First, killed is a figure of speech. That kind of punishment is still on the books, but I somehow doubt they'd use it. Perhaps I should have chosen a better expression, in light of historical precedent.
Second, I would really think that, in the modern age of the "dry" Greek system, that people would realize it's about more than parties and booze. Each year, the Greeks turn away countless numbers of people who just want to get drunk and laid. Those houses that don't are the jokes of the Greek system, and the houses that truly believe in their ideals strive to rise above such debasement.
As for your accusation of racism and alcoholism, I live in a dry house with a diverse brotherhood. Maybe you'd like to speak to our black brothers? Or the Latinos? Or the Koreans? That tosses that claim.
The artifical friends claim simply isn't worth my time.
Now to return to the original topic, the point isn't the fact that this is secret. It's that to gain the knowledge of the ritual, you have to pledge to keep it secret. It's your word and bond, your honor pledged to your brothers. Therefore, simply handing out someone else's secrets like this is disrespecting your own integrity as well as those who hold dear the ideals of the fraternity they join.
Some of us still take things like integrity seriously. Keeping your word is a skill I think more people in this world could stand to gain from learning.
And as for the "Open-Source" fraternity, many of a Greek house's ideals are public knowledge. For example, our Landmarks, By-Laws, and other such information is publicly available. Many of our ceremonies are exoteric as well.
It's an interesting bit of polarity... the very group trying to eliminate groups like Napster also creates their own.
Perhaps the reason behind this dichotomy is that AOL wants no competition for their media on the internet, i.e. "If it didn't come from us, you shouldn't be able to download it." This sort of control over the "new media" could be staggering.
This attitude recalls the days where people would ask me if I had AOL, to which I responded, "No, I have an Internet connection."
If that's all the games that they're going to have, well, I'm not impressed. I want to be able to sit down and play something a bit more graphically impressive.
Why not simply put something together using the GLQuake engine? It's GPL, and I'm sure id wouldn't mind selling them a license. You could have something closer to the original vision of Quake - a networked system of worlds leading off into games through portals.
Blah. Who cares if it's ported? None of you will ever use it, lest you burn in hell for violating the commandments of ESR. None of us (the NT users) will touch it, because we know it'll run better on Windows. And the layman won't use it, because he doesn't know about Linux.
Unless MS wants to show how much slower.NET would run on Linux (and it would, with all the rewriting and hacking they'd have to do), this is a waste of money for them.
Just because I'm not old-school like yourself means I don't deserve a computer? What about CAD users? They've mastered a complex package yet don't need to know what a BIOS is.
Or how about engineering? I use my computer to simulate airfoil surfaces. You want me to do this by hand? You don't want to see how many trees I'd kill doing so...
I know what a bit and BIOS are, and yet I don't program much (I know C and FORTRAN, and that's about it), I'm certainly not a scientist, and if all I want to do is finish up my AAE 251 homework and play some Quake, does that mean I don't deserve a computer?
Love or hate them, MS is the most important player in the OS market right now. And they will be for some time.
If they aren't so important, then why does everyone like to compare Linux to Windows all the time? And why does everyone complain about them all the time?
How intelligent. is this the level of discourse you devolve to whenever someone says something that maybe questions a little piece of your linux-centric world?
Hehe... I can't tell you how much of my life I've dropped into that game. Or Doom, that thing probably got a good year of my time.
I'm hardly on my way to losing, most of the surfaces are not grates in the level, and I learn my lessons well... I don't run in a pattern someone can trace through a thin wall without being able to see me.
And who says I've ever lost a game because of it? Not to say I haven't lost, but it's never come down to one cheap frag some lamer got by exploiting a bug in the system.
People who whine when exploits are taken away usually aren't good enough to win without them.
No we don't need them but they work damn well. While the entire ghetto OS line known as Win9x needs to die a quick death, the NT line is perfectly good for what it does. And Office is the best suite I've ever used - and I've used Lotus and Corel's offerings, so I've at least got the big three down.
Quite simply, if it works, don't fuck with it. Vendors have been following that simple policy - and that's why you still buy machines with Windows installed.
If the net in tennis was made of elastic and a particularly good shot would fly right through it, would you consider that cheating?
