I couldn't find on any of the "better" new phones: a nested phone book, so that one name (one entry in the phone book list) could be associated with multiple numbers from which I could choose after selecting the name. Instead, every phone I saw had a strict one-number, one-listing phone book.
Every phone I've seen in the last few years has this. The SE one in the review (and its early ancestor the T610, and I assume every intermediate version) certainly does.
How so? Now I don't need a film camera, film, or a digital camera, or batteries for either. The camera on my phone suffices. Waste is having it and not using it, and most people I know with this brand of phone do use it.
Isn't it the media companies that are using this power to control the market, though? I'd like to be positive enough to think that you can't just equate the government and big business these days.
I think the code itself is BSD-licenced, the other bits are essentially attribution (which might be included in the "new" BSD licence, I'm not sure) and a bunch of disclaimers about the fact that it needs the MS Office XML format schemas in order to work, I think.
I am so far from being a lawyer that it's untrue though, so large pinch of salt there. It certainly appears to allow commercial use, which is handy.
Maybe that just means the target audience of Linux users are just less likley to click "Yes" on the dialog box "Is it ok to install 'this random application you have never seen before'?".
It means both. Linux is a much smaller target for desktop users, and it's typically used by technically-literate people anyway.
Indeed, that system is getting a bit complicated in itself, though. You might end up better with a centralised system that is internally and silently decentralised, rather than a decentralised system which is centralised externally anyway. But yes. Wildly off-topic.:)
Possible, yes, but the problem is that to have a semantically-powerful enough syntax, you'd end up with something (as a minimum) that's not easily manually fixed when it dies anyway, like XML. Everything's a tradeoff though.
Monad apparently has registry support. I think that the registry deserves a chance though, it is distributed and recoverable these days, although I'm not sure if how that is done is immediately obvious. And if the registry is a "performance bottleneck", I'd think it was being used improperly. I like the idea of the registry, and I don't think that there's a fundamental problem with the idea that is a problem, although its implementation has been and is shoddy in many ways, although it is improving.
I'm not sure — I mean, they'll need to install to the user's home dir somewhere probably, but you'll still end up using signatures and so on to detect specific pieces of software, which is where it all falls down, to some degree. The problem's more identification, as opposed to just finding the files.
The secret to keeping a system spyware free is not running un-trusted code and not using programs like bonsai buddy that are somewhat openly spyware.
I agree
As to removing spyware it's a lot harder to hid on a UNIX system than it is on windows.
I disagree. Well, not really, but there's no effective difference. People who can use UNIX or Windows will know where to look. People who can't will not.
Agreed, using Windows multiuser in this way works too, however, but obviously the Administrator account either has to have limited access, or the person using it has to be a bit more careful.
As for corporate uses, I count that as a different area than "desktop" (correctly or not). By desktop I mean "home", if I was meaning corporate I'd say "workstation". But on the other hand in a corporate context it's not really any safer since there is (or should!) be controls put on user accounts, and there are frameworks for doing this.
A multiuser home PC is a good example of where Windows can fall down though, yes. But it's only really relevant to viruses (limiting Spyware to one user account isn't a huge benefit since it's non-damaging and generally easily-detected), in my own opinion. Then again, I say "desktop" where I should say "home", so what do I know:D.
To the best of my knowledge, it was Google messing around with it that really kicked off the whole "fad" thing of it right now, but I'm not sure if they were more innovative or just high-profile. Certainly when they started using it, it looked very new to me.
The only reason (and good one, IMHO)that AJAX is gaining popularity recently is that the XMLHttpRequest javascript object is available in browsers other than IE and no longer proprietary to microsoft.
I'd love to believe that, but at the time that the MS solution was first made, MS had even more of a control over the browser market than they do now, really. Many of their proprietary nonsense things ended up on webpages, and there's little reason to believe this wouldn't either. I'm not sure if it had XML support, though.
I agree that the reason AJAX is now gaining popularity is fueled by what you say. And also because it can do really neat things without the need for browser plugins and the like. I'm just not sure it's the reason that the older systems like it didn't take off. A contributing factor, sure. I guess what AJAX really has is people capable of looking at the technology and and realising its potential in this way.
I have a Linux box, a (Free)BSD box, and a Windows box. None have spyware. That does not, however, mean that they're all spyware-proof. Quite they opposite. The problems which allow spyware on Windows, other than security problems in IE which are (although it pains me to say it) largely fixed now, are problems with the architecture of computers in general. Other operating systems avoid it by it just not being worth the while of someone to write a spyware system, not some magical immunity.
Hahahaha. Quite. This is part of the reason that people are trying to make program problems chargeable to the authors of a system — closed-source systems and the flexibility of computers give people endless opportunities that don't fit into the normal laws for suitability of a product.
I don't like getting into "that kind" of argument online. It never feels productive. I prefer to argue in order to learn more, or at least understand other people's arguments.
If it helps, I'm currently at work, so things could be worse for you.:D
Google says they are going to start hosting things like databases and office applications on the web and *bam* suddenly Microsoft says the same thing.
Someone announced it first, and MS are making an attempt at keeping up. Seems sensible from a business context, although yes, it's "reactionary", however this:
Mac OS uses the graphics processor and OpenGL to provide dazzling desktop effects and *bam* suddenly Microsoft says their next version of Windows will have the same thing.
Any idiot could tell you this was the way things were going to go. OSX got it out first, since they don't really have to worry about backwards hardware compatibility (since they control the hardware and software platforms).
Can Microsoft not come up with useful new technologies on their own?
Yes, they can. Just because they don't come up with all new technologies doesn't mean they don't come up with some. The wonderful thing about computer science/software engineering (and the terrible thing about software patents) is that everyone can borrow ideas from one another to advance the environment as a whole. Software patents break this, which is why we're all so pissed with them..NET and ClearType are two technologies which, off the top of my head, are MS-led and useful. There's more, a quick look at their research area shows that they've got a huge number of world-class people working on next-generation stuff.
Microsoft do business like assholes. We know this, they have in the past and they probably will in the future. They've also made some fantastically stupid choices with software before. But, believe it or not, their technologists are not generally bad. Many of them are very, very good, and many of their technologies are very nice, useful, and so on. It's the business that kills them most of the time, and although I'm not the greatest fan of the way they conduct themselves, I do think it's unfair to claim that they're considerably less innovative than many of their competitors (although I think there's a good case for Google there).
Defending MS on Slashdot. I've lost my fucking mind.
I didn't want to get into this argument today, I was just trying to point out what the parent post to the post above my original one was talking about! Bah!
There are other music players to buy, from other companies. The have about 25% of the market.
They are all largely compatible with each other, too. The problem is that portable players have such a control over the online music market that every other company has no choice but to only target that 25% of a large segment of the industry.
There are other ways to buy music, either physically or online. Online sales are dwarfed by CD sales, although online no-one seems able to compete with Apple. You can even rent music for next to nothing.
People want to buy music online. The music companies (the real people to blame, I agree) often insist that it is DRMed. Therefore those who wish to listen to this music, and wish to download (which is more convenient and cheaper, and so on, so there's an incentive) must buy DRMed content. iPods (75% of the market, assuming your figure is correct) can only play music from non-DRMed sources (which isn't enough for many) or ITMS, since Apple won't licence their DRM to other stores.
This surprises me. I'd have thought Microsoft or Dell would step up, but they've brought nothing coherent to the table, just pieces of the whole.
MS licence their DRM system to other people, and most (I think) other players use it. There is no way in hell that Microsoft would get away with what Apple have already gotten away with, and they know this.
And if a monopoly can actually be shown, where is the illegal use of monopoly power? Without both a real monopoly and illegal use of the power derived from it, there's no legal issue at all.
This is the interesting point. But as I've said, I'm not interested in arguing this. It just strikes me as strange that so many people get upset with Microsoft for what is, in context, often far less. This issue does not really affect me though, since I couldn't justify purchasing music in the knowledge that my ownership of it could be revoked.
A bullet-proof OS that NEVER gets viruses, spyware, etc. We could only dream that Microsoft would follow that lead!
Linux is no more resistant to spyware than Windows, and viruses are only significantly different in a multiuser context (which isn't what most desktop installs are). Calling it bulletproof is entirely untrue.
Good point, although their technology was a little more proprietary than AJAX, it certainly did the same things. Was before computers were powerful enough to really take advantage, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Every phone I've seen in the last few years has this. The SE one in the review (and its early ancestor the T610, and I assume every intermediate version) certainly does.
How so? Now I don't need a film camera, film, or a digital camera, or batteries for either. The camera on my phone suffices. Waste is having it and not using it, and most people I know with this brand of phone do use it.
Isn't it the media companies that are using this power to control the market, though? I'd like to be positive enough to think that you can't just equate the government and big business these days.
It's a nice thought, anyway.
I think the code itself is BSD-licenced, the other bits are essentially attribution (which might be included in the "new" BSD licence, I'm not sure) and a bunch of disclaimers about the fact that it needs the MS Office XML format schemas in order to work, I think.
I am so far from being a lawyer that it's untrue though, so large pinch of salt there. It certainly appears to allow commercial use, which is handy.
It means both. Linux is a much smaller target for desktop users, and it's typically used by technically-literate people anyway.
This isn't a product presentation or a job interview mate, we're all friends here. You can say "using".
This might sound stupid, but have you tried version 2? I've had much better results with that. 1 was awful though, yeah.
I was referring to the new controls in IE, but yes, the firewall protections fit that bill.
To be fair, that analogy is only really relevant with pre-SP2 Windows. The missing protection is essentially there now.
Indeed, that system is getting a bit complicated in itself, though. You might end up better with a centralised system that is internally and silently decentralised, rather than a decentralised system which is centralised externally anyway. But yes. Wildly off-topic. :)
Possible, yes, but the problem is that to have a semantically-powerful enough syntax, you'd end up with something (as a minimum) that's not easily manually fixed when it dies anyway, like XML. Everything's a tradeoff though.
Monad apparently has registry support. I think that the registry deserves a chance though, it is distributed and recoverable these days, although I'm not sure if how that is done is immediately obvious. And if the registry is a "performance bottleneck", I'd think it was being used improperly. I like the idea of the registry, and I don't think that there's a fundamental problem with the idea that is a problem, although its implementation has been and is shoddy in many ways, although it is improving.
Other than that, completely agreed.
I'm not sure — I mean, they'll need to install to the user's home dir somewhere probably, but you'll still end up using signatures and so on to detect specific pieces of software, which is where it all falls down, to some degree. The problem's more identification, as opposed to just finding the files.
Possibly, though.
I agree
I disagree. Well, not really, but there's no effective difference. People who can use UNIX or Windows will know where to look. People who can't will not.
Agreed, using Windows multiuser in this way works too, however, but obviously the Administrator account either has to have limited access, or the person using it has to be a bit more careful.
As for corporate uses, I count that as a different area than "desktop" (correctly or not). By desktop I mean "home", if I was meaning corporate I'd say "workstation". But on the other hand in a corporate context it's not really any safer since there is (or should!) be controls put on user accounts, and there are frameworks for doing this.
A multiuser home PC is a good example of where Windows can fall down though, yes. But it's only really relevant to viruses (limiting Spyware to one user account isn't a huge benefit since it's non-damaging and generally easily-detected), in my own opinion. Then again, I say "desktop" where I should say "home", so what do I know :D.
To the best of my knowledge, it was Google messing around with it that really kicked off the whole "fad" thing of it right now, but I'm not sure if they were more innovative or just high-profile. Certainly when they started using it, it looked very new to me.
I'd love to believe that, but at the time that the MS solution was first made, MS had even more of a control over the browser market than they do now, really. Many of their proprietary nonsense things ended up on webpages, and there's little reason to believe this wouldn't either. I'm not sure if it had XML support, though.
I agree that the reason AJAX is now gaining popularity is fueled by what you say. And also because it can do really neat things without the need for browser plugins and the like. I'm just not sure it's the reason that the older systems like it didn't take off. A contributing factor, sure. I guess what AJAX really has is people capable of looking at the technology and and realising its potential in this way.
Hahahaha. Quite. This is part of the reason that people are trying to make program problems chargeable to the authors of a system — closed-source systems and the flexibility of computers give people endless opportunities that don't fit into the normal laws for suitability of a product.
I don't like getting into "that kind" of argument online. It never feels productive. I prefer to argue in order to learn more, or at least understand other people's arguments.
If it helps, I'm currently at work, so things could be worse for you. :D
Someone announced it first, and MS are making an attempt at keeping up. Seems sensible from a business context, although yes, it's "reactionary", however this:
Any idiot could tell you this was the way things were going to go. OSX got it out first, since they don't really have to worry about backwards hardware compatibility (since they control the hardware and software platforms).
Yes, they can. Just because they don't come up with all new technologies doesn't mean they don't come up with some. The wonderful thing about computer science/software engineering (and the terrible thing about software patents) is that everyone can borrow ideas from one another to advance the environment as a whole. Software patents break this, which is why we're all so pissed with them. .NET and ClearType are two technologies which, off the top of my head, are MS-led and useful. There's more, a quick look at their research area shows that they've got a huge number of world-class people working on next-generation stuff.
Microsoft do business like assholes. We know this, they have in the past and they probably will in the future. They've also made some fantastically stupid choices with software before. But, believe it or not, their technologists are not generally bad. Many of them are very, very good, and many of their technologies are very nice, useful, and so on. It's the business that kills them most of the time, and although I'm not the greatest fan of the way they conduct themselves, I do think it's unfair to claim that they're considerably less innovative than many of their competitors (although I think there's a good case for Google there).
Defending MS on Slashdot. I've lost my fucking mind.
I didn't want to get into this argument today, I was just trying to point out what the parent post to the post above my original one was talking about! Bah!
They are all largely compatible with each other, too. The problem is that portable players have such a control over the online music market that every other company has no choice but to only target that 25% of a large segment of the industry.
People want to buy music online. The music companies (the real people to blame, I agree) often insist that it is DRMed. Therefore those who wish to listen to this music, and wish to download (which is more convenient and cheaper, and so on, so there's an incentive) must buy DRMed content. iPods (75% of the market, assuming your figure is correct) can only play music from non-DRMed sources (which isn't enough for many) or ITMS, since Apple won't licence their DRM to other stores.
MS licence their DRM system to other people, and most (I think) other players use it. There is no way in hell that Microsoft would get away with what Apple have already gotten away with, and they know this.
This is the interesting point. But as I've said, I'm not interested in arguing this. It just strikes me as strange that so many people get upset with Microsoft for what is, in context, often far less. This issue does not really affect me though, since I couldn't justify purchasing music in the knowledge that my ownership of it could be revoked.
Linux is no more resistant to spyware than Windows, and viruses are only significantly different in a multiuser context (which isn't what most desktop installs are). Calling it bulletproof is entirely untrue.
Good point, although their technology was a little more proprietary than AJAX, it certainly did the same things. Was before computers were powerful enough to really take advantage, though.
Hmm. This is almost a consequence of their monopolistic (effectively) control over music on iPods, however.