It was totally luck. If MS had had more competition, their desktop OS wouldn't have sucked so bad, historically. The only real competition WIndows ever had was OS/2, but IBM fucked that up all by themeselves. IBM isn't in a position to fuck up like that again. IBM is older and wiser. Microsoft is setting themselves up to get their cocky asses handed to them.
they won't underestimate Microsoft,
Which is exactly why they'll resist the MS invasion.
Let me ask you, have you ever been in an enterprise environment which uses IBM as a solutions provider? Do you have any idea of the level of service that IBM can and does provide to companies willing to pay for it? For example, if a server goes down (or part fails), an IBM tech is at your door before you even know anything is wrong. IBM provides complete solutions. Micosoft sells an OS with a bad reputation and a database... which only run on what is, traditionally, relatively low end hardware. And on top of all that, Microsoft isn't even on the Java bandwagon. Oh yeah, i can see Enterprise customers just jumping all *over* that.
MS is accustomed to selling to end users and IT departments who, quite frankly, don't know any better.
Umm, what kind of gaming headphones don't come with a microphone standard? As far as I can tell, this is just a really bad (bad bass response), but pretty, pair of music headphones sold as expensive "gaming" headphones.
And what the heck is with the name? Everglide? My K/Y headphones are so much better.
- the network OS with NT, eventually displace Novell
As the grandparent poster noted, the exceptions are where the market is directly related to Windows. MS owned/owns the desktop. It was inevitable that they would become the ones running the file servers.
- the web browsing market with IE, eventually displacing Netscape
Again, tied directly to the desktop. They own the desktop. Whatever they include with the OS will inevitably dominate.
the database market with SQL Server, gaining market share on IBM and Oracle
They're competing, sure, but you can't say much more than that.
- the development platform market with.NET, certainly a worthy competitor for Sun/Java
Only on the desktop and it isn't like they didn't already hold a monopoly on software dev there..NET is no threat to Java in the Enterprise market where Java is King... where people run non-MS servers.
the gaming console market with Xbox, likely to gain share from Sony
A noted exception. But the the gaming market is fickle. And so far they haven't pulled any impressive profits from it.
Seriously, what significant market has MS gone after that they haven't done well in? If MS wants in the large-business computing market my money would be on them, not on their competitors.
Against IBM? Ha! MS is not accustomed to real competition. They got lucky with the Desktop and a few markets that have opened up from that. That's all. My money is on IBM.
-matthew
Re:It's a moving target
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
- showing performance where it doesn't matter. If apps start faster, it doesn't mean they run faster. They were just preloaded and as such they consumed RAM which could be used much better
No kidding. What's more annoying that logging into XP and finding that you have to wait 30 seconds before the HD settles down enough to get any real work done. Great, they shaved some time off the bootup just to add it after login. Brilliant.
10. calendar, photo app? yeah, now name one system that didn't include those for a few years now. Will I be able to publish my calendar to my apache based CalDAV server? Or flikr?
No kidding. What is it about the software that MS includes with the OS? Why is it always so... useless (with the exeption of IE)? What amateur wrote hyper-terminal? Did they spend more than 5 minutes coding the telnet app? Why can't I change the width of the command window or easily copy text with the mouse? Then there's MS Paint... isn't that the exact same program they had in Windows 3.0? Did they even modify the code? And CD burning... where the hell was that? Did I took this for granted on OS X and Linux.
It is amazing how useful OS X is out of the box compared to Windows. But maybe this is what makes Windows so successful. They provide just enough functionality to make it look complete, but ultimately users are compelled to become developers just to have decent basic utilities! So we end up with a million applications that all do the same thing.
If this hypothetical Amateur software developer had skills good enough to create a competitive product then he would be in demand in the marketplace. If this were the case he would have a decently paying job wirting code for someone else until he finished his product in his spare time.
He would definately earn enough to purchase Visual Studio.Net and whatever else he needs.
But he's gotta learn VS.NET in the first place, no? Nobody's going to hire him without the VS.NET experience and he might not be able to (or want to) put up the cash upfront. What about in not-so-wealthy foreign countries?
The real barrier to Amateur software developers making it big are within their own minds- they really have to want this as their dream and never give up in pursuit of it.
