Hmmm... If you have watched the original uncutted Solaris by Tarkowsky, there is a very long (10 minutes?) scene where the main character just sits in a car going to his office (If I remember correctly) and the camera displays a futuristic city around his car as he travels the highway. The scene has a very "documentary" kind of feel.
Maybe Tarkowsky used the footage he shot in Japan in his film, he just didn't tell anyone about it:)
No, I am a person that responded by ACTUALLY LOOKING UP SOME INFORMATION about Google hiring people to work with Firefox and admitted being wrong. YOU are a person who WOULD NOT include ANY PROOF of your "understanding" but instead chose to call me a tool.
I actually spent some time and found Google really is hiring people to do real Firefox development (well, it's says that on the job application notice). Guess that proves me wrong. I have always thought Firefox developers were hired to make Google toolbar and other Google stuff to work better with Firefox, and not to actually develop Firefox.
That's because the whole AJAX thing is not new and it's real simple. I have personally done the same thing in web application using the IFRAME/ILAYER trick since 2000. It has worked very well. Now suddenly everyone is talking about this like it's somehow "new" technology, because this kind of functionality is now officially supported by the big companies.
I'm not sure if "your stuff" is really protected if anyone can "adjust" the security protecting it. Besides, you can always look into the copyright protection mechanism under DMCA, you are just not allowed to circumvent it. So you can read, audit and evaluate it, you just cannot adjust it. Happy now?
I wonder what will nVidia's or ATI's response be if Microsft tells them to support Halo 2 (or DirectX10), but "oh yeah it will only on Vista". I think they will not be happy.
So how many of you righteous people that bashed Google for the China incident a few days back are now abandoning Linux because it's used in weapon technology?
What in Samba exactly makes it superior to Microsoft's implementation? AFAIK Samba tries to mainly emulate Windows networking, and does that indeed pretty darn good.
Adobe has expanded PDF format through many extensions that they have NOT released in public. Just google for "Adobe PDF extensions".
Eclipse is largely based on the work done by IBM done as closed source.
Please do not try to deliberately misunderstand me. I only stated companies should protect their IP if they can and their income depends on it. It's the only sane thing for them. If Microsoft controlled HTML, it probably wouldn't be any better or worse. In my opinion HTML sucks and is a relic that should be put out of it's misery, but I just have to work with it.
This maybe also shocking news to you, but Bill Gates and Microsoft has done many times more in brinning cheap PC computing to everyday users than any other person on this planet. Windows is not targetted for the tech person who wants to tweak his system and fix things by himself. It's meant for the common person, and so is IE. Imagine a large company with everyone installing their own choice of OS, setting their own network settings etc. It would turn into a chaos.
Is it really that hard to keep existing APIs intact when designing new ones, then implemented in new versions? Not in my head, if the initial planning is done properly.
As for you last statement, you just said yourself that Firefox is also borked because it does not past the ACID2 test. My actual original point that I did not make very clearly, was that ACID2 compatibility would probably break a lot of existing web sites that rely on browser quirks to function properly. Or it would slow down HTML rendering in general or it would be very difficult to implement. My other point was that Firefox development team does the same as IE's development team; ACID2 compatibility is not an important issue, so it won't be fixed. The ending result is the same with both browsers, open source or not. If IE is not worth using, people will stop using it. The same goes for Firefox.
So have you participated in any of these large software projects? How many hours would you estimate a person should be willing to sacrifice to get something fixed? I just read Apache software foundation's Individual Contributors License Agreement which is an EULAish agreement that specifies the role of a contributer. There seems to be no other formal procedure. I guess someone would found out sooner or later, if I actually know how to write program code or understand anything about software development, in general. But then I could be "fired" because I would then be in breach of the contributor EULA:)
It all comes down to time. If a flaw is big enough, it will not be fixed by anyone, because every OS developer thinks it's someone else's job, of just repeat the "fix it yourself" mantra.
For example, Microsoft did not invent SMB protocol that both Windows networking and Samba are based on! So they cannot protect it. Neither did Microsoft "invent" HTTP or HTML. So they cannot protect it. And Microsoft did not invent the browser either. So they cannot protect it. But Macromedia "invented" Flash and is rightfully trying to protect it by not allowing third party implementations. There a great difference here. Macromedia is not a big company, which is probably why they are playing it safe with Flash. This may be shoking news to you, but some companies actually do not want to give their work away for free just because they would be accepted by a bunch of people.
