It's not the user's job to change themes. It's the toolkit's job to detect when a theme is overpadded for a given application and automatically correct for it.
Sorry, but as much as I want applications to automatically do stuff on this one I have to disagree.
The application ought to honor the styles set by the Windows manager, and not run off and do its own thing. How is the application suppose to know that the user did not want it overpadded? Or do you really want every single application to have all kinds of little settings to modify the display and break the central theming provided by the Windows Manager?
So what are the cost benefits of an unlocked iPhone for example? There is no change in software. Do you get a cheaper rate from AT&T if you buy the phone outright? I'm still not seeing much benefit from what I see here.
Perhaps it's just not being explained very well, and I didn't see any options on AT&T's site for non-subsidized phones. They all seem to require a contact when you start using AT&T.
You can't buy it unsubsidized from the cell companies, at least in the US; you have to go to the manufacturer's website, e.g. Apple, Motorola, etc.
The primary benefit is you can take the phone to whatever carrier you like - no contract restrictions. Then you also have the ability to do more with the phone as you please - e.g. features that carriers may disable, etc.
On the other hand, you will have zero (or at most very minimal) support from the carrier for the phone.
Someone help explain this to me. What is the difference for an end user with a subsidized phone. If you buy an unlocked for (say for $500), in order to you that phone on a cell network, you still have to sign a contract for $x a month.
If you buy an locked phone (say for $300), you are automatically signed up for a contact for $x a month.
Is the contact cost less if you purchased the phone outright (unlocked?)
The difference can be more or less the features on the phone due to the branding.
Many phone companies (including T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon) work with the mobile phone makers to have custom software for their network - branding it for them. Most non-contract phones in the US are simply unlocked but still branded phones. In some cases, you can get it without the branding entirely, but it can be a little more difficult - you really have to be careful when buying the phone.
If you can avoid the branding, then you may be able to get more functionality out of the phone than the branded equivalent - even though the only difference is the software on the phone. The branded phones have been known to have features (such as BlueTooth) disabled so the user cannot use them. Additionally, unlocking the phone does not open up the feature for use.
The other main difference is (I think) you can get around the ETF since you didn't buy the phone from them. I bought my original phones (Motorola v180's) on contract. We've only renewed our contracts since (though I think right now, we're on a month-to-month essentially as we never renewed the contract the last time it came up. AT&T just goes into a monthly at the same price as your last contract, no automatic renewal.)
Unless you need someone else to recognize it as valid. Then you have a high cost to getting your CA setup.
Yes, it's trivial to setup an unauthenticated CA. But most will want an authenticated CA.
Also, I wouldn't sign my life away for a PPK - been at one company that wanted that; too much liability for me. (They company absolves all responsibility for the PPK, all of which would have been assigned to me.)
There do exist packages that can handle the encryption of at least fixed disks without the user needing to do anything more than the usual login. BitLocker for one (and BitLocker can plug into Active Directory easily)
With the right software, it is possible to protect the fixed disks of all PCs in the enterprise (including laptops that may only connect to the network through a VPN or may be used in places where there is no network access at all such as airplanes) and the only thing the users have to do is to log in just like they normally do. Mobile devices like Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices also have options for encryption that IT can enable. Even email can be encrypted without the users doing anything special using modern versions of Exchange (at least from what I read with Google)
One company I worked for rolled out hard drive encryption on all laptops. Help Desk then got overwhelmed because 50% of the laptops failed to take, resulting in an unbootable computer. If you didn't have everything on the computer backed up, then you lost it all b/c they had to reformat the disk. That typical issue was the Master FAT record of the NTFS getting corrupted. I think it took the tech 3 or 4 tries (at about 5-6 hours each) to finally get it working on my laptop - meaning I was without the laptop for several days, and unable to do my work (since I didn't have a desktop to fall back on).
Also, Hard Drive encryption doesn't stop anyone with access to the hard drive except the casual thief. If they really want the data, they'll image the drive and brute force the encryption to get access. (So no, it doesn't stop espionage, just some random Joe who got a stolen laptop from seeing the data.)
Agreed. We have a program designed for Win95/98. It works well, and one of processes is designed around it. We have it running on WinXP, though it wasn't designed to and complains everytime you open it b/c it can't get the Win16 environment it would like. All said, it still works. One person highlights as the in-house tech, but otherwise we have no tech support. Fortunately, we're all engineers - so everyone typically has a good sense of maintaining their own computers - not a big company either.
If we had to, we'd probably end-up putting it in a virtual machine under Win98 (or WinXP) to keep it running. Some even do that with their Linux laptops already for the few Windows-only apps we have.
If the attacker has physical access to the computer, than at a minimum they can make a disk image (or just outright take the disk) and then take as long as they like to crack the encryption - even farming it out as needed. One way or another, if they want the data they'll get it.
If they can plant a virus on the computer, they can get your encryption password - even on TPM machines. TPM does not prevent malicious code from running or intercepting anything. For example, they could put a BIOS virus in that preserves access to TPM and captures the data stream to TPM to unlock the hard drive.
As the TrueCrypt guys correctly point out - TPM is false security. And I would go further to add that it is broken in nature, just like any DRM scheme. If all I have to do to keep myself from ever being able to decrypt the drive is change the motherboard, then it doesn't work. (That, btw, is the nature of TPM.)
So whether or not TrueCrypt utilizes TPM has no effect on its true security. The only reason you encrypt a drive is to keep the not-so-smart crackers from stealing it and using it, or hiding something from casual peekers and users. And more likely than not, they'll try to boot, see the encryption, then pull the drive and format it. If they were really after the data, they'd have plenty of time to get around the encryption if they really wanted it.
The whole "women in the workforce" was not really anything new - it was more of an entry into the white collar jobs; they had been in blue collar jobs for millenia and some even in those white collar jobs. It didn't affect unemployment because it trickled up - as more women qualified for the jobs, more took them; but it was a slow growth.
Likewise with the population growth. It doesn't really affect the unemployment until they start looking for work - a lagging trend of about 15-25 years. So those 25 million people born from 2000 to 2009 won't really affect the job market until at least 2014-2016, when the oldest of them become eligible to work. (Minimum employment age is usually around 14 or 15, but varies from state to state.) And again, it's a trickle effect, which is why impact is negligible - and that's assuming they all live long enough to make it into the job market and be qualified to work. That 25 million is probably closer to 24.5 million by the end of it all - not a significant difference, but not a negligible one either.
Contrast that with 200 years ago - more women miscarried, more children died in infancy, more children, teens, and adults died from disease, etc. And unemployment was higher. It was only in the 1940's/1950's that they decided that 5-6% unemployment was a good target, but it was pretty arbitrarily picked.
Part of the problem might be the fuel supply, I recall reading that the U.S. doesn't currently have the infrastructure to support a big increase in use of low-sulfur diesel.
And this is why I don't think Hydrogen will ever take off as a fuel alternative. How are we going to set up the fuel infrastructure for a new alternative fuel, if fuel franchise owners have to buy the pumps and tanks? This is a problem that HAS to be considered no matter what the system is, and I just never hear about it when alternative fuel discussions come up. Even diesel is hard to pull off, and it uses the same kind of tank and pump system that gasoline does.
Which is why a plug-in hybrid makes the most sense - you get the option of using the gas station, or if they can get the recharge to <30 minutes then restaurants, truck stops, etc. can all start offering recharge stations in their parking lots so that you can then charge the vehicle while you get your food/nap. (States could even get in on it by offering it at highway rest-stops.) In essence, it can create a whole new energy market.
Sure, they'd have to go through the infrastructure upgrade to be able to get enough power to the parking lots, but it'd be doable and the cost would be spread out among thousands of entities. Just think, McDonalds/BK/Wendy's/Jack In The Box/Ruby Tuesday's/Mom&Pop Restaurants + energy. There's certainly a lot more of them than there is gas stations.
SCO (really SCO Group or SCOG) today is really Caldera, which use to be a Linux Vendor. Then they bought the UNIX services groups from Santa Cruz Operations (SCO, now Tarantella), and after a messy reorganization emerged as SCO Group (SCO). Caldera didn't really seem to go bad until Ransom Love left; the new managers seemed to have started all the bad stuff going on, running the company into the ground, and "stealing" all the money from under the stakeholder's noses.
is the address something derogatory (e.g. ihate...)? random (cutie99...)? intelligent (name@...)?
if from a known 'spamming' site (like @aol.com or @hotmail.com), it might give pause and question as to its validity
can I get an e-mail to/from you?
Basically - the first one: if it's something professional, then that's okay. If not, it doesn't belong on your resume so it's points against you. Not a disqualifier, but you've lost some credibility.
The second one will give pause until I could confirm its a good address, and you'll gain points if it is your primary account that you've had for years; but greatly lose points if its one you are treating as a throw-away - e.g. you sign up for it until you get hired, then toss it; repeat next time looking for work.
