My only regret is this trial is only four days long!
Its entertaining watching Darl McBride perjure himself and SCO fail to make evan a defensive case after the fact they lost.
I think we can all see Novell getting money, but the dance for the money is going to be awfully fun, watching SCO's talentless lawyers trying to convince the judge that when they said red, they meant blue.
I doubt anyone could prove he didn't know, whereas there's plenty of people now who *do* know. Shit, Chris Sontag himself testified before Darl and said he never saw evidence of UNIX in Linux that he could recall. And what does Darl say?
Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].
Sorry, Darl may be an idiot, but he definitely lied here unless you can prove he somehow completely and totally forgot a big fact that would have affected his entire case. When faced with the 10-Q he obviously lied there.
I don't find this ridiculous at all. Sure it was heated and emotional. SURE it was over a minor feature.
Big deal. The nature of open source, especially under the GPL is that if you don't like something, you can change it and make your own fork. I, for one, look forward to seeing just how different this fork from Pidgin will be.
If, indeed, this new "technology" from Microsoft is meant to do harm to Linux, then I see only a few things happening, almost none of them will be a true hindrance to Linux and all but harmful to Microsoft.
First, most Linux distributors would recognize this is a ploy my Microsoft and ignore this and use true interoperability without the danger of integrating Microsoft software.
Second, those that don't, if this is indeed something Microsoft is using to destroy Linux, either fork or die. Those that die probably deserve to die for being managed by distributors that are too dim to see it as a trap. To them I say good riddance. The forks ditch the Microsoft control mechanisms and become stronger than the original distributions they forked from.
Third, various projects spring up, free and open source alternatives to the Microsoft control mechanism spring up. This in no way enabled Microsoft.
Finally, Microsoft, seeing that they only managed to squish maybe a handful of weaker distros, moves on to the next embrace and extend.
Don't forget one of the reasons Linux hasn't managed to get squished like DR-DOS or Be OS is likely in part thanks to the Open Source model. Microsoft squishes one, at lest two will take its place. If Microsoft is able to kill the Linux kernel, they just fork it and call it something else, with changes made to it that prevent the previous mad destruction.
The worst case scenario I see is only one major distribution going down, and I'm betting it will be Novell's since they're in that agreement with Microsoft. Definitely not Red Hat, since they have essentially declared they won't have anything to do with Microsoft.
Exactly. A virus for Linux at this point in time probably doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on the average Linux system because Linux users are smarter than the average Windows user. (I am generalizing and using a more relative version of smarter here.) That, coupled with the fact there are less than a hundredLinux viruses and a small user base, a Linux virus is not much of a threat... FOR NOW.
But what happens when we actually DO accomplish full-on Linux on the desktop? What happens if, hypothetically, Linux becomes more widely used than Windows? Suddenly the average skill of a Linux user plunges downward, and the virus population for Linux skyrocks. Suddenly a Linux virus doesn't seem so harmless, does it?
Remember nowadays, a virus usually doesn't commit destruction, as that would render a bot in a botnet worhtless, but would rather use it for spamming purposes. There's not need for elevated permissions. On top of that, most of the stuff a virus can destroy without elevation is the stuff the average user cares about anyway: Documents, Music, Pictures, HARD WORK. Irreplaceable things.
If there is a perfectly safe system that is still able to connect to the outside world, it is a system used only by a user who knows how to prevent viruses and knows how to do effective backups. You could also make a bonus by using a fully unprivileged user account.
These are things Windows will never do. Far too often is a user an administrator, and the inner workings of the system exposed. (It wasn't really until the average Windows based itself off of NT that ANYTHING was safe from Security Problem #1: The User. With Windows ME and earlier there are no user permissions, (Windows 2000 and earlier, along the NT line, are luckier and smarter.) and so, all a user has to do is take a stroll and delete files out of the windows directory. No authentication. Worse if a user boots into pure DOS where the usage protection Windows does ("Cannot delete (File), it is currently in use.") they can destroy ANYTHING on the system without any validation or authentication. What the hell was Microsoft thinking?
So, essentially a safe user is this:
1. A user who knows how the system works at least on a rudimentary level.
2. This same user must typically take normal user or lower privileges.
3. This same user must have a knowledge of how a virus finds itself on a system: (E-Mail attachments from bad sources, child porn, warez, etc.)
4. The system uses an operating system with its own effective security model. Typically one that involves user permission levels, if not a full-fledged multi-user system with the default user NOT being an administrator.
5. A good firewall. This is typically a third-party program.
6. Yes, a good antivirus. It may not be as effective as many other techniques, but an AV DOES help, period.
7. A real plus: Knowledge on how to remove a virus manually. (Not as hard as one might think, especially after the virus is identified.)
