The Windows version's 32-bit. Carmack used to say that the engine actually ran slower in 64-bit mode, and that there wouldn't be 64-bit binaries for Doom. I haven't seen anything recent from him on the topic... if id's licensees are demanding it, then the code's probably 64-bit ready, but until we know one way or another, we only have the original statement to go off of.
Hey, $18 is almost the $30 or so it'll cost to replace the drive. I probably wouldn't complain if they sent me the money.
And I'll bet MS is getting the drives cheaper than we are - perhaps they should just send all the out-of-warranty owners a drive replacement kit instead?
I'm not totally in disagreement. MS has stepped up a lot in the past year in terms of trying to put secure code out on the market, but there's still a long way to go in terms of making the process of securing many servers and workstations.
Still, if you hire competent people, Windows security isn't that expensive. And competent people cost money, regardless of which platform they specialize in (assuming they limit themselves at all by specializing). Eliminating the "paper MCSEs" would go a long way towards cleaning things up. A former employer of mine saw a real improvement when they put one such professional in charge of IT.
And I am somehow precluded from asking for help from within the Windows community? Isn't that the whole point of the MS MVP thing - to identify Windows experts willing to help? There's all sorts of places I can go for help, and all of them seem to center around how much help I provide others in return.
"'entitlement', a term reserved for the management of physical property"
Fair enough, since you appear to only dispute one word of my statement, I'll restate.
If someone doesn't agree with that system, then that's fine, they can just opt out. But they do NOT have any right to enjoy the benefits of that system.
As for the government enforcing a friendly environment, I'll agree that the content providers use the DMCA for this, and is overly agressive in scope. However, that doesn't force me into said friendly environment in the first place - somewhere along the line, I had to lay down cash to buy into the system offered by the provider. If I didn't like the terms, it would've been my right to walk away.
Prior to copyright, wasn't art mainly done for personal reasons, or at the request of a patron? People willing to make a game for personal reasons are probably working on a mod (either for popularity, or to get hired) and there aren't many patrons who are going to foot the bill for the development of an entire game.
Copyright allows us to effectively split the cost of creating these works of art, and the cost of rewarding their creators, according to the value we derive from them. If someone doesn't agree with that system, then that's fine, they can just opt out. But they are NOT entitled to the benefits of that system.
As for TCPA, it's clear that reacting to a hostile environment is not enough - content providers should be looking into offering their products only within a friendly environment. (Note that we're talking about a console game, which should already be in a friendly environment.) If customers reject this, then providers will be forced to deal with the environment as it is now - isn't capitalism great?
Who's going to keep creating these ideas if the first jerk that comes along starts handing it out to everyone?
On top of that, we're no longer talking about just any old idea. We're talking about the product of a multi-million dollar investment and 2 years of effort. This isn't grandma's cookie recipe.
There's going to be a point where it doesn't make sense to spend the kind of time or money it takes to develop a major game when everyone's just going to steal it.
You could say, "Well, then, it's the author's job to protect their property" but when someone comes along with an idea for just that (TCPA) people fight against it tooth and nail. I wonder why?
Nope. I could care less how many copies, where you want them, what medium, etc. All I care about is securing my rights while not infringing upon anyone else's rights.
Doesn't the author have a right to control who is allowed to use their work? Doesn't the author have the right to insist upon compensation as a term of use? A copyright violation takes away that control from the author. That's what's being deprived in this situation.
It's definitely illegal, though it's probably moral - if you've fulfilled your end of the bargain (compensating them) then you already own a license to use the work.
Well, Green Day's members are probably fairly well paid, but if we're talking about, say, a new Local H or Lucky Boys Confusion album, it becomes a slightly different story.
(Of course, LBC just got dropped from Elektra, so hopefully the next time I buy an album of theirs, they'll see a little more of the dough.)
Simple. If you create a work, as the author, you have the right to grant use of it to whoever you choose, under whatever terms both parties agree to. If you simply take a copy, you deprive the author of their right to offer a license to you (since you simply grant yourself license, without commensurate consideration to the author).
