You could be right, but wouldn't there still be an advantage even if your info wasn't sent to live, but the query to live was optimized by vista's search to better reflect what you are actually looking for?
I'm afraid I'm really not sure what you're saying here; are you saying that if a desktop search was translated to an internet search after being "optimised" in some way that, if the internet search vendor was Windows Live, that the implicit details of the optimisation could be used to infer the preferences of the user? I'm really not sure it's common or important enough to be significant, but I suppose it's an interesting angle.
This is an interesting point, I'm aware of no such link. I would think that the connected web search would use IE's search, which is definitely vendor-agnostic. Can you provide more information? I'm afraid I don't have an installation of Vista to check this on.
Vista searches probably feed Live with info on your interests, so it gives Live the advantage over google in search accuracy.
This is blatantly ridiculous. People are not stupid, and they'd spot this, and Microsoft are simply not dumb enough to try it. Collecting this sort of data would at least require a waiver in the OS licence, and I guarantee you that if it were there you'd have heard about it by now.
Google is probably asking microsoft to let them make a drop in replacement for vista's search, one that will not alter the user's experience using his OS. The user would use his OS the same way (same search box, the same place, comparable performance), but the engine would be powered by Google.
This is pretty much exactly what they're asking; the issue is whether this should be a replaceable element of the operating system. Obviously file indexing is a pretty core function of most modern operating systems, and it's not like Apple have announced plans to allow users to replace Spotlight or anything, and I doubt that would be easy on a technical level.
It's an interesting issue in any case. Making it replaceable when it's hooked so closely into the system is technically difficult (especially when it's not a core requirement of the system) and offers very little in terms of tangible benefits. The main issue, though, is that Vista's release schedule was so long that third-party replacements such as Google Desktop Search had appeared to provide this functionality on top of the existing system.
Then bring them the requested amount (+-3%) in pennies. "I can be an asshole too, sir."
I don't know if that's legal in the US, but here (Scotland) one can refuse cash payment if the amount of change given is unreasonable. I think there might even be a legal definition of what "reasonable" is.
People don't get rid of MP3s because they're still the lowest common denominator of music file formats. Everything plays them, unlike AAC or Vorbis or WMA or whatever else.
It would be nice to have the option to choose a format that suited the user, though. Presumably the only reason they've not done that is to avoid confusion (Apple can offer AAC as their "only choice" since they only support iTunes and iPods).
It just struck me as many times more "Ballmer" than before; if he's who I think he is (memory not the best, unfortunately) he's been down to earth and knowledgable in the past, seeing a simple difference of opinion in many cases. Here he messes up the meaning of Free Software (it's still Free Software if a company is making it!) and gotten more of a "chair-throwing" attitude to his choice of words and phrases. It's disappointing.
As an aside, wasn't Hilf supposed to be from a FOSS background, back before MS hired him as their Open Source Guy? Seems either he never really understood FOSS, or else he's just been at MS so long that's gone native.
Honestly, after reading the full article the main quotes are either being taken very far out of context (seems likely given the other quotes on the page), or he's expressed himself very poorly (also seems likely). He's seemed lucid on these topics in the past so this is actually quite surprising.
I'm fairly sure that Sun said that they decided against putting Solaris onto the GPL because they didn't see a benefit, and their userbase had said the same thing. I could be wrong, though.
DWR is great, but the article doesn't actually review it; if you read, they reject it right at the beginning because it doesn't fit into their architecture (read: they're not using Java). They probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Well, yes. Almost all modern systems are fraught with terrible decisions (the example that came up in conversation at my work today was TCP/IP, for example); a lot of computing these days seems to be put into security updates that are effectively workarounds for more fundamental problems with systems.
Actually when I said "good enough", I meant from a generic user's point of view. I haven't tried it but if you polled a few users to ask them what they'd like the next version of their system to be like, I doubt they'd come up with anything revolutionary (less malware or spam would be my guess among MS users).
Honestly I didn't even notice you'd used the phrase "good enough" in your post, but what I meant is much the same as you (although possibly a little more generalised). Less malware and spam to most practical levels will be achieved by Vista. Honestly there's very little stopping malware etc. on other systems over Windows anyway; it's the biggest example of the "big target" excuse so commonly used, since users generally click past the "you're installing crap! don't do it!" page blindly, and there's just not a lot you can do if the user approves it on any system.