The third is probably the most important - and I've had some trouble even with known good domains. But the point is - if I can't reliably get e-mail to or from you, then the account is worthless, and you'd better get a different account b/c I probably tossed your resume if you failed to respond in a timely manner to any inquiry. This is mostly points against you for what is seen as your lack of being a professional and responding in a timely manner. If the email gets rejected as a bad address, if your resume is interesting enough I might call, but don't count on it.
Simply put, your e-mail address does reflect on you, but as one of many factors. It does give a big first impression - but that's more the account name reflecting how you think, or how you respond to emails (which would be taken as a reflection of your productivity and work ethics by extension).
First impressions are a big thing. So think before you put anything on your resume. Doesn't matter what it is.
I'd be surprised if there were more than one force that explains everything. Matter, energy, light, sound, etc... they all seem to be waves of energy operating at different frequencies and amplitudes... it's these differences that cause observable differences.
Interestingly the Qt developers recently had a really good post on why they use OpenGL, its performance, the OpenGL core, etc. They also briefly mentioned OpenCL and DirectX in passing - to note why they didn't use it.
OpenGL is a lot more advanced than you realize, and far more extensible too. So while they may not update the core very often, the core does contain some really nifty stuff and the extensions can easily make up the differences. Comparatively, as others have been saying, DirectX only gets updated at Microsoft's discretion, with little ability of 3rd parties to extend it.
Actually, when I bought a Microsoft product (for my Mac, as it happens), the product came with a few (forget exactly) free calls. When I had occasion to call them, the support was excellent.
Yes, I hate Microsoft products (too?), but their support was excellent.
Last I checked, calls to Microsoft for the average person (e.g. non-MSDN calls and any calls for MSDN folks beyond the allowed number) are the first 2 minutes are free, after that it's $98/minute. So as the GP said, no cheap. Those first two minutes are probably used up while you're on hold waiting to get to someone to talk to though.
So now there's General Electric (GE), and looks like Google wants to have Google Energy (GE). I wonder if they two will overlap?
Looks like Google is more affectionate towards becoming the next General Electric than IBM or Microsoft. Needless to say, General Electric has quite the history - several decades longer than IBM's (1850's vs. 1890's). In Google's short history (1990's to present) they seem to have diversified the company quite fast into numerous markets - more along the lines of how General Electric is diversified. Comparatively, Microsoft has a longer history (1970's to present), which most of its diversification occurring since roughly 1996 - prior, Microsoft was software only and heavily centric on their own products - even today they still tend to be but now they have some hardware and services mixed in; Google probably still puts them to shame in diversity of products though, or at least it is very close.
This has nothing to do with LGPL and everything to do with Monty W. wanting a "Do Over" while keeping the money he raked in from Sun at the same time.
MySQL being GPL + commercial license works very well. This was true even when it was LGPL + commercial license.
Monty W. is only doing this petition b/c he first try failed - and actually got Oracle to make a very public statement about the continued support for MySQL as is with promise to the E.U; thus exposing his own greed.
See here and here for the reasons why. To summarize:
Monty made MySQL; licensed it under a dual license (GPL + MySQL Commercial License)
dual license structure worked well for MySQL AB - prevented commercial competitors, fostered community around GPL version
Monty sold MySQL AB to Sun for $1B without changing the license. No compliants; he worked for Sun.
Sun seems to be under the gun and going to get sold off - Monty quits, tries to fork MySQL as MariaDB. Wants to build a new "MySQL AB" under another name; but the dual license prevents it.
See opportunity to force Sun to change the license so he can keep his money from the sale, while still getting all the code, possibly also the commercial code, and redo MySQL AB
So you're expecting all the people who set up private LANs to also setup a DNS on that LAN? Like that will happen.
When you set up a Windows PC you give it a host name... Or sometimes it comes pre-configured with one from the manufacturer. Windows is able to communicate with other machines on the network, by host name, without actually setting up a private DNS server. Right out of the box.
That's the SMB+netbios protocol. Not sure how well it plays with IPv6, though there do seem to be at least some patches for SMB for Samba; so it's likely to support it at least on the non-Windows side of the CIFS/SMB networking. However, that only works for games that recognize SMB, which is not all - though likely most.
Also, that relies on them being able to see each other via SMB, which can sometimes be very problematic - especially when systems are set up for different work groups, domains, etc.
But what is the point of making that arbitrary distinction?
