Now, you'll say, "but the user could click and download a trojan!" But I'll respond with: they modified the contest rules on Day 3 so that the attackers could request installs be done on the laptop to give them attack surfaces. Not exactly the same, but pretty close. And the Ubuntu laptop survived that.
Push notifications were supposed to do this. The app has most of its logic on the server, and only pushes things to the iPhone when needed. (Push notifications are a relatively new feature, so they may not be all they're hyped up to be.) I think that's the iPhone-blessed (ugh!) way of "getting a series of call backs"
If iPhone OS 4.0 allows background tasks -- and I'm not convinced it will -- they really only become useful if the background process is *not* sleeping. Examples of background processes would be:
VOIP (while doing other things on the phone, like looking up an email address)
Streaming music
GPS navigation (because the GPS information needs to be processed before the app knows whether to alert you about the next left turn, or not)
I have heard that wait() is broken in the current implementation, and it needs to be fixed in order for multitasking to really work well. +1 on that one.
Why does a USB-powered charger need software at all?
It's called a DUO because it can plug into the wall or into a computer. So it works without a computer. To get the computer to jack up the USB power output from the default 100mA, the device could identify itself as a hub -- no software required.
I get it that the software can monitor charging, report stuff, advertise... But how does Energizer feel now, with egg on their faces?
The post on the google-appengine group details all the things they did wrong and are going to fix, after the power went out. Fine, I have to plan for outages too. But what caused the unplanned outage?
Don't look now, but if you read TFA all the way to the bottom:
More commonly, the Ogg proponents will respond with hand-waving arguments best summarised as Ogg isn't bad, it's just different. My reply to this assertion is twofold:
Now mouse over Ogg isn't bad, it's just different.
and it will turn into: Ogg isn't dead, it's just resting.
Even more fun:
Put your mouse cursor right at the end of the t in different.
This is far enough to the right that when the mouseover activates, it shrinks different to resting and your mouse is now outside the mouseover, so it goes into an infinite loop.
"Don't bother to actually read what Michael Geist wrote, just post inflammatory headline" - Typical Slashdot Editor.
I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this:
Outside of the Europe, the memo identifies three problem countries. While Japan is apparently supportive, both South Korea and Singapore oppose ACTA transparency. Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.
The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.
Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
No amount of "no amount of Brooks" or "I've worked more years than you" (both false) will change the plural form of the word "anecdote" into "evidence."
nagnamer (1046654)
But of course paid developers sometimes care about their work. The same goes for any paid job. If one's lucky enough. But it's far from common.
Attila Dimedici (1036002)
Someone working for a company cares about what the company pays them to care about. If they spend time on something the company doesn't want them to, it will cause them to get a bad review and/or fired. A company paying someone to make open source software is going to care more about the code being clean than a company paying someone to make propietary software. this is because with open source software many more people will see the actual code than with propietary software and shoddily written code will reflect badly on the company.
None of this reflects on the work ethic, morals or ability of either the open source programmer or the proprietary source programmer. It is possible for these to be the same person and the analysis still applies.
An analysis cannot rely on luck, though luck may be a pleasant surprise. If all developers loved it and could do it well, then by extension, all code could be open sourced and no one would steal it; this entire discussion is moot.
Open Source has a distinct, tangible effect on the developer's motivation, because her product is her code. Closed Source can't effect the developer this way, because her product is "finished software," which is an acknowledged impossibility -- source: The Mythical Man-Month.
There are places for closed source code to exist, though maybe I'm not the guy to find those. So I'll try to list some examples, just to make the point, but take this with a grain of salt -- if I knew where closed source would succeed, I wouldn't be posting my ideas on Slashdot!
Closed Source is a good solution (but there are benefits to building on an Open Source stack) for web apps and Software-as-a-Service. You have to fix your bugs or your users will go to the competition.
Closed Source is a good solution for military and space -- but again, it benefits from linking to Open Source, running on Open Source OS'es, and funding Open Source research. The closed source software used may actually be secure, but only after 10 times as much money is spent to write it. ($35 million per year just to maintain 420,000 lines already in place for 10 years.)
Closed Source is a good solution for bad code. If you're sure your product is buggy, and you want to ship it, you don't want your competitors or your customers finding that out!
I disagree. I wouldn't argue that Google is not trying to lock us in.
