Re:I guess you could call it a ...
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Latest news is that Spyker haven't given up completely yet. They are right now handing in a new bid and it's up to GM to decide if they want to sell.
I wouldn't hold your breath. Vauxhall in Britain and Opel in Germany were all set to be sold, with German government money there no less, and GM did a sleight-of-hand and changed their minds.
1. They pissed all over Visual Basic, which has been used in a lot of fairly critical business applications since the mid-nineties to create applications quickly. Say what you like about it, but an experienced developer could develop very quickly and well with it and it is very widely used. With VB.Net they created an unnecessary and new object oriented language, the need for which was already being fulfilled by C#. I cannot see the point in it as it is merely another.Net language that differs via syntax only.
2. Again, VB related, for the first time you couldn't take your VB code, compile it in a new version of Visual Studio and get all the benefits. Expecting people to throw away millions of lines of code and start fresh for no benefit whatsoever is an epic fail and Microsoft diverged totally from their past views on this.
3. VB related again, but there is still no RAD environment for.Net. Many developers simply don't need the complexity of an object oriented environment foisted on them. They should have implemented VB with.Net as they have with IronPython and at least made it API compatible so you could recompile, or learned from Ruby with or without Rails. Java might be complex but.Net is still complex compared to what else is on offer.
4. As such, a great deal of applications, mostly VB, that could went web based and weren't re-written in.Net. At least with web applications you only need a very simple client and don't have to deal with that deployment shit.
5. There is still a ton of stuff written with COM, and interacting with it is still a huge PITA when it comes to deployment issues. They should have focused on simplifying this as much as possible. The.Net -> COM and COM ->.Net interaction seems to have been bolted on as an afterthought like they were being forced into it.
6. There are still a lot of applications where developers are not comfortable running it in a VM.
7. One area where.Net is even worse than Java is the moving goalposts. Over the years people have asked whether they should being using WinForms, Avalon and then WPF. No one seems to know. When Windows 9 or 10 comes out then why should I migrate to a yet another new UI or other technology that will not benefit existing users in any way, thereby not making me any money, because Microsoft now won't make new components like WPF available for existing platforms? At least if you develop for XP any applications on there will work on Vista or 7. They might not look as pretty, but making things pretty for a limited userbase doesn't make any money. Just take a look at the Mac.
Microsoft has lost a great deal of what made their development platforms attractive because they think they are losing money by doing it and there are too many divisions like MSDN wanting a piece of the action.
I'm not the slightest bit interested. The only time I've ever used Silverlight is when I've watched SkyTV online in the UK as a media thingy for your browser. It doesn't interest me elsewhere (and I doubt whether that alone will sustain it long-term), as any kind of 'new' development platform (ActiveX 2.0?) and I'm certainly not interested in using it on non-Windows platforms because said media stuff doesn't work regardless. Just stop trying to legitimise Silverlight on other platforms because you aren't gaining any traction and stop using it to legitimise all of your patent bullshit. Anyone who works under that kind if duress, from a competitor no less, is stir-fry crazy.
I would hazard a guess they are paying for the potential story behind this but mainly the ability of this guy to produce this on such a budget. $300 for something that looks that good and realistic is VERY good. The explosions are not bad and are generally well done. The shaky camera work gives a good impression of what the scene is apparently about - an attack with people fleeing in panic.
Give the guy a break. If I a produced something like that for 186 quid I would be absolutely ecstatic.
I certainly had forgotten, thanks. I certainly haven't forgotten with regards to marrying a powerful Intel processor with anyting like acceptable integrated graphics.
I guess this means that the only option we have to get half-decent graphics with an Intel processor is with an nVidia chipset. However, that relationship looks a bit rocky and very soon we'll probably only be left with the incredibly shitty Intel integrated graphics systems that work passibly (i.e. you can display a Vista/7 desktop with it and that's it) until you actually want it to do anything even remotely...........graphical. Their acceleration performance for video isn't too hot either.
