LOL, very good point. I'm primarily a UNIX goon, so when I recently started using NT5, I assumed that "Administrator" was like root: it lets you do anything, and because of this should not be used for normal everyday apps. I was half right. Turns out that I couldn't run most of my games (one of the major reasons I have a Microsoft platform around at all!) without being part of the "Administrator" group. Why the hell can't Diablo II find my CD-ROM unless I'm a superuser? Methinks DirectX 7 was thrown into NT5 at the last second.;) It pisses me off. For instance, I use Outlook Express, because I think it's an awesome mail client, but I get nervous as hell reading my mail as root... what if ILOVEYOUTOO does more than kill my MP3s and reproduce? That's poor software design. (Should I be surprised?) I could care less about Microsoft's innovate implementation of Kerberos. I just want them to think about the basic stuff. Once you get that right, go ahead and innovate all you want. Shite.
Microsoft Credo: Even real programmers can't always get security right, so let's not even bother trying. Instead, distract users by designing new, worthless, innovative features. Or, if that proves too difficult (thinking is hard!!), we'll buy some for you.
And the customer's reaction: Hmmm, Explorer still crashes just like it did in Windows 98. So much for NT being so stable and... hey, look! The Start Menu has a new fading effect! That's so fucking cool! I just love Windows 2000!
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
It's a shame it won't occur to anyone outside the geek community that the reason MICROS~1 can't port Office to Linux is that they can't write anything in an environment where they can't freely hack the OS to get around problems.
Ah, it's right in front of you, and yet you don't see it: of course they can hack the OS. This is GNU/Linux, remember?
Sure, Microsoft will release Office for GNU/Linux. It will run, but not very well... perhaps even worse than its native environment. And Microsoft will say, "Well, we tried, folks, but apparently Linux isn't ready for the world's most popular productivity suite. But we're real nice fellas, and we're innovative, see? So we'll see what we can do." And a year will pass, and doubt will creep upon the computing world like an ivy, and a few bold columnists will wonder if perhaps this was yet another of Microsoft's failed technology/business (they are one and the same, in Redmond) ventures.
And then, rumours. Rumours are nothing unusual in this industry, but not always something to ignore. A keen ear can almost see the future by keeping abuzz of the Silicon Valley grapevine.
"Did you hear? Microsoft will be releasing a new product soon..." "...supposedly some sort of competition for Apple's Mac OS X, that new Unix-workalike OS which..." "...been making a real comeback, yeah. It's like there's some sorta renaissance in the Unix world. I mean, with OS X, and then..." "...GNU/Linux has been slowly gaining a foothold, too. Remember when Microsoft tried to port..." "...What? You say the new OS won't be Windows? What could possibly..." "...trying to take part of the server market from Sun and IBM. They've got some nerve, after that business with the DoJ."
The rumours continue for another year and a half, and then Microsoft amazes, intrigues, and impresses all by releasing their first non-Windows OS in over a decade: Microsoft Xenix 2005. It's SVR4... embraced and extended, of course. Can run your old NT software in "NT-compatibility mode", but is a full-featured UNIX development and server environment. The MCSEs will rally in their dank little holes ("How dare they expect us to learn a real operating system!"), but their spirits were broken after the Microsoft breakup in 2001, in which Microsoft Office Applications and Microsoft Internet Services were split from the OS division. And so what if the Xenix 2005 feels just a little too much like GNU/Linux? If pressed, Microsoft can just say they used some FreeBSD code... and never have to prove anything else, thanks to their license. Sure, maybe they used a little Linux code (and maybe some Sun code, too; isn't Solaris supposed to be partially open-sourced in the next year?;), but why should we fight them? They're Microsoft, and we love them.
Microsoft Operating Systems, flanked by its brothers Applications and Internet Services will slowly destroy their compeition, but instead of putting them out of business, they'll absorb them. Of course Microsoft/Oracle10i runs best on Xenix! Ditto with Microsoft EGCS. (Yep, they got FSF too.) And it all performs best on IBMicroSun hardware. And who will stop them? No one. Not the Federal government, who changed the country's name to the United Slaves of Microsoft in 2016. One day, every being on this planet will pay tribute to Wilhelm Gates the XVIII in their own soul. For what is a soul compared to the chance to use Microsoft Xenix 2172, whose paperclip pal gives you your daily schedule with a wry grin? ("10:20 - Act subserviant.") Where do you want to go today, bitch?