It's not great and quite kludgy in places but it now has all the apps I need for day to day use, even the office apps. It still has the problem solving tools I've come to rely on when I need to script stuff (with new and better ones coming along every now and then). And I can more or less understand what's happening in it (and if I don't I know it at least has a fair chance of being vaguely documented somewhere) which is more than I can say about Windows which I have now relegated to a purely gaming platform.
I use Ubuntu on all my machines, and although *nix's "small, simple components" design philosophy is undoubtedly a benefit to understanding, the inherent complexity in most systems means that often one has to check so many components that it's no better than on Windows; and the number of people using Windows means that for problem-solving reasons (which is by far the most important angle for myself, at least), Windows can often be better for finding documentation. As easy as it is to dismiss Windows for its prior problems, it's certainly not a bad system, and it's certainly not behind it's competitors.
The only thing I miss is pie menus which I still think are a great interface which are really underused (or rather not used at all).
Personally I hate them, but to each their own! I guess they're the marmite of UI.
So while I find the research systems interesting from an intellectual point of view, at the end of the day, they're a bit like CPUs, I don't really care what runs my apps any more as long as it works and I more or less understand how to make it do its thing my way.
This is basically it. Most people's requirements for an OS will read similarly, and honestly pretty much every major system will match these requirements (except for niches which have some dominance, such as the most predominant example, which is gaming). There's not a market demand for system which are more reliable, or more secure, or otherwise revolutionarily different from the systems we have today, and unless one comes around these research OSs are unlikely to become anything more than "interesting".
To be fair, I'd say that doing an install of a 6 year-old OS of any type on an open network connection is not wise. Even Linux and OS X have quite possibly had remote flaws fixed since then (regardless of open ports; bugs in kernel-level networking code could also pose a security problem). The fact that one can still obtain pre-SP2 Windows disk images does not mean that comparing it with current versions of other systems is fair.
That said, Windows pre-SP2 is unquestionably more dangerous to install without some outside protection on an open network than pretty much anything from the same time. But I think it's encouraging to know that people are becoming security-concious enough that they can make even Microsoft clean up their act; Microsoft, more than most other companies, seem to have their development focus set by market demand.
I don't know if research OSs are an interest area to you, but I have to say that, a language nerd myself, Microsoft Research's Singularity is incredibly interesting, tying together a lot of newer ways of doing things at a lower level than is usually considered. There's a couple of research projects which are also based on language-safety, Coyotos (I think?) also comes to mind.
I have to say, though, more on-topic, that this article proves more than anything that the "major" OSs are all converging now. I honestly don't see major OS changes happening to any of them from here on; this is part of the reason that people don't see a huge change in Vista. There isn't a big change, but there's not a big change in Linux or OS X or whatever, either.
I wonder if it's time to consider these systems "good enough", or if something else needs to be done? I don't know if in practical terms the "better" research OSs will ever see real-world use, which is a real shame, but they might see their chance opening when it becomes apparent that we have pretty much exhausted the possibilities for the existing versions, and people still need a product to sell year-by-year. But this is much more likely to lead to a focus away from the OS and into other areas, rather than the other way around.
But this isn't even about fair use! Fair use doesn't even protect YouTube here - they do not have a good fair use case for the use of the content. What they do have, though, is a provision in the otherwise-horrid DMCA which says specifically that they are not responsible for the content posted by users, they just need to take it down when asked. That's what's under debate here.
I think you forgot the part where Steve Jobs sells you a marginally more-attractive but for some reason infinitely tempting hooker every year for another $129.
My brain sees these as pretty incomparable. but that's just me. Here (UK) I'm fairly certain that Podcasts have the same rules as if they were distributed song-by-song, in any case. Podcasts of radio shows rarely, if ever, have any songs in them.
A weird thing is how different computers make this whole thing with copyrights.
I'm fairly sure the issue was that the royalties that were to be paid were pretty much ridiculously mediocre, and that collecting them would've just lent credibility to the system.
It's an interesting thing to work out how selling intangible goods like music over the internet works though. The fact that countries with little or no copyright law can simply sell to any other country without respecting the relevant laws there is an interesting loophole case.
Speaking as a user and lover of F/OSS, please refrain from using these immature schoolchild-level names. You're making yourself look ridiculous, and in doing so you're making a lot of other, reasonable, people in the OSS community look silly too, since you're just reinforcing a largely-undeserved stereotype of unwashed early-teenagers who are mad a society, rather than a community of people committed to freedom and high-quality software.
If you don't think allofmp3 offer[s/ed] a great service, that's your problem.
