Comment Re:We need WebM (Score 1) 80
Umm, excuse me, but FFmpeg project has nothing to do with Xiph.
Umm, excuse me, but FFmpeg project has nothing to do with Xiph.
I remember the "process", or rather the pain, of using Symbian SDK being on about the same level nearly 9 years ago. Which is exactly why Symbian is shit, and how Nokia in general sucks -- they've had a headstart of 10 years to make Symbian development experience better, but it's still the same piece of pigeon poop it was nearly decade ago.
Google and Apple have done better in way lesser time, and seemingly had the sense to avoid at least some of Symbian's mistakes (albeit they seem to have problems of their own, of course), but Nokia hasn't had the sensibility to improve their primary platform. I guess they finally did admit Symbian's inferiority by the partial move to Maemo/Meego.
I'm not even going to start with the often confusing mess that Symbian platform itself is...
And what about those BIOS/EFI[1] firmware-based hypervisor rootkits? If someone is able to gain root access in a given system that is somehow "vulnerable" in such way that a permanent EFI (or similar) rootkit can installed, then you'll be fucked even with the read-only media and all.
Speaking of which, I don't understand why manufacturers are so eagerly adding all this new intelligence into the firmware. What do we need it for anyway? IMO it would be so much simpler from security perspective, if the OS would be at the bottom of it all. Added complexity adds new possibilities for exploitation.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
Well, considering that many widely used browsers don't even implement many of CSS 2.1 features correctly (or at all)[1], that might be just a daydream.
When these filesystems actually have matured enough to NOT have at least dozen bugfix changesets in each revision of kernel Changelog. Even ext3fs has received few rather interesting corner-case fixes this year, so maybe ext4 will be reliable in 5 years or so.
So, as usual, they are asking for an solution that is impossible to implement, at least in any meaningfully reliable way. I mean, how does one sanely "detect" child pornography or any other illegal content to begin with?
Despite these insurmountable odds, I am fairly certain that there will be a long line of companies willing to try and do some half-assed gadgets, because there will be lots of money involved.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.