Either that, or you move to AMD/ATI if you want a decent processor/chipset/integrated graphics combination. AMD must be pleased. This is the best news they've had in quite a while. Their purchase of ATI looks to be paying off. If Intel can't get Larrabee working then I don't know where they go from here, apart from try again and actually get it working or start being nice to nVidia.
Even if what seems like a critical mass ouf publishers start delisting from Google, Google's search engine and advertising power and weight is such that other publishers and smaller news sites would simply move in and fill the void. Google might also be more than happy to get less hassle. It certainly won't work if publishers who want to delist start wanting to charge for news, and Microsoft will simply be pouring money down a drain if they pick up that slack and pay the publishers themselves.
It's a horse that won't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight.
The problem isn't with extradition. The problem is that extradition never seems to be equal even when a treaty is in place. The US will never so much as name, nevermind send the pilots that killed British soldiers in a 'friendly fire incident' to the inquests of those killed to establish what happened. Extradition shouldn't be necessary between supposed civilised and developed nations because we should have confidence in our own legal systems, as should those seeking punishment for crimes.
The problem people have with this is that it is an utter whitewash designed to lick firmly in the arse crack of the US government and president.
ActiveX was the sexy name for COM, so it was the other way around. I find it amusing that after nigh on ten years of.Net and MSDN magazine telling us to rewrite everything, COM automation and access is still needed. I'm puzzled though, because COM within Windows is a huge behemoth and the security implications for giving a web-based browser platform access to it, even if it is almost certainly limited, is going to be rather interesting. Mind you, if they expect Silverlight to be the future of Windows client development (as.Net, Windows.Forms, Avalon aka WPF et al were before it) then this is pretty much a given and they can also try and create the lock-in via the Windows client that they tried to get via ActiveX in IE. Whether it will work and be adopted or not outside of corporate MS-oriented intranets is anyone's guess. ActiveX didn't exactly take the web by storm on a large scale.
Why? It happens all the time in the open source world. The developers decide when their objectives have been met. It's up to the distributors to decide if it is good enough to go in fron to users, and the majority of distributors have proved that they are merely version bumbers and packagers with no thought about the overall. It's a large part of the reason why the Linux desktop is totally stillborne.
You forget that Apple tried to open up their company to 3rd party clones. It almost ended the company.
Because they still tried to make money out of the hardware rather than licensing Mac OS and the clone designs. It was extremely poorly handled. Microsoft is a perfect example as to how licensing software to a large market can work.
And yet Apple is reaping profit hand over foot, during a economic depression. Why fix what isn't broken.
Not from Mac computers and not from OS X as it stands which is where the discussion is relevant. Their resurgence has come in the form of new markets where the iPod and iPhone have blazed trails. Initially, their 'control everything' approach works. Over time it has been proved that it doesn't and it certainly doesn't apply to the PC market where they can only account for a few percent at most because the demand and the supply to fuel any demand just isn't there. There are untold billions to be made if they licensed OS X to OEMs. Microsoft must have breathed a huge sigh of relief internally.
It's even worse than that. DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement. What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage? What possible use can that serve? It's worse than an old VGA connector ever was. What's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason.
It would be nice if you read at least most of the article in question rather than cherry picking parts and then smashing it with a hammer to fit your own limited viewpoint.
It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points. I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
I live in the UK, pay my licence fee and have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts for years, whether designated as being 'premium' or not. I've been able to use various cheap DVRs to record and play back that content as I like and as has been forced down my throat with the digital switchover. What's changed?
One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block: Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card
Well for starters, in your eagerness to jump down this 'fellow's' throat you didn't actually read his comment, specifically "Personally third party content is of little importance to me" which means that he's not too interested in 'premium' content as long as he gets what he pays for as a licence fee payer.
If you actually read the article they're talking about locking down BBC HD content - that we're already paying for! They're even trying to get around this in a backhanded way by encrypting the TV listings because they're not allowed by law to encrypt the video or audio streams. How this can possibly fly with the regulator I don't know because what's the difference between the video and audio and the TV listings? Basically, it will stop people watching HD which few do anyway.
However, again, why should that be stopped anyway even for third-party content? We have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts in the UK for decades, and indeed, the BBC amongst others are trying to get us to move to digital and buy all these new fangled free DVRs and Freeview+ boxes that will use many of the same cheap components. It is NOT in any way shape or form the BBC's remit to say what can and can't happen to content at the other end in a licence fee payer's home, nor is it the BBC's remit to start telling people what hardware manufacturer's can make or what more expensive hardware licence fee payers need to buy - AGAIN I might add - to watch programmes that haven't needed any form of DRM in the past when transmitted free-to-air. I'm fed up to the back teeth of this constant retuning and buying of 'preferred' hardware to simply watch TV I'm paying for.
It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
Screw the premium content providers. We pay our licence fees and we decide what the BBC does or doesn't do. We haven't had this trouble before and we certainly shouldn't have it for content we are paying the BBC to produce.
It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.
After all that we've experienced over the years I remain to be convinced that DRM stops piracy for the kind of ridiculous inconvenience it causes to the people who pay money. I pay my licence fee and couldn't give a toss. It's not as if I'm freeloading, which is why I resent the tone of this idiotic bit of flamebait. All I know is that I've been able to get free-to-air br
It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here. He's not that stupid a person..
I'm afraid he is. He's an old school newspaper rag man who knows nothing else and he doesn't have the wherewithall in a million years to make his organisation exist in any other way. If you want an example of he is you need look no further than Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, the last decent Bond villain there will be for quite some time. In fact, that's the situation Murdoch would love to be in. However, he simply doesn't comprehend that News Corporation is not the centre of the news world when it comes to people getting their information - and they don't have to.
and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..
They probably have, but it would make no difference. He probably still firmly believes that there is a way to stop Google from aggregating news altogether, whether it be News Corp's or from somewhere else. It's costing him money. If News Corp's financial situation gets much worse then expect legal action to be taken against Google along the lines of "We deserve to be in business because we are appointed by God". As someone in the UK I wouldn't be happier if a side-effect of that was that BSkyB went bust.
I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google..
Google don't give a shit. I wouldn't. In the current climate the only way to stem advertising declines is to intelligently use content as a vehicle for better, targetted advertising. That means grabbing your technology and making it better. News Corp couldn't do that if their lives depended on it. In the face of that Murdoch is going back to what ne knows. He still believes that the content itself is what makes money i.e. selling newspapers....and he can then make a bit more by throwing advertising on top. If that doesn't work (it's not much of an 'if) then expect some kicking, screaming and general stamping of feet.
I've never used a package manager that forced you to upgrade all dependencies to the latest version to install a package.
Anyone with an ounce of sense and experience knows that if you have a package for the version of the software that you want, but it's only built for and available in a later version of your distribution, then installing it will result in a cascade that will as good as update your entire system. There wouldn't be dependencies otherwise. On a system where you can automatically recompile like Gentoo then this probably won't be the case, but on binary-only systems it most certainly will be. That's why you have a lot of distro hopping, churn and updating.
Then you get it from elsewhere if the official repos don't provide it.
Translation: In practice you don't get the software you want to install at all unless you give up on the package manager and wind back the clock a couple of decades.
You can even build your own package, something you certainly ought to be capable of if you're applying your own patches to software. You can even set up your own repos!
Which software vendors have steadfastly and correctly said they won't do, and especially not for multiple distributions, versions of distributions and architectures! How's your multiplication? Deployment on this scale is error prone and requires a ton of support that they just won't provide because other more popular platforms don't make them do this. You just don't get the applications, and even the up to date free/open source software applications, you get on platforms where this sort of thing isn't a problem. Screw you, in other words.
