Also, Debian sucks at ease of automated custom builds from source. For many people this is an issue,
including me-- I typically need to setup packages with the precise options I want, and Debian makes it
much tougher than BSD.
apt-get source package-name; edit what you want to edit; run debuild. It really isn't that difficult if you take some time to learn the dpkg-dev build environment. Hell, you might even find that you can build/maintain your own debian packages! WOuldn't that be horrible? More than a couple times I have customized packages that diverged from the main debian distribution. Where I work, we actually maintain a central repository of precompiled, custom packages. We maintain a lot of servers and distributing updates is a cinch! Don't have to worry about overwriting config files or anything. Just add your repository to/etc/apt/sources.list and you get the updates you need.
Oh well, what you call "easier to customize" I call "clumsy."
Great, but what about updating all the ports software you installed? What about preserving configuration files? What if you don't want to "make world" a whole distribution? Compile? Thats a joke. What is the point of having a distribution if you have to compile all your updates/additions? Debian developers spend a lot of time testing and maintaining dependencies between packages.
Can you selectivly update packages? Roll back to older ones?
It would seem that the FreeBSD way is more that a little more complicated. Many of the features just are not there. But thats Ok. Its probably one of those things where you don't need it until you have it. I mean, I was perfectly happy with COMMAND.COM, freeing up conventional memory, allocating XMS memory, and programming using SEG:OFFSET addressing under DOS before I first installed Linux. Sure, DOS can use all 64MB of RAM in your computer, its just a little more complicated:)
If "ports" is one of the coolest things about FreeBSD, then I am afraid Debian really does have one up on FreeBSD. As I mentioned earlier, this feature is clumsy at best. Its a clever hack.
"ports" is simply a way of extending a basic installation... apt IS the installation. I would love to go on, but if you have never really spent time using/upgrading/maintaining Debian systems, you just have no idea. There is no point in trying explain it.
I have used it, and its clumsy at best. Plus it only works for "ports" software. And compile? Ick, we pay (HA!) Debian developers good money to compile/maintain "ports" for us. I have been "make install"ing.tar.gz packages since the first Slackware distributions, and i am tired of it.
Try updating your FreeBSD system from 3.1 to 4.1.1 in 1 hour through an ssh session and without a reboot (until you decide to update the kernel).
"The ports tree" really only gives a small portion of the full apt functionality.
There are many reasons why I prefer Linux to FreeBSD. THe biggest is the fact that I love Debian. I have installed FreeBSD but the install is just too minimalist. I have run various versions of RH Linux and Slackware as well. What can I say, apt-get rocks! Oh and I absolutely despise the BSD startup scripts. I will trade a little speed for the power of Debian. There are the political issues of the GPL versus the BSD license. I really perfer supporting GNU.
If there was a Debian distribution build around the FreeBSD kernel, I would jump on it in a heartbeat, but until FBSD gets a better packaging, I am going to have to just say no to it.
This seems absurd. Power saving is for laptops that have very limited battery power. The CPU itself only uses 20 watts or so. Maybe more for really fast ones. That is less then your average light bulb. And shutting down the harddrives and spinning them up might just cause MORE power consumption unless the drives are down for a significant period. Spinning up a drive draws a LOT of power, expecially the 10,000 RPM ones found in servers (and my workstation:). So much that having multiple drives in a computer spinning up at the same time can fry your power supply. Not only that, but spinning up drives is really hard on them. Like most things mechanical and electronic, it is usually best to leave it running at a constant rate.
Its like your car. One could try to save gas by speeding up to 80 MPH then shutting off the engine and coasting down to 50 then start the engine back up.... This would ruin the engine and probably wouldn't save any gas. It takes more gas to accelerate up to 80 than it does to maintain 80.
Hey, maybe we can find some way to convert the heat from big servers back into electricity!
This is a LOT different than the B-Movie brewing vats. No matter what, a clone must be born of woman. I see your point with the gay men. But wouldn't the gay men rather have their sperm combined somehow to make a unique human? Don't you think it would be pretty wierd to be raising your own clone? There are already problems where the role of birthing mothers is trivial. Cloning is really not much different than using a serogate mother to birth a baby using somebody else's embreyo and sperm. In this can it is somebody else's clone. I say that if 2 people can work out the complexities of this situation, then let them do it. ANd if they find that it is too "wierd" let them fight it out in court. Somebody has to set a legal precident in.
3. On corporations "owning" clones.
Look, there is still a birth mother and a genetic source. The only debate about "ownership" is between the genetic doner and the serogate mother. The ONLY difference with cloning is that there is a single genetic source instead of the traditional male/female. Sure the debate might be a little different because the serogate mother could claim that it is her egg, but there is no issue concerning corporate ownership. The fact is that whatever happens, the baby will be human. And no corporation can own a human (well, unless you are stupid enough to sell your soul to one)
Anyway, I don't want to bother going on. The point is that you are paranoid. You have watched too many sci-fi flicks and you don't really understand what cloning actually implies. There isn't too much to think about. Cloning works, much in the same way that IVF works. It isn't perfect, but it gives people more options for having children. You forget that, no matter what, we are producing a unique human being with cloning. You can only duplicate a person's genes, you can't duplicate his/her life experiences. Now, if scientists found to way to produce an EXACT duplicate of a human, memories and all, then we might have something to talk about.
Finally, somebody else sees that this isn't a big deal. No more of a deal than having twins. Nobody has any problem with the notion that maternal twins are effectivly clones of each other. Why should there be a problem with having a genetic clone? There are already laws reguarding the use of genetic material. You couldn't legally use Brad Pitt's fingernail clippings to clone him any sooner than you could use his sperm to create a baby. Technically, a corporation could hire a woman to sleep with Brad Pitt, preserve his sperm, and use it later to fertilize his son. It just doesn't happen.
I really don't understand why people think this is a big deal. It isn't like you can instantly have a full grown clone of yourself in a day. The clone has to be born of human, raised like any human, and set out into the world. It would be no different than having a twin (a much younger twin). I think people are confusing science fiction with science fact. The reality is that you would only share genetic material with your clone. Your clone would have a different parents, education, and childhood than you. It would be a different person who happens to look like you. Like a twin (separated at birth).
I have a healthy attention span. When I get on the internet to do something, I do it. I read the article or retrieve the information. I don't want to a) fill my screen with excess browser windows, b) lose my place in my current task, or c) forget what it was that I originally was looking for by clicking on a banner and reading that. Call me unamerican, but I don't want to be distracted. So, I don't click those banners, never have, never will. No matter how interesting they might look. But at the same time I am mildly annoyed that they are there to begin with...
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is better. The internet was just fine in its pre-ad days. I don't remember people complaining that there wasn't enough content. As a matter of fact, I seems that more and more people complain about the LACK of content lately. I am not suggesting that it is directly related to advertisement, but commercialization has certainly led to a cold and impersonal internet. The content to fluff ratio has gone WAY down.
I can think of plenty of useful sites that don't rely of advertising for income. And for those useful sites that rely on advertising... If it is really that useful, I will pay for it (Online travel agencies, map making ala Mapquest, and even slashdot.) Its like TV, I am getting increasingly annoyed by commercial interuptions in my viewing experience. I will eventually either give up TV altogether or pay for cable and only watch uninterupted programs (HBO shows, movies, etc).
Yes, I REALLY want the internet to revert back to it's pre-ad days.
I think the first thing you have to do is find out the precise motivating force for this move. The biggest reason I can think of for making such a transition is to passify the fears of small minds. I mean really. The current solution might be more complicated (on the surface) than Exchange/Outlook but I am sure that if the current admin staff has have of a brain they can learn it. Of course there are other reasons... maybe mangement wants corporate support for their client/server solution. Some people seem to think that just because you have a company to point the finger at when things blow up that it will somehow get repaired faster. We have all been on the phone with tech support and it is no better than getting on IRC or USENET and asking for help. It isn't like you can sue M$ for downtime! Show them the corporate accountability will NOT help make things run smoother. Not to mention the security problems that others have pointed out.
*sigh* Unfortuanly it sounds like you might be fighting a mighty political/buerocratic(sp!) power. The best technical defence in the world is often no match for, "I like Microsoft products." coming from a corporate VP who knows NOTHING about computers. In this case, I don't know what to tell ya. I work for small companies for a reason...
It is free software from a corporation. They have to make money off of you somehow. Fortunately you are not FORCED to use any of the services. Microsoft is in a different position. They don't make their money from banner ads and 42 other services. They just want every piece of software in use to be a Microsoft product. And giving away a web browser for free is just one step.
I don't know about Netscape 6, but the first thing I do when I install Netscape is hide that bar that has "Members" "WebMail" etc. And I change the default home page. Maybe you should start complaining when Netscape prevents you from changing the default home page or they force vendors to not set the default home page in factory installations.
I hate banner ads and such as much as the next guy, but it certainly isn't just Netscape/AOL doing it.
We are not talking about 50MB out of 512MB bad. I believe we are talking about single bits. Single 4k pages of addressable memory. Thats 4k out of 512MB. What if you could get a 512MB DIMM for $30 wouldn't you take it?
I just wanted to note that I ordered Speakeasy (www.speakeasy.net) xDSL for my home, and these guys had things going in 10 days. Lucky? Maybe. As far as the service goes I have had a couple of Sundays with no internet access in the last 6 months. But, speaking as someone who works for a company that resells for various DSL providers.. they ALL suck:) It isn't so bad. No internet connection just tells me, "Hey, time to sit down and read.. or go out for change.":)
(No, we don't resell Speakeasy. We only resell buisness service.)
I worked for a community college that had several large, public computer labs and censorship was never an issue. Most people just don't want to get caught looking at porn in a public place. Not to mention the "being turned on in a public place" factor... Of course there were a few people that would look at porn in the labs. It was kinda funny actually. The offenders would have a 2 inch high space to browse in and they woudl get real close to the screen so they could scroll through the image. You always knew who they were and they had a reputation. You can simply ask them to leave. It should be your right to ask someone to leave if they are doing something that is "inappropriate." Just have a written policy that states "No Porn! Violators will be asked to leave." On the other hand, it should go without saying that porn is inappropriate for a public computer lab. Just like running around yelling or talking loud is inappropriate for a public library. It really shouldn't have to come down to legality or written policies or censorship.
Really, the only "censorship" we found necessary was blocking web based chat sites. And that was just to keep people from hogging machines in busy labs. I swear, some of those people are friekin' chat JUNKIES!
Point is that you are wasting your time trying to censor content. Personally, I really don't think there is anything worth censoring. Most information, and lets keep it this way, is still legal. There is nothing illegal or unethical about researching illicit drugs or reading racist manifestos. What people DO with the information is another story. I think you should be strong and insist that if it isn't illegal and it isn't blatantly inappropriate, it should be permitted.
Ummm, by that definition, aren't we all in danger of becoming old farts? Or is it only people from the sixties that have a choice about becoming and old fart. Are us younger people somehow free to age without worry? -matthew
RPM is just a package format. AFAIK, there is no automated update facility in RedHat Linux. This patent is for a method of distributing software updates. It has nothing to do with any particular package format. The only technologies that I know of that might infringe are APT under Debian and Apple's software update control panel.
For anyone here who's used it (admit it:), what that patent describes is Windows 98's "Critical Notification Update" utility, a program that checks the versions of your software, compares it against what's on Microsofts server, asks if you want to download it, and then if you say so, downloads and installs the appropriate updates.
You don't know how Debian works?? Poor guy, you are so deprived. This is exactly what APT does under Debian. It checks a list of currently available packages, compares that to the packages you have installed, and asks you if you want to apply any updates. It is a GREAT way to upgrade from an old debian version to the latest.. or just to keep up to date with the current release.
Actually, APT goes one step furthur. You can use apt to install NEW packages. For example, a command like "apt-get install squid" will download squid, all of it dependancies, and install it for you. You will NOT be disappointed by the shear magnitude of applications available for debian. The current (or soon to be released) is 2 CDs worth of binaries.
On the subject of the patent, I don't know the legality of it, but I am sure the Debian community can show that they have been doing this for some time now. I don't know that MS could ask that we get rid of APT.
Umm, again, I think internet cafes are your best bet. Never been to Japan, but imagine that there would be some sort of internet cafe with some terminals that use a keyboard that is at least vaguely familiar.. even if the OS is in Japanese.....
Homophobic Gay Bashers
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
Hey, this thing is PERFECT for the homophobic gay basher in you! Not only can you know right away if another person is gay, you know if they are compatable and therefore threatening to your own sexuality. Don't just beat anyone, beat those that might want to hit on you!
NO! No more "standards." We need to settle on something and OpenGL is a good one to settle on. ESpecially if companies like SGI, Nvidia, and VA or investing in it.
