Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score 1) 189

Nokia had the best reception of any cell phone company (at least, that was their reputation). They made nice hardware. Apparently they have the best camera of any cell phone. Given all that, they could have competed. Not because Android is magic, but because WP8 counteracts any benefit their phones ever had. Buy an Android with an amazing camera? Sure! Buy WP8 with an amazing camera? Does it even have a fart app?

The thing is... if the guys at cyanogenmod had a ROM for the LUMIA, maybe I could've bougth one, even if there was no Nokia-native Android. Problem now is... nokia hw is MS... and I don't feel fine on giving MS more lawyer-power than they already have.

Comment Re:It's the medium - Re:It's the distribution chan (Score 1) 516

I totally agree. And also I guess people is less inclined to buy the same thing again because they release it under a new media, when they can get it "cheaper" some place else. The hole equation does not make sense.

Say I have a DVD, paid some 20 bucks. The "industry" is saying that is loosing lots of money because others copy the DVD without paying. Conclusion, so DVD Movie product cost= Movie rights cost + DVD media costs. Movie rights should be a lot you say, as other people are offering even similar packaging for much less, if they don't pay "Movie rights" portion of the equation.

But then it comes BluRay. Now I want my movie library in glorious HiDef. You'll think a BluRay Movie = Movie Rights + BluRay media costs. As you already own the Movie Rights for home use, you'll think you can get a better price. Well, you don't! Movie Rights now seems like a cheap thing that costs 0, as the "Industry" wants me to pay full fare again.

So, guess they shouldn't have it both ways.

Submission + - Dennis Ritchie has died. (

yorugua writes: As a long time Unix user, I'm suddenly out of words for this loss in the Tech World. RIP Dennis, and my condolences to his family.

Comment Re:Who are they reaching out to? (Score 1) 95

Microsoft has a huge developer base, they are Nokia desperately needs and what MS is bringing to the table in this deal. MS can evidently count on these developers to give their platform a shot, historically not a bad gamble. The foundation has been laid, now comes the critical part: converting these available apps into actual sales and a viable business financially. So far the only platform where users consistently spend a lot of money is iOS with Android a distant second.

Nokia needs people buying their phones. My family has 6 Nokia phones (3 symbian). Our first buy after the announcement has already been a Droid. It's cool with Nokia, but MS? Thanks, but no thanks.

In the team I work in, there are some 5 E71. All are thinking about other brands after Nokia commited suicide (Again, I work with DBA's, Sysadmins, Network Admins. NO WAY they're buying MS *).

Comment Re:Who are they reaching out to? (Score 1) 95

I don't know how this compares to iPhone and Android, but 1.5 million SDK downloads, 36k developers, and 13k apps is impressive for a 6 month old platform that, by Slashdot's account, has 4 users.

That's great!. But considering symbian had about 10% market share last time I checked (and going down), MS some 2% maybe? then it's great someone is downloading all that!. Now, they need people to buy their phones, and that's were the hard part comes. Even old nokia users (such as myself) see nokia-wp as something to stay away from, and people already on other platforms don't feel as going back to WP (even more Samsung or HTC). So, the actual question is, what's the market they're after?

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I'm a programmer, not a sysadmin/network guy. While I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of networking just as a result of being "in the neighbourhood", my first reaction to "public IP" was, "the device will be publically accessible". After thinking about it and doing a little reading, I understood that this wasn't the case (it all still goes through one point, and that one point gets to say "nope", at least in most setups). .

Hello I worked with companies with networks of +5000 desktops. The "public IP address" fear doesn't come from the fact that the device will be publically accessible, but that their action can be "publically recorded". One of the selling points of IPv6 is that you can have your own IP address. Good. Now, Companies such as [google, ms that provide advertising and services like webmail and talk to identify you] will be able to track your IPv6 address and map it to the few users of your desktop/laptop on your company. Now, imagine, what possibilities does that open?

Yes, there are cookies to track a certain users with a certain browser. But you can delete them. Your whole company might look to the external world as a few IPv4's addresses now (and you could do the same on IPv6 using application proxies, but that just adds costs). Now... can you do the same with all of the browsers of all of the users on your desktop and even succeed if you are getting a few ip addresses? and if not, then what possibilities are available to those tracking you?

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

And God no, please, NO MORE NAT. Definitely not in IPv6. We don't need it, and don't want it. It's a crock.

I want NAT as my customers wants NAT. Let's do this: Let's agree on a protocol that allows you to enable NAT if you so desire, and disable if you so desire. We'll be both happy!. I'm sure that a protocols that enables both types of users will have good success.

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out

Why? Why on earth? There are these things called firewalls, right....

I'll hijack a 2003 post:

One of the primary uses of NAT is to provide provider (and registry) independence. It also provides a way to get around ISP restrictions on the number of devices customers can connect to a network.

Off the top of my head, I believe as long as any of the following are true: - you must renumber if you change service providers - renumbering requires any effort whatsoever from the end user - renumbering interrupts services in any way - requesting addresses requires any formal process or procedures

you will have NAT, regardless of whether it is IPv4 or IPv6.

Attempting to legislate behavior through non-binding standards activities contrary to customer desires is a waste of everyone's time.

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out

Why? Why on earth? There are these things called firewalls, right....

Yes, there are fierwalls!. Only thing,a lot of people want them to keep operating in the same way (Fw + NAT). They don't want to get assigned an IPv6 address that can be tracked at the IP level and mapped to a specific user or set of them.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.