X11 apps don't integrate well with other X11 apps either, but that doesn't stop the steaming pile of shitware that most *nix users have on their desktops.
And I say that as someone who runs it.
Focus on a secure rendering subsystem and add remote connectivity stuff in non-privileged add ons.
Having X run as root and talking to the network is just asking for security problems to be found and exploited.
And before you say "well firewall it off", if you're not using the remote display capabilities of X then wtf are you whinging about the lack of X11 network support in wayland for?
The number of people who use remote X vs the total desktop population is exceedingly minimal.
If you want to you will no doubt be able to load an X11 shim much like OS X uses.
If you don't want to, you don't have to worry about remote exploits in X11 and the performance penalty and associated stumbling blocks in X11 development to have a shiny local desktop.
I believe that this was because the stable version of firefox had a security flaw at the time.
Besides, the browser WILL be upgraded multiple times during an LTS release due to inevitable security updates. The browser is NOT the OS, despite what microsoft may have you believe.
Can we PLEASE make a concerted effort towards ipv6 now please? Microsoft are even encouraging use of it via DirectAccess ("vpn less" ipv6 secure tunnel), and god knows they're nowhere near leading edge as far as standards support goes.
I fear that ISPs are just going to do retarded shit like NATing their entire customer base though, but it really is just delaying the inevitable and causing breakage anyway...
You can "call bullshit" on people not liking KDE4 in particular all you like, it won't make it true. I've been using it since 1.0 and 3.5 was the last version I actually LIKED.
I was a die-hard KDE user between 1.0 or so and 3.5. I found the earlier releases to be intuitive, and provide me funky ways of "getting shit done". I tried 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and after seeing NOTHING that helped me be more productive, and UI change that was unintuitive and painful to use, I gave up.
Gnome is a bit "meh" but it works well enough for basic stuff. I'm no die hard gnome fan either, but at least it doesn't feel deliberately awkward.
I'm just very very disappointed to see what became of KDE after 3.5.
Personally, from a UI perspective I reckon it peaked around 2.0 or 3.0. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers or die hard 4.x users who will refute this and provide a million reasons why 4.x is technically better, but at the end of the day, if its painful to use, none of them are really relevant.
If i want a shiny UI that does very little to help me get things done effectively, but i can spend all day tweaking, I'll go find something less bloated.
Oh really? Want to compare rape/murder/theft rates to the US perhaps? I can make up drunken pub brawl stats too, i'd wager there is 185 per us capital every lunchtime.
Excellent points. I'd also add that once we're on the moon, getting out of lunar orbit and off to mars is probably (i am not a physicist) a lot easier due to the lower gravity, and the fact that you're already circling the earth at near on escape velocity anyhow. Ship machinery/people to the moon, build stuff there with local resources, and then launch to "elsewhere" from there.
I think you under-estimate the risks previous settlers faced in colonizing a new country that has no known crops, no infrastructure, unknown seasonal variations in weather, etc.
There have been plenty of examples of failed colonies in history (Greenland, anyone?), and people have set off to colonize areas with a dependency on remote support many times before.
Sure, the supplies needed have changed, but we're also several hundred years down the line technology wise.
No, they were given israel by the balfour declaration at the end of WW2. No one thought to ask the arabs (who lived there) what they thought about the idea. Or perhaps (the cynic in me suspects) it was intentional, to keep the jews busy and out of the way.
However, robots combined with local human support can likely get a lot more done:)
Just think how useful they could be if you had a human up there equipped with spare parts every now and again who can repair them when they return back to base.
I'm not sure we're "there" yet, but pooh-poohing the idea simply because no one has managed to do it yet isn't going to get us any closer.
ONE B2 stealth bomber is something like $2bn. Put even half of that into research for this and we'd get a hell of a lot closer.
Yeah, exactly. I was more referring to programmer time, which if you're a contractor is billed out at a much higher rate. But yes, even on a corporate desktop level, the cost to change is pretty high.
If there's a compelling business case for it, sure - change. But if there's not, you're just costing your company money - and lost productivity during the adjustment period, which is one of those intangibles that is very difficult to measure.
Re:Think carefully. Do you want to be close to MS?
on
Which Language To Learn?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A full, complete version of Microsoft's operating system, Windows 7, costs $300, about half the cost of some laptops. Eventually Microsoft's abusiveness will cause an Enron-style breakdown, in my opinion.
Your point being? If you're billing your time at $150/hr, that is 2 hours of work.
People harp on about the cost of Windows, etc but in the real world it is often irrelevant if it saves a couple of hours of time.
in addition to that... i'm pretty sure the.net development environment WAS free. It likely still has a free version available. Sure your Visual studio environment might not be free, but the basic C#.net development tools are.
Before you die of laughter.... the languages you already know are good server side languages for web development.
But, you're missing the client (web browser) side. As google is proving, more and more apps are being moved into "the cloud" and run out of a web browser. It may not be as glamorous or whatever, but I suspect that there will be a huge glut of jobs in that space as more companies attempt to migrate their legacy client + server apps to the browser.
Problem is, to get accurate damage modelling, they would need to simulate a lot more of the car. The handling can be approximated fairly simply by using simulated weight distribution, traction levels, suspension operation and torque outout.
Proper damage modelling needs panel deformation AND more importantly simulation of the various systems in the car, their location, and simulation of impact damage to each of the individual systems.
Which really... is a lot of work for something that is a sideshow to the real purpose of the game which is to simulate driving fast, and accurate car handling.
From what I have heard/read this is why they have not made a serious effort with car damage. its a hell of a lot of work to get anywhere near right, so rather than do it half-assed, they simply omitted it, rather than do some shitty cheap simulation of it.
NO GAME that i am aware of has accurate damage simulation. The GT series is no different in that respect.
So are you buying a PS3 to play games, or run linux. If its to play games, then who cares what the firmware shit has done. I've got a PS3 slim, never could run linux, and have had zero firmware problems.
Even as a linux platform, its flawed. I do feel a bit for those who bought one to run linux on though.
I've done the same thing before. HOWEVER, when supporting a large number of end users, its not the right way to do it. In small numbers, sure.
My point was that those pushing the lower TCO of linux (supposedly) and then suggested that you can "always run windows apps in a VM" are deluded and missing the fact that whether or not an OS is a VM or not, it still consumes a license (and in a VM, the Windows license your PC came with is not necessarily valid) and still requires the same level of patching and maintenance as a real install.
I maintain: use the right tool for the job. if you have started work in an MS shop, and all their apps are based on MS stuff, focus on protecting that environment (perhaps through the use of open source monitoring, firewalling, intrusion detection, etc if you're keen) and leave running MS based stuff to MS platforms.
Switching everyone to a foreign OS and a new application platform just because you don't like or are not knowledgable enough to secure an MS platform is a sysadmin failing, not a platform failing.
Ditto for walking into a unix-based ISP / web application host / etc and trying to switch their shit to IIS and.net. Its usually time better spent refining what you have than reinventing the wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
You can run RDP over SSH tunnel if you forward the appropriate port, too.
X11 apps don't integrate well with other X11 apps either, but that doesn't stop the steaming pile of shitware that most *nix users have on their desktops.
And I say that as someone who runs it.
Focus on a secure rendering subsystem and add remote connectivity stuff in non-privileged add ons.
Having X run as root and talking to the network is just asking for security problems to be found and exploited.
And before you say "well firewall it off", if you're not using the remote display capabilities of X then wtf are you whinging about the lack of X11 network support in wayland for?
X11 and its network transparency, if required, can be run under wayland. You will lose NOTHING.
The number of people who use remote X vs the total desktop population is exceedingly minimal.
If you want to you will no doubt be able to load an X11 shim much like OS X uses.
If you don't want to, you don't have to worry about remote exploits in X11 and the performance penalty and associated stumbling blocks in X11 development to have a shiny local desktop.
I believe that this was because the stable version of firefox had a security flaw at the time.
Besides, the browser WILL be upgraded multiple times during an LTS release due to inevitable security updates. The browser is NOT the OS, despite what microsoft may have you believe.
Who cares? Anyone still on IE6 deserves whatever maltreatment/second-class service they get.
Can we PLEASE make a concerted effort towards ipv6 now please? Microsoft are even encouraging use of it via DirectAccess ("vpn less" ipv6 secure tunnel), and god knows they're nowhere near leading edge as far as standards support goes.
I fear that ISPs are just going to do retarded shit like NATing their entire customer base though, but it really is just delaying the inevitable and causing breakage anyway...
You must be new here...
You can "call bullshit" on people not liking KDE4 in particular all you like, it won't make it true. I've been using it since 1.0 and 3.5 was the last version I actually LIKED.
I was a die-hard KDE user between 1.0 or so and 3.5. I found the earlier releases to be intuitive, and provide me funky ways of "getting shit done". I tried 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and after seeing NOTHING that helped me be more productive, and UI change that was unintuitive and painful to use, I gave up.
Gnome is a bit "meh" but it works well enough for basic stuff. I'm no die hard gnome fan either, but at least it doesn't feel deliberately awkward.
I'm just very very disappointed to see what became of KDE after 3.5.
Personally, from a UI perspective I reckon it peaked around 2.0 or 3.0. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers or die hard 4.x users who will refute this and provide a million reasons why 4.x is technically better, but at the end of the day, if its painful to use, none of them are really relevant.
If i want a shiny UI that does very little to help me get things done effectively, but i can spend all day tweaking, I'll go find something less bloated.
just throw more cache at it :D
Oh really? Want to compare rape/murder/theft rates to the US perhaps? I can make up drunken pub brawl stats too, i'd wager there is 185 per us capital every lunchtime.
Excellent points. I'd also add that once we're on the moon, getting out of lunar orbit and off to mars is probably (i am not a physicist) a lot easier due to the lower gravity, and the fact that you're already circling the earth at near on escape velocity anyhow. Ship machinery/people to the moon, build stuff there with local resources, and then launch to "elsewhere" from there.
I think you under-estimate the risks previous settlers faced in colonizing a new country that has no known crops, no infrastructure, unknown seasonal variations in weather, etc.
There have been plenty of examples of failed colonies in history (Greenland, anyone?), and people have set off to colonize areas with a dependency on remote support many times before.
Sure, the supplies needed have changed, but we're also several hundred years down the line technology wise.
No, they were given israel by the balfour declaration at the end of WW2. No one thought to ask the arabs (who lived there) what they thought about the idea. Or perhaps (the cynic in me suspects) it was intentional, to keep the jews busy and out of the way.
However, robots combined with local human support can likely get a lot more done :)
Just think how useful they could be if you had a human up there equipped with spare parts every now and again who can repair them when they return back to base.
I'm not sure we're "there" yet, but pooh-poohing the idea simply because no one has managed to do it yet isn't going to get us any closer.
ONE B2 stealth bomber is something like $2bn. Put even half of that into research for this and we'd get a hell of a lot closer.
... the chinese most certainly will.
Yeah, exactly. I was more referring to programmer time, which if you're a contractor is billed out at a much higher rate. But yes, even on a corporate desktop level, the cost to change is pretty high.
If there's a compelling business case for it, sure - change. But if there's not, you're just costing your company money - and lost productivity during the adjustment period, which is one of those intangibles that is very difficult to measure.
Your point being? If you're billing your time at $150/hr, that is 2 hours of work.
People harp on about the cost of Windows, etc but in the real world it is often irrelevant if it saves a couple of hours of time.
in addition to that... i'm pretty sure the .net development environment WAS free. It likely still has a free version available. Sure your Visual studio environment might not be free, but the basic C# .net development tools are.
Before you die of laughter.... the languages you already know are good server side languages for web development.
But, you're missing the client (web browser) side. As google is proving, more and more apps are being moved into "the cloud" and run out of a web browser. It may not be as glamorous or whatever, but I suspect that there will be a huge glut of jobs in that space as more companies attempt to migrate their legacy client + server apps to the browser.
I think that covers it...
Problem is, to get accurate damage modelling, they would need to simulate a lot more of the car. The handling can be approximated fairly simply by using simulated weight distribution, traction levels, suspension operation and torque outout.
Proper damage modelling needs panel deformation AND more importantly simulation of the various systems in the car, their location, and simulation of impact damage to each of the individual systems.
Which really... is a lot of work for something that is a sideshow to the real purpose of the game which is to simulate driving fast, and accurate car handling.
From what I have heard/read this is why they have not made a serious effort with car damage. its a hell of a lot of work to get anywhere near right, so rather than do it half-assed, they simply omitted it, rather than do some shitty cheap simulation of it.
NO GAME that i am aware of has accurate damage simulation. The GT series is no different in that respect.
Even as a linux platform, its flawed. I do feel a bit for those who bought one to run linux on though.
I've done the same thing before. HOWEVER, when supporting a large number of end users, its not the right way to do it. In small numbers, sure.
My point was that those pushing the lower TCO of linux (supposedly) and then suggested that you can "always run windows apps in a VM" are deluded and missing the fact that whether or not an OS is a VM or not, it still consumes a license (and in a VM, the Windows license your PC came with is not necessarily valid) and still requires the same level of patching and maintenance as a real install.
I maintain: use the right tool for the job. if you have started work in an MS shop, and all their apps are based on MS stuff, focus on protecting that environment (perhaps through the use of open source monitoring, firewalling, intrusion detection, etc if you're keen) and leave running MS based stuff to MS platforms.
Switching everyone to a foreign OS and a new application platform just because you don't like or are not knowledgable enough to secure an MS platform is a sysadmin failing, not a platform failing.
Ditto for walking into a unix-based ISP / web application host / etc and trying to switch their shit to IIS and .net. Its usually time better spent refining what you have than reinventing the wheel.