Totally unrelated. Don't get me started about the government's misuse of SSN as a unique identifier, but there's got to be some way of verifying who you are to make sure you're paying your taxes.
However, there's a world of difference between the consequences of not paying your taxes (if no one did, the government would have no resources) and not using DRM (you simply can't listen to the new Metallica album).
Why can't trusted computers be trusted by their owners? If you don't trust a piece of code, don't run it - then it can't do anything to you. It's not like the code will just download itself and start running. If you don't trust the entire operating system, use something else. Just don't cry if the content providers aren't willing to sell you whatever you want to watch/listen to on a system they can't trust.
Because if you had, you would know that it uses a DirectX 8 renderer on Windows, with the OpenGL renderer as a backup for Windows or as a primary renderer on Linux and Mac. The reason why the DirectX renderer is used on Windows is because it takes advantage of DirectX shaders. (Note that the OpenGL API is also capable of shaders, but they are not used in this case.)
The Windows version has at least one other feature that didn't make it to the Linux and Mac versions - speech recognition. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not play a also-ran version of a game when I could be getting the full experience on another platform.
In the future, please do your homework before you go randomly flaming someone on the internet.
I could care less about freeing myself from Microsoft - I don't feel they at all restrict me. Who cares about MS - the important thing is whether or not you can run the apps you want (including games.)
Of course, when I don't feel like playing PC games, I could just fire up my console... oh, wait, Microsoft makes that too. Granted, I have Sony and Nintendo's consoles as well, but I hardly ever play them - most of the time, when I want to play a console game, it's on Xbox.
If you paid for a source license, yes, you should. It'd probably be NDA'd to hell and gone, but if you want the source, you should be prepared to pay what MS wants for it.
You seem to be on a tangent from my comment though... I'm questioning why MS should be forced to show the internals of their system, not whether source licensees should get code (the entire point of source licensing). If you want to interoperate, either pay up for a source license, license the particular protocol with which you want to interoperate (under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, per the DoJ), or set up a clean-room implementation project and get to work. Nobody's entitled to anything for free.
The interesting thing isn't whether NT has a native API. It's obvious that it does. The relevant questions are:
Does MS hide the API because they want to preserve an advantage, or because it's subject to revision and would break with each new version of Windows?
Does MS actually use these hidden calls in their own software, or do they stick to standard Win32 calls?
One would think using native API calls would be a very bad thing, as then you'd have to carry those calls around forever. Furthermore, since Office ran on both 9x and NT (up until the most recent version) you'd have to have those calls in place in 9x as well. With all that work, you're better off just using the public API anyway.
Last note: if there were hidden API calls used to speed up MS apps, wouldn't the Wine guys have figured this out by now? I mean, those devs are in the position to show us incontrovertible proof, and were they to do so, it would be a field day for the IT press.
Only crappy games like Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield: Vietnam, Rainbow Six: Raven Shield, Max Payne 2, etc. use DirectX. We'll just ignore that one of the most anticipated titles, Half-Life 2, will use DirectX 9 to its fullest.
Nah, none of those are important. Let's all play Tux Racer instead!
What exactly have you or anyone else done to earn the source code? You didn't write it. You didn't pay to have it written. You didn't make any sort of arrangement with Microsoft. What entitles you to just walk in and sample from the fruit of their labor? How would you feel if MS just started taking GPL code without any sort of compensation?
I'd be real careful with this plan. A person carrying a laptop that won't turn on is likely to find himself losing the laptop at best, and enjoying an extended stay as a guest of the state at worst. Airport security is just a little bit paranoid about hollowed-out electronics that could potentially house explosives.
And my Windows XP box is solid as a rock. My copy of WinXP has been installed for a year, and the only crashes I've had turned out to be faulty RAM. The Dell at work is similarly rock-solid, running WinXP, Office 2003, VS.Net 2003, MSDE, IIS, and various other stuff for ASP.Net development. I haven't had a single crash on it yet.
So, my anecdote cancels out your anecdote. That's why people don't try to use them as real evidence.
Nope. If the NX flag catches your problem, it won't let it slide - it'll refuse to run that segment of code. So instead of a buffer overflow you can't see, now you'll have an exception that's a lot more visible, and a lot less dangerous if it slips by QA.
That's the catch. When you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, you have to accept that there are some pretty slimy people in the rest of the world who would love nothing more than to make your system serve their ends, hijacking your machine to show you ads.
When Linux gets to the point where the vast majority of people out there who don't understand their computers start using it, you'll see these same spyware problems pop up on Linux. They only care about preying on users who don't know enough to protect their systems - they could care less what OS it is they're attacking.
Nope. Not only is MS a large, inviting target, but they know the DoJ has an eye on them. Even if they're doing something 100% legal, it's in their best interests to keep it under the DoJ's radar, lest they get caught up in another expensive court case.
I think we need a third definition of freedom in addition to beer and speech: freeloading. The minute I hand out my source, the entire rest of the world can take my hard work, undercut my price, and rake in all the money for something I put in the effort to create. (At least until someone else takes the source and lowballs him out of business - but that doesn't exactly help me, does it?)
Slashdot Mirror
Totally unrelated. Don't get me started about the government's misuse of SSN as a unique identifier, but there's got to be some way of verifying who you are to make sure you're paying your taxes.
However, there's a world of difference between the consequences of not paying your taxes (if no one did, the government would have no resources) and not using DRM (you simply can't listen to the new Metallica album).
So flash your own BIOS in and opt out of the system. Just be prepared to give up both the good and the bad.
This is probably the smartest thing I've read on this topic.
If you don't like TC, don't use it. No one's going to force you to.
Why can't trusted computers be trusted by their owners? If you don't trust a piece of code, don't run it - then it can't do anything to you. It's not like the code will just download itself and start running. If you don't trust the entire operating system, use something else. Just don't cry if the content providers aren't willing to sell you whatever you want to watch/listen to on a system they can't trust.
At which point content providers will finally feel comfortable selling us music/movies/etc. on our computers - the very thing we've been wanting.
You can't have it both ways.
Really. Have you checked?
Because if you had, you would know that it uses a DirectX 8 renderer on Windows, with the OpenGL renderer as a backup for Windows or as a primary renderer on Linux and Mac. The reason why the DirectX renderer is used on Windows is because it takes advantage of DirectX shaders. (Note that the OpenGL API is also capable of shaders, but they are not used in this case.)
The Windows version has at least one other feature that didn't make it to the Linux and Mac versions - speech recognition. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not play a also-ran version of a game when I could be getting the full experience on another platform.
In the future, please do your homework before you go randomly flaming someone on the internet.
I'm an FPS junkie, and that's my current playlist (excl. HL2). Other than that, no reason.
In Max Payne 2's defense, it's a TPS. (Though that reminds me more of Office Space more than video games....)
I could care less about freeing myself from Microsoft - I don't feel they at all restrict me. Who cares about MS - the important thing is whether or not you can run the apps you want (including games.)
Of course, when I don't feel like playing PC games, I could just fire up my console... oh, wait, Microsoft makes that too. Granted, I have Sony and Nintendo's consoles as well, but I hardly ever play them - most of the time, when I want to play a console game, it's on Xbox.
If you paid for a source license, yes, you should. It'd probably be NDA'd to hell and gone, but if you want the source, you should be prepared to pay what MS wants for it.
You seem to be on a tangent from my comment though... I'm questioning why MS should be forced to show the internals of their system, not whether source licensees should get code (the entire point of source licensing). If you want to interoperate, either pay up for a source license, license the particular protocol with which you want to interoperate (under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, per the DoJ), or set up a clean-room implementation project and get to work. Nobody's entitled to anything for free.
Yes, but...
The interesting thing isn't whether NT has a native API. It's obvious that it does. The relevant questions are:
Does MS hide the API because they want to preserve an advantage, or because it's subject to revision and would break with each new version of Windows?
Does MS actually use these hidden calls in their own software, or do they stick to standard Win32 calls?
One would think using native API calls would be a very bad thing, as then you'd have to carry those calls around forever. Furthermore, since Office ran on both 9x and NT (up until the most recent version) you'd have to have those calls in place in 9x as well. With all that work, you're better off just using the public API anyway.
Last note: if there were hidden API calls used to speed up MS apps, wouldn't the Wine guys have figured this out by now? I mean, those devs are in the position to show us incontrovertible proof, and were they to do so, it would be a field day for the IT press.
So this is what passes for humor around here.
Really.
Only crappy games like Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield: Vietnam, Rainbow Six: Raven Shield, Max Payne 2, etc. use DirectX. We'll just ignore that one of the most anticipated titles, Half-Life 2, will use DirectX 9 to its fullest.
Nah, none of those are important. Let's all play Tux Racer instead!
What exactly have you or anyone else done to earn the source code? You didn't write it. You didn't pay to have it written. You didn't make any sort of arrangement with Microsoft. What entitles you to just walk in and sample from the fruit of their labor? How would you feel if MS just started taking GPL code without any sort of compensation?
I see this secret API claim tossed around a lot... where's the proof?
I'd be real careful with this plan. A person carrying a laptop that won't turn on is likely to find himself losing the laptop at best, and enjoying an extended stay as a guest of the state at worst. Airport security is just a little bit paranoid about hollowed-out electronics that could potentially house explosives.
The big name titles are not there. Battlefield Vietnam, Deus Ex/Thief, Half-Life 2... these are DirectX titles, with no Linux ports in sight.
I love id and Epic titles too, but they're not everything.
Bingo. People always ask why Linux can't let people boot their game discs directly and turn PCs into consoles... here's the answer.
And my Windows XP box is solid as a rock. My copy of WinXP has been installed for a year, and the only crashes I've had turned out to be faulty RAM. The Dell at work is similarly rock-solid, running WinXP, Office 2003, VS.Net 2003, MSDE, IIS, and various other stuff for ASP.Net development. I haven't had a single crash on it yet.
So, my anecdote cancels out your anecdote. That's why people don't try to use them as real evidence.
Or "Strategic Partnership".
You have heard of msdn.microsoft.com, right?
It's all well documented. Why? Because MS wants developers to use it. How the hell would devs use it if MS didn't give them documentation?
Nope. If the NX flag catches your problem, it won't let it slide - it'll refuse to run that segment of code. So instead of a buffer overflow you can't see, now you'll have an exception that's a lot more visible, and a lot less dangerous if it slips by QA.
Good news: They ARE giving you a rebate.
Bad news: It's only $10.
Details inside the box. If this is as good as it's supposed to be, though, I won't feel too bad about dropping $30 after rebate on it.
That's the catch. When you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, you have to accept that there are some pretty slimy people in the rest of the world who would love nothing more than to make your system serve their ends, hijacking your machine to show you ads.
When Linux gets to the point where the vast majority of people out there who don't understand their computers start using it, you'll see these same spyware problems pop up on Linux. They only care about preying on users who don't know enough to protect their systems - they could care less what OS it is they're attacking.
Nope. Not only is MS a large, inviting target, but they know the DoJ has an eye on them. Even if they're doing something 100% legal, it's in their best interests to keep it under the DoJ's radar, lest they get caught up in another expensive court case.
I think we need a third definition of freedom in addition to beer and speech: freeloading. The minute I hand out my source, the entire rest of the world can take my hard work, undercut my price, and rake in all the money for something I put in the effort to create. (At least until someone else takes the source and lowballs him out of business - but that doesn't exactly help me, does it?)