43 posts • joined Thursday 28th January 2010 08:35 GMT
Pointlessness 4tw! (Kind of like requiring this title!)
This is kind of pointless, as the .xxx TLD would be optional (how the hell would they enforce it if it weren't?) and there is already so much porn out there that I doubt even the religious groups have managed to watch it all.
All this would do is allow people to find porn more easily (because its SOOO difficult as it is) and give over-protective parents some false peace of mind. ("I blocked the .xxx TLD and thus prevented my kids from watching porn. How smart am I?!")
And taken the community with the, apparently, which is why this is a bigger news item than a typical fork would be. An open-source project, even one in the clutches of MS Junior, is nothing without the community.
Most companies pay good money for their games to be talked about and trailers/teasers to be posted all over the Internet shortly before they are released.
This is just a basic Microsoft publicity method: leak the stuff and make a big scene out of it. If a few teaser videos get posted on YouTube, all the better!
@tas. Good point about Apples interest in the H.264 code. I may well have underestimated Apple's (un)willingness to adopt VP8 - It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this. They will probably mirror what Microsoft does. (If IE includes VP8, Safari can't ignore it, but if IE doesn't include it, that might push things far enough in H.264's favor so they can ignore the alternatives.)
@The Original Steve. You wouldn't happen to have a reference to that? I would very much like to read more about it. -- I'm Googling it as we speak! (Using Bling, given the topic xD)
""On the other hand, there is probably a JQuery equivelent that will do it all, cross browser, in 10-15 lines, but then you have the bloat of the framework.""
Sure, lest avoid "bloating" the script engine with a few KiBs of code by using a 3rd party, proprietary, resource abusing, bug ridden browser plug-in that only really works correctly on a single OS.
A swing and a miss.
Who said Google wouldn't profit from this in some way? Does the fact that Google *might* make some money of this too (eventually) make it any less of a win for the rest of us? No. -- Regardless of how Google will spin this in their favor, we now have an Open-Source, royalty-free video codec to compete with the H.264 codec, and nothing Google may gain from this move will change that.
kissingthecarpet has a good point too. This is a major PR gain for Google. They've just (yet again) made a huge impression on the Open-Source, and web-development, communities, which are the groups that drive their open vision of the web, and help contribute to their various Open-Source projects.
And it's curious to see how you've made Google out to be a "profit grubbing" corporation, while apparently buying into everything Apple says. Apple and Microsoft have proven themselves, many times over, to be the "profit grubbing" types, while Google's main folly is their "open" interpretation of privacy issues. -- Keep in mind that most of what Apple and Microsoft produce cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for consumers, while most of what Google produces is free for consumers. (They do of course make money of them, but at no cost to the consumers.)
I'm not saying Google doesn't have it's dark, uber-capitalist moments, but they pale in comparison to Apple's, and particularly Microsoft's.
Google controls YouTube, and thus controls a great majority of the videos being streamed online. Whatever Google chooses to encode their videos in, browser manufacturers are pretty much going to have to support it, or the average Joe will be falling all over themselves, calling the IT kid in the family to remedy the situation.
""Is this *real* open source?""
The source is out there for the public, under the BSD license... so yea.
They've just spent 120+ million dollars to buy this thing, and then given it away to the public. I would say that earns them the title "Good guy" for at least until the next privacy group gets over-excited.
The fact that Microsoft just announced sole support for a codec that they themselves have a stake in, and is known to require royalties from everybody who so much as says the name out-loud... Yes, Google is the good guys, and Microsoft, as per usual, is the bad guy. (And Apple, as well, seeing as they are in the same boat as Microsoft in this fight... for now.)
Despite it's current crappyness, Flash has done some amazing things for the web. It allowed us to stream video and audio well before the standards allowed for such things, not to mention the programmable graphics that, until now, were impossible to accomplish with what the web standards had to offer.
I would of course much prefer standard technologies over the proprietary, bug-ridden 3rd party plug-in that is the Flash player... But let's not forget what Flash has done for us.