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Dammit, you didn't have a thing to say... you just wanted to brag about the new boxen... not that I blame you.:)
Seems like a pity to get all that hardware and then put frickin' Red Hat on it. Let me guess... it's some sort of support issue, right? Because the box is for work? If I were getting a new box it'd be Slackware, or possibly Debian (or more likely than both, FreeBSD)... unless it had more than four CPUs, in which case I would use Solaris or HP-UX. (For my needs as a workstation, real UNIX is usually too much... but once you get past four CPUs, using GNU/Linux is sort of silly, IMHO.)
Oh, wait, I forgot, we're talking about your new shite.:) Have fun.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Ah, but of course... you should be using NT5 Server, right?;-) So what if the only difference is a few registry keys? It makes a world of difference...
Heh.
Anyway, I read the replies to your post, and I'll just two of my own observations:
A complaint: Yes, NT5 does crash. And yes, when I've seen it crash, it usually takes a while to figure out why (if you ever do).
A caveat: However, all of the crashes I've seen were due to buggy device drivers (which I can't blame on MS; they weren't signed/certified drivers) or happened when setting up new applications.
I'd imagine that once you get the applications configured properly, NT5 will make a dandy server. It may not perform as well as UNIX or give you as much "bang for the buck" for the hardware (hell, and it only runs on crappy x86), but for small/medium load file/mail/web serving, it would probably be fine. I'm guessing that if Microsoft tries to move Hotmail to NT5, they'll do it by using many, many, many servers (don't think server farm... think server plantation.) and an excellent load balancer, to ensure that no single server is ever placed under enough of a load to really fuck up. The biggest problem still remaining with NT5/IIS is that AFAIK enough of the server runs at the GNU/Linux equivalent of "kernel level" so that if the server really gets hit bad and starts panic-ing, it's too late to keep the OS from keeling over. But I haven't yet used NT5 in such an environment, so I'm just going on past experience.
The trouble with such things is that it's very difficult to get clear, objective information. 99% of people advocating NT/IIS are MS astroturfers, and 99% of people advocating Linux/Apache are script kiddies like Malda (oh come on, I'm kidding. Slash is a fine script, very fine!). The astroturfers probably haven't used UNIX or a Unix-workalike in ten years, and the script kiddies have never used NT (they assume it's just like Windows 95, the only MS product they used before escaping the "evil empire" and going Finnish). (It's funny... many Linux-converts could probably find NT5 very useful, but couldn't fathom paying for Microsoft-ware for fear of shame!) Almost no one can speak objectively about both. The benchmarks are useless and don't give much real-world performance data. And performace is only one of many issues behind selection of a server platform. And on and on...
What were we talking about? Oh yeah, NT5 crashing... sure, it crashes, but GNU/Linux doesn't have proper Java support... or decent games support... or web browsers as nice as those available under Windows (Netscape on Win32 10x better than on Lin32!)... or mail clients as nice as those available under Windows (speaking as a former mutt-junky)... or proper graphics/sound support... or a billion other things. But GNU/Linux gives me stability... speed... the UNIX development environment I love... and excellent, high quality, free software such as EGCS, Perl, The GIMP, Apache (some of these have been ported to Win32 but the ports aren't production quality), and dammit, I just like it. Why do people have to be so millitant about their platforms? "My OS, right or wrong." I couldn't stand limiting myself to one platform... my CD shelf at my desk has software for two UNIX systems, four UNIX-workalikes, and two Microsoft Windows systems. And I enjoy using each one, and I get something from each that I can't from the others.
I don't know why, reading Slashdot, I keep thinking this lately, but:
Can't we all just get along?
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
There is a disturbing amount of ignorant moderation in this story. Your comment was +1 Funny at least... and since I happen to agree with your outlook, I would've given it +1 Insighful, too. But Flamebait? Pish, posh! Slashdot is slowly becoming an laughable police state... between the decline of average moderator intelligence and the Management's new "Linux is l337, fuX you all... I w1ll b17cH-5l4p yoUz b3c4ws I wr073 teh P3RL 5crip7!! h4w h4w!!!" attitude, kur05hin will be getting a lot of new members in the coming months.
Most of the discussions here aren't too bad, but this one was just soooooo depressing. All of the comments dissenting from the Borg-like status quo (didn't I say I agreed?:) have been modded down as "Troll" or "Flamebait". Fuck you all... as a GNU/Linux user, I readily admit that it sucks for a lot of potential applications. Get a grip and realize that in some areas, NT5 rocks your world. (And it sucks Malda's cock in others. Just like GNU/Linux.)