But Google doesn't hide the source code of the kernel I'm running (Linux). And Google didn't get multipleconvictions of monopoly behavior.
I would argue that Microsoft did, and still does do more to lock us in, categorize us, and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumers (sp!) of Microsoft products -- much more than any other software company out there!
This is not about Microsoft bashing. Yes, they are an easy target. But you have not provided any sort of rebuttal to the GP's point -- a developer working toward a fixed financial reward is not sufficiently motivated to produce quality code. See The Mythical Man-Month and other sources.
iTunes is an example of a really bad sort of "slave to the server." (iTunes uses Audible DRM for most of its audiobooks, even now when its music is mostly DRM-free.)
Once you have "authorized" a computer, you can play DRM'ed media on the computer without connecting to the server. It means the chains don't delete your music collection until iTunes is offline and the computer dies, making it much harder to get a class action going.
I agree that this is an important question, and not easy to figure out.
Not many companies (big or small) have figured it out. FOSS + Commercial success is tough.
So it's a tough problem. It's even tougher to be commercially successful without alienating the developer community, who are like a herd of cats and will bolt at the slightest thing.
It also seems like a brilliant business strategy - better than patent trolling, better than suckering customers (see: U.S. Telco/Cable Monopolies), and better than relying on government money.
That doesn't make MySQL a good example of FOSS and large corporations. Sun acquired the copyright, but since the license is GPL, Sun/Oracle cannot eliminate the open source version -- they can only compete with it. (How different is that, really, than before?)
What is happening with FOSS in huge corporations? Firefox, mozilla.org, and Google - seem like a fairly successful combination, maybe not the leading browser today, but the browser marketplace is much, much healthier now than when IE6 was released. I think Firefox played a huge role in the changing browser market.
Google's other FOSS products - I think Google is trying too hard. They're playing with fire like mobile devices, which does benefit search (their main engine of profit) but puts them in really hard situations, like trying to create an open handset but still be friends with the mobile industry (who react to openness like it is deadly poison). They're following Apple here - who uses OS X on the iPhone and the desktop, and Google has a long way to go to catch up. TFA says Google is sinking their hooks into Android, but paradoxically, that should be impossible with a truly open platform. Yes, Google doesn't want you to root your phone - but the ability to hack a device when you have total control over it has proven to be doable despite Apple's much greater efforts. I don't think Google will go anywhere near Apple's penchant for lock-down.
IBM - IBM may have a better big business approach to FOSS: they jumped right in with a business model that applied open source software to increase their capabilities, but they keep a tight grip on their profit centers. They are a huge help with the threat of Patent wars, but they are doing so from the brilliant position of leveraging their profitable patents to help open source. At the end of the day, IBM keeps their patents, and open source keeps its source code. Only Microsoft loses.
Sun's other FOSS products - Java, OpenOffice, and VirtualBox are all very important open source products. What will happen to them? If Oracle finishes gobbling Sun up and they languish, does that mean GPL software is incompatible with big business? This hypothetical situation is not very likely, IMO. Oracle's not going to destroy value.
Well, maybe I'm wrong on that one. Maybe Sun and Oracle (and Monty too) will end up destroying something valuable. I think that's a reasonable conclusion:
Monty sold MySQL to Sun -- probably not thinking long term -- and Sun snatched MySQL up for a huge sum -- probably not thinking long term -- and now Sun is on the ropes, and Oracle is trying to buy what's left of it before all the customers slip away. Is Oracle thinking long term? Personally, I doubt it. They're probably maximizing shareholder value in the next 6 months. The values that made MySQL -- the community esprit de corps -- is being destroyed, but Oracle might end up owning the Sun logo (ooh, shiny) by the end of the year. Overall, value gets destroyed by shareholder shenanigans.
I'm just restating poorly what Dana Blankenhorn says. (He's the inspiration for TFA.)
This wouldn't be the first time sociopathic CxO's driven wild with greed ignored the community and got wiped out. Capitalism works poorly, but it still seems to be working. Don't blame Open Source for Big Business's biggest problems!
One thing it will probably do is gradually desensitize the inner ear. The brain connects very strongly the data from visual cues (slight motion) and the inner ear (acceleration that same motion). With 3D entertainment, the inner ear will be delivering completely "irrelevant" data.
Playing first person games or watching lots of video may have already reduced your "motion sickness" response, but this will probably go a lot farther toward the final outcome.
