topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Saturday December 20, 2025, 11:18 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 310 311 312 313 314 [315] 316 317 318 319 320 ... 470next
7851
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 11, 2011, 06:57 AM »
+1 w/Mouser. :) It's starting to loop. Time to shut it down.

Like J-Mac said, if anything new comes up someone can always start a new thread.  :Thmbsup:
7852
Living Room / Re: Help with new computer build
« Last post by 40hz on April 11, 2011, 06:36 AM »
+1 w/steeladept on the disable sleep suggestion. I've had that happen before. As I result I always disable any power management options for network adapters if they're in a desktop system.

Another possibility is to set the baud rate on the NIC to whatever your network speed is (100M/1G) rather than have it autosense. Some NICs get a little fussy and sporadically drop a connection because of it. I've seen this mostly with the nVidia nForce onboard NIC if it shares an interrupt with one of the SATA channels and there's no drive attached to that channel.

Disabling the unused SATA channel usually fixes the problem. I suspect if some systems poll the SATA channel it can cause a timing issue for the NIC if it takes too long to determine there's no drive attached.

Somebody told me they had this same thing happen with an Intel onboard NIC (which implies this is more a mobo/chipset rather than a specific NIC hardware issue) so it might be worth a look if all else fails.

(I'm assuming you've already checked for driver updates? I sometimes forget so I thought I'd mention it.)

Luck! :Thmbsup:



7853
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 04:39 PM »
I guess I'll just bid adieu.  It is clear I am very out of sync with some of the general thinking here...in that I cannot see how anyone would conclude that this "method" has any coat of acceptability whatsoever.

I say that because, to me, if anything is being done (installed or info sent to wherever) before the user has a chance to prevent it, that unquestionably (in my opinion) constitutes unacceptable behavior.

No need to walk away. But you might want to tone it down just a bit. We're all friends here. Even when we're arguing over something and sound like we're a bunch of 5-year olds.  ;D

I think if you read the entire thread you'll discover that the "general thinking" (such as it is) has not  been in agreement with OC's arguments. If anything there are two camps that are in complete disagreement over OC in this thread.
 :)

 
7854
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 03:23 PM »
Oh no - does that mean I am going to see that creepy-looking avatar of Dr. Apps smiling back at me even more then?!    ;)    ;D

Thanks!

Jim

It is a creepy avatar isn't it? ;D

(Thx. I thought it was just me.)

7855
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 03:14 PM »

If most people stop installing OC partnered software, OC will become history in short order. If most people don't care, OC will probably wind up being a part of almost every piece of software out there after a few years.

Only time will tell what the public really thinks about OC.  :-\


Actually, if OC can manage to get itself inserted in enough widely used, popular software titles, it won't matter; many users now shunning it will start ignoring it rather than give up their most used/useful programs. My opinion anyway.

Jim

You're probably right. Which is why I'd like to see OC be stopped right now.

But I'm not hopeful...

Many people I've talked to who have the technical smarts to understand what this debate's about don't seem much to care.

If that's the feeling of the general public, then OC is here to stay.  :Thmbsup:
7856
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 03:08 PM »
All those words, and no answer to the questions I posed.  Only three words required... pick one (truthful answer) from each line (they align with my 3 questions):
1. yes no
2. yes no
3. yes no

Cancel my initial response. Wraith808 answered it better.  :Thmbsup:

See his post below.


7857
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 02:49 PM »
Does it install ANYTHING (part of itself or whatever it is "offering" or anything else) without user choice to deny?

Does it send ANY info "home to mama" [I add now "or ANYWHERE"] without a user choice to deny same.

Is user option to NOT do either of the above presented clearly and obviously BEFORE it is done?

What are the answers to these questions?  And they are yes or no questions.  They are simple and direct.  And the answers immediately solve the riddle of whether OpenCandy is acceptable or not.  I get the feeling no one wants to answer them truthfully.

@movrshakr - I think we've pretty much been over all of this several times by now. And we all have a pretty good idea of how OC actually works. In the end, it comes down to an individual's choice as to whether or not they can accept OC's view of things and live with how it operates. Apparently many people can, even after they've read the debates and warnings.

To me, the only simple and direct answer is: if in doubt  - don't install.

I've instituted a personal moratorium on using anything that ships with OC. That's a bummer because some of my favorite software now does, so I'll have to identify replacement titles come upgrade time.

But the interesting thing (to me) is that about half my friends have no problems with anything OC is doing and think I'm overreacting.

If most people stop installing OC partnered software, OC will become history in short order. If most people don't care, OC will probably wind up being a part of almost every piece of software out there after a few years.

Only time will tell what the public really thinks about OC.  :-\


7858
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 02:13 PM »
After seeing your comments over on Gizmo's blog I don’t think it strange at all!   ;D 8)

Well, one of my posts was deleted. I just noticed. Sent MidnightCowboy a PM to see if it's ok to repost. I don't think he likes me. :(

UPDATE: It's been undeleted. Maybe he does like me~! :D


@Ryan- I'm an editor over there. I suspect your post was most likely taken down by accident, or because it contained a weblink to someplace that returned a WOT rating of orange.

If a moderator took it down for what they felt was a violation of the forum rules (or if it contained a 'red' WOT rated link) it wouldn't have been put back up later. :)

FWIW, I don't think anybody (or hardly anybody at least) over at Gizmo's dislikes you personally. It's just you've put yourself in a challenging position by endorsing a product many TSA members have major concerns about. So, as unofficial apologist for OC, you're bound to get some heat. But for the most part, the responses to your posts seem to be generally positive and echo much of what's been said here: people don't like the way OC works, and they're suspicious of the reassurances OC is giving that they will "do no evil" down the road.

Note: Gizmo's is also not DoCo. They have considerably less tolerance than Mouser has for hyperbole, outrageous analogies, put-ons, snarky comments and wandering too much around a topic. They prefer posts that are like a shot of vodka - short and to the point.

Makes us appreciate Mouser's way of doing things more than ever, doesn't it? ;D

 8)
7859
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2011, 11:27 AM »
Looks like all the objections have been raised, and at least discussed, even if they haven't been addressed.

But at the end of the day, OC is standing firm on how it operates and how they want to conduct business despite those objections.

So now that we've arrived at an apparent impasse regarding OC, maybe it's time we start wrapping this discussion up?

 :)
7860
I had no problem voting for Quinn. :Thmbsup:

Of the three cards that told a story, his caught the spirit of the season best IMO.

And those perspective shadows behind the snowman family and trees! Young man definitely has that special ability to 'see' - which is so essential for anyone who wishes to become an artist.

And he's only ten? Can only imagine how good he's going to become as he gets older.

Note: I think his only serious challenger is Genice. Excellent art, but not enough story. :)

7861
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 09, 2011, 01:25 PM »
@J-Mac

I wasn't criticizing you for being suspicious. I certainly was suspicious when I first noticed that as well. I was just agreeing with f0dder that in this particular instance, DrApps was forthcoming about the fact he was an employee of OC - which goes a long way to reducing the worry someone's trying to 'turf the forum.

In the case of OC, I think we're seeing more of them on forums brcause they have made a commitment in money and people to be seen there.

Amazing what startup capital can do to get the word out and tell your side of the story.
 :)
7862
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 09, 2011, 12:48 PM »
J-Mac: he's definitely their propagandist, but at least he's not trying to hide it - and that's something to give credit for.

Strongly agree w/f0dder on that point. As long as the business affiliation is announced up front, I have no problem with somebody being a paid supporter as long as there's no agenda to deceive. Most of us need to work for a living. And getting paid to 'evangelize' a piece of tech is a common and accepted practice anyway. No point singling out any one company or individual for doing that.



Oddly I have never found this to be the case with normal apps that aren't doing anything that people deem suspicious; only with suspect apps.

(Plus that creepy smile on his avatar bugs me!!  ;D  )
You and me both, man.

I personally think they should hire Renegade in some capacity. He's done more to build a convincing case for OC (despite the fact I personally don't like how OC implements itself) than some of the official communiqués ever did. He also speaks to the concerns of developers and software geeks. And, being a developer himself, on their level.

Hey DrApps! Maybe you folks should consider hiring this guy in some capacity?

Seriously.
 8)
7863
General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody)
« Last post by 40hz on April 09, 2011, 06:28 AM »
DOS was a rip off (literally ripped off and tweaked for a rush job for IBM)

Actually, wasn't DOS Based on QDOS by Seattle Software Products?

