Can you say the same for millions of other people? Yeah, I thought so. This is not about you or any other sane people think or do when shit hits the fan. It's about those clueless millions who don't know better.
There will be a warning on the back of the box, in small fonts. Nobody reads that. Especially soccer moms, rednecks and 13 year olds representing the main audience of Xbox 360 and the next Xbox console.
Boycotts don't work, educate yourself.
Boycotts don't work when you're boycotting an entire industry. I'm talking about all the big publishers colluding with the console makers to create an always online future. What the hell do you do against that? Do you stop playing console games? Do you return to PC gaming, but only play indie games and pirated stuff? Do you abandon video games as a hobby? What do you think other people will do? How long do you think other boycotters will last until giving in to the dark side? If things get better in terms of server issues, will this soften your stance? Will you be able to continue your boycott on moral grounds only, such as "always online is evil"?
Sony said there won't be any hardware restriction for used games and always online. But they'll grant publishers free reign on always online in software. This way, it will look like the Sony had nothing to do with this. Then, because Sony is also a big publisher, they'll also require always online for their own games, citing the fact all other publishers are doing it. Welcome to an always online world.
Microsoft knows and abuses their user base. For example, all Xbox Live game servers are hosted by players. These players pay a yearly fee to MS, so that MS will grant them the privilege of hosting these servers and playing against other players. MS is basically getting free money.
Rednecks who don't know better; Call of Duty dudebros; 13 year olds with gullible soccer moms - these are all people don't give a shit about always online and represent the core audience of the Xbox brand. They'll buy the next console without asking questions and they'll create the critical mass MS and publishers need in order to push always online.
People who hope the PS4 will save us from always online are naive. Always online has always been the publishers' wet dream. They've been pushing for this for years. At the very least, MS and Sony will implement mechanisms so that any publisher will be able to impose the always online requirement for their games. And remember, MS and Sony are also publishers, and they're quite big publishers. Where do you expect people to go once all games released by Activision, EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft and others will all require always online? How will you fight a cartel in its own walled garden?
Blizzard games, Steam games, even the dreaded SimCity sell tens of millions of copies each year, despite the various types of (partially) always online requirements. Always online is here to stay and there's nothing you can do, because of the massive amount of people who will gobble this up without thinking twice.
Hundreds and thousands of years from now, people who made the first moon landing possible will live on through the name of Mr. Armstrong, who will continue to appear in the history books.
Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.
His career is over, and this is how it should be. Plagiarism is very hard to find and prove, but once there's no more doubt, heads roll. It's the only way to send a clear message to the ones who haven't been caught yet or who simply toy with the idea of doing it.
Most of this has been the work of Jacob Appelbaum, core member of the Tor project. He is the one who investigated the fraudulent certificates and it's a fascinating detective story.
All this time spent on the Martian surface and they're starting to dig now? What were they doing all this time?
I mean, how hard can it be to extend that arm and just dump some dust in the test chamber? It certainly can't take so many days to do it.
Of course you can set up your own repository, but having multiple software sources != decentralized package management. The package manager has to be aware of everything installed on the system in order to keep a (as in, only one) sane database. That means centralized. Also, the user is relying on various other individuals / organizations not only to offer sane, valid packages, but to guarantee that different combinations of those packages do not result in breakage. That, again, also means centralized.
Not using repositories makes life much easier. Software can be wrapped with all the dependencies in a container and be deployed, installed, removed, upgraded as needed. More or less like a sandbox environment. As a counter-example, the official way to get Firefox 2 on Ubuntu 6.0 LTS is to upgrade the WHOLE OS to the next release. Same is going to happen with the current stable release and Firefox 3. I find this laughable.
Look at Windows XP and then tell me people who use it don't just love the fact that they can run binaries 6 years old on it. Ubuntu is not even backwards compatible with itself, as most packages can't run on the previous release, and the cycle is only 6 months long! You call that stability?
In repository-based operating systems there's no line between the OS and the applications, other that the fact that the installation media happens to include *some* software from the repositories. Is this modularity? Granularity, maybe, but not modularity, and certainly not flexibility, as the user is confined to the existing repos - and if the release is stable, the repos are frozen - good luck with those new features you need.
So how do people solve it? By using third party repositories and risking a breakage of the system, by compiling software - and we all know compiled software is non-existing software for binary package managers; actually, people who can compile their packages don't really have to use binaries - therefore if the need to compile arises, the binary package manager has failed its job.
Repositories are, IMHO, just a lame excuse lazy developers have found for not doing their jobs till the end and compile their own fucking software. And because they are that lazy and ignorant (we all know the disdain for backwards compatibility FOSS developers have - "if it doesn't work, upgrade to the latest version"), a new species had to appear: the package maintainer. Yet another layer of complexity, yet another layer of bureaucracy. And yet you thrive in this kind of "social" organization? To quote a Vortigaunt in HL2, what next in the parade of constant obstacles?
I guess I'll go back to my world, where the developers are directly responsible in front of the users for the software they make, AND package.
Or perhaps Ubuntu should change their policy, making it so that users just need to visit the developer's site, download and install the software, without relying upon repositories anymore. Yeah, like in Windows. Or like in Mac OS X.
IMHO, this whole centralized, repositories-based way of getting things done just sucks.
Consider that, from a logical perspective, VALUE(right to vote) == SUM{[IMPACT(act of voting)]/[(COST(act of voting)]}.
Would you like some fries with that elitism?
Re:when will you allow image posting?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
I'm a regular slash-head and/b/tard at the same time. I have always asked myself why do I find these two sites so similar. Is it because of the memes? Is it because of the similarity between subcultures? Or trolls? Honestly, I enjoy reading Slashdot, I like to watch smart, rational people discussing things related to technology, or privacy or whatever. Then I suddenly feel the urge to brainwash myself in the shithole that is 4chan's/b/. It's like these two sites complement each other.
Anyone feeling the same?
I totally concur on ACDSee. Really, I've been using the same version since 2002 or so. It's ACDSee 3.1 and can still be found here.
Back in the day I used to have an ongoing debate with a friend, a small "vi vs emacs" religious war, about what's better and resource friendlier: ACDSee or IrfanView. While IrfanView has managed to stay bloat-free, ACDSee is exactly the opposite today. I tried IrfanView but I just can't give up the keyboard shortcuts and the functionality of ACDSee 3.1 that I got used to over the years. And it STILL displays everything.
People who upload music are supposed to have permission from the copyright holder. That means 98% of the mainstream music hosted on their site has been uploaded without permission.
No, seriously, this site is just as legal as YouTube.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you say the same for millions of other people? Yeah, I thought so. This is not about you or any other sane people think or do when shit hits the fan. It's about those clueless millions who don't know better.
Wow, you're naive.
Sony said there won't be any hardware restriction for used games and always online. But they'll grant publishers free reign on always online in software. This way, it will look like the Sony had nothing to do with this. Then, because Sony is also a big publisher, they'll also require always online for their own games, citing the fact all other publishers are doing it. Welcome to an always online world.
Microsoft knows and abuses their user base. For example, all Xbox Live game servers are hosted by players. These players pay a yearly fee to MS, so that MS will grant them the privilege of hosting these servers and playing against other players. MS is basically getting free money.
Rednecks who don't know better; Call of Duty dudebros; 13 year olds with gullible soccer moms - these are all people don't give a shit about always online and represent the core audience of the Xbox brand. They'll buy the next console without asking questions and they'll create the critical mass MS and publishers need in order to push always online.
People who hope the PS4 will save us from always online are naive. Always online has always been the publishers' wet dream. They've been pushing for this for years. At the very least, MS and Sony will implement mechanisms so that any publisher will be able to impose the always online requirement for their games. And remember, MS and Sony are also publishers, and they're quite big publishers. Where do you expect people to go once all games released by Activision, EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft and others will all require always online? How will you fight a cartel in its own walled garden?
Blizzard games, Steam games, even the dreaded SimCity sell tens of millions of copies each year, despite the various types of (partially) always online requirements. Always online is here to stay and there's nothing you can do, because of the massive amount of people who will gobble this up without thinking twice.
Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky would be proud.
Also, please say hi to Mr. Gagarin for us.
Hundreds and thousands of years from now, people who made the first moon landing possible will live on through the name of Mr. Armstrong, who will continue to appear in the history books. Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.
His career is over, and this is how it should be. Plagiarism is very hard to find and prove, but once there's no more doubt, heads roll. It's the only way to send a clear message to the ones who haven't been caught yet or who simply toy with the idea of doing it.