So basically what you're saying is, "you're not using the package manager except if you are". Gee, really?
Hmmmmm, and you're the one who's just recommended building your own specific packages or setting up repositories for multiple distributions, versions and architectures, with not the faintest idea of the costs involved in doing that, to stay within that package management system and you're wondering why someone might be suggesting that they stay outside of that brain damage? Hmmmmm. That 'Check Updates....' thing in Firefox that works everywhere else. Why doesn't it fucking work on a Linux platform and why does everyone need to redo the work of providing updates? It's a puzzle. I wonder.............
Most of your post you've been toeing a fine line between being just wrong and being wrong and a trolling asshat. Guess which side you just landed on?....No, the short of it is that you're a moron and your entire post is bullshit, and both you and everyone who modded your post up need to be mercilessly beaten with a cluestick.
I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot borderline people who hover around Linux distributions, and some of them are even developers, who have never known what it is like to develop software for a living, or even as an independent free project, and get it deployed and updated quickly and easily on a user's system. Package management must be the answer to that. You can't question it. You can't look at the Windows or Mac OS world and learn anything from it and ask "Why the hell do they have more free and open source applications packaged and updated regularly for their non-free/non-opensource platforms?"
Package management is the one true solution to software installation. I mean, if it isn't, then the sky might turn fucking pink, or purple, or something. Christ. Anything could happen.
Yes, I think we all have at some point, but it wasn't for a Linux-based platform.
That's why I use a package manager, which eliminates the whole issue -- I just need the name of a package, and it Just Works.
Which totally falls apart when there is something you want that isn't in your repository, you can't find a repository or package for your distribution, distribution version and/or architecture (how many multiples is that?) or you want to get an update for something that has just been released and you realise that it will take at least six months to get it into a usable respository...........and you will probably have to upgrade your distribution as there will be no usable backports. For third-party software this falls apart totally and you are completely on your own with a statically compiled, standa-alone tar archive that give you know package or installation manager benefits whatsoever.
Have you noticed how that 'Check for updates...' thing simply does not work at all with Firefox on any distribution? Can you hazard a guess as to why? If you want to know the reason for distribution churn and hopping then this is primarily why.
This is total and utter shite and no other sane operating system makes their users go through this brain damage. When people keep repeating the above untruth that everything is fine in software installation la, la land on Linux I wonder whether people have been using their package managers or distributions at all. Even worse, in order to overcome some perceived proplems someone then invents..............another package management system.
I don't think Apple will lose this case, given the current legal situation, but if by some slim chance Psystar wins its case on the grounds that Apple should have no control over how their product is used as long as the software license is paid for, i.e. that the EULA doesn't hold in this case...
If the EULA held up and could be enforced then Apple would have had a legal injuction enforced against Psystar pretty much immediately and wouldn't need to resort to trying to argue flimsy scenarios like this one regarding the applicability of copyright to supposed copies of OS X made. The fact that they haven't managed to do that and this is what they're having to do speaks volumes about what their chances on EULA enforcements are.
...on the other it weigh Apple down with an enormous amount of support costs (unless they specifically exclude this in their EULA) and also do damage to their brand as it would get watered down.
It's about the only thing in their EULA that would hold up, and they wouldn't have to provide support for anything they didn't want to. It probably wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so however. You only need to look at Microsoft for the massive profits to be had from a far larger market with a far larger supply of hardware.
The problem is that it is so much more expensive than something like a small Asus Pundit that you could buy that you would need to run it for several years before you saw payback. That's overkill for an organisational server, nevermind one in the home.
There one reason against the Mac Mini, and it's from a purely economic point of view from what the guys says he wants. The Mac Mini is so much more expensive than an Asus Pundit or something similar then you would need to keep the thing running for several years before you saw any payback. That's certainly overkill for a small home server.
Sun wanted Apple to share development and maintenance costs. Apple wanted some long-term guarantees that Sun wouldn't stop development and would also help Apple to solve problems of ZFS under Mac OS X.
