But will it run li... perhaps it will! Seriously, though, the real question is which Linux will it run - custom, or based on something familiar? And using what toolkit - GTK or Qt? etc. etc.
TFA and the website have no details yet. Perhaps on the 12th we will know more.
Its not a linux port. They simply packaged Cedega with EVE. I wish people would stop praising them for that...its not a native client. Sure, a native port would be better, but this is still a step in the right direction. They deserve *some* praise for it.
If it lets a few more people not have to dual-boot into Windows to play games, then they are doing something right. Hopefully this will grow the non-Windows gaming market enough so that eventually native clients *are* released for Linux / Mac.
And as for Cedega not being truly open-sourced, and the games themselves certainly not, well, as a Linux desktop user and FOSS supporter this bothers me. But the fact is, at this point in time hardcore games are mostly a closed-source environment, whether on a console or a PC. Games are different than most typical desktop apps for various reasons. Hopefully in the future this will change, but meanwhile lots of Linux users want to play games, so this announcement is positive news.
Based on what you say, I guess the test will be to see the price point: if Google Phones are priced at a different range than the iPhone (say at least $100 less) then perhaps they won't compete for the same market. Hopefully tomorrow we will know more.
It's also worthwhile to note that Google really is going after Microsoft - and not Apple - with its device (whatever it ends up being). That's how I read it, at least. Google and Apple have much to gain from one another, although neither absolutely needs the other, as is the case with most of the great partnerships. I apologize for coming off like an Apple fanboy, but as someone who has come to rely on having an iPhone in his pocket, I couldn't not say anything. Based on what, exactly? This seems just as much targeted against Apple as against Windows Mobile, Symbian, etc. Or do you see some particular reason why the 'Google Phone' would sell to mostly Windows Mobile users instead of the others? I don't. It seems to be aimed at the smartphone market as a whole, based on the little information we have so far.
A lot has been said about Google/Apple cooperation in the past; I think that is what makes you assume that Apple isn't their target. But I see nothing concrete to support that regarding the mobile phone market specifically.
The title is misleading. Microsoft did not say it didn't 'sabotage' the deal, it said
Microsoft operates its business in accordance [...] with the laws of the countries in which it operates
In other words, Microsoft considers itself to be acting within the law. Since this is Nigerian law, I am not sure this is saying much (although perhaps the laws are enlightened but never applied - same result). Furthermore, even in US or European law there are plenty of legal actions that most people would consider unethical, and perhaps that is what happened here.
Yes, business can be cutthroat at times, but when you get a tiny competitor's product to not be used even after being ordered by the customer and yours to replace it, things seem highly suspect. Since this is in Nigeria I presume no anti-trust actions will occur, but the relevant officials should take note.
Smith's proof will be published in the journal Complex Systems. Meaning it had not yet been peer reviewed. No, this means the opposite AFAIK. If it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it has already been reviewed. Otherwise you would say it has been submitted to the journal, which would imply a review is pending.
That is, you only say it will be published after acceptance by the journal, following peer review. It is then published some time later, depending on the queue for publication in that journal.
You're an imbecile. The software is dual-licensed. It's either GPL or proprietary, depends on what you want. If you want to keep your code secret, you can pay Trolltech for that privilege. Otherwise, you get it under the GPL, just like every other bit of Linux. Trolltech may do the heavy lifting with developing Qt, but as long as it's available via the GPL, that's no big deal. Because if they ever take it away, we still have the source and are perfectly able to keep going on with development. There is no way that Trolltech can do ANYTHING to KDE development. On the other hand, Mono is quite dependent on a closed MS standard, without any code to actually be based on, it's just an interface that can be changed at Microsoft's whim. That is the definition of proprietary. "Just like every other bit of Linux" - no, not quite. GNOME, for example, is LGPL in the relevant portions. You can build apps for GNOME using any license, not just the GPL. Yes, Trolltech has some clause to let various FOSS licenses build against Qt, but I don't think it is compatible with e.g. the GPL3 (because of GPL3 issues).