8. EDUCATION. EDUCATION. EDUCATION!!! If there are other users on the system, TEACH them! It is amazing how effective a little imparting of knowledge will do to make things better and safer.
9. Make sure the other users aren't in a position to infect the system either, as in, restrict their ability to declare things executables, block executables from mail, don't let them install P2P software. (Easy in Linux, since things like apt-get and Synaptic only function with root privileges. Though this can't stop them from installing it in their home folder.
10. Do a regular manual audit of the system. Not only should you keep an eye out for anything unusual, but also keep an eye out for 'unauthorized' software, like P2P.
11. Block torrent/warez sites. Every single time someone comes to me with a virus problem, the first question I ask is "Are you downloading torrents a lot?" and the answer is always "Yes."
12. Not relating to viruses, but a good tip anyway: Before you try any system changes, try the same change on a VM. A nice sandbox is better for fucking up than your own system.
You remember these things, and keep to them, chances are you'll be just fine.
They could make a deal with game developers so that new games would only run on Vista. Hmmm. Might work.
I doubt it. I've written about this before, though I'm far from an authority. Game makers want to develop for the largest platform. You really htink they would shoot themselves in the foot by switching over en-masse to DirectX 10, where gamers haven't really gone? Have you noticed that despite Vista's length of time out (Relatively short compared to XP, but long enough.) the door, the game market is still largely still pointing toward XP and DirectX 9?
I'll consider the fact that more game makers are beginning to add Linux to their operating base, which makes OpenGL, SDL, and other alternative game libraries that aren't tethered down to Windows more of a prospect now. When OpenGL goes 3.0, how do you think even DirectX 11's Graphics API will compare?
But, I get the gist of your post. Microsoft, like with Windows ME, really dropped the ball on Vista. Made a bunch of vaporware promises, made an incompatible, bloated, insecure, unstable system, and started living in a reality distortion field wherein Vista has virtually no problems. That reality distortion field isn't as bad as Apple's, but it is bad enough that Microsoft seems to think that Vista is a crushing success despite documented dwindling install/user base and growing Linux, OS X user bases.
This makes me wonder about Windows 7. I have my doubts it will be an improvement. (Well, maybe over Vista, but it'll uphold the Microsoft tradition of mediocrity.) And news that Microsoft will be trying to release it sooner is an indication that Microsoft is scared to shit of what Vista has done to Windows' reputation. Because Windows 7 is getting rushed now, I imagine it'll be a piece of trash, like all the other rushed Windows versions out there. (Ironically, Vista wasn't rushed, and yet it still managed to be absolute FAIL on so many levels.)
This is yet another "embrace" step for Microsoft. They haven't been able to extend too much, if at all, since true FOSS is demonstratively immune to EEE and its losing FUD coverage. Microsoft knows it can't cast FUD down on open source software much more lest they actually become an obvious opponent to open source. That is not a can of worms Microsoft wants to open. The departured from their own products to open source alternatives would be staggering to them.
So now they are hardheadedly "embracing" open source. If they manage to get some people to stop developing Linux for "open source support" from Microsoft, they can move on to "extend" where they begin tagging on features to these projects or requiring these features to be implemented for Windows development. It will fall short there. Microsoft, frankly, will never reach "extinguish" even on the projects it manages to hook the first two stages on thanks to forking. Any sign of trouble heads for the project, the code takes off where it wants and all Microsoft does is lock down a deprecated project.
The problem though, is since the first two steps are accomplished, Microsoft has "stolen" software on their hands and are ready to flesh it out and turn out a proprietary MS version of the project. The flip side of this is Microsoft will likely ruin any ex-open source projects it hijacks because it is stuck developing like a merchant: Must add all the bells and whistles without thinking of the bloat and instability it adds to it. They've done it with their own software, no reason not to do it on software they acquire.
You are correct in saying Duncan was tremendously more important in the 5 Frank Herbert sequels and the 2 Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson sequels as a Ghola everybody seems to get some use out of, but still, his characterization in the Book and the miniseries was still more focused on so that people understood the character and why it was important he died. In the 1984 movie I never got the feeling. We got like... two scenes with him, and little character development, if any. He dies and people wonder just who he is and why Paul was so unhappy that he *did* die.
In the books, especially the sequels, we started to absolutely love Duncan, almost as a tool of circumstance. Clone after clone after clone. He was manipulated in Dune Messiah, used by the Preacher in Children of Dune, killed in various ways in God Emperor, on and on. I think he's probably the one we want to be the big hero simply so that people will stop doing these things to him! I haven't quite read the Brian Herbert sequels, yet, but I imagine Duncan keeps having unfortunate things happening to him there, too.
