Nah, it's the beautiful thing about the EU's anti-trust measures: Microsoft will probably be forced to open up the protocol at some point. Look at Silverlight, last I heard MS is even helping with the Moonlight project. Sure, it could still be a trap, but maybe they (or at least some divisions within the company) are evolving.
Why is the parent's post modded as offtopic? The story is about Songbird's source being release and the parent asked a question about the source. I think it was a perfectly valid question... I'm pretty sure that the developers are planning on making it work on Linux, but when did community work in a OSS project ever hurt?
From the Ubuntu website http://www.ubuntu.com//>, alternate is for:
* creating pre-configured OEM systems;
* setting up automated deployments;
* upgrading from older installations without network access;
* LVM and/or RAID partitioning;
* installing GRUB to a location other than the Master Boot Record;
* installs on systems with less than about 192MB of RAM.
Sounds to me like something that could be invaluable to people not necessarily running the latest and greatest.
Oh this is absolute bullshit. If your claim is at all meaningful it's because it's just that much harder to find decent Mac software to pirate. Some of the biggest piraters I know of any electronic medium are Mac users and some are PC users. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people pirate software/music/movies irregardless of their computer platform.
Plus, Microsoft's brand has been so damaged that I'm not sure even Ma and Pa Kettle are going to jump over to Windows Live Spaces in droves.
Is this really true? From what I can gather, Microsoft's brand isn't damaged much at all. Maybe it appears that way because of the skewed view we get here on/. but opinions aren't the same everywhere else. First, before everyone jumps on me for being an MS supporter, I have a Windows machine that barely gets used, I'm Linux all the way. That aside, most people don't think of Microsoft as evil and tyrannical like people do here, they see them as successful. And everyone likes to rag on the best. At school most of the non- CS, as well as some CS, people I know think of Microsoft as the pinnacle of software companies and the upcoming arrival of Vista is exciting and cool, not a piece of crap software as most, or at least just the outspoken people, on/. think. Sorry people, but outside communities like this MS brand is not very damaged.
Will it work? I doubt it. There are just too many already available tools that make blogging easy.
This is the reason it won't be a hit, MS is too far behind MySpace, Facebook, etc. Why change if what you're using isn't broken?
How exactly can this be classified as a stunt? Just because U of M developed this technology doesn't at all cheapen it. It's precisely the task of universities to push the boundaries of knowledge and what we can do. And don't forget that the University of Michigan is a business, as are other institutions like Cal Tech and MIT. The university system has always had a hand in helping push research in technology. Of course I'm not saying that private enterprise shouldn't be researching quantum computing, I just don't understand why you discount progress just because it's made by a university.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's the beautiful thing about the EU's anti-trust measures: Microsoft will probably be forced to open up the protocol at some point. Look at Silverlight, last I heard MS is even helping with the Moonlight project. Sure, it could still be a trap, but maybe they (or at least some divisions within the company) are evolving.
Or I'm completely wrong. Who knows.
Oops... I meant the grandparent
Why is the parent's post modded as offtopic? The story is about Songbird's source being release and the parent asked a question about the source. I think it was a perfectly valid question... I'm pretty sure that the developers are planning on making it work on Linux, but when did community work in a OSS project ever hurt?
From the Ubuntu website http://www.ubuntu.com/ />, alternate is for:
* creating pre-configured OEM systems;
* setting up automated deployments;
* upgrading from older installations without network access;
* LVM and/or RAID partitioning;
* installing GRUB to a location other than the Master Boot Record;
* installs on systems with less than about 192MB of RAM.
Sounds to me like something that could be invaluable to people not necessarily running the latest and greatest.
Oh this is absolute bullshit. If your claim is at all meaningful it's because it's just that much harder to find decent Mac software to pirate. Some of the biggest piraters I know of any electronic medium are Mac users and some are PC users. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people pirate software/music/movies irregardless of their computer platform.
Is this really true? From what I can gather, Microsoft's brand isn't damaged much at all. Maybe it appears that way because of the skewed view we get here on /. but opinions aren't the same everywhere else. First, before everyone jumps on me for being an MS supporter, I have a Windows machine that barely gets used, I'm Linux all the way. That aside, most people don't think of Microsoft as evil and tyrannical like people do here, they see them as successful. And everyone likes to rag on the best. At school most of the non- CS, as well as some CS, people I know think of Microsoft as the pinnacle of software companies and the upcoming arrival of Vista is exciting and cool, not a piece of crap software as most, or at least just the outspoken people, on /. think. Sorry people, but outside communities like this MS brand is not very damaged.
This is the reason it won't be a hit, MS is too far behind MySpace, Facebook, etc. Why change if what you're using isn't broken?
How exactly can this be classified as a stunt? Just because U of M developed this technology doesn't at all cheapen it. It's precisely the task of universities to push the boundaries of knowledge and what we can do. And don't forget that the University of Michigan is a business, as are other institutions like Cal Tech and MIT. The university system has always had a hand in helping push research in technology. Of course I'm not saying that private enterprise shouldn't be researching quantum computing, I just don't understand why you discount progress just because it's made by a university.