It's great that DirectX supports all of this funky hardware; this wouldn't be a problem under Linux, of course, because the video card manufacturer could write their own kernel module that makes it work correctly with the OS. Now, if you're talking about having a standard set of abstractions for all video card manufacturers to write to, this very article is discussing how two manufacturer's cards aren't going to work equally well even with the benefit of DirectX.
If you don't think that DirectX has helped Windows attain the greatest amount of hardware support, you are being
unrealistic. Marketshare alone only insures so much. Don't believe me? Explain to me how it is that not
everything has Linux drivers dispite the amazing growth of Linux?
I can explain that very easily - "amazing growth" does not equal "majority market share". The amazing growth has mostly been in the server market, so that there's no pressure on consumer video card makers to worry about Linux.
Market share does matter, simply because you can't make a video card that doesn't work with Windows and expect to stay in business. It may be that there's been some contribution as well from DirectX and that makes the process less painful for video card manufacturers., but I don't think you can really pin too much on it because even if Windows had the worst graphics API on the market, card developers would still have to do whatever it takes to support Windows from the start, or else start looking for other employment.
A better test would be: if Linux had a wonderful graphics abstraction layer (I'm not an expert here, but perhaps SDL qualifies? I'm not sure what Linux needs to add in this area) and this graphics layer was much better than DirectX, would it automatically gain a huge amount of market share and have great support from video card makers? The answer is: not if the Linux standard was incompatible with the dominant market player, DirectX. Nobody's going to switch their support to a superior technical alternative if it's going to lose them money. DirectX may be superior to what came before, but without Microsoft's market dominance it would not have necessarily ensured complete driver support for Windows.
The fact that all video cards work in Windows from day one (which I'm not sure I believe) has nothing to do with Windows, Microsoft, or the proprietariness of DirectX. It has everything to do with the market share of that platform, which just happens to be Microsoft Windows. There's no reason you couldn't have great drivers for *nix on day 1, it just has to be worth the card manufacturer's while. Since right now the largest platform uses DirectX, cards have drivers for that right away and everything else is secondary.
Heck, in many cases with free *nix the manufacturer could actually cut costs by letting interested developers write drivers to the specs of their hardware.
When more virus creators are aware of how to make viruses to be cross-platform, then any OS will become a
target. Only problem is that Windows is the majority here and the reason why it is targeted.
Well, and when it's easy for users to click on strange attachments to run them. I don't see this as being a problem in the *nix world any time soon, unless the Evolution folks add in a "feature" like that.
So let me get this straight: in order to see web pages without random crap attached, I have to install and use one of the most often abused random crap plugins around? Oh, the irony!
Listen closely, moron, and I'll try to type slowly for your benefit:
I can remember when posting something that was on-topic, not redundant, and an interesting thought (to me at least, although of course there's room for disagreement) was the whole point of the karma system. As far as I'm concerned, that's still the point. If you don't like it, complain to the Taco and/or get your own site.
I'm sorry that the karma system makes it harder for malignant AC's like you to get their trolls seen. Oh wait, no I'm not. In fact, I like a system that encourages thoughtful commentary rather than the opposite. I can see why you wouldn't, though.
I don't see you adding to the discussion here at all. But of course, that was never your intention. If you're just pissed off today, the least you could do is be constructive with your anger and post a spelling/grammar flame instead.
So, in closing, please take a long walk off of a short plank, skip rope in traffic, pull the wings off of flies, or do whatever else it is that people like you do when they can't be bothered to act like adults.
In general, not knowing what channel you're on is really a step forward - it means you're disregarding network affiliation and just watching whatever you prefer, regardless of what channel it's on. If you've already recorded the broadcast and are watching it later, then the channel only really mattered at the time you recorded it. This is a victory for consumer choice over marketing mindshare.
But in another sense, I think we have to be careful as a society to maintain the diversity of interest that TV provides. I could (or I expect to be able to in a couple years) program my PVR to always find sci-fi for me to watch, so that my TV is essentially one big sci-fi jukebox with no commercials. But without those commercials, I wouldn't see the teasers for the (usually deplorable, I admit) local news, which every once in a while has a story that affects me. I wouldn't see promotions for other non-sci fi shows that I might actually be interested in. I would have effectively turned inward.
I don't like ads much either, but I think as a society we need to think carefully about exactly how people will find out about new things that might expand their horizons, when all of our forms of media are tending towards allowing the user to totally self-select the news and entertainment that they see and hear. Avoiding ads isn't a bad thing necessarily, but now we have the ability to close our minds to new concepts as easily as we close them to obnoxious sales pitches.
I don't have a solution, but I think this is going to be more and more of a problem. Sites like/. might be part of the solution - although you would think this is a fairly narrowly-focused site, in fact I've learned a lot from the opposing viewpoints that different posters have brought up, and in some cases completely reevaluated my beliefs. I've definitely picked up a lot more than if I spent equivalent time reading the newspaper or watching the news. So maybe web logs (I refuse to use "blog") are the answer:)
I'd ask him if he remembered when he sold out to such a degree.
IIRC it was right after the first movie - there were all sorts of toys almost immediately. Any bitching now about Lucas' selling out is about 20 years too late:)
...according to the article, it's going to be running eCos, not Linux. eCos is another one of RH's acquisitions, and the article says that it's open source too. Can anyone comment on developing for eCos?
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Well, if the case had already reached a verdict, that verdict is thrown out. But the government can refile the case without the offending evidence. Unless of course that conflicts with double jeopardy?
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Or they just don't want to show their hand for a case of this magnitude:) I bet the NSA and the U.S. Military do have hardware that can crack common commercial-grade encryption pretty quickly, even if they don't have any special mathematical tricks or back doors to use.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
But searching someone's safety deposit box would also require a warrant, which would be separate from the warrant to search someone's home. I don't think your analogy is correct.
There is a distinction between hard copy communications which are physical objects that may be searched with a search warrant, and immaterial communications (electronic or just voice) which are by definition transitory and don't hang around to be searched. IMHO, if he had anything written down they could have taken it when they searched, but leaving a device which effectively converts a transitory communication (password keystrokes) into a permanent piece of evidence (keystrokes stored in a bug) is effectively a wiretap, rather than a search of physical property that the mafioso already had. The agents had to do something to convert his communications into physical form so they could take it with a search, and in doing so they stepped over the line into wiretap land.
Your argument has ludicrous consequences, because you could use it to do essentially any wiretap with just a search warrant - just place miniature voice recorders in all the phones, wait a week, come back again and harvest the tapes, and see what you got. I don't think that's consistent with the spirit of the law, which expects law enforcement to get a separate wiretap warrant for intercepting communications.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Hint: those are different groups of slashdotters, just like there are different lobbying groups in the business world and differences of opinion between politicians. It makes a funny comment, but it's not particularly accurate.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
I wish you luck with your efforts, but IIRC there was a request for comments on the implementation of the DMCA after it was passed. This was orchestrated by either the USPTO or maybe the Library of Congress. People made the same comments at that time, but they didn't have much effect.
Hopefully since the Canadian law isn't passed yet, you'll have a little more chance. I wouldn't underestimate either the savvy of your legislature or underestimate the power of Big Business just yet, though...
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
The MPAA and the RIAA may be immoral, and it may be oppresive... but downloading songs that you have not paid for is
illegal, and it is theft. And it gives the MPAA and the RIAA's arguments for stronger controls amazing amounts of credibility,
while completely destroying the argument against.
I would disagree with that - no matter how many people are really doing something wrong, it doesn't remove the fact that the DMCA is over-broad. It would have been possible to write a DMCA that would have prevented Napster while allowing ebook reverse-engineering, the U.S. just didn't get the right law written. Heck, even the pre-existing copyright law would have been sufficient to stop the abusers of Napster if copyright holders weren't too lazy to actually enforce their own copyrights.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Slashdot Mirror
It's great that DirectX supports all of this funky hardware; this wouldn't be a problem under Linux, of course, because the video card manufacturer could write their own kernel module that makes it work correctly with the OS. Now, if you're talking about having a standard set of abstractions for all video card manufacturers to write to, this very article is discussing how two manufacturer's cards aren't going to work equally well even with the benefit of DirectX.
I can explain that very easily - "amazing growth" does not equal "majority market share". The amazing growth has mostly been in the server market, so that there's no pressure on consumer video card makers to worry about Linux.
Market share does matter, simply because you can't make a video card that doesn't work with Windows and expect to stay in business. It may be that there's been some contribution as well from DirectX and that makes the process less painful for video card manufacturers., but I don't think you can really pin too much on it because even if Windows had the worst graphics API on the market, card developers would still have to do whatever it takes to support Windows from the start, or else start looking for other employment.
A better test would be: if Linux had a wonderful graphics abstraction layer (I'm not an expert here, but perhaps SDL qualifies? I'm not sure what Linux needs to add in this area) and this graphics layer was much better than DirectX, would it automatically gain a huge amount of market share and have great support from video card makers? The answer is: not if the Linux standard was incompatible with the dominant market player, DirectX. Nobody's going to switch their support to a superior technical alternative if it's going to lose them money. DirectX may be superior to what came before, but without Microsoft's market dominance it would not have necessarily ensured complete driver support for Windows.
Now if only schools would teach things that way, rather than being so obsessively focused on teaching exactly one tool as the One True Way.
The fact that all video cards work in Windows from day one (which I'm not sure I believe) has nothing to do with Windows, Microsoft, or the proprietariness of DirectX. It has everything to do with the market share of that platform, which just happens to be Microsoft Windows. There's no reason you couldn't have great drivers for *nix on day 1, it just has to be worth the card manufacturer's while. Since right now the largest platform uses DirectX, cards have drivers for that right away and everything else is secondary.
Heck, in many cases with free *nix the manufacturer could actually cut costs by letting interested developers write drivers to the specs of their hardware.
Well, and when it's easy for users to click on strange attachments to run them. I don't see this as being a problem in the *nix world any time soon, unless the Evolution folks add in a "feature" like that.
So let me get this straight: in order to see web pages without random crap attached, I have to install and use one of the most often abused random crap plugins around? Oh, the irony!
If you're at work, do yourself a favor and don't try to bring up said web page :)
I thought there already was a Microsoft tax on stupid admins?
Listen closely, moron, and I'll try to type slowly for your benefit:
So, in closing, please take a long walk off of a short plank, skip rope in traffic, pull the wings off of flies, or do whatever else it is that people like you do when they can't be bothered to act like adults.
I'm not shedding too many tears for cable networks - I'm already paying them, I shouldn't have to watch ads as well.
In general, not knowing what channel you're on is really a step forward - it means you're disregarding network affiliation and just watching whatever you prefer, regardless of what channel it's on. If you've already recorded the broadcast and are watching it later, then the channel only really mattered at the time you recorded it. This is a victory for consumer choice over marketing mindshare.
But in another sense, I think we have to be careful as a society to maintain the diversity of interest that TV provides. I could (or I expect to be able to in a couple years) program my PVR to always find sci-fi for me to watch, so that my TV is essentially one big sci-fi jukebox with no commercials. But without those commercials, I wouldn't see the teasers for the (usually deplorable, I admit) local news, which every once in a while has a story that affects me. I wouldn't see promotions for other non-sci fi shows that I might actually be interested in. I would have effectively turned inward.
I don't like ads much either, but I think as a society we need to think carefully about exactly how people will find out about new things that might expand their horizons, when all of our forms of media are tending towards allowing the user to totally self-select the news and entertainment that they see and hear. Avoiding ads isn't a bad thing necessarily, but now we have the ability to close our minds to new concepts as easily as we close them to obnoxious sales pitches.
