web-archive-it.com » IT » C » CONECTA.IT

Total: 359

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • 22 « April « 2011 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    this provided the basic groundwork and seed code for the project Many KDE contributors have also contributed to WebKit since it became an independent project with plans that it would be used in KDE as well This has included work on initially developing the Qt port as well as developing the original code KSVG2 that provides WebKit s SVG support and subsequent maintenance of that code Apple Apple employees have contributed the majority of work on WebKit since it became an independent project Apple uses WebKit for Safari on Mac OS X iPhone and Windows on the former two it is also a system framework and used by many other applications Apple s contribution has included extensive work on standards compliance Web compatibility performance security robustness testing infrastructure and development of major new features Collabora Collabora has worked on several improvements to the Qt and GTK ports since 2007 including NPAPI plugins support and general API design and implementation Collabora currently supports the development of the GTK port its adoption by GNOME projects such as Empathy and promotes its usage in several client projects Nokia Nokia s involvement with the WebKit project started with a port to the S60 platform for mobile devices The S60 port exists in a branch of the public WebKit repository along with various changes to better support mobile devices To date it has not been merged to the mainline However a few changes did make it in including support for CSS queries In 2008 Nokia acquired Trolltech Trolltech has an extensive history of WebKit contributions most notably the Qt port Google Google employees have contributed code to WebKit as part of work on Chrome and Android both originally secret projects This has included work on portability bug fixes security improvements and various other contributions Torch Mobile Torch Mobile uses WebKit in the Iris Browser and has contributed significantly to WebKit along the way This has included portability work bug fixes and improvements to better support mobile devices Torch Mobile has ported WebKit to Windows CE Mobile other undisclosed platforms and maintains the QtWebKit git repository Several long time KHTML and WebKit contributors are employed by Torch Mobile Nuanti Nuanti engineers contribute to WebCore JavaScriptCore and in particular develop the WebKit GTK port This work includes porting to new mobile and embedded platforms addition of features and integration with mobile and desktop technologies in the GNOME stack Nuanti believes that working within the framework of the webkit org version control and bug tracking services is the best way of moving the project forward as a whole Igalia Igalia is a free software consultancy company employing several core developers of the GTK port with contributions including bugfixing performance accessibility API design and many major features It also provides various parts of the needed infrastructure for its day to day functioning and is involved in the spread of WebKit among its clients and in the GNOME ecosystem for example leading the transition of the Epiphany web browser to

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2011/04/22/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive


  • 22 « March « 2011 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    files ifndef HCI LIB H define HCI LIB H ifdef cplusplus endif ifdef cplusplus endif static inline int hci test bit int nr void addr return uint32 t addr nr 5 1 nr 31 endif or for something longer ifndef RFCOMM H define RFCOMM H ifdef cplusplus endif include sys socket h define RFCOMM DEFAULT MTU 127 define RFCOMM PSM 3 define RFCOMM CONN TIMEOUT HZ 30 define RFCOMM DISC TIMEOUT HZ 20 define RFCOMM CONNINFO 0x02 define RFCOMM LM 0x03 define RFCOMM LM MASTER 0x0001 define RFCOMM LM AUTH 0x0002 define RFCOMM LM ENCRYPT 0x0004 define RFCOMM LM TRUSTED 0x0008 define RFCOMM LM RELIABLE 0x0010 define RFCOMM LM SECURE 0x0020 define RFCOMM MAX DEV 256 define RFCOMMCREATEDEV IOW R 200 int define RFCOMMRELEASEDEV IOW R 201 int define RFCOMMGETDEVLIST IOR R 210 int define RFCOMMGETDEVINFO IOR R 211 int define RFCOMM REUSE DLC 0 define RFCOMM RELEASE ONHUP 1 define RFCOMM HANGUP NOW 2 define RFCOMM TTY ATTACHED 3 ifdef cplusplus endif struct sockaddr rc sa family t rc family bdaddr t rc bdaddr uint8 t rc channel endif What can we say of that They contain interfaces definitions constants that are imposed by compatibility or efficiency reasons For this reason they are not copyrightable or more properly would be excluded in the standard test for copyright infringement in the abstraction filtration test In fact it would not be possible to guarantee compatibility without such an expression But Florian guesses the authors put a copyright notice on top That means that it must be copyrighted In fact he claims The fact that such notices are added to header files shows that the authors of the programs in question consider the headers copyrightable Also without copyright there s no way to put material under a license such as the GPL Actually it s simply not true I can take something add in the beginning a claim of copyright but that does not imply that I have a real copyright on that Let s imagine that I write a file containing one number and put a c notice on top Do I have a copyright on that number No because the number is not copyrightable itself The same for the headers included before to test for copyright infringement you must first remove all material that is forced for standard compatibility then Scenes a Faire a principle in copyright law that says that certain elements of a creative work are not protected when they are mandated by or customary for an environment then code that cannot be alternatively expressed for performance reasons What is left is potential copyright infringement Now let s apply the test to the code I have pasted What is left Nothing Which is why up to now most of the commentators that are working on the kernel mentioned that this was also just a big large interesting but ultimately useless debate In fact in the BlueZ group the same view was presented include bluetooth bluetooth h is only