So, yes, Trolltech are limiting KDE development. Google the recent issues with Samba's move to GPL3 and how KDE is having problems using their new code because of that.
And the Gutsy Gibbon seems to run great on them too!
http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10006278o-2000331777b,00.htm Well no, not according to that article:
There are some problems to fix. The wi-fi adaptor isn't working (it's an Atheros I haven't encountered before), there have been a couple of odd battery messages, and selecting power down from the desktop doesn't actually turn the PC off. No wifi would be a showstopper for me personally. But anyhow, it does seem like this might be workable. Perhaps somebody will throw together an Eeebuntu?:)
I think it was almost ten years ago when Microsoft came out with active desktop and Netscape countered with something which was really a browser window taking up the whole screen and called a desktop.
I never saw either being used. Is this the same thing? Well, I might be wrong, but this is how I see it.
Flash, Silverlight etc. are attempts to let you write cross-platform apps that are available through the web. This is becoming the hottest area these days. But you need special tools for cross-platform development; the reason these tools are needed, is that web browsers are not exactly compatible with each other. You can't write an AJAX app and have it run perfectly in IE, FF, Opera, Safari, etc. It is tricky.
Now, Mozilla Firefox currently runs the same way on all the major operating systems. So it could be a cross-platform app environment as well, if you think about it: Develop once for Firefox, and all people need to run your software is to use Firefox (which is a free download). But that is the problem - some people prefer IE, Opera, etc. You can't force them to switch web browser.
Therefore, the solution for Mozilla is to separate web apps from the browser. That is, the platform will be Firefox, but people won't even notice it; Firefox will be like Flash. Imagine running IE and clicking on a web app, which then opens in a new window. It could be Flash, AJAX, or Firefox; you wouldn't know.
Active desktop might have been adopted if there was much of a use for it, back then. There wasn't. But meanwhile things have changed, and nowadays web apps are quite useful and it now does makes sense to integrate them into your desktop - so long as you do so in a cross-platform manner. Mozilla already has such a platform - Firefox - which runs on all platforms in the same manner. All they need to do is a little packaging.
You appear to have missed the gist of the GP's argument, which was that the effort and resources being spent on fighting terrorism (often in ways which, as you point out, are likely to be ineffective) significantly outweigh those being spent on societal problems such as heart disease that actually have a greater impact in terms of number of people directly affected. While it is true that many more people die from heart disease than 9/11, that doesn't mean the former has more 'impact' on the public. The fallacy is that you measure impact by number of people killed. But the overall impact includes the number of people whose lives were disrupted by psychological trauma; this includes many people in the vicinity of the act, as well as people seeing it on TV.
Sure, an ideal population would be completely rational and see things your way, and care more about heart disease than 9/11. But the population consists of real human beings, who tend to be irrational. Until we find a way to educate the population (and I wish we could!), the rational response to 9/11 is to treat it very seriously, because it did have very serious effects. In fact the word 'terror' is no coincidence - the attacks have little 'objective' damage, but a tremendous amount of the subjective type.
(Note that I am arguing that spending a lot of money on preventing another 9/11 makes sense, despite the relatively low death toll compared to heart disease; I am not arguing that Bush's particular response was appropriate. It wasn't.)
Gender bias is unfair, of course. That question is, is the existing difference in average salary due to bias / discrimination, or other factors. The research community is divided on this issue, it is complex.
For example, women tend to work at more part-time positions, and part-time positions tend to get paid less per hour (workplaces prefer to hire full-time employees).
Yep, DOC over here as well. I work in a very small group, just three people, and I am the only one using Linux and OpenOffice, the rest are 100% Microsoft (despite friendly attempts to convert them). Since they use DOC, and outnumber me, I end up using it as well.
Although for documents with a lot of math in them I use LaTeX (no one else will be editing them anyhow). Much more convenient.