I'm not saying the cost is a "real barrier." It is just one more reason to consider not developing for Windows in particular. It is why you just don't see much open source software on Windows. It is why you have to pay $29 for relatively simple little shareware programs that one would normally take for granted on Linux and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS.
Oh-- Apple gives away their development tools in an attempt to make up for the fact their user base (read: potential customer base) is sooo small that a serious entrepreneur-developer won't consider the ROI in supporting their platform worth the effort.
And it is an effective strategy. My point is that Microsoft shouldn't be too worried about a (relatively) few people pirating their software (particularly their devel tools) because it only serves ti increase their market dominance in the long run.
What concerns me is that people *profit* from the pirating. If you're going to pirate, the least you can do is make free copies. Honor amongst thieves and all that.:-)
And dont' forget about Safari. Apple is also nibbling away at IE's dominance. And this is one trend that simply won't be solved by IE 7.0 no matter how good it is. I think it will only take a certain critical mass of alternative browser to really enforce web standards so that the browser you use will be totally irrelevant... making it easier for more people leave IE.
Actually, no such assumption is made on my part. From what I have seen so far (have you tried the Vista beta yet?)
What would be the point? As it is, I turn off half the "features" that XP provides (if I am unlucky enough to be subjected to it for some reason). Everything goes back to "classic." If i have to use Windows, I'd rather deal with the awefullness which I am comfortable with rather than learning the new aweful ways MS thinks I should be doing things.
Most of them are targeted at everyday (ie non-techie) users, so they may go unappreciated (and hence be subject to scorn and mockery) by this audience. But the simple fact is, those things matter A LOT to common users -- the very crowd the Linux desktop distributions need to attract to gain any significant market share. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that the "perceived usability" of the Linux desktops closely tracks its increasing operational similarity to Windows.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that most of the new features of Vista are already in OS X. Who is tracking whom? If Linux is going to track operation similiarity, it should look to OS X, not Windows. Mac users I know really enjoy using their computers. All the Windows users I know merely tolerate it. The last thing the world needs is another desktop that must be tolerated rather than enjoyed.
Lastly, there seems to be the perception around here that innovation == goodness. In the commonly accepted definition of the word, innovation means something new and unique, not necessary better. And for all their faults, you cannot possibly argue, as many on this board do, that Microsoft never introduces anything new or different. That said, you *might* have some success arguing they never introduce anything good;-)
My argument is closer to the latter. I'm not really concerned about "innovation." I don't care how X desktop got the idea to do something. I just care that it does it in a way that suits me. In my opinion, Windows tries to do too much. Again, trying to be everyting to everyone. It lacks a singular vision. I'd rather see Linux fill a niche well like OS X does. Microsoft can keep the other 70% (or whatever) of the desktop market for all I care.
It's called Windows.Forms and the vast majority of that functionality is present in WINE. It will be nontrivial but possible to extend Mono with Wine in order to provide that functionality in the future.
I'm sorry, but wine sucks as a general solution. If you can get your favorite app/game to work with wine (good luck!), great, but I would never count on it. The bottom line is that such emulation/immitation is a bandaid used in lieu of native apps.
And FYI, the Mono project has abandoned Windows.Forms through WINE. See: http://www.mono-project.com/WinForms They're currently trying to reimplement it all in System.Drawing. The first thing that comes to mind is Java/Swing. Ugh! Talk about slow (and ugly). This is Mono's third attempt at implenting Windows.Forms. I'm not holding my breath. GTK-Sharp is the way to go for graphical.NET apps with Mono. Trying to emulate Windows(.Forms) is a dead end.
-matthew
Re:It's a moving target
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First of all, you assume that Vista will be the pinnicle of desktop features. As if OS X isn't already implementing most of the new features that Vista touts. And even still, you assume that all those new features are what users want or need. The (my) problem with Windows has always been that it tries to do everything for everyone. Mac OS has always been good about keeping feature creep down and just doing the core things very well. What is nice about a Linux desktop is choice. Believe it or not, many people choose fewer bells and whistles. I hope the GNOME developers can stay focused on doing the most important things very well rather than going off an trying to copy every feature that the "big guys" decide is important.
The upside for smaller software companies is that law governing this kind of activity is more fully developed. Down the road this may help them if they find themselves in the same situation.