Anyway, my point was that the 1984 movie made it damn hard to even understand who Duncan was and why we should care if he was killed.
Are the major OEMS afraid of what might happen if people had a choice instead of being locked into windows?
I am going to say yes. Yes. Yes. Consider Microsoft's little extortionist tactic: Either all your produced machines are bundles with Windows or Windows will cost you a whole lot more.
Now, I'm not sure if they're still doing that, but it definitely had an effect on a great deal of OEMs, especially whenever another OS had a shot at the big time. (You know your OS is good and successful if OEMs have a shot at bundling it.)
The problem is that the cost of Windows to the OEM is passed on to the user. Oftentimes up to a full third of a PC's cost is Windows. Is it any mystery tham OEM'd Linux machines are selling for so much cheaper? The OEM didn't necessarily have any real cost in placing Linux on the machines. The savings pass on to the user.
The phenomena also passes on to home builders. Building a Linux machine is cheaper than a Windows machine simply because there's not payout for the license to use the operating system where Linux is concerned. I've never seen Microsoft freely give away licenses to Windows. Is anyone surprised?
I'm going to do some MS bashing here just to make myself feel better. Mod me down if it makes you feel better. Won't even be an AC.
Actually, Linux's requirements seem to be coming down in some areas. KDE4, despite having way more eyecandy is actually supposed to required less resources than KDE3. Compiz runs fine on my Celeron 1.6 GHz with 512 MB of RAM and Intel GMA laptop. Why can't Vista, with even less eye candy run at respectable speeds? You could easily have most (all?) of the UI upgrades that Vista offers on XP. Some of them you may not really want, like the completely redesigned control panel (why do they have to do it every time?). But it could all easily be done. There isn't anything revolutionary that Vista does.
I used Vista for months before finally getting fed up and switching to Linux. The fact that Linux can do *more* eye candy than Vista and still run on more meagre hardware is one of hundreds of testaments to Linux's actual superiority to Windows. It infuriates me that the most we get out of Vista visual effects is a glass engine, a 3d switcher, and somewhat boring window open/close animations that requires ~ 2 GiB of RAM to do it with any measure of decent speed.
The obvious answer, of course, is that Windows is and always has been a bloated piece of shit. It becomes more apparent with each Windows release: Windows because more massive, memory intensive, and insecure, and only a minuscule amount of improved stability against a typical Linux distro, which is small, nimble, efficient, inherently secure, and extremely stable, and increases in this way on every upgrade curve.
Vista pretty much proves this. How massive is it? Did we just double the system requirements for Windows *again* like with XP? What about that whatyamacallit system: Lunix? Lanex? Linux? Whatever the hell it is. Doesn't that run on my computer with all them snazzy features Windows claims to have without being s bitch to run?
No wonder there's been a noticeable increase of Windows migration and Linux/Mac OS X adoption, even the not-so-much-technical users are starting to notice how crappy Windows is.
Good point. I was mostly speaking on third-party extensions to OpenGL. Those tend to fly out sooner for card features than DirectX. If you consider those extensions (Though unsupported.), DirectX is actually the one that is behind.
However, I will concede, since OpenGL at its core is much slower to upgrade to new features. This is likely because OpenGL was never really intended to be a game API, unlike DirectX, which was fully intended to be a game API.
I wonder, though, what will happen when OpenGL 3.0 comes out. It might just cause a stir.
My opinion (Which is worth next to nothing against facts, of course.) is that DirectX was both the best thing to happen and the worst thing to happen for PC gaming. Best in that it brought it up to speed with consoles for a time at ~ DX 7 and 8. Bad in the fact it was a tool of Microsoft to effectively institute vendor lock-in. (Almost all game companies who write for Windows favor DirectX and when porting to Linux use SDL/OpenGL as an afterthought.) And with DirectX 10 and (soon) Directx11, we're gonna see some rocky roads ahead. I'm guessing one of four things will happen: 1. Game developers will ignore DX 10 and DX 11 for the most part and stick with DX 9 so they can maintain a good player base. 2. Game developers will recklessly start using DirectX 10 and 11 and lose a significant number of players who refuse to touch Vista. 3. Microsoft will finally gain some common sense and implement DX 10 and 11 on XP. (It *is* possible. OpenGL extensions have demonstrated all the so-called Vista-only features of DX 10 are quite possible under XP.) 4. Game developers abandon DirectX almost entirely and use alternatives like SDL and OpenGL.
Personally, I prefer SDL and OpenGL. They may not be *quite* up there with DirectX, they can get damn close with additional APIs for SDL and extensions for OpenGL.
