If the movie sucks no, but I did get my money back when the advertised movie in the theatre said it had subtitles but actually didn't, meaning that my purchase ticket left me with a movie I couldn't watch.
If there is software I bought that didn't do what was advertised I wouldn't get my money back, which was the GPs point.
They did kick the US out... and every other property owner, too. To wonder why other countries didn't have that much of an investment in Cuba one only needs to look at a map.
..and that's basically what the hatred towards Cuba boils down to and why the US limits its citizens from visiting this evil communist state.
Just because they're not evangelising the BSD license doesn't make them bias. They just spent time describing how the GPL works first so of course they're just going to expend on that and just show how GPL and BSD are practically the same apart from the following differences.
Microsoft have really lowered the barrier to making games on Windows and Xbox 360. XNA and C# have made it really easy to make games but they're so tied to Microsoft that there is no hope of a port. Most code includes look like this..
using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Collections.Generic; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics;Simple, but Microsoft specific.
Making a cross platform game is a lot harder if you are trying to port something written from Windows because you don't even realise until it happens how non-standard you code can be between operating systems. Perhaps you're using the Windows registry or you're using DirectX. Your only hope really is to score an xbox arcade contract with the publisher Microsoft and if you have written your game in C# and XNA you can give up hope of a port unless you're going to go back and re-write some code in c++.
If you want to make a cross platform game then my advice is to write your code on a different platform (Mac, Linux, etc) and then port it to Windows. You'll find the port much easier this way around as it forces you to write your code to be cross platform and it leaves you open to some great debugging tools such as LatencyTop to help you figure out why your game is losing FPS.
That said you can't do all your game programming on Linux because the tools just aren't there. RenderMonkey for shader programming is a good example, but you can easily just do your shader programming on one machine and use the shaders in Linux. Ogre 3D for example has a shader exporter from RenderMonkey.
What I still don't get, is how in this day and age, when 99% of windows utility apps like web browsers, word processors, spyware scanners, etc. use less than 5% of an avg cpu, can't they be run efficiently on a virtual machine layer in linux?
Thin Clients are better, not everyone in the office needs to (or should) maintain their own system. If you're doing office/email/web browsing you should be on Thin Client and any problems go to the system administrator.
This video explains it the best. People use their computer like they use a telephone.
That's why thin clients are the way forward for some people. If your computer breaks, login to a different terminal. Still broken? Well that's what the sys admin is there for.
People view computers like they view a telephone. You don't have to upgrade your telephone, etc. That's done for you by the phone admins.
The same is possible on Linux. If for example you implemented Ubuntu thin clients around your office you could get the system administrator to update, maintain and make sure upgrades work with your existing software. Not everyone in the office needs maintain their own computer and this is why we have the problems we do today.
Sure this wouldn't work for 3D graphics users but most office environments are web browser, email and office.
I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years now and I can't think of an update that messed up my System. There were plenty of upgrades that had messed things up though.
In your sisters case I'm sure she'd do what she'd do with windows, give it to you. : )
The real problem with your sisters case is that in an office environment she shouldn't have to bother with maintaining her system, she would be better off with a thin client and the system admin maintaining her software for her. Your sister views a computer like a telephone, it should just work, she doesn't care about viruses, etc. She just wants to do email and office.
Microsoft can't give you a legal promise about how the OSP affects you.... Lawyers are professionals.... That's why this entire discussion is stupid.
Seems like you didn't even read the article..
Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?
A: Absolutely, yes. The OSP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The OSP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice.
So which is it? GPL'd code uses their patents, lawsuit or not lawsuit? Is that really a difficult question for them to answer in detail?
This is all BS, smoke and mirrors. In one section they say they can't support the GPL in the quoted section above they say they can.
yeah, yeah, yeah... maybe you should read the damn FAQ and see what they're really promising.. I can't figure out if it's a yes or no..
Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?
A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).
Right so they're backing out right there and saying no to GPL, but also "other OSS licenses".
Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?
A: Absolutely, yes. The OSP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The OSP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice.
So here they're saying the opposite. WTF..
Why don't they just use the ISO standard? If they're willing to go this far to get their Office Software in Government buildings just include ODF support. It'd take them much less time to implement ODF then to rally everyone behind them and there's no patent problems with the ISO ODF spec.
Look what they promise from the Microsoft Open Specification page...
Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?
A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).
That's not a legal commitment at all. Why can't they give a legal promise not to use their patents against Free and Open Source software?
In fact I can tell you EXCACTLY what is going to happen...
1. GPL project implements Microsoft patented format 2. Microsoft says "ZOMG! 200 patents in Linux!" 3.... 4. Profit?
Many arguments say the best way to bring China into the modern world is to integrate them despite their flaws, to expose their peoples to alternative viewpoints.
It's not just the Olympics, it's everything. From architects having copyrights of any picture taken of his building empire state building, copyrights over dance moves and the blood sucking music industry with its hold over the "Happy Birthday" song.
The world has become more pro IP rights, extending them and including rights on things that shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.
Most likely banned from the Olympics and any future events..
A spokesman said the BOA could not stop athletes talking to the media, nor questions being asked, particularly as the four-yearly event is aimed at getting "the best possible coverage of the sport".
"Now, if an athlete answers [a] question honestly, there is not going to be an issue for us there. It's much more something where there is an overt decision to make a political point, using the games as a platform and that clearly is very different."
Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
(Olympic Charter, Fundamental Principles, paragraph 1)
I guess they forgot to add the clause, "except when in China".
I confused you with an MMO example. What I am looking at here is consumer grade hardware that allows physics computation but not only for graphics, I want to use physics for much more then just what you can see on the screen.
True, for most people they see this as a radical proposition though, but if you think about it you're not really losing anything.
ID software for example release their source code as open source after the game has been out for so many years. I don't think companies have to release their code as open source but it would be nice of them to open up the code but they retain the copyright so that a native binary can always be available.
Think about it like touching up a painting or renovating an old building so that it can still be seen for another 400 years. Copyright expires after so many years and becomes public domain anyway. The problem with technology today though, unlike music of many decades ago is that the source code may be lost after 20 years and a native binary will not be possible.
I think access to the source is important in this respect but it's also important from a security standpoint. Games are programs after all which can include vulnerabilities that allow crackers access to your system. A good example being when the Quake 3 source code was released and a buffer overflow vulnerability was discovered.
I feel that game developers, or publishers are taking a stand that if they can't profit from it then no one should be allowed to access it. I wonder how the art world would have turned out if painters burned their paintings after 5 years of people paying to view them. In this respect games will never be art as it is purely profit motivated.
Re:It's fine that the source is closed, for them..
on
Spore Hands-On Preview
·
· Score: 1
Now that's a whiny crybaby, who bitches about how hard it is for poor old him, because of the decision he chose to made of his own free will, then he throws out a bunch of ridiculous claims about how superior Spore would be if only it had been developed on Linux.
That's what is called a "Troll".
Basically someone who is a die hard Microsoft Fanboi who posts anon.
I would also pay full retail price + a couple of extra pounds/dollars for whatever extra dev work went into making an Ubuntu port.
Your true colours are really shining through in your comments as you stereotype a community of users willing to give you cash as trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, 3.1 million people in the UK protest in London at the same time about not going to Iraq and the Blair does it anyway.
Your perceived freedom means NOTHING! Governments just do what they want anyway.
If the movie sucks no, but I did get my money back when the advertised movie in the theatre said it had subtitles but actually didn't, meaning that my purchase ticket left me with a movie I couldn't watch.
If there is software I bought that didn't do what was advertised I wouldn't get my money back, which was the GPs point.
Just because they're not evangelising the BSD license doesn't make them bias. They just spent time describing how the GPL works first so of course they're just going to expend on that and just show how GPL and BSD are practically the same apart from the following differences.
They don't do it to me, I have no script installed. Of course this wouldn't matter to the ISP.
ah shit, not this again..
That's because it's not hydrazine, it's the stuff that turns you into a zombie!
They published the Firefox flaw and didn't mention Opera at all. That's hardly "announcing to the world that Opera has this problem".
What did you expect them to do? Not fix Firefox for a few days?
Microsoft have really lowered the barrier to making games on Windows and Xbox 360. XNA and C# have made it really easy to make games but they're so tied to Microsoft that there is no hope of a port. Most code includes look like this..
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Microsoft.Xna.Framework;
using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content;
using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics;Simple, but Microsoft specific.
Making a cross platform game is a lot harder if you are trying to port something written from Windows because you don't even realise until it happens how non-standard you code can be between operating systems. Perhaps you're using the Windows registry or you're using DirectX. Your only hope really is to score an xbox arcade contract with the publisher Microsoft and if you have written your game in C# and XNA you can give up hope of a port unless you're going to go back and re-write some code in c++.