But by then, software piracy would be so insigificant it wouldn't matter. And for all we know, piracy is one of the things keeps these software giants going. If a lot of people using pirated software actually had to pay for it, they might start seriously consider open source software of less expensive alternatives. Consider an amateur software developer looking to develop on Windows. He wants to get the full suite to get his feet wet, but it costs $1000 (or whatever it is). If he coiuldn't get it pirated, he might seriously consider booting one of the many free OS's with free development tools. Hell, or even Mac OS. Apple pretty much gives away their developer tools.
I don't think Mono is a big threat. I haven't checked up on its status in over a year, but last time I checked, there was absolutely no Windows GUI (Forms?) support in Mono. In fact, there is a pretty huge chunk of the API that will probably never be implemented. If you write GUI apps with Mono in Linux, it is done using gtk-sharp. If anything, it be easier to run Linux apps on Windows, not the other way around. When I was playing around with Mono, that is exactly what I did. Wrote a small program in LInux and it ran directly on Windows (with the GTK-sharp DLLs).
Frankly, I prefer it this way. I'd rather C# applications have a GTK (or Qt for you KDE geeks) look and feel. I don't want to try to emulate a Windows.
Except that the upload speeds for most home users is pretty bad. You'd spending a lot of time pushing files depending on exactly what you chose to backup.
I understand that the other creatures and civs are from other players and have their "personality." THat doesn't mean they act intelligently when not being controlled by their master. Nor does it mean they present much of a challenge. For example, near the end of the longer video, Wright goes to a another star system, visits a planet, finds that it is hostile, and simply blows up the whole planet. No battle. No challenge. Nothing. Just *poof*, gone. I guess maybe he was just glossing over the features, but I didn't get the feeling that there was much challenge to the whole game. I could be wrong. But that was my impression.
In a way, though, it wasn't open ended. I mean it seemed to have very strict "stages." What if you want to go back and design more animals? Or micro-manage cities?
I can easily imagine that trying to cram all of those games into one could backfire. I mean, isn't that how it works with gadgets? Try to cram too many features into a device with a restricted max price tag, and you just get a device that can't perform any of its many functions very well. Is software, and games in particular, too much different?
Then again, it could just work. Look at GTA. You coudl do a lot in GTA. Drive cars, fly planes, FPS, role playing.. The aspects weren't all great individually, but together it made a well rounded game.
The problem I see with Spore is that it may not be so open ended as a game like GTA. In GTA you could go anywhere and play any sub-game at any time. Although you still had to progress and open things up. Spore looks like the player will be forced to leave the "Sim-City" and move on to the next sub-game whether they like it or not. What if a player wants to focuse on the Sim-City aspect? Or come back to it after colonizing other planets? Things I'd like to know.
Oh, I understand. I was was only being half serious. And even then, i should have been more specific. I should have said "creationists" or "fundamentalists" and not "Christians." There's a difference.
I'd be concerned about the game being too ambitious and not being a particularly good implementation of any of the other games it emulates. In the demo video, he talks about all the other games that it is like. Pac-Man in the beginning, then the Sims, then Sim-City, then Civilization, etc.
It sorta reminds me of that "Sim-Sim" game found inside the old Space Quest series. Anyone remeber that? Those Sierra games were really fun.
Not enough storage. When 200GB drives are under $150 maybe it's time to stop complaining at the people who dare to keep a meg of on line messages.
A meg? Ha! Try a gig. I've seen users routinely go well over 1 gigabyte of mail because they just can't help leaving those MS IdonthavemeaningfulcontentbutidohaveneateffectsPoi nt presentations or that funny karate cat video in their Sent Items/Inbox. With 500 employees, that stuff adds up real fast.
This is a pet peeve you need to get over. First of all, those cheap 200GB drives are shit compared to what real data center storage should be built on. Sure, you *could* line up 20 of them in a hyper redutant mega RAID or something, but something's gonna blow. The controller, that cheap ass motherboard you put in your storage server. It is low end stuff, for the most part. And that amounts to big headaches in the long run.
Second, how do you back all that up? Good tape libraries are not cheap and managing terrabytes of backup amounts to even more headaches. The more data you have, the more time it takes to get full backups.
Depends on the window manager, but keeping a virtual desktop for each application or set of applications usually solves this. The window manager has to be smart enough to force an app to open in its own dedicated desktop.
Really, I don't know how Mac and Windows people work efficiently with many applications and no virtual desktops...
There is something to be said for seeing a movie in a theater with lots of other people. A comedy can seem a lot funnier when 100 other people are laughing around you. In general, I think the moods of others really rubs off. Contact high? I still rent movies by the boat load from Netflix, but there's always that one movie the comes along only once in a while that I want to see in the theater.
Opera, for example, offer packages for various distributions, plus a statically linked version which will work on any distribution. Open Office only offer one download to work on any distribution. If you compile a program yourself it will work in your distribution, whatever it is. So saying...reality demands that they be treated as [different OS's]... is simply not true.
It is true that many vendors do treat them as different OS's to some degree.
I'm making generalizations. And you're finding exceptions. My point still stands. Statically linked binaries are not ideal. It is a workaround for the issues I've outlined. The fact that you can compile a program and work with any distribution is irrelevent.
As I am sure you are aware, this is not the case for all Windows software.
Again, I'm making generalizations.
And where it is you still have to have the right versions of any Dll's required. Of course, sometimes they are provided, and overwrite any Dll's with the same name, which may break other programs.
Of course there are tradeoffs, but the fact remains that, in general, developers can treat all Win32 platforms the same despite being completely different operating systems under the hood. I only point this out to illustrate, by contrast, the hurdles software developers face when distributing LInux software.
I think you and I may have a different idea of what constitutes an OS. For me it is (in the case of a Linux distribution) the Linux kernel and the GNU tools that make it work, nothing more. Everything else are programs running on the OS.
Why include the GNU tools? All you really need is a shell. And even that is just a program.
Of course, you may disagree as to what constitutes an OS, in which case we could go round in circles for ever...
What we disagree on is the difference between technical and practical. I'll accept any technical definition of LInux as an OS that you'd like. Kernel. Kernel + basic GNU tools. Kernel + tools + X. Kernel + tools + X + window manager. None of it changes the practical aspects of using a mainstream Linux distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
It was more than luck.
It was totally luck. If MS had had more competition, their desktop OS wouldn't have sucked so bad, historically. The only real competition WIndows ever had was OS/2, but IBM fucked that up all by themeselves. IBM isn't in a position to fuck up like that again. IBM is older and wiser. Microsoft is setting themselves up to get their cocky asses handed to them.
they won't underestimate Microsoft,
Which is exactly why they'll resist the MS invasion.
Let me ask you, have you ever been in an enterprise environment which uses IBM as a solutions provider? Do you have any idea of the level of service that IBM can and does provide to companies willing to pay for it? For example, if a server goes down (or part fails), an IBM tech is at your door before you even know anything is wrong. IBM provides complete solutions. Micosoft sells an OS with a bad reputation and a database... which only run on what is, traditionally, relatively low end hardware. And on top of all that, Microsoft isn't even on the Java bandwagon. Oh yeah, i can see Enterprise customers just jumping all *over* that.
MS is accustomed to selling to end users and IT departments who, quite frankly, don't know any better.
-matthew
Umm, what kind of gaming headphones don't come with a microphone standard? As far as I can tell, this is just a really bad (bad bass response), but pretty, pair of music headphones sold as expensive "gaming" headphones.
And what the heck is with the name? Everglide? My K/Y headphones are so much better.
-matthew
- the network OS with NT, eventually displace Novell
.NET, certainly a worthy competitor for Sun/Java
.NET is no threat to Java in the Enterprise market where Java is King... where people run non-MS servers.
As the grandparent poster noted, the exceptions are where the market is directly related to Windows. MS owned/owns the desktop. It was inevitable that they would become the ones running the file servers.
- the web browsing market with IE, eventually displacing Netscape
Again, tied directly to the desktop. They own the desktop. Whatever they include with the OS will inevitably dominate.
the database market with SQL Server, gaining market share on IBM and Oracle
They're competing, sure, but you can't say much more than that.
- the development platform market with
Only on the desktop and it isn't like they didn't already hold a monopoly on software dev there.
the gaming console market with Xbox, likely to gain share from Sony
A noted exception. But the the gaming market is fickle. And so far they haven't pulled any impressive profits from it.
Seriously, what significant market has MS gone after that they haven't done well in? If MS wants in the large-business computing market my money would be on them, not on their competitors.
Against IBM? Ha! MS is not accustomed to real competition. They got lucky with the Desktop and a few markets that have opened up from that. That's all. My money is on IBM.
-matthew
- showing performance where it doesn't matter. If apps start faster, it doesn't mean they run faster. They were just preloaded and as such they consumed RAM which could be used much better
No kidding. What's more annoying that logging into XP and finding that you have to wait 30 seconds before the HD settles down enough to get any real work done. Great, they shaved some time off the bootup just to add it after login. Brilliant.
10. calendar, photo app? yeah, now name one system that didn't include those for a few years now. Will I be able to publish my calendar to my apache based CalDAV server? Or flikr?
No kidding. What is it about the software that MS includes with the OS? Why is it always so... useless (with the exeption of IE)? What amateur wrote hyper-terminal? Did they spend more than 5 minutes coding the telnet app? Why can't I change the width of the command window or easily copy text with the mouse? Then there's MS Paint... isn't that the exact same program they had in Windows 3.0? Did they even modify the code? And CD burning... where the hell was that? Did I took this for granted on OS X and Linux.
It is amazing how useful OS X is out of the box compared to Windows. But maybe this is what makes Windows so successful. They provide just enough functionality to make it look complete, but ultimately users are compelled to become developers just to have decent basic utilities! So we end up with a million applications that all do the same thing.
-matthew
If this hypothetical Amateur software developer had skills good enough to create a competitive product then he would be in demand in the marketplace. If this were the case he would have a decently paying job wirting code for someone else until he finished his product in his spare time.
.Net and whatever else he needs.
:-)
He would definately earn enough to purchase Visual Studio
But he's gotta learn VS.NET in the first place, no? Nobody's going to hire him without the VS.NET experience and he might not be able to (or want to) put up the cash upfront. What about in not-so-wealthy foreign countries?
The real barrier to Amateur software developers making it big are within their own minds- they really have to want this as their dream and never give up in pursuit of it.
I'm not saying the cost is a "real barrier." It is just one more reason to consider not developing for Windows in particular. It is why you just don't see much open source software on Windows. It is why you have to pay $29 for relatively simple little shareware programs that one would normally take for granted on Linux and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS.
Oh-- Apple gives away their development tools in an attempt to make up for the fact their user base (read: potential customer base) is sooo small that a serious entrepreneur-developer won't consider the ROI in supporting their platform worth the effort.
And it is an effective strategy. My point is that Microsoft shouldn't be too worried about a (relatively) few people pirating their software (particularly their devel tools) because it only serves ti increase their market dominance in the long run.
What concerns me is that people *profit* from the pirating. If you're going to pirate, the least you can do is make free copies. Honor amongst thieves and all that.
-matthew
And dont' forget about Safari. Apple is also nibbling away at IE's dominance. And this is one trend that simply won't be solved by IE 7.0 no matter how good it is. I think it will only take a certain critical mass of alternative browser to really enforce web standards so that the browser you use will be totally irrelevant... making it easier for more people leave IE.
-matthew
Actually, no such assumption is made on my part. From what I have seen so far (have you tried the Vista beta yet?)
;-)
What would be the point? As it is, I turn off half the "features" that XP provides (if I am unlucky enough to be subjected to it for some reason). Everything goes back to "classic." If i have to use Windows, I'd rather deal with the awefullness which I am comfortable with rather than learning the new aweful ways MS thinks I should be doing things.
Most of them are targeted at everyday (ie non-techie) users, so they may go unappreciated (and hence be subject to scorn and mockery) by this audience. But the simple fact is, those things matter A LOT to common users -- the very crowd the Linux desktop distributions need to attract to gain any significant market share. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that the "perceived usability" of the Linux desktops closely tracks its increasing operational similarity to Windows.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that most of the new features of Vista are already in OS X. Who is tracking whom? If Linux is going to track operation similiarity, it should look to OS X, not Windows. Mac users I know really enjoy using their computers. All the Windows users I know merely tolerate it. The last thing the world needs is another desktop that must be tolerated rather than enjoyed.
Lastly, there seems to be the perception around here that innovation == goodness. In the commonly accepted definition of the word, innovation means something new and unique, not necessary better. And for all their faults, you cannot possibly argue, as many on this board do, that Microsoft never introduces anything new or different. That said, you *might* have some success arguing they never introduce anything good
My argument is closer to the latter. I'm not really concerned about "innovation." I don't care how X desktop got the idea to do something. I just care that it does it in a way that suits me. In my opinion, Windows tries to do too much. Again, trying to be everyting to everyone. It lacks a singular vision. I'd rather see Linux fill a niche well like OS X does. Microsoft can keep the other 70% (or whatever) of the desktop market for all I care.
