Yes, and clearly the couple billion people in Asia "don't count" compared to your ethnocentrism.

Just because *you* never saw them doesn't mean they weren't successful. Head to Asia - they still sell them by the truckload aside DVD and Blu-Ray, and displaced VHS over 15 years ago. I bought a few dozen a couple months back because they were cheap and easy to copy to the computer. Then I remembered just how awful MPEG-1 looked.

Ogg video (Theora) is most certainly nowhere near H.264 (MP4). Every independent (non-Xiph-run) test has shown that. Xiph's "proof" was comparing against H.263, which is an ancient codec.

A different argument with the same result - it's unusable.

Given how much they take in on support contracts, I wouldn't be surprised. You're unlikely to find any other Linux variant in managed hosting - that's a lot of Red Hat support, which means a lot of dollars and a lot of scrutiny on stability and security.

The answer is that Adobe hasn't done anything for them lately. They have been laggards at adopting major technologies (Mac OS X, Intel, XCode, Cocoa, 64-bit, Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL - and these are all technologies that would fundamentally improve Adobe's software), Mac versions have been substandard and lacking in features compared to Windows (64-bit Photoshop, for instance, shipped a full suite version ahead on Windows), and Flash has always, always sucked on the Mac - something Adobe's done nothing to improve in the many years they've had it.

Stop and consider for a moment - what has Adobe done in the last ten years that has been notable? Photoshop/Illustrator have had incremental improvements. If I had an Intel-native version, I could use Photoshop 7 (maybe 5.0 even) happily and without complaint. InDesign came out and has had minor improvements since. Flash was bought and added video support. PDF has become an ever more bloated format with a bloated reader to match. About the only thing we see anymore is ways to leverage more Adobe technology and buy more Adobe products. The only reason Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are still as untouchable as they are is because - at their core - they really are excellent and enormously complicated programs, and the designers that use them require absolute fidelity in their work - 90% won't cut it for that crowd. Sadly, these gems are covered in a huge amount of grime and cruft.

Adobe has done nothing for Apple in the past decade. I see no reason for Apple to do them any favors either.

Allowing Flash cedes control of the development environment, makes it harder for Apple to push adoption of new features, and lessens the product differentiation of the iPhone. And given Adobe's horrendous history of Mac support this past decade, the likelihood of decent Flash performance on the iPhone is miniscule, which further hurts the platform image. And besides all that, it makes for really crappy lowest-common-denominator apps.

Meanwhile, as Gruber astutely noted: Number of mobile devices with full Flash: Zero. It's not out of beta on any platform, let alone the iPhone.

This! (Where are mod points when I need them?)

Apple has always been very clear about not allowing non-native frameworks on the iPhone OS - they've disallowed all interpreted code since the introduction of the first SDK (no Java, Flash, .Net, and so forth). Adobe tried to pull an end run by precompiling the Flash - and Apple said no. Bitchy and controlling perhaps, but not unexpected in the least. Anyone who pinned their hopes or business on this was a fool.

What I've wondered throughout all of this is what Adobe's executives were doing all this time. Either:
1) Having discussions with Apple, and ignoring Apple's response ("no"),
2) Ignoring Apple entirely because they saw no concern with the plan, or
3) Ignoring Apple because they knew the answer was "no", but thought they could force Apple into a corner.

No matter how you slice it, Adobe was foolish to pursue this in the first place - Apple is not going to cede control of this platform, for better or worse. In many way's it's similar to Palm's antics last year syncing the Pre with iTunes by masquerading as an iPod. They had to have known it was an extremely risky idea, and instead of doing things the Approved Way, they played a game of brinkmanship with their user base.

Grammatical or not, it's been standard parlance for at least a decade in datacenter (and probably other) IT. Everything gets verbed eventually. See?

Thankfully we've been defending against this for years.

Same memory from Crucial.com is $499, so that's not a bad deal. In fact, I'm considering upgrading my purchase now. Damn you, Slashdot! :)

This is what gets modded "insightful" - a single statement with no backing or even basis in reality? Just vague FUD?

However, why should a network be able to advertise routes for subnets that are out of its control? Even if we accept multiple levels of peering relationships, there should be some safeguards against overly broad routes and "hijacking" of networks known to be authoritatively announced by other peers.

(Note: I'm genuinely asking, as I'm fairly ignorant of the design of BGP - I'm much more LAN than WAN.)

The whole idea of "trust" on the network is something of an anachronism. The internet is not the secure, safe place it was 20 years ago. We slowly learned in computer science never to trust external sources with data (no client-side processing, whitelists instead of blacklists, basic data validation, etc), so why aren't we taking similar steps with the backbone of the internet?

When is the last time the private sector did anything "inspiring"? The private sector is best known for greed, self-interest, and only doing what will get them a buck this quarter - long-term be damned. Not exactly "inspiring".

And they won't; see Internet Explorer, Safari.

Next.