If you want to make a cross platform game then my advice is to write your code on a different platform (Mac, Linux, etc) and then port it to Windows. You'll find the port much easier this way around as it forces you to write your code to be cross platform and it leaves you open to some great debugging tools such as LatencyTop to help you figure out why your game is losing FPS.
That said you can't do all your game programming on Linux because the tools just aren't there. RenderMonkey for shader programming is a good example, but you can easily just do your shader programming on one machine and use the shaders in Linux. Ogre 3D for example has a shader exporter from RenderMonkey.
They might have beaten HD DVD but they haven't beaten the biggest contender.. DVD.
This video explains it the best. People use their computer like they use a telephone.
Computers are way too hard with Windows as well.
That's why thin clients are the way forward for some people. If your computer breaks, login to a different terminal. Still broken? Well that's what the sys admin is there for.
People view computers like they view a telephone. You don't have to upgrade your telephone, etc. That's done for you by the phone admins.
The same is possible on Linux. If for example you implemented Ubuntu thin clients around your office you could get the system administrator to update, maintain and make sure upgrades work with your existing software. Not everyone in the office needs maintain their own computer and this is why we have the problems we do today.
Sure this wouldn't work for 3D graphics users but most office environments are web browser, email and office.
I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years now and I can't think of an update that messed up my System. There were plenty of upgrades that had messed things up though.
In your sisters case I'm sure she'd do what she'd do with windows, give it to you. : )
The real problem with your sisters case is that in an office environment she shouldn't have to bother with maintaining her system, she would be better off with a thin client and the system admin maintaining her software for her. Your sister views a computer like a telephone, it should just work, she doesn't care about viruses, etc. She just wants to do email and office.
I didn't use the commandline to install Ubuntu, I just clicked the install button.
Now if you're talking about submitting a bug report only to wait for a year to get a response of "Won't fit", yeah I can relate to that...
This is all BS, smoke and mirrors. In one section they say they can't support the GPL in the quoted section above they say they can.
Why don't they just use the ISO standard? If they're willing to go this far to get their Office Software in Government buildings just include ODF support. It'd take them much less time to implement ODF then to rally everyone behind them and there's no patent problems with the ISO ODF spec.
Why reinvent the wheel?
That's not a legal commitment at all. Why can't they give a legal promise not to use their patents against Free and Open Source software?
In fact I can tell you EXCACTLY what is going to happen...
1. GPL project implements Microsoft patented format
2. Microsoft says "ZOMG! 200 patents in Linux!"
3.
4. Profit?
It's not just the Olympics, it's everything. From architects having copyrights of any picture taken of his building empire state building, copyrights over dance moves and the blood sucking music industry with its hold over the "Happy Birthday" song.
The world has become more pro IP rights, extending them and including rights on things that shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237599.stm
I guess they forgot to add the clause, "except when in China".
That's great.. I'm still not buying either, DVDs still work fine and are cheaper.
You people with your 100" TV are in the minority.
I confused you with an MMO example. What I am looking at here is consumer grade hardware that allows physics computation but not only for graphics, I want to use physics for much more then just what you can see on the screen.
True, for most people they see this as a radical proposition though, but if you think about it you're not really losing anything.
ID software for example release their source code as open source after the game has been out for so many years. I don't think companies have to release their code as open source but it would be nice of them to open up the code but they retain the copyright so that a native binary can always be available.
Think about it like touching up a painting or renovating an old building so that it can still be seen for another 400 years. Copyright expires after so many years and becomes public domain anyway. The problem with technology today though, unlike music of many decades ago is that the source code may be lost after 20 years and a native binary will not be possible.
I think access to the source is important in this respect but it's also important from a security standpoint. Games are programs after all which can include vulnerabilities that allow crackers access to your system. A good example being when the Quake 3 source code was released and a buffer overflow vulnerability was discovered.
I feel that game developers, or publishers are taking a stand that if they can't profit from it then no one should be allowed to access it. I wonder how the art world would have turned out if painters burned their paintings after 5 years of people paying to view them. In this respect games will never be art as it is purely profit motivated.
Basically someone who is a die hard Microsoft Fanboi who posts anon.
I would also pay full retail price + a couple of extra pounds/dollars for whatever extra dev work went into making an Ubuntu port.
Your true colours are really shining through in your comments as you stereotype a community of users willing to give you cash as trolls.