This is Slashdot, which seems to invent it's own alternate reality when it comes to Microsoft. The headlines and summary spread misinformation, then those are repeated in the comments ad nauseam by the commenters who only get news from Slashdot.
It will just cost 100x more, just like healthcare with the torts. Time to take out software developer insurance, similar to the healthcare insurance of approximately 1 million dollars a year paid by doctors these days.
The problem is that Mozilla's revenue is directly tied to the number of installs (i.e Google searches). If their marketshare goes down, it might as well be the end of Firefox soon. Their CEOs have failed to diversify the revenue in spite of getting paid > 500k/yr.
There must be some really good BeOS and Palm employees in there who made some really nice software but failed to make an impact, really sad that Leo who was at SAP for 18 years was put in charge of HP, which has a big hardware component. Leo wants to kill off the hardware and go corporate services.
This is a good thing because the search business is really cut throat and the cost of entry is too high for anyone else. Atleast Google is kept on toes by Bing, and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.
Once the wealth accumulates to the top only, how will the economy survive without spending by the middle and lower classes? Won't a lot of business just shutdown because people don't have money to spend?
Isn't this the same guy and company that ripped off the CrunchPad from Michael Arrington? I think the court case is proceeding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
After that sold only a few hundred units, they ditched the name and came out with a new tablet. The UI seems interesting, but I don't think this is going to sell many units.
Instead of a "clear and convincing" standard, Microsoft proposed instead using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. This would have, in effect, weakened or reduced the value of all issued U.S. patents.
Interesting to see the biggest company, Apple suing to keep competitors products off the the market, not being mentioned at all either in the article or summary.
It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?
The post on kernel.org states that it was possibly due to a compromised user account. They stated that they discovered it through some errors related to Xnest/dev/mem and that they captured some of the exploit code. I believe they're still looking at everything to figure how how the intruders got in and what they touched.
Kudos to the kernel.org team for their prompt action and immediate disclosure.
How did the so called user account compromise result in root access? Care to explain?
Not to mention that if it was a Microsoft server compromised, everyone here would be screaming bloody hell here LOL M$
Also, whatever happened to the canard that Linux is more secure than Windows Server with the right admins? Do admins get more hardcore than that administer key servers like Kernel.org's, RedHat's, Debian's ?
Not to mention the whole Debian SSL fiasco that left people's SSL communications compromisable because a downstream distro package builder messed with upstream code.
About DRM? Well of course. You don't? What the hell are you doing on Slashdot!!
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM
Which has nothing to do with pricing or allowing things on the app store, only about jailbreaking. Hello!
Also, what do you call the mechanism by which Apple enforces the app store policies to ensure the payments?
I can see you really don't belong on Slashdot. Handling of payment is a totally separate item from authenticating an application downloaded is signed correctly for execution.
They're implying that jailbreaking bypasses the DRM, which means that they think the DRM is preventing non approved applications from running.
Also, I wasn't talking about processing payments. I was talking about the 30% cut.
Let me rephrase it. What do you call "authenticating an application downloaded is signed correctly for execution."? Where "execution" is arbitrarily decided by Apple. How is that not DRM?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM and then to reuse a small bit of Apple's copyright firmware code. Apple showed up at the hearings to say, in numerous ways, that the idea was terrible, ridiculous, and illegal. In large part, that was because the limit on jailbreaking was needed to preserve Apple's controlled ecosystem, which the company said was of great value to consumers.
Do you know more than the lawyers at EFF?
Also, what do you call the mechanism by which Apple enforces the app store policies to ensure the payments? Gestapo tactics?
How is it a strawman? If people want to run that app or one of the many ones that Apple rejected, they would have to jailbreak the device and void the warranty.
That's akin to jailbreaking your iPhone. If you jury-rig a light using non-UL components (i.e. make your own plug and stuff) and it burns down your house, guess what you don't get? money from your insurance company. If you build a light from UL components (i.e. wire up a new room to code) and your house burns down, you're still good. Same with jailbreaking. You can do it, just don't expect the manufacturer to pick up the pieces for you if you fuck it up.
I now get it, running an Android magazine app burns down your home! OMGZ!
My point was that, since a very large proportion(80%?) of Linux users are power users like developers, it makes it a priority. But for the Windows developers, probably 90% of users never have the need to mount ISOs and the 10% are capable of using tools like Daemon-Tools or WinRar, so it makes sense that it took this long for this to be an integrated feature.
Developers are forced to fork over 30% of their revenues. Not just that, it's 30% of even subscription content now and many ebook apps were kicked out.
Slashdot Mirror
NoInternet blocks everything except those from local storage.
Expecting novice users to understand and use NoScript is not tenable.
This is Slashdot, which seems to invent it's own alternate reality when it comes to Microsoft. The headlines and summary spread misinformation, then those are repeated in the comments ad nauseam by the commenters who only get news from Slashdot.
Nothing but attention whoring, they shouldn't be given press at all.
It will just cost 100x more, just like healthcare with the torts. Time to take out software developer insurance, similar to the healthcare insurance of approximately 1 million dollars a year paid by doctors these days.
The problem is that Mozilla's revenue is directly tied to the number of installs (i.e Google searches). If their marketshare goes down, it might as well be the end of Firefox soon. Their CEOs have failed to diversify the revenue in spite of getting paid > 500k/yr.
There must be some really good BeOS and Palm employees in there who made some really nice software but failed to make an impact, really sad that Leo who was at SAP for 18 years was put in charge of HP, which has a big hardware component. Leo wants to kill off the hardware and go corporate services.
This is a good thing because the search business is really cut throat and the cost of entry is too high for anyone else. Atleast Google is kept on toes by Bing, and people looking to get away from the increasingly all-encompassing Google have a second choice.
Once the wealth accumulates to the top only, how will the economy survive without spending by the middle and lower classes? Won't a lot of business just shutdown because people don't have money to spend?
Not surprised that Java runs on Azure now. Even iCloud uses Azure for their backend.
Isn't this the same guy and company that ripped off the CrunchPad from Michael Arrington?
I think the court case is proceeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
After that sold only a few hundred units, they ditched the name and came out with a new tablet. The UI seems interesting, but I don't think this is going to sell many units.
Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/
Did they miss the Bilski case?
Instead of a "clear and convincing" standard, Microsoft proposed instead using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. This would have, in effect, weakened or reduced the value of all issued U.S. patents.
Interesting to see the biggest company, Apple suing to keep competitors products off the the market, not being mentioned at all either in the article or summary.
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/
It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?
Problem with your thinking is....no tablet looked anything remotely like the ipad until the ipad came out. Look at the picture at the bottom of the link to see the blatant copying Samsung did. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/30/apple_accuses_motorola_samsung_of_monopolizing_markets_with_patents.html
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digital-picture-frame-2006-is.html
Aren't the SHA-1 hashes themselves hosted on kernel.org?
The post on kernel.org states that it was possibly due to a compromised user account. They stated that they discovered it through some errors related to Xnest /dev/mem and that they captured some of the exploit code. I believe they're still looking at everything to figure how how the intruders got in and what they touched.
Kudos to the kernel.org team for their prompt action and immediate disclosure.
How did the so called user account compromise result in root access? Care to explain?
Not to mention that if it was a Microsoft server compromised, everyone here would be screaming bloody hell here LOL M$
Also, whatever happened to the canard that Linux is more secure than Windows Server with the right admins? Do admins get more hardcore than that administer key servers like Kernel.org's, RedHat's, Debian's ?
Ubuntu servers hacked.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
Fedora/Redhat servers hacked.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/08/08/22/1341247/Red-Hat-Fedora-Servers-Compromised
Debian servers hacked.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/87516/Debian_Project_servers_hacked
Gentoo
http://news.cnet.com/Hacked-Gentoo-Linux-server-taken-offline/2100-7349_3-5113227.html
Not to mention the whole Debian SSL fiasco that left people's SSL communications compromisable because a downstream distro package builder messed with upstream code.
Do you know more than the lawyers at EFF?
About DRM? Well of course. You don't? What the hell are you doing on Slashdot!!
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM
Which has nothing to do with pricing or allowing things on the app store, only about jailbreaking. Hello!
Also, what do you call the mechanism by which Apple enforces the app store policies to ensure the payments?
I can see you really don't belong on Slashdot. Handling of payment is a totally separate item from authenticating an application downloaded is signed correctly for execution.
They're implying that jailbreaking bypasses the DRM, which means that they think the DRM is preventing non approved applications from running.
Also, I wasn't talking about processing payments. I was talking about the 30% cut.
Let me rephrase it. What do you call "authenticating an application downloaded is signed correctly for execution."? Where "execution" is arbitrarily decided by Apple. How is that not DRM?
DRM is about managing protection on files, not about policy in regards to pricing or what will be allowed in an app store.
These are just the tip of the rejections.
Boo Hoo. That is not about DRM which is the topic under discussion in this thread.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM and then to reuse a small bit of Apple's copyright firmware code. Apple showed up at the hearings to say, in numerous ways, that the idea was terrible, ridiculous, and illegal. In large part, that was because the limit on jailbreaking was needed to preserve Apple's controlled ecosystem, which the company said was of great value to consumers.
Do you know more than the lawyers at EFF?
Also, what do you call the mechanism by which Apple enforces the app store policies to ensure the payments? Gestapo tactics?
> It was specifically designed so that the code could not be made proprietary
BSD code cannot be made proprietary by anyone once released. You can forever use it under the BSD.
How is it a strawman? If people want to run that app or one of the many ones that Apple rejected, they would have to jailbreak the device and void the warranty.
That's akin to jailbreaking your iPhone. If you jury-rig a light using non-UL components (i.e. make your own plug and stuff) and it burns down your house, guess what you don't get? money from your insurance company. If you build a light from UL components (i.e. wire up a new room to code) and your house burns down, you're still good. Same with jailbreaking. You can do it, just don't expect the manufacturer to pick up the pieces for you if you fuck it up.
I now get it, running an Android magazine app burns down your home! OMGZ!
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1633249/Apple-Bans-Android-Magazine-App-From-App-Store
My point was that, since a very large proportion(80%?) of Linux users are power users like developers, it makes it a priority. But for the Windows developers, probably 90% of users never have the need to mount ISOs and the 10% are capable of using tools like Daemon-Tools or WinRar, so it makes sense that it took this long for this to be an integrated feature.
How is this anti-intellectual nonsense?
Developers are forced to fork over 30% of their revenues. Not just that, it's 30% of even subscription content now and many ebook apps were kicked out.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=android+magazine+app&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=opera&hs=y5R&rls=en&channel=suggest&source=hp&q=apple+thirty+percent&pbx=1&oq=apple+thirty+percent&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=122067l131147l2l131208l36l24l8l0l0l0l227l2318l7.10.2l19l0&fp=1&biw=1920&bih=968&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b
Also, see
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1633249/Apple-Bans-Android-Magazine-App-From-App-Store
These are just the tip of the rejections.
How many times has your mom needed to mount ISO images? This is purely a developer feature.