Fuck that shit. America in its entirety is a free speech zone. Anyone who doesn't believe that, with no exceptions or reservations, can line up so I, and the rest of us who believe in the Constitution exactly as written, can piss in your mouth. Trying to silence the people who disagree? Sounds like a typical supporter of free speech to me.
I'd just like to point out that this article is about Australia, don't bring America into this. Not everything is about America.
For the sake of a month's pork-barrel spending in Iraq, we'll condemn a few billion of our fellow humans to certain death in 2036. Or, you know, some of the remaining few billion of the fellow humans might come up with their own countermeasures. It doesn't necessarily have to be America.
And no, linux+GUI was never (and still isn't) as memory-efficient as Windows. I can't say much about the Win 95 days, but that statement is a blatant lie for the current iterations.
Considering the Intel chip in question hasn't been released, that is a silly question.
I have played Crysis on my 7600GS. I had to turn the settings down a bit, but it was playable. I gave up after a few hours because the storyline was awful and the gameplay (and graphics given the same hardware at playable settings) weren't much better than the original Far Cry (which I also hated). Sure, the engine might be able to do fancy things with powerful hardware, but something is wrong if it takes newer hardware to provide a similar experience.
If I was actually a masochist and wanted to play more games that demanded fast hardware that I don't find fun to play, I would buy hardware fast enough for the task. If that means buying the latest NVIDIA hardware instead of the new Intel card, that is what I would do. That doesn't stop me from being interested in the new card, or recommending it to other people who have different requirements.
...then I'd say that they may not be "less and less interested" but maybe they are "less and less right about the direction to take." Take your pick. I pick "less and less correct about the direction to take." - the other option is just plain wrong.
I have heard even less people were looking forward to the new Intel graphical chipset. Have you? I can hear myself, so yes, I know of at least one person who is interested. Any competition is good competition, especially when they have better track records for driver support.
I thought it was DirectX 9 that they were left out from, causing their FX range (5200 -> 5900) to be fairly useless when compared to ATI. They were legends in the DirectX 8 arena with the GeForce4 Ti series.
I'd suggest that pointing you to distrowatch was a way to make the various distros known to you, not so much a suggestion that you download from there. I use Gentoo and Debian at home, I do not require suggestions of what distro to use (granted, the suggestion was given by someone who did not know my situation).
If "my financial security depends on my performance", then choose a system that performs. This is why Mathematica benchmarks on Linux. This is why Computational Physics is done on Linux. Its a *performance* issue. To suggest that you choose software first, then whatever OS will run it, is ridiculous. By "depends on my performance" I was referring to the product that I produce. The criterion for "peforming better" is not always "whatever finishes first". Some software produces better, more accurate results and happens to run slower. Sometimes this is preferred, and picking an OS that allows me to compute the value of Pi to 1 million decimal places faster is not the best solution when it requires choosing an alternative software package that produces a less desirable output (assuming an alternative actually exists). It is ridiculous to limit your choice of applications because you picked an OS that does a lot of stuff better but doesn't have support for your objective.
If you are doing anything remotely analytical (numerically or symbolicly processing intensive) which includes statistical analysis, by the way, and not just systems of ODEs and PDEs, then performance certainly goes to Linux. And if that is what I was doing, I would naturally choose Linux.
Don't know about you, bubba, but it surely seems to me the really advanced stuff isn't made for or on Windows. Maybe engineering is more "off the shelf", but in Physics and Chemistry (and rumor has it, applied and pure mathematics), this isn't so at all! I would like to point out that Engineering software is generally more "off the shelf". Using the policy of "choose the app, then the OS" would result in using Linux in those fields. Don't assume Linux has the best support for everything.
The vagaries of licensing are some of the things that make open solutions so much more inviting. If you discontinue your support contracts, you don't get any more support from your open source provider. The don't sue you for continuing to experience the benefits of the support you've already paid for. Very true. But the incentive to use an open OS does not negate the fact that there are still many excellent business applications that don't yet support the open platforms. Hopefully this will change, but that does not mean we should all switch to Linux now, even if our jobs still rely on Windows.
And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan. Some of us already are hostages. The question is how to get ourselves out of this situation. Blindly switching now when some of our applications don't work (even though one of the original posters claimed Linux does EVERYTHING) is not the best way to do it. Sadly, I can't offer any decent solutions.
Yes, there are a lot of advantages to a VM. But switching from Windows on native hardware to Windows in a VM is not a solution if you are eliminating Windows from the picture.
Using distrowatch as a source to show where to migrate to? No thanks. That will only tell me what distro all the fanboy-types prefer as they are the type to go to that site to get their hits counted. Most of the Linux servers or professional workstations don't visit that site for their hit quota.
I never said that you literally can't migrate, I said that the solution given to that particular problem doesn't actually solve the issue. The ironic thing is that this post is coming from a Linux box, so don't try to tell me that I'm all for sticking with Windows.
As for the poster below:
Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it. No, you can't. The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host. So if the machine dies, the license did just go up in a puff of smoke. I don't think I have ever seen a retail license on business owned machines, but if you did then that might leave that option open.
Since when did I say that it has to be Office 2007 over 2003? It was the original poster that asked about those specific versions. However, the point still stands. It may not be Office specifically tying someone to Windows, it could be something else. Let's say I want to perform a task, and my financial security depends on my performance. I choose the best piece of software for that specific task. I then use the OS that is required for that piece of software. Choosing the OS first and then using sub-par software as the "free choice alternative" is not the smartest way to go. Not all free alternatives are sub par and in fact are often better for mainstream tasks. But don't try to convince everyone that they must be using free software when their situation may be different.
Here's a thought for you. Some people like to get paid for their work. The best way to make money on a software project is to target the Windows market because no-one on Linux would pay for anything. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to develop and test software for Windows when your development box is Windows.
I'd argue that switching media player and chat communications would be easy. Forcing them to find sub par alternatives to proprietary engineering applications (or other productivity related applications) is the hard part, and is an unreasonable request.
Oh and please don't "give him" MS Office = OpenOffice. I don't know about you, but OpenOffice is one of the worst examples of decent free software.
The question was "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?". The answer was to run Windows in a VM. How are they going to do that when the reason they are looking for an alternative to Windows is that XP is (or will be) no longer available? You still need a copy of Windows on the VM and Vista isn't particularly pleasant in that type of environment. If they can get a copy of Windows to run in the VM, they could just use it natively and keep the status quo.
Not true. If I stick autorun.inf on any plain old USB drive (including external enclosures) autorun.inf is triggered. I use this all the time to set the drive icon and to prevent Windows popping up the default autorun window that prompts whether you want to open music files in WMP, pictures in the picture viewer, open explorer to browse files etc. Heck, I can even do this on SATA hard drives and hotplug them and it still uses autorun.inf.
See http://dailycupoftech.com/usb-drive-autoruninf-tweaking/
Quit complaining. I have 1280x1024 at home and it is perfectly usable. Also, why are you reading Slashdot at work? Shouldn't you, I dunno, work?
Mod me down if you want, but you really should be thinking about other things at work.
Autorun.inf also allows autorunning from USB drives without installing special drivers. This is how many USB keys spread, plug in the drive and it copies the virus to the host machine. Plug a clean USB key into an infected machine, it copies onto the USB key. The University I went to had a constant virus infection in one of the computer labs that didn't disable autorun.
Props to LG for going beyond the call of duty in crediting their suppliers. That is sort of required by the licences. If you distribute binaries, you need to mention the GPL and make available any source for modifications (or something like that). Not exactly "beyond the call of duty".
if you actually had a system that had 1TB of RAM, wouldn't you like to see a lot of your hard drive contents being loaded into RAM in the background Not really. Vista does this already. Too bad it copies a 700MB ISO into memory every time I reboot (even though I have only used it once) and then proceeds to attempt to load 5 more ISOs each around 2GB. I have 2GB of RAM, which means it is copying all this data into a circular cache overwriting anything that might be useful. All I want it to do is cache system libraries and frequently used applications, not obscure user data.
They never said it can't be used for desktop. They are just saying that it isn't primarily aiming for desktop use and works very well on servers, debating the original posters claim.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just like to point out that this article is about Australia, don't bring America into this. Not everything is about America.
You would be putting in more energy than what you get out.
Considering the Intel chip in question hasn't been released, that is a silly question.
I have played Crysis on my 7600GS. I had to turn the settings down a bit, but it was playable. I gave up after a few hours because the storyline was awful and the gameplay (and graphics given the same hardware at playable settings) weren't much better than the original Far Cry (which I also hated). Sure, the engine might be able to do fancy things with powerful hardware, but something is wrong if it takes newer hardware to provide a similar experience.
If I was actually a masochist and wanted to play more games that demanded fast hardware that I don't find fun to play, I would buy hardware fast enough for the task. If that means buying the latest NVIDIA hardware instead of the new Intel card, that is what I would do. That doesn't stop me from being interested in the new card, or recommending it to other people who have different requirements.
...then I'd say that they may not be "less and less interested" but maybe they are "less and less right about the direction to take." Take your pick. I pick "less and less correct about the direction to take." - the other option is just plain wrong. I have heard even less people were looking forward to the new Intel graphical chipset. Have you? I can hear myself, so yes, I know of at least one person who is interested. Any competition is good competition, especially when they have better track records for driver support.When did they lose it? The new HD series cards aren't competitive at the high end, and have never been.
Intel less and less interested? Have you not heard of Larrabee and their ray tracing initiatives?
I thought it was DirectX 9 that they were left out from, causing their FX range (5200 -> 5900) to be fairly useless when compared to ATI. They were legends in the DirectX 8 arena with the GeForce4 Ti series.
If "my financial security depends on my performance", then choose a system that performs. This is why Mathematica benchmarks on Linux. This is why Computational Physics is done on Linux. Its a *performance* issue. To suggest that you choose software first, then whatever OS will run it, is ridiculous. By "depends on my performance" I was referring to the product that I produce. The criterion for "peforming better" is not always "whatever finishes first". Some software produces better, more accurate results and happens to run slower. Sometimes this is preferred, and picking an OS that allows me to compute the value of Pi to 1 million decimal places faster is not the best solution when it requires choosing an alternative software package that produces a less desirable output (assuming an alternative actually exists). It is ridiculous to limit your choice of applications because you picked an OS that does a lot of stuff better but doesn't have support for your objective.
If you are doing anything remotely analytical (numerically or symbolicly processing intensive) which includes statistical analysis, by the way, and not just systems of ODEs and PDEs, then performance certainly goes to Linux. And if that is what I was doing, I would naturally choose Linux.
Don't know about you, bubba, but it surely seems to me the really advanced stuff isn't made for or on Windows. Maybe engineering is more "off the shelf", but in Physics and Chemistry (and rumor has it, applied and pure mathematics), this isn't so at all! I would like to point out that Engineering software is generally more "off the shelf". Using the policy of "choose the app, then the OS" would result in using Linux in those fields. Don't assume Linux has the best support for everything.
And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan. Some of us already are hostages. The question is how to get ourselves out of this situation. Blindly switching now when some of our applications don't work (even though one of the original posters claimed Linux does EVERYTHING) is not the best way to do it. Sadly, I can't offer any decent solutions.
Using distrowatch as a source to show where to migrate to? No thanks. That will only tell me what distro all the fanboy-types prefer as they are the type to go to that site to get their hits counted. Most of the Linux servers or professional workstations don't visit that site for their hit quota.
I never said that you literally can't migrate, I said that the solution given to that particular problem doesn't actually solve the issue. The ironic thing is that this post is coming from a Linux box, so don't try to tell me that I'm all for sticking with Windows.
As for the poster below: Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it. No, you can't. The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host. So if the machine dies, the license did just go up in a puff of smoke. I don't think I have ever seen a retail license on business owned machines, but if you did then that might leave that option open.
Since when did I say that it has to be Office 2007 over 2003? It was the original poster that asked about those specific versions. However, the point still stands. It may not be Office specifically tying someone to Windows, it could be something else. Let's say I want to perform a task, and my financial security depends on my performance. I choose the best piece of software for that specific task. I then use the OS that is required for that piece of software. Choosing the OS first and then using sub-par software as the "free choice alternative" is not the smartest way to go. Not all free alternatives are sub par and in fact are often better for mainstream tasks. But don't try to convince everyone that they must be using free software when their situation may be different.
Here's a thought for you. Some people like to get paid for their work. The best way to make money on a software project is to target the Windows market because no-one on Linux would pay for anything. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to develop and test software for Windows when your development box is Windows.
I'd argue that switching media player and chat communications would be easy. Forcing them to find sub par alternatives to proprietary engineering applications (or other productivity related applications) is the hard part, and is an unreasonable request.
Oh and please don't "give him" MS Office = OpenOffice. I don't know about you, but OpenOffice is one of the worst examples of decent free software.
The question was "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?". The answer was to run Windows in a VM. How are they going to do that when the reason they are looking for an alternative to Windows is that XP is (or will be) no longer available? You still need a copy of Windows on the VM and Vista isn't particularly pleasant in that type of environment. If they can get a copy of Windows to run in the VM, they could just use it natively and keep the status quo.
Not true. If I stick autorun.inf on any plain old USB drive (including external enclosures) autorun.inf is triggered. I use this all the time to set the drive icon and to prevent Windows popping up the default autorun window that prompts whether you want to open music files in WMP, pictures in the picture viewer, open explorer to browse files etc. Heck, I can even do this on SATA hard drives and hotplug them and it still uses autorun.inf. See http://dailycupoftech.com/usb-drive-autoruninf-tweaking/
Quit complaining. I have 1280x1024 at home and it is perfectly usable. Also, why are you reading Slashdot at work? Shouldn't you, I dunno, work? Mod me down if you want, but you really should be thinking about other things at work.
The fact that it is on a floppy drive is enough to corrupt it. None of my floppy disks have valid data anymore, it self-corrupts over time.
Autorun.inf also allows autorunning from USB drives without installing special drivers. This is how many USB keys spread, plug in the drive and it copies the virus to the host machine. Plug a clean USB key into an infected machine, it copies onto the USB key. The University I went to had a constant virus infection in one of the computer labs that didn't disable autorun.
Don't hate it because it is the de facto standard? You must be new here. People hate on Windows all the time and that is the de facto standard OS.
They never said it can't be used for desktop. They are just saying that it isn't primarily aiming for desktop use and works very well on servers, debating the original posters claim.
You mean like HD DVD?