Here comes the flamebait: Personally, I'd love to see an NT5 section on this site. Drop that Gates/Borg icon (was real funny the first time, but after a while...) and try to be a real news site. It's been obvious ever since you let Andover buy your asses that you're trying to expand your audience. So drop the "News for Debian-loving script kiddies, stuff that matters too almost no one" shite and expand your palate. you think there's nothing technical about NT5 to talk about? It'd be very possible to have a section of technical, interesting stores about NT, without Slashdot degrading into a amalgam of slobbering Windoze-lusers sharing l337 tips on Start Menu configuration. This violently anti-Redmond attitude is sooooo old. We know you use fucking Windows, Malda. If you were such a loyal Linux fan, you wouldn't have bought Diablo II (until Loki ported it). I'm sure being a hypocrite feels sort of dirty, doesn't it? (Maybe you should go wash your hands, Rob... but the dirt won't come off! Mother of God, the dirt won't come off!)
Oh well, I'm just ranting, and I'll soon be modded down as a Troll... boo fucking hoo, my precious karma, it's the end of the world, oh shit I'm fucked now.
But...
I know I'm not the only one who would love to see a Slashdot with sections on NT... and MacOS... and UNIX... and perhaps individual sections for several major GNU/Linux distros... and whatever else. The current sections (BSD, YRO, Interviews, et cetera) aren't promoted well and so don't get a lot of good discussions (unless a story makes it to the front page) but I know that Slashdot has the traffic to support something like that.
There are a lot of readers that use OS's other than UNIX workalikes. They could care less about many of the stories post here, but crave the intelligent discussion that Slashdot cultivates. If NT and MacOS users could get NT and MacOS news with Slashdot's quality of journalism (if you choose to call it that... it's not really 'journalism', but whatever it is, even though the quality has declined lately, it's still an awesome site!!), Slashdot could probably double its traffic. If you can't stand that idea and want to be OSS News all the way, then drop the Microsoft-bashing stories and Mac crap. You're straddling the fence right now, and it's really quit funny... bashing Windows one minute, reporting on Windows-only games the next... promoting OSS one minute, posting stories about the most proprietary computer vendor (Apple) the next... dissing nVidia's strongarm tactics one minute, posting links to GeForce 2 Ultra reviews the next... I mean, it'd be one thing if you were really trying to be objective and journalistic about it, but with your loaded titles, biased story intros, and that damned Gates/borg icon, you're anything but objective or journalistic.
Okay, enough ranting for now. I'm supposed to be working. Later.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
SIG:
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
CowboyNeal! Who's the white uber-geek who we all know as SuperFreak?
CowboyNeal! He's one baaaaad mutha -
Shut yo' mouth! I'm just talkin' 'bout Neal!
We can dig it...
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Wow, Sega CD! I'm trying to remember the games they had for it... (never played 'em)... Sewer Shark? And that Top Gun game, right? And the Western shoot-em-up game (precursor to the FPS:)... oh, and I seem to recall some zombie/vampire/sorority chicks game that ended up being banned in the UK or Canada or someother backwards country. [/me ducks]
Who else remembers Turbo Graphix 16? I think only the Atari Jaguar bombed worse than that. (Which was interesting because IIRC the Jaguar had 64-bit years before Nintendo.)
Actually, no, wait... I think Virtua Boy (sp?) probably did worse than both of 'em.
And while Neo Geo never never really caught on in the states (I only vaguely remember Samurai Showdown) I think it sold respectably in Nihon.
What am I forgetting? The Phillips system... and the original non-Sony PlayStations... what else?
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
By the time the Xbox is released, the PSX2 will be in the same position as SNES is today. It makes no sense to compare today's consoles to a product which currently consists of little more than several marketing campaigns. No matter how l337 the Xbox will be when released, the PSX2 is available now. And no matter how many multiple orgasms Carmack has when talking about the Xbox, it's still vapourware.:-)
Ahem.
If it doesn't impress Carmack, meaning that he doesn't think it's revolutionary and that he won't develop for it, it's a sad statement for Sony.
As awesome as Carmack is, I wouldn't bet the future of a gaming platform on one man's opinion. PC games are what bought Carmack's Ferrari's, not console games. I mean, no offense to Carmack, but I don't think he's the most qualified person in that arena.
I think Sony will get a taste of its own medicine with the torrential $500 million marketing campaign for the Xbox.
