There have been Voodoo emulators for years - they are called "glide wrappers" after the 3dfx Glide API. They take advantage of hardware 3d acceleration. Ironically, one of the bigger markets for glide wrappers has been people running N64 emulators: the first good N64 emulator used Glide.
From a strict monetary perspective, you do not make any profit. However, from a broader economic perspective, you have a significant net gain, because you keep the money and the software. This qualifies as "profit."
Word is hampered by a lack of compatibility with Word! Look around. OO.o is more compatible with old versions of Word than Word 2007. If Microsoft is going to break backwards compatibility and interoperability with their own products, they should at least use the opportunity to make major improvements.
Since Barcelona is one of the bigger architectural changes from AMD in the past few years, the 32-bit benchmarks are relevant because they are good predictors of what's to come for the entire product line, including the desktop processors, where 32-bit code dominates. Also, if they used exclusively 64-bit code, they would be accused of using unrealistic benchmarks to highlight the fact that AMD has better 64-bit performance than Intel.
The average supermarket parking lot is much brighter at midnight than necessary. You also don't need the entire parking lot lit all night, when on most nights, the first two rows of lights would suffice for the night-time customers. After parking lot lights, the biggest offenders are billboards and other illuminated advertising signs. These can be turned off without compromising public safety, and with minimal harm to the efficacy of the advertising.
Close, but you're a bit off. Java took Objective-C, re-implemented it on top of a virtual machine with a more C++-like syntax, a crappier class library, missing some of the nicer features of the language, but with a big ass marketing budget.
It's only in that last respect that java was any better than languages from the previous decade.
I would guess that this was a 20% time project. I's such an obvious feature to add when you're getting bored with the regular stuff. It is also a very rough alpha-quality feature. For example, it seems quite laggy - probably single threaded. The gauges also can't handle wide screens well - the compass and the tops of the altitude and airspeed indicators will move off the top of the screen. The controls are also pretty rough.
Given that, I still think they've killed quite a few MS Flight Simulator sales. Google Earth's scenery is much better, and they will probably be adding 3d building support too. People who use flight simulators just for the scenery will probably stop buying FS, and people who really care about realism are already using X-Plane.
RTFA. The $2500 figure is based on January 2007 prices. Behind one of the links in TFA is a better article, which states that with August 2007 pricing, it would cost less than $1300.
2.) If I'm interpreting the sentence correctly, the sentence is implying that most of the time when people reach old age they get Alzheimer's. If that is true, then I need a reality check because I didn't know that. Certainly nobody dies of "old age" anymore. It is always something like Alzheimer's or cancer or heart failure or complications from the treatment of something like that. We've already cured the simpler afflictions, and are now basically dismantling the whole "planned obsolescence" aspect of human biology.
The point is that the oil only enables the engine to function well. It does not act as a fuel and it is not used to directly transport the power coming out of the engine. It simply makes the engine efficient enough that it doesn't overheat and melt itself.
I see the GPLv3 changes as existing mostly to put a stop to various actions that are contrary to the spirit of the license, but not the letter of the license. Note that the goals spelled out in the preamble are intact and are being actively pursued.
Correction: Chris Lattner's proposal wasn't recent. But Apple's still working on LLVM/GCC stuff, and will be shipping stuff built with both in Leopard.
What talk have you heard about Apple replacing GCC? So far, all they've done is use LLVM instead of GCC for their OpenGL implementation. While it does look like they may want to expand their use of LLVM, I haven't seen any indication that they want to throw away GCC. In fact, it looks like the opposite is true: Chris Lattner, Apple-employed LLVM developer, recently proposed merging LLVM into GCC. Furthermore, Apple is permitting him to work towards that goal on company time, with the copyrights of the resulting code being assigned to the FSF.
It really doesn't look like GPLv3 is a show-stopper for them.
Is it really that much harder to type yum update; yum install foo?
Let's face it: All software has dependencies. Those dependencies (and optional dependencies) are determined by the application developers, not the distro packagers. Almost all packaging systems out there are simply cases of re-inventing the wheel with slight, trivial differences. There are no technological barriers to implementing a standardized packaging system. It would make things a lot easier for maintainers (both the original authors and the distro maintainers), and would make things a much easier for commercial software developers that have to do all their own packaging. And at what cost to the user? None. You can always install a front end you are comfortable with.
Are you saying that the architecture of the packaging system has an effect on the overall security of the system? That isn't really possible unless the packaging system in question is so byzantine that it becomes difficult to repackage application security updates in a timely fashion.
From a security standpoint, a universal package format is a wonderful ideal. As soon as a fix is available, the application developers can release a new (signed) binary that can be tested by a very large audience. Once the update has been tested, it can be applied by any user, without the extra delay from the distro maintainers.
You also seem to think that ease of use and customizability are mutually exclusive. This is an extremely pessimistic and wrong viewpoint, and should never be applied to software development.
Keeping the command-line tools around is a great way of keeping the underlying system architecture clean, which makes it much easier to develop GUI front-ends. Unfortunately, it also reduces the incentive for programmers to develop those frontends: they don't need them. The solution is to pay for the GUI development if you can't afford to learn how to do without.
...with good support for building from source. We obviously need a standard package format with robust support for complex dependencies. The build-from-source part is also really important: right now, no distro (not even Gentoo!) makes it easy to, for example, compile your own Mesa libraries and have them used by the pre-compiled X server. Right now, you can pull a project from cvs/svn and do a make install. But it will overwrite the version from the package and break dependencies. This greatly raises the barrier of entry for testing new code, making the "open source" aspect of Linux software far more accessible.
Once we have a unified packaging system, the meaning of a "linux distro" will change. There will be a lot more sharing of work for the base system, and separate distros will really become sets of config files with just a few changes from the upstream code. Kubuntu is a great example of this: it is a low-maintenance specialization of Ubuntu.
To continue the DUI analogy, it seems like this is a case of telling a defendant that he can only drive Ford vehicles for the duration of his probation, even though he owns (and broke the law with) a Honda.
Forcing somebody to pay money to a third party (ie somebody completely unaffiliated with the victim of the crime) sure seems like an unusual punishment to me. It also seems unjustified (unless you count "government laziness" as adequate justification).
I think (and I expect most libertarians would agree) that the government should never have the power to force a citizen to do business with any corporation, especially when that corporation is an unregulated abusive monopoly.
I really don't care about the monitoring software. To me, the big wrong is that he is being compelled to purchase a software license from a third party in order to use the equipment he already owns. Not only that, but the money must go to a specific corporation: Microsoft. While it may not be unconstitutional, it certainly should be illegal for the government to require citizens to purchase commercial software.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been Voodoo emulators for years - they are called "glide wrappers" after the 3dfx Glide API. They take advantage of hardware 3d acceleration. Ironically, one of the bigger markets for glide wrappers has been people running N64 emulators: the first good N64 emulator used Glide.
From a strict monetary perspective, you do not make any profit. However, from a broader economic perspective, you have a significant net gain, because you keep the money and the software. This qualifies as "profit."
Word is hampered by a lack of compatibility with Word! Look around. OO.o is more compatible with old versions of Word than Word 2007. If Microsoft is going to break backwards compatibility and interoperability with their own products, they should at least use the opportunity to make major improvements.
It doesn't need to be a production server. It simply needs to happen to a CEO's desktop.
Since Barcelona is one of the bigger architectural changes from AMD in the past few years, the 32-bit benchmarks are relevant because they are good predictors of what's to come for the entire product line, including the desktop processors, where 32-bit code dominates. Also, if they used exclusively 64-bit code, they would be accused of using unrealistic benchmarks to highlight the fact that AMD has better 64-bit performance than Intel.
The average supermarket parking lot is much brighter at midnight than necessary. You also don't need the entire parking lot lit all night, when on most nights, the first two rows of lights would suffice for the night-time customers. After parking lot lights, the biggest offenders are billboards and other illuminated advertising signs. These can be turned off without compromising public safety, and with minimal harm to the efficacy of the advertising.
Wouldn't sin(1/x) or x*sin(1/x) be more appropriate?
Close, but you're a bit off. Java took Objective-C, re-implemented it on top of a virtual machine with a more C++-like syntax, a crappier class library, missing some of the nicer features of the language, but with a big ass marketing budget.
It's only in that last respect that java was any better than languages from the previous decade.
I would guess that this was a 20% time project. I's such an obvious feature to add when you're getting bored with the regular stuff. It is also a very rough alpha-quality feature. For example, it seems quite laggy - probably single threaded. The gauges also can't handle wide screens well - the compass and the tops of the altitude and airspeed indicators will move off the top of the screen. The controls are also pretty rough.
Given that, I still think they've killed quite a few MS Flight Simulator sales. Google Earth's scenery is much better, and they will probably be adding 3d building support too. People who use flight simulators just for the scenery will probably stop buying FS, and people who really care about realism are already using X-Plane.
RTFA. The $2500 figure is based on January 2007 prices. Behind one of the links in TFA is a better article, which states that with August 2007 pricing, it would cost less than $1300.
The point is that the oil only enables the engine to function well. It does not act as a fuel and it is not used to directly transport the power coming out of the engine. It simply makes the engine efficient enough that it doesn't overheat and melt itself.
I see the GPLv3 changes as existing mostly to put a stop to various actions that are contrary to the spirit of the license, but not the letter of the license. Note that the goals spelled out in the preamble are intact and are being actively pursued.
Correction: Chris Lattner's proposal wasn't recent. But Apple's still working on LLVM/GCC stuff, and will be shipping stuff built with both in Leopard.
What talk have you heard about Apple replacing GCC? So far, all they've done is use LLVM instead of GCC for their OpenGL implementation. While it does look like they may want to expand their use of LLVM, I haven't seen any indication that they want to throw away GCC. In fact, it looks like the opposite is true: Chris Lattner, Apple-employed LLVM developer, recently proposed merging LLVM into GCC. Furthermore, Apple is permitting him to work towards that goal on company time, with the copyrights of the resulting code being assigned to the FSF.
It really doesn't look like GPLv3 is a show-stopper for them.
And what if you obey a "cease and desist" letter by turning off the servers? Does that leave you liable for destruction of evidence?
I'd take the FSF's legal shenanigans over Microsoft's protection rackets any day.
Is it really that much harder to type yum update; yum install foo?
Let's face it: All software has dependencies. Those dependencies (and optional dependencies) are determined by the application developers, not the distro packagers. Almost all packaging systems out there are simply cases of re-inventing the wheel with slight, trivial differences. There are no technological barriers to implementing a standardized packaging system. It would make things a lot easier for maintainers (both the original authors and the distro maintainers), and would make things a much easier for commercial software developers that have to do all their own packaging. And at what cost to the user? None. You can always install a front end you are comfortable with.
Are you saying that the architecture of the packaging system has an effect on the overall security of the system? That isn't really possible unless the packaging system in question is so byzantine that it becomes difficult to repackage application security updates in a timely fashion.
From a security standpoint, a universal package format is a wonderful ideal. As soon as a fix is available, the application developers can release a new (signed) binary that can be tested by a very large audience. Once the update has been tested, it can be applied by any user, without the extra delay from the distro maintainers.
You also seem to think that ease of use and customizability are mutually exclusive. This is an extremely pessimistic and wrong viewpoint, and should never be applied to software development.
Keeping the command-line tools around is a great way of keeping the underlying system architecture clean, which makes it much easier to develop GUI front-ends. Unfortunately, it also reduces the incentive for programmers to develop those frontends: they don't need them. The solution is to pay for the GUI development if you can't afford to learn how to do without.
...with good support for building from source. We obviously need a standard package format with robust support for complex dependencies. The build-from-source part is also really important: right now, no distro (not even Gentoo!) makes it easy to, for example, compile your own Mesa libraries and have them used by the pre-compiled X server. Right now, you can pull a project from cvs/svn and do a make install. But it will overwrite the version from the package and break dependencies. This greatly raises the barrier of entry for testing new code, making the "open source" aspect of Linux software far more accessible.
Once we have a unified packaging system, the meaning of a "linux distro" will change. There will be a lot more sharing of work for the base system, and separate distros will really become sets of config files with just a few changes from the upstream code. Kubuntu is a great example of this: it is a low-maintenance specialization of Ubuntu.
...but without the wear leveling.
To continue the DUI analogy, it seems like this is a case of telling a defendant that he can only drive Ford vehicles for the duration of his probation, even though he owns (and broke the law with) a Honda.
Forcing somebody to pay money to a third party (ie somebody completely unaffiliated with the victim of the crime) sure seems like an unusual punishment to me. It also seems unjustified (unless you count "government laziness" as adequate justification).
I think (and I expect most libertarians would agree) that the government should never have the power to force a citizen to do business with any corporation, especially when that corporation is an unregulated abusive monopoly.
I really don't care about the monitoring software. To me, the big wrong is that he is being compelled to purchase a software license from a third party in order to use the equipment he already owns. Not only that, but the money must go to a specific corporation: Microsoft. While it may not be unconstitutional, it certainly should be illegal for the government to require citizens to purchase commercial software.