The RTS genre officially died when it was announced that StarCraft II will not have LAN. You may pay your respects to Company of Heroes and all of its expansions.
As far as I am concerned, when I started needing to get stuff done, instead of 'messing around on the computer' is when the shift from Linux to OS X happened for my home computer use.
Really? I find Linux (or at least Ubuntu) is the opposite way. Set it up for a half an hour, and then everything works behind the scenes. Updates OS-wide, various configurations and whatnot, new programs, etc. It seems so hands-off to me. Maybe I'm just a weird Linux user.
He's pointing out that if you look at some of the noob forums, you see a doggone mess that really does translate into those two groups: the developers and the grandmas. Either you're working on the project, or you're a user who doesn't know what anything does and accidentally formatted his hard drive because some overzealous Linux user told them that "installing an OS is easy." There's a very, very small minority of people who know what they're talking about, and they answer most of the questions on those forums. (There's also the free software obsessed kids, but they're a minority, too.) As a developer, you have to realize how a program's popularity (especially in something as relatively huge as Thunderbird) might bring in quite a few...ah, let's say, cruft into the bug trackers. I don't blame the devs one bit. Most of the smart users don't even bother interacting with the developers, oddly enough.
I think the only thing standing in the way of Linux's success is the fact that most people don't know enough about computers to understand the concept. I gave up hope for whatever "cause" there is out there approximately half an hour after joining the Ubuntu forums a few years ago. Just take a nose around some of their forums, like the AC suggested. THAT'S why Linux isn't ever going to succeed; well, at least, not without some OEM support.
That said, I always chuckle when I hear "Open Source needs this or that." Good luck. More people think they have the solution to "Open Source's struggles" than I have hairs on my head - and I still have quite a few, believe it or not.
Eh. I didn't like Windows 7 that much. I actually prefer Vista, as long as the machine is powerful enough. That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end (there's a reason why I didn't buy a Mac, Microsoft). But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I can't navigate very quickly yet, even after several months, which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP (after upgrading from 98), Gnome and KDE.
Probably just growing pains, but I can't share your enthusiasm.
I can't say much about Windows (I just install VLC), but in Ubuntu, the codecs are just a single "ubuntu-restricted-extras" away, and for all of the video formats it plays it doesn't really take up that much room. Maybe 20 MB?
And there are only two major codecs being discussed now. Websites will flock to whatever most people have installed, so whatever IE and maybe Firefox picks will be first choice. If you force people to install an obscure codec, they don't see your content - bad for traffic.
How can free software have a strategy for hardware at all? It's free software, not free hardware.
Again, this isn't just free software that licensing this will damage. End users will pay the price for licensing. It's not free; not even freeware.
And no, "free software" as a collective is not going in one direction. When the hell has any one type of software ever done that? Is "propietary software" going in one direction, too? Sure, parts have objectives - Gnome is going their pretty nifty Gnome Shell (which has no "me too" in it, I can assure you) and KDE is simply interested in polishing what they've got so far. The Linux kernel is working out filesystems and making things faster, all the while adding drivers. As a collective, these projects are making progress, but not in any distinct fashion. But then again, are all of the programs installed on the average Windows box also cohesively working as a team? I dare say not. You have a double standard for free software because you lump them together as if they should be a team, which is ludicrous at best.
But browsers are FREE. Licensing isn't an issue for software that isn't given away. This stuff doesn't come free (or cheap), you know.
Remember how the MPEG "patent police" came and confiscated a whole bunch of MP3 playing devices at a convention? Sandisk still has a grudge about that; that's partially why they added OGG and FLAC capabilities to their latest players, I'd guess.
It's true; KOTOR is worth it. But Bioware was just merged with Mythic Entertainment, owned by EA, who seem to like putting a few games on Steam now and then. Hopefully they could bang something out with Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind. Lame attempt at humor.
The RTS genre officially died when it was announced that StarCraft II will not have LAN. You may pay your respects to Company of Heroes and all of its expansions.
Nimey confirms it: Slashdot's humor is dead.
Please insert Windows 7 Floppy Disc 127,693 Part A.
Because most feature requests are "I wAnt s0m warez. This is teh Free Softwarez?!"
Most people do not even know about alternatives.
Even if they did, installing and configuring an OS is much, much more complex than what a lot of computer users can (and should) handle.
They're not getting paid for it, they can't be fired for failure, so what do they care?
A hell of a lot of them are employed by someone, somewhere, nowadays, at least on the big projects.
As far as I am concerned, when I started needing to get stuff done, instead of 'messing around on the computer' is when the shift from Linux to OS X happened for my home computer use.