Choice is not important to most of the people using computers. They want a system that works, and they want to PAY someone money for fixing they things break, of get someone else to fix it for free. I have used both KDE and GNOME for quite some time. I am a Java deeloper so it really makes no difference for me what system I run. But I finally made the CHOICE to go back to Windows. Yoy say choice is important; I chose Windows and just about all the non-technical people choose the same.
Your last statement is probably what is really wrong about open source development these days. People seem to think every software can be "fixed" by adding zillions of small patches by a lot of developers. This is simply not true. Major software projects need a very good architecture team and documentation and a good leader. These are the boring, yet time consuming tasks in a software project so guess what? Open source projects have usually none of them. So software like Gnome and KDE go through huge changes in just about every major version. Just like Linux kernel keeps changing header files and something usually breaks between versions. Now THAT is anathema to open source and to open standards.
And finally, if open source software can be fixed if it's broken, how come Firefox or Mozilla is STILL not fully CSS-compatible and fails ACID2-test, for example? After all, it's a W3C standard. Like I said, software is huge these days and things are not so simple as "open source vs closed source".
The point is Macromedia is doing exactly the RIGHT thing as a business trying to make profit. They do not want crappy player implementations. Sure it may be easy to create a player that can run Flash ads, but how about creating a full blown run time environment which can run complex Flash apps like Habbo hotel client? I can just imagine the not-quite-there-yet open source implementations that would try to compete, and every distro vendor would sheepishly abandon the Macromedia's implementation for a open sourced one that does not work properly. This would only hurt general users.
And Gnome and KDE would both have one available that would require linking it with all of their runtime libraries...
Macromedia's implementation is quite remarkable, considering the variety of Linux machines it runs on.
Macromedia's flash player is probably the most installed piece of software ever created. You just have deal with it.
So you actually believe the slogan "Do No Evil" as so "black-and-white" that you bash Google now for breaking your precious bubble? How about I bought a Philips light bulb and it didn't "make things better". No there's a real show stopper!
Seriously, if you think Google has really went all Evil(tm), just stop using their products.
What the hell are you taling about? The spec is open. The player or the encoder is NOT. Can't you tell the difference between those? I think Macromedia is trying to protect Flash from half assed player implementations that would endanger it.
Why not just admit you like Open Source not because it's open, but only because it's "free" for you? Never mind some one spent crapload of time coding it. If Windows were free, you would think it's the best thing.
So how many of those people are over 35 of age? You just stated you hire people with little experience... So does that mean your local population is also young people with little experience?
So do you ever use your "point" as a weapon? You can just as easily say people are being racist against you, if they do not agree with you.
I have some what the same situation, although I am caucasian. I do not exactly look like your average IT worker, being with earrings, a bald head and slightly erratic personality and a metal-punk attitude. But I am very good in what I do and also a team player in my job. Still most new people I meet seem to think I work in a sweat shop fixing cars or in a construction yard. I usually do not bother to correct them.
Yes, because in US the most terrifying situation is not when a lot of people lose lives, but when a lot of people are stoppped from buying useless crap.
Yes, now I remember... stupid people not using the mechanic write protection:) But it is the same thing anyway: People copied software and games far more on DOS than on Mac computers, so viruses would spear more efficiently. Granted, DOS probably was more insecure than whattsitcalledMacOS at the time.
Could you be a little more specific about these 80's attacks on DOS? Did they take place using analog modems or what? When a Windows vulnerability is found, it is certain that there are countless PC machines connected to the Internet that can be exploited THE SAME WAY. So why wouldn't this exploit be used against them?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... If you have watched the original uncutted Solaris by Tarkowsky, there is a very long (10 minutes?) scene where the main character just sits in a car going to his office (If I remember correctly) and the camera displays a futuristic city around his car as he travels the highway. The scene has a very "documentary" kind of feel.
:)
Maybe Tarkowsky used the footage he shot in Japan in his film, he just didn't tell anyone about it
No, I am a person that responded by ACTUALLY LOOKING UP SOME INFORMATION about Google hiring people to work with Firefox and admitted being wrong. YOU are a person who WOULD NOT include ANY PROOF of your "understanding" but instead chose to call me a tool.
Now, what does that make you?
I actually spent some time and found Google really is hiring people to do real Firefox development (well, it's says that on the job application notice). Guess that proves me wrong. I have always thought Firefox developers were hired to make Google toolbar and other Google stuff to work better with Firefox, and not to actually develop Firefox.
Those are not community, they are individual people. Are you also saying Microsoft is giving back to OS community when it hires OS developers?
That's because the whole AJAX thing is not new and it's real simple. I have personally done the same thing in web application using the IFRAME/ILAYER trick since 2000. It has worked very well. Now suddenly everyone is talking about this like it's somehow "new" technology, because this kind of functionality is now officially supported by the big companies.
I guess it's nice to ride the hype wave.
Kinda like I made such a web front end for a database application.... back in 2000 using the IFRAME/ILAYER trick. Still works.
I'm not sure if "your stuff" is really protected if anyone can "adjust" the security protecting it. Besides, you can always look into the copyright protection mechanism under DMCA, you are just not allowed to circumvent it. So you can read, audit and evaluate it, you just cannot adjust it. Happy now?
I wonder what will nVidia's or ATI's response be if Microsft tells them to support Halo 2 (or DirectX10), but "oh yeah it will only on Vista". I think they will not be happy.
So how many of you righteous people that bashed Google for the China incident a few days back are now abandoning Linux because it's used in weapon technology?
What in Samba exactly makes it superior to Microsoft's implementation? AFAIK Samba tries to mainly emulate Windows networking, and does that indeed pretty darn good.
Adobe has expanded PDF format through many extensions that they have NOT released in public. Just google for "Adobe PDF extensions".
Eclipse is largely based on the work done by IBM done as closed source.
Please do not try to deliberately misunderstand me. I only stated companies should protect their IP if they can and their income depends on it. It's the only sane thing for them. If Microsoft controlled HTML, it probably wouldn't be any better or worse. In my opinion HTML sucks and is a relic that should be put out of it's misery, but I just have to work with it.
This maybe also shocking news to you, but Bill Gates and Microsoft has done many times more in brinning cheap PC computing to everyday users than any other person on this planet. Windows is not targetted for the tech person who wants to tweak his system and fix things by himself. It's meant for the common person, and so is IE. Imagine a large company with everyone installing their own choice of OS, setting their own network settings etc. It would turn into a chaos.
Is it really that hard to keep existing APIs intact when designing new ones, then implemented in new versions? Not in my head, if the initial planning is done properly.
As for you last statement, you just said yourself that Firefox is also borked because it does not past the ACID2 test. My actual original point that I did not make very clearly, was that ACID2 compatibility would probably break a lot of existing web sites that rely on browser quirks to function properly. Or it would slow down HTML rendering in general or it would be very difficult to implement. My other point was that Firefox development team does the same as IE's development team; ACID2 compatibility is not an important issue, so it won't be fixed. The ending result is the same with both browsers, open source or not. If IE is not worth using, people will stop using it. The same goes for Firefox.
So have you participated in any of these large software projects? How many hours would you estimate a person should be willing to sacrifice to get something fixed? I just read Apache software foundation's Individual Contributors License Agreement which is an EULAish agreement that specifies the role of a contributer. There seems to be no other formal procedure. I guess someone would found out sooner or later, if I actually know how to write program code or understand anything about software development, in general. But then I could be "fired" because I would then be in breach of the contributor EULA :)
It all comes down to time. If a flaw is big enough, it will not be fixed by anyone, because every OS developer thinks it's someone else's job, of just repeat the "fix it yourself" mantra.
For example, Microsoft did not invent SMB protocol that both Windows networking and Samba are based on! So they cannot protect it. Neither did Microsoft "invent" HTTP or HTML. So they cannot protect it. And Microsoft did not invent the browser either. So they cannot protect it. But Macromedia "invented" Flash and is rightfully trying to protect it by not allowing third party implementations. There a great difference here. Macromedia is not a big company, which is probably why they are playing it safe with Flash. This may be shoking news to you, but some companies actually do not want to give their work away for free just because they would be accepted by a bunch of people.