There is little gender bias in salary. It would be better to say that there is little difference in salary; 'bias' has negative connotations of unfairness. As research in this area shows, it is hard to pinpoint which salary differences are actually discriminatory and which are not, but reflect objective factors (amount of hours worked, etc. etc.).
I don't mean to start an offtopic discussion, just wanted to point out that the choice of word there might bait people.
If you have to install additional software to get MP3 support, the music-playing experience is, almost by definition, not as pleasant as it is under OS X. On Ubuntu it takes about 2-3 clicks the first time you try to play an MP3 (and no additional clicks afterwards). Might not be as 'pleasant' as no clicks, but completely negligible.
What still is an issue is DVD encryption. Sadly DeCSS can't be legally obtained in the US. Much as I am opposed to software patents, some practical solution needs to be given, while we continue to struggle to change the patent system. Paying a few bucks for legal DVD playback in the US seems the only feasible option at this point, and Ubuntu should facilitate this somehow, if only by providing links to third parties that provide this service (e.g. Fluendo I believe were working on this).
There's no excuse for using Google for anything. Considering Google's #1 motive seems to be to collect as much information as possible on the public, it really makes you question their ultimate goals and wonder about how such a young company got so much funding so quickly to become the monolith they are If by 'funding' you mean having an extremely successful business that sells services people gladly pay for, then yes, they got a lot of 'funding' very quickly.
As for motive, their motive is to make money - like any corporation. Collecting information is one of their strategies to do that; the same is true for Yahoo and Microsoft. I understand your concern, but this is a more general issue than Google, it is the question of how our lives connect online and what we do with our personal information there.
Yes, this was my thinking as well upon seeing the article. Discrediting the standard bodies is in Microsoft's favor. If collaboration, cooperation and democracy (essentially that is what international standards bodies implement) are shown to fail in IT, then a single entity to lead the market may seem more appealing.
But hopefully this will come back to bite them. Discrediting standard bodies may irritate some people in high places - although, presumably not in the US.
Another factor is how you count. If you count actual servers (not domains), then you end up with the 'big' sites being very influential. OS and webserver comparisons then become more of a comparison between the relative growth of MySpace (IIS on Windows) vs. Facebook (Apache on unknown OS), and between Google (custom webserver on Linux), Yahoo (custom webserver on FreeBSD) and Microsoft Live (IIS on Windows). If one of these giants grows by a significant factor, it brings up the stats for its OS and webserver of choice.
So, the stats don't indicate the prevalence of use of the various OSes in the sense of "the probability of a new company installing a new server to pick such-and-such", which we might understand as the 'perceived quality' of the OS/webserver. I don't mean the stats are misleading, just that they need to be interpreted correctly.
Another issue is whether parked domains are taken into consideration in the count, or just 'actual' websites; for example, some time ago GoDaddy moved their parked domains to Windows/IIS, spiking Microsoft's share instantly. This might explain part of the difference between NetCraft and SecuritySpace's web server surveys; SecuritySpace claim they don't visit cybersquatter web sites and other 'isolated' domains that no one links to.
While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them.
Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example). No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.
the study was funded by a company that makes a "drug" to fix this! Drug, shmug. The aliens from "V" were right - the only way to get blood is fresh blood.
Bit Torrent (not a good choice for small files anyway) Actually Bittorrent is an excellent choice for small files. You find a huge torrent full of, say, the artist's entire discography, and you can select only the files you want to download (at least in any modern Bittorrent client). This almost always ends up being faster then eMule, since your download starts immediately.
That arguement would be valid, except Qt allows you to link to it with code from just about any license such as the BSD license.
They do allow several FOSS licenses, under some limitations, yes. But they don't allow them all. Anyhow, as regards the GPL3, do they allow that? If so, then I guess in this case the issue isn't with Qt.
Nope, the problem is Qt being GPL2 only, so KDE is unable to use GPL3 OpenChange code, because any resulting binary won't be legally redistributable.
Exactly. Qt is GPL2 only, so KDE needs to be GPL2 as well (even if it were 'GPL2 or above', the effective license would be GPL2). This is a serious problem for Qt-based projects like KDE.
It is precisely for this reason that a GUI platform should not be GPLed; it should be LGPLed (which GTK/GNOME is, in the relevant portions). And also precisely for this reason that the Linux kernel, while GPL, is effectively LGPL for code in userspace according to their interpretation. Otherwise, the kernel would have this exact same problem - you wouldn't be able to run Samba on it.
Slashdot Mirror
If it lets a few more people not have to dual-boot into Windows to play games, then they are doing something right. Hopefully this will grow the non-Windows gaming market enough so that eventually native clients *are* released for Linux / Mac.
And as for Cedega not being truly open-sourced, and the games themselves certainly not, well, as a Linux desktop user and FOSS supporter this bothers me. But the fact is, at this point in time hardcore games are mostly a closed-source environment, whether on a console or a PC. Games are different than most typical desktop apps for various reasons. Hopefully in the future this will change, but meanwhile lots of Linux users want to play games, so this announcement is positive news.
Ok, now I understand your point a little more.
Based on what you say, I guess the test will be to see the price point: if Google Phones are priced at a different range than the iPhone (say at least $100 less) then perhaps they won't compete for the same market. Hopefully tomorrow we will know more.
A lot has been said about Google/Apple cooperation in the past; I think that is what makes you assume that Apple isn't their target. But I see nothing concrete to support that regarding the mobile phone market specifically.
Yes, business can be cutthroat at times, but when you get a tiny competitor's product to not be used even after being ordered by the customer and yours to replace it, things seem highly suspect. Since this is in Nigeria I presume no anti-trust actions will occur, but the relevant officials should take note.
That is, you only say it will be published after acceptance by the journal, following peer review. It is then published some time later, depending on the queue for publication in that journal.
So, yes, Trolltech are limiting KDE development. Google the recent issues with Samba's move to GPL3 and how KDE is having problems using their new code because of that.
I never saw either being used. Is this the same thing? Well, I might be wrong, but this is how I see it.
Flash, Silverlight etc. are attempts to let you write cross-platform apps that are available through the web. This is becoming the hottest area these days. But you need special tools for cross-platform development; the reason these tools are needed, is that web browsers are not exactly compatible with each other. You can't write an AJAX app and have it run perfectly in IE, FF, Opera, Safari, etc. It is tricky.
Now, Mozilla Firefox currently runs the same way on all the major operating systems. So it could be a cross-platform app environment as well, if you think about it: Develop once for Firefox, and all people need to run your software is to use Firefox (which is a free download). But that is the problem - some people prefer IE, Opera, etc. You can't force them to switch web browser.
Therefore, the solution for Mozilla is to separate web apps from the browser. That is, the platform will be Firefox, but people won't even notice it; Firefox will be like Flash. Imagine running IE and clicking on a web app, which then opens in a new window. It could be Flash, AJAX, or Firefox; you wouldn't know.
Active desktop might have been adopted if there was much of a use for it, back then. There wasn't. But meanwhile things have changed, and nowadays web apps are quite useful and it now does makes sense to integrate them into your desktop - so long as you do so in a cross-platform manner. Mozilla already has such a platform - Firefox - which runs on all platforms in the same manner. All they need to do is a little packaging.
Sure, an ideal population would be completely rational and see things your way, and care more about heart disease than 9/11. But the population consists of real human beings, who tend to be irrational. Until we find a way to educate the population (and I wish we could!), the rational response to 9/11 is to treat it very seriously, because it did have very serious effects. In fact the word 'terror' is no coincidence - the attacks have little 'objective' damage, but a tremendous amount of the subjective type.
(Note that I am arguing that spending a lot of money on preventing another 9/11 makes sense, despite the relatively low death toll compared to heart disease; I am not arguing that Bush's particular response was appropriate. It wasn't.)
Indeed, excellent episode. Now, if only there was some place online - a website of sorts - where you could view the relevant part of the episode ;)
Gender bias is unfair, of course. That question is, is the existing difference in average salary due to bias / discrimination, or other factors. The research community is divided on this issue, it is complex.
