Depends... You can use POTS/ISDN if all you want internet access for is checking your email or playing RTS/MMOs.
Dish is fine for Email, web surfing, RTS/MMOs, and video sites like hulu/netflix.
T1's can be quite affordable depending on where you are. Last I checked it was approx $200 for the last one I had run about 8 years ago. I also had 2 T1's to a Tier-1 carrier, but that ran $1000/mo.
So yes, they are quite practical alternatives. If you plan on playing FPS's, then no, but then again, noone is complaining about not being able to play FPS's on comcast or RCN. And none of the other choices limit you in your bandwidth usage, but, you do pay for it.
Actually, the majority of the US has at least 5 options. One or two may have everything that you want, except well those might throttle your connection. Dish I do believe covers the entire US. Most places have a cable company that offers internet. Almost everywhere has POTS/ISDN support. Most places can also get DSL, and I don't know of a place where you can't get a T1 line run to.
Just because some of those options aren't what you are looking for, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Please post to apache, and let them know it's a good thing they are using an open source web server, because if they won't patch it, then they can patch it themselves. Perhaps, they should have vetted their web server source.
What exaggeration? I said that open source software has bugs and security problems just like closed source software does, and the vast majority of companies that use software do not want, nor have the resources to vet or fix the software themselves.
I don't "have a beef" with open source, I'm just not looking at it through rose colored glasses.
Sure, if you have the IT staff to have them go through an entire open source project with a fine tooth comb and you have years to spend on it, yes, you could vet the source. If you think that because the source is open, that someone else has found it, you would be incorrect, as I have found major security breaches in 2 of the largest open source projects myself (Apache, MySQL). Both were "fixed" and patched in about 6 weeks after I disclosed them, both were acknowledged in the appropriate patch notes, but worded to sound like it was a routine bug fix rather than the security hole it was. So I have first hand experience with open source projects being buggy, not fully vetted, and the douche baggery that goes on inside them.
Now, if you can't trust apache, or mysql, what open source projects are we talking about that have the large number of "eyes" to fully vet the project? See the difference is that you trust open source is "safe". I know differently. Neither one is "safe". So the argument about being ABLE to vet software yourself is great, if you can afford to hire enough people that are good enough to be able to spot these types of things, and you have the time to spend doing so on something that typically isn't part of your companies business. Of course, for example, try to explain to a furniture company why you need to hire 20 programmers for 9 months so you can fully vet your web environment apache webserver, and keep 2 of them on full time in case you need to make code modifications yourself when a bug is found. Good luck with that.
Odd because I am running firefox 3.6.3, it says there are no updates and I am getting 26-29 FPS in it while using up 100% of one of my cores. IE9 was doing 64-65 FPS, and was using less than 1% of one of my cores. I'd say that's fairly nice, considering it's a twice the FPS for 1/100th the CPU usage.
He got modded insightful because he is right. IE9 *only* runs on a proprietary OS, and internally uses it's proprietary 2D/3D API. So of the market share than IE9 will run on (READ: ONLY WINDOWS), and the OS's it will run on (READ: Windows Vista or above), 100.000000000000% of it is running windows and has DirectX 9.0+.
- please tell me who at microsoft got sued for innumerable security vulnerabilities, exploits and the billions in damages these cost to the people and businesses. who ? noone ? right.
I don't know of anyone at Microsoft, however, I know quite a few software companies that have gotten sued for negligence security breaches, privacy issues, etc. The payouts were quite large.
How many open source teams have coughed up $10k per affected client/customer when similar things happened to them?
Yes, I've read the whole thread. And it started with someone spouting off-topic crap, and trolling for open source when the story and topic had nothing to do with either. Then you chimed in with more open source is great, and going on about how it's wrong to use DirectX, and how it's going to ruin the web, and not follow standards when NONE of that applies at all.
So I will state again, you are off-topic, trolling, and haven't RTFA, much like the great great grand parents.
I would say you are very very young, and blinded by your faith in open source. 90% of the arguments you gave are true of open source as well.
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 5 ever-changing group of developers from the internet that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group
- priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.
- the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.
As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.
- noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
Perhaps you should read the article, then you would realize the only thing that mattered in this case is the first case you mentioned. All others are irrelevant. It's not an extension to HTML, nor is it exposing the DirectX API. IE is using the DirectX API internally to draw, which will allow video card hardware to accelerate the process than than using un-accelerated GDI calls.
Which, if you even finished reading the summary, firefox is implementing themselves.
I would add: 2) The majority of the framework is now openly viewable. 3) Hype, you can do many many projects in 100%.NET. In fact the ones that you simply can't do in 100%.NET, you outright can't do in java AT ALL. How is that better? 4) Internet statistics and quite contrary to what I see. 6) An opinion, one that I disagree with very strongly. 9) False. 10) False. 11) Again, how is java's inability to call native things, a plus? 12) More languages? Really? ROFL! Java VS VB, C#, Cobol, Python, F#, and many others? How is java "More languages"? 15) False. 19) Unproven. 24) ? 25) False. 27) False. Try LINQ which is built-in and you don't even need a.zip file. 28) False, has always been false. 29) Unproven. 30) Eclipse. 31) False. 33) Casini, littleweb. 34) Mono. 35) False. 36) Absolutely False. 37) False. 38) False. Linq. 39) ISO. 40) False, and.NET had hardware acceleration through DirectX long before Java ever did. 43) False. 46) False. 47) False, all of them, and native managed drivers as well.
Off topic, but I couldn't help but read your sig. Apparently you and/or the person that wrote that list never spent more than 2 minutes in.NET because the majority of the reasons given are just plain false, and another large portion are poorly hidden marketing gimmicks.
My numbers come from a survey of over 26 million PC's. With an estimated total number of PC's in use in the world estimated to be approximately 900 million, my survey covers 2.8% of all PC's. I consider that fairly accurate. How accurate is your guess by sitting in front of your PC?
Then again, my numbers aren't limited to people who visit w3schools, and has a much larger sampling. I would say the vast majority of w3schools.com visitors are developers, with a bias towards open source developers. Assuming my numbers are more accurate of a true market share, then we can safely say that open source geeks are less likely to have upgraded to Windows 7 from Windows XP than the average consumer.
I am either unable or unwilling to discuss the data source, however, it is based on a survey of over 10 million machines worldwide. If you don't think it's an inaccurate representation, present a large unbiased data source of your own and we can dissect that into why that data source may or may not be more or less accurate.
Percentage of the OS's installed. All numbers in theory add up to 100%, however, I did not display those with an insignificant share (2%), or irrelevant to the discussion.
If Microsoft wanted to extract more money from people in an easy way, they could release an XP SP 4, paid version, which upgrades some parts of XP to be more like vista, while trimming the fat.
They did, it costs $99 but they called it Windows 7.
Microsoft is not shipping XP. They have no released a windows XP retail box in the channel in years. They have not sold any XP licenses for a long time. They ALLOW for owners with a valid vista license to use XP, and dell (and others) downgraded the OS to XP for their clients on a number of machines.
Point being, based on the previous 5 months worth of data points,
Time will tell whether Windows 7 manages to convince a majority to upgrade again, but it will be a long time before there's the kind of critical mass that happened with XP.
This "long time" is estimated to happen in approximately 7 days, at which point, the majority of Windows XP users will have already upgraded to Windows 7 already (This is the point in which there will be more Windows 7 32-bit and 64-bit users combined over Windows XP users). Unless he meant just upgraded from Windows XP at all, in which case, that already happened 4 months ago.
Windows XP 32 bit 50.01% 47.97% 45.74% 43.81% 40.33% -3.48% Windows 7 64 bit 9.54% 13.16% 16.25% 19.04% 22.99% +3.95% Windows Vista 32 bit 23.24% 20.98% 19.83% 18.39% 16.88% -1.51% Windows 7 32 bit 4.79% 7.43% 8.57% 9.76% 10.92% +1.16% Windows Vista 64 bit 10.99% 9.19% 8.40% 7.75% 7.60% -0.15%
Slashdot Mirror
Depends... You can use POTS/ISDN if all you want internet access for is checking your email or playing RTS/MMOs.
Dish is fine for Email, web surfing, RTS/MMOs, and video sites like hulu/netflix.
T1's can be quite affordable depending on where you are. Last I checked it was approx $200 for the last one I had run about 8 years ago. I also had 2 T1's to a Tier-1 carrier, but that ran $1000/mo.
So yes, they are quite practical alternatives. If you plan on playing FPS's, then no, but then again, noone is complaining about not being able to play FPS's on comcast or RCN. And none of the other choices limit you in your bandwidth usage, but, you do pay for it.
Actually, the majority of the US has at least 5 options. One or two may have everything that you want, except well those might throttle your connection. Dish I do believe covers the entire US. Most places have a cable company that offers internet. Almost everywhere has POTS/ISDN support. Most places can also get DSL, and I don't know of a place where you can't get a T1 line run to.
Just because some of those options aren't what you are looking for, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Actually, Chicago has clearwire 4G, AT&T DSL, comcast/RCN, AT&T U-Verse, I believe verizon has a cellular package, and of course Dish.
http://apache.slashdot.org/story/10/04/13/1519231/Apache-Foundation-Attacked-Passwords-Stolen?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+((Title)Slashdot+(rdf))&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Please post to apache, and let them know it's a good thing they are using an open source web server, because if they won't patch it, then they can patch it themselves. Perhaps, they should have vetted their web server source.
What exaggeration? I said that open source software has bugs and security problems just like closed source software does, and the vast majority of companies that use software do not want, nor have the resources to vet or fix the software themselves.
I don't "have a beef" with open source, I'm just not looking at it through rose colored glasses.
Sure, if you have the IT staff to have them go through an entire open source project with a fine tooth comb and you have years to spend on it, yes, you could vet the source. If you think that because the source is open, that someone else has found it, you would be incorrect, as I have found major security breaches in 2 of the largest open source projects myself (Apache, MySQL). Both were "fixed" and patched in about 6 weeks after I disclosed them, both were acknowledged in the appropriate patch notes, but worded to sound like it was a routine bug fix rather than the security hole it was. So I have first hand experience with open source projects being buggy, not fully vetted, and the douche baggery that goes on inside them.
Now, if you can't trust apache, or mysql, what open source projects are we talking about that have the large number of "eyes" to fully vet the project? See the difference is that you trust open source is "safe". I know differently. Neither one is "safe". So the argument about being ABLE to vet software yourself is great, if you can afford to hire enough people that are good enough to be able to spot these types of things, and you have the time to spend doing so on something that typically isn't part of your companies business. Of course, for example, try to explain to a furniture company why you need to hire 20 programmers for 9 months so you can fully vet your web environment apache webserver, and keep 2 of them on full time in case you need to make code modifications yourself when a bug is found. Good luck with that.
Yes.
Odd because I am running firefox 3.6.3, it says there are no updates and I am getting 26-29 FPS in it while using up 100% of one of my cores. IE9 was doing 64-65 FPS, and was using less than 1% of one of my cores. I'd say that's fairly nice, considering it's a twice the FPS for 1/100th the CPU usage.
He got modded insightful because he is right. IE9 *only* runs on a proprietary OS, and internally uses it's proprietary 2D/3D API. So of the market share than IE9 will run on (READ: ONLY WINDOWS), and the OS's it will run on (READ: Windows Vista or above), 100.000000000000% of it is running windows and has DirectX 9.0+.
- please tell me who at microsoft got sued for innumerable security vulnerabilities, exploits and the billions in damages these cost to the people and businesses. who ? noone ? right.
I don't know of anyone at Microsoft, however, I know quite a few software companies that have gotten sued for negligence security breaches, privacy issues, etc. The payouts were quite large.
How many open source teams have coughed up $10k per affected client/customer when similar things happened to them?
Yes, I've read the whole thread. And it started with someone spouting off-topic crap, and trolling for open source when the story and topic had nothing to do with either. Then you chimed in with more open source is great, and going on about how it's wrong to use DirectX, and how it's going to ruin the web, and not follow standards when NONE of that applies at all.
So I will state again, you are off-topic, trolling, and haven't RTFA, much like the great great grand parents.
This has everything to do with creating proprietary extensions to established web standards.
Uh, no it doesn't. Read the article.
I would say you are very very young, and blinded by your faith in open source. 90% of the arguments you gave are true of open source as well.
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 5 ever-changing group of developers from the internet that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group
- priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.
- the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.
As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.
- noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
Perhaps you should read the article, then you would realize the only thing that mattered in this case is the first case you mentioned. All others are irrelevant. It's not an extension to HTML, nor is it exposing the DirectX API. IE is using the DirectX API internally to draw, which will allow video card hardware to accelerate the process than than using un-accelerated GDI calls.
Which, if you even finished reading the summary, firefox is implementing themselves.
I would add: .NET. In fact the ones that you simply can't do in 100% .NET, you outright can't do in java AT ALL. How is that better? .zip file. .NET had hardware acceleration through DirectX long before Java ever did.
2) The majority of the framework is now openly viewable.
3) Hype, you can do many many projects in 100%
4) Internet statistics and quite contrary to what I see.
6) An opinion, one that I disagree with very strongly.
9) False.
10) False.
11) Again, how is java's inability to call native things, a plus?
12) More languages? Really? ROFL! Java VS VB, C#, Cobol, Python, F#, and many others? How is java "More languages"?
15) False.
19) Unproven.
24) ?
25) False.
27) False. Try LINQ which is built-in and you don't even need a
28) False, has always been false.
29) Unproven.
30) Eclipse.
31) False.
33) Casini, littleweb.
34) Mono.
35) False.
36) Absolutely False.
37) False.
38) False. Linq.
39) ISO.
40) False, and
43) False.
46) False.
47) False, all of them, and native managed drivers as well.
And on and on and on.
Off topic, but I couldn't help but read your sig. Apparently you and/or the person that wrote that list never spent more than 2 minutes in .NET because the majority of the reasons given are just plain false, and another large portion are poorly hidden marketing gimmicks.
My numbers come from a survey of over 26 million PC's. With an estimated total number of PC's in use in the world estimated to be approximately 900 million, my survey covers 2.8% of all PC's. I consider that fairly accurate. How accurate is your guess by sitting in front of your PC?
Then again, my numbers aren't limited to people who visit w3schools, and has a much larger sampling. I would say the vast majority of w3schools.com visitors are developers, with a bias towards open source developers. Assuming my numbers are more accurate of a true market share, then we can safely say that open source geeks are less likely to have upgraded to Windows 7 from Windows XP than the average consumer.
I am either unable or unwilling to discuss the data source, however, it is based on a survey of over 10 million machines worldwide. If you don't think it's an inaccurate representation, present a large unbiased data source of your own and we can dissect that into why that data source may or may not be more or less accurate.
Percentage of the OS's installed. All numbers in theory add up to 100%, however, I did not display those with an insignificant share (2%), or irrelevant to the discussion.
International.
Could, would, and should while being very similiar are not the same.
In the same vein, neither are can and will.
If Microsoft wanted to extract more money from people in an easy way, they could release an XP SP 4, paid version, which upgrades some parts of XP to be more like vista, while trimming the fat.
They did, it costs $99 but they called it Windows 7.
Microsoft is not shipping XP. They have no released a windows XP retail box in the channel in years. They have not sold any XP licenses for a long time. They ALLOW for owners with a valid vista license to use XP, and dell (and others) downgraded the OS to XP for their clients on a number of machines.
Point being, based on the previous 5 months worth of data points,
Time will tell whether Windows 7 manages to convince a majority to upgrade again, but it will be a long time before there's the kind of critical mass that happened with XP.
This "long time" is estimated to happen in approximately 7 days, at which point, the majority of Windows XP users will have already upgraded to Windows 7 already (This is the point in which there will be more Windows 7 32-bit and 64-bit users combined over Windows XP users). Unless he meant just upgraded from Windows XP at all, in which case, that already happened 4 months ago.
How about a linear extrapolation from 5 points?
Windows Version Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Change
Windows XP 32 bit 50.01% 47.97% 45.74% 43.81% 40.33% -3.48%
Windows 7 64 bit 9.54% 13.16% 16.25% 19.04% 22.99% +3.95%
Windows Vista 32 bit 23.24% 20.98% 19.83% 18.39% 16.88% -1.51%
Windows 7 32 bit 4.79% 7.43% 8.57% 9.76% 10.92% +1.16%
Windows Vista 64 bit 10.99% 9.19% 8.40% 7.75% 7.60% -0.15%
VMWare Player, Virtual PC do not. So for most, name at least 2 other desktop VMWare packages that support RDP.