I seriously don't think Sony has anything to worry about WTR Microsoft. Sony will have a very profitable two years (at least) before they should start worrying about marketshare, and what then? How many gamers are going to buy into a completely new platform from a completely new console maker? And who knows what form(s) Microsoft will be in two years? Even if by some chance Redmond managed to take half of the Sony's console market, Sony has years of experience in other markets: music, electronics, computer hardware, entertainment, and of course, AIBOs. Put it this way: I'm sure Sony will still be a big deal in ten years. And I'm not so sure about Microsoft.
Aside: I thought those Dreamcast screenshots looked pretty weak. Looks like the models use about half the polys of the real Q3A. I guess you get what you pay for; you can buy the console and the game for the price of a modern top-o-the-line graphics card. But then again, the Dreamcast and PC versions probably have a largely overlapping target audience. If you have both a semi-decent PC and a Dreamcast, is there any question which you should run Q3A on? If you want a good Dreamcast game, wait for the domestic release of Shenmue.
Maybe Carmack will help write the inevitable bundled Xbox game. (Which would of course be... Xtreme Minesweeper 2005.)
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Sarcasm? What's that? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Is it anything like irony? Because that's another conecpt I've never really understood.
(Along with subtlety.)
Hey, come back! I'm being completely serious!
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
I love this quote from the last page... I wish I could've used it in a thread a few days ago where I was explaining how gamepads are shite for FPS games:
The only issue, again, is that people that are used to playing with a mouse and keyboard--their first reaction to playing with a game pad is not gonna be good. . . . You go online and you play people playing with joypads, and then people who have gone out and bought the mouse and keyboard--given equal talent they're going to lay waste to the joypad people.
Heh heh heh...
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
How so? I describe a common Q3A control setup (close to the defaults, actually). I'm at least sure more people identify with me than him, saying that he enjoyed the N64 port of Quake ][.:-)
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
It's also interesting when you look at the download statistics for the Linux UT binaries. (For those of you who didn't know, to play UT on GNU/Linux you have to buy the normal (as in Windows) retail veriosn and then download some Linux binaries.) On FilePlanet (the only worthwhile GameSpy site now that Lowtax left!), there have been over thirty-thousand downloads of the latest Windows patch, and only six-hundred downloads of the Linux patch. Check this out:
Patch 425 (latest)
30139 downloads, Win32
601 downloads, Linux
Patch 413 (from March/April)
198767 downloads, Win32
1659 downloads, Linux
Demo 348 (last October)
193333 downloads, Win32
29923 downloads, Linux
To me, those figures confirm what we've known all along: Linux users love free software but aren't going to pay for the retail version.;-) I wonder if Epic thinks the extra development cost and time were worth the extra sales, which probably amount to less than 3% of all copies sold. Maybe Cliffy B just wanted to appear l337 to the Linux community.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Okay, I'm starting to catch on... sips is suffering from the Slashdot Newbie Syndrome (SNS). Symptoms include a mad desire to participate, but a lack of anything to contribute. Ah, well...
Oh course you don't have a problem with the resoltution, sips: you've never used a computer! You're probably posting via WebTV. Because no one that has ever played a computer game in 800x600 or greater resolution would ever be completely happy with gaming on a television again. Your vision or the television quality is irrelevant, sips. I can get four times as sharp an image on my 19" monitor as on a television. Consoles aren't worthy of new graphics technology because of the severe limitations of the standard television screen. What would be the point of porting UT when you won't even be able to see the texture compression? Ditto for Quake 3... Carmack doesn't intend for the best FPS graphics engine available to be used at below 640x480. Carmack developing console games would be a complete waste of his time and ours. Not until the Xbox is released (if it's ever released) will there be a console platform worthy on Carmack's attention. id will have released two more blockbusters before then.
No one will get mad at you if you don't post inane replies in every thread, sips. Calm down! We're working on a cure for SNS as I'm writing this.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
There's nothing wrong with being in the minority, so don't think I'm insulting you, but you are. The vast majority of FPS addicts laugh at the thought of playing without a mouse and keyboard. Mice give you ultra-precise control, and the keyboard gives you more keys than you'll ever need to bind. While it is true that console FPS games have come a long way in the last five years, the interface is IMNSHO their primary obstacle. The introduction of joysticks on standard console gamepads helps, but not much -- not only is truely precise control almost impossible due to the joystick's small size, but the way you have to hold the joystick in position to retain a constant perspective (other than straight ahead) makes my hands sore after six hours or so. The joysticks do not give the needed precision. The N64 controller could suffice for a DOOM port, but no TFC sniper or Q3A railgunner could live with it.
Even ignoring those precision problems, there just aren't enough buttons to play effectively. Any console FPS with more than a dozen weapons will end up using a horrible switching mechansism a la Turok 2 (which would be a joke to use in a modern online multiplayer FPS).