I don't have a solution, but I think this is going to be more and more of a problem. Sites like /. might be part of the solution - although you would think this is a fairly narrowly-focused site, in fact I've learned a lot from the opposing viewpoints that different posters have brought up, and in some cases completely reevaluated my beliefs. I've definitely picked up a lot more than if I spent equivalent time reading the newspaper or watching the news. So maybe web logs (I refuse to use "blog") are the answer :)
At one point ToysRUs was attempting to remove them from the face of the 'net. Did they settle, or win their suit?
IIRC it was right after the first movie - there were all sorts of toys almost immediately. Any bitching now about Lucas' selling out is about 20 years too late :)
...according to the article, it's going to be running eCos, not Linux. eCos is another one of RH's acquisitions, and the article says that it's open source too. Can anyone comment on developing for eCos?
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
How about "wrong story" instead? How did this get moderated up, anyway?
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Yes, compulsory licensing is already a fact. Interestingly enough, webcast licenses are just now coming up for negotiation. See JWZ's writeup for more good info on the issue.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Well, if the case had already reached a verdict, that verdict is thrown out. But the government can refile the case without the offending evidence. Unless of course that conflicts with double jeopardy?
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
It's not piracy, it's unauthorized copyright infr...oh wait, this really would be piracy. Never mind :)
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Well, look on the bright side. At least the FBI isn't illegally accessing Russian computers this time :) Maybe they reall are kindler and gentler...
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
A search warrant != legal authorization to plant a bug.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
On the plus side, mobsters that pass on email viruses end up with a much sterner punishment than just a talking-to by the sysadmin :)
"Well, maybe if Julio here was to break your 'Send' finger..."
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Or they just don't want to show their hand for a case of this magnitude :) I bet the NSA and the U.S. Military do have hardware that can crack common commercial-grade encryption pretty quickly, even if they don't have any special mathematical tricks or back doors to use.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
But searching someone's safety deposit box would also require a warrant, which would be separate from the warrant to search someone's home. I don't think your analogy is correct.
There is a distinction between hard copy communications which are physical objects that may be searched with a search warrant, and immaterial communications (electronic or just voice) which are by definition transitory and don't hang around to be searched. IMHO, if he had anything written down they could have taken it when they searched, but leaving a device which effectively converts a transitory communication (password keystrokes) into a permanent piece of evidence (keystrokes stored in a bug) is effectively a wiretap, rather than a search of physical property that the mafioso already had. The agents had to do something to convert his communications into physical form so they could take it with a search, and in doing so they stepped over the line into wiretap land.
Your argument has ludicrous consequences, because you could use it to do essentially any wiretap with just a search warrant - just place miniature voice recorders in all the phones, wait a week, come back again and harvest the tapes, and see what you got. I don't think that's consistent with the spirit of the law, which expects law enforcement to get a separate wiretap warrant for intercepting communications.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Hint: those are different groups of slashdotters, just like there are different lobbying groups in the business world and differences of opinion between politicians. It makes a funny comment, but it's not particularly accurate.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
I wish you luck with your efforts, but IIRC there was a request for comments on the implementation of the DMCA after it was passed. This was orchestrated by either the USPTO or maybe the Library of Congress. People made the same comments at that time, but they didn't have much effect.
Hopefully since the Canadian law isn't passed yet, you'll have a little more chance. I wouldn't underestimate either the savvy of your legislature or underestimate the power of Big Business just yet, though...
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
I would disagree with that - no matter how many people are really doing something wrong, it doesn't remove the fact that the DMCA is over-broad. It would have been possible to write a DMCA that would have prevented Napster while allowing ebook reverse-engineering, the U.S. just didn't get the right law written. Heck, even the pre-existing copyright law would have been sufficient to stop the abusers of Napster if copyright holders weren't too lazy to actually enforce their own copyrights.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",