Don't look now, but it appears the movie industry is attempting to... uh... innovate. That would be a sound business model.
But I'm sure they'll keep trying to copyright the letters A through Z (only those letters used after 1936, of course). That would be their current, entrenched business model.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting proposition.
Can you back it up with sources?
I had to search for a while to find something I could use as a credible source, and I'm not sure I've got it nailed, but it looks like this Ubuntu laptop did the impossible: 100% of malware blocked.
Now, you'll say, "but the user could click and download a trojan!" But I'll respond with: they modified the contest rules on Day 3 so that the attackers could request installs be done on the laptop to give them attack surfaces. Not exactly the same, but pretty close. And the Ubuntu laptop survived that.
If iPhone OS 4.0 allows background tasks -- and I'm not convinced it will -- they really only become useful if the background process is *not* sleeping. Examples of background processes would be:
I have heard that wait() is broken in the current implementation, and it needs to be fixed in order for multitasking to really work well. +1 on that one.
Why does a USB-powered charger need software at all?
It's called a DUO because it can plug into the wall or into a computer. So it works without a computer. To get the computer to jack up the USB power output from the default 100mA, the device could identify itself as a hub -- no software required.
I get it that the software can monitor charging, report stuff, advertise... But how does Energizer feel now, with egg on their faces?
What I want to know is, what caused the outage?
The post on the google-appengine group details all the things they did wrong and are going to fix, after the power went out. Fine, I have to plan for outages too. But what caused the unplanned outage?
Now mouse over
Ogg isn't bad, it's just different.
and it will turn into:
Ogg isn't dead, it's just resting.
Even more fun:
Put your mouse cursor right at the end of the t in different.
This is far enough to the right that when the mouseover activates, it shrinks different to resting and your mouse is now outside the mouseover, so it goes into an infinite loop.
When was this brought into a court? Did a judge even issue a summary judgment?
Yeah, didn't think so. And Microsoft backed down.
In the mean time, the DMCA does not allow for a "Legal Lock" on a domain name.
However, the domain was effectively disabled - recovery through transferring the domain name was disabled by the Legal Lock.
It is not like John Young was in a dispute over the domain ownership. The Legal Lock was put in place incorrectly IMO.
No, if cryptome.org is hosted at Network Solutions (it was, IIRC), Network Solutions should disable or block the hosting.
Commandeering the domain name (a.k.a. "legal lock") is neither protected by the DMCA nor permitted by ICANN.
John Young may be able to sue Network Solutions on this basis.
I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this:
The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.
Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
No amount of "no amount of Brooks" or "I've worked more years than you" (both false) will change the plural form of the word "anecdote" into "evidence."
Don't worry too much. After you have added GPL code to your programs, they'll be GPL too.
But you can still copyright them.
The cryptographic design is fine.
But proximity designs couldn't transmit enough power a few years ago. The algorithms, even implemented as an ASIC, were still too power hungry.
However, that may have changed now that fab technology is fully outsourced. No one has tried "real crypto" on a prox card recently.
Try actually rebutting using logic, instead of repeating that you are right, everyone else is wrong, don't they all know that?
Remember to cite sources.
An analysis cannot rely on luck, though luck may be a pleasant surprise. If all developers loved it and could do it well, then by extension, all code could be open sourced and no one would steal it; this entire discussion is moot.
Open Source has a distinct, tangible effect on the developer's motivation, because her product is her code. Closed Source can't effect the developer this way, because her product is "finished software," which is an acknowledged impossibility -- source: The Mythical Man-Month.
Well it's a summary of a rebuttal, it just doesn't contain any substance.
Obligatory link to Linux Genuine Advantage (TM).
;-)
I think you forgot to mark the (TM).
I disagree. I wouldn't argue that Google is not trying to lock us in.
But Google doesn't hide the source code of the kernel I'm running (Linux). And Google didn't get multiple convictions of monopoly behavior.
I would argue that Microsoft did, and still does do more to lock us in, categorize us, and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumers (sp!) of Microsoft products -- much more than any other software company out there!
Hey, thanks for pointing out that closed sourcecode sometimes is not written by the paid developers!
