It is not surprising that advanced layout rendering engines are integral to graphical operating systems, and that because they are indeed advanced that lots of 3rd party programs should use them too (rather than re-invent the wheel)
Why am I not surprised that the only browser that you listed a version number is IE.
Its as if you think that all those other browsers rendered your pages correctly since their first alpha release.
The fact of the matter is that the same people running an old copy of IE would also be running an old copy of one of those other browsers.
These same people will continue to run IE6 until they have to buy a new machine with a new OS, and then whatever version of whatever browser they chose will be the one they use for years and years and years. They arent suddenly going to become regular upgraders just because they were shown a ballot one time.
You are living in a dream world. The reality is that you have to take the market as it is. You have this nice/. approved woe-is-me excuse right now about IE6, but what woe-is-me excuses will you have when FireFox is up to version 7 but an uncomfortable portion of the market is still running 3.5?
Didnt have a problem with that page under Opera, so the problem must be you (Opera is even less supported than Firefox on Microsoft sites, and has even been actively targeted with intentionally broken pages)
You have decided that $COST to develop linux relates to $COST to audit literally millions of 3rd party programs source code.
I dont need to support my claim that its bullshit to think that they relate. You need to support YOUR claim that they relate in any way at all, because they arent equivalent things. They are different things. Different things often don't relate in any meaningful way. Back up your claim.
Other games on the same rendering, physics, and sound engines run fine on his system. The problem isnt with the drivers, although sometimes driver makers FIX THE BUGS IN 3RD PARTY GAMES.
The problem is almost certainly the copy protection mechanism.
The difference is that EA throws their money at acquiring competitors, and then spends as little as possible making sequels. The bad sequels eventually kill the brand name of the title, but not before they rake in massive profits.
10 Acquire company with solid title
20 Sell crappy sequels, earning major profits off the soon-to-be tarnished brand name of that title.
30 Goto 10
The prices are what the market will bare. They would not "ramp up prices" because that would be sub-optimal.
The reality here is that they are not paying for the ordinary quality control process because they can legally get away with it. It has nothing to do with retail pricing.
And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak. I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks. Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about. The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.
They might be right and they might be wrong, but it should also be pointed out that these journals are caught up in the middle of it all.
These journals are telling the world that the manipulation of their peer review process is nothing to get excited about.
Users filing bug reports? Then users vote? Are you serious?
You are seriously underestimating the scale of the windows ecosystem. You currently have thousands of application in your primary ecosystem. Imagine hundreds of millions of them. Thats right. Hundreds of millions.
No I am not. You have assumed there is a false dichotomy because you imagine repository resources to be infinite.
The argument is that people want 3rd party software, ergo if the repository does not have it then people will go somewhere else for it.
The response to this point is that repositories strive to have as much 3rd party software as possible on them. This would be fine and dandy if there is no raised entry bar, because there could theoretically be enough resources to host every 3rd party program that exists (for instance, Google could.)
But you have imagined a world where there is also enough human resources in order to maintain that raised entry bar (humans looking over source code, accepting and rejecting programs based on what they are programmed to do) while also overcoming the need to download 3rd party programs from someplace else
If Linux had 95% market share, no software repository on the planet could keep up with the *submissions* to it while also maintaining that raised bar of yours, because they simply cannot allocate enough humans to the task.
Less than 0.01% of all computer users would EVER do any of the crap you claim. Your argument is a non-starter because this branch in the comments is a theoretical on Linux actually having 95% market share. If it had 95% market share, then there would be no repository on the planet that could handle the volume of software being produced while also requiring that humans actually scan the source code in the manner you suggest.
It is precisely because there would be such an overwhelming shortfall in repository resources that it would quickly become the norm to not use a repository at all, and soon enough people would demand for and then switch to a distro that didnt even require typing 'sudo'.. that some form of click-yes UAC would be the norm.
In the early days of the Internet, even prior to there being a "web", there WERE mainstay repositories for DOS and Windows software that were widely used. Some of them are still around (such as TuCows), but they are not used substantially by the vast majority of people anymore, because they simply cannot keep up with the volume.
One can have a reasoned expectation that X will do Y, without making any value judgments at all. All this good vs evil shit is nonsense in most situations.
I don't expect my telephone provider to fight for world peace. I expect my telephone provider to try to charge me more than the service is worth, to try to gain even more customers that it can rip off, and if it has a big cash surplus I expect it to invest it to the best of its abilities in order to maximize its own long term gains.
I doubt that anybody here who is complaining about google will be switching to another search engine, but even if every American stood up in protest and stopped using them, it would probably STILL be in Googles best interests to pick China over America because they are going to make an unbelievable shitload of money there.
..and the chance of them getting working A.I. to handle the suggested visual recognition task reasonably well is so small that it also boggles the mind.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not surprising that advanced layout rendering engines are integral to graphical operating systems, and that because they are indeed advanced that lots of 3rd party programs should use them too (rather than re-invent the wheel)
Why am I not surprised that the only browser that you listed a version number is IE.
/. approved woe-is-me excuse right now about IE6, but what woe-is-me excuses will you have when FireFox is up to version 7 but an uncomfortable portion of the market is still running 3.5?
Its as if you think that all those other browsers rendered your pages correctly since their first alpha release.
The fact of the matter is that the same people running an old copy of IE would also be running an old copy of one of those other browsers.
These same people will continue to run IE6 until they have to buy a new machine with a new OS, and then whatever version of whatever browser they chose will be the one they use for years and years and years. They arent suddenly going to become regular upgraders just because they were shown a ballot one time.