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2011/03/22/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 14 « February « 2011 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    useful you need real search capabilities or some sort of manual suggestion like social features I like it or whatever App stores are starting to get it but they are insulated from the web which means that they are unable to harness the vast multifaceted amount of information created by tweeters bloggers journalists and pundits that watch and evaluate almost everything on the web Discovery is now barely possible in a store with 100k apps as things evolve it will become even more difficult In a world of web applications well this problem returns to a very solvable problem of finding something on the web Ask Google Bing Baidu Yandex or more intelligent systems like Wolfram Alpha they all seem to manage it quite well App updates one very useful thing is the ability of an app store to send notifications of new apps and help users in having all the update process done simply and in a single place This is of course quite useful just don t claim that it is a novelty or any YUM or APT user will jump straight at your neck but again is totally irrelevant in a world of web apps the app will just check for a new version in case it uses persistent storage for caching JavaScript and includes or simply go straight to the website of the application publisher This also resolves the friction introduced by the app approval process in current App Stores you submit it and then pray If an update is urgent for example for a security fix you just have to try as much as possible to speed it up it is not up to the developer anyway App backups in a world of apps app backups are a great idea In a world of web

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2011/02/14/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 19 « January « 2011 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    profile the end result is that especially with the maturing of command line tools and the emergence of third party encoders like Sorenson we can safely say that WebM is or can be on the same quality level of H264 WebM is a patent risk I already wrote in my past article that it is clear that most design decisions in the original On2 encoder and decoder were made to avoid preexisting patents curiously most commenters used this to demonstrate that WebM is technically inferior while highlighting the potential risk anyway By going through the H264 essential patent list however I found that in the US that has the highest number of covered patents there are 164 non expired patents of which 31 specific to H264 advanced deblocking not used in WebM 34 related to CABAC CAVAC not used in WebM 16 on the specific bytecode stream syntax substituted with Matroska 45 specific to AVC The remaining ones are to a cursory reading not overlapping with WebM specific technologies at least as they are implemented in the libvpx library as released by Google there is no guarantee that patented technologies are not added to external third party implementations Of course there may be patent claims on Matroska or any other part of the encoding decoding pair but probably not from MPEG LA WebM is not open enough Dark Shikari commented with some humor of the poor state of the WebM standard basically the source code itself This is not so unusual in the video coding world with many pre standards basically described through their code implementations If you follow the history of ISO MPEG standards for video coding you will find many submissions based on a few peer reviewed articles source code and a short word document describing what it does this is then replaced by well written well most of the time documents detailing every and all the nooks and crannies of the standard itself No such thing is available for WebM and this is certainly a difficulty on the other hand and having been part for a few years of the italian ISO JTC1 committee I can certainly say that it is not such a big hurdle many technical standards are implemented even before ratification and structuring and if the discussion forum is open there is certainly enough space for finding any contradictions or problems On the other hand the evolution of WebM is strictly in the hand of Google and in this sense it is true that the standard is not open in the sense that there is a third party entity that manages its evolution H264 is not so encumbered and is free anyway Ah the beauty of people reading only the parts that they like from licensing arrangements H264 playback is free only for non commercial use whatever it is of video that is web distributed and freely accessible Period It is true that the licensing fees are not so high but they are incompatible

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2011/01/19/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 06 « December « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    in the ecosystem the professional model is aimed at big enterprises with large scale client licensing and support emphasis mine The question is is MS interested in an OSS business model The answer we already give out things for free Well we can probably thank Richard Stallman for his insistence in the use of the word free but the answer miss the mark substantially OSS is not about having something for free and it never was at least from the point of view of the researcher OSS is about collaborative development as evidenced in a recent post by Henrik Ingo The state of MySQL forks co operating without co operating being open source allowed the creation of an ecosystem of companies that cooperate while being more or less competitors and not only this fact increases the viability of a product even as its main developer in this case Oracle changes its plans but allows for the integration of features that are coming from outside the company as Henrik wrote HandlerSocket is in my opinion the greatest MySQL innovation since the addition of InnoDB both developed outside of MySQL Microsoft still uses the idea of free as a purely economic competition while I see OSS as a way to allow for far faster development and improvement of a product And at least I have some academic results that point out that actually a live and active project do improve faster than comparable proprietary projects That s the difference not price that may be lower or not as RedHat demonstrates it is competition on value and speed of change Ah by the way SugarCRM despite being a nice company with a nice CEO is not 100 open source since that by definition would mean that all code and all releases are under