That has nothing to do with licensing issues though that previous posts have implied. It's a support deal, if indeed that dialogue ever took place. Apple were still going to have to maintain a lot of ZFS expertise in-house and nothing was going to change that. They could never expect to just go to Sun and have them solve any issues they were having.
Probably because Apple hadn't felt like supporting an FS on its own?
Yer, and?
Licensing deal likely would have been needed so that if Sun/whatever goes tits up, Apple would retain all rights to the code...
ZFS is licensed under the CDDL and is probably clearer than most other pieces of software that could be used, and yes, it's clear that if Sun does go tits up it wouldn't affect existing CDDL licensed code. If Sun went then it wouldn't stop Apple's ability to maintain it in any way. There was no dialogue whatsoever to be had with Sun there.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't hold your breath. Vauxhall in Britain and Opel in Germany were all set to be sold, with German government money there no less, and GM did a sleight-of-hand and changed their minds.
1. They pissed all over Visual Basic, which has been used in a lot of fairly critical business applications since the mid-nineties to create applications quickly. Say what you like about it, but an experienced developer could develop very quickly and well with it and it is very widely used. With VB.Net they created an unnecessary and new object oriented language, the need for which was already being fulfilled by C#. I cannot see the point in it as it is merely another .Net language that differs via syntax only.
.Net. Many developers simply don't need the complexity of an object oriented environment foisted on them. They should have implemented VB with .Net as they have with IronPython and at least made it API compatible so you could recompile, or learned from Ruby with or without Rails. Java might be complex but .Net is still complex compared to what else is on offer.
.Net. At least with web applications you only need a very simple client and don't have to deal with that deployment shit.
.Net -> COM and COM -> .Net interaction seems to have been bolted on as an afterthought like they were being forced into it.
.Net is even worse than Java is the moving goalposts. Over the years people have asked whether they should being using WinForms, Avalon and then WPF. No one seems to know. When Windows 9 or 10 comes out then why should I migrate to a yet another new UI or other technology that will not benefit existing users in any way, thereby not making me any money, because Microsoft now won't make new components like WPF available for existing platforms? At least if you develop for XP any applications on there will work on Vista or 7. They might not look as pretty, but making things pretty for a limited userbase doesn't make any money. Just take a look at the Mac.
2. Again, VB related, for the first time you couldn't take your VB code, compile it in a new version of Visual Studio and get all the benefits. Expecting people to throw away millions of lines of code and start fresh for no benefit whatsoever is an epic fail and Microsoft diverged totally from their past views on this.
3. VB related again, but there is still no RAD environment for
4. As such, a great deal of applications, mostly VB, that could went web based and weren't re-written in
5. There is still a ton of stuff written with COM, and interacting with it is still a huge PITA when it comes to deployment issues. They should have focused on simplifying this as much as possible. The
6. There are still a lot of applications where developers are not comfortable running it in a VM.
7. One area where
Microsoft has lost a great deal of what made their development platforms attractive because they think they are losing money by doing it and there are too many divisions like MSDN wanting a piece of the action.
I'm not the slightest bit interested. The only time I've ever used Silverlight is when I've watched SkyTV online in the UK as a media thingy for your browser. It doesn't interest me elsewhere (and I doubt whether that alone will sustain it long-term), as any kind of 'new' development platform (ActiveX 2.0?) and I'm certainly not interested in using it on non-Windows platforms because said media stuff doesn't work regardless. Just stop trying to legitimise Silverlight on other platforms because you aren't gaining any traction and stop using it to legitimise all of your patent bullshit. Anyone who works under that kind if duress, from a competitor no less, is stir-fry crazy.
I would hazard a guess they are paying for the potential story behind this but mainly the ability of this guy to produce this on such a budget. $300 for something that looks that good and realistic is VERY good. The explosions are not bad and are generally well done. The shaky camera work gives a good impression of what the scene is apparently about - an attack with people fleeing in panic.
