>XFree86 4.0: This will make hardware accelerated 3D under Linux much >faster. Unfortunately, there are still only like 3 chipsets that >support hardware 3D under Linux, so I hardly think this is going to >springboard Linux into the gaming market that it is still so crucially >lagging in.
Dude, the PC gaming market is *DEAD*. The only people who don't seem to know it yet is you PC gamers. Go take a look at the magazine newsrack at a bookstore. I think either Time or another magazine has a cover story on the Playstation 2. That's how mainstream the Playstation 2 is going to be and it hasn't been released in the U.S. yet! Most people running linux are going to buy a Playstation 2, rather than buying the hardware you gamers seem so fond of. I'm not going to buy a new soundcard or videocard anytime in the near future, because I don't need either.
>Nowadays I feel restricted and contrained >when I use Windows because of that. When you get down to it, a 3D >inteface would really be nothing more than a more efficient way of >arranging windows.
Crap. Look at all the people who quite literaly become physically ill while watching and playing 3-d games like Doom and Quake on a computer monitor. Just wait untill the 3d rubbish you're adovacating hits the office and watch the lawsuits start flying.
>Try something along the line of int main() { int n = 10; int temp[n]; >.... } This should not even compile. VC++ gives the approiate error >message and g++ compiles it just fine...
That's because VC++ is a pile of shit designed for morons like yourself.
>It is my understanding that this sort of extension is allowed in the >kerberos spec and that MS is not the first implementation to take advantage of it.
>If you are going to bash MS, don't bash them for following the rules. >With W2K, Microsoft is finally making a fair attempt at following and >using the standards.
Are you really this stupid, or has your Microsoft employment rotted your brain? Microsoft by this stunt has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one again they *HAVE NO INTENTION* of following and using the standards as they exist. I really hope that the DOJ and Judge Jackson is playing attention to this particular story. I bet the EU is also going to be looking at this issue also.
>The reference implementations of Kerberos 4 & 5 are available under a >BSD-style license, so there's nothing wrong with what Microsoft has >done, even if they do use Kerberos code in Windows. (I'm not sure if >they've said they use any MIT code or if they did a ground-up >implementation based on the specs)
The only good thing in all this is that this stunt by Mircosoft is pretty much going to kill BSD-style licenses for things like Kerberos in the future, as well as causing people to refuse to get involved with any sort of project Microsoft is involved in which doesn't have a GPL or a GPL-style license.
Wonder how Brett Glass and the rest of those losers is going to defend this kind of bullshit by Microsoft?
>They never said they invented text to speech. Adding text to speech in >an OS for accessibility is in their minds innovation. And besides, >they were mentioning it as one of the developments contributed by >their research division.
Yeah right. Ever heard of a computer from Commodore called the Amiga? Of course Microsoft did. That's where they stole this from.........
>Ahh, I see, so unix has these smart auto symlinks, inbuilt >text-speech, inbuilt smart troubleshooters etc? >Um no.
Microsoft being first with inbuilt text-speech? Hardly. Amiga's came with this as a standard feature nearly 10 years ago. So much for Microsoft "innovation"
>stifles competition. What happens when the technologies change, but >you are locked into your city's slow (but free) internet access? >Although free internet access is a neat idea, I doubt it will hold up >in the real world.
You're so full of bullshit. All your argument means is a lot of the bullshit technology plauging the internet now like Napster and Streaming Video won't be available to losers like you. Boo Hoo. Sob. Wah. I can't trade MP3's over this slow ass connection. Bleh. Get a life moron.
>>No you don't. Most Linux users for the most part could care less about >>Java. It's one of the big complaints you hear from the Java crowd.
>No, you are incorrect. Take a look at: Java Request For Enhancements. >The Java port was *by far* the number one requested enhancement ever. >I am not saying there is anything wrong, just don't say Linux users >never ask for anything from big companies.
All this means is that Java users running/interested in Linux made those requests. It's not the same thing as the Linux userbase expressing an interest in Java. Most people I know who are using Linux have the same amount of regard for Java as they have for C++. Little or none.