When playing Quake 3 on a PC, I use
9 keys to access individual weapons
4 keys for horizontal movement
1 key each for crouch, run/walk, and jump
1 key each for chat, console, and "use"
3 mouse buttons and a mousewheel for switching weapons and other functions
1 mouse for aiming/climbing/steering
You just try to duplicate the functionality of ~25 buttons and a mouse on the current crop of gamepads! Not gonna happen. If console manufacturers get a clue, they'll bundle a mouse and keyboard with their new systems. Combine that with Internet access and a DVD player, and you've got a pretty schweet entertainment system/web appliance... competition for both PC games and WebTV-type stuff.
Playing on a PC, I get a superior interface, much higher video resolution, much better graphics, and much faster action. (Goldeneye feels like walking through molasses after playing even the original Quake!!)
I am happy to hear that at least someone enjoyed an N64 port of an id game. You're the first person I've met that has.:-)
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
And you, Sleen, are the master of the Slashdot posting world. Your "informative" and "interesting" posts never cease to amaze, intrigue, and educate. You make Signal 11 looks like a newbie. CmdrTaco is quoted as saying, "If it weren't for the wit and insight of Sleen, I would've given up on this site years ago." If Jesus "Fucking" Christ were to descend upon Earth this very moment, he would probably repent and start worshipping you. Why? What is it about Sleen's posts that make women and men alike want to fondle his miniature genitalia? Perhaps it is the fact that in one line -- seven words -- Sleen was able to capture the essence of every man's feelings and ideas about Little Johnny Carmack and the entire gaming industry. His diction, his grammar, his impeccable timing and sense of humour -- all of these things contribute to Sleen's aura of intelligence and mystique. Sleen, Master of Slashdot. Sleen, Sexual Dynamo. Sleen, American Hero. Sleen, Modern God of Technology.
By the way, you didn't get first post, asshole.;-) Next time just show your true colors and shout "f1r5t p0z7!!" with pride and dignity.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
True, and cryptography is an aspect of security that most security professionals have very little to worry about -- that's the software developer's job. I never said the book would make you a security expert, I said it would give coders a good start into the world of security-related software. The book also explains many protocols, which are a perhaps more important than the crytograpic algorithms themselves. 3DES is useless if not applied correctly... correct design and application of computer security systems like Kerberos (and it is important to separate the algorithms from the protocols; Kerberos can be implemented with Blowfish, DES, ROT13...;) involves many people: mathemeticians/cryptologists, network engineers, software developers, OS experts... this book will make life easier for computer geeks who write software based upon math geeks' work.
Gotta go now, work calls.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
...should check out his very excellent book Applied Cryptography, which is a great introduction, reference, and all-around good read for coders who would like to know more about cryptography in general and how to implement common algorithms. It's got the history, theory, protocols -- really a nice thing to have. And unlike many of these type of books, it is perfectly approachable to those of us who are programming wizards but never really cared for mathematics.
IIRC the book's examples are in C. A decent companion text is Java Cryptography (O'Reilly), which while light on theory, is a fairly good tutorial in use of the java.security package's crytographic classes. Unfortunately the book is rather shallow (read the reviews on Amazon for elaboration) and also rather dated; do not expect to find coverage of JCE 1.2 (Java Cryptography Extension) or other recent (year < 1.0) releases.
I'd love to hear others' favorite cryptology-related books.
---------///---------- All generalizations are false.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Credo: Even real programmers can't always get security right, so let's not even bother trying. Instead, distract users by designing new, worthless, innovative features. Or, if that proves too difficult (thinking is hard!!), we'll buy some for you.
And the customer's reaction: Hmmm, Explorer still crashes just like it did in Windows 98. So much for NT being so stable and... hey, look! The Start Menu has a new fading effect! That's so fucking cool! I just love Windows 2000!
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
(But Microsoft would probably favor it anyway. "Awww, how cute! It's like Windows for Linux users!")
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Sure, Microsoft will release Office for GNU/Linux. It will run, but not very well... perhaps even worse than its native environment. And Microsoft will say, "Well, we tried, folks, but apparently Linux isn't ready for the world's most popular productivity suite. But we're real nice fellas, and we're innovative, see? So we'll see what we can do." And a year will pass, and doubt will creep upon the computing world like an ivy, and a few bold columnists will wonder if perhaps this was yet another of Microsoft's failed technology/business (they are one and the same, in Redmond) ventures.