IIRC Microsoft purchased perpetual legal rights to that OS in 1980 to serve as the basis for the OS that IBM had contracted Microsoft to provide for its PC. For this, Microsoft paid a one-time fee of $50k to Seattle Software, but didn't tell them ('ostensibly because Microsoft was under an NDA and therefor barred from discussing it) what they wanted it for. Tim Paterson, the founder of Seattle Software and author of QDOS, went to work for Microsoft the following year.

In retrospect, that became one of the shrewdest business deals ever made. But hardly a financial ripoff. $50k was a fairly substantial amount of money back then. Especially in an industry that catered largely to the hobbyist market prior to IBM releasing their PC.

So what about it being a technology ripoff?

Gary Kildall of Digital Research (originally: Intergalactic Digital Research) often claimed that QDOS was "largely lifted" from his operating system CP/M.

Paterson acknowledged he had extensively based QDOS on CP/M, but argued the coding was all his and therefor was a legal functional equivalent of CP/M rather than a copy.  Some preliminary and largely unsuccessful legal skirmishes early on led Kildall to believe Digital Research didn't have a leg to stand on if they went to court. So the widely hinted, and eventually threatened, lawsuit never materialized. No software patent trolling or look&feel nonsense back in those days!

In the 80s, the rule of thumb used to be something like if 80% (or more) of your source code was original, your work was considered original. That was because there was a general consensus that software was developed in an "evolutionary fashion, and therefor (of necessity) tended to "incorporate" elements  (i.e. algorithms,code snippets, standard routines, etc.) which had been previously written by others.

In the 80s, nobody seriously considered software as being copyrightable because it was regarded as a set of instructions rather than a 'creative' or 'literary' work. Instruction sets are not usually eligible for copyright protection.

And software was not considered patentable for the same reason since it was viewed more as an 'idea' than it was the 'expression' of one. Ideas, by themselves, are not patentable.

There was also a very different 'business view' of software back then.

Most PC system software (particularly the OS) had yet to be considered as separate products. It was usually just thought of as an accessory. If you looked at the PC invoices of the time, you'd often see system software and utility disks all lumped together and called something like Accessory-Std. Software Pack with a line price that read: included.

In the 80s, an OS came bundled with the hardware you bought. Mainframes and minicomputers often had complex and expensive support and licensing schedules. But the big selling point for PC was that it came with an OS which was *SOLD* to the customer rather than licensed annually. That was a major paradigm shift for the computer industry. It wasn't till much later that the notion of licensing PC software became the norm. And it was a very hard sell convincing the public (and most courts) that a "shrink-wrap license" you didn't get to read, negotiate over, or personally sign, became legally binding if you unsealed a box. That alone constituted a major breakthrough getting the public to accept that.

Simpler times.  :)
7864
Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me!
« Last post by 40hz on April 08, 2011, 06:47 AM »
great stuff :)
especially enjoying the "trance music on a guitar" (Ewan Dobson) :up:

+1 on Dobson.  Especially that first song. His time is so dead-on it's almost unreal. You could calibrate a metronome off his beat it's so precise. Amazing! Love to play a 'long set' with that guy someday.  :)

(Are those military and Ninja costumes in reference to the Vietnam War? Or Free Tibet...or a MMORPG character...or something? Anybody know whats up with that?)
7865
General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody)
« Last post by 40hz on April 08, 2011, 06:41 AM »
@tomos:

>now wipe the flaw<?

If it's "Bah-stin" then "fer shaw."  ;D


7866
Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me!
« Last post by 40hz on April 07, 2011, 11:59 AM »
@April - Cool find.

Wow! a Tapatar. 'Big cousin' to the Chapman Stick and among the rarest of rare bird (as in weird) instruments... you're the only person I know (other than me) who ever heard of it. Zither meets clavichord in a portable form factor.  Even the Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for that puppy. Not even sure if it shows up on Google yet. (It didn't used to.) ;D

Didn't know about this Flint Blade however. The only Tapatar player I'm familiar with is a gent by the name of Michael Bianco. There's a video of him here playing something a little more up my alley than most stuff that gets performed on stick-type 'tap' instruments.