Personally, I don't think they offered a bad service or whatever. On the contrary, I think the service itself was great. I was just uncomfortable paying money for a service where the originators of the product saw little or none of the profits from it. It's a considerably worse rip-off than the music industry perpetuate upon the artists.
If there was a decent kickback to artists (even at a higher price), a service just like AllOfMp3 would be perfect. Cutting out the industry middle-men (can this ever be truly done?) would be great, too. But considering the pretty much insignificant amount paid to artists by the system, I can't download stuff from it.
I don't downlaod stuff from anywhere, though. I'm buying CDs until the system I want comes along. So long as CDs last that long.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid I'm really not sure what you're saying here; are you saying that if a desktop search was translated to an internet search after being "optimised" in some way that, if the internet search vendor was Windows Live, that the implicit details of the optimisation could be used to infer the preferences of the user? I'm really not sure it's common or important enough to be significant, but I suppose it's an interesting angle.
This is an interesting point, I'm aware of no such link. I would think that the connected web search would use IE's search, which is definitely vendor-agnostic. Can you provide more information? I'm afraid I don't have an installation of Vista to check this on.
This is blatantly ridiculous. People are not stupid, and they'd spot this, and Microsoft are simply not dumb enough to try it. Collecting this sort of data would at least require a waiver in the OS licence, and I guarantee you that if it were there you'd have heard about it by now.
This is pretty much exactly what they're asking; the issue is whether this should be a replaceable element of the operating system. Obviously file indexing is a pretty core function of most modern operating systems, and it's not like Apple have announced plans to allow users to replace Spotlight or anything, and I doubt that would be easy on a technical level.
It's an interesting issue in any case. Making it replaceable when it's hooked so closely into the system is technically difficult (especially when it's not a core requirement of the system) and offers very little in terms of tangible benefits. The main issue, though, is that Vista's release schedule was so long that third-party replacements such as Google Desktop Search had appeared to provide this functionality on top of the existing system.
That's exactly what I was thinking of, it's probably the same or very close here. Thanks :)
That's what I was thinking of, thanks. :)
A student of law, along with the fact that it's a common "pub trivia" thing for people to bring up. I'm really not sure of the legal status, though.
I don't know if that's legal in the US, but here (Scotland) one can refuse cash payment if the amount of change given is unreasonable. I think there might even be a legal definition of what "reasonable" is.
People don't get rid of MP3s because they're still the lowest common denominator of music file formats. Everything plays them, unlike AAC or Vorbis or WMA or whatever else.
It would be nice to have the option to choose a format that suited the user, though. Presumably the only reason they've not done that is to avoid confusion (Apple can offer AAC as their "only choice" since they only support iTunes and iPods).
It just struck me as many times more "Ballmer" than before; if he's who I think he is (memory not the best, unfortunately) he's been down to earth and knowledgable in the past, seeing a simple difference of opinion in many cases. Here he messes up the meaning of Free Software (it's still Free Software if a company is making it!) and gotten more of a "chair-throwing" attitude to his choice of words and phrases. It's disappointing.
Honestly, after reading the full article the main quotes are either being taken very far out of context (seems likely given the other quotes on the page), or he's expressed himself very poorly (also seems likely). He's seemed lucid on these topics in the past so this is actually quite surprising.
I'm fairly sure that Sun said that they decided against putting Solaris onto the GPL because they didn't see a benefit, and their userbase had said the same thing. I could be wrong, though.
Although this isn't, as far as I'm aware, the case for Opera Mini, which uses a more specialised Java ME renderer.
DWR is great, but the article doesn't actually review it; if you read, they reject it right at the beginning because it doesn't fit into their architecture (read: they're not using Java). They probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Well, yes. Almost all modern systems are fraught with terrible decisions (the example that came up in conversation at my work today was TCP/IP, for example); a lot of computing these days seems to be put into security updates that are effectively workarounds for more fundamental problems with systems.
I don't believe that DCOM is a particularly bad solution, honestly, but I can see where you're coming from here.
Honestly I didn't even notice you'd used the phrase "good enough" in your post, but what I meant is much the same as you (although possibly a little more generalised). Less malware and spam to most practical levels will be achieved by Vista. Honestly there's very little stopping malware etc. on other systems over Windows anyway; it's the biggest example of the "big target" excuse so commonly used, since users generally click past the "you're installing crap! don't do it!" page blindly, and there's just not a lot you can do if the user approves it on any system.