Go outside, load up your rocket launcher (what do you mean you don't have one!), and shoot through a cast-iron wall. I bet whatever's on the other side will remain intact.
Hey, you're right about that too. I love my gameplay as much as the next guy.
But gameplay doesn't make for a lot of box copy, which sells games. I'll still buy it no matter how dated it is (hey, we still play Duke3D over our LAN sometimes), but who else will?
Microsoft doesn't sell to the educated market - it goes for the home user, Mom and Dad who are amazed that computers don't take up a whole room anymore. If MS sold for the power user market, they'd be pushing Win2000 Pro left and right - it's good enough to for once. Instead, they push Windows ME, which is dumbed down for the masses.
Therefore, the boxes with the complex words and pretty pictures will sell. Not the ones with gameplay. And that's unfortunate.
But that still doesn't change the fact that Halo's engine will be out of date by October 2001.
Yeah, I've seen the 150 MB trailer. And I'm impressed. But those tricks are being built into the next generation of engines already - someone has to be working on inverse kinematics by now (and why not, most developers use 3D Studio MAX, which is very heavily IK-based), the physics engines will improve due to free CPU cycles from new TnL accelerators, and many new engines are coming with excellent terrain handling.
Those would appear to be Halo's strong points, and they're all coming in the next 12 months.
If halo is delayed until 3-6 mo. after the xbox release (currently slated for October 12, 2001), its tech will be extremely dated. As PC Games go, it'll be left in the dust if MS doesn't release by April.
Unless they've got one hell of a surprise up their sleeves, they've got to make a Q1 ship date.
I found this damn funny. I like Harms's writing, have since he worked at PC Gamer, and I'm glad they pointed this out. So to everyone who thinks this wasn't funny - guess what... it was. But that's all subjective anyway.
Get a sense of HUMOR. Just because it was worth a few quick clicks and a couple laughs and nothing more doesn't mean it's not good enough for Slashdot.
Then again, I was drunk when I read it, so I may be totally off-base. But who really cares? Thanks to Slashdot for the link, and for making my day a bit more humorous. Some people should really lighten up and appreciate them doing the same for them as well.
Oh, and you clarified a point that I don't think I made very well. It's not me I'm talking about, it's corporate America.
I hate getting support, be it from the internet, or from Linuxcare, or from MS. I hate explaining the problem to others. I can solve it faster myself. But some people, usually those who haven't the slighest idea what keeps the servers running, or what goes into setting them up, like having a number to call and hold someone responsible for getting some answers.
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad?
on
Bob Metcalfe On NPR
·
· Score: 1
I can evaluate products on a testbed very cheaply. I can get eval versions of nearly anytinng. AutoCAD 2000i? It's on my desk somewhere. Back Office Server 4.5 SBE? Got it in a desk drawer.
With professional packages, if they even think they're going to make a sale, they'll send eval copies your way. It's not quite like AOL where you can begin making furniture from the discs they send you, but there's a lot of eval software available, often times without much looking.
Oh, and C Lee, what am I peddling? I could care less what you use, and I would like to see Open Source succeed. Sure, you may feel that your elite community doesn't need me, and it probably doesn't. It doesn't really matter to me nearly as much as getting what I need to do the job... and to hell with who has the source.
Yes, big names are playing the Linux game now. Sun HP, and IBM would be among them.
Who really trusts Sun anyway? They're as bad as MS sometimes.
IBM - yeah, they're going Linux now. But they've still got tons of other stuff. It's a new fad to them - can you guarantee they'll support it? What happens when they decide Linux development is no longer financially viable? Then you've got an expenditure in Linux support and hardware that won't run most of IBM's proprietary software.
HP - do they really have any software of their own?
Now, some people have stated that they can buy support for their Linux software. What about when supporting it no longer is a profitable business? Then it's back to the web. And if your web browser doesn't work... now yer screwed.
But what about LUG's? Well, you can't count on your friends to solve your problems. A friend who went MCSE recently found out that those eight hours I spend at my desk, I'm actually doing work for a company, and I can't spend time to fix his problems at work. Unless they're living on unemployment, all the people in your LUG have jobs and have to be at them. And if you're down for the entire day, well, you're going to be explaining yourself to some very irate people the next day.
Now, this is NOT a slam on Linux, or a troll, as some have mislabeled me. Linux is a very good OS, and will do things that Windows will never do. But the fact remains that it's not ready for prime time. You can't depend on the community the way you can depend on a major software vendor.
And who said this is pro-MS? I'm just pointing them out as the oft-maligned example. Since you're all so infinitely familiar with them, they're the best example I have. You'd rather discuss another company, that's fine - we'll talk about Macromedia or Adobe or Autodesk or something.
In fact, let's do that. The firm I work for is a major manufacturer of flow control products. In english, we make pipe. Lots of it. This requires very complex machines, with many moving parts, which need to be fabricated at a moment's notice for installation during the next shift. To do this, we have a drawing database we're developing using a combination of AutoCAD 2000 and some proprietary software written for archiving.DWG files.
Those drawings are our business. If they go down, it's someone's job. Given that, can you trust the parts supply for a mill that can make a thousand feet of tube in one minute to a community project like Linux? One that doesn't have credentials attached to it; professional reputations that live or die on the support of their products? I can't go to my boss and say, "I'd like to use this program I got online. It won't cost us much, but the only support we can get comes from either:
A. Startups cashing in on a fad.
B. People on the Internet."
He'd laugh me out of his office. Now, not to slight the community - it's a great resource to me. But I don't rely on it professionally. I won't stake my reputation on software that isn't sold to me by a reputable business. And I'm relatively liberal. Imagine explaining to your stockholderw why you can't get your product distributed because the system is down and there's no one to call.
Have dealt with them, actually, and a couple of friends of mine are MCSE, so I know how good (and bad) they really can be.
This isn't just "AoE" won't work either. I've dealt with their customer service (crap), their tech support (rather knowledgeable, if you can find a human), and their developer support (decent, but they'll tell you to buy some MSPress book. To their credit, the book really does help.)
As for the MCSE's, well, one I know is a networking god (and yes, he also knows Linux), while another can't find his ass with both hands and a TDR.
If the DoJ had their way, they probably wouldn't even let PUCC tell us about it before they started sniffing our mail.
All of you college students out there, get a hold of your computing center's admins. Let them know that this is a bad idea. Most likely, they're geeks like us who are willing to listen (I know the guys around here at Purdue are somewhat accessible, but I also had press credentials at the time. Still, doesn't hurt to try.) Give them a link to this Slashdot story. Just make sure to get the point across in a clear, rational manner.
Many companies are beginning to sell Linux support. With the exception of Red Hat, who has been around for a substantial amount of time, I don't expect any of them to survive the next three years. It's like the dotcoms - all built on hype to inflate a stock price. Everyone gets rich, then everyone gets out. Everyone who's left gets screwed.
I know Microsoft will survive the next three years, however, even if they get broken up (a stupid idea, if you ask me, but let the government have their fun). I can go to them to get support. I can find an MCSE (not necessarily a talented one, mind you, but I can find one). I can find training materials, software updates, tools and extensions, order replacement media, and do all the other things that keep my machines running.
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad?
on
Bob Metcalfe On NPR
·
· Score: 1
Hehe... you're right, the industry needs a good swift kick in the ass. Maybe Linux is it... but I doubt it. Somehow I doubt that Microsoft cares that someone's running another OS. It isn't StarOffice, that's for sure. And the Gimp? Nothing compares to Photoshop, still.
So what's the application that will lend credible validation to Open Source? Something that provides a "killer app"? What's going to get people in the door?
As for good/bad software, I think that a dedicated and methodical team on a closed source project will make better software 9 out of 10 times than 20 kids in their basements. On the other hand, no commercial development team would have written DeCSS.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they were working on Linux. is there a version of Director for it? I wouldn't know - I'm a servant of the Dark Side (Win2000 kicks ass).
If so, it explains why the desktop looks the way it does, and more importantly, signals the use of Linux in the film production space.
The central computer was a box with LED's on it. It looked like a Thinking Machine though.
And in the book, it was a Cray Multi-XMP (page 116 - I got lucky and opened to it!)