I am actually working on my own little stuff that use SDL/OpenGL/Cairo extensively for games. A game engine and my own renderer. I didn't use DirectX at all because then I'd be stuck with Windows or, if I want to use Mac OS X or Linux, WINE. Bottom line, natively developed software always works best than those that rely on a compatibility layer.
Many statistics claim that Vista is suddenly popular or widely used. But remember here that statistics are tremendously easy to lie with. Read the extremely insightful book: How to Lie With Statistics. It explains basically every way a statistic is a horrible horrible, yet very successful, way to convince someone of something.
First off, you have to consider the source of the statistic. If it were coming from Microsoft, say, then one definitely has to wonder exactly which of the methods in that book they actually used to make Vista seem more successful than it actually is.
Software companies have to consider this, too. Their goal is not to find out how much money MS is making off a system, but how much the system is actually being used. Those are two very different numbers as far as Vista is concerned. Microsoft gets to claim many sales for Vista thanks to licenses to OEMs. (Gobs of them.) This cost passes on to the customer of the OEM. Like it or not, If you bought a PC with MS bundled, you payed for Windows (Up to 1/3 of the price of the entire machine!) along with the hardware and the software included on the PC. Thus, for every PC with Windows bundled, MS gets to tally a sale.
What isn't mentioned in MS statistics is how many of those sales are actually resulting in a persistent install of Vista! The reality: Many "upgrades" to Windows XP, or migration to Linux, *BSD, or even Mac OS X on the same hardware. (In Mac OS X's case it would be cracked versions. They're out there.) A game company, for example, has to consider their largest user base. In this case it would still be XP, but note that Linux is now getting the attention of some game companies.
DirectX 10 isn't doing as well as DirectX9 because of its exclusivity on a platform thats user base is shrinking. DX 11 will be no better. The fact that OpenGL is and always has been technologically superior might soon become apparent. DirectX might begin to die down like Windows is. Where's the incentive to upgrade? What's the incemtive to upgrade to DX 10 or Vista? I see absolutely none for a company whose success rides almost entirely on the success of its platform. No wonder PC Gaming isn't doing as well as it could.
Now, back to the actual topic of TFA, I'm not entirely worried about OOXML now being accepted as an ISO standard. Its a damn shame, yes, but there was another comment in this thread that lines out numerous results of this vote, all of which damage MS: Either no one will use the standard, people will see the extent that Microsoft went to get it passed, some governments are smart enough to see that OOXML isn't really an open standard and use ODF even more, and, by extension, if something like, say, OOo becomes more popular, which uses a *real* open standard like ODF, then OOXML simply exposed the corrupt mess that is Microsoft and now, ISO.
But, OOXML sucks. We all know that, and soon anybody who is paying attention will know it. In winning, Microsoft has lost. And it will be a painful loss.
My advice to you is do not give a damn what "greater" programmers think you should do. I started on an ancient system. Even back then it was ancient. My point is: Start with the basics: BASIC. Do not start with a more low-level language like C or C++. They must come later. I've seen it happen way too much. Those who start with those languages soon condemn programming as far to difficult and abandon it.
Begin where beginners would begin, and take it slowly at first. Programming is one of those things I believe is best learned at a natural pace. I self-taught myself programming. It isn't hard if you start at a good place.
Invest in a good calculator, too. Scientific ones especially. It'll make in-your-warped-brain execution more simple. I also like
FORTH, simply to bend your mind. (Reverse Polish and Stacks are unusual, but when you understand them, immensely powerful.) Then when you get good, start learning C or C++ or even Java.
I know it'll sound corny, but you do have to believe in yourself as a programmer, or you'll fuck yourself in the foot. Confidence is extremely important. And remeber that programming is an art no matter what the art nazis say.
And I, along with many FOSSies, tech folks, and anyone who was all around pissed off by SCO looks forward to seeing SCO get undressed in court on that day. I only wish it could be televised. I'd gladly record that on my DVR and watch with popcorn and soda. Great entertainment value!
I know you are joking, but that's how too many Mac fanboys I met actually act. They clam the Mac is flawless in every way, worship Apple, and think that if it isn't running Mac, it must be Windows.
No. I like Canonical for making a Linux distro that works well and doesn't cost me anything. Apples ARE overpriced. I'd rather get cheap commodit hardware that will cost me ~$1200 less than a Mac with even more power and functionality to boot. (My computer only cost me $350 in good parts. Until you can tell me you can buy a Mac for anywhere near that amount, they will ALWAYS be overpriced to me.
