... anyone actually check out this eolas company??
Looks like they're just bunch of patent drones who have submitted a bunch of shit to the US patent office. They don't actually have any products to buy...
... they're like lemmings. First SCO, now microsoft. Who's next? Apple want to have a go?
Who are they going to sue? And do they really think IBM is just going to sit by and watch Microsoft eat their lunch (IBM, positioning themselves quite closely aligned with Linux)?
And even if they *do* win and somehow wipe some core technology out of Linux - people will just be free to move to BSD.
Nah, the "geeks" in this story are just simple idiots playing make believe like they know what they're talking about. They've never done anything of any significance.
Most "home computer repair technicians" are fucking incompetent. I wouldn't trust them to clean my toilet, let alone work on my PC.
There are good ones, but by and large the majority of them are idiots.
Why? because even an idiot has far more of a clue than the average user, who, when faced with a yes/no windows dialog, miraculously forgets how to read, freezes and has to call IT support.
Nothing against the clueless computer users out there, it's just unfortunate that the barrier to entry as a "guy good with computers" is so fucking appallingly low... that the incompetent ones out there get believed...
Just for the record, by "vendor supported" i meant as in Intel. Not necessarily one of the PC building OEMs:)
Have a Q6600 myself and I agree, bang for buck it's awesome:) I just think comparing something that can be oc'd to a particular clock rate to something that's guaranteed and supported at the same clock rate is not exactly "fair"...
Having said that, the Q6600 is likely virtually identical to many higher rated parts, i really don't think intel is being pushed for yield at the moment... just cruising along waiting for AMD to release and then one-up them...
Wow. It really does sound like a trap. MS Dev Studio calls home to get the source code. I'm willing to bet that MS will also *log* the IP and the Dev Studio's activation/registration information. I wouldn't be surprised if this feature is enabled by default, or will pop up a license notice that the developer will just click through without reading. Most anyone who works with any MSDN programming product is probably going to find themselves tainted.
EULAs are bad enough, but this is obnoxious to the point that it could be legally challenged, especially if debugging a small chunk of code is enough for you to be considered "tainted" in regards to the entire.net code base. It will be interesting to see if MS records what code you looked at (or if they don't, then why didn't they?)
I don't "get" any situation where they'd have an incentive to sue? if you're going to start suing developers writing for your own platform, its a short slippery slope into irrelevance. If they're going to try and sue people who are perhaps developing a compatible platform (ie, mono), it's just going to decrease the relevance of.net. If they decide to sue someone who has decided to write something similar in another language... well, different language != cut/paste - I'm not sure you could argue that it's outright plagarism?
Unless they have a patent on the process being replicated (in which case, you're fucked if you replicate the algorithm whether you've seen it in source or not) - i don't see that they have any legal recourse to sue? Then again, I live in a country with a *reasonably* sane legal system (at least compared to the US)...
... because my bet is that due to the large number of undocumented APIs and/or apps that perhaps "rely" on the bugged behaviour, microsoft would probably like to regression test before a patch is "in the wild" so to speak.
This announcement is better than NOT having the code, is it not? At least you can see what it does.
You can do all the testing you like. If you run into a miscalculation or crash, and you're not running at the factory clock-rate, all bets are off.
Don't get me wrong, if you want the speed for gaming, go ahead. If the CPU malfunctions, who cares? If it's for business use though, get the company to fork out the $$ for a vendor supported solution. Risk of malfunction (not necessarily crash, but perhaps miscalculated financial/scientific data, etc) is just not worth it in a production environment, imho. Sure, that could happen at the stock clock-rate, but the risk will be far less.
If DNS, NFS, etc was all originally GPLed and commercial devs couldn't use some example code as a starting point, you can bet dollars to donuts that they wouldn't be standard protocols...
Dunno if i'd call it crude, i'd call it an effective way of reducing costs and increasing yields.
Being able to churn out core2 duo cores for everything and just glue some together to make quads - saves on fab costs - and hence they can provide quad core at a much lower price point.
If you're overclocking the Q6600 then take into account the possibility of overclocking the new CPU... or the fact that when overclocking any guarantee of stability is gone.
The difference is that a unix admin "bumbling through the windows gui" will actually know wtf they are configuring. Sure, he might find locating a particular option in the GUI a bit tricky (but that's what the online help is for), but he will more likely actually know which options should be selected rather than just leaving a whole heap of possibly insecure "cover all bases" defaults ticked.
As a unix admin to configure a windows server and you'll get far better results than getting your typical windows "admin" to attempt to try configure a Linux server.
As opposed to running a single configuration script that picks all parameters from the user and puts them in the associated configuration files. The outcome being a fully functional mail server. Now tell me...Is this rocket science?
FreeBSD does this.
