amazon for seeking out any competitive advantage but at the same time the playing field should be level when there is a presence in the state.
You do realize that Northern Virginia is the "Silicon Valley" of the East Coast, don't you? Even Research Triangle (in North Carolina) doesn't add up to as much (beind the third "Silicon Valley").
Given that Comcast has been more proactive about implementing DNSSEC than all the other major ISPs, I was very surprised to learn that they support SOPA, which will make it impossible to for ISPs to implement DNSSEC. I assume that their stance is motivated by the fact that they own half of NBC, and I wonder how their engineering staff plans on handling this situation if the bill is passed.
DNSSEC might make SOPA easier but would require the cert signing party to participate as well to do so...then you just get Microsoft to require valid DNSSEC signatures on all DNS lookups and most of the world will have an issue when the cert is revoked. Of course, the hard core folks will simply move off of Windows as a result...but they probably aren't using Windows already...
With Oracle responsible for Java, is it even worth it to learn the language any more? I mean they will be killing it off soon.
Only if you deal with Oracle databases as they use it extensively for server-side stuff.
The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.
POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).
FYI - POSIX and GNU have nothing to do with each other. POSIX is a standard that is implemented by the OS Kernel. It is implemented by Windows, Linux, and UNIX and numerous other kernels. Just because something is POSIX compliant does not mean it is UNIX.
Also, GNU has nothing to do with Linux proper. Linux proper is just the OS Kernel. it happens to use the GNU GCC compiler; but it could just as easily use another if they took the time to port over all the little details - that is, Linux uses GCC and very heavily uses a lot of its little optimizations to denote things like branching, etc. Otherwise, GNU has nothing to do with Linux. Yes, Linux distributions tend to use the GNU user level tools and the GNU C Library; but that is again the user environment and bears nothing per Linux being Unix.
For example, Android does not use the GNU user tools; yet it runs the Linux kernel.
Now, take FreeBSD for example. FreeBSD IS Unix. And it also uses a lot of the GNU user level tools. So while FSF likes GNU meaning GNU is NOT Unix, that really only applies to their GNU Hurd Kernel, which is still under development. The rest of the tools run on a lot of Unix systems now, mainly because they standardized user-land in an otherwise messy world.
Now, I do quite well agree that UNIX doesn't matter any more. However, POSIX still does - that's one of the reasons why Linux has as much support as it does - it has a very complete implementation of the POSIX standard, so software has a reasonable assurance that it can run on it and other POSIX systems; this allows a lot of UNIX targette software to switch to Linux very easily (and some Windows software). It's the POSIX standard that drives a lot of the functionality behind pure C functions like fopen() and fclose() - they are part of the POSIX standard, as is most of the Standard C Library.
In context, it doesn't really matter - its difference between control and sovereignty, which if you are given free control to do as you please, then you are also given free sovereignty to do as you please as well.
But the reins allow you to reign over the horse to rein where it goes within your reign.
Well, Linux is NOT Unix. It does, however, implement a Unix-like environment, but it is not itself Unix. For that, it would have to be certified as a Unix.
OSX is certified as a Unix, and therefore is Unix. iOS, not sure - possible, but not necessarily.
Android is Linux, and as Linux is not Unix, neither is Android; and Android just goes to show that you put a nice GUI on top of Linux and everyone can use it. The main thing holding Linux back from the mainstream has been the inferior quality of the GUIs and expectation that old software continues to run but most people (not necessarily companies - most anyone that grew up in the 1980's and later has been primarily in a monoculture for computers - namely Windows on x86).
Linux doesn't require that a command-line interface be present (see Android). It's just that most Linux users find a command-line to be extremely useful as well - even when they run Windows or Mac. Yes, I use the command-line on every platform I utilize (except Android since it doesn't have one); I also typically install GnuWin32 on Windows systems so I can get a somewhat functional Windows environment (no, powershell doesn't cut it).
I've also introduced a number of people to Linux+KDE - most recently my computer illiterate dad. He won't ever touch the command-line; but he's quite happily now using Linux.
I also asked a lot of other things, and said a lot of other things, which you seem to have ignored.
Welcome to Slashdot.
Way to COMPLETELY ignore everything I said. Wow.
Hey, you asked:
You show me where in that it is
There were a few links, the one I read explained the legal case very clearly but did not explain what OpenDDR was at all. Grandparent mentioned Konami possibly suing, so I assumed openDDR was an open DDR game project that used the WURFL for peripheral support. I guess he was just concerned about the "DDR" initialism being used in any context, but yeah, as people pointed out, if its not in the same field, it doesn't count. Calm down, I did read TFA and TFS.