Now, if we could figure out the actual value of the portion of copyright that applies to a single individual (instead of just taking the price of a license at retail), we'd have a real idea of the cost of copyright violation.
If you hate MS' copyright, why not use software which doesn't impose such a restriction?
It's not like Bill Gates is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to install Windows. If a free alternative exists, then you have no excuse - you're just freeloading scum.
Windows on x86 could be the crappiest computing experience of all time, and I still wouldn't switch away from it, so long as they've got one thing:
Hardware and software compatibility.
Compatibility is king - end of story. I'll follow the hardware and software I want to use - the actual OS or architecture are irrelevant. If, all of a sudden, all the apps I wanted to use were being optimized for OS X on PPC, and were going to stay that way long-term, I'd have no choice but to switch.
If I changed either my architecture or my operating system to one other than the dominant platform, my applications would lose functionality, take less-than-full advantage of my hardware, or not be able to run at all. That's unacceptable. So, I'm staying put.
While I'll agree that IIS' security record is worse than Apache's, you're missing a motivating factor for hackers.
It's not always about bringing down big, popular sites - sometimes it's about bringing down big companies. Every hacker knows that they'll get front-page coverage for a major attack on Microsoft products.
On top of that, there's a great deal of irrational hatred of Microsoft among technically inclined individuals, which would motivate attacks on them.
So, while I'm not about to take even the majority of the blame away from MS on this one, you disregard a significant motive for hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
This particular developer likes feeding himself and his fiancee, having a roof over his head, gas in his tank, etc.
Whether the programming job that provides all of that also provides freedom is a distant concern by comparison.
The Windows version's 32-bit. Carmack used to say that the engine actually ran slower in 64-bit mode, and that there wouldn't be 64-bit binaries for Doom. I haven't seen anything recent from him on the topic... if id's licensees are demanding it, then the code's probably 64-bit ready, but until we know one way or another, we only have the original statement to go off of.
What about Half-Life 2? It's gonna be frickin' huge, and it's PC only, with rumors of a Xbox version sometime in the future.
I love my Mac, but there's just no competing with Windows for gaming.
Hey, $18 is almost the $30 or so it'll cost to replace the drive. I probably wouldn't complain if they sent me the money.
And I'll bet MS is getting the drives cheaper than we are - perhaps they should just send all the out-of-warranty owners a drive replacement kit instead?
I'm not totally in disagreement. MS has stepped up a lot in the past year in terms of trying to put secure code out on the market, but there's still a long way to go in terms of making the process of securing many servers and workstations.
Still, if you hire competent people, Windows security isn't that expensive. And competent people cost money, regardless of which platform they specialize in (assuming they limit themselves at all by specializing). Eliminating the "paper MCSEs" would go a long way towards cleaning things up. A former employer of mine saw a real improvement when they put one such professional in charge of IT.
And I am somehow precluded from asking for help from within the Windows community? Isn't that the whole point of the MS MVP thing - to identify Windows experts willing to help? There's all sorts of places I can go for help, and all of them seem to center around how much help I provide others in return.
Apparently you don't know what the T stands for in TCO.
License cost is just a part of it.
The Browns play for Cleveland. Chicago's team is the Bears.
"'entitlement', a term reserved for the management of physical property"
Fair enough, since you appear to only dispute one word of my statement, I'll restate.
If someone doesn't agree with that system, then that's fine, they can just opt out. But they do NOT have any right to enjoy the benefits of that system.
As for the government enforcing a friendly environment, I'll agree that the content providers use the DMCA for this, and is overly agressive in scope. However, that doesn't force me into said friendly environment in the first place - somewhere along the line, I had to lay down cash to buy into the system offered by the provider. If I didn't like the terms, it would've been my right to walk away.
Prior to copyright, wasn't art mainly done for personal reasons, or at the request of a patron? People willing to make a game for personal reasons are probably working on a mod (either for popularity, or to get hired) and there aren't many patrons who are going to foot the bill for the development of an entire game.
