Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Never understood the purpose of Windows RT (Score 1) 251

It comes with Office, so it's a business computer that can also play the tablet game, right?

Except that there's no Outlook. Try getting business done without that.

I've been doing business without having used Outlook in all my life. And I know plenty of others.

And you can't join a domain. That goes hand-in-hand with the above.

Why? There's email without domains. Plenty of businessmen use google apps, or other alternatives for their stuff.

Comment Re:Can we finally replace Cisco now? (Score 1) 67

Knowing Cisco and knowing networking are completely different things.

I've known a few Electrical Engineers whom I've asked about tecnical information on IPv6 routing. They insisted I didn't need to know that much (I was building my own routing box), that if I used cisco just enabling a checkbox would help me do what I wanted, there was no point in doing thing myself.

Of course, all of them cisco certified.

Comment Re:It's... OK. (Score 1) 161

This is exactly what I was wondering. Why bother? Just for some minor patent issue?

It's really a matter of principle. Plenty of people care about openness, that's why we have free software and all that. The same applies here.

And yes it's minor as I've never had to touch the issue as an end user: it just works. Videos play, without me having to pay anyone anything.

Sure you have to pay someone. You just don't do it directly, you pay the hardware manufacturer, who, in turn, payed someone else.

On the one hand I am glad to see competition, different approaches to the same problem, let the best one win. More codecs, more attempts to find the perfect video compression, that's a good thing. However when it comes to standards, it's gettig trickier. How many standards to support? Which one is to be "the standard"? And with H264 as it is - for me as an end user completely free and doing the job well - I don't see much room for VP9, really.

It's not always the best that wins, but rather the one with the largest company backing it up, or the one with better marketing.

Comment Re:It's the provider, stupid ! (Score 1) 95

We have XMPP+Jingle, SIP+SIMPLE, OMA IMPS, and now this IMPP joins the club. Guess why people stick to Live Messenger, Skype, Google Talk, Facebook and (gasp) ICQ? These have providers and a pre-existing audience, and people don't care about the inner workings. You can have the best-thought-out, most efficient, open and extensible gem of a protocol, but how many people are going to download a (likely clunky) client and nag their relatives, friends and coworkers into installing it too? Yes, there are a few and we all know one; just wait until said project goes belly-up.

People started caring about gtalk's inner workings when they realized they could not longer see a lot of their contacts (the non-google ones) in the new "hangouts" clients.

Jabber precedes Skype. XMPP precedes Gtalk.

Seems like most of your claims are invalid.

Also, there's a new XMPP<->SIP federation standards in the works (it's still a IETF draft though).

Comment Re:Unimpressed (Score 2) 95

XMPP doesn't provide for much in the way of security unless you are using strictly private single servers.

Once your contacts are scattered across multiple jabber servers all bets are off as far as security.
Your server will almost surely end up forwarding your message to other servers insecurely.

XMPP also struggles with binary blobs (images) etc.

a) There's GPG for XMPP, which is not so uncommon.
b) They intend to federate to XMPP, so, all this applies to IMPP.
c) SSL isn't end-to-end.

As for binary blobs, there's jingle.

Comment Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score 1) 442

So authors can't possibly want to provide for their children or grandchildren?

I really disklike the how we inhereted all that "inheretance" stuff from the monarchy. The son of the rich are rich, and it's a right of blood.
Wow, kings and princes weren't the same, right?

Having known many older authors, I assure you that's not true.

If copyright expired at death, what incentive would P.G. Wodehouse or SF Grandmaster Jack Williamson (both of whom continued writing into their late eighties or early nineties) have had?

Which is why I support fixed-length copyright terms, rather than life or life-plus.

Copyright exists to motivate author to create works of art, not to make their grandchildren richer.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first version always gets thrown away.