"ScientiaMobile, the company formed behind the open source library WURFL, an API used to do mobile device detection for web applications, has issued a DMCA takedown notice against the OpenDDR project on Github. ScientiaMobile claims that OpenDDR is 'ripping them off' by forking their database, which used to be licensed under a liberal license. Newer versions of the device database are licensed under restrictive licenses which do not allow any modification or redistribution."
You show me where in that it is
From the 1st link, first two paragraphs (emphasis added):
So... What is WURFL? WURFL is a Device Description Repository (DDR), i.e. a software component which contains the descriptions of thousands of mobile devices. In its simplest incarnation, WURFL is an XML configuration file plus a set of programming APIs to access the data in real-time environments.
The main scope of the WURFL Project is to be an independent central repository of device information , which Open-Source developers from around the globe can utilize to build their mobile web applications.
From the 2nd link fourth paragraph (emphasis added):
elow some background to explain the origins of the story. OpenDDR project has been made by a group of web & mobile developers aware of the importance for their work of an always up-to-date Device Description Repository (DDR), and of good APIs to access it.
From the 3rd link, first two paragraphs (emphasis added):
Everyone knows it. There is nothing worse than a not tailored content. Just think how frustrating is surfing a very complex website on the small screen of your cellular phone. You probably waste your time zooming and scrolling the pages, but, anyway, it’s clear: if you want a comfortable user experience you need dinamically adaptable contents according to hardware and browser specifications of your device .
That’s the reason why Device Description Repositories (DDR) exist. These are databases that store a huge amount of information concerning mobile phones, tablets, Interactive TVs, set top boxes and any device having a Web browser , in order to allow developers to realize applications extremely enjoyable on each client.
From the fourth link, first and third paragraphs (emphasis added):
When a phone’s web browser visits your site, how can you tell what capabilities that phone has? How can you work out its screensize, whether it can play mp3s, or know if it supports a particular bit of JavaScript?
...
Out of this frustration, a number of databases have been developed to track the capabilities of as many devices as possible. For the longest time, the most popular and accurate was WURFL – the Wireless Universal Resource FiLe.
it's pretty obvious even from TFS that they are not
It specifies that it is used for web applications, but games can be web applications. It does say mobile device detection, and I might have skimmed that as just "device detection", but still, not exactly spelling it out.
And from TFS (
Konami have a problem with DDR the outside field of use infringement as there are other uses already out there (e.g. DDR Ram), so they can't argue the uniqueness factor and would have to explicitly argue that that use hurts their games, which would be a lot harder to do as the use has nothing to do with games.
Except it isn't just DDR, its both DDR and DanceDanceRevolution. So, is OpenDDR just "OpenDDR" or does it explain it as an initialism? (not an acronym! ) If they state it as "Open Dance Dance Revolution" then that's a whole different ballgame. And I would argue DDR in the gaming field, especially dance games, implies Dance Dance.
Please read TFA and TFS. OpenDDR has nothing to do with gaming period. The DDR is for Device Description Repository, and they target mobile & web developers, not gamers.
I do agree that if they were in the gaming field there may be an issue; but it's pretty obvious even from TFS that they are not, and if you follow through to the links it is even more so.
Trademarks work very differently than Copyright. For starters, they are limited to a field of use.
The most famous trademarks for consumer products are protected independently of a field of use. See trademark dilution. "Super Mario" would probably qualify as famous, but I'm not so sure about "DDR".
Trademarks outside of the field of use are more rare than those inside a field of use. There is also nothing to prevent multiple fields of use. However, it is a far harder burden to prove trademark dilution outside the field of use - you first have to show that your trademark was somehow hurt in the field of use by the use outside the field of use. Duable in some cases; not so doable in others. This is also typically more the case when the term is very unique - e.g. there are no other known uses in other fields.
For example, if you used "Super Mario" in a porn flick, then Nintendo would probably go after you as it would hurt the family friendly brand (supposing Super Mario was only in the gaming industry - it's not, it's in the move and TV industries too...)
Konami have a problem with DDR the outside field of use infringement as there are other uses already out there (e.g. DDR Ram), so they can't argue the uniqueness factor and would have to explicitly argue that that use hurts their games, which would be a lot harder to do as the use has nothing to do with games.
Konami once sued Roxor Games for infringing Konami's patents on Dance Dance Revolution. Why can't Konami just send a takedown notice to OpenDDR for using a confusingly similar trademark?
Trademarks work very differently than Copyright. For starters, they are limited to a field of use. So DDR would be trademarked in the Gaming community. If OpenDDR tried to enter that field of use, then the trademark would apply. So long as they are not in that field of use, they are free to use the term as they like.
