But Mono aims to be compatible. If they give up that, that would be one less problem I have with them. However, MS haven't really started the swerving to control the standard yet, they are still very much in the growing the standard part of the cycle.
It doesn't work. At least for shell stuff, Win7 is drifting away from being documented. Much better than rely on someone taking MS to court every time they find themselves hand-stringed compared with MS, why not just split MS into a software business and a OS business. Cure rather than treat.
For the last two years I've been doing shell stuff. It is not well enough documented. With Win7 there seams to be more stuff now undocumented. Weather it's on purpose or because they don't care, it's not enough. The key I found for XP was finding the torrent with most of the shell code for Windows 2000 (and it is awful code), for Win7, it's back to guess work and trial and error. Some classes and defines/flags/enums are not documented at all, but generally the biggest problem is interaction information about how all these classes work together. Maybe for this level of complexity, source is just better documentation, I find so, but I except I'm odd in preferring to read code than docs.
The problem is clearly knowing where to look. If you try and look anywhere but where the focus point is, it's uncomfortable. The first time I watch something in 3D, it took me a while to learn not to look in the background at anything, to learn to let my eyes be led. Even then, if there is a lot going on, it's not always clear where you should be looking. A mate of mine, a 3D fan, has just gone crazy and bought a massive, high end 3D TV, and even he admits he can't watch it in 3D all the time as it gives him headaches. BR>
3D will only work perfectly when each eye is presented with an image for where it is looking. I'm not being a luddite, if I was still doing 3D modelling on the computer, I think this could be very useful, but I'm not going to buy into this technology for every film. Films are long and the current 3D technology is too much work to watch. Doing proper 3D, with a proper image for each eye (i.e. hologram) isn't happening any time soon.
It's not just a patent problem. It's the old chasing tail lights problem. MS have a long history of encouraging people to commit to follow them, and then swerving like mad to loose them. Throwing patent rocks out the back is just one dirty trick that they have used in the past. It's all well documented, you won't have to look hard. One of the better sources is as always Groklaw.
Because anyone who writes software in competition with Microsoft software on the Microsoft platform is at a disadvantage. They don't have access to everything in the same way. MS (and Apple, and probably other in the same position) can and do make use of API calls not available (due to not being publicly exposed or documented) to competitors. That is is anticompetitive. On the scale of Windows and Microsoft, it's a real problem.
Wrong. I use to use AllOfMp3.com, paying for music for the first time in years, because the service was so great and the price was so low. Then of course it was shutdown. You can compete with free, you just have to add enough value at a price people are willing to pay for. Or you make money from something other than selling the product. Plenty of examples, Christ, internet search, the subject of this post is one. Pay much for your internet search engine do you?
Google are no angels, but compared with MS they are.
MS make a closed operating system and closed software for that closed operating system. How is that not anticompetitive? (I know this doesn't just apply to MS). It was even found as such in court, they where to be broken in two (a OS business and a software business), but then they got out of it!
MS bully the OEM to force Windows on us, and those of us free of them, end up paying more to not have it!
MS where given a monopoly by IBM from the get go and have maintained it with every trick in the book, and a few new ones they came up with themselves. Many of which come under "dirty trick". I could rant about MS and standards, but it's old ground everyone knows. Even the MS fan boys must be able to see Goolge are less bad by a order of magnitude or two, even through the MS cool aid vision. It Google do go properly evil, we can just change search engine, big deal. Many people aren't ready or able to change OS, in fact they are often deliberately locked in.
Thus the Gates Foundation to be remember by something else. Plus I'm sure it does MS no harm with him being all charitable and still supporting Windows. Everyone is a winner......
No high end game is done in managed languages. If you suggested that kind of shit in my company to anyone who really knows (i.e engine team or real game programmers) they will laugh at you. Also, you can't get the most out of these things if you don't understand the virtual machine and the real machine it runs on. It's not a excuse for ignorance as many use it, if anything, it requires you know more as you need to understand the virtual machine as well as the real machine.