No system whatsoever, not Windows, not Mac, not even Linux, is 100% secure *or* immune to viruses. I've said this in an earlier comment. 300 in-the-wild viruses for Mac vs. 30 for Linux? Frankly, I could get equal or superior security from Linux... for free.
Slashdot Mirror
My only regret is this trial is only four days long!
Its entertaining watching Darl McBride perjure himself and SCO fail to make evan a defensive case after the fact they lost.
I think we can all see Novell getting money, but the dance for the money is going to be awfully fun, watching SCO's talentless lawyers trying to convince the judge that when they said red, they meant blue.
Cite: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050715-5099.html
I doubt anyone could prove he didn't know, whereas there's plenty of people now who *do* know. Shit, Chris Sontag himself testified before Darl and said he never saw evidence of UNIX in Linux that he could recall. And what does Darl say?
Sorry, Darl may be an idiot, but he definitely lied here unless you can prove he somehow completely and totally forgot a big fact that would have affected his entire case. When faced with the 10-Q he obviously lied there.
I don't find this ridiculous at all. Sure it was heated and emotional. SURE it was over a minor feature.
Big deal. The nature of open source, especially under the GPL is that if you don't like something, you can change it and make your own fork. I, for one, look forward to seeing just how different this fork from Pidgin will be.
I am not worried.
If, indeed, this new "technology" from Microsoft is meant to do harm to Linux, then I see only a few things happening, almost none of them will be a true hindrance to Linux and all but harmful to Microsoft.
First, most Linux distributors would recognize this is a ploy my Microsoft and ignore this and use true interoperability without the danger of integrating Microsoft software.
Second, those that don't, if this is indeed something Microsoft is using to destroy Linux, either fork or die. Those that die probably deserve to die for being managed by distributors that are too dim to see it as a trap. To them I say good riddance. The forks ditch the Microsoft control mechanisms and become stronger than the original distributions they forked from.
Third, various projects spring up, free and open source alternatives to the Microsoft control mechanism spring up. This in no way enabled Microsoft.
Finally, Microsoft, seeing that they only managed to squish maybe a handful of weaker distros, moves on to the next embrace and extend.
Don't forget one of the reasons Linux hasn't managed to get squished like DR-DOS or Be OS is likely in part thanks to the Open Source model. Microsoft squishes one, at lest two will take its place. If Microsoft is able to kill the Linux kernel, they just fork it and call it something else, with changes made to it that prevent the previous mad destruction.
The worst case scenario I see is only one major distribution going down, and I'm betting it will be Novell's since they're in that agreement with Microsoft. Definitely not Red Hat, since they have essentially declared they won't have anything to do with Microsoft.
Exactly. A virus for Linux at this point in time probably doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on the average Linux system because Linux users are smarter than the average Windows user. (I am generalizing and using a more relative version of smarter here.) That, coupled with the fact there are less than a hundredLinux viruses and a small user base, a Linux virus is not much of a threat... FOR NOW.
But what happens when we actually DO accomplish full-on Linux on the desktop? What happens if, hypothetically, Linux becomes more widely used than Windows? Suddenly the average skill of a Linux user plunges downward, and the virus population for Linux skyrocks. Suddenly a Linux virus doesn't seem so harmless, does it?
Remember nowadays, a virus usually doesn't commit destruction, as that would render a bot in a botnet worhtless, but would rather use it for spamming purposes. There's not need for elevated permissions. On top of that, most of the stuff a virus can destroy without elevation is the stuff the average user cares about anyway: Documents, Music, Pictures, HARD WORK. Irreplaceable things.
If there is a perfectly safe system that is still able to connect to the outside world, it is a system used only by a user who knows how to prevent viruses and knows how to do effective backups. You could also make a bonus by using a fully unprivileged user account.
These are things Windows will never do. Far too often is a user an administrator, and the inner workings of the system exposed. (It wasn't really until the average Windows based itself off of NT that ANYTHING was safe from Security Problem #1: The User. With Windows ME and earlier there are no user permissions, (Windows 2000 and earlier, along the NT line, are luckier and smarter.) and so, all a user has to do is take a stroll and delete files out of the windows directory. No authentication. Worse if a user boots into pure DOS where the usage protection Windows does ("Cannot delete (File), it is currently in use.") they can destroy ANYTHING on the system without any validation or authentication. What the hell was Microsoft thinking?
So, essentially a safe user is this:
1. A user who knows how the system works at least on a rudimentary level.
2. This same user must typically take normal user or lower privileges.
3. This same user must have a knowledge of how a virus finds itself on a system: (E-Mail attachments from bad sources, child porn, warez, etc.)
4. The system uses an operating system with its own effective security model. Typically one that involves user permission levels, if not a full-fledged multi-user system with the default user NOT being an administrator.