But it's not arbitrary. Patents by design were suppose to be for tangible things, with Copyrights for intangible things; never the two should intertwine. That actually works very very well; until you get the lawyers and PHB's involved that want to protect everything in every possible way - so they intertwined them and now we have the chaotic mess that we have. We need to separate them again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the user's job to change themes. It's the toolkit's job to detect when a theme is overpadded for a given application and automatically correct for it.
Sorry, but as much as I want applications to automatically do stuff on this one I have to disagree.
The application ought to honor the styles set by the Windows manager, and not run off and do its own thing. How is the application suppose to know that the user did not want it overpadded? Or do you really want every single application to have all kinds of little settings to modify the display and break the central theming provided by the Windows Manager?
Sorry - it took down the network on the first page load. Please use a better performing language.
So what are the cost benefits of an unlocked iPhone for example? There is no change in software. Do you get a cheaper rate from AT&T if you buy the phone outright? I'm still not seeing much benefit from what I see here.
Perhaps it's just not being explained very well, and I didn't see any options on AT&T's site for non-subsidized phones. They all seem to require a contact when you start using AT&T.
You can't buy it unsubsidized from the cell companies, at least in the US; you have to go to the manufacturer's website, e.g. Apple, Motorola, etc.
The primary benefit is you can take the phone to whatever carrier you like - no contract restrictions. Then you also have the ability to do more with the phone as you please - e.g. features that carriers may disable, etc.
On the other hand, you will have zero (or at most very minimal) support from the carrier for the phone.
Someone help explain this to me. What is the difference for an end user with a subsidized phone. If you buy an unlocked for (say for $500), in order to you that phone on a cell network, you still have to sign a contract for $x a month.
If you buy an locked phone (say for $300), you are automatically signed up for a contact for $x a month.
Is the contact cost less if you purchased the phone outright (unlocked?)
The difference can be more or less the features on the phone due to the branding.
Many phone companies (including T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon) work with the mobile phone makers to have custom software for their network - branding it for them. Most non-contract phones in the US are simply unlocked but still branded phones. In some cases, you can get it without the branding entirely, but it can be a little more difficult - you really have to be careful when buying the phone.
If you can avoid the branding, then you may be able to get more functionality out of the phone than the branded equivalent - even though the only difference is the software on the phone. The branded phones have been known to have features (such as BlueTooth) disabled so the user cannot use them. Additionally, unlocking the phone does not open up the feature for use.
The other main difference is (I think) you can get around the ETF since you didn't buy the phone from them. I bought my original phones (Motorola v180's) on contract. We've only renewed our contracts since (though I think right now, we're on a month-to-month essentially as we never renewed the contract the last time it came up. AT&T just goes into a monthly at the same price as your last contract, no automatic renewal.)
Unless you need someone else to recognize it as valid. Then you have a high cost to getting your CA setup.
Yes, it's trivial to setup an unauthenticated CA. But most will want an authenticated CA.
Also, I wouldn't sign my life away for a PPK - been at one company that wanted that; too much liability for me. (They company absolves all responsibility for the PPK, all of which would have been assigned to me.)
I still play my NES you insensitive clod.
I would also still be playing an Atari 5200, but my parents gave it away years ago.
There do exist packages that can handle the encryption of at least fixed disks without the user needing to do anything more than the usual login. BitLocker for one (and BitLocker can plug into Active Directory easily)
With the right software, it is possible to protect the fixed disks of all PCs in the enterprise (including laptops that may only connect to the network through a VPN or may be used in places where there is no network access at all such as airplanes) and the only thing the users have to do is to log in just like they normally do. Mobile devices like Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices also have options for encryption that IT can enable. Even email can be encrypted without the users doing anything special using modern versions of Exchange (at least from what I read with Google)
One company I worked for rolled out hard drive encryption on all laptops. Help Desk then got overwhelmed because 50% of the laptops failed to take, resulting in an unbootable computer. If you didn't have everything on the computer backed up, then you lost it all b/c they had to reformat the disk. That typical issue was the Master FAT record of the NTFS getting corrupted. I think it took the tech 3 or 4 tries (at about 5-6 hours each) to finally get it working on my laptop - meaning I was without the laptop for several days, and unable to do my work (since I didn't have a desktop to fall back on).
Also, Hard Drive encryption doesn't stop anyone with access to the hard drive except the casual thief. If they really want the data, they'll image the drive and brute force the encryption to get access. (So no, it doesn't stop espionage, just some random Joe who got a stolen laptop from seeing the data.)