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/12/06/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 12 « December « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    in Iraq I wrote a description here and the source code was requested in writing during 2009 I am indebted to Richard Nelson the real hero of such a great effort for creating such a large scale release that I hope will spur additional interest and contributions I believe that I m the only European licensee up to now The source code is available at the SourceForge mirror http sourceforge net projects disa oscimis NASA CODES One of my oldest collection and recovered by pure chance Many years ago we used to order CDs with source code on it would you imagine it How victorian since downloading them through our 14 4KBaud modems would have required too much time So I ordered the Walnut Creek CD archive of the NASA COSMIC source code archive a collection of public domain codes mostly in Fortran for things like Aeroelastic Analysis for Rotorcraft in Flight or in a Wind Tunnel They are mostly obsolete but since COSMIC was turned into a money making enterprise that requires quite a substantial amount of money I enjoy the idea of providing an access to the original codes The entire list of software descriptions is available here and the codes are browsable at http code google com p nasa cosmic source browse svn trunk Symbian Ah symbian I already wrote about the high and lows of the Symbian OSS project and since Nokia plans to shut down everything and make the source code accessible only through a direct request for an USB key or DVD I though that an internet accessible archive would have been more modern It is a substantial massive archive I had to drop all Mercurial additions to make it fit in the space I had available and still it amounts to 6 1Gb

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/12/12/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 13 « December « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than traditional thin client backends or VDI It is true that not all apps are web applications but I believe that Google is making a bet based on the great uptake of modern web toolkits javascript and metacompilers like GWT For those apps that cannot be replaced Citrix is providing a very nice implementation of their Receiver app giving a full uncompromised user experience directly in the browser Let s consider what advantages does this approach bring to the enterprise Activation you don t need an engineer to deploy a ChromeOS machine Actually anyone can do it and without the need for any complex deployment server initial authentication or activation keys It works everywhere there is a form of connectivity and as soon as you have completed it your desktop environment is ready with all the links and apps already in place It means no need for large helpdesks a limited support line is sufficient no need to fiddle with apps or virtualization desktop layers you can do it from an hotel room everywhere you are Your machine stop working You activate another Management There is no machine management all activities are based on the login identity and machines are basically shells that provide the execution capabilities It means that things like hardware and software inventories will not be necessary anymore along with patch deployment app supervision and all those nice enterprise platform management things that add quite a lot of money to the IT licensing budgeted costs Security Since there are no additional apps installable it is much easier to check for compliance and security You basically have to log every web transaction on your web app which is fairly easy There is still one area that is uncovered actually not covered in any current commercial operating system that is information labelling and I will mention it later in the still to do area So basically ChromeOS tries to push a model of computation that is based on something like 90 of apps as web based applications that use local resources for computation and the browser as the main interface and the remaining 10 through bitmap remotization like Citrix I bet that it will not take much time to see VMware View as well To fulfil this scenario Google still needs quite some work They need to find a way to bring ChromeOS to more machines If the enterprise already has its own PCs they will not throw them out of the window The ideal thing would be to make it a bootable USB image like we did for our own EveryDesk or make an embeddable image like SplashTop The amount of reinvention of the wheel that is coming with ChromeOS is actually appalling come on we did most of those things year ago Google has to substantially improve management of the individual ChromeOS data and app instances There must be a way for an enterprise to allow for remote control

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/12/13/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 05 « November « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    from Sebastian von Engelhardt and Stephen M Maurer that you can find in all its glory here I will try to dissect some of the claims that are hidden in the paper and that for example push the authors towards imposing a fixed lump sum tax on OS firms and using the proceeds to subsidize their proprietary software competitors I think that Microsoft would love that a tax on RedHat Google IBM What can be more glorious than that I will pinpoint some of the most evident problems For this reason the emergence of fundamentally new open source OS methods for producing software in the 1990s surprised and delighted observers Actually as I wrote for example here the tradition of collaborative development of software far predates Stallman and Raymond and was the norm along with the creation of user more appropriately developer groups like SHARE Society to Help Avoid Redundant Efforts founded in 1955 and centered on IBM systems and DECUS for Digital Equipment computers and later for HP systems both still alive Code was also commonly shared in academic journals like the famous Algorithms column of the Communications of the ACM journal It was the emergence of the shrinkwrapped software market in the eighties that changed this approach and introduced the closed approach where only the software firm produces software This is actually an illusion in Europe the market for shrinkwrapped software is only 19 of the total software services marker with own developed software at 29 We will return upon this number later This made it natural to ask whether OS could drastically improve welfare compared to CS At first this was only an intuition Early explanations of OS were either ad hoc altruism or downright mysterious e g a post modern gift economy Raymond 1999 Absent a clear model of OS no one could really be certain how much software the new incentive could deliver let alone whether social welfare would best be served by OS CS or some mix of the two Argh I understand the fact that my papers are not that famous but there are several excellent works that show that OSS is about the economics of production and not politics ideology or gif economies economists showed that real world OS collaborations rely on many different incentives such as education signaling and reputation See No economic incentives People collaborate to show their prowess or improve their education Actually this applies only to half of the OSS population since the other half is paid to work on OSS something that the article totally ignores We model the choice between OS and CS as a two stage game In Stage 1 profit maximizing firms decide between joining an OS collaboration or writing CS code for their own use In Stage 2 they develop a complementary product for example a DVD player or computer game whose performance depends on the code The firms then sell the bundled products in markets that include one or more competitors So

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/11/05/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive