Comment Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (Score 1) 241
Note to self: don't post on a Sunday after a late drunken Saturday...
Only support current browsers
8 was released in 2009. IE9 last year. I'm not really sure it matters for google, but if you do custom web applications 3 years isn't really a long time to have to keep it alive.
IE8, while a significant improvement of 7 and 6 in a number of respects, was already seriously out of date on the day of release. The difference in testing and fixing effort associated with supporting IE8 compared to supporting IE9 is much larger than the two year difference in release dates would suggest.
Unfortunately for some of us, refusing to supporting IE8 is not a luxury we can currently afford. Hopefully the likes of Google taking this step will help push out corporate clients into the right decade (some of the largest banks in the UK have only upgraded to IE8 (from IE6) in their offices in the last year, in fact one that we deal with hasn't yet completed the transition).
The big thing with IE8 is that it's the last IE for windows XP. Which is why it has a larger markeshare than IE9 still.
If you are supporting corporates who are unworried about being embarrassingly behind the times, and other organizations like educational establishments (who also have legacy apps that won't work on decent browsers, and who (unlike the banks who are the bane of my work life) genuinely can't afford the time/investment required to fix that situation), the significant factor here is not the relationship between IE8 and XP, but the fact that IE8 will be officially supported from the point of view of security updates and fixes for other show-stopping bugs for as long as Windows 7 is (which will be supported in that way until something like 2022 IIRC). As our clients migrate away from XP in order to not be left vulnerable when XP falls out of support (or left having to pay MS large chunks of money if they don't upgrade in time and need fixes to problems found outside the final support window) I fully expect them to standardise on Windows 7 with IE8 for most of the next decade even if other big players follow Google's example.
ISP's/corporations have to commit to that
No they don't. Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to use IPv6 is free to sit back and watch parts of the Internet become unavailable to them and their users. Of course by choosing this path they chose to eventually die, but it is their choice to make.
Doing something other than IPv6 simply because people won't make the effort is like sticking to horse-drawn vehicles because people don't want the hassle of having to visit petrol pumps and towns/cities don't want the hassle of constructing the required infrastructure.
Does anyone know why 1024 was selected?
Almost certainly due to the number of 1024 bit certs that are out there.
Most CA's won't sign anything smaller than 2048 bit now, and that has been the case for a year or few, but what about companies that paid an absolute fortune for five year "enhanced validation" certificates or have their own CA for internal use and signed many many keys smaller than 1024 some years ago.
From a security standpoint 2048 should really be the cut-off, as it is elsewhere, but from a practicality view that simply wouldn't wash with a chunk of their userbase who would be very vocal in making sure MS (rather than any lax certificate review/renewal policies at their end) get the blame for any inconvenience caused so they'll not make that jump for a while (i.e. until 1024 bit certs are practically extinct, as those smaller than 1024 are now).
It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things
So you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things" you have to go scouring through law books and beg the government for permission?
And I suppose you are happy living in a world where kids can't have decent chemistry sets because TERRORISM!!1!, and where it is difficult to get through an airport with a laptop because TERRORISTS!!!, in fact where you have to be intimately rubbed down by the TSA in said airport because TERROR!!!!!!!, and so on and so forth.
America: the land of the brainwashed-into-thinking-they-are-more-free-than-others.
Duke was dated when it came out (see Quake).
Quake was well ahead of Duke 3D in technology terms, but as a game it never felt "complete" to me. Lots of ideas in there, but it didn't hang together in a way that suggested a thought-through narrative. Duke was hardly high art plot-wise, but at least it had one. Of course complex plot (or much plot at all) is not always needed but as a lot of the discussion above is about the relative coherence of HL's direction I fell it is relevant to subsequent discussion of Duke/Quake.
What the team behind Duke3D did was hack current technology a fair bit (using multiple maps in clever arrangements to get around the not-really-3D limitation with regard to in level design) and implement thir game using that. What iD did was truly push the limits of game engines (and the hardware they ran on) at the time, essentially becoming the first success of the next generation, but lost it a bit in terms of actuall game design. I think it comes down to the prevailing impression of iD: they make great game engines for other people to make great games with.
Don't get me wrong: I liked what I played of Quake (the first episode IIRC - up to the point of killing be big lava fellow with the lightning machine he helpfully never tried to get out of). But at times I think I was as much impressed by the technology as I was having fun.
Back closer to topic: HL did something more akin to Duke3D: take the best of current engine tech, with a few hacks/improvements, and use it to implement a relatively interesting game. HL2 pushed the boat out quite a bit further in terms of game engine technology, but it was still not a "next generation" revolution but again pushing the current tech a bit and using that to implement a good game.
Flip it around and make it necessary for content owners to provide their content for sale in order to make an infringement claim.
What about specially commissioned private works? If I have a poster design, video, or what-ever, made for myself or a company, would you have the right to copy it? What about my photos from a family holiday that are on my website? Can GreedyShister Ltd. copy them for use in their promotional materials simply because I'm not offering them for sale?
Works in progress would have similar problems: if I hand out a part finished work for people to look at and give feedback (or just because they are interested even if they won't have feedback they feel worth giving), can they copy that work in progress as I don't offer it for sale? The same for content that otherwise "leaks" out early. I suppose an "I intend to sell the finished work" clause might help here, but you would have to specify that every time you talk about the item as otherwise you open up to "well you didn't say..." arguments.
And of course it could easily be worked around the other way: all content producers have to do is say "I'll sell you this for {exorbitant value}" - no sales due to the price but it is offered for sale. You could add a "reasonableness" clause to your rule, but any such clause has no choice but to be vague and wide open to interpretation/argument.
OT: Metro is effectively a "skin" or layer on 7?
Windows 8 is to Windows 7 what XP was to 2000:
* From the users PoV most of the changes are superficial (the new "skin" generally, the ribbon everywhere, explorer enhancements like the fancy long operation progress boxes)
* There is a lot more going on under the hood to make some of those changes possible, or to make other improvements like general efficiency and hardware support
* Most users won't know about, care about, or need to care about the above internal changes, so unless they want to UI update there is no reason to upgrade in the near future.
Many stuck with Windows 2000 until soon before it dropped out of security patch support because for many it worked so didn't need fixing, particularly because people didn't want to volunteer for a new UI when they were used to the old one (even though a lot of the newness could be turned off). I strongly suspect the transition from 7 (or Vista, or XP for those still using it) to 8 will be similarly drawn out, if not worse because the UI change is more significant.
The "registry" is still there?
Yes, and will be for many years to come. Far too much depends on that core feature for it to be removed in any way any time soon. Some code might be using alternate config storage methods/stores/APIs but if the registry went away much would stop working and translating everything it does to a new method (so said method can replace it transparently) would probably be somewhat impractical.
Only God can make random selections.