5. A good firewall. This is typically a third-party program.
6. Yes, a good antivirus. It may not be as effective as many other techniques, but an AV DOES help, period.
7. A real plus: Knowledge on how to remove a virus manually. (Not as hard as one might think, especially after the virus is identified.)
8. EDUCATION. EDUCATION. EDUCATION!!! If there are other users on the system, TEACH them! It is amazing how effective a little imparting of knowledge will do to make things better and safer.
9. Make sure the other users aren't in a position to infect the system either, as in, restrict their ability to declare things executables, block executables from mail, don't let them install P2P software. (Easy in Linux, since things like apt-get and Synaptic only function with root privileges. Though this can't stop them from installing it in their home folder.
10. Do a regular manual audit of the system. Not only should you keep an eye out for anything unusual, but also keep an eye out for 'unauthorized' software, like P2P.
11. Block torrent/warez sites. Every single time someone comes to me with a virus problem, the first question I ask is "Are you downloading torrents a lot?" and the answer is always "Yes."
12. Not relating to viruses, but a good tip anyway: Before you try any system changes, try the same change on a VM. A nice sandbox is better for fucking up than your own system.
You remember these things, and keep to them, chances are you'll be just fine.
I'll consider the fact that more game makers are beginning to add Linux to their operating base, which makes OpenGL, SDL, and other alternative game libraries that aren't tethered down to Windows more of a prospect now. When OpenGL goes 3.0, how do you think even DirectX 11's Graphics API will compare?
But, I get the gist of your post. Microsoft, like with Windows ME, really dropped the ball on Vista. Made a bunch of vaporware promises, made an incompatible, bloated, insecure, unstable system, and started living in a reality distortion field wherein Vista has virtually no problems. That reality distortion field isn't as bad as Apple's, but it is bad enough that Microsoft seems to think that Vista is a crushing success despite documented dwindling install/user base and growing Linux, OS X user bases.
This makes me wonder about Windows 7. I have my doubts it will be an improvement. (Well, maybe over Vista, but it'll uphold the Microsoft tradition of mediocrity.) And news that Microsoft will be trying to release it sooner is an indication that Microsoft is scared to shit of what Vista has done to Windows' reputation. Because Windows 7 is getting rushed now, I imagine it'll be a piece of trash, like all the other rushed Windows versions out there. (Ironically, Vista wasn't rushed, and yet it still managed to be absolute FAIL on so many levels.)
That seems probable.
If a bully pisses off enough of the little guys, eventually the little guys pop and take out the bully.
Knowing Verizon, it's likely to be a couple lawsuits before they play nice with the spectrum.
This is yet another "embrace" step for Microsoft. They haven't been able to extend too much, if at all, since true FOSS is demonstratively immune to EEE and its losing FUD coverage. Microsoft knows it can't cast FUD down on open source software much more lest they actually become an obvious opponent to open source. That is not a can of worms Microsoft wants to open. The departured from their own products to open source alternatives would be staggering to them.
So now they are hardheadedly "embracing" open source. If they manage to get some people to stop developing Linux for "open source support" from Microsoft, they can move on to "extend" where they begin tagging on features to these projects or requiring these features to be implemented for Windows development. It will fall short there. Microsoft, frankly, will never reach "extinguish" even on the projects it manages to hook the first two stages on thanks to forking. Any sign of trouble heads for the project, the code takes off where it wants and all Microsoft does is lock down a deprecated project.
The problem though, is since the first two steps are accomplished, Microsoft has "stolen" software on their hands and are ready to flesh it out and turn out a proprietary MS version of the project. The flip side of this is Microsoft will likely ruin any ex-open source projects it hijacks because it is stuck developing like a merchant: Must add all the bells and whistles without thinking of the bloat and instability it adds to it. They've done it with their own software, no reason not to do it on software they acquire.
I read nothing suggesting Duncan was very old in the original book, and I just finished reading the book for the 1500th time.
Though yes, I think you're right that he was likely regrown as a younger self in Messiah and on.
Actually. It was three parts: "Dune" "Muad'Dib" and "The Prophet"
You are correct in saying Duncan was tremendously more important in the 5 Frank Herbert sequels and the 2 Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson sequels as a Ghola everybody seems to get some use out of, but still, his characterization in the Book and the miniseries was still more focused on so that people understood the character and why it was important he died. In the 1984 movie I never got the feeling. We got like... two scenes with him, and little character development, if any. He dies and people wonder just who he is and why Paul was so unhappy that he *did* die.