What? Grow ourselves out of the mess? Government debt not like personal debt? What madness. No, we need to cut to the bone because that has such a long history of working......
I think the Rhineland model is a better bet. After it's 50 years old, which isn't long, will you just increase the number of years? I agree with Karl Marx on "capitalism will destroy itself", only I don't think it's a good thing and can be, and is, prevented by regulation. We can also use regulation to align outcomes we want with the profit motive.
The gap was big and growing before the credit crunch. A good website on this and the affects of a unequal society is: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
There was a time where artists and programmers learnt in their bedroom. This was great because when they came into industry, it didn't take much to get them up to scratch as they had been doing it at home, just with less tools and no access to others. Now, in the game company I work at, we struggle to get people who know what we need.
I wonder how much of the recruitment problem is noise to signal ratio because of:
These kids go and do "games" courses, but aren't being taught what they need, because really, they don't want to know and the course is about bums on seats to make the education stats look good. I was on a "VR" course that was similar, but I dropped out and went into industry when our "professional 3D artist" didn't know what was skinning or IK and seamed to make everything out of spheres, and our programmers didn't know anything about real-time 3D. That was 10 years ago, not sure it's got better since.
I also wonder how much of the problem is no one learning "roll in the mud" C/C++ that is required. Those learning at uni, and even at home, seem to be learning only managed languages, so don't really understand computers. They don't get memory, data and instructions, only objects and garbage collection. Even if you are going to use someone else's engine, that still puts you at a disadvantage. Though of course, as long as the tech is "good enough" it starts becoming about game play and artwork....
I think this kind of thing makes people angry because they know, deep down, there is at least an element of truth to it, but don't want to take the ivory tower blinkers off and see. Same kind of people who shout that programmers should do GUIs for everything, and there should be no CLI. Tough. For real time, you need to know what the computer is doing, even if you are using a virtual machine on top (in which case, you need to know what that is doing too, so it's actually making things more complex for you). For advanced computer use, you need to learn the CLI.
If everyone thinks something means something, that is what it means. Meaning aren't static. Dictionaries need to reflect this else they fall out of date and usefulness. Sorry, but that's reality. You can argue with dictionaries if you want, but I'm not going involved in such madness.
What I'm saying is a system of freedom rules is freer than no rules. The GPL is just that. You don't have the freedom to take away from others the freedom you where given yourself.
Not done any x86-64, but from a quick glance at the disassembler, it doesn't look that different..... ARM was design to be written by hand. It was not written for high-level compilers. Read/listen to what Sophie Wilson has to say on the subject. ARM came from the Acorn, a platform I cut my teeth on. On the Acorn platform, pretty much everything important was written in ARM by hand, and what wasn't was BBC BASIC with ARM for the hot spots. Since then, new instructions have been added, for things like processing multiple input on a single instruction, virtual memory, etc, but it's not like it suddenly has anything even close to mess of x86.
Anarchy is other words. People who think anarchy a good idea either think they are the biggest with the biggest stick, or aren't thinking it through. You need a system of law and order or the freedom is just academic.
My money on 'why' is Windows compatibility and closed source locking the platform more than chip design. The best design doesn't always win, in fact, it often doesn't. This was because of Windows going critical mass and with it x86. So much money was poured into x86 you just got more for your money with x86, and the more that was the case, the more sold, and the more it was the case. This meant it came into the server market from the bottom, and then the same happened there. It's a good example of a bottom up revolution. Now it looks like Wintel compatibility doesn't matter so much (web/freesoftware), and something similar could happen with ARM driven by them being "good enough", cheap and low power. That's why Intel are pooing their pants and MS are hedging their bets with Windows on ARM.
Slashdot Mirror
But Mono aims to be compatible. If they give up that, that would be one less problem I have with them. However, MS haven't really started the swerving to control the standard yet, they are still very much in the growing the standard part of the cycle.
It doesn't work. At least for shell stuff, Win7 is drifting away from being documented. Much better than rely on someone taking MS to court every time they find themselves hand-stringed compared with MS, why not just split MS into a software business and a OS business. Cure rather than treat.
For the last two years I've been doing shell stuff. It is not well enough documented. With Win7 there seams to be more stuff now undocumented. Weather it's on purpose or because they don't care, it's not enough. The key I found for XP was finding the torrent with most of the shell code for Windows 2000 (and it is awful code), for Win7, it's back to guess work and trial and error. Some classes and defines/flags/enums are not documented at all, but generally the biggest problem is interaction information about how all these classes work together. Maybe for this level of complexity, source is just better documentation, I find so, but I except I'm odd in preferring to read code than docs.
The problem is clearly knowing where to look. If you try and look anywhere but where the focus point is, it's uncomfortable. The first time I watch something in 3D, it took me a while to learn not to look in the background at anything, to learn to let my eyes be led. Even then, if there is a lot going on, it's not always clear where you should be looking. A mate of mine, a 3D fan, has just gone crazy and bought a massive, high end 3D TV, and even he admits he can't watch it in 3D all the time as it gives him headaches. BR>
3D will only work perfectly when each eye is presented with an image for where it is looking. I'm not being a luddite, if I was still doing 3D modelling on the computer, I think this could be very useful, but I'm not going to buy into this technology for every film. Films are long and the current 3D technology is too much work to watch. Doing proper 3D, with a proper image for each eye (i.e. hologram) isn't happening any time soon.
It's not just a patent problem. It's the old chasing tail lights problem. MS have a long history of encouraging people to commit to follow them, and then swerving like mad to loose them. Throwing patent rocks out the back is just one dirty trick that they have used in the past. It's all well documented, you won't have to look hard. One of the better sources is as always Groklaw.
But you could walk away from Google much easier than you could from Windows, providing you haven't made that jump already.
Because anyone who writes software in competition with Microsoft software on the Microsoft platform is at a disadvantage. They don't have access to everything in the same way. MS (and Apple, and probably other in the same position) can and do make use of API calls not available (due to not being publicly exposed or documented) to competitors. That is is anticompetitive. On the scale of Windows and Microsoft, it's a real problem.
Wrong. I use to use AllOfMp3.com, paying for music for the first time in years, because the service was so great and the price was so low. Then of course it was shutdown. You can compete with free, you just have to add enough value at a price people are willing to pay for. Or you make money from something other than selling the product. Plenty of examples, Christ, internet search, the subject of this post is one. Pay much for your internet search engine do you?
Google are no angels, but compared with MS they are.
MS make a closed operating system and closed software for that closed operating system. How is that not anticompetitive? (I know this doesn't just apply to MS). It was even found as such in court, they where to be broken in two (a OS business and a software business), but then they got out of it!
MS bully the OEM to force Windows on us, and those of us free of them, end up paying more to not have it!
MS where given a monopoly by IBM from the get go and have maintained it with every trick in the book, and a few new ones they came up with themselves. Many of which come under "dirty trick". I could rant about MS and standards, but it's old ground everyone knows. Even the MS fan boys must be able to see Goolge are less bad by a order of magnitude or two, even through the MS cool aid vision. It Google do go properly evil, we can just change search engine, big deal. Many people aren't ready or able to change OS, in fact they are often deliberately locked in.
Thus the Gates Foundation to be remember by something else. Plus I'm sure it does MS no harm with him being all charitable and still supporting Windows. Everyone is a winner......
> Saying nice things about people never sold anything. If he said nice things about Gates, would the book even be on Slashdot?
Quite possibly, as a shock factor. This is pretty much as we expected.
Exactly, exactly. :-)
No high end game is done in managed languages. If you suggested that kind of shit in my company to anyone who really knows (i.e engine team or real game programmers) they will laugh at you. Also, you can't get the most out of these things if you don't understand the virtual machine and the real machine it runs on. It's not a excuse for ignorance as many use it, if anything, it requires you know more as you need to understand the virtual machine as well as the real machine.
What? Grow ourselves out of the mess? Government debt not like personal debt? What madness. No, we need to cut to the bone because that has such a long history of working......