Give the guy a break. If I a produced something like that for 186 quid I would be absolutely ecstatic.
I think Suse Studio has the advantage here, which is about the only thingg Novell has an advantage on.
We don't know that. All we do know is that it needs a Windows client.
I certainly had forgotten, thanks. I certainly haven't forgotten with regards to marrying a powerful Intel processor with anyting like acceptable integrated graphics.
I guess this means that the only option we have to get half-decent graphics with an Intel processor is with an nVidia chipset. However, that relationship looks a bit rocky and very soon we'll probably only be left with the incredibly shitty Intel integrated graphics systems that work passibly (i.e. you can display a Vista/7 desktop with it and that's it) until you actually want it to do anything even remotely...........graphical. Their acceleration performance for video isn't too hot either.
Either that, or you move to AMD/ATI if you want a decent processor/chipset/integrated graphics combination. AMD must be pleased. This is the best news they've had in quite a while. Their purchase of ATI looks to be paying off. If Intel can't get Larrabee working then I don't know where they go from here, apart from try again and actually get it working or start being nice to nVidia.
Obviously you're not familiar with the news 'content' from Fox and other News Corp satellite businesses.
Even if what seems like a critical mass ouf publishers start delisting from Google, Google's search engine and advertising power and weight is such that other publishers and smaller news sites would simply move in and fill the void. Google might also be more than happy to get less hassle. It certainly won't work if publishers who want to delist start wanting to charge for news, and Microsoft will simply be pouring money down a drain if they pick up that slack and pay the publishers themselves.
It's a horse that won't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight.
The problem isn't with extradition. The problem is that extradition never seems to be equal even when a treaty is in place. The US will never so much as name, nevermind send the pilots that killed British soldiers in a 'friendly fire incident' to the inquests of those killed to establish what happened. Extradition shouldn't be necessary between supposed civilised and developed nations because we should have confidence in our own legal systems, as should those seeking punishment for crimes.
The problem people have with this is that it is an utter whitewash designed to lick firmly in the arse crack of the US government and president.
ActiveX was the sexy name for COM, so it was the other way around. I find it amusing that after nigh on ten years of .Net and MSDN magazine telling us to rewrite everything, COM automation and access is still needed. I'm puzzled though, because COM within Windows is a huge behemoth and the security implications for giving a web-based browser platform access to it, even if it is almost certainly limited, is going to be rather interesting. Mind you, if they expect Silverlight to be the future of Windows client development (as .Net, Windows.Forms, Avalon aka WPF et al were before it) then this is pretty much a given and they can also try and create the lock-in via the Windows client that they tried to get via ActiveX in IE. Whether it will work and be adopted or not outside of corporate MS-oriented intranets is anyone's guess. ActiveX didn't exactly take the web by storm on a large scale.
It doesn't make any difference to Ubuntu or other distros. They have a beta release of Firefox in their LTS.
Why? It happens all the time in the open source world. The developers decide when their objectives have been met. It's up to the distributors to decide if it is good enough to go in fron to users, and the majority of distributors have proved that they are merely version bumbers and packagers with no thought about the overall. It's a large part of the reason why the Linux desktop is totally stillborne.
Because they still tried to make money out of the hardware rather than licensing Mac OS and the clone designs. It was extremely poorly handled. Microsoft is a perfect example as to how licensing software to a large market can work.
Not from Mac computers and not from OS X as it stands which is where the discussion is relevant. Their resurgence has come in the form of new markets where the iPod and iPhone have blazed trails. Initially, their 'control everything' approach works. Over time it has been proved that it doesn't and it certainly doesn't apply to the PC market where they can only account for a few percent at most because the demand and the supply to fuel any demand just isn't there. There are untold billions to be made if they licensed OS X to OEMs. Microsoft must have breathed a huge sigh of relief internally.