Good catch!</sarcasm>
This is not about Microsoft bashing. Yes, they are an easy target. But you have not provided any sort of rebuttal to the GP's point -- a developer working toward a fixed financial reward is not sufficiently motivated to produce quality code. See The Mythical Man-Month and other sources.
iTunes is an example of a really bad sort of "slave to the server." (iTunes uses Audible DRM for most of its audiobooks, even now when its music is mostly DRM-free.)
Once you have "authorized" a computer, you can play DRM'ed media on the computer without connecting to the server. It means the chains don't delete your music collection until iTunes is offline and the computer dies, making it much harder to get a class action going.
I agree that this is an important question, and not easy to figure out.
Not many companies (big or small) have figured it out. FOSS + Commercial success is tough.
So it's a tough problem. It's even tougher to be commercially successful without alienating the developer community, who are like a herd of cats and will bolt at the slightest thing.
It also seems like a brilliant business strategy - better than patent trolling, better than suckering customers (see: U.S. Telco/Cable Monopolies), and better than relying on government money.
That doesn't make MySQL a good example of FOSS and large corporations. Sun acquired the copyright, but since the license is GPL, Sun/Oracle cannot eliminate the open source version -- they can only compete with it. (How different is that, really, than before?)
What is happening with FOSS in huge corporations?
Firefox, mozilla.org, and Google - seem like a fairly successful combination, maybe not the leading browser today, but the browser marketplace is much, much healthier now than when IE6 was released. I think Firefox played a huge role in the changing browser market.
Google's other FOSS products - I think Google is trying too hard. They're playing with fire like mobile devices, which does benefit search (their main engine of profit) but puts them in really hard situations, like trying to create an open handset but still be friends with the mobile industry (who react to openness like it is deadly poison). They're following Apple here - who uses OS X on the iPhone and the desktop, and Google has a long way to go to catch up. TFA says Google is sinking their hooks into Android, but paradoxically, that should be impossible with a truly open platform. Yes, Google doesn't want you to root your phone - but the ability to hack a device when you have total control over it has proven to be doable despite Apple's much greater efforts. I don't think Google will go anywhere near Apple's penchant for lock-down.
IBM - IBM may have a better big business approach to FOSS: they jumped right in with a business model that applied open source software to increase their capabilities, but they keep a tight grip on their profit centers. They are a huge help with the threat of Patent wars, but they are doing so from the brilliant position of leveraging their profitable patents to help open source. At the end of the day, IBM keeps their patents, and open source keeps its source code. Only Microsoft loses.
Sun's other FOSS products - Java, OpenOffice, and VirtualBox are all very important open source products. What will happen to them? If Oracle finishes gobbling Sun up and they languish, does that mean GPL software is incompatible with big business? This hypothetical situation is not very likely, IMO. Oracle's not going to destroy value.
Well, maybe I'm wrong on that one. Maybe Sun and Oracle (and Monty too) will end up destroying something valuable. I think that's a reasonable conclusion:
Monty sold MySQL to Sun -- probably not thinking long term -- and Sun snatched MySQL up for a huge sum -- probably not thinking long term -- and now Sun is on the ropes, and Oracle is trying to buy what's left of it before all the customers slip away. Is Oracle thinking long term? Personally, I doubt it. They're probably maximizing shareholder value in the next 6 months. The values that made MySQL -- the community esprit de corps -- is being destroyed, but Oracle might end up owning the Sun logo (ooh, shiny) by the end of the year. Overall, value gets destroyed by shareholder shenanigans.
I'm just restating poorly what Dana Blankenhorn says. (He's the inspiration for TFA.)
This wouldn't be the first time sociopathic CxO's driven wild with greed ignored the community and got wiped out. Capitalism works poorly, but it still seems to be working. Don't blame Open Source for Big Business's biggest problems!
One thing it will probably do is gradually desensitize the inner ear. The brain connects very strongly the data from visual cues (slight motion) and the inner ear (acceleration that same motion). With 3D entertainment, the inner ear will be delivering completely "irrelevant" data.
Playing first person games or watching lots of video may have already reduced your "motion sickness" response, but this will probably go a lot farther toward the final outcome.
Don't look now, but it appears the movie industry is attempting to ... uh ... innovate. That would be a sound business model.
But I'm sure they'll keep trying to copyright the letters A through Z (only those letters used after 1936, of course). That would be their current, entrenched business model.
Breaking the record brings attention to the algorithm.
It means that the algorithm will get noticed.