  8) :Thmbsup:
7867
Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me!
« Last post by 40hz on April 07, 2011, 08:54 AM »
Something I've become very interested in lately is the 3-string guitar.

But first, a confession: I'm not a big a fan of The Blues.

I know it's cool to like blues music. Some people almost grant it religious status. And a few countries (most notably the UK) have a long list of "blues" players (Clapton, Mayall, et al) whose devotion and admiration for the idiom borders on fetishistic.

Whatever...

Maybe because my primary instrument is electric bass, I get bored holding down a groove based on pentatonic scales and a I-IV-V chord progression. I'm sure it's a lot more fun to play blues if you're a guitarist. But as a bassist, I find it 'kinda boring' after a while. (Note: a great many bass players will disagree with me on that point.)

So while looking for a more interesting role for myself when musical friends gather to commit an act of Blues, I stumbled on something called the cigar box guitar. The CBG is an American folk instrument that was popular around the turn and early part of the 20th century (ca 1890 to 1930 approx), and extensively used in various blues forms, most notably Delta Blues.

This was the Poor Man's Martin. Put together with scraps of lumber, salvaged hardware, and a wooden cigar box for the body, they were both easy and cheap to build. Most had three strings and were hand made by people who knew as much about traditional guitar making as they did particle physics. But despite their humble trash bin origins, these instruments were capable of producing some amazing sounds. And in the hands of a real musician, were also capable of producing some superb music. Many big name blues guitarists, including B.B. King, have owned and played CBGs.

And they're still being built today.

CBG.jpg
Note the drain cover 'rosette,' the eyebolt 'bridge' and what I think are inverted cheese shaker lids for 'resonators.'



CBGs have enjoyed a bit of a renaissance over the last several years as more and more musicians are discovering just how unique and musical an instrument it is. So unique and musical that it even got me (closet bass snob extraordinaire) interested in the Blues for the first time in my life.

McNairThumb.jpg Here's a video put together by a CBG builder John McNair to demonstrate what you can do with one of these instruments. Link here.

(Note: Guitar people!  Check out that AXL AA-DSP-10 ThinAmp Portable Amplifier he plugs into. Amazing what $139 can get you assuming you can still find one of these terrific little amps! Check eBay since they're no longer being made last I heard.)

The CBG is probably the most common manifestation of the 3-string guitar. But other musicians, in keeping with the "found art" tradition of 3-string guitar building, have adapted the concept to whatever was at hand.

Enter Seasick Steve and his 3-string "Trance Wonder" guitar...

-Seasick Steve and the Three-String Trance Wonder

SEasick.jpg

Where would the three string be without Ol' SeaSick???? He is perhaps the most revered player who still graces the stage with his beat up 3 string and always leaves the crowd wanting more.

His sound is super ranchy, ultra primitive and distintly Southen in its flavor . His guitar is a generic unbranded guitar from Japan that has an old Harmony pickup added and is played tuned to G, G and B using an E string in the A position, a D in the G position and a G in the B position.

***

At his gigs, he often tells the story that he bought it for $75 in this condition in Como, Mississippi from a man named Sherman, who later told him he only paid $25 for it the day before. He vowed never to add another string, and that he would tour the world telling his story of how Sherman ripped him off. All in good fun as Sherman Cooper is a good buddy, who gave him the guitar having had it nailed to the wall as a decoration. A lot of the time he also adds (while picking up or putting away the guitar) that it is the "...biggest piece of shit in the world, I swear"....

from: http://www.3-string-guitar.com/

Watch Seasick and his Trance Wonder in action performing Cut My Wings here.

CutMyWings.jpg

Gotta love that homebrew box drum (with Mississippi license plate 'resonator') he stomps out the time on.  ;D Get one of those and you won't need a drummer.

There's a pile of other videos by him up on YouTube. Especially good is: I Started Out with Nothin' (And I still got most of it left!). Link here. For this he uses an ancient and equally beat-up god-knows-what POS 6-string that also sounds great. (Where does he find these things?)

If you like roots music (or maybe didn't think you did - like me) it's well worth checking out.

