Not entirely true. It had at least ONE major advantage, less market confusion with DVD. But that's not a technical advantage. BluRay had many non-technical advantages, all related to Sony's market power and good decisions not BluRay's technical superiority with respect to movie watching.
Nah, I don't buy it. It was all about politics and business, not technical merit. HDDVD could have scaled capacity easily, and in fact already had. This just came down to Sony being better at playing the game.
No, nobody has considered that because it's meaningless - especially to Joe Movie Watcher. Both HDDVD and BluRay have more than enough space to provide existing movie content. Look at most HDDVDs, there's usually quite a bit of free space even with extras etc...
HDDVD also had a path to higher capacities. From a movie-watcher's perspective, BluRay has absolutely 0 technical advantages. In terms of a storage medium it has some advantage, but not one HDDVD couldn't have matched easily enough.
VHS had longer recording times, and that is what the customers wanted. This is proved by the fact that VHS "won", and ergo VHS was "better". Betamax did have better video quality, but it was not "better" in every dimension.
I don't know what city you're in, but here we have freeways (65-75 mph) and even on the main streets the speed limit is 45mph (so most sane people go 50-55mph).
I see your point, but the fact is that no matter what you call it most of these people are too stupid to "get it". In the end, all they end up doing is screeching "I didn't come from no monkey, maybe you did!" or coming up with ridiculous scientific-sounding, long discredited reasons why evolution is a lie.
You can't "teach" someone who has a deeply held emotional bond to something that is contrary to what you are teaching, at least most of the time. Really your best bet is to try to fit what you're telling them into their superstition. e.g. explain that evolution can still happen, maybe their "God" kicked off the whole shebang and let 'er rip. This buys into their Intelligent Design philosophy (which they call "science", but you won't win that battle).
That's the thing. I develop software for a living, I don't do it to be "manly" or to drink Mountain Dew and tell my greasy buddy what a great programmer I am because I use emacs and make, and how sweet it is I can launch the program in the debugger with one key (actually a 5-finger key combination). I use the tools that make development as easy as possible. People who don't like IDE's are, more often than not, asshats extraordinaire.
Time taken typing out a stubbed class file for a new class done manually - X. Time taken to right-mouse click, say "New Class...", and type in a class name, extended/implemented classes, etc... - X/2. Yeah, I'll take the X/2 even if I don't get "l337" credit for it with my nerdy buddies.
I've used eclipse, it's OK but Java is primitive compared to.NET 3.5 in a few key areas, especially the web services arena and of course C# better language-wise. I've done the dreary old vi/make shit, and still do occasionally for C/C++ programs on UNIX when necessary. Not sure what issues I've had, but VS2005 works perfectly for me. TFS integration is exceptional, the installer development tools are 'ok', debugger is exceptional, flexibility is exceptional via msbuild, etc...
By all means, use what you need. If you're developing text mode applications in Linux and don't care about being a more efficient developer by using an integrated IDE, then go for it.
If you're developing moderately complex software on Windows, particularly in.NET, then you should be using a reasonably new computer (contrary to the oohs and ahhs my comment got, 2G of memory is nothing now - 2002 called back and wants its memory capacity back).
My point was if you want to develop modern software for modern computers using a modern development environment, don't whine if your broke-ass 5 year old computer doesn't cut it. What next, are the DOS people going to come out of the woodwork and slam the Linux people? "512M of memory, that's crazy, I developed in 1M of memory back in my day!!". Then the Commodore 64 people will crawl out and have a good old laugh, etc...
Glorified text editor? Have you ever developed real software or just cobbled together glueware shit that UNIX sysadmins-cum-developers call "software"? If you're not using an IDE you're probably not a very efficient developer. In fact, you're probably an asshole if you're a software developer who doesn't use an IDE in all but a few specific areas of development. e.g. I'd give device driver writers a pass if they use vi and 'make'.
But hey, if you think Perl/C++/PHP code developed in 'vi' is hot shit, more power to you. Good luck in your entry level programmer's job. The rest of the world has moved on.
Or for people developing enterprise software. Yeah, beginners or those guys. Or for people developing web services. Web services, beginners, and enterprise developers. Also, for people developing desktop applications for Windows. OK, people developing web services, enterprise developers, desktop application developers, and beginners. Oh, and...