In the books, especially the sequels, we started to absolutely love Duncan, almost as a tool of circumstance. Clone after clone after clone. He was manipulated in Dune Messiah, used by the Preacher in Children of Dune, killed in various ways in God Emperor, on and on. I think he's probably the one we want to be the big hero simply so that people will stop doing these things to him! I haven't quite read the Brian Herbert sequels, yet, but I imagine Duncan keeps having unfortunate things happening to him there, too.
Anyway, my point was that the 1984 movie made it damn hard to even understand who Duncan was and why we should care if he was killed.
Now, I'm not sure if they're still doing that, but it definitely had an effect on a great deal of OEMs, especially whenever another OS had a shot at the big time. (You know your OS is good and successful if OEMs have a shot at bundling it.)
The problem is that the cost of Windows to the OEM is passed on to the user. Oftentimes up to a full third of a PC's cost is Windows. Is it any mystery tham OEM'd Linux machines are selling for so much cheaper? The OEM didn't necessarily have any real cost in placing Linux on the machines. The savings pass on to the user.
The phenomena also passes on to home builders. Building a Linux machine is cheaper than a Windows machine simply because there's not payout for the license to use the operating system where Linux is concerned. I've never seen Microsoft freely give away licenses to Windows. Is anyone surprised?
I used Vista for months before finally getting fed up and switching to Linux. The fact that Linux can do *more* eye candy than Vista and still run on more meagre hardware is one of hundreds of testaments to Linux's actual superiority to Windows. It infuriates me that the most we get out of Vista visual effects is a glass engine, a 3d switcher, and somewhat boring window open/close animations that requires ~ 2 GiB of RAM to do it with any measure of decent speed.
The obvious answer, of course, is that Windows is and always has been a bloated piece of shit. It becomes more apparent with each Windows release: Windows because more massive, memory intensive, and insecure, and only a minuscule amount of improved stability against a typical Linux distro, which is small, nimble, efficient, inherently secure, and extremely stable, and increases in this way on every upgrade curve.
Vista pretty much proves this. How massive is it? Did we just double the system requirements for Windows *again* like with XP? What about that whatyamacallit system: Lunix? Lanex? Linux? Whatever the hell it is. Doesn't that run on my computer with all them snazzy features Windows claims to have without being s bitch to run?
No wonder there's been a noticeable increase of Windows migration and Linux/Mac OS X adoption, even the not-so-much-technical users are starting to notice how crappy Windows is.
Good point. I was mostly speaking on third-party extensions to OpenGL. Those tend to fly out sooner for card features than DirectX. If you consider those extensions (Though unsupported.), DirectX is actually the one that is behind.
However, I will concede, since OpenGL at its core is much slower to upgrade to new features. This is likely because OpenGL was never really intended to be a game API, unlike DirectX, which was fully intended to be a game API.
I wonder, though, what will happen when OpenGL 3.0 comes out. It might just cause a stir.
My opinion (Which is worth next to nothing against facts, of course.) is that DirectX was both the best thing to happen and the worst thing to happen for PC gaming. Best in that it brought it up to speed with consoles for a time at ~ DX 7 and 8. Bad in the fact it was a tool of Microsoft to effectively institute vendor lock-in. (Almost all game companies who write for Windows favor DirectX and when porting to Linux use SDL/OpenGL as an afterthought.) And with DirectX 10 and (soon) Directx11, we're gonna see some rocky roads ahead. I'm guessing one of four things will happen: 1. Game developers will ignore DX 10 and DX 11 for the most part and stick with DX 9 so they can maintain a good player base. 2. Game developers will recklessly start using DirectX 10 and 11 and lose a significant number of players who refuse to touch Vista. 3. Microsoft will finally gain some common sense and implement DX 10 and 11 on XP. (It *is* possible. OpenGL extensions have demonstrated all the so-called Vista-only features of DX 10 are quite possible under XP.) 4. Game developers abandon DirectX almost entirely and use alternatives like SDL and OpenGL.
Personally, I prefer SDL and OpenGL. They may not be *quite* up there with DirectX, they can get damn close with additional APIs for SDL and extensions for OpenGL.
I am actually working on my own little stuff that use SDL/OpenGL/Cairo extensively for games. A game engine and my own renderer. I didn't use DirectX at all because then I'd be stuck with Windows or, if I want to use Mac OS X or Linux, WINE. Bottom line, natively developed software always works best than those that rely on a compatibility layer.
Indeed. And for obvious reasons.
Many statistics claim that Vista is suddenly popular or widely used. But remember here that statistics are tremendously easy to lie with. Read the extremely insightful book: How to Lie With Statistics. It explains basically every way a statistic is a horrible horrible, yet very successful, way to convince someone of something.