You may need to tweak the config for more advanced features (pop before smtp, etc), but you get a basic config without touching any config files.
Clippy was added in office 97. he wasn't impossible to remove then either tho, I can't remember if there was an option or not, i just deleted his files:D
He also mentions his favorite example to explain the benefits of open source software to a nontechnical person: the flexibility of open source would have allowed us to free ourselves from Clippy, the world's most despised paperclip, by changing a single line of code."
As opposed to say, just uninstalling clippy through the control panel? I'm all for open source and all - but seriously, it's worth checking out the options before busting out GCC...
Sounds like shitty hardware/drivers to me. I've been running vista (ultimate 32 bit) on every PC in the household (4 of varying age/spec - A pentium 2.4 non-ht, 2 Pentium D 930s and a Core2 Quadro) since release without any of those issues...
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like they're just bunch of patent drones who have submitted a bunch of shit to the US patent office. They don't actually have any products to buy...
Software patents really do need to die...
Who are they going to sue? And do they really think IBM is just going to sit by and watch Microsoft eat their lunch (IBM, positioning themselves quite closely aligned with Linux)?
And even if they *do* win and somehow wipe some core technology out of Linux - people will just be free to move to BSD.
Nah, the "geeks" in this story are just simple idiots playing make believe like they know what they're talking about. They've never done anything of any significance.
Yeah, those "simple ram testers" are fucking hard to use. or not. I know Dell even include an easy to use one with the system media...
There are good ones, but by and large the majority of them are idiots.
Why? because even an idiot has far more of a clue than the average user, who, when faced with a yes/no windows dialog, miraculously forgets how to read, freezes and has to call IT support.
Nothing against the clueless computer users out there, it's just unfortunate that the barrier to entry as a "guy good with computers" is so fucking appallingly low... that the incompetent ones out there get believed...
Have a Q6600 myself and I agree, bang for buck it's awesome :) I just think comparing something that can be oc'd to a particular clock rate to something that's guaranteed and supported at the same clock rate is not exactly "fair"...
Having said that, the Q6600 is likely virtually identical to many higher rated parts, i really don't think intel is being pushed for yield at the moment... just cruising along waiting for AMD to release and then one-up them...
...terminated?
I don't "get" any situation where they'd have an incentive to sue? if you're going to start suing developers writing for your own platform, its a short slippery slope into irrelevance. If they're going to try and sue people who are perhaps developing a compatible platform (ie, mono), it's just going to decrease the relevance of .net. If they decide to sue someone who has decided to write something similar in another language... well, different language != cut/paste - I'm not sure you could argue that it's outright plagarism?
Unless they have a patent on the process being replicated (in which case, you're fucked if you replicate the algorithm whether you've seen it in source or not) - i don't see that they have any legal recourse to sue? Then again, I live in a country with a *reasonably* sane legal system (at least compared to the US)...
IBM is repositioning itself as a solutions/service/software company.
Oh fuck, wait a sec...
This announcement is better than NOT having the code, is it not? At least you can see what it does.
Don't get me wrong, if you want the speed for gaming, go ahead. If the CPU malfunctions, who cares? If it's for business use though, get the company to fork out the $$ for a vendor supported solution. Risk of malfunction (not necessarily crash, but perhaps miscalculated financial/scientific data, etc) is just not worth it in a production environment, imho. Sure, that could happen at the stock clock-rate, but the risk will be far less.
If DNS, NFS, etc was all originally GPLed and commercial devs couldn't use some example code as a starting point, you can bet dollars to donuts that they wouldn't be standard protocols...
Look, go out there, get some real world industry experience (i have 12 years) and get back to me if you don't believe it.
Blah blah blah... all i heard was "AMD isn't shipping anything decent yet".
Being able to churn out core2 duo cores for everything and just glue some together to make quads - saves on fab costs - and hence they can provide quad core at a much lower price point.
If you're overclocking the Q6600 then take into account the possibility of overclocking the new CPU... or the fact that when overclocking any guarantee of stability is gone.
I think you'll find there's a pretty strong correlation.
As a unix admin to configure a windows server and you'll get far better results than getting your typical windows "admin" to attempt to try configure a Linux server.
You may need to tweak the config for more advanced features (pop before smtp, etc), but you get a basic config without touching any config files.
Nah, they just run the activation hack. The activation only fucks over those who run legit.
Clippy was added in office 97. he wasn't impossible to remove then either tho, I can't remember if there was an option or not, i just deleted his files :D
That's the missing feature...
Sounds like shitty hardware/drivers to me. I've been running vista (ultimate 32 bit) on every PC in the household (4 of varying age/spec - A pentium 2.4 non-ht, 2 Pentium D 930s and a Core2 Quadro) since release without any of those issues...