Is eBay classifieds effective at all?
Is Roger Ebert really that dense?
It's like making the argument that a movie isn't art because you're sitting on your ass while watching it, whereas a painting you have to stand up for.
Art is not about the person VIEWING or EXPERIENCING - it is about the creator.
Clearly WATCHING a movie or PLAYING a video game is not art.
MAKING one, on the other hand, can be.
So when is the sports stock exchange opening? I sure would love to bet... eh ehm I mean, "exchange and buy stock", for my favorite team.
Have you ever seen Google sue offensively? Cuz I haven't. It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases (i.e. so someone else can't sue them), not as a patent troll. At least, that's been the rule so far.
SPF is the way to go. Most public email out there (GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo) will mark email as spam if an email is sent from a server that isn't listed on the SPF record.
Obviously this isn't the only technique to fight spam (You validate that the sender really belongs to X.com, not that X.com isn't a spammer), but it helps.
As for the link to "SPF is harmful", that's about the biggest load of bull I've ever seen. It's inaccurate, and is an uncommon case (how often does mail forwarding happen these days with everyone using non-ISP-bound free email services?). It's like saying we should shutdown the internet because it's not completely accessible to devices with black&white screens.
As I said before, all the major free email service providers take SPF into account (test it out yourself - setup your domain with SPF, and send an email to your gmail/hotmail from an unauthorized IP).
That said, SPF is pretty easy to setup. Just a quick little txt in your domain and you're good to go. This site will help you with generating your SPF:
Woohoo let's kill Google so that Microsoft can rule the world even more. Why didn't I think of that...
Not to mention that like many others mentioned, the top 1000 sites (some which are owned by Google, like maps, orkut, gmail, etc.) piss away $1 million a week.
So I'm lucky enough to get to try out Wave. It's cool - and I agree that maybe for the general public it won't have much use.
But I would say that the statement that it is "not as productive as Twitter or email" is a pretty ridiculous and uninformed statement.
Now if the author would've said something like "I would rather have a videoconference/meeting to discuss a new idea instead of using Wave". OK, that's a valid point. A meeting is fast and has quick turnaround times.
But the real idea behind Wave is, you know, those emails like this:
> I think bla bla 1
Good point John, didn't think about bla bla 1
>> What do you think of bla bla 2? Will it work?
> I think we should use bla bla 2 in addition to bla bla 1
You are both correct, John and Jenny. We should definitely look into bla bla 2
Wave makes looking at an email message like that a lot cleaner, a lot simpler, a lot easier, and a lot more productive.
Now how you would compare the above use-case to using Twitter... is beyond me. And as for the above email format being more productive than Wave, well then, maybe you should stop using email and go back to writing snail mail.
If on the other hand you would rather have a meeting or videoconference to have a discussion as above, well then... you're right, that is more productive. But it's not always an option, and Wave fills in that gap nicely.
Forgot one last point heh. The kernel. Without a doubt, as it is the newest kernel, it uses some of the latest technologies.
As I said in my blog, the most amazing thing about BeOS was its responsiveness. I've never seen anything like it. You should try it out under Virtual PC or VMWare. Even today it makes me drop my jaw.
The test I just did the other day (seeing as floppy disks are no longer a very valid argument heh): I had 3 file searches all going on at the same time. I then opened up a couple of applications, as well as opening up a folder in the shell. Well, I think you know what Windows will do when you try this: Unresponsive system galore. I'm honestly not sure what Linux will do, so I can't say anything there. On Be, it was marvelous. The system was still 100% responsive. The searches continued in the background, slowly, and the applications I was opening as well as the shell window opened beautifully. The file list in the shell window loaded slowly, of course, as the disk was under a heavy load. But it loaded none the less.
This is what I meant by "years ahead"
Hi CarpetShark. Sorry, only saw your comment now.
Well, I'm not sure what your knowledge level is, as far as programming goes. I will assume from your replies that you have some programming knowledge, my apologies if my assumption is incorrect.
BeOS was built for multiple-CPU computers. In fact, the first BeBox came with 2 processors. As you know, multiple-core processors is the future. The core of Windows was made for a single-processor, and although the NT kernel was greatly improved for multiple cpu's, it was not built for it. Point for Be.
BeOS was built IN C++ and has an OOP, C++ API. Windows and linux, again as you likely know, have a C, non-OOP core API. There are wrappers that make them seem OOP, but they are simply that, wrappers. Another point for Be.
The problem with Windows (and to some extent Linux) is that they're continuously adding on to an old, outdated core. This can especially be seen with Windows. The root of the Windows API goes all the way back to Windows 3.0.
If you've ever done programming, you likely know that every once in a while, revision upon revision upon revision just makes one big load of crap, and you have to start anew, learning from your mistakes in the past and getting a new system that incorporates functionality to do what you want (instead of having it patched on).
Windows never did this, and neither did Linux. Perhaps I should've rephrased to say the CORE of BeOS is years ahead of the Windows core.
As for the Be API, I used it myself, and it is anything but messy. I wont' argue with the limited point, but that's part of the beauty of it. It's not limited in the sense that you can't do what you need to do. It's limited in the sense that Be was a simple, new OS. It didn't have a gazillion API's that bloated your memory. But that's nothing that couldn't be expanded upon, if necessary.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken