Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 245

We're talking about downloads, it's all about grabbing the users when they first use a computer. The ballot shows up once, when you first boot the computer fresh out of the box (It might have a "ask me again later" button, can't recall). While computers shipped with Win7 pre-SP1, all users were asked if they wanted some other browser than IE. Once computers started shipping with Win7 SP1, the ballot stopped showing up for new purchases. After the fix, new computers started showing the ballot again, and downloads started pouring.

Comment Re:Pray I don't change them further.... (Score 1) 343

I don't think it's a matter of drinking the kool-aid. It's more a matter of looking at it from Apple's perspective. The platform lock-in would be good for Apple, so he's arguing that not only is this change bad for consumers and developers, in harming the chances of that lock-in happening the change also harms apple's bottom line.

Comment Re:Have they actually found it? (Score 1) 652

You've got it subtly wrong: It's not that "by process of elimination that must be the Higgs". Rather, it's a matter of "We expect the Higgs to be in one of these places" (or, rather, be within this mass range), and then exhaustively looking at all those places for it. In one of those places, they found an unknown particle. By Occam's Razor, it being the Higgs is a more reasonable assumption than it being some other particle that's in the same mass range as the Higgs, but we hadn't actually predicted. Also, from what I gather (I have a few physicist friends, including a guy that was until recently working in CERN), the particle they found is pretty "boring", in that it behaves pretty much as it ought to, no weird stuff. So that also helps towards the conclusion that it must indeed be the Higgs.

Comment Re:Microsoft Pledges to Sell More Macs for Apple (Score 1) 809

Unless I'm misunderstanding UEFI, that's not quite right. Contrary to the headline-hype, I believe Microsoft's OTHER explicit requirement for certification is that end users must be furnished with a way to disable it that's impossible to do by mistake, but entirely possible to do voluntarily. For example, flip a DIP switch, place or pull a jumper, enter a 32-character encryption code printed on a tiny sticker permanently affixed to the motherboard, etc.

Installing Linux already has a reputation for being technically challenging (even if it actually isn't, these days, but whatever). What you're saying is that, unless distros jump in on the secure boot ship, then they'll have to add to their installation instructions something like "depending on the make of your motherboard, you'll need to open the computer and perform one of flipping a DIP switch, placing/pulling a jumper, or entering a 32-character code that's written on the motherboard".

That, alone, will desktop kill Linux for non-techies. And if that isn't worthy of anti-trust investigation, I don't know what is.

Comment Re:The solution is.. (Score 2) 144

Because many of the prefixed CSS properties have not actually been fully standardised, so having vendors support them with prefixes and varying (possibly incomplete!) implementations/syntaxes means we actually get to try the various approaches being proposed, and only pick one to standardise on once the dust has settled and people have made up their minds as to which one is better.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe