Again - I have no sympathy for the corporate world, or their IT departments. They enslaved themselves to Windows - specifically Windows XP and IE6 - all those years ago. Those idiots who conspired to be locked into Microsoft specific operating systems and browsers need to be flogged, keelhauled, and then be made to walk the plank today.
LOL. In the real corporate world (evidently where you have not spent much time), it goes something like this:
Department head evaluates application to perform business task, based on operational requirements
Department head purchases license for application to perform above business task
IT is given the task of integrating it and ensuring it continues to run
Newsflash: IT does not drive software acquisition. IT is seen as a department to enable the rest of the business to get shit done. Rest of business (including the CFO, typically) does not care how mission critical app X is supported, they just want it to work. It is what they pay IT for, in their view.
Change will typically not occur unless you can demonstrate a critical need (lack of vendor support) or cost benefit that will outweigh the cost of change.
No, DRM does not access your computer. Your computer presents content to a third party for validation. The OWNER of the photograph, movie, etc wants to verify that you paid for it. If you don't like that, then find alternative content.
Secure boot is a different, but complimentary technology. Secure boot ensures that code signing or DRM applications have not been compromised by software loaded earlier in the boot sequence. This is necessary to ensure that requirements for signed code (e.g., drivers) are not circumvented. The lack of code-signing integrity enforced by the boot loader is how the DRM in Vista was broken.
So long as the user can turn it off (they can) and so long as the ability to upload your own keys (you can) exists, I have no problem with secure boot.
I'll tell you why: because 4gb of RAM is worth about $30, and other toolkits are easier to develop for due to pre-existing library use and additional layers of abstraction.
In 2012 you can buy a machine with a couple of gigs of ram for under a hundred bucks. Hell, my 2007 built machine has 4gb of RAM in it. Rather than fucking around with hardware from 5-10 years ago, you could buy someone's cast off machine with a couple of gigs and have a much nicer experience.
Cool yes. Successful enough to make it mainstream? No. Development time is not cheap. High level languages and libraries exist to cheapen the cost in development time.
a GUI without networking support, a javascript engine, composting window manager, an easy to develop for windowing toolkit, etc, etc.
Time moves on. More levels of abstraction require more resources but make more powerful apps possible without the programming being too hard to bother.
Typically, 90% of CPU time is spent in 10% of the code.
If you shave 10-20% off 10% of the runtime of your app, you have made a 2% improvement. At what cost? Often readability, maintainability, etc. Not to mention going through 90% of the code in the app to shave that 10-20%.
1-2% is not worth it. Profile. Optimise hotspots. Premature and/or un-necessary optimisation is BAD. You don't see game programmers writing the glue code in assembly any more either.
My bet is they're not supported DirectX at all.. GOG use Wine on OS X to support the Witcher, Dragon Age 2 on OS X uses Wine also.
On OS X, the steam library is fairly limited - not all games work, and games will only work once an OS X (or Linux in this case) version has been ported.
How does the Linux game library available on steam compare to even the OS X library (which is rather pitiful compared to the Windows library - and I say that as Windows/OS X steam user)?
Slashdot Mirror
EFI is extensible and designed to be pretty much plug and play. It is extensible with add-on drivers - I'm not sure what your issue is with it?
Even if they do shit out kernels every 10 minutes, so long as the vendor has a code-signing key, there's no problem.
BIOS never used to be able to boot from SCSI, CD or USB either, and we now do that on a regular basis...
LOL. In the real corporate world (evidently where you have not spent much time), it goes something like this:
Newsflash: IT does not drive software acquisition. IT is seen as a department to enable the rest of the business to get shit done. Rest of business (including the CFO, typically) does not care how mission critical app X is supported, they just want it to work. It is what they pay IT for, in their view.
Change will typically not occur unless you can demonstrate a critical need (lack of vendor support) or cost benefit that will outweigh the cost of change.
+1 to this, already commented in discussion though. I am 35, and also work in corporate IT :D
No, it can't tell if you have loaded something earlier in the boot sequence to lie to the operating system.
No, DRM does not access your computer. Your computer presents content to a third party for validation. The OWNER of the photograph, movie, etc wants to verify that you paid for it. If you don't like that, then find alternative content.
Secure boot is a different, but complimentary technology. Secure boot ensures that code signing or DRM applications have not been compromised by software loaded earlier in the boot sequence. This is necessary to ensure that requirements for signed code (e.g., drivers) are not circumvented. The lack of code-signing integrity enforced by the boot loader is how the DRM in Vista was broken.
So long as the user can turn it off (they can) and so long as the ability to upload your own keys (you can) exists, I have no problem with secure boot.
The license and GNU userland are both traps.
newsflash: the site may be hosted in the US, but the internet is international. it is visible globally and used by a global audience.
Euro thousands seperator.
Where are the apps? Why isn't it mainstream?
I'll tell you why: because 4gb of RAM is worth about $30, and other toolkits are easier to develop for due to pre-existing library use and additional layers of abstraction.
No, however the Linux Nvidia drivers run in kernel mode (video driver in Vista + runs in user space) and can thus do anything the kernel can do.
Windows 3.1
I remember a friend and I got Windows 3.1 to run from 1.44 floppy before. Slowly.
In 2012 you can buy a machine with a couple of gigs of ram for under a hundred bucks. Hell, my 2007 built machine has 4gb of RAM in it. Rather than fucking around with hardware from 5-10 years ago, you could buy someone's cast off machine with a couple of gigs and have a much nicer experience.
Those who... you know... what to do stuff other than work. Like watch star trek.
No, but Atom IS as powerful. More in fact.
Cool yes. Successful enough to make it mainstream? No. Development time is not cheap. High level languages and libraries exist to cheapen the cost in development time.
a GUI without networking support, a javascript engine, composting window manager, an easy to develop for windowing toolkit, etc, etc.
Time moves on. More levels of abstraction require more resources but make more powerful apps possible without the programming being too hard to bother.
RAM is cheap. Programmer time is expensive...
I know bing cops a lot of hate around here, but it's actually pretty good for some purposes. Unsafe search, for one :D
Typically, 90% of CPU time is spent in 10% of the code.
If you shave 10-20% off 10% of the runtime of your app, you have made a 2% improvement. At what cost? Often readability, maintainability, etc. Not to mention going through 90% of the code in the app to shave that 10-20%.
1-2% is not worth it. Profile. Optimise hotspots. Premature and/or un-necessary optimisation is BAD. You don't see game programmers writing the glue code in assembly any more either.
I'm not so sure. It hasn't happened for OS X (and yes, I'm a Windows and OS X steam user).
My bet is they're not supported DirectX at all.. GOG use Wine on OS X to support the Witcher, Dragon Age 2 on OS X uses Wine also.
On OS X, the steam library is fairly limited - not all games work, and games will only work once an OS X (or Linux in this case) version has been ported.
I use Steam on both OS X and Windows...
How does the Linux game library available on steam compare to even the OS X library (which is rather pitiful compared to the Windows library - and I say that as Windows/OS X steam user)?
Oh there are ways around it of course. That's not the point....