Jobs may be right to want to replace it with HTML5, but I doubt his banning it from the iDevices has much to do with that. More likely, that was what he and his world-class marketing strategists came up with to excuse the ban. -- Apple has always been a pretty closed off system, but it's getting to be a bit extreme lately. Their lock-in techniques have become way to aggressive, and the Flash ban is just a part of that. I don't doubt that Jobs would only be to happy to ban the HTML5 media technologies as well, but I suspect he knows that would be going to far. -- He want's to control every aspect of the way his iDevices are used, and he is well on his way to accomplish that. (Which is a bad thing, if you were wondering.)
Apple will no doubt adopt VP8 support sooner than you think. They can't afford not to; they don't have the market share to be that picky.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has it's own stake in H.264, so they will no doubt stubbornly try to force it on us as an "industry standard"... They are Microsoft, after all. -- However, if Mozilla, Google and Opera (and perhaps Apple, if they come to their senses) stick together, they might well wear Microsoft down. If a majority of the video content out there is in VP8 format, Microsoft can't not adopt it.
And once the web-development community realizes Microsoft has a stake in H.264, and anybody who is not publishing non-commercial content needs to pay a royalty fee (or at least that is how I understood the license), they will no doubt rebel against it. - There is only so far Microsoft can push us before we snap!
I've already tried some basic stuff, which until the canvas element was only ever realistically possible in Flash (or that Microsoft Flash wannabe thing, can't remember what it was called), and I found it pretty good. It would certainly be possible to replicate most Flash apps using it, and once the technology is properly defined, it may even be preferable.
@AC re "I am not an MS chill"
""A further point is that not all browsers are puffed up with a zillion add-ons like spelling checkers.""
Actually, by now I believe IE is the only major browser to not include a spell checker in it's vanilla distribution. All the modern browsers (Fx, Chrome, Opera, Safari) include them, but no version of IE does. - In fact, the only way I know to get a spell checker in IE is via an addon... and they are all sub-par compared to the native spell-checkers in the modern browsers. -- I made a genuine effort to use IE exclusively when I was testing the Win7 RC, but I couldn't last for more than a couple of days because of the lack of the spell-checker. (My spelling sucks xD)
And how is the ability to add a "zillion" addons a downside? (They aren't installed by default, you know, and you can install them individually.)
It would even be a big win for Microsoft, seeing as they wouldn't have to keep burning cash to keep building the train-wreck that is trident.
Microsoft!.. The code exists. It works. It's free. - Not to mention the massive surge of positive PR you would get for adopting it, and the positive effect it would have on the web as a whole... Why do you resist?
Your all about an "open web" now, right? How about a "little" demonstration of that attitude?!
Microsoft got in trouble because they used their OS monopoly to give their other products an edge over the competition. Apple is (currently) not in as much trouble because the Jesus Phone (or the iPad, or iWhatever) is not in a dominant position over the Mobile market. - Someday they might be (2012 perhaps?...), at which time they will have to follow M$'s lead and start bribing judges left and right.
The fact is that Microsoft should have been made to split into several individual companies a long time ago. (See the US lawsuit that mysteriously vanished in the early 2000's for a rundown of that.)
Am I the only one that gets a shiver down my spine at the thought of my documents in the hands of Facebook and Microsoft? Not saying that handing them over to Google is necessarily ideal, but it feels a whole lot better... at the moment.
Just seeing my face pop down on the page that the article links to makes me very very anxious.
Anyways, until Microsoft manages to include support for their own open document standards, nothing related to the Office suite will be in use on my computers.
Well, if we are going to believe what M$ has been saying recently, their stuff should follow the standards and be x-browser compatible.
... then again, this is M$ we are talking about. They can't even follow their own standards. (Talking about the Office Open Formats they pushed so hard to get accepted, yet failed to implement.)
Yea, we couldn't "muster" a naval force to match an "enemy" who's navy represents ~13% of the entire Icelandic population, backed by a military force that represents ~60% of the population... Surprising, ain't it? (Which makes the fact that we essentially "won" the "wars" that more impressive. - Brute force isn't always the answer :P)
And yes, we all came together and decided to purposefully collapsed our economy and *cause* a volcanic eruption, to do minor damage to the UK economy and delay a few airplanes. - (... just for the lulz xD)
Sadly, the iPhone is what the "non-technical" crowd wants, regardless of it's features or usability.
And right now, if you attempt to go towards any of the other platforms, you are likely to get trampled by the hordes of iFans and the kind of developers that are *still* developing websites for IE6, on their way to worship at the Jobsian church of censored proprietarism.
