Of course I did. The EULA debacle was rectified by Mozilla, and if memory serves correctly Firefox was actually forked for a short time while it was being resolved. That sure sounds free to me.
I don't understand. I can download Firefox sources and compile a copy for myself. I can change anything I want to inside that source code before I do, as well.
If I want, I can fork Firefox, change the name to - I don't know - Icecat, and use that instead. Oh, and I can release it, too.
You mean your old and used installation of Windows isn't as fast as a fresh and clean installation of Windows? I seem to recall that happening with 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, ohh... you get the idea.
The article says "zero measurable performance benefits". "[L]ittle" implies there's some improvement somewhere. Microsoft may be doing a great job drumming up the buzz about Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to help them. Anyone who's actually paying attention to the details knows that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a fresh coat of paint.
I don't think DRM has anything to do with it. People aren't buying BD because A: the players are more expensive, and B: the discs are more expensive. Unless you have a 1080p HDTV - a good one, at that - most people just don't feel the quality is worth the price.
If Sony had any sense of a brain it'd realize there's nearly no way they're going to recoup their investment and the best thing they can do at this point is try to capture the marketshare and try to make something happen in volume. US$34.99 BD versions of DVDs you can find for under US$15 is not going to accomplish that.
That's well and good, but how else are you going to get very high quality HD content? To my knowledge (and if someone can prove me wrong, please do so!), BD is currently the only means for acquiring HD content with relatively low levels of compression. Compared to the content I stream on my Apple TV from iTunes, or stuff I may download via BitTorrent, BD provides a vastly better image quality thanks to its capacity.
I think that's why the work of the Doom9 guys is so important. Most HD content downloaded or streamed is extremely compressed, and watching such content on a nice HDTV is painful because such TVs are good at highlighting the flaws in the source material. BD is currently the only way to get truly high quality HD material, so while you're free to skip the format, I'll personally continue to buy BD and hope that the Doom9 guys eventually get to the point where MacTheRipper can simply be upgraded to support it.
It's an unfortunate situation, to be sure, but I'll be sad if BD dies. It's simply not possible to get visually appealing 1080p in a file that'll fit on a DVD.
You say that now, but in a few years when you want to stream HD with actual fidelity - not the compressed to hell crap we have today - you'll change your tune. We are quickly approaching an era of ubiquitous streaming. If network operators institute caps and then continue resisting investments in their networks, a lot of innovation will never happen.
Your analogy doesn't hold. The 2-year mobile phone contract is fairly standard at this point, and governs what is fundamentally a data service that costs money to provide to a device that cost money to build. It is not like an EULA that dictates the use of software as it might be enforced by DRM.
I don't like mobile phone contracts, or agree with Apple and AT&T's handling of the iPhone 3G. That doesn't mean they can't legally enforce the terms they've outlined. There's no justifiable claim of plausible deniability here.
FWIW, the iPhone box clearly states a 2-year agreement is required, as did/does the web site. One can be forgiven for not knowing about the prepaid option.
You either have bad credit or used the all-9's trick when you activated it. There was no publicized, formally sanctioned means for going prepaid with the original iPhone. I personally went the path of entering all 9's for my SSN, and I won't be buying an iPhone 3G. I wanted a significantly better iPhone; not this.
News flash: in most enterprise environments, transitions happens gradually. It is perfectly feasible to phase in and phase out new and old APs respectively.
It's time to start ditching backward compatibility. Every refresh of the 802.11 spec does not have to have backward compatibility. Backward compatibility here just serves to increase the distance between theoretical maximums and actual observed speeds.
I run a dual-router setup on my home network. I've got a Linksys WRT54Gv4 running Tomato alongside an Apple Airport Extreme. The WRT fills the job of router as well as 802.11g (802.11b is turned off) access point, while the AEBN is configured to work as an 802.11n wireless bridge on the 5Ghz band. Actual throughput is far faster on this setup than on a single device serving everything.
I know there are practical reasons for backward compatibility, but we need to get off our love affair with it. Keep it in enterprise hardware, but for consumers, make a clean break. There's no reason why we can't have an abundance of cheap 802.11b/g devices and a separate class of devices for 802.11n. There's no reason one can't run both if one needs both. The convenience offered by a single package just makes it worse for everyone in the long run.
All you've really said is FF offers nothing for you. You are clearly an exception to the rule. The only people I know who still run IE do so out of ignorance of the option. Most people still just use "the browser" that came with the OS. You would be surprised how many people don't even realize they have an option. To that point, everyone I've introduced to FF still runs it.
Sadly, he reflected a physique that is becoming increasingly common in this country. As someone who fights with his weight, it's one of the first things that occurred to me.
Bingo. I'm gay and agnostic. I've been looking to do some pro bono work for a non-profit, and the BSA would be perfect were it not for their stance on said issues.
Speak for yourself. Many of we Rails developers would be a lot happier to see Twitter go, because that's the one app everybody points to when they need an example of a Rails app that has problems scaling.
RoR is my bread and butter, but I'm not one of these typical RoR fanboys who preach like Rails is the second coming of Christ, and will cure cancer while simultaneously letting you build the next Slashdot in five minutes.
You want the truth? RoR isn't suited to every task, and Twitter is a perfect example of that! We're talking tiny text messages posted to an account. Then you have the concept of followers. That's pretty much it. It's a bonehead simple service that's built around extremely high volume and relatively low complexity. This thing should have a C/C++/Java backend and a thin and light frontend, where Rails would likely have no difficulty filling the job. Neither would Django, or Cake, or the languages themselves (Ruby, Python, PHP, etc).
If Twitter ditches Rails it won't say a single thing about Rails' ability to scale beyond that it didn't work for them. What it does say is that choosing the wrong tool from the get-go is an ideal way to doom your app to having such issues.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but Rails is still a baby in the grand scheme of things, and so is Ruby. There was a time when people used to joke about writing high-performance applications in Java, but those days are over. Why? Lots and lots of brilliant people came together to figure out how to make Java fast, and they've done a really great job. Anyone who thinks that Ruby's issues with speed and Rails' exacerbations of them is going to be a constant has made an error in judgment. Then again, you can't really blame them.
Said it before.. will say it again: people hate Rails because there are too many fscking Rails fanboys out there. Bad programmers who like Rails because it makes them look like stars. It makes those of us who take a practical and pragmatic approach have a rough time on sites like this. Anyone who's ever attended a RailsConf knows that there's a lot of enthusiasm, but the people who make it out to the conferences and pay their dues are - in general - very level-headed about what Rails can and can't do, and are actively working on solving those problems Rails has. Phusion Passenger (mod_rails) was born out of necessity, and I can speak from first-hand experience that it does exactly what it says.
Everybody take a step back and relax. You didn't hear this kind of bitching when YellowPages ditched their system to rebuild in Rails, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, they're looking to hire even more Rails developers. Oh, and they're doing a great job scaling. If Twitter ditching Rails is evidence of Rails' failure, what does YellowPages' success with it tell us? Or, for that matter, any of the other large and successful Rails apps?
FWIW, Twitter isn't *the* Rails app to most bonafide Rails developers. Basecamp is.
This isn't specific to OSS, obviously. Apple dismissed (arguably rudely, given how poorly worded the rejection email was) many would-be iPhone developers. Who wants to invest time into a platform with no guarantee when or even if you'll be able to sell your product?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I did. The EULA debacle was rectified by Mozilla, and if memory serves correctly Firefox was actually forked for a short time while it was being resolved. That sure sounds free to me.
I don't understand. I can download Firefox sources and compile a copy for myself. I can change anything I want to inside that source code before I do, as well.
If I want, I can fork Firefox, change the name to - I don't know - Icecat, and use that instead. Oh, and I can release it, too.