Really? I find Linux (or at least Ubuntu) is the opposite way. Set it up for a half an hour, and then everything works behind the scenes. Updates OS-wide, various configurations and whatnot, new programs, etc. It seems so hands-off to me. Maybe I'm just a weird Linux user.
Seriously, with every Jack writing a piece of "analysis" these days, I am reminded of the saying: "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one".
The new headline grabber lately has been "Open Source needs [blank] to succeed."
Open Source has "blank" already, folks. It's porn, and porn is cross platform.
Closed-source and other funded software can pay people for the unfun work of UI design and documentation.
KDE has some UI design people (I can't remember who funds them), but who knows what kind of work they do.
He's pointing out that if you look at some of the noob forums, you see a doggone mess that really does translate into those two groups: the developers and the grandmas. Either you're working on the project, or you're a user who doesn't know what anything does and accidentally formatted his hard drive because some overzealous Linux user told them that "installing an OS is easy." There's a very, very small minority of people who know what they're talking about, and they answer most of the questions on those forums. (There's also the free software obsessed kids, but they're a minority, too.) As a developer, you have to realize how a program's popularity (especially in something as relatively huge as Thunderbird) might bring in quite a few...ah, let's say, cruft into the bug trackers. I don't blame the devs one bit. Most of the smart users don't even bother interacting with the developers, oddly enough.
I think the only thing standing in the way of Linux's success is the fact that most people don't know enough about computers to understand the concept. I gave up hope for whatever "cause" there is out there approximately half an hour after joining the Ubuntu forums a few years ago. Just take a nose around some of their forums, like the AC suggested. THAT'S why Linux isn't ever going to succeed; well, at least, not without some OEM support.
That said, I always chuckle when I hear "Open Source needs this or that." Good luck. More people think they have the solution to "Open Source's struggles" than I have hairs on my head - and I still have quite a few, believe it or not.
"why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even run explorer in the Chrome OS".
Google then grabs the board game "Monopoly" and chucks it at the lawyer, then turns to the jury and says, "Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."
I'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now
The million dollar question, of course, is if this matters. Do people need that power of Photoshop? Answer that and you have the web's cloud future.
Eh. I didn't like Windows 7 that much. I actually prefer Vista, as long as the machine is powerful enough. That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end (there's a reason why I didn't buy a Mac, Microsoft). But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I can't navigate very quickly yet, even after several months, which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP (after upgrading from 98), Gnome and KDE.
Probably just growing pains, but I can't share your enthusiasm.
That's because Microsoft was a monopoly. Google isn't quite a monopolist, at least, not yet.
You don't like Google's vision for Linux on netbooks. What's your alternative vision?
Ratpoison!
The Pirate Bay is $0 a month...oh, wait.
Oh no, no. No no no no no no.
Hey, look, Shia LaBouf made a cameo today on Slashdot!
Xine-UI is pretty good. Actually, any Xine-based player plays DVD menus fairly well.
I can't say much about Windows (I just install VLC), but in Ubuntu, the codecs are just a single "ubuntu-restricted-extras" away, and for all of the video formats it plays it doesn't really take up that much room. Maybe 20 MB?
And there are only two major codecs being discussed now. Websites will flock to whatever most people have installed, so whatever IE and maybe Firefox picks will be first choice. If you force people to install an obscure codec, they don't see your content - bad for traffic.
How can free software have a strategy for hardware at all? It's free software, not free hardware.
Again, this isn't just free software that licensing this will damage. End users will pay the price for licensing. It's not free; not even freeware.
And no, "free software" as a collective is not going in one direction. When the hell has any one type of software ever done that? Is "propietary software" going in one direction, too? Sure, parts have objectives - Gnome is going their pretty nifty Gnome Shell (which has no "me too" in it, I can assure you) and KDE is simply interested in polishing what they've got so far. The Linux kernel is working out filesystems and making things faster, all the while adding drivers. As a collective, these projects are making progress, but not in any distinct fashion. But then again, are all of the programs installed on the average Windows box also cohesively working as a team? I dare say not. You have a double standard for free software because you lump them together as if they should be a team, which is ludicrous at best.
But browsers are FREE. Licensing isn't an issue for software that isn't given away. This stuff doesn't come free (or cheap), you know.
Remember how the MPEG "patent police" came and confiscated a whole bunch of MP3 playing devices at a convention? Sandisk still has a grudge about that; that's partially why they added OGG and FLAC capabilities to their latest players, I'd guess.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/0316250
It's true; KOTOR is worth it. But Bioware was just merged with Mythic Entertainment, owned by EA, who seem to like putting a few games on Steam now and then. Hopefully they could bang something out with Microsoft.
Plus three more...and Grim Fandango.
I'm just waiting for somebody to go, "fuck that Java shit." But read the summary, people! Secure means security which means secure!
Also: But can it run Crysis?