Since when are the top Windows games successful on the console?
Did Wolf 3D/Doom/Quake/Quake 2 ever do well on any console?
Myst?
Deer Hunter?
Starcraft?
I've tried playing Civilization on the SNES... awful interface?
So.. I'd have to disagree. PC games generally have interfaces designed to take advantage of the PC hardware (mouse, keyboard)... so converting to a console would be tough.
...unless they can buy-out/bribe enough game companies to develop for the thing.
PSX2 will take over for the PSX as the #1 box, without a doubt. Why? 10 little letters: Squaresoft.
Nintendo, with the Dolphin and Gameboy Advance, won't be hurting, either. Why not? Game Freak, and Rare.
Console gamers only care about the games, not the internals. That's why consoles are so popular! You don't have to care about which chips you have; all games are compatible!
Who said free software, free hardware, or free anything, was about money alone?
There are more potential benefits, than money. There is the hope, and goal, of a better design, through better understanding, and more eyeballs finding problems.
Also, a more open hardware design, can lead to better software written for it, especially compilers.
Should give you all you need. Using the mingw32 target of gcc, you can use DirectX, Gtk+, SDL (Simple DirectMedia Layer), and plenty of other libraries that have been ported, all from the safety and convenience of your own UNIX development environment.
By the way, the difference between "mingw32" and "Cygwin" is that Cygwin provides a POSIX compatibility layer, while mingw32 uses the bare Microsoft C Runtime DLLs. (Of course, if you choose to use GTK+ or something, you'll still have to distribute those DLLS.)
Er, templates. Templates, like the force, are powerful, mysterious, and 3 people will give you 3 different descriptions and opinions of them. Let alone what 3 different compilers will give...
typedef (*foo)(); QList<foo> bar;
bar += myfoo1; bar += myfoo2;
for(unsigned i = 0; i < bar.count(), i++) bar[i]();
I've never actually used a Qt list of function pointers before, but as far as I know, code like this should work.
Oh, I don't mind bugfixes at all.. I love them, in fact.
The problem is, upgrading a Red Hat 5.x box to glibc 2.1 (now standard in Slack 7) is impractical, because of the soname issue. (libc.so.6 vs. libc.so.6). If Red Hat had heeded the glibc unstable warning, in the same way they heed the kernel unstable warnings (2.2.x vs 2.3.x), I'd be happy.
You see, since Slackware stuck with libc.so.5, upgrading to glibc 2.1 is relatively painless (the transition can be made gradually, first with new apps, then recompiling/reinstalling the older stuff), because the sonames are different.
Glibc developers aren't to blame, because they left the soname the same, while breaking binary compatibility. You weren't supposed to be using the unstable library in a production box, anyway. Red Hat just got too "cool" and jumped the gun, in the same way they loaded on GNOME far before it was really ready for use (October GNOME).
This reminds me of the inflammatory emails linux-kernel gets, when people whine that some internal structure changed, and that linux will never be "professionally trusted" if they keep breaking things.
Hey, the glibc people WARNED the world that glibc 2.0 was unstable.
It's not their fault, like you make it out to be, that distributions like Redhat included glibc 2.0, only to find out that glibc 2.1 broke binary compatibility.
Stick with Slackware if you want to avoid that sort of problem. Everyone snickered at Slackware, saying "it's so backward" because it didn't "upgrade" to the new, unstable library...
Now the glibc 2.1 series is out, marked "stable", Slackware is fine, and the Red Hat 5.x boxes are having problems with libc.so.6 (from glibc 2.0) not working like libc.so.6 (from glibc.2.1). Who's snickering now?
You mean its actually so bad over there that they can dictate what you can't have in movies?!
I assume that by "over there" you're referring to the US. No, there is no true "censorship" in the sense that happens in, say, Singapore or Germany.
The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) gives ratings to movies, to aid parents, movie theaters, and others, in deciding whether to allow children to see the movie. Anything worse than an R rating kills any chance a movie has of making money. So, South Park had to try again, and again, and again, to try to get down to the R rating.
As far as what actually happened with the movie, I have no idea. I've never seen it, etc. etc.
Whom are you asking to fund academia? Ah, silly question. It's clear what you want. You want governments to take people's money, and redistribute it.
