In the wake of the latest round of Microsoft’s layoffs, it seems apropos
to remember the time they held a mock funeral for their competition at
the time of the Windows Phone 7 launch:
“Research firm Gartner predicted ... Nokia Symbian and Google
Android [would be] first and second with 30.2 percent and
29.6 percent [market share] respectively [in 2014].”
Did anybody notice any Symbian phones still on sale? Android had more
I’ve been using FFmpeg for years. I always built it from source,
because I was aware that prebuilt distro packages were 1) well behind
the latest development tree, and 2) likely to leave out features
because of patent issues.
So I hardly noticed the whole Libav fork issue
<https://lwn.net/Articles/433347/>. I was dimly aware that my Debian
system had these “libav” packages on it, that looked and behaved just
like FFmpeg in everything but name. But I hardly ever used them—not
Then, last year, I found out a bit more about what really happened
<https://lwn.net/Articles/607591/>, and why Debian went with the fork.
Can you say “conflict of interest”? (Well, that’s how it looks like to
So now, Debian has officially decided to return to the original FFmpeg
'Amazon has announced a new library called "s2n," an open source
implementation of SSL/TLS, the cryptographic security protocols behind
HTTPS, SSH, SFTP, secure SMTP, and many others. Weighing in at about
6k lines of code, it's just a little more than 1% the size of OpenSSL,
which is really good news in terms of security auditing and testing.
OpenSSL isn't going away, and Amazon has made clear that they will
continue to support it. Notably, s2n does not provide all the
additional cryptographic functions that OpenSSL provides in libcrypto,
it only provides the SSL/TLS functions. Further more, it implements a
relatively small subset of SSL/TLS features compared to OpenSSL.'
-- source: http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/07/01/0214248
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Waikato, NZ
+64 (7) 858-5174
It still seems to be common among groups outside the computing and
scientific worlds to talk about “GMT” rather than “UTC”. The trouble
with “GMT” is that it doesn’t seem to be clearly defined; it might or
might not differ from UTC by up to 0.9 seconds.
The (unadjusted) time reference defined by an official collection of
atomic clocks worldwide is called “TAI”. This pays no heed to the
slowing rotation of the Earth. Astronomers prefer a time reference
called “UT1”, which is based on the actual rotation of the Earth
(subject to some time-averaging, I think). The definition of “UTC” comes
from TAI, adjusted by applying leap seconds. These accumulate as needed
so as to keep UTC within 0.9 seconds of UT1, and we are currently up to
36 of them. That is, at 0:00:00 UTC today, TAI was actually 0:00:36.
The trouble with GMT is that it is not officially clear whether it is
the same as UT1, or the same as UTC. Given that it was originally
defined at the Greenwich Observatory, which was (is?) run by
astronomers, one would think they would make it the same as UT1. But
the practical fact is, our usual everyday timekeeping is based on
standard time zones, which are all defined as whole-second
(indeed, whole multiples of a half-hour) offsets from UTC.