The console landscape is littered with consoles that were technically brilliant but didn't get the titles necessary to be a success. For instance, the Saturn's dual processor architecture actually had more horsepower than the PSX's, but who bothered to push it to its limits? Most developers went for the much simpler PSX instead and they learned it much better. The result should be obvious.
Now we have a reversal. The Dreamcast is simple to develop for, but what about the PSX2? Probably much less so which could prove to be a hindrance in the coming months.
That seems fair enough. I just worry that in the mad dash to put a PSX2 at the core of every home's entertainment center, the emphasis on gaming is being lost in the process. My hope is the PSX2 and Dreamcast can have a good old fashioned SNES/Genesis-style battle in the marketplace which will be good for everyone. But at present, I'm not so sure the PSX2 will live up to the expectations.
The more I hear about the PSX2, the less I like it. First the goofball architecture which isn't going to make ports easy. Then the all-in-one focus that makes me think of 3DO all over again. Now hard drives? If I want a computer, I'll buy a computer. DVD+HD+graphics are available at any Best Buy for a thousand or two and have plenty of games already.
But where's the games for PSX2? No one's talking much about them that I've heard. It seems like if I want a box to just play games with, the Dreamcast is the way to go. I've got plenty of computers already; give me a gaming console for a change.
I'm probably in the minority in this, but I don't want all my apps looking and feeling identical - because they're not. For example, sometimes I have the same app performing different functions (such as a certain xterm connected to a remote location) and while it's easy to change the title string, I'd like to have it stand out even more than that. So, I deliberately make it inconsistant by giving it a different titlebar appearance than the rest. The result, for me, is improved efficiency through inconsistancy.
I'm not against consistancy by default; I don't want my GTK windows popping up with random themes in each. But I want to option to make special apps stand out with the use of skins for a variety of reasons. I believe skins are just a tool. Though they can be abused quite easily, I think they have some good potential also.
but we want to watch them, don't we?
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 2
The whole point of DeCSS was to make something to watch DVDs with. Nobody's advocating stealing them, so that ultimately means buying DVDs in order to make DeCSS and the battle worthwhile. That means lining the coffers of the MPAA, which isn't desirable.
But the MPAA isn't the enemy here - ignorance is.
Our foe is the MPAA's ignorance of the futility and harmfulness of CSS. Our goal is to convince them that DeCSS isn't harmful to their bottom line - much like VCRs weren't back in the 80s. They don't believe it yet, but once they're convinced, the battle will be won.
If we really want to make MPAA the enemy, we should forget DVDs (and DeCSS) altogether and push for newer/better/open distributed video standards to replace DVDs rather than decode them.
Ultimately, we need to decide what we really want.
Please ignore me if I'm restating the obvious, but UCITA looks like a step towards allowing corperations to rent out their software rather than sell licenses to it. In order to be a software renter, you (the corperation) need the power to revoke the software from a renter who doesn't pay up. This means the ability to perform remote shutdowns and measures to ensure the user doesn't use the rented software without paying.
So why bother? Because companies (Microsoft especially) don't want to sell you a single copy of something. You might be happy with it, not buy another copy and cut off their revenue stream. (they fight this by releasing new versions and leaving the old ones unsupported) And they certainly don't want to give you free bug fixes because they don't make money from those either. This is why UCITA is such a big deal for them - and if a few measly consumer rights are trampled in the process, that's not their problem.
Again, pardon me if I'm restating the obvious. But if we're going to fight these stupid laws we need to understand their original goal as well as the detrimental side effects they have on the rest of us.
That's what I'd go for. If my internet use and my internet purchases are taxed, I - as an internet user - want to have a say into how those particular taxes are used. I don't want to have those tax dollars used as some sort of compensation for businesses not on the internet, simply because that's not fair to those on the internet. I'd much rather have the taxes go into infrastructure and other worthwhile internet endeavors that could benefit people globally.
Technically, I don't see how this tax scheme is possible to implement short of some central internet authority. But if I'm taxed on the internet, I want to see benefits on the internet from that.
How surprised can we be, really? They want to be big brother, so what do you expect them to do? The only big surprise here is the ISPs caving in to their demands. Does anyone know of an ISP with a backbone? Surely there must be one, though perhaps not in the US...
What seems wierd to me is i dont remember anyone slamming 'The Matrix' this hard. Its theme was just as ripped off as this one, and alot of its tech just as bad
I think the difference is that "The Matrix" is a cartoon, everybody knows it's a cartoon, and nobody pretends it's any more realistic than, say, "Star Wars" - including the directors. It's just a romp with the occasional sci-fi ray guns and spaceships in between the kung fu.
"Mission to Mars" actually sounds like it's trying to be serious on occasion. I know I'm not planning to see it to find out...