I use Ubuntu on all my machines, and although *nix's "small, simple components" design philosophy is undoubtedly a benefit to understanding, the inherent complexity in most systems means that often one has to check so many components that it's no better than on Windows; and the number of people using Windows means that for problem-solving reasons (which is by far the most important angle for myself, at least), Windows can often be better for finding documentation. As easy as it is to dismiss Windows for its prior problems, it's certainly not a bad system, and it's certainly not behind it's competitors.
Personally I hate them, but to each their own! I guess they're the marmite of UI.
This is basically it. Most people's requirements for an OS will read similarly, and honestly pretty much every major system will match these requirements (except for niches which have some dominance, such as the most predominant example, which is gaming). There's not a market demand for system which are more reliable, or more secure, or otherwise revolutionarily different from the systems we have today, and unless one comes around these research OSs are unlikely to become anything more than "interesting".
Well, Google probably have the funds, and they did just buy a company specialising in in-game ads...
To be fair, I'd say that doing an install of a 6 year-old OS of any type on an open network connection is not wise. Even Linux and OS X have quite possibly had remote flaws fixed since then (regardless of open ports; bugs in kernel-level networking code could also pose a security problem). The fact that one can still obtain pre-SP2 Windows disk images does not mean that comparing it with current versions of other systems is fair.
That said, Windows pre-SP2 is unquestionably more dangerous to install without some outside protection on an open network than pretty much anything from the same time. But I think it's encouraging to know that people are becoming security-concious enough that they can make even Microsoft clean up their act; Microsoft, more than most other companies, seem to have their development focus set by market demand.
I don't know if research OSs are an interest area to you, but I have to say that, a language nerd myself, Microsoft Research's Singularity is incredibly interesting, tying together a lot of newer ways of doing things at a lower level than is usually considered. There's a couple of research projects which are also based on language-safety, Coyotos (I think?) also comes to mind.
I have to say, though, more on-topic, that this article proves more than anything that the "major" OSs are all converging now. I honestly don't see major OS changes happening to any of them from here on; this is part of the reason that people don't see a huge change in Vista. There isn't a big change, but there's not a big change in Linux or OS X or whatever, either.
I wonder if it's time to consider these systems "good enough", or if something else needs to be done? I don't know if in practical terms the "better" research OSs will ever see real-world use, which is a real shame, but they might see their chance opening when it becomes apparent that we have pretty much exhausted the possibilities for the existing versions, and people still need a product to sell year-by-year. But this is much more likely to lead to a focus away from the OS and into other areas, rather than the other way around.
But this isn't even about fair use! Fair use doesn't even protect YouTube here - they do not have a good fair use case for the use of the content. What they do have, though, is a provision in the otherwise-horrid DMCA which says specifically that they are not responsible for the content posted by users, they just need to take it down when asked. That's what's under debate here.
I think you forgot the part where Steve Jobs sells you a marginally more-attractive but for some reason infinitely tempting hooker every year for another $129.
My brain sees these as pretty incomparable. but that's just me. Here (UK) I'm fairly certain that Podcasts have the same rules as if they were distributed song-by-song, in any case. Podcasts of radio shows rarely, if ever, have any songs in them.
A weird thing is how different computers make this whole thing with copyrights.
I'm fairly sure the issue was that the royalties that were to be paid were pretty much ridiculously mediocre, and that collecting them would've just lent credibility to the system.
It's an interesting thing to work out how selling intangible goods like music over the internet works though. The fact that countries with little or no copyright law can simply sell to any other country without respecting the relevant laws there is an interesting loophole case.
Speaking as a user and lover of F/OSS, please refrain from using these immature schoolchild-level names. You're making yourself look ridiculous, and in doing so you're making a lot of other, reasonable, people in the OSS community look silly too, since you're just reinforcing a largely-undeserved stereotype of unwashed early-teenagers who are mad a society, rather than a community of people committed to freedom and high-quality software.
Personally, I don't think they offered a bad service or whatever. On the contrary, I think the service itself was great. I was just uncomfortable paying money for a service where the originators of the product saw little or none of the profits from it. It's a considerably worse rip-off than the music industry perpetuate upon the artists.
If there was a decent kickback to artists (even at a higher price), a service just like AllOfMp3 would be perfect. Cutting out the industry middle-men (can this ever be truly done?) would be great, too. But considering the pretty much insignificant amount paid to artists by the system, I can't download stuff from it.
I don't downlaod stuff from anywhere, though. I'm buying CDs until the system I want comes along. So long as CDs last that long.