Fine music by a genuine musician. Recommended. :Thmbsup:


7868
Living Room / Re: What books are you reading?
« Last post by 40hz on April 06, 2011, 11:14 PM »
Just finished The Power Formula for LinkedIn Success by Wayne Breitbarth.

LinkeInforSuccess.jpg

Probably the best book I've seen for LinkedIn. Down to earth and very practical advice for using what is becoming the way to promote and manage your career if you're working (or planning on working) for someone.

And since most of us (including those who own their own businesses) work for someone, it's well worth the short time it takes to read this little book. Especially in these economically unstable times where all that separates many people from foreclosure is three paychecks.

I used to be a little skeptical of LinkedIn. I had seen far too many "professional networking opportunities" serve as nothing but an excuse for somebody to try and sell you something. And just as many networking "events" or "organizations" eventually degenerate into little more than an excuse to go out drinking and shoot the breeze. But I had a buddy, who was one of the early adopters, sing its praises. And he's a pretty savvy guy with as much tolerance for pointless conversation and alcohol-fueled socializing as I have. So on his recommendation I joined up, but neglected to stay on top of it. And I now suspect that was very much to my detriment. Because I'm just now discovering how useful a resource LinkedIn can be. And I've also started seeing some of its advertised benefits now that I'm actually using it.

So if you're just starting out as a recent college grad, you'll definitely want to look into LinkedIn. Ditto if you're looking to switch jobs.

An acquaintance of mine who handles corporate recruiting (i.e. a 'headhunter') told me that she's seeing the best and most interesting positions being offered/found through LinkedIn. As she put it: Nowadays pretty much any position you'd want to get will show up on LinkedIn first. Many of the big companies are doing the bulk of their recruiting and matchmaking through it. A few now exclusively go through LinkedIn for that purpose. If you want to do business with those companies, you'd better be a member.

Same goes for if you're looking to hire talent. Some of the best and brightest hang out their shingle on LinkedIn - and sometimes no place else.

If you do read the book, check out Chapter 19, which offers a roadmap for action that takes approximately two hours a week to do, and six weeks to complete.

Less than $12 from Amazon. Read it.

Note: If you're out of work - or totally broke - go sneak a skim-through in one of B&N's coffee shops. It's only 176 very fast-reading pages.

Just don't blow it and drop $4 on their overpriced coffee if you're trying to save money. ;)

7869
Living Room / Re: unboxing videos
« Last post by 40hz on April 06, 2011, 01:20 PM »
Unboxing videos are the tech equivalent of the Real World: Brooklyn TV show.  :down:

Great vid. Really sums it all up, doesn't it?

I particularly liked him chucking the instructions and frisbee-ing the CDs. ;D

 :Thmbsup:
7870
Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay
« Last post by 40hz on April 06, 2011, 01:11 PM »
Think maybe you'd like to get yourself one of these?

It sorta looks like an iPad  ;)

PleaseHelp.jpg

Kidding...just kidding...


---

+1 on ReadItLater. Terrific tool. I'd be lost without it. Liked it so much I sprung for the Digest option too.  :Thmbsup:

7871
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 05, 2011, 04:09 PM »
the effort that's involved would be pretty substantial for little benefit

I think that's only true if you're looking at it from a purely technical perspective.

What makes OC a bellweather is its asking us to accept that a piece of software - provided by a third party and totally unrelated to the main app's function - should be allowed to scan and transmit data back to that third party without announcing itself or getting the user's permission before doing so.

Regardless of whether or not it's been happening in other places, this has not generally been considered acceptable behavior for a legitimate software product. Truth is, stealth and operating without permission has always been considered more in keeping with malware and quasi-maleware behaviors.

And with venture capital backing and several prominent software developers signing onto OC, I think we really need to see this as a company attempting to change the definition of what is considered acceptable. If it wasn't trying to do this, it wouldn't be causing some anti-malware products to flag its behaviors as suspicious.

Whether or not it's malicious, by the way it operates, OC shares cultural and technical similarities with software that is potentially dangerous.

And while so-called false positives may damage a product's reputation unfairly, we also need to consider that most anti-malware detection is based of behavioral analysis. And to have a legitimate product display such behaviors by design - and then insist the anti-malware detection methodology needs to be changed to accommodate it - creates an even bigger problem when it comes to continuing to be able detect truly malicious code that operates in a similar manner except for the payload.