People who knock VS crack me up. It's a marvel of modern software engineering and MS's development tools are simply amazing. It's bloated, yes, but it's god damned powerful. If you knew what you were doing you'd know that you can use msbuild to your hearts content to customize up to even the most complex product.
Their OS's get a C+ to a B+ depending on the version, but their development tools get an absolute A+.
Come on dude. If you're a software developer you should have a reasonable machine. Visual Studio is a pig, but the benefits of it far outweigh the cost of upgrading your old broke-ass computer every few years. This is like complaining Oblivion or BioShock are bad games because you can't play them on your shitty ancient computer.
Seriously, any CPU released in the last few years + 2 gigs of memory (4 gigs better - splurge on the extra $40) will run VS fine.
Actually, you do know both HDDVD and BluRay had plenty of space? And that in general the HDDVD releases had more (useless, IMO) extra content? VHS was actually the superior format, don't let people convince you otherwise. It was better in most areas, and only inferior in a limited way in terms of video quality.
Also, HDDVD has a lot of H264 content, and again BluRay's extra space was useless. The only good thing about BluRay winning is that the war is over finally. It was generally inferior in most of the metrics important to me - e.g. ease-of-archiving, simplicity. C'est la vie.
Bullshit. This is the definition of a patent troll. He came up with an "idea" just so he could prevent the banks from doing it. And his "idea" is fucking stupid. Gee, let's scan documents and use them for something. But wait, _IN A BANK_! Genius! This guy is a fucking piece of shit and he doesn't deserve a penny.
Invention: Apparatus for scanning a document.
Invention: Mechanism for archiving scanned data to a new medium I've invented and will describe herein.
Invention: I've discovered a new way to compress check images, using this very specific algorithm which is entirely new.
NOT invention: I can scan a check (technology for this is old) and use it for this specific purpose!
Oooh, good point. Instead, I should just give up. Hell, they'll probably find unsecured guns at a friend's house, too. I'll just leave loaded guns laying around. Maybe alcohol too, I'm sure they'd find that at a friend's house as well.
Your point is asinine, and you are a facile dipshit. Of course I would teach my kids about porn and all manner of nasty shit in an adult way. But I'd also lock that shit down as much as I could and provide supervision to the extent of my ability.
The only solution to kids + porn is whitelisting. When my kid gets old enough to use a computer I can absolutely promise he/she (either or, I'm not saying it's a hermaphrodite) will not go to any site that I haven't specifically allowed.
Now, people whose kids may know more about computers than them should just pay for a service that does this. Internet cafes, libraries, etc.. would need to do the same thing - card people and limit access to a maintained whitelist if they're under 18. Even this obviously doesn't solve the problem 100%, but it's about as close as you're going to get since Pandora's box(hehe) is already open.
If that where right 100% of the time then where is the competition for microsoft? You're joking, right? There is tons of competition for Microsoft. Linux in hundreds of variations, Apple, Open/FreeBSD, [Open],Solaris, and uncountable niche OS's. In the application space there are all kinds of products in every field they sell in that compete as well. This exactly highlights my point. People didn't like MS OS's and/or their prices, so they went and developed Linux and all the other OS's.
And that's precisely why MS doesn't charge a ridiculous amount of money for their product, they know they would lose even more customers were they to do so.
That's the way the market works. Let's say AMD goes out of business and Intel raises prices. Suddently, there's a huge incentive for competitors to come up with something new and better. If Intel charges $1500 for a 3GHz 8-core processor supposing AMD goes out of business, they've taken CPUs further away from being a commodity item (which they're dangerously close to now). Suddenly not only the big players but the small research companies have an incentive to do something new to take a part of that market.
For example, they may develop a much faster incompatible chip which can run virtual machines emulating x86 at the same speed as a real x86 chip. Or they may just take AMD's IP and build on it to create a competitive chip and use someone else's fabs.
High prices from a monopoly on a non-supply limited item are part of the marketplace. It drives innovation. So in the end, I don't even find your "worst case" scenario all that bad. But on a realistic front, AMD isn't going out of business. Even if they bankrupt their products will still be made and sold for the forseeable future by _someone_.
Investing in AMD doesn't. It promotes competition and a more efficient market. You're effectively giving charity to AMD. They can't win your money by making the best product, but you're convinced that it will somehow serve you in the long run. I don't know how you can rationally make such an analysis, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it if I were you. Your presumption seems to be that your dollars are going to go towards improving AMD. Do you have any evidence of this? How do you know your dollars aren't going towards the big-wigs in the company? Or huge inefficiencies? Or the stockholders of the various companies AMD buys from time to time?
And we all know how well the government busts up monopolies, so if you have any vested interest in CPU's, support AMD. You can't bust up an effectively atomic unit, but anyway... AMD has been around a long time, and their products and infrastructure aren't going anywhere. Let's say AMD really goes down the drains and Intel doubles their prices. What do you think IBM, Samsung, or HP (or others) are going to make of that? If I were them I'd think that maybe the CPU market can bring in a lot of money if they can buy AMD and fix their problems.
Actually, you're 180 degrees wrong. You're effectively rewarding incompetence. This is why many people are against the credit bail-out. You are saying that even though these companies made risky loans and lost a bundle of money on it, we're going to bail them out because it's in our best interests. This logic gets built into the market, and people start making bigger and bigger risks.
Your "informed economic decision" effecitvely rewards a company for poor performance. Not only that but it gets you, the buyer, a technically inferior product.
You're also baking in the assumption that price is the only differentiator here, when clearly it isn't. There's support, technical compatibility and platform choice, speed, stability, etc... that all goes into a decision like this. Now, if all these things are close enough to equal then by all means pick your favorite company if you want them to do well. But just buying a crappier chip and paying more for it out of some misguided sense of econ-101 isn't real wise.
In other words, you have no substantive reply and implicitly admit you didn't have any solid points in your original hand-waving. Also, I never said AD was perfect, though it really is a good product.
You guys crack me up with your laughable minimization of any kind of Linux issue, and insane blowhard hysteria about any kind of Windows flaw. This is a big deal - not everyone runs a single Linux machine in their parent's basement. Some organizations have tens of thousands of machines this could impact that they can't just up and patch/reboot.
It is a big deal. Not as big a deal as a remote exploit, but still pretty damn huge. Smug "see, this is why we run OSS so we can fix it the next day!" statements don't make you all look very good.
And do what exactly? Store encrypted passwords in the directory? No. Huh? Do you mean encrypted as in UNIX standard crypt strings? Of course you can. See: Quest products, other products, or you can of course do it yourself, there's an RFC covering it.
Password authentication via LDAP? No. Guh? Of course you can. You can use authentication via LDAP from Linux, or via Kerberos integration from a PAM module.
Connect to other authentication backends? No. Search using the syntax as presented in microsoft's ldap gui? No. Unix for Windows? A nasty pile of crap. We must be on different wavelengths, I have no idea what you're talking about. Search using LDAP syntax? Of course you can, what in God's name are you talking about? Unix for Windows, guh? You're just saying a bunch of random unrelated stuff. Services for UNIX, do you mean?
Microsoft's "kerberos" is a black box. Kerberos-ish is more like it. The "easy" part is not because Microsoft makes it easy but because there are devs unwinding Microsoft's totally undocumented black box.
This is simply wrong. You can interoperate with Kerberos just fine from many languages/platforms. You can use GSS easily from, for example, Java.
Look, I admin both Linux and Windows "Enterprise" products as my career of choice so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Umm.. sure you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I don't buy it. It was all about politics and business, not technical merit. HDDVD could have scaled capacity easily, and in fact already had. This just came down to Sony being better at playing the game.
HDDVD also had a path to higher capacities. From a movie-watcher's perspective, BluRay has absolutely 0 technical advantages. In terms of a storage medium it has some advantage, but not one HDDVD couldn't have matched easily enough.
VHS had longer recording times, and that is what the customers wanted. This is proved by the fact that VHS "won", and ergo VHS was "better". Betamax did have better video quality, but it was not "better" in every dimension.
I don't know what city you're in, but here we have freeways (65-75 mph) and even on the main streets the speed limit is 45mph (so most sane people go 50-55mph).
You can't "teach" someone who has a deeply held emotional bond to something that is contrary to what you are teaching, at least most of the time. Really your best bet is to try to fit what you're telling them into their superstition. e.g. explain that evolution can still happen, maybe their "God" kicked off the whole shebang and let 'er rip. This buys into their Intelligent Design philosophy (which they call "science", but you won't win that battle).
