How can someone get a patent for tabbed page navigation, is what beats me. Its really the only way to offer that particular functionality. Ring-binders and pocket phone books have had them for eons. Heck, the navbar on the left of this page could be considered a tabbed-index, from a functionality stand-point. When you think of it like that, what does that leave for 'originality', the mere appearance of the tab resembling a real-world example? Hardly a patentable innovation.
I mean, Macs have a BSD-like basis, and a neat set of well-documented Mac APIs on top of it (Cocoa, etc.). OS X might have a BSD-like layer, but there is plenty of opacity to the kernel to prevent the like-for-like porting you're talking about. For starters, the OS X port won't use the BSD layer, or Cocoa. It'll use its own binary framework. So you'd have to port it from OS X blob to OS X source code first, before even thinking about porting to linux. But you're right, that final step would be pretty straightforward.
There's also the question of standards. Standardising a X11-type protocol across platforms with common design elements, and not just heaping on the glue-code, would take time and would be pushed and pulled in different directions by vested interests. Browsers have already (to a greater or lesser degree) been through that process, and are in a better position to just roll out the services. I concur with the general sentiment, though, that clunky webpages, no matter how dynamic, aren't the ideal solution.
The really worrying thing is reading something like this:
According to the report, in 2005, the White House stepped in to block an interview MSNBC sought with NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson, who a year earlier had published a modeling study on the potential link between hurricanes and global warming. and not being the least bit suprised or outraged anymore.
Is there nothing the current administration won't do?
According to Brian Banner, a seasoned attorney dealing with intellectual property and trademarks at Rothwell Figg, the "iPhone" name may actually be generic enough that a judge will rule it usable by both Apple and Cisco. The ruling will be under condition however, that a company name be attached to the term "iPhone," like "Apple iPhone" or "Cisco iPhone." Banner mentioned that the term may also be deemed generic enough to use by any company. Apple and Cisco could both end up using the iPhone trademark
Apple is selling the iPhone as a smartphone. People expect to be able to do smart things with a smartphone. And the fact the iPhone runs OS X should actually mean something. Imagine OS X without third party applications. Then take it a step further, and imagine OS X with only a few, Apple-selected applications, Mail, Calendar, Safari. What kind of OS X would that be? Not a very good one. Certainly not a very smart OS.
The iPod never claimed to be a smart mp3 player, and it never claimed to run OS X (because it doesn't).
Sco
has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out.
This reads like SCO want the court to throw the case out, or that the court has thrown the case out, and SCO wants the court to reconsider. When, in fact, all that has happened is a sizeable portion of their case has been thrown out, not the case in it's entirety.
Then there's User Account Control, an intrusive dialog box that pops up whenever you try to install a program or adjust a PC-wide setting, requesting that you confirm the change by entering your password. This will strike most people as an unnecessary nuisance, and you can turn it off.
Guess which feature the majority of users will disable.
Seriously, I hope there is some sort of privilege separation, only requiring password authentication for applications that need escalated privileges, otherwise this feature will be ignored left, right and centre.
You need to read his words more closely. He said libertarians, not liberals. Libertarians are all about personal and economic freedoms because they believe the free market regulates itself, as in nature.
The term neo-liberal or economic-liberal is specific to the context in which the original poster made the statement. A libertarian, on the other hand, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, is an advocate of liberty, in the broadest sense. That term is a little too broad and ambiguous to be making the kind of statements which the original poster made. To clarify, under the broadest sense, you could claim Briget Bardot, who advocates animal liberty, to be a libertarian. I fail to see how that would make Briget Bardot the embodiment of capitalism.
I was under the impression that libertarians were the embodiment of capitalism.
That's neo-liberalism you're confusing with old fashioned liberalism. With neo-liberalism the emphasis is on freedom of the market, based on an article of faith that the market is some magical entity that'll solve all admisitrative problems. With old fashioned liberalism the freedom of one person is balanced against the freedom of another, the consequence of which is a system of legislation to protect those freedoms.
Listing 15 uses hyphen 1 (-1). But listing 16 definitely uses hyphen l (-l).
I'm sure it was just an arbitrary example of xargs ability to reduce multi-line input to a single line. If it was that useful a facility I'm sure he'd have come up with a better example of its use.
I'm still trying to figure out what listing 16 does:
ls -l | xargs -rw-r--r-- 7 joe joe 12043 Jan 27 20:36 December_Report.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 \ root root 238 Dec 03 08:19 README drwxr-xr-x 38 joe joe 354082 Nov 02 \ 16:07 a -rw-r--r-- 3 joe joe 5096 Dec 14 14:26 archive.tar -rwxr-xr-x 1 \ joe joe 3239 Sep 30 12:40 mkdirhier.sh
When I do this it doesn't include the \ continuation, and even if did, why would anyone want that on a single line?
If he was the developer of proprietary software and he cut his wife into pieces, the authorities would have a hell of a time discovering the algorithm with which he disassembled her. As it stands, she's probably sorted into a well documented balanced-tree. Shame we can't say the same for old Hans' emotional attributes.
I think the point of TFA is that a complete rollout of a new version of Vista will be unlikely in the future, simply because there is a limited desire by consumers to re-familiarise themselves with a new OS every couple of years, not to mention the prohibitive costs involved. As far as heralding in a new era, companies like Microsoft are likely, in future, to copy the update process of Linux vendors, opting to offer a more modular update process for specific functionality than the current wholesale update procedure being witnessed with Vista. As such MS will not be able to rely on the same quadrannual windfall to support their business.
It would actually be more interesting if they was no memory retention from virtual experience. Or is the news here that the virtual world isn't real? Thanks, I was beginning to wonder.
It's getting quite hard to tell who is friend or foe any more...
Novell, IBM et al. are not Linux aficianados because they give a damn about the community, they are doing it because they make money from Linux, and because it indirectly hurts their main competitor, Microsoft. So any notion that these companies are good guys beyond their own self interest is misplaced. It just so happens that their interests and the interests of the community, at present, more or less concur. But the Novell/MS deal shows how fragile that consensus is.
Microsoft and Windows aren't going to go away overnight. And, ironically, the more Linux is adopted by companies who currently use MS, the greater the need for interoperability. My guess is that Novell thought it was gaining an edge in that market. They thought increased interoperability would lower the threshold for companies adopting Linux, because they wouln't have to replace all MS systems overnight, as long as Linux and MS systems could work together. And with Suse having unique access to interoperability API's, they would be the Distro of choice when it came to heterogenous solutions. The problem is Novell didn't anticipate the fallout from the deal. They didn't anticipate Ballmer's post-coital comments. They should have.
md5deep values of/bin/sbin etc. helps me sleep at night, provided I remember to check they match from time to time. As for keeping the binaries on the thumb drive itself, why bother, there are plenty of live-distros that cover just about everything you need for recovery, and even if they don't, it's trivial enough to make one that has exactly what you need.
The rebuttal is pretty comprehensive, barring the section about the lines of memory allocation code, which is sort of passed over quickly (if I remember correctly, when the case started, Linus Torvalds had something to say about some malloc or other). Other than that, what matters now, and what the trial will probably concentrate upon, are the previous agreements between the parties, most of which are redacted from the summary.
I don't think it's so much that ext3 is more stable than Reiserfs, just that extX has a future (or two futures, to be more precise) whereas the future of ReiserX is a little uncertain at the moment.
We're going to be in the online business. We are going to have a core around online.
For how many years have Microsoft been touting this line, that they are going to revolutionise the online world? For the life of me, I can't think of one Microsoft online service that has caused even a murmur never mind a wave of avid followers. Unless you count IE and WMF vulnerabilities as having a "core around online."
Slashdot Mirror
How can someone get a patent for tabbed page navigation, is what beats me. Its really the only way to offer that particular functionality. Ring-binders and pocket phone books have had them for eons. Heck, the navbar on the left of this page could be considered a tabbed-index, from a functionality stand-point. When you think of it like that, what does that leave for 'originality', the mere appearance of the tab resembling a real-world example? Hardly a patentable innovation.
There's also the question of standards. Standardising a X11-type protocol across platforms with common design elements, and not just heaping on the glue-code, would take time and would be pushed and pulled in different directions by vested interests. Browsers have already (to a greater or lesser degree) been through that process, and are in a better position to just roll out the services. I concur with the general sentiment, though, that clunky webpages, no matter how dynamic, aren't the ideal solution.
While it might not have the gloss of Time machine, Duplicity offers similar functionality.
If they'd turned up on time, were cordial with their colleagues and performed better, they'd never have been caught.
Why mod parent as troll? +1 insightful.
The really worrying thing is reading something like this:
According to the report, in 2005, the White House stepped in to block an interview MSNBC sought with NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson, who a year earlier had published a modeling study on the potential link between hurricanes and global warming. and not being the least bit suprised or outraged anymore.Is there nothing the current administration won't do?
Apple is selling the iPhone as a smartphone. People expect to be able to do smart things with a smartphone. And the fact the iPhone runs OS X should actually mean something. Imagine OS X without third party applications. Then take it a step further, and imagine OS X with only a few, Apple-selected applications, Mail, Calendar, Safari. What kind of OS X would that be? Not a very good one. Certainly not a very smart OS.