And then, rumours. Rumours are nothing unusual in this industry, but not always something to ignore. A keen ear can almost see the future by keeping abuzz of the Silicon Valley grapevine.
"Did you hear? Microsoft will be releasing a new product soon..." "...supposedly some sort of competition for Apple's Mac OS X, that new Unix-workalike OS which..." "...been making a real comeback, yeah. It's like there's some sorta renaissance in the Unix world. I mean, with OS X, and then..." "...GNU/Linux has been slowly gaining a foothold, too. Remember when Microsoft tried to port..." "...What? You say the new OS won't be Windows? What could possibly..." "...trying to take part of the server market from Sun and IBM. They've got some nerve, after that business with the DoJ."
The rumours continue for another year and a half, and then Microsoft amazes, intrigues, and impresses all by releasing their first non-Windows OS in over a decade: Microsoft Xenix 2005. It's SVR4... embraced and extended, of course. Can run your old NT software in "NT-compatibility mode", but is a full-featured UNIX development and server environment. The MCSEs will rally in their dank little holes ("How dare they expect us to learn a real operating system!"), but their spirits were broken after the Microsoft breakup in 2001, in which Microsoft Office Applications and Microsoft Internet Services were split from the OS division. And so what if the Xenix 2005 feels just a little too much like GNU/Linux? If pressed, Microsoft can just say they used some FreeBSD code... and never have to prove anything else, thanks to their license. Sure, maybe they used a little Linux code (and maybe some Sun code, too; isn't Solaris supposed to be partially open-sourced in the next year? ;), but why should we fight them? They're Microsoft, and we love them.
Microsoft Operating Systems, flanked by its brothers Applications and Internet Services will slowly destroy their compeition, but instead of putting them out of business, they'll absorb them. Of course Microsoft/Oracle10i runs best on Xenix! Ditto with Microsoft EGCS. (Yep, they got FSF too.) And it all performs best on IBMicroSun hardware. And who will stop them? No one. Not the Federal government, who changed the country's name to the United Slaves of Microsoft in 2016. One day, every being on this planet will pay tribute to Wilhelm Gates the XVIII in their own soul. For what is a soul compared to the chance to use Microsoft Xenix 2172, whose paperclip pal gives you your daily schedule with a wry grin? ("10:20 - Act subserviant.") Where do you want to go today, bitch?
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Seems like a pity to get all that hardware and then put frickin' Red Hat on it. Let me guess... it's some sort of support issue, right? Because the box is for work? If I were getting a new box it'd be Slackware, or possibly Debian (or more likely than both, FreeBSD)... unless it had more than four CPUs, in which case I would use Solaris or HP-UX. (For my needs as a workstation, real UNIX is usually too much... but once you get past four CPUs, using GNU/Linux is sort of silly, IMHO.)
Oh, wait, I forgot, we're talking about your new shite. :) Have fun.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Heh.
Anyway, I read the replies to your post, and I'll just two of my own observations:
- A complaint: Yes, NT5 does crash. And yes, when I've seen it crash, it usually takes a while to figure out why (if you ever do).
- A caveat: However, all of the crashes I've seen were due to buggy device drivers (which I can't blame on MS; they weren't signed/certified drivers) or happened when setting up new applications.
I'd imagine that once you get the applications configured properly, NT5 will make a dandy server. It may not perform as well as UNIX or give you as much "bang for the buck" for the hardware (hell, and it only runs on crappy x86), but for small/medium load file/mail/web serving, it would probably be fine. I'm guessing that if Microsoft tries to move Hotmail to NT5, they'll do it by using many, many, many servers (don't think server farm... think server plantationThe trouble with such things is that it's very difficult to get clear, objective information. 99% of people advocating NT/IIS are MS astroturfers, and 99% of people advocating Linux/Apache are script kiddies like Malda (oh come on, I'm kidding. Slash is a fine script, very fine!). The astroturfers probably haven't used UNIX or a Unix-workalike in ten years, and the script kiddies have never used NT (they assume it's just like Windows 95, the only MS product they used before escaping the "evil empire" and going Finnish). (It's funny... many Linux-converts could probably find NT5 very useful, but couldn't fathom paying for Microsoft-ware for fear of shame!) Almost no one can speak objectively about both. The benchmarks are useless and don't give much real-world performance data. And performace is only one of many issues behind selection of a server platform. And on and on...