I really hope they'll make the auto-updates more aggressive, like Chrome does. Otherwise, the Firefox market share will become excessively fragmented.
Most of this has been the work of Jacob Appelbaum, core member of the Tor project. He is the one who investigated the fraudulent certificates and it's a fascinating detective story.
Is Freenet ready? What do you mean they're still coding it in Java?
Actually, what you said has already been summed up in the so called ladder theory.
All this time spent on the Martian surface and they're starting to dig now? What were they doing all this time? I mean, how hard can it be to extend that arm and just dump some dust in the test chamber? It certainly can't take so many days to do it.
Unfortunately, I was not sarcastic.
Of course you can set up your own repository, but having multiple software sources != decentralized package management. The package manager has to be aware of everything installed on the system in order to keep a (as in, only one) sane database. That means centralized. Also, the user is relying on various other individuals / organizations not only to offer sane, valid packages, but to guarantee that different combinations of those packages do not result in breakage. That, again, also means centralized.
Not using repositories makes life much easier. Software can be wrapped with all the dependencies in a container and be deployed, installed, removed, upgraded as needed. More or less like a sandbox environment. As a counter-example, the official way to get Firefox 2 on Ubuntu 6.0 LTS is to upgrade the WHOLE OS to the next release. Same is going to happen with the current stable release and Firefox 3. I find this laughable.
Look at Windows XP and then tell me people who use it don't just love the fact that they can run binaries 6 years old on it. Ubuntu is not even backwards compatible with itself, as most packages can't run on the previous release, and the cycle is only 6 months long! You call that stability?
In repository-based operating systems there's no line between the OS and the applications, other that the fact that the installation media happens to include *some* software from the repositories. Is this modularity? Granularity, maybe, but not modularity, and certainly not flexibility, as the user is confined to the existing repos - and if the release is stable, the repos are frozen - good luck with those new features you need.
So how do people solve it? By using third party repositories and risking a breakage of the system, by compiling software - and we all know compiled software is non-existing software for binary package managers; actually, people who can compile their packages don't really have to use binaries - therefore if the need to compile arises, the binary package manager has failed its job.
Repositories are, IMHO, just a lame excuse lazy developers have found for not doing their jobs till the end and compile their own fucking software. And because they are that lazy and ignorant (we all know the disdain for backwards compatibility FOSS developers have - "if it doesn't work, upgrade to the latest version"), a new species had to appear: the package maintainer. Yet another layer of complexity, yet another layer of bureaucracy. And yet you thrive in this kind of "social" organization? To quote a Vortigaunt in HL2, what next in the parade of constant obstacles?
I guess I'll go back to my world, where the developers are directly responsible in front of the users for the software they make, AND package.
Or perhaps Ubuntu should change their policy, making it so that users just need to visit the developer's site, download and install the software, without relying upon repositories anymore. Yeah, like in Windows. Or like in Mac OS X. IMHO, this whole centralized, repositories-based way of getting things done just sucks.
... do you has a flavour?
what's a twitter? oh, nevermind
I'm a regular slash-head and /b/tard at the same time. I have always asked myself why do I find these two sites so similar. Is it because of the memes? Is it because of the similarity between subcultures? Or trolls? Honestly, I enjoy reading Slashdot, I like to watch smart, rational people discussing things related to technology, or privacy or whatever. Then I suddenly feel the urge to brainwash myself in the shithole that is 4chan's /b/. It's like these two sites complement each other.
Anyone feeling the same?
... is Islam a meme yet?
This goes out for Slashdot! I'm gonna party like it's 1997!
Naquadah.
I totally concur on ACDSee. Really, I've been using the same version since 2002 or so. It's ACDSee 3.1 and can still be found here. Back in the day I used to have an ongoing debate with a friend, a small "vi vs emacs" religious war, about what's better and resource friendlier: ACDSee or IrfanView. While IrfanView has managed to stay bloat-free, ACDSee is exactly the opposite today. I tried IrfanView but I just can't give up the keyboard shortcuts and the functionality of ACDSee 3.1 that I got used to over the years. And it STILL displays everything.
You might be new here.
People who upload music are supposed to have permission from the copyright holder. That means 98% of the mainstream music hosted on their site has been uploaded without permission. No, seriously, this site is just as legal as YouTube.