It's even worse than that. DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement. What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage? What possible use can that serve? It's worse than an old VGA connector ever was. What's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason.
I live in the UK, pay my licence fee and have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts for years, whether designated as being 'premium' or not. I've been able to use various cheap DVRs to record and play back that content as I like and as has been forced down my throat with the digital switchover. What's changed?
Well for starters, in your eagerness to jump down this 'fellow's' throat you didn't actually read his comment, specifically "Personally third party content is of little importance to me" which means that he's not too interested in 'premium' content as long as he gets what he pays for as a licence fee payer.
If you actually read the article they're talking about locking down BBC HD content - that we're already paying for! They're even trying to get around this in a backhanded way by encrypting the TV listings because they're not allowed by law to encrypt the video or audio streams. How this can possibly fly with the regulator I don't know because what's the difference between the video and audio and the TV listings? Basically, it will stop people watching HD which few do anyway.
However, again, why should that be stopped anyway even for third-party content? We have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts in the UK for decades, and indeed, the BBC amongst others are trying to get us to move to digital and buy all these new fangled free DVRs and Freeview+ boxes that will use many of the same cheap components. It is NOT in any way shape or form the BBC's remit to say what can and can't happen to content at the other end in a licence fee payer's home, nor is it the BBC's remit to start telling people what hardware manufacturer's can make or what more expensive hardware licence fee payers need to buy - AGAIN I might add - to watch programmes that haven't needed any form of DRM in the past when transmitted free-to-air. I'm fed up to the back teeth of this constant retuning and buying of 'preferred' hardware to simply watch TV I'm paying for.
Screw the premium content providers. We pay our licence fees and we decide what the BBC does or doesn't do. We haven't had this trouble before and we certainly shouldn't have it for content we are paying the BBC to produce.
After all that we've experienced over the years I remain to be convinced that DRM stops piracy for the kind of ridiculous inconvenience it causes to the people who pay money. I pay my licence fee and couldn't give a toss. It's not as if I'm freeloading, which is why I resent the tone of this idiotic bit of flamebait. All I know is that I've been able to get free-to-air br
I'm afraid he is. He's an old school newspaper rag man who knows nothing else and he doesn't have the wherewithall in a million years to make his organisation exist in any other way. If you want an example of he is you need look no further than Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, the last decent Bond villain there will be for quite some time. In fact, that's the situation Murdoch would love to be in. However, he simply doesn't comprehend that News Corporation is not the centre of the news world when it comes to people getting their information - and they don't have to.
They probably have, but it would make no difference. He probably still firmly believes that there is a way to stop Google from aggregating news altogether, whether it be News Corp's or from somewhere else. It's costing him money. If News Corp's financial situation gets much worse then expect legal action to be taken against Google along the lines of "We deserve to be in business because we are appointed by God". As someone in the UK I wouldn't be happier if a side-effect of that was that BSkyB went bust.
Google don't give a shit. I wouldn't. In the current climate the only way to stem advertising declines is to intelligently use content as a vehicle for better, targetted advertising. That means grabbing your technology and making it better. News Corp couldn't do that if their lives depended on it. In the face of that Murdoch is going back to what ne knows. He still believes that the content itself is what makes money i.e. selling newspapers....and he can then make a bit more by throwing advertising on top. If that doesn't work (it's not much of an 'if) then expect some kicking, screaming and general stamping of feet.
Anyone with an ounce of sense and experience knows that if you have a package for the version of the software that you want, but it's only built for and available in a later version of your distribution, then installing it will result in a cascade that will as good as update your entire system. There wouldn't be dependencies otherwise. On a system where you can automatically recompile like Gentoo then this probably won't be the case, but on binary-only systems it most certainly will be. That's why you have a lot of distro hopping, churn and updating.
Translation: In practice you don't get the software you want to install at all unless you give up on the package manager and wind back the clock a couple of decades.