>Boy, there is nothing better than people who are getting a subsidized >education complaining about what they can't do with their subsudized >internet access...
Agreed, and it's these people who bitch the loudest whenever the subject of providing subsudized internet access to the people (who live in the inner city and rual areas) who really deserve it.
>"The fact you don't see Linux users for instance starting a write-in >campain asking Microsoft to port IE and other Microsoft software to >linux like the Amiga and Atari ST users did should tell you >something......" No, but you do see Linux users begging Sun to port >Java for them. Before Sun released the JDK for Linux, the Linux port
No you don't. Most Linux users for the most part could care less about Java. It's one of the big complaints you hear from the Java crowd.
>Well, IE is not an option on my SGI IRIX box. Actually, Netscape is >the only browser I found for IRIX. At least Linux has *some* options: >Opera, KBrowser, Mozilla binaries, and others. IRIX is just behind >(until SGI switches over to Linux).
>But I my Windows box I use IE. It is worlds better than Netscape.
Will you IE Astroturfers give it up? Nobody outside of you Windows users care about IE. The fact you don't see Linux users for instance starting a write-in campain asking Microsoft to port IE and other Microsoft software to linux like the Amiga and Atari ST users did should tell you something......
>Smart move on AOL's part. The net community was almost unaminous in >there opposition of the merger. They just took teeth out of that >arguement. Now the only questions are os's allowed, etc. Guess the >consumer can benefit from politics after all. Must be a cold day in >hell.
Since it looks like AOL and Microsoft aren't too chummy these days, it's a pretty good chance that AOL won't mandate the use of a Microsoft OS if for no other reason than to piss off Microsoft.
>Are there really significant numbers people out there who can't see >through stuff like this, or is it just such a part of corp culture >that they can't not produce BS like this?
At least unlike a certain other corp, they aren't standing around screaming about their right to "innovate" while attemping to screw over everybody in sight.
>NetBEUI is so old and icky, I'd avoid it like the plague. >What's next, punch card readers for Linux, drum memory interfaces?
Considering that people are getting more and more concerned about the data that's stored on punch cards and drum memory becoming lost, I'll say it's a pretty good bet you'll see this kind of stuff running under Linux.
MCSE's most certainly don't have the skills to pull something like this off
>1. Because not everyone has access to a bank which provides this service. 2. Some people don't want to have their bank account, credit card, brokerage, etc with the same company/group of companies.
3. Some people rather like the *control* writting a check or buying a money order gives them in respect to their bank account. Online banking pretty much takes that away for the most part.
4. People don't want to bother with using software like Quicken to balance their checkbook when using a calaculator and pen is faster and easier.
>I am yet again amazed that the/. crowd, which seems to be have a >large Open Source/Linux crowd, would criticize a post such as this >one. One of great hallmarks of linux is it's compatibility to older >stuff, especially hardware. Try running the latest m$ OS on an old
This isn't the Open Source/Linux crowd who's criticizing this. It's the Microsoft MCSE crowd, and here's the reason why. If you can acess machines that are using older protocols like NETBEUI under Linux, why bother installing Win 2000 or NT on those machines? Get the picture?
> NetBEUI's dead, folks. Don't pollute the efficiency of *NIX with this
Wrong. As long as you have a machine that has data on it that uses NetBEUI and you need to acess that data, NetBEUI's not dead. It's as simple as that.
>I have a dedicated print server box that supports IPX, NETBEUI and >AppleTalk. It is simple to use from a Windows or MacOS desktop. I >haven't figured out an easy way to connect to it from Linux. NETBEUI >support in Linux would make this easy.
As I recall, there is Linux support for AppleTalk.
>As a highly respected practitioner of the science of Marketing, I frequently post to this forum to attempt to "give back to the community". I cannot write C++ or Java code to save my life (I'm a VB expert) so my contribution to this forum takes the form of "open source" marketing advice.