First off, you have to consider the source of the statistic. If it were coming from Microsoft, say, then one definitely has to wonder exactly which of the methods in that book they actually used to make Vista seem more successful than it actually is.
Software companies have to consider this, too. Their goal is not to find out how much money MS is making off a system, but how much the system is actually being used. Those are two very different numbers as far as Vista is concerned. Microsoft gets to claim many sales for Vista thanks to licenses to OEMs. (Gobs of them.) This cost passes on to the customer of the OEM. Like it or not, If you bought a PC with MS bundled, you payed for Windows (Up to 1/3 of the price of the entire machine!) along with the hardware and the software included on the PC. Thus, for every PC with Windows bundled, MS gets to tally a sale.
What isn't mentioned in MS statistics is how many of those sales are actually resulting in a persistent install of Vista! The reality: Many "upgrades" to Windows XP, or migration to Linux, *BSD, or even Mac OS X on the same hardware. (In Mac OS X's case it would be cracked versions. They're out there.) A game company, for example, has to consider their largest user base. In this case it would still be XP, but note that Linux is now getting the attention of some game companies.
DirectX 10 isn't doing as well as DirectX9 because of its exclusivity on a platform thats user base is shrinking. DX 11 will be no better. The fact that OpenGL is and always has been technologically superior might soon become apparent. DirectX might begin to die down like Windows is. Where's the incentive to upgrade? What's the incemtive to upgrade to DX 10 or Vista? I see absolutely none for a company whose success rides almost entirely on the success of its platform. No wonder PC Gaming isn't doing as well as it could.
Now, back to the actual topic of TFA, I'm not entirely worried about OOXML now being accepted as an ISO standard. Its a damn shame, yes, but there was another comment in this thread that lines out numerous results of this vote, all of which damage MS: Either no one will use the standard, people will see the extent that Microsoft went to get it passed, some governments are smart enough to see that OOXML isn't really an open standard and use ODF even more, and, by extension, if something like, say, OOo becomes more popular, which uses a *real* open standard like ODF, then OOXML simply exposed the corrupt mess that is Microsoft and now, ISO.
But, OOXML sucks. We all know that, and soon anybody who is paying attention will know it. In winning, Microsoft has lost. And it will be a painful loss.
How the hell was I being off-topic? I was talking about TFA!
It gives me great comfort that the so-called "industry leader" in Microsoft seems to be leading from the last place in the group.
Why the fuck did it take DirectX eleven iterations to implement an old technology? Why is Microsoft putting DirectX on fewer platforms now?
Only on /. can a troll be modded insightful if it insults an enemy to FOSS like Sony.
My advice to you is do not give a damn what "greater" programmers think you should do. I started on an ancient system. Even back then it was ancient. My point is: Start with the basics: BASIC. Do not start with a more low-level language like C or C++. They must come later. I've seen it happen way too much. Those who start with those languages soon condemn programming as far to difficult and abandon it.
Begin where beginners would begin, and take it slowly at first. Programming is one of those things I believe is best learned at a natural pace. I self-taught myself programming. It isn't hard if you start at a good place.
Invest in a good calculator, too. Scientific ones especially. It'll make in-your-warped-brain execution more simple. I also like FORTH, simply to bend your mind. (Reverse Polish and Stacks are unusual, but when you understand them, immensely powerful.) Then when you get good, start learning C or C++ or even Java.
I know it'll sound corny, but you do have to believe in yourself as a programmer, or you'll fuck yourself in the foot. Confidence is extremely important. And remeber that programming is an art no matter what the art nazis say.
Actually, AppArmor was included by default in 7.10.
And I, along with many FOSSies, tech folks, and anyone who was all around pissed off by SCO looks forward to seeing SCO get undressed in court on that day. I only wish it could be televised. I'd gladly record that on my DVR and watch with popcorn and soda. Great entertainment value!
I know you are joking, but that's how too many Mac fanboys I met actually act. They clam the Mac is flawless in every way, worship Apple, and think that if it isn't running Mac, it must be Windows.
No. I like Canonical for making a Linux distro that works well and doesn't cost me anything. Apples ARE overpriced. I'd rather get cheap commodit hardware that will cost me ~$1200 less than a Mac with even more power and functionality to boot. (My computer only cost me $350 in good parts. Until you can tell me you can buy a Mac for anywhere near that amount, they will ALWAYS be overpriced to me.
I call bullshit.
No system whatsoever, not Windows, not Mac, not even Linux, is 100% secure *or* immune to viruses. I've said this in an earlier comment. 300 in-the-wild viruses for Mac vs. 30 for Linux? Frankly, I could get equal or superior security from Linux... for free.
That comment reeks of reality distortion.