Copyright allows us to effectively split the cost of creating these works of art, and the cost of rewarding their creators, according to the value we derive from them. If someone doesn't agree with that system, then that's fine, they can just opt out. But they are NOT entitled to the benefits of that system.
As for TCPA, it's clear that reacting to a hostile environment is not enough - content providers should be looking into offering their products only within a friendly environment. (Note that we're talking about a console game, which should already be in a friendly environment.) If customers reject this, then providers will be forced to deal with the environment as it is now - isn't capitalism great?
Who's going to keep creating these ideas if the first jerk that comes along starts handing it out to everyone?
On top of that, we're no longer talking about just any old idea. We're talking about the product of a multi-million dollar investment and 2 years of effort. This isn't grandma's cookie recipe.
There's going to be a point where it doesn't make sense to spend the kind of time or money it takes to develop a major game when everyone's just going to steal it.
You could say, "Well, then, it's the author's job to protect their property" but when someone comes along with an idea for just that (TCPA) people fight against it tooth and nail. I wonder why?
Nope. I could care less how many copies, where you want them, what medium, etc. All I care about is securing my rights while not infringing upon anyone else's rights.
Doesn't the author have a right to control who is allowed to use their work? Doesn't the author have the right to insist upon compensation as a term of use? A copyright violation takes away that control from the author. That's what's being deprived in this situation.
It's definitely illegal, though it's probably moral - if you've fulfilled your end of the bargain (compensating them) then you already own a license to use the work.
Well, Green Day's members are probably fairly well paid, but if we're talking about, say, a new Local H or Lucky Boys Confusion album, it becomes a slightly different story.
(Of course, LBC just got dropped from Elektra, so hopefully the next time I buy an album of theirs, they'll see a little more of the dough.)
Simple. If you create a work, as the author, you have the right to grant use of it to whoever you choose, under whatever terms both parties agree to. If you simply take a copy, you deprive the author of their right to offer a license to you (since you simply grant yourself license, without commensurate consideration to the author).
Now, if we could figure out the actual value of the portion of copyright that applies to a single individual (instead of just taking the price of a license at retail), we'd have a real idea of the cost of copyright violation.
So, if you had a bar with a bunch of televisions, and a few patrons with these things, all thinking they're in control of the TVs... hilarity ensues.
If you hate MS' copyright, why not use software which doesn't impose such a restriction?
It's not like Bill Gates is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to install Windows. If a free alternative exists, then you have no excuse - you're just freeloading scum.
I'd like to see you put together a multinational marketing campaign and produce enough product to satisfy demand in less than a month.
You mean the one Isuzu is pulling out of?
They're talking about using the idled capacity for new Subaru lines, but in the meantime, those workers are laid off.
Windows on x86 could be the crappiest computing experience of all time, and I still wouldn't switch away from it, so long as they've got one thing:
Hardware and software compatibility.
Compatibility is king - end of story. I'll follow the hardware and software I want to use - the actual OS or architecture are irrelevant. If, all of a sudden, all the apps I wanted to use were being optimized for OS X on PPC, and were going to stay that way long-term, I'd have no choice but to switch.
If I changed either my architecture or my operating system to one other than the dominant platform, my applications would lose functionality, take less-than-full advantage of my hardware, or not be able to run at all. That's unacceptable. So, I'm staying put.
So, the lesson here is... if they're not your friend, fuck them over the first chance you get.
No denying it though - it obviously works damn well. Just ask the Bush administration.
He also developed Smallltalk, and is a father of object-oriented programming.
Not to slight Gibson, but I first thought of the Metaverse from Snow Crash.
John Carmack used to talk about wanting to do something like this... I wonder what his thoughts are on it?
While I'll agree that IIS' security record is worse than Apache's, you're missing a motivating factor for hackers.
It's not always about bringing down big, popular sites - sometimes it's about bringing down big companies. Every hacker knows that they'll get front-page coverage for a major attack on Microsoft products.
On top of that, there's a great deal of irrational hatred of Microsoft among technically inclined individuals, which would motivate attacks on them.
So, while I'm not about to take even the majority of the blame away from MS on this one, you disregard a significant motive for hackers.