Sod off. We like the idea of Linux and the BSD's going places Windows never will. Can you imagine anyone wanting Windows 2000 running on a mainframe computer system? Of course not. So take your "advice" and shove it.
>I thought linux 2.4 was supposed to ship with Windows 2000 ?
You thought wrong. Nobody actually said when the 2.4 kernel was supposed to ship. You saw a lot guesses coming from people about when they though it might be out, which isn't the same thing.
Re:Freshmeat whiners, let me see if I get this
on
Linux 2.3.48 Released
·
· Score: 0
>I think, the whiners are really complaining about it, because >it's a point release, if it were a major thing, then I don't >see how or why there would be a problem.
You have to understand something about the people who are whining about the linux kernel posts on Slashdot. You see, these people for the most part work for Microsoft's PR department and are responsible for creating WWW pages like the Microsoft "Linux Myths" web page. Posting news/articles about linux kernel releases on a site like Slashdot makes their jobs a hell of a lot harder because they expect this kind of information to be located on obscure www sites that no one will really bother checking out. Posting it on Slashdot on the other hand exposes the information to a huge number of people. Now do you see why they would like to make sure few people as posibble saw anything that would contradict anything that they would place on the Microsoft WWW site concering linux?
>On a slightly unrelated note, has anyone noticed that Linux is >becoming more and more like a microkernel everyday? >Tannenbaum was right. Everybody knew it at the time, but we were too >intellectually dishonest (and excited to play with our new Linux toy) >to acknowlege it.
No he wasn't. And Linux isn't becoming more and more like a microkernel everyday. What's happing is the linux kernel is evolving into something that's not a monolithic kernel nor a microkernel either. It's turing into something that's somewhere inbetween the two. Tannenbaum and his suppoters like you quite frankly never really saw this comming.
Slashdot Mirror
>XFree86 4.0: This will make hardware accelerated 3D under Linux much
>faster. Unfortunately, there are still only like 3 chipsets that
>support hardware 3D under Linux, so I hardly think this is going to
>springboard Linux into the gaming market that it is still so crucially
>lagging in.
Dude, the PC gaming market is *DEAD*. The only people who don't seem to know it yet is you PC gamers. Go take a look at the magazine newsrack at a bookstore. I think either Time or another magazine has a cover story on the Playstation 2. That's how mainstream the Playstation 2 is going to be and it hasn't been released in the U.S. yet! Most people running linux are going to buy a Playstation 2, rather than buying the hardware you gamers seem so fond of. I'm not going to buy a new soundcard or videocard anytime in the near future, because I don't need either.
>Nowadays I feel restricted and contrained
>when I use Windows because of that. When you get down to it, a 3D
>inteface would really be nothing more than a more efficient way of
>arranging windows.
Crap. Look at all the people who quite literaly become physically ill while watching and playing 3-d games like Doom and Quake on a computer monitor. Just wait untill the 3d rubbish you're adovacating hits the office and watch the lawsuits start flying.
>Try something along the line of int main() { int n = 10; int temp[n];
>.... } This should not even compile. VC++ gives the approiate error
>message and g++ compiles it just fine...
That's because VC++ is a pile of shit designed for morons like yourself.
>It is my understanding that this sort of extension is allowed in the
>kerberos spec and that MS is not the first implementation to take advantage of it.
>If you are going to bash MS, don't bash them for following the rules.
>With W2K, Microsoft is finally making a fair attempt at following and
>using the standards.
Are you really this stupid, or has your Microsoft employment rotted your brain? Microsoft by this stunt has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one again they *HAVE NO INTENTION* of following and using the standards as they exist. I really hope that the DOJ and Judge Jackson is playing attention to this particular story. I bet the EU is also going to be looking at this issue also.