Just out of curiosity, does python force you to handle all exceptions the way that Java does?
In JavaSpeak, all Python exeptions are runtime exceptions. It won't complain at compile time if you don't catch them but it will be lethal to your app if it propagates to the top. Sometimes this is the desired behavior (I/O errors) and sometimes you'd best put some checks in place (tuple accesses).
Does Perl have exceptions or try/finally blocks? How about operator overloading? Personally, I don't care much if Perl has them or not - but last time I checked it didn't. So that's a couple things. Perl is nice. Python is nice. I just happen to prefer Python.
Therefore, there are many advantages to getting a system compatible with old PSX games... Use the new PSX2 as the main machine. Then hook the old console up to the little TV in the basement, or keep it for the kids, or save it for a backup when somebody else is watching a DVD on the new one... There are tons of good reasons for com[patibility(?)]
While having a "spare" PSX is nice, the demand for its use will be high only for a brief time during the transition phase - before the PSX2 gets more titles. The reason for compatibility is to ease the software dearth during that time. But even though the PSX2 can play PSX software, developers are going to want to use PSX2 features (to ease development) and gamers will want those features used (to improve their gaming experience). Thus, in a very short timespan the demand to play PSX titles will drop dramatically.
Sony's move in this direction is noble and looks good to consumers, but I don't think it'll take long before this feature is largely forgotten in favor of new and fancy titles.
I have no particular problem with a new system keeping backwards compatibility, but I don't think it's a powerful feature that'll attract new users. Players who already have a PSX and like the games won't benefit (except for the "neato" factor and one less thing to hook up to the TV), and players who don't own a PSX will need to see significant price differences between PSX and PSX2 games to justify picking up old titles.
In short, it's a nice thing to have when possible, but the console market moves so fast that keeping the backwards compatibility isn't a major selling point and may prove detrimental to maintain over many product cycles.
Backwards compatibility has never sold consoles. The fact is, players buy new consoles to play new games. Having a two-in-one might save some shelf space, but it's not worth the extra ~$200.
Oh, and technical specifications have never proven the deciding factor in a console's success. Great graphics always take a back seat to great games. The PSX2 might look wonderful, but it won't matter if the games aren't there. It needs to be easier to develop for than the Dreamcast in order to make any difference. If tech specs were all that mattered, we'd be playing Intellivisions, Jaguars and N64s right now - but it's the games that really matter to people.
The Dreamcast game selection has made it a monster success so far. And compared to the Saturn, the PSX feels cheap - but nobody gives a rat's ass about such trivial details.
Saddened? Why? The original PSX had dreadful defects at launch - even in the US. I don't see why the PSX2 won't be any different. Sony's consumer division may have been a marvel of quality control at some point, but that point is long past.
At present, the PSX2 faces an uphill battle against the less expensive Dreamcast (who already has a foothold in the US market). They'll need to deliver more "must have" games faster than the competition. My guess is that it'll be a "SNES/Genesis" war all over again.
The Patent Culture one was covered. The HTML was fscked up at first, but the Slashdot folks fixed it up now. Scroll up and check the article again. He's rather ambiguous on the subject, probably because it's outside the realm of his expertise.
Even with the Lone Gunmen, this episode was downright embarassing. It looked cheesy, was written cheesy and had little or no redeeming qualities.
The saturday repeat (in the Minneapolis area, anyway) with the Lone Gunmen continuing their own subplot with the blonde conspiracy woman was much more interesting by comparison.
That said, it looks like the X-Files are winding down their series run. The Lone Gunmen might be able to support a spin-off (the Geek Files?) but only if they're not burdened by episodes such as this one.
The notion that a totally consistant look and feel among all applications aids in ease of use has been repeated so often most seem to take it as a fact without further question. I don't believe this is the case. I offer an alternative notion that consistancy within a single application is of far greater import than consistancy between all applications in a given GUI, but at the same time general purpose ease-of-use is more important than consistancy.
The web is the ultimate example. It offers a few basic paradigms (clicking on links, typing in forms, etc.) but like a widget set, the actual design is up to the creators. Would the web be easier to use if all web pages followed a consistant layout - with no weight given to the page's actual use or content? For example, Slashdot has a decent UI for its function, and Amazon also has a good UI for its function, but can you think of a single layout that would accomplish both functions consistantly across both sites? I think enforcing such a layout would be harmful to both sites, and ultimately counterproductive.
The most important thing is for applications to accomplish their function. A GUI's purpose is to aid the user in accomplishing that goal. A single program should be expected to be consistant for its purpose - thus improving ease-of-use - but to needlessly assign a generic GUI to all programs for the sake of ease-of-use over function will improve neither.
Emacs delivers a lot in 8 megs, IMHO. The paren matching and syntax colorizing are also biggies for me. So, I stick with it - secure in the knowledge that anyone else can use whatever editor they like.
As for the whitespace thing, it's really something that's hard to measure objectively. If a language doesn't have the right "feel", it gets uncomfortable to stick with all day long. Perl's little language inconsistancies never felt right to me, and I found Python much more pleasurable to spend in over my typical workday. Other people no doubt feel the opposite. Fortunately there's more than enough room for the Other Scripting Language in the world.
I like dogs. Walks are good for me:) And its nice to have someone that's happy to see me when I get home.
Python's whitespace is something I never think about. As you say, Emacs all but eliminates any problem that might cause and Python is very forgiving about wrapping lines. I went from a strong Java background into Python and have come to enjoy the quick & dirty typeless nature while at the same time using inheritance to make powerful OO constructs.
But I can't stand cats. Give my a well-behaved, predictable, loyal and non-shedding dog any day:) (there really are such beasts...the house stays clean as can be) Now if you really want to start a flame war, forget this Perl/Python stuff and start a cat/dog debate:)
Re:um, ever heard of the word "asthetics" ?
on
Beanie Award Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
(probably just one more before they archive this article:)
I haven't tried WM much myself, so I'll refrain from commenting on it. Slowness is all relative, of course. But I'm used to the speed of FVWM and FLWM. When I tried out E, just in the default configuration, my windows dragged slower at the same settings (opaque window moving and point to focus but not much else). Maybe it was just the Bluesteel theme I was using.
But when I switched over to Sawmill, suddenly everything moved at FVWM speeds again with my old settings, but looked as good as E. And it was even more configurable! I was shocked, to say the least. This is all on a non-GNOME box, of course.
But don't take my word for it. All it costs is a little of your time, so I recommend giving it a shot and judge for yourself. It's over at Sourceforge and always has the latest RPMs for easy installation/de-installation.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we have a reversal. The Dreamcast is simple to develop for, but what about the PSX2? Probably much less so which could prove to be a hindrance in the coming months.
That seems fair enough. I just worry that in the mad dash to put a PSX2 at the core of every home's entertainment center, the emphasis on gaming is being lost in the process. My hope is the PSX2 and Dreamcast can have a good old fashioned SNES/Genesis-style battle in the marketplace which will be good for everyone. But at present, I'm not so sure the PSX2 will live up to the expectations.
But where's the games for PSX2? No one's talking much about them that I've heard. It seems like if I want a box to just play games with, the Dreamcast is the way to go. I've got plenty of computers already; give me a gaming console for a change.
I'm not against consistancy by default; I don't want my GTK windows popping up with random themes in each. But I want to option to make special apps stand out with the use of skins for a variety of reasons. I believe skins are just a tool. Though they can be abused quite easily, I think they have some good potential also.
But the MPAA isn't the enemy here - ignorance is.
Our foe is the MPAA's ignorance of the futility and harmfulness of CSS. Our goal is to convince them that DeCSS isn't harmful to their bottom line - much like VCRs weren't back in the 80s. They don't believe it yet, but once they're convinced, the battle will be won.
If we really want to make MPAA the enemy, we should forget DVDs (and DeCSS) altogether and push for newer/better/open distributed video standards to replace DVDs rather than decode them.
Ultimately, we need to decide what we really want.
So why bother? Because companies (Microsoft especially) don't want to sell you a single copy of something. You might be happy with it, not buy another copy and cut off their revenue stream. (they fight this by releasing new versions and leaving the old ones unsupported) And they certainly don't want to give you free bug fixes because they don't make money from those either. This is why UCITA is such a big deal for them - and if a few measly consumer rights are trampled in the process, that's not their problem.
Again, pardon me if I'm restating the obvious. But if we're going to fight these stupid laws we need to understand their original goal as well as the detrimental side effects they have on the rest of us.
Technically, I don't see how this tax scheme is possible to implement short of some central internet authority. But if I'm taxed on the internet, I want to see benefits on the internet from that.
Just my two bits worth...
How about moderating it "inciteful".
How surprised can we be, really? They want to be big brother, so what do you expect them to do? The only big surprise here is the ISPs caving in to their demands. Does anyone know of an ISP with a backbone? Surely there must be one, though perhaps not in the US...
I think the difference is that "The Matrix" is a cartoon, everybody knows it's a cartoon, and nobody pretends it's any more realistic than, say, "Star Wars" - including the directors. It's just a romp with the occasional sci-fi ray guns and spaceships in between the kung fu.
"Mission to Mars" actually sounds like it's trying to be serious on occasion. I know I'm not planning to see it to find out...
Does Perl have exceptions or try/finally blocks? How about operator overloading? Personally, I don't care much if Perl has them or not - but last time I checked it didn't. So that's a couple things. Perl is nice. Python is nice. I just happen to prefer Python.
Sony's move in this direction is noble and looks good to consumers, but I don't think it'll take long before this feature is largely forgotten in favor of new and fancy titles.
In short, it's a nice thing to have when possible, but the console market moves so fast that keeping the backwards compatibility isn't a major selling point and may prove detrimental to maintain over many product cycles.
Oh, and technical specifications have never proven the deciding factor in a console's success. Great graphics always take a back seat to great games. The PSX2 might look wonderful, but it won't matter if the games aren't there. It needs to be easier to develop for than the Dreamcast in order to make any difference. If tech specs were all that mattered, we'd be playing Intellivisions, Jaguars and N64s right now - but it's the games that really matter to people.
The Dreamcast game selection has made it a monster success so far. And compared to the Saturn, the PSX feels cheap - but nobody gives a rat's ass about such trivial details.
At present, the PSX2 faces an uphill battle against the less expensive Dreamcast (who already has a foothold in the US market). They'll need to deliver more "must have" games faster than the competition. My guess is that it'll be a "SNES/Genesis" war all over again.
The Patent Culture one was covered. The HTML was fscked up at first, but the Slashdot folks fixed it up now. Scroll up and check the article again. He's rather ambiguous on the subject, probably because it's outside the realm of his expertise.
The saturday repeat (in the Minneapolis area, anyway) with the Lone Gunmen continuing their own subplot with the blonde conspiracy woman was much more interesting by comparison.
That said, it looks like the X-Files are winding down their series run. The Lone Gunmen might be able to support a spin-off (the Geek Files?) but only if they're not burdened by episodes such as this one.
The web is the ultimate example. It offers a few basic paradigms (clicking on links, typing in forms, etc.) but like a widget set, the actual design is up to the creators. Would the web be easier to use if all web pages followed a consistant layout - with no weight given to the page's actual use or content? For example, Slashdot has a decent UI for its function, and Amazon also has a good UI for its function, but can you think of a single layout that would accomplish both functions consistantly across both sites? I think enforcing such a layout would be harmful to both sites, and ultimately counterproductive.
The most important thing is for applications to accomplish their function. A GUI's purpose is to aid the user in accomplishing that goal. A single program should be expected to be consistant for its purpose - thus improving ease-of-use - but to needlessly assign a generic GUI to all programs for the sake of ease-of-use over function will improve neither.
MTV shows videos?
I'll be finishing it up shortly!
- Dogs never require electricity, only a steady supply of food.
- Dogs never require a reinstall. The first setup and they're good for life.
- Dogs never require an upgrade (unless you want a BeoWOOF cluster of them).
- Dogs are much softer than the internet.
- Dogs are always the right temperature. They require no more cooling fans than you do.
- Dogs never require overclocking. If they're not running at the right speed, simply work on the leash a bit more.
- Dogs never need backing up. Their flash memory is good for life.
- Dogs never need a password. Using newfangled biometrics, dogs will always know who you are.
- Dogs will give you exercise. The internet will not.
- Dogs are also much better to look at than the internet. The skin they have is good enough.
That's why I'd rather spend my day with a dog than on the internetAs for the whitespace thing, it's really something that's hard to measure objectively. If a language doesn't have the right "feel", it gets uncomfortable to stick with all day long. Perl's little language inconsistancies never felt right to me, and I found Python much more pleasurable to spend in over my typical workday. Other people no doubt feel the opposite. Fortunately there's more than enough room for the Other Scripting Language in the world.
I like dogs. Walks are good for me :) And its nice to have someone that's happy to see me when I get home.
But I can't stand cats. Give my a well-behaved, predictable, loyal and non-shedding dog any day :) (there really are such beasts...the house stays clean as can be) Now if you really want to start a flame war, forget this Perl/Python stuff and start a cat/dog debate :)
I haven't tried WM much myself, so I'll refrain from commenting on it. Slowness is all relative, of course. But I'm used to the speed of FVWM and FLWM. When I tried out E, just in the default configuration, my windows dragged slower at the same settings (opaque window moving and point to focus but not much else). Maybe it was just the Bluesteel theme I was using.
But when I switched over to Sawmill, suddenly everything moved at FVWM speeds again with my old settings, but looked as good as E. And it was even more configurable! I was shocked, to say the least. This is all on a non-GNOME box, of course.
But don't take my word for it. All it costs is a little of your time, so I recommend giving it a shot and judge for yourself. It's over at Sourceforge and always has the latest RPMs for easy installation/de-installation.