Agreed. We have a program designed for Win95/98. It works well, and one of processes is designed around it. We have it running on WinXP, though it wasn't designed to and complains everytime you open it b/c it can't get the Win16 environment it would like. All said, it still works. One person highlights as the in-house tech, but otherwise we have no tech support. Fortunately, we're all engineers - so everyone typically has a good sense of maintaining their own computers - not a big company either.
If we had to, we'd probably end-up putting it in a virtual machine under Win98 (or WinXP) to keep it running. Some even do that with their Linux laptops already for the few Windows-only apps we have.
As the TrueCrypt guys point out in their FAQ, TPM is not a fully or totally secure solution.
If the attacker has physical access to the computer, than at a minimum they can make a disk image (or just outright take the disk) and then take as long as they like to crack the encryption - even farming it out as needed. One way or another, if they want the data they'll get it.
If they can plant a virus on the computer, they can get your encryption password - even on TPM machines. TPM does not prevent malicious code from running or intercepting anything. For example, they could put a BIOS virus in that preserves access to TPM and captures the data stream to TPM to unlock the hard drive.
As the TrueCrypt guys correctly point out - TPM is false security. And I would go further to add that it is broken in nature, just like any DRM scheme. If all I have to do to keep myself from ever being able to decrypt the drive is change the motherboard, then it doesn't work. (That, btw, is the nature of TPM.)
So whether or not TrueCrypt utilizes TPM has no effect on its true security. The only reason you encrypt a drive is to keep the not-so-smart crackers from stealing it and using it, or hiding something from casual peekers and users. And more likely than not, they'll try to boot, see the encryption, then pull the drive and format it. If they were really after the data, they'd have plenty of time to get around the encryption if they really wanted it.
The whole "women in the workforce" was not really anything new - it was more of an entry into the white collar jobs; they had been in blue collar jobs for millenia and some even in those white collar jobs. It didn't affect unemployment because it trickled up - as more women qualified for the jobs, more took them; but it was a slow growth.
Likewise with the population growth. It doesn't really affect the unemployment until they start looking for work - a lagging trend of about 15-25 years. So those 25 million people born from 2000 to 2009 won't really affect the job market until at least 2014-2016, when the oldest of them become eligible to work. (Minimum employment age is usually around 14 or 15, but varies from state to state.) And again, it's a trickle effect, which is why impact is negligible - and that's assuming they all live long enough to make it into the job market and be qualified to work. That 25 million is probably closer to 24.5 million by the end of it all - not a significant difference, but not a negligible one either.
Contrast that with 200 years ago - more women miscarried, more children died in infancy, more children, teens, and adults died from disease, etc. And unemployment was higher. It was only in the 1940's/1950's that they decided that 5-6% unemployment was a good target, but it was pretty arbitrarily picked.
They were still working on that one.
That said, you can't officially get a Nexus One for AT&T either right now; but the Nexus One off contract is around $529.
Part of the problem might be the fuel supply, I recall reading that the U.S. doesn't currently have the infrastructure to support a big increase in use of low-sulfur diesel.
And this is why I don't think Hydrogen will ever take off as a fuel alternative. How are we going to set up the fuel infrastructure for a new alternative fuel, if fuel franchise owners have to buy the pumps and tanks? This is a problem that HAS to be considered no matter what the system is, and I just never hear about it when alternative fuel discussions come up. Even diesel is hard to pull off, and it uses the same kind of tank and pump system that gasoline does.
Which is why a plug-in hybrid makes the most sense - you get the option of using the gas station, or if they can get the recharge to <30 minutes then restaurants, truck stops, etc. can all start offering recharge stations in their parking lots so that you can then charge the vehicle while you get your food/nap. (States could even get in on it by offering it at highway rest-stops.) In essence, it can create a whole new energy market.
Sure, they'd have to go through the infrastructure upgrade to be able to get enough power to the parking lots, but it'd be doable and the cost would be spread out among thousands of entities. Just think, McDonalds/BK/Wendy's/Jack In The Box/Ruby Tuesday's/Mom&Pop Restaurants + energy. There's certainly a lot more of them than there is gas stations.
Not quite.
SCO (really SCO Group or SCOG) today is really Caldera, which use to be a Linux Vendor. Then they bought the UNIX services groups from Santa Cruz Operations (SCO, now Tarantella), and after a messy reorganization emerged as SCO Group (SCO). Caldera didn't really seem to go bad until Ransom Love left; the new managers seemed to have started all the bad stuff going on, running the company into the ground, and "stealing" all the money from under the stakeholder's noses.
Basically - the first one: if it's something professional, then that's okay. If not, it doesn't belong on your resume so it's points against you. Not a disqualifier, but you've lost some credibility.