How is that not free?
No, because a fresh install of Vista does launch Firefox nearly instantly. Just like a fresh install of Vista launches Firefox nearly instantly.
You mean your old and used installation of Windows isn't as fast as a fresh and clean installation of Windows? I seem to recall that happening with 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, ohh... you get the idea.
The article says "zero measurable performance benefits". "[L]ittle" implies there's some improvement somewhere. Microsoft may be doing a great job drumming up the buzz about Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to help them. Anyone who's actually paying attention to the details knows that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a fresh coat of paint.
I don't think DRM has anything to do with it. People aren't buying BD because A: the players are more expensive, and B: the discs are more expensive. Unless you have a 1080p HDTV - a good one, at that - most people just don't feel the quality is worth the price.
If Sony had any sense of a brain it'd realize there's nearly no way they're going to recoup their investment and the best thing they can do at this point is try to capture the marketshare and try to make something happen in volume. US$34.99 BD versions of DVDs you can find for under US$15 is not going to accomplish that.
That's well and good, but how else are you going to get very high quality HD content? To my knowledge (and if someone can prove me wrong, please do so!), BD is currently the only means for acquiring HD content with relatively low levels of compression. Compared to the content I stream on my Apple TV from iTunes, or stuff I may download via BitTorrent, BD provides a vastly better image quality thanks to its capacity.
I think that's why the work of the Doom9 guys is so important. Most HD content downloaded or streamed is extremely compressed, and watching such content on a nice HDTV is painful because such TVs are good at highlighting the flaws in the source material. BD is currently the only way to get truly high quality HD material, so while you're free to skip the format, I'll personally continue to buy BD and hope that the Doom9 guys eventually get to the point where MacTheRipper can simply be upgraded to support it.
It's an unfortunate situation, to be sure, but I'll be sad if BD dies. It's simply not possible to get visually appealing 1080p in a file that'll fit on a DVD.
Does this mean we can finally stop arguing about whether or not Mac OS X's marketshare helps it remain "secure"? I kid...
I'm with you on this one. Spark absolutely blows. You'd never know Openfire is as great as it is judging from the client designed for it.
Burn.
You say that now, but in a few years when you want to stream HD with actual fidelity - not the compressed to hell crap we have today - you'll change your tune. We are quickly approaching an era of ubiquitous streaming. If network operators institute caps and then continue resisting investments in their networks, a lot of innovation will never happen.
That's a really good point.
Your analogy doesn't hold. The 2-year mobile phone contract is fairly standard at this point, and governs what is fundamentally a data service that costs money to provide to a device that cost money to build. It is not like an EULA that dictates the use of software as it might be enforced by DRM.
I don't like mobile phone contracts, or agree with Apple and AT&T's handling of the iPhone 3G. That doesn't mean they can't legally enforce the terms they've outlined. There's no justifiable claim of plausible deniability here.
FWIW, the iPhone box clearly states a 2-year agreement is required, as did/does the web site. One can be forgiven for not knowing about the prepaid option.
You either have bad credit or used the all-9's trick when you activated it. There was no publicized, formally sanctioned means for going prepaid with the original iPhone. I personally went the path of entering all 9's for my SSN, and I won't be buying an iPhone 3G. I wanted a significantly better iPhone; not this.
"I wonder if I can get an upgrade to a GigE switch?" I look forward to re-reading this in three years.
News flash: in most enterprise environments, transitions happens gradually. It is perfectly feasible to phase in and phase out new and old APs respectively.
Ditto on Tumbleweed above me, by the way.
The problem is solved by having two radios.
802.11n operates on 5Ghz as well.
It's time to start ditching backward compatibility. Every refresh of the 802.11 spec does not have to have backward compatibility. Backward compatibility here just serves to increase the distance between theoretical maximums and actual observed speeds.
I run a dual-router setup on my home network. I've got a Linksys WRT54Gv4 running Tomato alongside an Apple Airport Extreme. The WRT fills the job of router as well as 802.11g (802.11b is turned off) access point, while the AEBN is configured to work as an 802.11n wireless bridge on the 5Ghz band. Actual throughput is far faster on this setup than on a single device serving everything.
I know there are practical reasons for backward compatibility, but we need to get off our love affair with it. Keep it in enterprise hardware, but for consumers, make a clean break. There's no reason why we can't have an abundance of cheap 802.11b/g devices and a separate class of devices for 802.11n. There's no reason one can't run both if one needs both. The convenience offered by a single package just makes it worse for everyone in the long run.
All you've really said is FF offers nothing for you. You are clearly an exception to the rule. The only people I know who still run IE do so out of ignorance of the option. Most people still just use "the browser" that came with the OS. You would be surprised how many people don't even realize they have an option. To that point, everyone I've introduced to FF still runs it.
The truth is the truth, and they didn't do anything wrong. Justice requires doing what's right even if you don't agree with it.
Sadly, he reflected a physique that is becoming increasingly common in this country. As someone who fights with his weight, it's one of the first things that occurred to me.
Bingo. I'm gay and agnostic. I've been looking to do some pro bono work for a non-profit, and the BSA would be perfect were it not for their stance on said issues.
Speak for yourself. Many of we Rails developers would be a lot happier to see Twitter go, because that's the one app everybody points to when they need an example of a Rails app that has problems scaling.
RoR is my bread and butter, but I'm not one of these typical RoR fanboys who preach like Rails is the second coming of Christ, and will cure cancer while simultaneously letting you build the next Slashdot in five minutes.
You want the truth? RoR isn't suited to every task, and Twitter is a perfect example of that! We're talking tiny text messages posted to an account. Then you have the concept of followers. That's pretty much it. It's a bonehead simple service that's built around extremely high volume and relatively low complexity. This thing should have a C/C++/Java backend and a thin and light frontend, where Rails would likely have no difficulty filling the job. Neither would Django, or Cake, or the languages themselves (Ruby, Python, PHP, etc).
If Twitter ditches Rails it won't say a single thing about Rails' ability to scale beyond that it didn't work for them. What it does say is that choosing the wrong tool from the get-go is an ideal way to doom your app to having such issues.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but Rails is still a baby in the grand scheme of things, and so is Ruby. There was a time when people used to joke about writing high-performance applications in Java, but those days are over. Why? Lots and lots of brilliant people came together to figure out how to make Java fast, and they've done a really great job. Anyone who thinks that Ruby's issues with speed and Rails' exacerbations of them is going to be a constant has made an error in judgment. Then again, you can't really blame them.
Said it before.. will say it again: people hate Rails because there are too many fscking Rails fanboys out there. Bad programmers who like Rails because it makes them look like stars. It makes those of us who take a practical and pragmatic approach have a rough time on sites like this. Anyone who's ever attended a RailsConf knows that there's a lot of enthusiasm, but the people who make it out to the conferences and pay their dues are - in general - very level-headed about what Rails can and can't do, and are actively working on solving those problems Rails has. Phusion Passenger (mod_rails) was born out of necessity, and I can speak from first-hand experience that it does exactly what it says.
Everybody take a step back and relax. You didn't hear this kind of bitching when YellowPages ditched their system to rebuild in Rails, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, they're looking to hire even more Rails developers. Oh, and they're doing a great job scaling. If Twitter ditching Rails is evidence of Rails' failure, what does YellowPages' success with it tell us? Or, for that matter, any of the other large and successful Rails apps?
FWIW, Twitter isn't *the* Rails app to most bonafide Rails developers. Basecamp is.
This isn't specific to OSS, obviously. Apple dismissed (arguably rudely, given how poorly worded the rejection email was) many would-be iPhone developers. Who wants to invest time into a platform with no guarantee when or even if you'll be able to sell your product?