If current trends continue, we'll see increasing brain drains, such as Microsoft's infamous raid on Carnegie Mellon's OS faculty (for those of you who haven't heard, they came, offered huge salaries, and basically left the CMU CS dept without any OS specialists), which will transfer brain power in the hands of those who cannot use it ethically simply because their primary goal is profit.
How will transferring the money from corporations, to government, fix this? You prefer that the nuclear physicists work at Los Alamos, the mathematicians work at the NSA, and the biologists work in the Army's super-ultra-very-very secret biological weapons labs?
Unless all the money goes to such government agencies, the financial competition as you describe will continue. If some Caltech chemical group lands a huge grant, it will be able to better attract the best minds. If some Stanford AI group receives government cash, it will be able to buy students and faculty from other schools.
The only reason such things don't happen now, is that the universities don't have enough money to do it. The motive of fame and glory is just as strong in academia, as the motive of stock prices is in coroporations. Increasing people's tax burden, and injecting government money into the fray, won't fix what you claim is wrong.
Unfortunately, academia requires a huge investment to maintain, since it does not naturally flourish under market forces; it is that investment that is needed to keep "intellectual property" out of the hands of those who want to "own" it. And it is that investment that needs to be made continually for research as we know it to survive.
Ah, now we see the real point: the typical slashdot "intellectual property is bad" POV. All it would take to fix the intellectual property legal tangle, would be to fix the patent office, and tweak the current federal law. There's no need for massive tax-and-spend, socialist politics for that to happen. Corporations won't suddenly stop R&D if patent laws change, because it'll still be necessary to survive. After all, there do exist trade secrets, and industrial espionage.
Oh, yes. One more thing. Do you have any evidence, that academic research "does not naturally flourish under market forces"? Note that you're complaining that pwople were recruited from Carnegie-Mellon University. And note earlier my mention of Stanford. Philanthropy is a natural thing. People try to make billions, not for the money, but for the fame and power. Giving money to Universities is a fine way for these people to prove to themselves that they have both. Always has been, always will.
Well, I've had no trouble compiling 2.2 series kernels with egcs.. but that doesn't mean that I go around recommending the use of anything but gcc 2.7.2.3
Everyone knows that naked and petrified starlets have been ready for years, it was just the emergence of Natalie Portman that solidified their presence in the slashdot trolldom.
Therefore, all references of Natalie in the Jargon File should be listed as Natalie GNU/Portman, to give credit to the early work of the GNU Project.
After all, it's already done with the acronym GRITS (GNU/GRITS Really Irritate The Skin)
The whole "technical" aspect never occurred to me... Perhaps because I'm not a lawyer.:-) That's a very good point, and does make the picture seem even brighter.
Hopefully some moderators will give your comment some +'s.
I guess the 9th would see a larger-than-normal number of such cases, thanks in part to a certain region, in northern California... and the Supremes would certainly give more trust to the 9th's experience in technical issues, since seeing so many technical disputes would have to increase one's knowlege of such matters.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't. :-)
The kind of people who do that sort of thing, aren't the vast majority of buyers, though.
"Oh, wow! That game looks COOL!!! Mom, can I have a Playstation?"
"no"
"please, mom"
"no"
"please, mom"
... birthday/Christmas/whatever comes around
"Oh, cool! Just what I wanted!"
... 2 months later
"Oh, wow! That game looks COOL!!! Mom, can I have a Dreamcast?"
Since when are the top Windows games successful on the console?
Did Wolf 3D/Doom/Quake/Quake 2 ever do well on any console?
Myst?
Deer Hunter?
Starcraft?
I've tried playing Civilization on the SNES... awful interface?
So.. I'd have to disagree. PC games generally have interfaces designed to take advantage of the PC hardware (mouse, keyboard)... so converting to a console would be tough.
APIs aren't all where it's at, after all...
...unless they can buy-out/bribe enough game companies to develop for the thing.
PSX2 will take over for the PSX as the #1 box, without a doubt. Why? 10 little letters: Squaresoft.
Nintendo, with the Dolphin and Gameboy Advance, won't be hurting, either. Why not? Game Freak, and Rare.
Console gamers only care about the games, not the internals. That's why consoles are so popular! You don't have to care about which chips you have; all games are compatible!
This is one area where I doubt MS will succeed.
Which is better?
Compile, test, debug
Compile, test, debug
OR
Compile, check email, test, debug
Compile, have lunch, test, debug
?
Hold up a bit there!
The real heyday of overclocking was the PC-AT, with the socketed crystal! No fancy-pants jumpers, DIP switches, BIOS settings, or anything!
Score: B-
Missed topics:
This'll be moderated down, but...
Hot grits
Freshmeat!
VA
Who said free software, free hardware, or free anything, was about money alone?
There are more potential benefits, than money. There is the hope, and goal, of a better design, through better understanding, and more eyeballs finding problems.
Also, a more open hardware design, can lead to better software written for it, especially compilers.
Never mind..
That's what I get for posting on Slashdot before I'm fully awake!
http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/Xmingw32/
along with
http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/
Should give you all you need. Using the mingw32 target of gcc, you can use DirectX, Gtk+, SDL (Simple DirectMedia Layer), and plenty of other libraries that have been ported, all from the safety and convenience of your own UNIX development environment.
By the way, the difference between "mingw32" and "Cygwin" is that Cygwin provides a POSIX compatibility layer, while mingw32 uses the bare Microsoft C Runtime DLLs. (Of course, if you choose to use GTK+ or something, you'll still have to distribute those DLLS.)
Er, templates. Templates, like the force, are powerful, mysterious, and 3 people will give you 3 different descriptions and opinions of them. Let alone what 3 different compilers will give...
typedef (*foo)();
QList<foo> bar;
bar += myfoo1;
bar += myfoo2;
for(unsigned i = 0; i < bar.count(), i++)
bar[i]();
I've never actually used a Qt list of function pointers before, but as far as I know, code like this should work.
(looking over at the piece of paper, with a bunch of blobs, arrows, and such)
:-)
So THAT'S why I feel so alone, sometimes, in liking C++.
I just think differently from the C boosters, that's all. (I don't have the self-importance to say I think better
On re-reading, again, I see that part of what I just wrote is unclear.
When I refer to October GNOME, I mean that Red Hat should have waited for that release. I don't mean that October GNOME is unfit for production use.
Oh, I don't mind bugfixes at all.. I love them, in fact.
The problem is, upgrading a Red Hat 5.x box to glibc 2.1 (now standard in Slack 7) is impractical, because of the soname issue. (libc.so.6 vs. libc.so.6). If Red Hat had heeded the glibc unstable warning, in the same way they heed the kernel unstable warnings (2.2.x vs 2.3.x), I'd be happy.
You see, since Slackware stuck with libc.so.5, upgrading to glibc 2.1 is relatively painless (the transition can be made gradually, first with new apps, then recompiling/reinstalling the older stuff), because the sonames are different.
Glibc developers aren't to blame, because they left the soname the same, while breaking binary compatibility. You weren't supposed to be using the unstable library in a production box, anyway. Red Hat just got too "cool" and jumped the gun, in the same way they loaded on GNOME far before it was really ready for use (October GNOME).
This reminds me of the inflammatory emails linux-kernel gets, when people whine that some internal structure changed, and that linux will never be "professionally trusted" if they keep breaking things.
Hey, the glibc people WARNED the world that glibc 2.0 was unstable.
It's not their fault, like you make it out to be, that distributions like Redhat included glibc 2.0, only to find out that glibc 2.1 broke binary compatibility.
Stick with Slackware if you want to avoid that sort of problem. Everyone snickered at Slackware, saying "it's so backward" because it didn't "upgrade" to the new, unstable library...
Now the glibc 2.1 series is out, marked "stable", Slackware is fine, and the Red Hat 5.x boxes are having problems with libc.so.6 (from glibc 2.0) not working like libc.so.6 (from glibc.2.1). Who's snickering now?
Germany has selective Censorship.. see Amazon.com's trouble selling Mein Kampf. I find political censorship far worse than a few f-- words.
The people doing the "deeming" of offensiveness, are the networks themselves, not government thugs. It's a big difference, to me.
Of course, I don't mind a few bleeps in south park. I find that overly-spicy language is just silly, and needless. Why not be funny without it?
You mean its actually so bad over there that they can dictate what you can't have in movies?!
I assume that by "over there" you're referring to the US. No, there is no true "censorship" in the sense that happens in, say, Singapore or Germany.