Slashdot Mirror
apt-get source package-name; edit what you want to edit; run debuild. It really isn't that difficult if you take some time to learn the dpkg-dev build environment. Hell, you might even find that you can build/maintain your own debian packages! WOuldn't that be horrible? More than a couple times I have customized packages that diverged from the main debian distribution. Where I work, we actually maintain a central repository of precompiled, custom packages. We maintain a lot of servers and distributing updates is a cinch! Don't have to worry about overwriting config files or anything. Just add your repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and you get the updates you need.
Oh well, what you call "easier to customize" I call "clumsy."
-matthew
Great, but what about updating all the ports software you installed? What about preserving configuration files? What if you don't want to "make world" a whole distribution? Compile? Thats a joke. What is the point of having a distribution if you have to compile all your updates/additions? Debian developers spend a lot of time testing and maintaining dependencies between packages.
:)
Can you selectivly update packages? Roll back to older ones?
It would seem that the FreeBSD way is more that a little more complicated. Many of the features just are not there. But thats Ok. Its probably one of those things where you don't need it until you have it. I mean, I was perfectly happy with COMMAND.COM, freeing up conventional memory, allocating XMS memory, and programming using SEG:OFFSET addressing under DOS before I first installed Linux. Sure, DOS can use all 64MB of RAM in your computer, its just a little more complicated
-matthew
If "ports" is one of the coolest things about FreeBSD, then I am afraid Debian really does have one up on FreeBSD. As I mentioned earlier, this feature is clumsy at best. Its a clever hack.
"ports" is simply a way of extending a basic installation... apt IS the installation. I would love to go on, but if you have never really spent time using/upgrading/maintaining Debian systems, you just have no idea. There is no point in trying explain it.
-matthew
I have used it, and its clumsy at best. Plus it only works for "ports" software. And compile? Ick, we pay (HA!) Debian developers good money to compile/maintain "ports" for us. I have been "make install"ing .tar.gz packages since the first Slackware distributions, and i am tired of it.
Try updating your FreeBSD system from 3.1 to 4.1.1 in 1 hour through an ssh session and without a reboot (until you decide to update the kernel).
"The ports tree" really only gives a small portion of the full apt functionality.
-matthew
I second that! Debian/BSD! Give me apt-* or give me death!
Hell, I would probably run Solaris x86 if it came in the form of a Debian distribution!
-matthew
There are many reasons why I prefer Linux to FreeBSD. THe biggest is the fact that I love Debian. I have installed FreeBSD but the install is just too minimalist. I have run various versions of RH Linux and Slackware as well. What can I say, apt-get rocks! Oh and I absolutely despise the BSD startup scripts. I will trade a little speed for the power of Debian. There are the political issues of the GPL versus the BSD license. I really perfer supporting GNU.
If there was a Debian distribution build around the FreeBSD kernel, I would jump on it in a heartbeat, but until FBSD gets a better packaging, I am going to have to just say no to it.
-matthew
This seems absurd. Power saving is for laptops that have very limited battery power. The CPU itself only uses 20 watts or so. Maybe more for really fast ones. That is less then your average light bulb. And shutting down the harddrives and spinning them up might just cause MORE power consumption unless the drives are down for a significant period. Spinning up a drive draws a LOT of power, expecially the 10,000 RPM ones found in servers (and my workstation :). So much that having multiple drives in a computer spinning up at the same time can fry your power supply. Not only that, but spinning up drives is really hard on them. Like most things mechanical and electronic, it is usually best to leave it running at a constant rate.
Its like your car. One could try to save gas by speeding up to 80 MPH then shutting off the engine and coasting down to 50 then start the engine back up.... This would ruin the engine and probably wouldn't save any gas. It takes more gas to accelerate up to 80 than it does to maintain 80.
Hey, maybe we can find some way to convert the heat from big servers back into electricity!
-matthew
This is a LOT different than the B-Movie brewing vats. No matter what, a clone must be born of woman. I see your point with the gay men. But wouldn't the gay men rather have their sperm combined somehow to make a unique human? Don't you think it would be pretty wierd to be raising your own clone? There are already problems where the role of birthing mothers is trivial. Cloning is really not much different than using a serogate mother to birth a baby using somebody else's embreyo and sperm. In this can it is somebody else's clone. I say that if 2 people can work out the complexities of this situation, then let them do it. ANd if they find that it is too "wierd" let them fight it out in court. Somebody has to set a legal precident in.
