Photosynth on Firefox

Percocet.

Percocet. — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:37:44 GMT

How can i identify a percocet 10. Side effects of percocet. Percocet. Percocet dosage. Compare darvocet and percocet.

Hydrocodone for sale.

Hydrocodone. — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:52:23 GMT

How to make hydrocodone. Hydrocodone. Buy hydrocodone online consultation. Buy hydrocodone online. I can t quit taking hydrocodone while pregnant.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Ballmer hates the OS community — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:24:06 GMT

I don't think i'm saying anything new when i say that microsoft will never port this to linux. I also personally believe that it is not that difficult to create code that if not os agnostic, is at least os and porting aware. When you write code that is specifically designed to only ever run on one OS of course it will be difficult and expensive to port it. Of course that is to be expected from a company that openly threatens to sue linux from STEALING FROM THEM! (ie tabs anyone?)

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Ntas — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:15:18 GMT

teşekkürler işime yaradı..

[thanks!]

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Tim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:10:08 GMT

'afternoon all,

[I've tried to post this earlier; apologies if this comment appears twice].

This thread caught my eye, and set me looking for the source-code repository for this or other Port 25 projects. Alas I cannot find the repo, so can you please let me know what URL I should be using.

Thanks,

Tim.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

A year later — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:44:42 GMT

Over a year later and Photosynth is still Windows only. As a linux and OSX user, I wish I could have a look at Photosynth, but am sorely disappointed of the choice to exclude the non Windows XPSP2/Vista portion of the market. Any chance you care to share your potentially wonderful products with the rest of the world ?

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Sam Ramji — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:50:03 GMT

@MKR: An IRC-based discussion on interop is a great idea. We'll follow up on it. If you have specific ideas about how to do this, please send me a note at sramji@microsoft.com. Thanks again.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

davidmeyer — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:54:03 GMT

Sorry...I wasn't clear. FF is Open Source (as we all know). What I am saying is that there are ways to make this stuff happen. Look at the IE tab and Avantbrowser...both are using IE technology, so I have no doubt that the same thing could be accomplished with Photosynth.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

davidmeyer — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:26:41 GMT

You know this whole thread is quite interesting. I think the important thing though is that it is a fact that Windows is the world's most popular desktop OS. It took me a long time to admit that, but it is simply true, so we all need to get over it.

The fact that the Firefox people are working with Microsoft and Sam's team is absolutely, positively one of the best things that could ever happen, because when you have a browser that has taken the market by storm running and being actively developed for the #1 desktop OS is nothing but good, because Open Source is being promoted, and the general public gets to benefit. Open Source wins, and the public wins. I see nothing bad about this.

If you want this photosynth to work on Linux or Mac, that's why it is Open Source. Give it a crack. Not trying to be rude here, but Firefox had to start somewhere, and Windows seems to me to be the obvious choice. If Mac were the #1 desktop OS, I'd tell you that Mac would be the best choice.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

MKR — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:26:37 GMT

Sam: Is there any possibility of an open (but moderated) IRC-based discussion on the matter of interop? That's a very popular method of collaboration, so you might be able to get useful ideas and discussion about the OSSL's direction since people are more comfortable with it.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Sam Ramji — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:46:56 GMT

@MKR: Thank you for your level, clear, and professional approach. This is exactly the way to help us do the right thing. It starts with constructive, specific dialogue and I appreciate your comments.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

Sam Ramji — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:46:47 GMT

@jwelch: do you understand the engineering required to do what you are talking about? OS X is a single platform - based on FreeBSD and the Mach kernel, with a lot of additional engineering - for which a single adapter can be written. Linux distributions vary widely in their support for different APIs and have different configuration models, etc. which require individual adapters to be built for each. The scale and specificity is high - Centrify for example has to ship 60 (sixty) different adapters in order to meet customer requirements.

These solutions require hard engineering and are shipped by our partners today: Quest (Vintella), Centrify, and Centeris. We support these partners and I am proud to run their software in my lab.

Typically, the same people who make the comments you have made here ("MS should build all this software") will say at the same time "MS burns their partners". Can you see the paradox here?

If you think there is a strong business case to be made that customers would prefer these solutions directly from MS, I'm interested. If you have specific suggestions about a lowest-common-denominator approach that would solve the basic problem but not put our partners at risk, I'm interested in that, too.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

jwelch@bynkii.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:48:55 GMT

MKR, the iPod is the worst possible example of how Microsoft isn't the only one.

How many non-windows Platforms can you run Windows Media Player on and have *full* functionality?

Zero.

Where's WMP 10/11 for Linux or Mac OS X?

Yeah. Exactly.

How many other players besides the Zune can you play Zune tracks on?

Zero

How many !Windows platforms does the Zune software run on?

Zero.

At least iTunes runs on Windows too.

Such a bad example to use for your point.

As well, hypotheticals are meaningless. What Apple would or would not do with 90% share is not only immaterial, but a strawman. That's some other reality.

In THIS reality, I'm still waiting for Microsoft to actually DO something. Seriously...there's exactly one division in Microsoft that has regularly done anything with regard to interop: The Mac BU.

Other than that, you have SFU, which is a migration tool more than anything, and then some half-arsed attempts.

When I see *results*, consistent results that are supported and updated regularly, not left to die, (AFP 2.2 - only support in SFM comes to mind) or never exist outside of a science project beta, (Active X on !Windows), then I'll take Microsoft's "commitment to interop" as something more than PR spending their budget before the end of the Fiscal Year.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

MKR — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:50:22 GMT

Oh, I'm not saying they don't have a record that's so full of spots that it could block the sun. I think their business practices have been quite slimy and disreputable.

Remember - Microsoft is a business. If they get enough customers telling them it's important to make a profit from it, they'll do it.

It's the same with Apple. If apple had a dominant market position, they wouldn't be so concerned with interop. All you need to do is look at the iPod for evidence. How many non-iPod players do iTunes-bought tracks work on? Precisely zero.

I'm actually surprised that Microsoft has gone as far as they have. They've paid nearly a half billion to Novell and Port25 likely costs money to run. They could have spent $0 and still dominated the market for years to come.

re: Photosynth on Firefox

jwelch@bynkii.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:19:29 GMT

Okay

Go get a copy of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server.

See the Active Directory Integration that Apple has done?

Let's see Microsoft do that for linux, with a decent UI, decent command line tools, and a howto that works without googling for days. Install, configure, and bam, you've got Single - Signon for Active Directory resources from Linux. The software would run on the client.

It would require NO modifications to the AD schema, no installation of additional software on the Windows side.