Choice is not important to most of the people using computers. They want a system that works, and they want to PAY someone money for fixing they things break, of get someone else to fix it for free. I have used both KDE and GNOME for quite some time. I am a Java deeloper so it really makes no difference for me what system I run. But I finally made the CHOICE to go back to Windows. Yoy say choice is important; I chose Windows and just about all the non-technical people choose the same.
Your last statement is probably what is really wrong about open source development these days. People seem to think every software can be "fixed" by adding zillions of small patches by a lot of developers. This is simply not true. Major software projects need a very good architecture team and documentation and a good leader. These are the boring, yet time consuming tasks in a software project so guess what? Open source projects have usually none of them. So software like Gnome and KDE go through huge changes in just about every major version. Just like Linux kernel keeps changing header files and something usually breaks between versions. Now THAT is anathema to open source and to open standards.
And finally, if open source software can be fixed if it's broken, how come Firefox or Mozilla is STILL not fully CSS-compatible and fails ACID2-test, for example? After all, it's a W3C standard. Like I said, software is huge these days and things are not so simple as "open source vs closed source".
The point is Macromedia is doing exactly the RIGHT thing as a business trying to make profit. They do not want crappy player implementations. Sure it may be easy to create a player that can run Flash ads, but how about creating a full blown run time environment which can run complex Flash apps like Habbo hotel client? I can just imagine the not-quite-there-yet open source implementations that would try to compete, and every distro vendor would sheepishly abandon the Macromedia's implementation for a open sourced one that does not work properly. This would only hurt general users.
And Gnome and KDE would both have one available that would require linking it with all of their runtime libraries...
Macromedia's implementation is quite remarkable, considering the variety of Linux machines it runs on.Macromedia's flash player is probably the most installed piece of software ever created. You just have deal with it.
So you actually believe the slogan "Do No Evil" as so "black-and-white" that you bash Google now for breaking your precious bubble? How about I bought a Philips light bulb and it didn't "make things better". No there's a real show stopper!
Seriously, if you think Google has really went all Evil(tm), just stop using their products.
What the hell are you taling about? The spec is open. The player or the encoder is NOT. Can't you tell the difference between those? I think Macromedia is trying to protect Flash from half assed player implementations that would endanger it.
So if a bug free Flash player is easily written as Open Source, how come it seems to be hard to write as closed source?
What we do NOT need is three competing standards: flash, sparkle and an open source alike.
And PDF is an open format only in some levels: There are many Adobe-only extensions.
Why not just admit you like Open Source not because it's open, but only because it's "free" for you? Never mind some one spent crapload of time coding it. If Windows were free, you would think it's the best thing.
Wow, that really is a lot of diversity then. Kinda makes me jealous :)
So how many of those people are over 35 of age? You just stated you hire people with little experience... So does that mean your local population is also young people with little experience?
So do you ever use your "point" as a weapon? You can just as easily say people are being racist against you, if they do not agree with you.
I have some what the same situation, although I am caucasian. I do not exactly look like your average IT worker, being with earrings, a bald head and slightly erratic personality and a metal-punk attitude. But I am very good in what I do and also a team player in my job. Still most new people I meet seem to think I work in a sweat shop fixing cars or in a construction yard. I usually do not bother to correct them.
Well, maybe you should wait a few years and recheck your opinion on that...
No, YOU are going to the direction most people seem to be going. You are afraid and wary. That maybe what your government wants you to feel like.
Terrorists seem to have already beaten you.
Yes, because in US the most terrifying situation is not when a lot of people lose lives, but when a lot of people are stoppped from buying useless crap.
Switching to GPLv3 would mark the death of any commercial possibilitites for Linux.
Yes, now I remember... stupid people not using the mechanic write protection :) But it is the same thing anyway: People copied software and games far more on DOS than on Mac computers, so viruses would spear more efficiently. Granted, DOS probably was more insecure than whattsitcalledMacOS at the time.
Could you be a little more specific about these 80's attacks on DOS? Did they take place using analog modems or what? When a Windows vulnerability is found, it is certain that there are countless PC machines connected to the Internet that can be exploited THE SAME WAY. So why wouldn't this exploit be used against them?