3. On corporations "owning" clones.
Look, there is still a birth mother and a genetic source. The only debate about "ownership" is between the genetic doner and the serogate mother. The ONLY difference with cloning is that there is a single genetic source instead of the traditional male/female. Sure the debate might be a little different because the serogate mother could claim that it is her egg, but there is no issue concerning corporate ownership. The fact is that whatever happens, the baby will be human. And no corporation can own a human (well, unless you are stupid enough to sell your soul to one)
Anyway, I don't want to bother going on. The point is that you are paranoid. You have watched too many sci-fi flicks and you don't really understand what cloning actually implies. There isn't too much to think about. Cloning works, much in the same way that IVF works. It isn't perfect, but it gives people more options for having children. You forget that, no matter what, we are producing a unique human being with cloning. You can only duplicate a person's genes, you can't duplicate his/her life experiences. Now, if scientists found to way to produce an EXACT duplicate of a human, memories and all, then we might have something to talk about.
-matthew
Finally, somebody else sees that this isn't a big deal. No more of a deal than having twins. Nobody has any problem with the notion that maternal twins are effectivly clones of each other. Why should there be a problem with having a genetic clone? There are already laws reguarding the use of genetic material. You couldn't legally use Brad Pitt's fingernail clippings to clone him any sooner than you could use his sperm to create a baby. Technically, a corporation could hire a woman to sleep with Brad Pitt, preserve his sperm, and use it later to fertilize his son. It just doesn't happen.
-matthew
I really don't understand why people think this is a big deal. It isn't like you can instantly have a full grown clone of yourself in a day. The clone has to be born of human, raised like any human, and set out into the world. It would be no different than having a twin (a much younger twin). I think people are confusing science fiction with science fact. The reality is that you would only share genetic material with your clone. Your clone would have a different parents, education, and childhood than you. It would be a different person who happens to look like you. Like a twin (separated at birth).
How come nobody is trying to outlaw having twins?
-matthew
I have a healthy attention span. When I get on the internet to do something, I do it. I read the article or retrieve the information. I don't want to a) fill my screen with excess browser windows, b) lose my place in my current task, or c) forget what it was that I originally was looking for by clicking on a banner and reading that. Call me unamerican, but I don't want to be distracted. So, I don't click those banners, never have, never will. No matter how interesting they might look. But at the same time I am mildly annoyed that they are there to begin with...
-matthew
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is better. The internet was just fine in its pre-ad days. I don't remember people complaining that there wasn't enough content. As a matter of fact, I seems that more and more people complain about the LACK of content lately. I am not suggesting that it is directly related to advertisement, but commercialization has certainly led to a cold and impersonal internet. The content to fluff ratio has gone WAY down.
I can think of plenty of useful sites that don't rely of advertising for income. And for those useful sites that rely on advertising... If it is really that useful, I will pay for it (Online travel agencies, map making ala Mapquest, and even slashdot.) Its like TV, I am getting increasingly annoyed by commercial interuptions in my viewing experience. I will eventually either give up TV altogether or pay for cable and only watch uninterupted programs (HBO shows, movies, etc).
Yes, I REALLY want the internet to revert back to it's pre-ad days.
-matthew
I think the first thing you have to do is find out the precise motivating force for this move. The biggest reason I can think of for making such a transition is to passify the fears of small minds. I mean really. The current solution might be more complicated (on the surface) than Exchange/Outlook but I am sure that if the current admin staff has have of a brain they can learn it. Of course there are other reasons... maybe mangement wants corporate support for their client/server solution. Some people seem to think that just because you have a company to point the finger at when things blow up that it will somehow get repaired faster. We have all been on the phone with tech support and it is no better than getting on IRC or USENET and asking for help. It isn't like you can sue M$ for downtime! Show them the corporate accountability will NOT help make things run smoother. Not to mention the security problems that others have pointed out.
*sigh* Unfortuanly it sounds like you might be fighting a mighty political/buerocratic(sp!) power. The best technical defence in the world is often no match for, "I like Microsoft products." coming from a corporate VP who knows NOTHING about computers. In this case, I don't know what to tell ya. I work for small companies for a reason...