I think the Rhineland model is a better bet. After it's 50 years old, which isn't long, will you just increase the number of years? I agree with Karl Marx on "capitalism will destroy itself", only I don't think it's a good thing and can be, and is, prevented by regulation. We can also use regulation to align outcomes we want with the profit motive.
The gap was big and growing before the credit crunch. A good website on this and the affects of a unequal society is: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
Or look at Germany and it's relationship with industry and it undermines your point.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rhine_Capitalism
If we apply your thinking to the banks we let them burn and us with them.
Don't everyone thinks the cuts should being being done as they are:
http://falseeconomy.org.uk/
There was a time where artists and programmers learnt in their bedroom. This was great because when they came into industry, it didn't take much to get them up to scratch as they had been doing it at home, just with less tools and no access to others. Now, in the game company I work at, we struggle to get people who know what we need.
I wonder how much of the recruitment problem is noise to signal ratio because of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGar7KC6Wiw
These kids go and do "games" courses, but aren't being taught what they need, because really, they don't want to know and the course is about bums on seats to make the education stats look good. I was on a "VR" course that was similar, but I dropped out and went into industry when our "professional 3D artist" didn't know what was skinning or IK and seamed to make everything out of spheres, and our programmers didn't know anything about real-time 3D. That was 10 years ago, not sure it's got better since.
I also wonder how much of the problem is no one learning "roll in the mud" C/C++ that is required. Those learning at uni, and even at home, seem to be learning only managed languages, so don't really understand computers. They don't get memory, data and instructions, only objects and garbage collection. Even if you are going to use someone else's engine, that still puts you at a disadvantage. Though of course, as long as the tech is "good enough" it starts becoming about game play and artwork....
I also wonder if this is limited to the game industry after last week's link to:
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-programmers/
I think this kind of thing makes people angry because they know, deep down, there is at least an element of truth to it, but don't want to take the ivory tower blinkers off and see. Same kind of people who shout that programmers should do GUIs for everything, and there should be no CLI. Tough. For real time, you need to know what the computer is doing, even if you are using a virtual machine on top (in which case, you need to know what that is doing too, so it's actually making things more complex for you). For advanced computer use, you need to learn the CLI.
If everyone thinks something means something, that is what it means. Meaning aren't static. Dictionaries need to reflect this else they fall out of date and usefulness. Sorry, but that's reality. You can argue with dictionaries if you want, but I'm not going involved in such madness.
Economy of scale.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
What I'm saying is a system of freedom rules is freer than no rules. The GPL is just that. You don't have the freedom to take away from others the freedom you where given yourself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Not done any x86-64, but from a quick glance at the disassembler, it doesn't look that different..... ARM was design to be written by hand. It was not written for high-level compilers. Read/listen to what Sophie Wilson has to say on the subject. ARM came from the Acorn, a platform I cut my teeth on. On the Acorn platform, pretty much everything important was written in ARM by hand, and what wasn't was BBC BASIC with ARM for the hot spots. Since then, new instructions have been added, for things like processing multiple input on a single instruction, virtual memory, etc, but it's not like it suddenly has anything even close to mess of x86.
Anarchy is other words. People who think anarchy a good idea either think they are the biggest with the biggest stick, or aren't thinking it through. You need a system of law and order or the freedom is just academic.
My ARM server is just fine. The debian ARM repositories are massive.
My money on 'why' is Windows compatibility and closed source locking the platform more than chip design. The best design doesn't always win, in fact, it often doesn't. This was because of Windows going critical mass and with it x86. So much money was poured into x86 you just got more for your money with x86, and the more that was the case, the more sold, and the more it was the case. This meant it came into the server market from the bottom, and then the same happened there. It's a good example of a bottom up revolution. Now it looks like Wintel compatibility doesn't matter so much (web/freesoftware), and something similar could happen with ARM driven by them being "good enough", cheap and low power. That's why Intel are pooing their pants and MS are hedging their bets with Windows on ARM.