>The reference implementations of Kerberos 4 & 5 are available under a
>BSD-style license, so there's nothing wrong with what Microsoft has
>done, even if they do use Kerberos code in Windows. (I'm not sure if
>they've said they use any MIT code or if they did a ground-up
>implementation based on the specs)
The only good thing in all this is that this stunt by Mircosoft is pretty much going to kill BSD-style licenses for things like Kerberos in the future, as well as causing people to refuse to get involved with any sort of project Microsoft is involved in which doesn't have a GPL or a GPL-style license.
Wonder how Brett Glass and the rest of those losers is going to defend this kind of bullshit by Microsoft?
>They never said they invented text to speech. Adding text to speech in
>an OS for accessibility is in their minds innovation. And besides,
>they were mentioning it as one of the developments contributed by
>their research division.
Yeah right. Ever heard of a computer from Commodore called the Amiga? Of course Microsoft did. That's where they stole this from.........
>Ahh, I see, so unix has these smart auto symlinks, inbuilt
>text-speech, inbuilt smart troubleshooters etc?
>Um no.
Microsoft being first with inbuilt text-speech? Hardly. Amiga's came with this as a standard feature nearly 10 years ago. So much for Microsoft "innovation"
>stifles competition. What happens when the technologies change, but
>you are locked into your city's slow (but free) internet access?
>Although free internet access is a neat idea, I doubt it will hold up
>in the real world.
You're so full of bullshit. All your argument means is a lot of the bullshit technology plauging the internet now like Napster and Streaming Video won't be available to losers like you. Boo Hoo. Sob. Wah. I can't trade MP3's over this slow ass connection. Bleh. Get a life moron.
>>No you don't. Most Linux users for the most part could care less about
>>Java. It's one of the big complaints you hear from the Java crowd.
>No, you are incorrect. Take a look at: Java Request For Enhancements.
>The Java port was *by far* the number one requested enhancement ever.
>I am not saying there is anything wrong, just don't say Linux users
>never ask for anything from big companies.
All this means is that Java users running/interested in Linux made those requests. It's not the same thing as the Linux userbase expressing an interest in Java. Most people I know who are using Linux have the same amount of regard for Java as they have for C++. Little or none.
>Boy, there is nothing better than people who are getting a subsidized
>education complaining about what they can't do with their subsudized
>internet access...
Agreed, and it's these people who bitch the loudest whenever the subject of providing subsudized internet access to the people (who live in the inner city and rual areas) who really deserve it.
>"The fact you don't see Linux users for instance starting a write-in
>campain asking Microsoft to port IE and other Microsoft software to
>linux like the Amiga and Atari ST users did should tell you
>something......" No, but you do see Linux users begging Sun to port
>Java for them. Before Sun released the JDK for Linux, the Linux port
No you don't. Most Linux users for the most part could care less about Java. It's one of the big complaints you hear from the Java crowd.
>Well, IE is not an option on my SGI IRIX box. Actually, Netscape is
>the only browser I found for IRIX. At least Linux has *some* options:
>Opera, KBrowser, Mozilla binaries, and others. IRIX is just behind
>(until SGI switches over to Linux).
>But I my Windows box I use IE. It is worlds better than Netscape.
Will you IE Astroturfers give it up? Nobody outside of you Windows users care about IE. The fact you don't see Linux users for instance starting a write-in campain asking Microsoft to port IE and other Microsoft software to linux like the Amiga and Atari ST users did should tell you something......
>Smart move on AOL's part. The net community was almost unaminous in
>there opposition of the merger. They just took teeth out of that
>arguement. Now the only questions are os's allowed, etc. Guess the
>consumer can benefit from politics after all. Must be a cold day in
>hell.
Since it looks like AOL and Microsoft aren't too chummy these days, it's a pretty good chance that AOL won't mandate the use of a Microsoft OS if for no other reason than to piss off Microsoft.
>Are there really significant numbers people out there who can't see
>through stuff like this, or is it just such a part of corp culture
>that they can't not produce BS like this?
At least unlike a certain other corp, they aren't standing around screaming about their right to "innovate" while attemping to screw over everybody in sight.
>NetBEUI is so old and icky, I'd avoid it like the plague.
>What's next, punch card readers for Linux, drum memory interfaces?
Considering that people are getting more and more concerned about the data that's stored on punch cards and drum memory becoming lost, I'll say it's a pretty good bet you'll see this kind of stuff running under Linux.
MCSE's most certainly don't have the skills to pull something like this off
>1. Because not everyone has access to a bank which provides this
service.
2. Some people don't want to have their bank account, credit card,
brokerage, etc with the same company/group of companies.
3. Some people rather like the *control* writting a check or buying a money order gives them in respect to their bank account. Online banking pretty much takes that away for the most part.
4. People don't want to bother with using software like Quicken to balance their checkbook when using a calaculator and pen is faster and easier.
>I am yet again amazed that the /. crowd, which seems to be have a
>large Open Source/Linux crowd, would criticize a post such as this
>one. One of great hallmarks of linux is it's compatibility to older
>stuff, especially hardware. Try running the latest m$ OS on an old
This isn't the Open Source/Linux crowd who's criticizing this. It's the Microsoft MCSE crowd, and here's the reason why. If you can acess machines that are using older protocols like NETBEUI under Linux, why bother installing Win 2000 or NT on those machines? Get the picture?
> NetBEUI's dead, folks. Don't pollute the efficiency of *NIX with this
Wrong. As long as you have a machine that has data on it that uses NetBEUI and you need to acess that data, NetBEUI's not dead. It's as simple as that.
>I spoke to an MSCE friend of mine, and he says it's a MS protocol.
In case you didn't know, MSCE's are *MORONS*
They might as well have "I am a Moron" tatooed on their foreheads....
>I have a dedicated print server box that supports IPX, NETBEUI and
>AppleTalk. It is simple to use from a Windows or MacOS desktop. I
>haven't figured out an easy way to connect to it from Linux. NETBEUI
>support in Linux would make this easy.
As I recall, there is Linux support for AppleTalk.
>As a highly respected practitioner of the science of Marketing, I
frequently post to this forum to attempt to "give back to the
community". I cannot write C++ or Java code to save my life (I'm a VB
expert) so my contribution to this forum takes the form of "open
source" marketing advice.
Sod off. We like the idea of Linux and the BSD's going places Windows never will. Can you imagine anyone wanting Windows 2000 running on a mainframe computer system? Of course not. So take your "advice" and shove it.
>I thought linux 2.4 was supposed to ship with Windows 2000 ?
You thought wrong. Nobody actually said when the 2.4 kernel was supposed to ship. You saw a lot guesses coming from people about when they though it might be out, which isn't the same thing.
>I think, the whiners are really complaining about it, because
>it's a point release, if it were a major thing, then I don't
>see how or why there would be a problem.
You have to understand something about the people who are whining about the linux kernel posts on Slashdot. You see, these people for the most part work for Microsoft's PR department and are responsible for creating WWW pages like the Microsoft "Linux Myths" web page. Posting news/articles about linux kernel releases on a site like Slashdot makes their jobs a hell of a lot harder because they expect this kind of information to be located on obscure www sites that no one will really bother checking out. Posting it on Slashdot on the other hand exposes the information to a huge number of people. Now do you see why they would like to make sure few people as posibble saw anything that would contradict anything that they would place on the Microsoft WWW site concering linux?
>On a slightly unrelated note, has anyone noticed that Linux is
>becoming more and more like a microkernel everyday?
>Tannenbaum was right. Everybody knew it at the time, but we were too
>intellectually dishonest (and excited to play with our new Linux toy)
>to acknowlege it.
No he wasn't. And Linux isn't becoming more and more like a microkernel everyday. What's happing is the linux kernel is evolving into something that's not a monolithic kernel nor a microkernel either. It's turing into something that's somewhere inbetween the two. Tannenbaum and his suppoters like you quite frankly never really saw this comming.
>The moral of the story is to go to Internet Options --> Security -->
>Custom Level on your IE browser and turn off ActiveX.
And laugh in the face of those who say we need Microsoft to port IE to linux...