-matthew
It is free software from a corporation. They have to make money off of you somehow. Fortunately you are not FORCED to use any of the services. Microsoft is in a different position. They don't make their money from banner ads and 42 other services. They just want every piece of software in use to be a Microsoft product. And giving away a web browser for free is just one step.
I don't know about Netscape 6, but the first thing I do when I install Netscape is hide that bar that has "Members" "WebMail" etc. And I change the default home page. Maybe you should start complaining when Netscape prevents you from changing the default home page or they force vendors to not set the default home page in factory installations.
I hate banner ads and such as much as the next guy, but it certainly isn't just Netscape/AOL doing it.
-matthew
-matthew
We are not talking about 50MB out of 512MB bad. I believe we are talking about single bits. Single 4k pages of addressable memory. Thats 4k out of 512MB. What if you could get a 512MB DIMM for $30 wouldn't you take it?
-matthew
I just wanted to note that I ordered Speakeasy (www.speakeasy.net) xDSL for my home, and these guys had things going in 10 days. Lucky? Maybe. As far as the service goes I have had a couple of Sundays with no internet access in the last 6 months. But, speaking as someone who works for a company that resells for various DSL providers.. they ALL suck :) It isn't so bad. No internet connection just tells me, "Hey, time to sit down and read.. or go out for change." :)
(No, we don't resell Speakeasy. We only resell buisness service.)
-matthew
I worked for a community college that had several large, public computer labs and censorship was never an issue. Most people just don't want to get caught looking at porn in a public place. Not to mention the "being turned on in a public place" factor... Of course there were a few people that would look at porn in the labs. It was kinda funny actually. The offenders would have a 2 inch high space to browse in and they woudl get real close to the screen so they could scroll through the image. You always knew who they were and they had a reputation. You can simply ask them to leave. It should be your right to ask someone to leave if they are doing something that is "inappropriate." Just have a written policy that states "No Porn! Violators will be asked to leave." On the other hand, it should go without saying that porn is inappropriate for a public computer lab. Just like running around yelling or talking loud is inappropriate for a public library. It really shouldn't have to come down to legality or written policies or censorship.
Really, the only "censorship" we found necessary was blocking web based chat sites. And that was just to keep people from hogging machines in busy labs. I swear, some of those people are friekin' chat JUNKIES!
Point is that you are wasting your time trying to censor content. Personally, I really don't think there is anything worth censoring. Most information, and lets keep it this way, is still legal. There is nothing illegal or unethical about researching illicit drugs or reading racist manifestos. What people DO with the information is another story. I think you should be strong and insist that if it isn't illegal and it isn't blatantly inappropriate, it should be permitted.
-matthew
Ummm, by that definition, aren't we all in danger of becoming old farts? Or is it only people from the sixties that have a choice about becoming and old fart. Are us younger people somehow free to age without worry? -matthew
-matthew
You don't know how Debian works?? Poor guy, you are so deprived. This is exactly what APT does under Debian. It checks a list of currently available packages, compares that to the packages you have installed, and asks you if you want to apply any updates. It is a GREAT way to upgrade from an old debian version to the latest.. or just to keep up to date with the current release.
Actually, APT goes one step furthur. You can use apt to install NEW packages. For example, a command like "apt-get install squid" will download squid, all of it dependancies, and install it for you. You will NOT be disappointed by the shear magnitude of applications available for debian. The current (or soon to be released) is 2 CDs worth of binaries.
On the subject of the patent, I don't know the legality of it, but I am sure the Debian community can show that they have been doing this for some time now. I don't know that MS could ask that we get rid of APT.
-matthew
Umm, again, I think internet cafes are your best
bet. Never been to Japan, but imagine that there would be some sort of internet cafe with some terminals that use a keyboard that is at least vaguely familiar.. even if the OS is in Japanese.....
Hey, this thing is PERFECT for the homophobic gay basher in you! Not only can you know right away if another person is gay, you know if they are compatable and therefore threatening to your own sexuality. Don't just beat anyone, beat those that might want to hit on you!
-matthew
Umm are we really all that surprised here? This is
certainly no different than any of their other
mass censorship policies.
But THATS the way... uh huh, uh huh... they like it!
-matthew
NO! No more "standards." We need to settle on something and OpenGL is a good one to settle on. ESpecially if companies like SGI, Nvidia, and VA or investing in it.