Time taken typing out a stubbed class file for a new class done manually - X. Time taken to right-mouse click, say "New Class...", and type in a class name, extended/implemented classes, etc... - X/2. Yeah, I'll take the X/2 even if I don't get "l337" credit for it with my nerdy buddies.
If you're developing moderately complex software on Windows, particularly in .NET, then you should be using a reasonably new computer (contrary to the oohs and ahhs my comment got, 2G of memory is nothing now - 2002 called back and wants its memory capacity back).
My point was if you want to develop modern software for modern computers using a modern development environment, don't whine if your broke-ass 5 year old computer doesn't cut it. What next, are the DOS people going to come out of the woodwork and slam the Linux people? "512M of memory, that's crazy, I developed in 1M of memory back in my day!!". Then the Commodore 64 people will crawl out and have a good old laugh, etc...
But hey, if you think Perl/C++/PHP code developed in 'vi' is hot shit, more power to you. Good luck in your entry level programmer's job. The rest of the world has moved on.
People who knock VS crack me up. It's a marvel of modern software engineering and MS's development tools are simply amazing. It's bloated, yes, but it's god damned powerful. If you knew what you were doing you'd know that you can use msbuild to your hearts content to customize up to even the most complex product.
Their OS's get a C+ to a B+ depending on the version, but their development tools get an absolute A+.
Seriously, any CPU released in the last few years + 2 gigs of memory (4 gigs better - splurge on the extra $40) will run VS fine.
Also, HDDVD has a lot of H264 content, and again BluRay's extra space was useless. The only good thing about BluRay winning is that the war is over finally. It was generally inferior in most of the metrics important to me - e.g. ease-of-archiving, simplicity. C'est la vie.
Invention: Apparatus for scanning a document.
Invention: Mechanism for archiving scanned data to a new medium I've invented and will describe herein.
Invention: I've discovered a new way to compress check images, using this very specific algorithm which is entirely new.
NOT invention: I can scan a check (technology for this is old) and use it for this specific purpose!
It's stupid and indefensible.
Your point is asinine, and you are a facile dipshit. Of course I would teach my kids about porn and all manner of nasty shit in an adult way. But I'd also lock that shit down as much as I could and provide supervision to the extent of my ability.
Now, people whose kids may know more about computers than them should just pay for a service that does this. Internet cafes, libraries, etc.. would need to do the same thing - card people and limit access to a maintained whitelist if they're under 18. Even this obviously doesn't solve the problem 100%, but it's about as close as you're going to get since Pandora's box(hehe) is already open.
And that's precisely why MS doesn't charge a ridiculous amount of money for their product, they know they would lose even more customers were they to do so.
For example, they may develop a much faster incompatible chip which can run virtual machines emulating x86 at the same speed as a real x86 chip. Or they may just take AMD's IP and build on it to create a competitive chip and use someone else's fabs.
High prices from a monopoly on a non-supply limited item are part of the marketplace. It drives innovation. So in the end, I don't even find your "worst case" scenario all that bad. But on a realistic front, AMD isn't going out of business. Even if they bankrupt their products will still be made and sold for the forseeable future by _someone_.
Your "informed economic decision" effecitvely rewards a company for poor performance. Not only that but it gets you, the buyer, a technically inferior product.
You're also baking in the assumption that price is the only differentiator here, when clearly it isn't. There's support, technical compatibility and platform choice, speed, stability, etc... that all goes into a decision like this. Now, if all these things are close enough to equal then by all means pick your favorite company if you want them to do well. But just buying a crappier chip and paying more for it out of some misguided sense of econ-101 isn't real wise.
In other words, you have no substantive reply and implicitly admit you didn't have any solid points in your original hand-waving. Also, I never said AD was perfect, though it really is a good product.
"Using quotes" described as "lamest editorial mechanism ever" by "everyone" with an "IQ" over 100.
Do you know what a "script kiddie" is, btw? I can promise you a script kiddie did not write the code in that C file.
It is a big deal. Not as big a deal as a remote exploit, but still pretty damn huge. Smug "see, this is why we run OSS so we can fix it the next day!" statements don't make you all look very good.