For example, women tend to work at more part-time positions, and part-time positions tend to get paid less per hour (workplaces prefer to hire full-time employees).
Yep, DOC over here as well. I work in a very small group, just three people, and I am the only one using Linux and OpenOffice, the rest are 100% Microsoft (despite friendly attempts to convert them). Since they use DOC, and outnumber me, I end up using it as well.
Although for documents with a lot of math in them I use LaTeX (no one else will be editing them anyhow). Much more convenient.
I wasn't offended, and everything I said is true regardless of which gender has the lower salary.
I don't mean to start an offtopic discussion, just wanted to point out that the choice of word there might bait people.
Thanks for the correction, I think you are right, the DMCA is the main issue here. My mistake.
What still is an issue is DVD encryption. Sadly DeCSS can't be legally obtained in the US. Much as I am opposed to software patents, some practical solution needs to be given, while we continue to struggle to change the patent system. Paying a few bucks for legal DVD playback in the US seems the only feasible option at this point, and Ubuntu should facilitate this somehow, if only by providing links to third parties that provide this service (e.g. Fluendo I believe were working on this).
As for motive, their motive is to make money - like any corporation. Collecting information is one of their strategies to do that; the same is true for Yahoo and Microsoft. I understand your concern, but this is a more general issue than Google, it is the question of how our lives connect online and what we do with our personal information there.
Yes, this was my thinking as well upon seeing the article. Discrediting the standard bodies is in Microsoft's favor. If collaboration, cooperation and democracy (essentially that is what international standards bodies implement) are shown to fail in IT, then a single entity to lead the market may seem more appealing.
But hopefully this will come back to bite them. Discrediting standard bodies may irritate some people in high places - although, presumably not in the US.
Another factor is how you count. If you count actual servers (not domains), then you end up with the 'big' sites being very influential. OS and webserver comparisons then become more of a comparison between the relative growth of MySpace (IIS on Windows) vs. Facebook (Apache on unknown OS), and between Google (custom webserver on Linux), Yahoo (custom webserver on FreeBSD) and Microsoft Live (IIS on Windows). If one of these giants grows by a significant factor, it brings up the stats for its OS and webserver of choice.
So, the stats don't indicate the prevalence of use of the various OSes in the sense of "the probability of a new company installing a new server to pick such-and-such", which we might understand as the 'perceived quality' of the OS/webserver. I don't mean the stats are misleading, just that they need to be interpreted correctly.
Another issue is whether parked domains are taken into consideration in the count, or just 'actual' websites; for example, some time ago GoDaddy moved their parked domains to Windows/IIS, spiking Microsoft's share instantly. This might explain part of the difference between NetCraft and SecuritySpace's web server surveys; SecuritySpace claim they don't visit cybersquatter web sites and other 'isolated' domains that no one links to.
While the current model leaves 95%+ in the pockets of the MAFIAA, it is the only means to reimburse the artist for the effort do we like it or not. No, it isn't. Most artists make little money from records, and most of it from performances, etc. There are also several new business models these days (ad-driven, etc.), but it is too soon to tell about them. Do we like it or not one of the functions of the MAFIAA is to consumerise the music. With them gone the market will very quickly stratify with the top bands asking extortionate prices for their work (Radiohead is a prime example). No, quite the opposite. One of the reasons we have a few acts making the vast majority of money in music is the RIAA, who through extremely costly and aggressive marketing make a few acts control the charts. If the RIAA vanish tomorrow, music will 'democratize' - more artists making money, fewing really big money-makers; prices will stay reasonable. This is a very good thing, and it is already starting to occur.
It is precisely for this reason that a GUI platform should not be GPLed; it should be LGPLed (which GTK/GNOME is, in the relevant portions). And also precisely for this reason that the Linux kernel, while GPL, is effectively LGPL for code in userspace according to their interpretation. Otherwise, the kernel would have this exact same problem - you wouldn't be able to run Samba on it.