The iPod never claimed to be a smart mp3 player, and it never claimed to run OS X (because it doesn't).
This reads like SCO want the court to throw the case out, or that the court has thrown the case out, and SCO wants the court to reconsider. When, in fact, all that has happened is a sizeable portion of their case has been thrown out, not the case in it's entirety.
Guess which feature the majority of users will disable.
Seriously, I hope there is some sort of privilege separation, only requiring password authentication for applications that need escalated privileges, otherwise this feature will be ignored left, right and centre.
The term neo-liberal or economic-liberal is specific to the context in which the original poster made the statement. A libertarian, on the other hand, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, is an advocate of liberty, in the broadest sense. That term is a little too broad and ambiguous to be making the kind of statements which the original poster made. To clarify, under the broadest sense, you could claim Briget Bardot, who advocates animal liberty, to be a libertarian. I fail to see how that would make Briget Bardot the embodiment of capitalism.
That's neo-liberalism you're confusing with old fashioned liberalism. With neo-liberalism the emphasis is on freedom of the market, based on an article of faith that the market is some magical entity that'll solve all admisitrative problems. With old fashioned liberalism the freedom of one person is balanced against the freedom of another, the consequence of which is a system of legislation to protect those freedoms.
Listing 15 uses hyphen 1 (-1). But listing 16 definitely uses hyphen l (-l).
I'm sure it was just an arbitrary example of xargs ability to reduce multi-line input to a single line. If it was that useful a facility I'm sure he'd have come up with a better example of its use.
When I do this it doesn't include the \ continuation, and even if did, why would anyone want that on a single line?
If he was the developer of proprietary software and he cut his wife into pieces, the authorities would have a hell of a time discovering the algorithm with which he disassembled her. As it stands, she's probably sorted into a well documented balanced-tree. Shame we can't say the same for old Hans' emotional attributes.
30 seconds! When I was a kid computers took 5 minutes or more to boot. We'd have given our eye teeth for a 30 second boot time.
I think the point of TFA is that a complete rollout of a new version of Vista will be unlikely in the future, simply because there is a limited desire by consumers to re-familiarise themselves with a new OS every couple of years, not to mention the prohibitive costs involved. As far as heralding in a new era, companies like Microsoft are likely, in future, to copy the update process of Linux vendors, opting to offer a more modular update process for specific functionality than the current wholesale update procedure being witnessed with Vista. As such MS will not be able to rely on the same quadrannual windfall to support their business.
It would actually be more interesting if they was no memory retention from virtual experience. Or is the news here that the virtual world isn't real? Thanks, I was beginning to wonder.
Novell, IBM et al. are not Linux aficianados because they give a damn about the community, they are doing it because they make money from Linux, and because it indirectly hurts their main competitor, Microsoft. So any notion that these companies are good guys beyond their own self interest is misplaced. It just so happens that their interests and the interests of the community, at present, more or less concur. But the Novell/MS deal shows how fragile that consensus is.
Microsoft and Windows aren't going to go away overnight. And, ironically, the more Linux is adopted by companies who currently use MS, the greater the need for interoperability. My guess is that Novell thought it was gaining an edge in that market. They thought increased interoperability would lower the threshold for companies adopting Linux, because they wouln't have to replace all MS systems overnight, as long as Linux and MS systems could work together. And with Suse having unique access to interoperability API's, they would be the Distro of choice when it came to heterogenous solutions. The problem is Novell didn't anticipate the fallout from the deal. They didn't anticipate Ballmer's post-coital comments. They should have.
md5deep values of /bin /sbin etc. helps me sleep at night, provided I remember to check they match from time to time. As for keeping the binaries on the thumb drive itself, why bother, there are plenty of live-distros that cover just about everything you need for recovery, and even if they don't, it's trivial enough to make one that has exactly what you need.
The rebuttal is pretty comprehensive, barring the section about the lines of memory allocation code, which is sort of passed over quickly (if I remember correctly, when the case started, Linus Torvalds had something to say about some malloc or other). Other than that, what matters now, and what the trial will probably concentrate upon, are the previous agreements between the parties, most of which are redacted from the summary.
I don't think it's so much that ext3 is more stable than Reiserfs, just that extX has a future (or two futures, to be more precise) whereas the future of ReiserX is a little uncertain at the moment.
s p a c i n g
For how many years have Microsoft been touting this line, that they are going to revolutionise the online world? For the life of me, I can't think of one Microsoft online service that has caused even a murmur never mind a wave of avid followers. Unless you count IE and WMF vulnerabilities as having a "core around online."