No favorite files added yet
2010-05-09 Beta (May 10, 2010)
This is a great codec pack, but I'm tired of the betas. K-Lite makes new *final* releases faster than CCCP comes out with betas. Is a fast release cycle inherently a plus? No. But K-Lite seems to manage it without messing anything up the vast majority of the time (there have been a few hiccups in the past, but quickly corrected), and this helps them keep up-to-date on fixes, performance enhancements, etc. This is especially important as some things have changed with Win7 vs. Vista and, as far as I recall, CCCP hasn't had a release since Win7 came out, or at least a follow-up release to fix any Win7-related issues. Are there such issues? Yes, some. Rendering method defaults are generally advised to change, for example.
188.8.131.52 (Jun 16, 2008)
A definite improvement over OO.org. Load times are only slightly faster, so don't get your hopes up too much, but the added format support (particularly .wps, still an all-too-common format) is great and seems to work well. The promised improved form controls seem to be present, but are still not fully compatible with MS Office equivalents (at least not from Office 2000). The look has also been improved with more modern-looking icons. The only downside is that it's based on OO.org 2.4 so you can't easily have it installed alongside standard 2.4 (the current main branch release), nor does it gain the (potentially significant) benefits of the upcoming (and now in beta) OO.org 3.0. I'm very much hoping these guys roll their changes into a 3.0 branch. If so I'd switch over to this version full-time, enterprise-wide.
20080611 Test (Jun 16, 2008)
Kaspersky's effective antivirus in a bootable rescue disk? And free to boot? Sounds like a deal!
20080611 Test (Apr 24, 2011 - 5:36 PM)
I agree 100%, it's time for the unbundled revolution. Here's the thing (and you touched on it in your article Joe): I think this would in the long run be better not just for consumers but also for cable companies. Consider benefits like more targeted advertising (which you mentioned), better demographic and viewership data, potential for higher quality (marketing point), and cutting out a few middlemen. I wrote up a long forum post about this on Donation Coder a while back: http://www.donationcoder...772.msg215808#msg215808
One of your best posts in months Joe.
20080611 Test (Dec 1, 2010 - 10:59 PM)
Yeesh, more Wilcox FUD. Your alternative to Google's services, the vast majority of which offer good import *and* export support so you can easily migrate, is to move to Facebook where it's a lot harder (by your own admission) to get things out? And what services does FB actually replace of Google's? Photos maybe? Email, with their new unified communications platform? Maybe, but I wouldn't trust them any more than Google, realistically a lot less. They have in fact shown themselves to be much more readily "evil" than Google. And iPhone is your solution to being on a "less evil" platform? Really? There's more control, less ability to migrate away, less customizability, less personalization. The device itself is less yours than most - if not all - Android devices. Really Joe, your arguments aren't even self-consistent, much less *logical*.
As for "free" being such an issue, apparently you forget that this is not a new business model, it's been around for more than 100 years. Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, all are based in part or in whole on "free". This is just a new delivery model for free, and one that just happens to be more efficient, customizable, powerful, etc. Yes, the advertising gets smarter as the systems get smarter, but that may not be such a bad thing. If you care to read a bit more of what I've said on this topic take a look at this thread on Donation Coder:
20080611 Test (Apr 20, 2010 - 8:30 PM)
Dear Betanews owner/editor, you clearly have two authors (Joe and Carmi) who quite often - perhaps more often than not - overlap in their interests and the stories they write and cover. One is clearly the better author, and the lesser crap-stirrer. While it's theoretically interesting to see two sides of a debate, when presented consistently by the same site, it can seem schizophrenic. Worse than that, like today, is when their posts have essentially the same subject, just with a slightly different spin based on the author. I say, pick one or the other. Joe certainly writes a lot, about the same thing, over and over (and over) again. But I'm not sure that recommends his work. Carmi isn't always spot-on, but he's a better writer and better contributor. I say make a decision and stop wasting site space with meaningless duplicate reporting and head-butting opinion pieces.
P.S. Sorry Carmi for hijacking your article comments. ;)
20080611 Test (Apr 12, 2010 - 1:23 PM)
Apple already has a well-proven and itself rather stringent, byzantine, some might even say draconian app approval process. An app will not get approved for being a crummy app, no matter how it's written. I don't see the need for additional *arbitrary* restrictions. What matters in the end is the quality of the apps, as Steve himself is saying. It should be left to the developer to create a quality app however they see fit, and if it's good enough to pass Apple's review, then it gets into the iPhone store. Period. Practically speaking, if you buy Steve's line about quality, they shouldn't care about how it's coded.
Now I get *why* they do, but the reasoning is disingenuous. This is a move designed purely to stifle cross-platform development and make developers choose between iPhone and other major platforms, with the bet being that they'll choose iPhone first, and port to the other systems. Unfortunately it might be a safe bet right now.
20080611 Test (Mar 15, 2010 - 1:38 PM)
Mmm, nice. First article on BN in a long time that I have no problem agreeing with wholeheartedly. Well said Mr. Levy.