Which software vendors have steadfastly and correctly said they won't do, and especially not for multiple distributions, versions of distributions and architectures! How's your multiplication? Deployment on this scale is error prone and requires a ton of support that they just won't provide because other more popular platforms don't make them do this. You just don't get the applications, and even the up to date free/open source software applications, you get on platforms where this sort of thing isn't a problem. Screw you, in other words.
Hmmmmm, and you're the one who's just recommended building your own specific packages or setting up repositories for multiple distributions, versions and architectures, with not the faintest idea of the costs involved in doing that, to stay within that package management system and you're wondering why someone might be suggesting that they stay outside of that brain damage? Hmmmmm. That 'Check Updates....' thing in Firefox that works everywhere else. Why doesn't it fucking work on a Linux platform and why does everyone need to redo the work of providing updates? It's a puzzle. I wonder.............
I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot borderline people who hover around Linux distributions, and some of them are even developers, who have never known what it is like to develop software for a living, or even as an independent free project, and get it deployed and updated quickly and easily on a user's system. Package management must be the answer to that. You can't question it. You can't look at the Windows or Mac OS world and learn anything from it and ask "Why the hell do they have more free and open source applications packaged and updated regularly for their non-free/non-opensource platforms?"
Package management is the one true solution to software installation. I mean, if it isn't, then the sky might turn fucking pink, or purple, or something. Christ. Anything could happen.
Yes, I think we all have at some point, but it wasn't for a Linux-based platform.
Which totally falls apart when there is something you want that isn't in your repository, you can't find a repository or package for your distribution, distribution version and/or architecture (how many multiples is that?) or you want to get an update for something that has just been released and you realise that it will take at least six months to get it into a usable respository...........and you will probably have to upgrade your distribution as there will be no usable backports. For third-party software this falls apart totally and you are completely on your own with a statically compiled, standa-alone tar archive that give you know package or installation manager benefits whatsoever.
Have you noticed how that 'Check for updates...' thing simply does not work at all with Firefox on any distribution? Can you hazard a guess as to why? If you want to know the reason for distribution churn and hopping then this is primarily why.
This is total and utter shite and no other sane operating system makes their users go through this brain damage. When people keep repeating the above untruth that everything is fine in software installation la, la land on Linux I wonder whether people have been using their package managers or distributions at all. Even worse, in order to overcome some perceived proplems someone then invents..............another package management system.
If the EULA held up and could be enforced then Apple would have had a legal injuction enforced against Psystar pretty much immediately and wouldn't need to resort to trying to argue flimsy scenarios like this one regarding the applicability of copyright to supposed copies of OS X made. The fact that they haven't managed to do that and this is what they're having to do speaks volumes about what their chances on EULA enforcements are.
It's about the only thing in their EULA that would hold up, and they wouldn't have to provide support for anything they didn't want to. It probably wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so however. You only need to look at Microsoft for the massive profits to be had from a far larger market with a far larger supply of hardware.
The problem is that it is so much more expensive than something like a small Asus Pundit that you could buy that you would need to run it for several years before you saw payback. That's overkill for an organisational server, nevermind one in the home.
There one reason against the Mac Mini, and it's from a purely economic point of view from what the guys says he wants. The Mac Mini is so much more expensive than an Asus Pundit or something similar then you would need to keep the thing running for several years before you saw any payback. That's certainly overkill for a small home server.
That has nothing to do with licensing issues though that previous posts have implied. It's a support deal, if indeed that dialogue ever took place. Apple were still going to have to maintain a lot of ZFS expertise in-house and nothing was going to change that. They could never expect to just go to Sun and have them solve any issues they were having.
Yer, and?
ZFS is licensed under the CDDL and is probably clearer than most other pieces of software that could be used, and yes, it's clear that if Sun does go tits up it wouldn't affect existing CDDL licensed code. If Sun went then it wouldn't stop Apple's ability to maintain it in any way. There was no dialogue whatsoever to be had with Sun there.