The second one will give pause until I could confirm its a good address, and you'll gain points if it is your primary account that you've had for years; but greatly lose points if its one you are treating as a throw-away - e.g. you sign up for it until you get hired, then toss it; repeat next time looking for work.
The third is probably the most important - and I've had some trouble even with known good domains. But the point is - if I can't reliably get e-mail to or from you, then the account is worthless, and you'd better get a different account b/c I probably tossed your resume if you failed to respond in a timely manner to any inquiry. This is mostly points against you for what is seen as your lack of being a professional and responding in a timely manner. If the email gets rejected as a bad address, if your resume is interesting enough I might call, but don't count on it.
Simply put, your e-mail address does reflect on you, but as one of many factors. It does give a big first impression - but that's more the account name reflecting how you think, or how you respond to emails (which would be taken as a reflection of your productivity and work ethics by extension).
First impressions are a big thing. So think before you put anything on your resume. Doesn't matter what it is.
I'd be surprised if there were more than one force that explains everything. Matter, energy, light, sound, etc... they all seem to be waves of energy operating at different frequencies and amplitudes... it's these differences that cause observable differences.
It's probably some more like the Star Gate Ancient's Dakara Super Weapon that God gets to play with.
Interestingly the Qt developers recently had a really good post on why they use OpenGL, its performance, the OpenGL core, etc. They also briefly mentioned OpenCL and DirectX in passing - to note why they didn't use it.
OpenGL is a lot more advanced than you realize, and far more extensible too. So while they may not update the core very often, the core does contain some really nifty stuff and the extensions can easily make up the differences. Comparatively, as others have been saying, DirectX only gets updated at Microsoft's discretion, with little ability of 3rd parties to extend it.
Actually, when I bought a Microsoft product (for my Mac, as it happens), the product came with a few (forget exactly) free calls. When I had occasion to call them, the support was excellent.
Yes, I hate Microsoft products (too?), but their support was excellent.
Last I checked, calls to Microsoft for the average person (e.g. non-MSDN calls and any calls for MSDN folks beyond the allowed number) are the first 2 minutes are free, after that it's $98/minute. So as the GP said, no cheap. Those first two minutes are probably used up while you're on hold waiting to get to someone to talk to though.
So now there's General Electric (GE), and looks like Google wants to have Google Energy (GE). I wonder if they two will overlap?
Looks like Google is more affectionate towards becoming the next General Electric than IBM or Microsoft. Needless to say, General Electric has quite the history - several decades longer than IBM's (1850's vs. 1890's). In Google's short history (1990's to present) they seem to have diversified the company quite fast into numerous markets - more along the lines of how General Electric is diversified. Comparatively, Microsoft has a longer history (1970's to present), which most of its diversification occurring since roughly 1996 - prior, Microsoft was software only and heavily centric on their own products - even today they still tend to be but now they have some hardware and services mixed in; Google probably still puts them to shame in diversity of products though, or at least it is very close.
This has nothing to do with LGPL and everything to do with Monty W. wanting a "Do Over" while keeping the money he raked in from Sun at the same time.
MySQL being GPL + commercial license works very well. This was true even when it was LGPL + commercial license.
Monty W. is only doing this petition b/c he first try failed - and actually got Oracle to make a very public statement about the continued support for MySQL as is with promise to the E.U; thus exposing his own greed.
Qt. It is native on all the platforms it supports - Mac, Linux/Unix, Windows, and more.
Granted there are also versions that interact with the VM'd languages (e.g. Java, Python, etc.); but Qt itself is native to the system.
That's the SMB+netbios protocol. Not sure how well it plays with IPv6, though there do seem to be at least some patches for SMB for Samba; so it's likely to support it at least on the non-Windows side of the CIFS/SMB networking. However, that only works for games that recognize SMB, which is not all - though likely most.
Also, that relies on them being able to see each other via SMB, which can sometimes be very problematic - especially when systems are set up for different work groups, domains, etc.
You do know that not everyone, and especially the casual gamers, don't pay for a gaming service like Steam and Live, right?
So you're expecting all the people who set up private LANs to also setup a DNS on that LAN? Like that will happen.
Not to mention the games have to support IPv6 too...
But it's not arbitrary. Patents by design were suppose to be for tangible things, with Copyrights for intangible things; never the two should intertwine. That actually works very very well; until you get the lawyers and PHB's involved that want to protect everything in every possible way - so they intertwined them and now we have the chaotic mess that we have. We need to separate them again.