I just hope all this blows up in Apple's face, not ours.
@Lester and all you naysayers.
I agree with you, up to a point. Excessive "bling" is pointless, say for the sake of showing off, but there is a point to many of these fade-effects. They tend to make things look "smooth" without actually hurting productivity or responsiveness. And things looking "smooth" makes people feel like they are working on a "smooth" environment, which has more of an effect on people than you appear to realize.
Like: a 50ms fade-effect will make a menu popup look a lot more "smooth" without actually having a negative effect on your efficiency. (Anybody who claims a 50ms delay for a menu is hurting his productivity is either lying, or seriously needs to unplug every now and then.)
And I, despite having serious doubts, found that the "new" Desktop Cube thing that Compiz offers is quite useful. I tend to switch between desktops a lot, and "Mouse5+Mouse1+Drag" is usually faster, in my case, than "Ctrl+Alt+Left/Right".
And, finally, If these basic smoothing effects are having a noticeable effect on the performance of your computer... try a computer built this side of the new millennium! The medium settings on Ubuntu's Gnome desktop effects (I forget what it's called... I use KDE) shouldn't have any effect on your "efficiency" and should run effortlessly on any computer with so much as a AGPx8 compatible GPU. (And yes, I have tested that claim.)
But hey, if you want your desktop to look like a Win 3.1 equivalent, that is your call. Most people, I reckon, would rather it looked like OSX or Win7.
It's a beta!
""Maybe they can use the same logic and move the goddam window controls back to the RHS where they should be too, or am I expecting to much?""
It is highly doubtful this change will make it into the final version of 10.04. It's the sort of change that will only make sense to advanced users (the users who could do it manually) and only confuse "regular" users. (Not the "regular" Linux users are like generic "regular" users....)
It's in the test version because... well... they use them to TEST stuff.
If you can't handle a minor change like this, or can't manage to find 2 minutes to Google the (very simple) procedure to change it back... perhaps you should just stick to release versions.
... Sorry if that sounds aggressive or insulting. I'm just sick of people whining over this MINOR change in the PRE-RELEASE, TEST version.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean it wasn't also designed to be an improvement for the user. Apple is a business, after all. You can't really expect the to design stuff without making a profit.
Most Open-Source supporters don't automatically assume everything M$ does is shit. We very carefully and throughout examined the issue before coming to the conclusion that everything M$ does is shit :)
Seriously though, not everything M$ does is bad. I for one am a fan of C# and Direct3D.
And Office is good to, although I'm not really willing to pay all that money for it when there are perfectly good alternatives available for free. I won't argue they are better, but they do all that I, and probably something like 99% of Office users, really need.
And I won't even start on Windows. That is a subject you can debate (or rather; yell nonsensical insults at each other) for years... And we have. - I will say this though; Windows 7 is extremely good compared to it's predecessors. In my experience, at least. (I won't pretend to be an expert on the inner workings of any version of Windows.)
""(and a lot of lies in that marketing - 'fast safe secure'? Firefox is none of them, when compared to other browsers)""
You are seriously accusing Mozilla of lying for marketing, after the stunt the IE team pulled a couple of days ago? - Everybody "sugar-coats" their products for marketing, but there is a big difference between covering your own black-eye up with makeup and punching the guy next to you to try and draw attention away from your own injuries. -- Which is exactly what the IE team did to Chrome not three days ago.
But yea, lets examine those "lies" you mentioned, shall we?
Fast: Compared to IE? Hell yea. No question. - Compared to Chrome, Safari or Opera... depends on who's current release is younger. -- For evidence, try a Google search. In fact, allow me to get you started... This one, for example: http://sixrevisions.com/infographs/browser-performance/
-- To the IE fanbois: Yes, IE is slow. IE8 is like an old Mini compared to the high-performance racing-brooms that are the standards-supporting browsers. And IE9 is still like 2 years from being a reality. (By which time it'll be just as slow as IE8 is now, relative to the others.) -- It's the trade-off for Microsoft's business model; catering to the businesses with long-interval releases, rather than to the people, with rapid releases. IE9 would actually do fine (in regards to speed) if released today, but it won't be due to them not wanting minor releases. - It's easier for the business world to deal with software that isn't upgraded to often (see IE6's market-share if you question that sad reality).