-matthew
It's called Windows.Forms and the vast majority of that functionality is present in WINE. It will be nontrivial but possible to extend Mono with Wine in order to provide that functionality in the future.
.NET apps with Mono. Trying to emulate Windows(.Forms) is a dead end.
I'm sorry, but wine sucks as a general solution. If you can get your favorite app/game to work with wine (good luck!), great, but I would never count on it. The bottom line is that such emulation/immitation is a bandaid used in lieu of native apps.
And FYI, the Mono project has abandoned Windows.Forms through WINE. See: http://www.mono-project.com/WinForms They're currently trying to reimplement it all in System.Drawing. The first thing that comes to mind is Java/Swing. Ugh! Talk about slow (and ugly). This is Mono's third attempt at implenting Windows.Forms. I'm not holding my breath. GTK-Sharp is the way to go for graphical
-matthew
First of all, you assume that Vista will be the pinnicle of desktop features. As if OS X isn't already implementing most of the new features that Vista touts. And even still, you assume that all those new features are what users want or need. The (my) problem with Windows has always been that it tries to do everything for everyone. Mac OS has always been good about keeping feature creep down and just doing the core things very well. What is nice about a Linux desktop is choice. Believe it or not, many people choose fewer bells and whistles. I hope the GNOME developers can stay focused on doing the most important things very well rather than going off an trying to copy every feature that the "big guys" decide is important.
-matthew
The upside for smaller software companies is that law governing this kind of activity is more fully developed. Down the road this may help them if they find themselves in the same situation.
But by then, software piracy would be so insigificant it wouldn't matter. And for all we know, piracy is one of the things keeps these software giants going. If a lot of people using pirated software actually had to pay for it, they might start seriously consider open source software of less expensive alternatives. Consider an amateur software developer looking to develop on Windows. He wants to get the full suite to get his feet wet, but it costs $1000 (or whatever it is). If he coiuldn't get it pirated, he might seriously consider booting one of the many free OS's with free development tools. Hell, or even Mac OS. Apple pretty much gives away their developer tools.
-matthew
I don't think Mono is a big threat. I haven't checked up on its status in over a year, but last time I checked, there was absolutely no Windows GUI (Forms?) support in Mono. In fact, there is a pretty huge chunk of the API that will probably never be implemented. If you write GUI apps with Mono in Linux, it is done using gtk-sharp. If anything, it be easier to run Linux apps on Windows, not the other way around. When I was playing around with Mono, that is exactly what I did. Wrote a small program in LInux and it ran directly on Windows (with the GTK-sharp DLLs).
Frankly, I prefer it this way. I'd rather C# applications have a GTK (or Qt for you KDE geeks) look and feel. I don't want to try to emulate a Windows.
-matthew
What you need is Linux and GmailFS. Get a few accounts and you are set.
-matthew
Except that the upload speeds for most home users is pretty bad. You'd spending a lot of time pushing files depending on exactly what you chose to backup.
-matthew
I understand that the other creatures and civs are from other players and have their "personality." THat doesn't mean they act intelligently when not being controlled by their master. Nor does it mean they present much of a challenge. For example, near the end of the longer video, Wright goes to a another star system, visits a planet, finds that it is hostile, and simply blows up the whole planet. No battle. No challenge. Nothing. Just *poof*, gone. I guess maybe he was just glossing over the features, but I didn't get the feeling that there was much challenge to the whole game. I could be wrong. But that was my impression.
-matthew
In a way, though, it wasn't open ended. I mean it seemed to have very strict "stages." What if you want to go back and design more animals? Or micro-manage cities?
-matthew
Sure, but how fun is that? No real competition? It isn't multiplayer. It has to at least have a good AI.
-matthew
I can easily imagine that trying to cram all of those games into one could backfire. I mean, isn't that how it works with gadgets? Try to cram too many features into a device with a restricted max price tag, and you just get a device that can't perform any of its many functions very well. Is software, and games in particular, too much different?
Then again, it could just work. Look at GTA. You coudl do a lot in GTA. Drive cars, fly planes, FPS, role playing.. The aspects weren't all great individually, but together it made a well rounded game.