The same applies for Microsoft per Windows - field of use is the software operating system market, and it bares no burden on Anderson Windows to use the term. The same would apply for an automaker if they named a vehicle Linux - the Linux trademark is in the same kind of field of use as Windows for Microsoft.
If you wear glasses or contacts, then you are not physically capable of telling the difference between a Standard and HD images at any reasonable distance from the TV screen for any size TV. Presently, that is the majority of the population. As much as glasses and contacts help, they cannot improve your vision enough to make up the difference.
WTF are you talking about?? That is utterly untrue. My (and may others) actually get *better* than 20/20 vision from wearing contacts. I work in the video industry, have horrible (uncorrectect) vision, and could trivially tell the difference between a 480i and 1080p image from twice the recommended viewing distance.
Then you have an exceptionally good optometrist, and you are in that 1% of people I mentioned. Most are not in your situation.
Much like the right to bear arms does not imply that you have a right to be provided with those arms, I would argue that you have right to not be prevented from using the internet by the government, but that's different from a right to be provided internet access.
To use your example, he's saying that Internet Access it not a human right much like the Right to Bear Arms doesn't say that you have a right to a musket rifle. Rather, the Right to Bear Arms means any means of combat - from a musket rifle to an AK-47 (though yes, the government has limited it somewhat less than that in practice) to Jujitsu.
In the same manner you can't say the Internet is a right, as something may come along that is better and replace it, and then where you be left but with the older more archaic version? (E.g. Internet vs. Internet2 vs. whatever-is-next).
And most of us feel that was stupid anyway. But it was all we could buy when our old tvs finally died.
*Most* of us? Speak for yourself. Unless you are surveying in a retirement home the majority of people you ask will much prefer HD (and flat screens) over big bulky SD CRTs.
If you wear glasses or contacts, then you are not physically capable of telling the difference between a Standard and HD images at any reasonable distance from the TV screen for any size TV. Presently, that is the majority of the population. As much as glasses and contacts help, they cannot improve your vision enough to make up the difference.
If you ought to be wearing glasses or contacts but do not (either you don't know you need to, you are fighting it, or you can't afford to), then you also fall into that category.
In reality, the only people that can truly tell the difference between Standard and HD images is the
Most everyone else that thinks they can see a difference is really only noticing the difference between CRT and LCD screens, or good and bad signals received by either. CRT screens have had for years better than HD resolutions when you look at computer monitors.
Are you just throwing buzzwords around? What in god's name does any of this have to do with phishing?
Well, aside from IIS being easily crackable, and all that...yes, I know with II6 and later they did a good job of cleaning things up and making it more secure than it was before. But that was also a pretty low bar to meet. So don't be surprised when your clients end up getting phished by their own websites.
[Shrug]. That's because you don't don't know what you're talking about, that's all.
I have more than that technical knowledge and I choose IIS. I do so because I'm deploying enterprise applications including WCF web services, WF backend services, and MVC web applications and use IIS/AppFabric to manage them. It would be...silly to run such things on Apache.
It amuses me that Linux guys (of which I am one, though not the dweeby type) think they have a deep technical knowledge about computing and "know" why any Linux solution is better, but if you asked them any in-depth questions about why or about different scenarios they'd just stare at you blankly.
So we all know now to avoid your websites....let the phishing begin...
I'm a Linux guy, but if I needed to add an intranet server in a small shop I would probably do it on whatever existing machine was easiest. In a lot of cases this will mean the Windows file server which has been in place for years, and installing IIS would be the path of least resistance.
Apache HTTPd is very easy to install and run on Windows systems too. So that's no excuse.
Windows is easy to admin if you're any good.
So long as what you do fits the model that Microsoft has set out to provide. Otherwise it a PITA.
You can usually go about 10 over safely and without police bothering you. Anything higher than that tends to be pushing it.
Namely because that first 0-10mph over is typically just a warning unless its a repeat offender with multiple pull-overs and other issues are involved. So it's not worth it; plus they recognize there needs to be some leeway for differences between vehicle and detectors, vehicular movements due to terrain, and how easy it is for people to pay that close of attention to their speed.
Let's see:
My customer's use WinXP, so we have to continue supporting WinXP.
WinXP is what our code-base is designed for, so I have to have it.
Our PCs are old and management is increasingly cutting funds for upgrades - most of my colleagues get a new PC once every 8 years or so - typically when their current one cannot perform its duties any longer (e.g. failed hardware that is non-replaceable).
Some of our required business applications are so old that XP is required, though we have found the Compatibility mode in Win7/XP to work okay too.
If I could dictate to the customer what to use, I'd move them off Windows entirely, and the same for everyone in our organization.