What were we talking about? Oh yeah, NT5 crashing... sure, it crashes, but GNU/Linux doesn't have proper Java support... or decent games support... or web browsers as nice as those available under Windows (Netscape on Win32 10x better than on Lin32!)... or mail clients as nice as those available under Windows (speaking as a former mutt-junky)... or proper graphics/sound support... or a billion other things. But GNU/Linux gives me stability... speed... the UNIX development environment I love... and excellent, high quality, free software such as EGCS, Perl, The GIMP, Apache (some of these have been ported to Win32 but the ports aren't production quality), and dammit, I just like it. Why do people have to be so millitant about their platforms? "My OS, right or wrong." I couldn't stand limiting myself to one platform... my CD shelf at my desk has software for two UNIX systems, four UNIX-workalikes, and two Microsoft Windows systems. And I enjoy using each one, and I get something from each that I can't from the others.
I don't know why, reading Slashdot, I keep thinking this lately, but:
Can't we all just get along?
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Most of the discussions here aren't too bad, but this one was just soooooo depressing. All of the comments dissenting from the Borg-like status quo (didn't I say I agreed? :) have been modded down as "Troll" or "Flamebait". Fuck you all... as a GNU/Linux user, I readily admit that it sucks for a lot of potential applications. Get a grip and realize that in some areas, NT5 rocks your world. (And it sucks Malda's cock in others. Just like GNU/Linux.)
Here comes the flamebait: Personally, I'd love to see an NT5 section on this site. Drop that Gates/Borg icon (was real funny the first time, but after a while...) and try to be a real news site. It's been obvious ever since you let Andover buy your asses that you're trying to expand your audience. So drop the "News for Debian-loving script kiddies, stuff that matters too almost no one" shite and expand your palate. you think there's nothing technical about NT5 to talk about? It'd be very possible to have a section of technical, interesting stores about NT, without Slashdot degrading into a amalgam of slobbering Windoze-lusers sharing l337 tips on Start Menu configuration. This violently anti-Redmond attitude is sooooo old. We know you use fucking Windows, Malda. If you were such a loyal Linux fan, you wouldn't have bought Diablo II (until Loki ported it). I'm sure being a hypocrite feels sort of dirty, doesn't it? (Maybe you should go wash your hands, Rob... but the dirt won't come off! Mother of God, the dirt won't come off!)
Oh well, I'm just ranting, and I'll soon be modded down as a Troll... boo fucking hoo, my precious karma, it's the end of the world, oh shit I'm fucked now.
But...
I know I'm not the only one who would love to see a Slashdot with sections on NT... and MacOS... and UNIX... and perhaps individual sections for several major GNU/Linux distros... and whatever else. The current sections (BSD, YRO, Interviews, et cetera) aren't promoted well and so don't get a lot of good discussions (unless a story makes it to the front page) but I know that Slashdot has the traffic to support something like that.
There are a lot of readers that use OS's other than UNIX workalikes. They could care less about many of the stories post here, but crave the intelligent discussion that Slashdot cultivates. If NT and MacOS users could get NT and MacOS news with Slashdot's quality of journalism (if you choose to call it that... it's not really 'journalism', but whatever it is, even though the quality has declined lately, it's still an awesome site!!), Slashdot could probably double its traffic. If you can't stand that idea and want to be OSS News all the way, then drop the Microsoft-bashing stories and Mac crap. You're straddling the fence right now, and it's really quit funny... bashing Windows one minute, reporting on Windows-only games the next... promoting OSS one minute, posting stories about the most proprietary computer vendor (Apple) the next... dissing nVidia's strongarm tactics one minute, posting links to GeForce 2 Ultra reviews the next... I mean, it'd be one thing if you were really trying to be objective and journalistic about it, but with your loaded titles, biased story intros, and that damned Gates/borg icon, you're anything but objective or journalistic.
Okay, enough ranting for now. I'm supposed to be working. Later.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
CowboyNeal!
Who's the white uber-geek who we all know as SuperFreak?
CowboyNeal!
He's one baaaaad mutha -
Shut yo' mouth!
I'm just talkin' 'bout Neal!
We can dig it...
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Who else remembers Turbo Graphix 16? I think only the Atari Jaguar bombed worse than that. (Which was interesting because IIRC the Jaguar had 64-bit years before Nintendo.)
Actually, no, wait... I think Virtua Boy (sp?) probably did worse than both of 'em.
And while Neo Geo never never really caught on in the states (I only vaguely remember Samurai Showdown) I think it sold respectably in Nihon.
What am I forgetting? The Phillips system... and the original non-Sony PlayStations... what else?
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Ahem.