I'll risk a clumsy analogy to illustrate my point:

***

Suppose in a certain city, several of the most notorious and violent street gangs were easily identified by the fact they wore green fedora hats and drove a certain model van. The police were aware of this behavior, so it was relatively easy for them to spot the gangs and intervene whenever they were seen racing around in their vehicles or entering buildings at a a run.

Now suppose that the EMTs in this same city decided to also adopt green fedoras and begin driving similar looking vehicles.

Now the police have a much harder time identifying potential trouble and preventing it.

Are those two green fedora wearing guys who just ran into that building going in to put a hit on somebody or rob the place? Or are they just EMTs responding to an emergency call? And is that van that just flew down the road fleeing a crime scene - or is it attempting to get a stroke victim to an Emergency Room in time to save someone's life?

When the EMTs are asked to stop wearing green hats and get different vehicles, they refuse, claiming it's not they who are doing anything wrong.

And when an EMT unit is inevitably pulled over in error, the EMTs all demand that the police stop profiling them as if they were criminals - because again, it's not they who are doing anything wrong despite the fact their appearance and behavior demonstrates strong similarities to those who are.

In the wake of this, the police now have a much harder job zeroing in on potential trouble.

And as a result, they are not as effective as they used to be when dealing with a certain criminal element.

***

So while it may be a large effort for small gain, in the larger cultural and technical arena, having something work like OC introduces issues that could easily be avoided if it was implemented differently.

And that is something they are apparently refusing to do even though it shouldn't present much in the way of a technical challenge for them change their software.

Just my 2¢
 :)
7872
General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody)
« Last post by 40hz on April 05, 2011, 02:58 PM »
Like f0dder said: FUBAR, mate.

7873
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 05, 2011, 02:33 PM »
Trying to come up with a compromise that would suit both perspectives... Not sure if that would work.

Try to think "in principle" and not about OC. OC is just one example. There are others as well.

I think in light of what wraith808 was saying about how the DLL works in conjunction with the installer, it's kinda moot at this point. OC is active the minute the installer loads into RAM. No getting around it.

Probably the best you can do by way of compromise is go with your second idea where the installer splash screen directs the user to review the EULA for details about what OC is and what it's there for. (see below)

Less-cludgy.png

Beyond that, there's not much else you (as a developer-partner) can do with the way OC currently is set up to work. Or at least nothing short of deciding not to use OC at all.

Besides, if people can't be bothered to at least look at the EULA, there's little to be done for them. Much as it galls me to say it, that's the sad truth of the matter. And life is way too short to get super hung-up trying to help people who don't really care about what you're trying to help them with. It's just "horses to water" at that point..

Onward! :Thmbsup:

--------

P.S. Nice splash screen design BTW. Really like that camera graphic. :Thmbsup:

7874
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by 40hz on April 05, 2011, 02:18 PM »
I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? ;)).  At the time that this dialog would be accessed, the open candy dll would already be in memory.  There's no way around it.  The installers don't dynamically link the DLLs so that they only load them on demand.  They decompress the payload, put it in a temp directory, and run with the bootstrapper linked to the resources in that directory.

Yeah. This is where OC's real 'innovation' lies IMO.

And from my perspective, that's what makes it unacceptable.

I'd be happier if OC provided the partner developers with a full installer that the devs could load their application into rather than the other way around.

But I doubt that will ever happen for a variety of technical, legal, and business reasons.

As a result, I'm probably never going to be able to agree with OC that theirs is a proper and acceptable way to do things. Fortunately for them, it's not my opinion that controls the marketplace.

So no problem. It's their decision and their product. They can do things however they think best. And if people are willing to go along with it...well...so be it.

:)

7875
Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay
« Last post by 40hz on April 05, 2011, 01:59 PM »
Just wear a black trash bag, and keep chanting Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! ... Se we can blend in when they take over...

Ah yes! Tekeli-li...The Chant of the Elder Penguins - creators of Linux!

(Have to get a white apron to complete the ensemble however...)

 ;D

sleepyheadcthullu.jpg

Little Cthullu. Not dead. Not dreaming. Just sleepy!

Pages: prev1 ... 310 311 312 313 314 [315] 316 317 318 319 320 ... 470next