The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) gives ratings to movies, to aid parents, movie theaters, and others, in deciding whether to allow children to see the movie. Anything worse than an R rating kills any chance a movie has of making money. So, South Park had to try again, and again, and again, to try to get down to the R rating.
As far as what actually happened with the movie, I have no idea. I've never seen it, etc. etc.
the link to step one is broken on my box.
Probably because it requires cookies, or javascript, or something...
Fund academia. It is that simple.
Whom are you asking to fund academia? Ah, silly question. It's clear what you want. You want governments to take people's money, and redistribute it.
If current trends continue, we'll see increasing brain drains, such as Microsoft's infamous raid on Carnegie Mellon's OS faculty (for those of you who haven't heard, they came, offered huge salaries, and basically left the CMU CS dept without any OS specialists), which will transfer brain power in the hands of those who cannot use it ethically simply because their primary goal is profit.
How will transferring the money from corporations, to government, fix this? You prefer that the nuclear physicists work at Los Alamos, the mathematicians work at the NSA, and the biologists work in the Army's super-ultra-very-very secret biological weapons labs?
Unless all the money goes to such government agencies, the financial competition as you describe will continue. If some Caltech chemical group lands a huge grant, it will be able to better attract the best minds. If some Stanford AI group receives government cash, it will be able to buy students and faculty from other schools.
The only reason such things don't happen now, is that the universities don't have enough money to do it. The motive of fame and glory is just as strong in academia, as the motive of stock prices is in coroporations. Increasing people's tax burden, and injecting government money into the fray, won't fix what you claim is wrong.
Unfortunately, academia requires a huge investment to maintain, since it does not naturally flourish under market forces; it is that investment that is needed to keep "intellectual property" out of the hands of those who want to "own" it. And it is that investment that needs to be made continually for research as we know it to survive.
Ah, now we see the real point: the typical slashdot "intellectual property is bad" POV. All it would take to fix the intellectual property legal tangle, would be to fix the patent office, and tweak the current federal law. There's no need for massive tax-and-spend, socialist politics for that to happen. Corporations won't suddenly stop R&D if patent laws change, because it'll still be necessary to survive. After all, there do exist trade secrets, and industrial espionage.
Oh, yes. One more thing. Do you have any evidence, that academic research "does not naturally flourish under market forces"? Note that you're complaining that pwople were recruited from Carnegie-Mellon University. And note earlier my mention of Stanford. Philanthropy is a natural thing. People try to make billions, not for the money, but for the fame and power. Giving money to Universities is a fine way for these people to prove to themselves that they have both. Always has been, always will.
Well, I've had no trouble compiling 2.2 series kernels with egcs.. but that doesn't mean that I go around recommending the use of anything but gcc 2.7.2.3
I've found that
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic
is pretty good. And, if you want it to be really mean, turn on warnings as errors.
I know what you mean, though, with liking to have really clean code. I always compile with the above 4 options.
Everyone knows that naked and petrified starlets have been ready for years, it was just the emergence of Natalie Portman that solidified their presence in the slashdot trolldom.
Therefore, all references of Natalie in the Jargon File should be listed as Natalie GNU/Portman, to give credit to the early work of the GNU Project.
After all, it's already done with the acronym GRITS (GNU/GRITS Really Irritate The Skin)
GNOME's html widget looks mildly interesting to me, despite that it's in C instead of C++.
Actually, GNOME's html widget is based on KDE's html widget, which is written in C++. :-)
They're probably going to release AOL 6, at the same time as Communicator 6.
Pure AOL marketing.. nothing to see here...
Actually, when you pay redhat $80 for their software, they're claiming to support the whole shebang, not just the packaging.
Note the comment by bero-rh, earlier in the thread.. where he says that gcc is even included in Red Hat's bugzilla.
But, you're right, when you say that open source does lead to quicker bug responses.
Hawk,
:-) That's a very good point, and does make the picture seem even brighter.
The whole "technical" aspect never occurred to me... Perhaps because I'm not a lawyer.
Hopefully some moderators will give your comment some +'s.
I guess the 9th would see a larger-than-normal number of such cases, thanks in part to a certain region, in northern California... and the Supremes would certainly give more trust to the 9th's experience in technical issues, since seeing so many technical disputes would have to increase one's knowlege of such matters.