First, killed is a figure of speech. That kind of punishment is still on the books, but I somehow doubt they'd use it. Perhaps I should have chosen a better expression, in light of historical precedent.
Second, I would really think that, in the modern age of the "dry" Greek system, that people would realize it's about more than parties and booze. Each year, the Greeks turn away countless numbers of people who just want to get drunk and laid. Those houses that don't are the jokes of the Greek system, and the houses that truly believe in their ideals strive to rise above such debasement.
As for your accusation of racism and alcoholism, I live in a dry house with a diverse brotherhood. Maybe you'd like to speak to our black brothers? Or the Latinos? Or the Koreans? That tosses that claim.
The artifical friends claim simply isn't worth my time.
Now to return to the original topic, the point isn't the fact that this is secret. It's that to gain the knowledge of the ritual, you have to pledge to keep it secret. It's your word and bond, your honor pledged to your brothers. Therefore, simply handing out someone else's secrets like this is disrespecting your own integrity as well as those who hold dear the ideals of the fraternity they join.
Some of us still take things like integrity seriously. Keeping your word is a skill I think more people in this world could stand to gain from learning.
And as for the "Open-Source" fraternity, many of a Greek house's ideals are public knowledge. For example, our Landmarks, By-Laws, and other such information is publicly available. Many of our ceremonies are exoteric as well.
It's called humor. See that moderation option marked "Funny"? FUCKING USE IT!
A sense of humor is a valuable thing, especially when dealing with geeks. For the love of god, please develop one.
It's an interesting bit of polarity... the very group trying to eliminate groups like Napster also creates their own.
Perhaps the reason behind this dichotomy is that AOL wants no competition for their media on the internet, i.e. "If it didn't come from us, you shouldn't be able to download it." This sort of control over the "new media" could be staggering.
This attitude recalls the days where people would ask me if I had AOL, to which I responded, "No, I have an Internet connection."
"Aren't they the same thing?"
If that's all the games that they're going to have, well, I'm not impressed. I want to be able to sit down and play something a bit more graphically impressive.
Why not simply put something together using the GLQuake engine? It's GPL, and I'm sure id wouldn't mind selling them a license. You could have something closer to the original vision of Quake - a networked system of worlds leading off into games through portals.
Blah. Who cares if it's ported? None of you will ever use it, lest you burn in hell for violating the commandments of ESR. None of us (the NT users) will touch it, because we know it'll run better on Windows. And the layman won't use it, because he doesn't know about Linux.
.NET would run on Linux (and it would, with all the rewriting and hacking they'd have to do), this is a waste of money for them.
Unless MS wants to show how much slower
Just because I'm not old-school like yourself means I don't deserve a computer? What about CAD users? They've mastered a complex package yet don't need to know what a BIOS is.
Or how about engineering? I use my computer to simulate airfoil surfaces. You want me to do this by hand? You don't want to see how many trees I'd kill doing so...
I know what a bit and BIOS are, and yet I don't program much (I know C and FORTRAN, and that's about it), I'm certainly not a scientist, and if all I want to do is finish up my AAE 251 homework and play some Quake, does that mean I don't deserve a computer?
is to give it to those who can best use it.
Now, whether or not the best group to give it to is corporate america is debatable, but simply by doing the right thing he demonstrated power.
Love or hate them, MS is the most important player in the OS market right now. And they will be for some time.
If they aren't so important, then why does everyone like to compare Linux to Windows all the time? And why does everyone complain about them all the time?
How intelligent. is this the level of discourse you devolve to whenever someone says something that maybe questions a little piece of your linux-centric world?
Have I ever played Quake3?
Hehe... I can't tell you how much of my life I've dropped into that game. Or Doom, that thing probably got a good year of my time.
I'm hardly on my way to losing, most of the surfaces are not grates in the level, and I learn my lessons well... I don't run in a pattern someone can trace through a thin wall without being able to see me.
And who says I've ever lost a game because of it? Not to say I haven't lost, but it's never come down to one cheap frag some lamer got by exploiting a bug in the system.
People who whine when exploits are taken away usually aren't good enough to win without them.
No we don't need them but they work damn well. While the entire ghetto OS line known as Win9x needs to die a quick death, the NT line is perfectly good for what it does. And Office is the best suite I've ever used - and I've used Lotus and Corel's offerings, so I've at least got the big three down. Quite simply, if it works, don't fuck with it. Vendors have been following that simple policy - and that's why you still buy machines with Windows installed.
If the net in tennis was made of elastic and a particularly good shot would fly right through it, would you consider that cheating?
Go outside, load up your rocket launcher (what do you mean you don't have one!), and shoot through a cast-iron wall. I bet whatever's on the other side will remain intact.
Hey, you're right about that too. I love my gameplay as much as the next guy.
But gameplay doesn't make for a lot of box copy, which sells games. I'll still buy it no matter how dated it is (hey, we still play Duke3D over our LAN sometimes), but who else will?
Microsoft doesn't sell to the educated market - it goes for the home user, Mom and Dad who are amazed that computers don't take up a whole room anymore. If MS sold for the power user market, they'd be pushing Win2000 Pro left and right - it's good enough to for once. Instead, they push Windows ME, which is dumbed down for the masses.
Therefore, the boxes with the complex words and pretty pictures will sell. Not the ones with gameplay. And that's unfortunate.
But that still doesn't change the fact that Halo's engine will be out of date by October 2001.
Yeah, I've seen the 150 MB trailer. And I'm impressed. But those tricks are being built into the next generation of engines already - someone has to be working on inverse kinematics by now (and why not, most developers use 3D Studio MAX, which is very heavily IK-based), the physics engines will improve due to free CPU cycles from new TnL accelerators, and many new engines are coming with excellent terrain handling.
Those would appear to be Halo's strong points, and they're all coming in the next 12 months.
If halo is delayed until 3-6 mo. after the xbox release (currently slated for October 12, 2001), its tech will be extremely dated. As PC Games go, it'll be left in the dust if MS doesn't release by April. Unless they've got one hell of a surprise up their sleeves, they've got to make a Q1 ship date.
I found this damn funny. I like Harms's writing, have since he worked at PC Gamer, and I'm glad they pointed this out. So to everyone who thinks this wasn't funny - guess what... it was. But that's all subjective anyway. Get a sense of HUMOR. Just because it was worth a few quick clicks and a couple laughs and nothing more doesn't mean it's not good enough for Slashdot. Then again, I was drunk when I read it, so I may be totally off-base. But who really cares? Thanks to Slashdot for the link, and for making my day a bit more humorous. Some people should really lighten up and appreciate them doing the same for them as well.
Thank you.
Oh, and you clarified a point that I don't think I made very well. It's not me I'm talking about, it's corporate America.
I hate getting support, be it from the internet, or from Linuxcare, or from MS. I hate explaining the problem to others. I can solve it faster myself. But some people, usually those who haven't the slighest idea what keeps the servers running, or what goes into setting them up, like having a number to call and hold someone responsible for getting some answers.
I can evaluate products on a testbed very cheaply. I can get eval versions of nearly anytinng. AutoCAD 2000i? It's on my desk somewhere. Back Office Server 4.5 SBE? Got it in a desk drawer.
With professional packages, if they even think they're going to make a sale, they'll send eval copies your way. It's not quite like AOL where you can begin making furniture from the discs they send you, but there's a lot of eval software available, often times without much looking.
Oh, and C Lee, what am I peddling? I could care less what you use, and I would like to see Open Source succeed. Sure, you may feel that your elite community doesn't need me, and it probably doesn't. It doesn't really matter to me nearly as much as getting what I need to do the job... and to hell with who has the source.
I'd rather bind up my defense into one post.
.DWG files.
Yes, big names are playing the Linux game now. Sun HP, and IBM would be among them.
Who really trusts Sun anyway? They're as bad as MS sometimes.
IBM - yeah, they're going Linux now. But they've still got tons of other stuff. It's a new fad to them - can you guarantee they'll support it? What happens when they decide Linux development is no longer financially viable? Then you've got an expenditure in Linux support and hardware that won't run most of IBM's proprietary software.
HP - do they really have any software of their own?
Now, some people have stated that they can buy support for their Linux software. What about when supporting it no longer is a profitable business? Then it's back to the web. And if your web browser doesn't work... now yer screwed.
But what about LUG's? Well, you can't count on your friends to solve your problems. A friend who went MCSE recently found out that those eight hours I spend at my desk, I'm actually doing work for a company, and I can't spend time to fix his problems at work. Unless they're living on unemployment, all the people in your LUG have jobs and have to be at them. And if you're down for the entire day, well, you're going to be explaining yourself to some very irate people the next day.
Now, this is NOT a slam on Linux, or a troll, as some have mislabeled me. Linux is a very good OS, and will do things that Windows will never do. But the fact remains that it's not ready for prime time. You can't depend on the community the way you can depend on a major software vendor.
And who said this is pro-MS? I'm just pointing them out as the oft-maligned example. Since you're all so infinitely familiar with them, they're the best example I have. You'd rather discuss another company, that's fine - we'll talk about Macromedia or Adobe or Autodesk or something.
In fact, let's do that. The firm I work for is a major manufacturer of flow control products. In english, we make pipe. Lots of it. This requires very complex machines, with many moving parts, which need to be fabricated at a moment's notice for installation during the next shift. To do this, we have a drawing database we're developing using a combination of AutoCAD 2000 and some proprietary software written for archiving
Those drawings are our business. If they go down, it's someone's job. Given that, can you trust the parts supply for a mill that can make a thousand feet of tube in one minute to a community project like Linux? One that doesn't have credentials attached to it; professional reputations that live or die on the support of their products? I can't go to my boss and say, "I'd like to use this program I got online. It won't cost us much, but the only support we can get comes from either:
A. Startups cashing in on a fad.
B. People on the Internet."
He'd laugh me out of his office. Now, not to slight the community - it's a great resource to me. But I don't rely on it professionally. I won't stake my reputation on software that isn't sold to me by a reputable business. And I'm relatively liberal. Imagine explaining to your stockholderw why you can't get your product distributed because the system is down and there's no one to call.
Have dealt with them, actually, and a couple of friends of mine are MCSE, so I know how good (and bad) they really can be.
This isn't just "AoE" won't work either. I've dealt with their customer service (crap), their tech support (rather knowledgeable, if you can find a human), and their developer support (decent, but they'll tell you to buy some MSPress book. To their credit, the book really does help.)
As for the MCSE's, well, one I know is a networking god (and yes, he also knows Linux), while another can't find his ass with both hands and a TDR.
... for not foisting this crap on us.
If the DoJ had their way, they probably wouldn't even let PUCC tell us about it before they started sniffing our mail.
All of you college students out there, get a hold of your computing center's admins. Let them know that this is a bad idea. Most likely, they're geeks like us who are willing to listen (I know the guys around here at Purdue are somewhat accessible, but I also had press credentials at the time. Still, doesn't hurt to try.) Give them a link to this Slashdot story. Just make sure to get the point across in a clear, rational manner.
Many companies are beginning to sell Linux support. With the exception of Red Hat, who has been around for a substantial amount of time, I don't expect any of them to survive the next three years. It's like the dotcoms - all built on hype to inflate a stock price. Everyone gets rich, then everyone gets out. Everyone who's left gets screwed.
I know Microsoft will survive the next three years, however, even if they get broken up (a stupid idea, if you ask me, but let the government have their fun). I can go to them to get support. I can find an MCSE (not necessarily a talented one, mind you, but I can find one). I can find training materials, software updates, tools and extensions, order replacement media, and do all the other things that keep my machines running.
Hehe... you're right, the industry needs a good swift kick in the ass. Maybe Linux is it... but I doubt it. Somehow I doubt that Microsoft cares that someone's running another OS. It isn't StarOffice, that's for sure. And the Gimp? Nothing compares to Photoshop, still.
So what's the application that will lend credible validation to Open Source? Something that provides a "killer app"? What's going to get people in the door?
As for good/bad software, I think that a dedicated and methodical team on a closed source project will make better software 9 out of 10 times than 20 kids in their basements. On the other hand, no commercial development team would have written DeCSS.