Secure: The internet isn't secure, but in relative terms Firefox is a good choice. As bad people tend to want to hurt as many people as possible with as little effort as possible, the browser most likely to become a victim of an attack is the one with the largest market share... It's an classic argument that you've probably heard a thousand times before, but for good reason. -- But then again, Firefox has a much much faster response time to threats than IE, so you could up it's "security ratio" by a few % just on that. (I'd cite the recent "Aurora" attacks, as an example.) - Relative to it's standards-supporting colleges, Firefox shares a very similar security policy (open-source), with the exception of Opera of course. You'd have a hard time getting a good answer to which is *more* secure.
Safe: What exactly do you mean? No sharp corners to hurt yourself on? How is this different from "Secure"? (And did they actually use this word?.. I must have missed that particular ad.)
But you just said it, didn't you: "whilst you web surf or read email." -- The keyword there being "or".
A $500 "computer", released a decade into the 21st century better be able to surf AND read email at the same time. Anything else is laughable. -- Not that an overlarge iPhone, without the "phone", and with... well... really nothing else worth mentioning, wasn't a bit humorous before.
I'll happily continue to use my phone as a phone and my laptop as a laptop. If I ever find myself in need of neither... I'll just use neither :)
If you find a use for it, I'm happy for you. I'd be more than a happy to be proven wrong on my opinion on it. (I do like the fact that it doesn't include Flash... I don't like Flash!)
Where does it mention anything about asking them for the info? In fact, there is a distinct lack of explanation for the statement. (Thus, my wondering about it.)
You can't exactly blame us for questioning Microsoft's statements after watching that little piece of fiction...
Before you go writing Chrome off, I suggest you look into *why* it keeps sending the info you type. - The reason may well cause you to want to use Chrome. (A reason, by the way, which this video conveniently fails to mention.)
""Browsing the web is the number one thing Windows customers do when they boot up their PCs.""
I wonder how, exactly, they got that statistic? Surely not by collecting information from their users...
And it's convenient, how he forgets to mention the reason *why* Chrome sends that info when you type in the Omnibox, or the fact that IE8 was the 3'rd of the major browsers to include a privacy feature like "inPrivate".
It's a jungle out there!
No place is safe and no protection invulnerable!
... What else is new?
Pure IP patents need to be stopped.
I suggest that no company be allowed to file a patent unless they have at least on *viable* product that actually uses said patent. - It seems to me that these companies are just filing patents left and right, waiting for somebody who can actually design and build stuff to come along and accidentally infringe on their bogus patent, so they can sue and take a piece of their profits.
We need to obsolete these sort of patents!
"" I think they have the right to impose content filtering... every country does to some greater or lesser extent. ""
Governments are tasked with protecting their people. Filtering out child pornography and violent racism is one thing; blocking all content that goes against the government's political, religious and moral opinions is a whole another thing. - The main difference is that in the UK and Germany, the people are aware of what is being blocked. Hell, if it wasn't being blocked, the people would probably demand that it were, with overwhelming majority.
The Chinese government's excessive content blocking isn't protecting anybody but them selves. They are abusing their positions of power for their own gain, at the expense of their people; the people who's interest they should be protecting.
Companies like Google are ideally positioned to challenge these abusive governments, and I hope more of them have the courage to do so. It may catch the attention of some of the Chinese people; many of whom -- mostly due to the content filtering -- are probably unaware that there even is a problem.
... Makes you wonder. What sort of abuse are we ourselves suffering, without our even knowing about it? ;)
Just set it up manually!
It's not exactly complex.
A) Download the tar.
B) Extract into a folder in your home folder. (I like to use a .app/ folder)
C) Create a launcher that targets the "firefox" executable in the extracted folder.
D) ... there is no D!
And if you want 100% compatibility with Ubuntu at large (as apposed to just 99%), then create a symbolic link in /usr/bin to the firefox executable. (Info on how that is done takes about 10 seconds of Googling)
Did you read the update at the bottom?
Mozilla was considering buying their designs so they used them in their development builds (which include public developmental stuff, it being open-source and all). New builds will, however, replace them with original designs from Mozilla.
We all do it. I mean; I've used logos and graphics from random websites during development of my websites, and replaced them only shortly before release. (I sometimes even use the Google logo directly from their website as a header placeholder :P) - Mozilla just has the "disadvantage" of being open-source, and thus a lot more public in their development than most of us are.
Adobe needs to put some serious work into both improving the flash plug-in itself (especially on non-windows systems), and into reducing the amount of damage bad ActionScript code can cause. - Most of these flash crashes can probably be attributed to cheap coding-labor that would have to find a copy/paste'able snipped online to so much as write a hello world app. - Adobe need to restrain the plug-in from leaking memory and hogging CPU time.
Perhaps put a fixed cap on the amount it is allowed to use. Just, you know, so that random flash ad can't eat up 500MiB of my memory and cause my system to hang while it spends all my CPU on... I can't even imagine what.
Is this even legal?
Does Apple *really* have the right to deprive their users of choosing what they do or do not watch on their gadgets? Sure, I assume they stuck it in some form you had to sign when they sold you the thing, but surely this sort of imposed filtering of information goes against some law or another. - It is at the very least highly immoral.
I mean, if they are against sexual content, I can respect that. It's not like I'm asking them to come over and watch a porno with me. But seriously, if they have a problem with sexual content, then DON'T WATCH IT. Just leave those of us who don't have a problem with it be.
I for one will not be handing my freedom of information over to those... (struggling to find a word to describe them... I want to think... something regarding China... or like... Germany a few decades ago...) O I'm to tired for this. Going to sleep. (After putting my iPod out in the hallway. Wouldn't want Apple to catch me having an "overtly sexual" dream... would I?)
It's not the control, as such, that I object to. It is how they are using it. Have you seen how the stuff they have been doing lately? What sort of rules they have imposed on the App store?
Apple is imposing their own - seemingly unstable - morality on everybody, banning random things that make no sense. Removing previously approved Apps from their store with no warning. Developers have spent enormous amounts of effort building apps, according to the rules as they are/were, only to have their work rendered useless because Apple's review staff has a mood-swing and decides to move the morality line.
For example, why such strict bans on sexual content? Who exactly is it hurting so much that it justifies being outlawed? - If I want to watch sexual content on my iPhone/iPod/iWhatever, what business is it of theirs? Or anybodies, for that matter. (If it offends you DON'T WATCH IT! Leave the rest of us be.)
They've got this irrational rule tightened so much you can't so much as sell Apps relating to a large number or perfectly innocent (by any standard) sports. Any sport that involves the participant wearing anything more revealing than a space-suit is now to "sexual" to be sold.
Anyways, my point is; The point is not that Apple is controlling the Apps (everybody does that. Even the Firefox addons are controlled up to a point). It's *how* they are being controlled.
@"They give software monetary value..."
I would have thought the (often pretty high) price-tag on software gave it it's monetary value.
It is ridiculous that companies can "own" an "idea" (which is basically what IP patents are). It is just a monopoly waiting to happen. The system should encourage competition, not make it so that competing with the original implementer of an "idea" can get you sued.
Your "company" should succeed or fail based on the quality of it's products; how well you manage to implement the ideas. It shouldn't be able to produce a product, patent the basic ideas behind it, and thus prevent anybody else from making a competing product (at the risk of getting sued and possibly banned from selling it).
Because they use some circa 1990's, ActiveX based software that they are to cheap to upgrade from or replace.
And note that all of those, excluding -maybe- basic HTML, is extremely "quirky". You usually have to employ a couple of IE bug-fixes to get a page working properly.
the community controls PHP.
PHP is open-source. If you want to change it, you are free to do so. If you want to share those changes, you can also do that. If the community likes your changes, they may well be added to an official release.
"The PHP Group" controls the official PHP code, but if they reject a change that the community likes, they are free to create a "fork" of the official release, including the changes. (Picture the different Linux distributions. All based on the same code, but developed in different directions.)
It's open-source. Nobody controls it. They can only control -their- version of it.
Do not upgrade until after Service Pack 1!
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
- Apple's spamtastic iBeacon retail alerts launch with Frisco FAIL
- Submerged Navy submarine successfully launches drone from missile tubes
- Pix Astroboffins spot HOT, YOUNG GIANT where she doesn't belong