The problem I see with Spore is that it may not be so open ended as a game like GTA. In GTA you could go anywhere and play any sub-game at any time. Although you still had to progress and open things up. Spore looks like the player will be forced to leave the "Sim-City" and move on to the next sub-game whether they like it or not. What if a player wants to focuse on the Sim-City aspect? Or come back to it after colonizing other planets? Things I'd like to know.
-matthew
Oh, I understand. I was was only being half serious. And even then, i should have been more specific. I should have said "creationists" or "fundamentalists" and not "Christians." There's a difference.
-matthew
What do you mean? It *is* racy. It is about evolution. Hot topic these days. It'll be banned in Churches around the country!
;-)
Or is it Intelligent Design? I can't really tell.
-matthew
I'd be concerned about the game being too ambitious and not being a particularly good implementation of any of the other games it emulates. In the demo video, he talks about all the other games that it is like. Pac-Man in the beginning, then the Sims, then Sim-City, then Civilization, etc.
It sorta reminds me of that "Sim-Sim" game found inside the old Space Quest series. Anyone remeber that? Those Sierra games were really fun.
Anyway, Spore does look really cool.
-matthew
Not enough storage. When 200GB drives are under $150 maybe it's time to stop complaining at the people who dare to keep a meg of on line messages.
i nt presentations or that funny karate cat video in their Sent Items/Inbox. With 500 employees, that stuff adds up real fast.
A meg? Ha! Try a gig. I've seen users routinely go well over 1 gigabyte of mail because they just can't help leaving those MS IdonthavemeaningfulcontentbutidohaveneateffectsPo
This is a pet peeve you need to get over. First of all, those cheap 200GB drives are shit compared to what real data center storage should be built on. Sure, you *could* line up 20 of them in a hyper redutant mega RAID or something, but something's gonna blow. The controller, that cheap ass motherboard you put in your storage server. It is low end stuff, for the most part. And that amounts to big headaches in the long run.
Second, how do you back all that up? Good tape libraries are not cheap and managing terrabytes of backup amounts to even more headaches. The more data you have, the more time it takes to get full backups.
-matthew
Depends on the window manager, but keeping a virtual desktop for each application or set of applications usually solves this. The window manager has to be smart enough to force an app to open in its own dedicated desktop.
Really, I don't know how Mac and Windows people work efficiently with many applications and no virtual desktops...
-matthew
Wow. You're a nasty little troll, aren't you?
There is something to be said for seeing a movie in a theater with lots of other people. A comedy can seem a lot funnier when 100 other people are laughing around you. In general, I think the moods of others really rubs off. Contact high? I still rent movies by the boat load from Netflix, but there's always that one movie the comes along only once in a while that I want to see in the theater.
-matthew
Opera, for example, offer packages for various distributions, plus a statically linked version which will work on any distribution. Open Office only offer one download to work on any distribution. If you compile a program yourself it will work in your distribution, whatever it is. So saying ...reality demands that they be treated as [different OS's]... is simply not true.
It is true that many vendors do treat them as different OS's to some degree.
I'm making generalizations. And you're finding exceptions. My point still stands. Statically linked binaries are not ideal. It is a workaround for the issues I've outlined. The fact that you can compile a program and work with any distribution is irrelevent.
As I am sure you are aware, this is not the case for all Windows software.
Again, I'm making generalizations.
And where it is you still have to have the right versions of any Dll's required. Of course, sometimes they are provided, and overwrite any Dll's with the same name, which may break other programs.
Of course there are tradeoffs, but the fact remains that, in general, developers can treat all Win32 platforms the same despite being completely different operating systems under the hood. I only point this out to illustrate, by contrast, the hurdles software developers face when distributing LInux software.
I think you and I may have a different idea of what constitutes an OS. For me it is (in the case of a Linux distribution) the Linux kernel and the GNU tools that make it work, nothing more. Everything else are programs running on the OS.
Why include the GNU tools? All you really need is a shell. And even that is just a program.
Of course, you may disagree as to what constitutes an OS, in which case we could go round in circles for ever...
What we disagree on is the difference between technical and practical. I'll accept any technical definition of LInux as an OS that you'd like. Kernel. Kernel + basic GNU tools. Kernel + tools + X. Kernel + tools + X + window manager. None of it changes the practical aspects of using a mainstream Linux distribution.
-matthew