As awesome as Carmack is, I wouldn't bet the future of a gaming platform on one man's opinion. PC games are what bought Carmack's Ferrari's, not console games. I mean, no offense to Carmack, but I don't think he's the most qualified person in that arena. I seriously don't think Sony has anything to worry about WTR Microsoft. Sony will have a very profitable two years (at least) before they should start worrying about marketshare, and what then? How many gamers are going to buy into a completely new platform from a completely new console maker? And who knows what form(s) Microsoft will be in two years? Even if by some chance Redmond managed to take half of the Sony's console market, Sony has years of experience in other markets: music, electronics, computer hardware, entertainment, and of course, AIBOs. Put it this way: I'm sure Sony will still be a big deal in ten years. And I'm not so sure about Microsoft.Aside: I thought those Dreamcast screenshots looked pretty weak. Looks like the models use about half the polys of the real Q3A. I guess you get what you pay for; you can buy the console and the game for the price of a modern top-o-the-line graphics card. But then again, the Dreamcast and PC versions probably have a largely overlapping target audience. If you have both a semi-decent PC and a Dreamcast, is there any question which you should run Q3A on? If you want a good Dreamcast game, wait for the domestic release of Shenmue.
Maybe Carmack will help write the inevitable bundled Xbox game. (Which would of course be... Xtreme Minesweeper 2005.)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Well, judging by your UID, you've been reading /. for about a week, so give it a while. ;-)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
(Along with subtlety.)
Hey, come back! I'm being completely serious!
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
A: Sun boxen!
Mwahahahaha.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Patch 425 (latest)
Patch 413 (from March/April)
Demo 348 (last October)
To me, those figures confirm what we've known all along: Linux users love free software but aren't going to pay for the retail version. ;-) I wonder if Epic thinks the extra development cost and time were worth the extra sales, which probably amount to less than 3% of all copies sold. Maybe Cliffy B just wanted to appear l337 to the Linux community.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Oh course you don't have a problem with the resoltution, sips: you've never used a computer! You're probably posting via WebTV. Because no one that has ever played a computer game in 800x600 or greater resolution would ever be completely happy with gaming on a television again. Your vision or the television quality is irrelevant, sips. I can get four times as sharp an image on my 19" monitor as on a television. Consoles aren't worthy of new graphics technology because of the severe limitations of the standard television screen. What would be the point of porting UT when you won't even be able to see the texture compression? Ditto for Quake 3... Carmack doesn't intend for the best FPS graphics engine available to be used at below 640x480. Carmack developing console games would be a complete waste of his time and ours. Not until the Xbox is released (if it's ever released) will there be a console platform worthy on Carmack's attention. id will have released two more blockbusters before then.
No one will get mad at you if you don't post inane replies in every thread, sips. Calm down! We're working on a cure for SNS as I'm writing this.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Even ignoring those precision problems, there just aren't enough buttons to play effectively. Any console FPS with more than a dozen weapons will end up using a horrible switching mechansism a la Turok 2 (which would be a joke to use in a modern online multiplayer FPS).
When playing Quake 3 on a PC, I use
- 9 keys to access individual weapons
- 4 keys for horizontal movement
- 1 key each for crouch, run/walk, and jump
- 1 key each for chat, console, and "use"
- 3 mouse buttons and a mousewheel for switching weapons and other functions
- 1 mouse for aiming/climbing/steering
You just try to duplicate the functionality of ~25 buttons and a mouse on the current crop of gamepads! Not gonna happen. If console manufacturers get a clue, they'll bundle a mouse and keyboard with their new systems. Combine that with Internet access and a DVD player, and you've got a pretty schweet entertainment system/web appliance... competition for both PC games and WebTV-type stuff.Playing on a PC, I get a superior interface, much higher video resolution, much better graphics, and much faster action. (Goldeneye feels like walking through molasses after playing even the original Quake!!)
I am happy to hear that at least someone enjoyed an N64 port of an id game. You're the first person I've met that has. :-)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
By the way, you didn't get first post, asshole. ;-) Next time just show your true colors and shout "f1r5t p0z7!!" with pride and dignity.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Gotta go now, work calls.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
IIRC the book's examples are in C. A decent companion text is Java Cryptography (O'Reilly), which while light on theory, is a fairly good tutorial in use of the java.security package's crytographic classes. Unfortunately the book is rather shallow (read the reviews on Amazon for elaboration) and also rather dated; do not expect to find coverage of JCE 1.2 (Java Cryptography Extension) or other recent (year < 1.0) releases.
I'd love to hear others' favorite cryptology-related books.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
#!/usr/bin/perl ;-)";
print "I'll show you mine if you show me yours...
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.