You are living in a dream world. The reality is that you have to take the market as it is. You have this nice
Didnt have a problem with that page under Opera, so the problem must be you (Opera is even less supported than Firefox on Microsoft sites, and has even been actively targeted with intentionally broken pages)
Except that you can't guarantee that the list of software is really safe, just that there are no currently known vulnerabilities.
I would care about this point if you could guarantee that the OS itself is safe.
Since we cannot guarantee that the OS is safe, its definitely hyper-prophylactic to shun a "safe software" list.
After all, the reverse is already common. Lots of software comes with a list of approved OS's and wont install without warning on non-approved OS's.
Yeah, if you say so.
You have decided that $COST to develop linux relates to $COST to audit literally millions of 3rd party programs source code.
I dont need to support my claim that its bullshit to think that they relate. You need to support YOUR claim that they relate in any way at all, because they arent equivalent things. They are different things. Different things often don't relate in any meaningful way. Back up your claim.
If C is anywhere near N, then the company doesnt have a right to make a profit on the crap they are selling.
Bullshit.
Other games on the same rendering, physics, and sound engines run fine on his system. The problem isnt with the drivers, although sometimes driver makers FIX THE BUGS IN 3RD PARTY GAMES.
The problem is almost certainly the copy protection mechanism.
What liability is that?
You sell game for $X to N users, but it doesnt work for C users, so your GROSS is $X * (N - C)
EA has enough money too.
The difference is that EA throws their money at acquiring competitors, and then spends as little as possible making sequels. The bad sequels eventually kill the brand name of the title, but not before they rake in massive profits.
10 Acquire company with solid title
20 Sell crappy sequels, earning major profits off the soon-to-be tarnished brand name of that title.
30 Goto 10
The prices are what the market will bare. They would not "ramp up prices" because that would be sub-optimal.
The reality here is that they are not paying for the ordinary quality control process because they can legally get away with it. It has nothing to do with retail pricing.
What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells?
I tell my grandfather with Parkinson's that all the time. "You make the cuts, and then I pick the pieces. Its the only way its fair!"
Two studies came up with the same result, so it's not BS at all.
Nobody said that the number was bullshit.
Its the metric (the way you want to use it) thats bullshit.
Yes. Because that 2 billion figure is a bullshit metric.
And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak. I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks. Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about. The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.
They might be right and they might be wrong, but it should also be pointed out that these journals are caught up in the middle of it all.
These journals are telling the world that the manipulation of their peer review process is nothing to get excited about.
Users filing bug reports? Then users vote? Are you serious?
You are seriously underestimating the scale of the windows ecosystem. You currently have thousands of application in your primary ecosystem. Imagine hundreds of millions of them. Thats right. Hundreds of millions.
No I am not. You have assumed there is a false dichotomy because you imagine repository resources to be infinite.
The argument is that people want 3rd party software, ergo if the repository does not have it then people will go somewhere else for it.
The response to this point is that repositories strive to have as much 3rd party software as possible on them. This would be fine and dandy if there is no raised entry bar, because there could theoretically be enough resources to host every 3rd party program that exists (for instance, Google could.)
But you have imagined a world where there is also enough human resources in order to maintain that raised entry bar (humans looking over source code, accepting and rejecting programs based on what they are programmed to do) while also overcoming the need to download 3rd party programs from someplace else
If Linux had 95% market share, no software repository on the planet could keep up with the *submissions* to it while also maintaining that raised bar of yours, because they simply cannot allocate enough humans to the task.
Bull.
.. that some form of click-yes UAC would be the norm.
Less than 0.01% of all computer users would EVER do any of the crap you claim. Your argument is a non-starter because this branch in the comments is a theoretical on Linux actually having 95% market share. If it had 95% market share, then there would be no repository on the planet that could handle the volume of software being produced while also requiring that humans actually scan the source code in the manner you suggest.
It is precisely because there would be such an overwhelming shortfall in repository resources that it would quickly become the norm to not use a repository at all, and soon enough people would demand for and then switch to a distro that didnt even require typing 'sudo'
In the early days of the Internet, even prior to there being a "web", there WERE mainstay repositories for DOS and Windows software that were widely used. Some of them are still around (such as TuCows), but they are not used substantially by the vast majority of people anymore, because they simply cannot keep up with the volume.
Which is it?
Is the goal to "get as much of the 3rd party software as possible into the repository" or is it to "raise the threshold of entry"
You began by claiming the 1st, but when problems with that were noted, you reverted to the 2nd.
Pick one please.
They may have multiple user ACCOUNTS but most of them are only going to have one actual meat sack (i.e. USER) at the keyboard.
I'm a bag of mostly water you insensitive clod!
Why is this a hard idea to you?
Why arent the existing one very successful?
Nobody is doing this well, and not just because they havent throw enough database at it.
Neither approval nor disapproval.
One can have a reasoned expectation that X will do Y, without making any value judgments at all. All this good vs evil shit is nonsense in most situations.
I don't expect my telephone provider to fight for world peace. I expect my telephone provider to try to charge me more than the service is worth, to try to gain even more customers that it can rip off, and if it has a big cash surplus I expect it to invest it to the best of its abilities in order to maximize its own long term gains.
I doubt that anybody here who is complaining about google will be switching to another search engine, but even if every American stood up in protest and stopped using them, it would probably STILL be in Googles best interests to pick China over America because they are going to make an unbelievable shitload of money there.
Google, being a publicly held company, has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to place money before mere principles.
..and the chance of them getting working A.I. to handle the suggested visual recognition task reasonably well is so small that it also boggles the mind.
How else would you even reach agreement?
Have something agreeable to agree on.