I'm reminded of TiK and TNT... two GPL AOL Instant messenger clients.
They were written by AOL employees, and had web pages up on the www.aim.aol.com for some time.
The pages were taken down (but not the links to them from the main www.aim.aol.com page) around the time that Microsoft started leeching on AOL's servers.
The links to the pages were taken down when AT&T started lecching on AOL's servers.
The only trace left of TiK is an entry on Freshmeat, and any copies that people downloaded before the disappearence.
I hope GNOME doesn't go away... the GNOME/KDE interaction has produced some good, and is bound to lead to more benefits.
GNOME/KDE collaboration has led to the development of a Window Manager standards (no more wierd WM-specific hints making incompatibilities all over the place).
There is also now a.desktop file standard, Hopefully leading to easier packaging of applications.
There's probably more, that I can't think of/don't know about...
Out of curiousity, does anyone know whether Debian plans to add KDE 2 to its mainline package lineup, as the QPL, unlike the Qt Free license, meets the DFSG?
I happened to like this article. It was a good review, discussing more than just a few silly Quake and UT timedemos.
Yes, linux numbers would be nice, but not very useful to review the hardware, given the current state of Linux 3d drivers. slashdot isn't a linux news site, after all.
And yes, dualhead should work, under XFree 4. Try checking the hardware compatibility list, or whatever they call it. It's linked on the main xfree.org page.
NVidia is bad, for releasing deliberately obfuscated source. Source that's impossible to read, is impossible to maintain. And source that's impossible to maintain is not much better than no source at all.
3dfx is bad, for bulling people around, trying to copyright an API, and trying to monopolize the industry with their inferior tech (16 bit color), through attempting to keep Glide proprietary.
Of course, if your ideology doesn't agree with mine, or your ideology doesn't play a role in the decision making, I'd have to say that now isn't the best time to make the decision, as XFree 4 is still brand new.
Though, it might interest you that John Carmack is funding a project to make a really nice Matrox MesaGL driver for linux.
I can't say I'm sure that nVidia will release binary drivers, but keep in mind that this company released obfuscated open source drivers, because basically it was the only way to get into XFree86.
If XFree 4.0 allows NVidia to release binary-only drivers, it shouldn't therefore be surprising if they take the opportunity.
Compare the performance of XFree's fbcon server under the MatroxFB, with the performance under an NVidia Frame Buffer.
Oh, wait.. NVidia cards aren't accelerated under Linux fbcon. so I guess Matrox would whoop NVidia (where it really counts, anyway)
Neglecting the fbcon for a moment, Whom do you think is going to win under Linux, when Da Man of 3D graphics, John Carmack, is supporting the development of Matrox drivers for Linux?
Argh! I've loved Matrox cards since I first had a Mystique (not a 220, just the original). For a programmer, I find that 2D image clarity should be FAR FAR FAR more important than an extra few FPS in some game! Thus, I get very irritated at reviews which gloss over visual quality, and only worry about fill rates or whatnot.
This review was a refreshing, and relieving.
I have a Millennium II now, and I find that the image quality, in 2D, is amazingly clearer, than the output of the TNT2 or Voodoo3. I've used Matrox cards for roughly 4 years now, and now looking at displays of other cards, feels like looking through a piece of thick plastic.
With the disappointing performance of the G200, though, I was worried that Matrox woudl get run out of business, simply because of the sudden insane focus on 3D speed. This article makes me feel a bit relieved, since it shows that Matrox 3D can keep up with NVidia where it counts, in Quake, run under the #1 gaming platform, Windows 98.
That, and with Matrox showing far more commitment to open drivers than NVidia (binary driver for XFree 4? Gag!), I'd guess that NVidia will fall behind 3dfx and Matrox in the small, but activist, open source community.
Re:Moderators suck ass.
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 0
Insightful?:-)
OK, Underrated, I can imagine. Interesting, maybe. Funny? Absoulutely.
Most people prefer to sit at their computer with a printed manual "on their knee", so to speak.
Personally, I find that 90% of the book I only read once, and don't need anymore. The remaining 10%, I print when I need to reference it. It's more compact that way, too, and easier to carry around.
Plus, someone's bound to make a good electronic book device, eventually.:-)
If no-one else can make printed versions, then other people's hard work updating the manual will be at the mercy of the original copyright holder.
If an author allowed for modifications, but didn't allow for printed distribution, then the community could "fork" the docs! Printed versions would still be forbidden, but the online version could be maintained, yet.
I think it does actually work. If I am the author of the GIMP manual, you'd be more likely to pay me to do technical support than if I was just any old GIMP developer. I've proved that I have the communication skills that the job requires, *and* good knowledge of the GIMP.
The average decision maker won't give much thought at a "publication" unless it's been "published", as in a book. If you say that you've written some popular online work, it won't carry nearly as much weight, I believe.
If you don't like wading through menus, click the little line at the top of the filter menu (or any other menu). This lets you "tear it off", and floats the menu. Tada! No more wading! Does any version of Photoshop allow that?
...and no print versions are permitted without the copyright holder's permission.
While I agree that modifications and updates would be handy, should the author not keep up with the times, I disagree with the idea that a work must allow print reproductions to be considered "open".
Why? Because of the financial realities. Technical documentation isn't like software, where you can make money off of support, and custom enhancements. So, the only way to make money, and thus finance the endeavor, is to have a monopoly on the print reproductions.
Of course, if you can point out ways to finance documentation of free software, that don't rely upon print sales, I'll be happy to be corrected. Especially since you're actually in the field of capitalizing businesses.:-)
I don't count charity as a business model, though.
I told you, Never keep your back to the door! If you're going to be downloading porn, everyone can see it, unless you face the door!
Thufir. yes, I'm sorry.
As I'm sure you've figured out.. we have been training you to become a Hacker. And most hackers do end up doing such things... Have some courtesy though!
I'm pretty sure that Sony and Squaresoft have a contract, that would prevent the release of Final Fantasy (IX, or whatever) for the X Box.
Besides, the PC ports have come at a significant delay from the Playstation releases. In that meantime, a lot more Playstations will get sold, than X Boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, KDE is not a Troll Tech project, and Qt/Embedded is not a sign that the Troll developers are megalomaniacs.
Qt is just a application development toolkit, with a healthy dose of GUI.
KDE uses Qt, but Qt is not a desktop environment. It is just a library.
KDE will continue to use Qt/X11, as it always has.
Now the big argument..
So, if Gates is Morgoth, and (what's his name at Sun) is Sauron, then...
Linus is Aragorn (Linux being the latest in an ancient line of openness and UNIXness, unifying the two sides once again.)
But who gets to be Gandalf? I'd say that makes for a great ESR vs. RMS flamefest...
Actually... whether or not one is writing for an open source operating system *is* a key technical issue.
Having the ability to read, and make patches to, the OS kernel code is unbelievably useful sometimes, especially in the embedded market.
QuickBuddy (the Java client) is still alive and kicking. AOL still has links to it, from their other AIM pages.
After all, it was for the Java client that the TOC protocol was written.
I'm reminded of TiK and TNT... two GPL AOL Instant messenger clients.
They were written by AOL employees, and had web pages up on the www.aim.aol.com for some time.
The pages were taken down (but not the links to them from the main www.aim.aol.com page) around the time that Microsoft started leeching on AOL's servers.
The links to the pages were taken down when AT&T started lecching on AOL's servers.
The only trace left of TiK is an entry on Freshmeat, and any copies that people downloaded before the disappearence.
Nope, whom is correct. The subject of the sentence is "you", not the winner.
If I said "Who will win", then Who would be right.
I asked, though, "Whom do YOU think"
Who is for the nominative, and only the nominative.
I hope GNOME doesn't go away... the GNOME/KDE interaction has produced some good, and is bound to lead to more benefits.
.desktop file standard, Hopefully leading to easier packaging of applications.
GNOME/KDE collaboration has led to the development of a Window Manager standards (no more wierd WM-specific hints making incompatibilities all over the place).
There is also now a
There's probably more, that I can't think of/don't know about...
Out of curiousity, does anyone know whether Debian plans to add KDE 2 to its mainline package lineup, as the QPL, unlike the Qt Free license, meets the DFSG?
Problem is, Matrox originally distingished the segments of their product line by name:
Mystique was the cheap card for home gaming
Millennium was the workstation card
Mystique 220 was the beginnings of a 3d card
Millennium II was a killer 2D card (I have one)
Problem was, people associated the Mystique with the bad card, so they started releasing all of their cards with the (respected) Millennium name.
Two exceptions: Matrox's first go at a 3D accelerator (PowerVR PCX2 based, not even a Matrox chip) was the m3D, another M.
Matrox's All-in-one card, was the Marvel (another M).
I guess the reasoning is, that distinctiveness is important, so you can begin to build a brand identity.
Problem is, Matrox originally distingished the segments of their product line by name:
Mystique was the cheap card for home gaming
Millennium was the workstation card
Mystique 220 was the beginnings of a 3d card
Millennium II was a killer 2D card (I have one)
Problem was, people associated the Mystique with the bad card, so they started releasing all of their cards with the (respected) Millennium name.
Two exceptions: Matrox's first go at a 3D accelerator (PowerVR PCX2 based, not even a Matrox chip) was the m3D, another M.
Matrox's All-in-one card, was the Marvel (another M).
I guess the reasoning is, that distinctiveness is important, so you can begin to build a brand identity.
I happened to like this article. It was a good review, discussing more than just a few silly Quake and UT timedemos.
Yes, linux numbers would be nice, but not very useful to review the hardware, given the current state of Linux 3d drivers. slashdot isn't a linux news site, after all.
And yes, dualhead should work, under XFree 4. Try checking the hardware compatibility list, or whatever they call it. It's linked on the main xfree.org page.
Buy a Matrox.
NVidia is bad, for releasing deliberately obfuscated source. Source that's impossible to read, is impossible to maintain. And source that's impossible to maintain is not much better than no source at all.
3dfx is bad, for bulling people around, trying to copyright an API, and trying to monopolize the industry with their inferior tech (16 bit color), through attempting to keep Glide proprietary.
Of course, if your ideology doesn't agree with mine, or your ideology doesn't play a role in the decision making, I'd have to say that now isn't the best time to make the decision, as XFree 4 is still brand new.
Though, it might interest you that John Carmack is funding a project to make a really nice Matrox MesaGL driver for linux.
I can't say I'm sure that nVidia will release binary drivers, but keep in mind that this company released obfuscated open source drivers, because basically it was the only way to get into XFree86.
If XFree 4.0 allows NVidia to release binary-only drivers, it shouldn't therefore be surprising if they take the opportunity.
Compare the performance of XFree's fbcon server under the MatroxFB, with the performance under an NVidia Frame Buffer.
Oh, wait.. NVidia cards aren't accelerated under Linux fbcon. so I guess Matrox would whoop NVidia (where it really counts, anyway)
Neglecting the fbcon for a moment, Whom do you think is going to win under Linux, when Da Man of 3D graphics, John Carmack, is supporting the development of Matrox drivers for Linux?
Argh! I've loved Matrox cards since I first had a Mystique (not a 220, just the original). For a programmer, I find that 2D image clarity should be FAR FAR FAR more important than an extra few FPS in some game! Thus, I get very irritated at reviews which gloss over visual quality, and only worry about fill rates or whatnot.
This review was a refreshing, and relieving.
I have a Millennium II now, and I find that the image quality, in 2D, is amazingly clearer, than the output of the TNT2 or Voodoo3. I've used Matrox cards for roughly 4 years now, and now looking at displays of other cards, feels like looking through a piece of thick plastic.
With the disappointing performance of the G200, though, I was worried that Matrox woudl get run out of business, simply because of the sudden insane focus on 3D speed. This article makes me feel a bit relieved, since it shows that Matrox 3D can keep up with NVidia where it counts, in Quake, run under the #1 gaming platform, Windows 98.
That, and with Matrox showing far more commitment to open drivers than NVidia (binary driver for XFree 4? Gag!), I'd guess that NVidia will fall behind 3dfx and Matrox in the small, but activist, open source community.
Insightful? :-)
OK, Underrated, I can imagine. Interesting, maybe. Funny? Absoulutely.
Insightful, though???
Most people prefer to sit at their computer with a printed manual "on their knee", so to speak.
Personally, I find that 90% of the book I only read once, and don't need anymore. The remaining 10%, I print when I need to reference it. It's more compact that way, too, and easier to carry around.
Plus, someone's bound to make a good electronic book device, eventually. :-)
If no-one else can make printed versions, then other people's hard work updating the manual will be at the mercy of the original copyright holder.
If an author allowed for modifications, but didn't allow for printed distribution, then the community could "fork" the docs! Printed versions would still be forbidden, but the online version could be maintained, yet.
I think it does actually work. If I am the author of the GIMP manual, you'd be more likely to pay me to do technical support than if I was just any old GIMP developer. I've proved that I have the communication skills that the job requires, *and* good knowledge of the GIMP.
The average decision maker won't give much thought at a "publication" unless it's been "published", as in a book. If you say that you've written some popular online work, it won't carry nearly as much weight, I believe.
Weird.. your post is a near perfect paraphrase of mine!
I guess that means I don't have to worry about being wrong!
If you don't like wading through menus, click the little line at the top of the filter menu (or any other menu). This lets you "tear it off", and floats the menu. Tada! No more wading! Does any version of Photoshop allow that?
While I agree that modifications and updates would be handy, should the author not keep up with the times, I disagree with the idea that a work must allow print reproductions to be considered "open".
Why? Because of the financial realities. Technical documentation isn't like software, where you can make money off of support, and custom enhancements. So, the only way to make money, and thus finance the endeavor, is to have a monopoly on the print reproductions.
Of course, if you can point out ways to finance documentation of free software, that don't rely upon print sales, I'll be happy to be corrected. Especially since you're actually in the field of capitalizing businesses. :-)
I don't count charity as a business model, though.
Paul! What are you doing?
um..
I told you, Never keep your back to the door! If you're going to be downloading porn, everyone can see it, unless you face the door!
Thufir. yes, I'm sorry.
As I'm sure you've figured out.. we have been training you to become a Hacker. And most hackers do end up doing such things... Have some courtesy though!
I don't want to have to put the game CD in the drive, when I want to play.
Now, id Software wants to make things difficult for me, but most games haven't given me trouble.
Hard disk space is cheap, compared to the inconvenience, again and again, when it comes to swapping CDs.
Oh, yes.. and some people like to play audio CDs in the computer drive, while playing games. I've done that on occasion, even...
I'm pretty sure that Sony and Squaresoft have a contract, that would prevent the release of Final Fantasy (IX, or whatever) for the X Box.
Besides, the PC ports have come at a significant delay from the Playstation releases. In that meantime, a lot more Playstations will get sold, than X Boxes.
My point is, ports from the PC don't become the biggest sellers.
Games designed for the console are. So, games by Square, Rare, Game Freak, and others will still reign.