Actually we do. Microsoft has somehow managed to convince quite a lot of people that they are different to the old scummy Microsoft of the 90s. People need to be reminded of the fact they're not, they just hide it well.
I've always wanted to know why Con gave it the name that it has. It certainly grabs attention, but does it reference anything or is it just a use of profanity for no purpose?
Moreover, there's plenty of evidence that it's possible to run a content business on the internet without charging per digital download. Plenty of people do it. In short: yes, you can compete with free.
Possible, maybe. But not only would it be really difficult, you wouldn't make a fuckton of money from it either. No wonder it's not a popular model.
I'd hate to have been an engineer working on this thing. Putting all your heart and soul into the R&D trying to make something novel, interesting and cutting-edge, and all you get in response is hate.
Not that I'm defending the product or Microsoft. Theory is nice but if the physical product sucks then it sucks, but it's kinda obvious why companies are afraid to try something different.
How do you even noticed the problem of Linux desktop is not the OS itself, but the applications.
Quite true, and yet people run applications, not operating systems. The OS in a means to an end and if suitable apps (or driver support in our cases) is not up to snuff, then there's little surprise if it's got low market share.
I shall predict how the comments here are going to go:
* Someone will complain how Linux doesn't work as well as Windows for X, which is used as evidence why desktop Linux sucks. * Someone will counter-complain how Windows doesn't work as well as Linux for Y, which is used as evidence why complainers suck. * Repeat the first two endlessly * Someone will say Linux is free (beer/speech) and if there's a problem, you can fix it. * Someone will present a well thought-out essay as to why Linux has failed and continues to fail on the desktop, but will be ignored. * Someone will state it already IS the year of Linux on the desktop... for them, their family, friends, pets and their friend's pets. * There will be 1000+ comments in total.
To add my 2c, I tried Ubuntu 10.10 recently. The supplied open-source drivers for my ATI card had working vertical sync but crap power management, so my laptop would run hot and the fans were extremely noisy. I also didn't have much customization of features due to lack of control panel. The proprietary drivers had broken vertical sync but working power management, and the catalyst control panel. I needed the control panel for various functionality and the need to run the fans correctly was not in question, but the drivers couldn't properly vsync to save their life, and so videos tore. The control panel could force vsync to be enabled, but the next time the X server restarts, it conveniently "forgets" this and tears once more. The solution is then to disable vsync and reenable it.
I did tons of research, hoping to find a solution. There isn't none. ATI drivers are the responsibility of ATI, I am aware of that. It doesn't help that they suck balls though, and it affects the quality of my experience with Ubuntu (and hence Linux) as a whole. In the end I thought "fuck this" and went back to a working Windows 7 install.
Because some people enjoy the challenge of creating something fun, new, original and, yes, pointless.
I think there are enough opportunities out there for people to enjoy the challenge of creating something fun, new, original and USEFUL. We have tons of pointless crap done every day that gets attention. I like reading about useful developments more, if they came from a challenge.
Oh, and before someone rabbles "ITS THE COMMAND LINE THIS IS WHY LINUX IS NOT READY FOR THE DESKTOP RAGAGEDHDHA" there's a GUI way to do it: Right click the folder in nautilus and click Make Link, you'll get a shortcut. Delete the Pictures folder, cut and paste that link file that was made and rename it to Pictures./blockquote? Do you see the irony in your comment? You've tried to negate the predictable complaints about having to use the command line to fix something - by providing instructions on how to workaround a bug (it's a bug as far as I'm concerned) with a program that comes standard with Ubuntu now.
In other words, you haven't nullified the argument that Linux isn't ready for the desktop at all, because the workaround provided shouldn't even be necessary IN THE FIRST PLACE. No wonder people get tired of this shit. At least we have the choice to use another app I suppose
The main reason why I try to use the latest version of Ubuntu is mainly due to having the latest kernel and packages. The latest kernel is obvious - bug fixes in things like filesystems, drivers and other lower-level components are rather important. Regarding packages, it's an unfortunate fact that despite PPAs, it's still a bitch to keep up to date with the latest versions of most software. Ubuntu generally only packages security and minor version updates for things, and that's generally not enough for a desktop Linux distro where a lot of applications are undergoing fast-paced development, with major changes between versions.
That and the fact, from my experience at least, Canonical has a habit of leaving anything that's critically broken in an older version of Ubuntu and instead focusing on the latest distro. LTS versions are useless if all they're getting are security updates but half-implemented functionality is only being finished in later releases.
So if Canonical paid manufacturers to put "Supports Ubuntu" or other marketing material on each page (because it's simply that - marketing), would you consider that a "bribe" as well? Or is it just a bribe if it's Microsoft? Fucking hell.
True, and for the most part I'm not either. But knowing a little about pop culture makes it easier to understand what's going on with the rest of the population. Makes you a lot more sociable, or it would if you interact with others on a daily basis.
That script will also fail if, like we do, Autorun is (sensibly) disabled using Group Policy. If it isn't then I'd go talking to your IT department as to why not.:)
Here's the problem I have with your situation - one of the key selling points of GOG not having DRM on their games means that you are not tied to the service if and when it goes down (as you would be with Steam). So, by choosing to go with no DRM but not taking the time to BACK UP the installers means that you aren't taking advantage of the benefits that come with a lack of DRM, so there's no benefit to having gone with GOG in the first place.
Of course, if the no-DRM angle wasn't your primary interest in GOG, then there's no operational difference I suppose. But if you're given a chance to purchase something that has no DRM, then backup the files, cos there's no guarantee the service to download them again will remain available.
Dudes, this is Slashdot. Can't you just for once use a term which *doesn't* have a positive second meaning to a majority of your readers? Try one of these:
Languages change and evolve. The term "hackers" is used appropriately here because everyone knows what it means. Even the people who complain about how it should instead be "crackers" know what mainstream folks mean by the term "hackers", and so the meaning of "hackers" is at least correctly understood by everyone.
The war between the meaning of one term over the other is ridiculous. Just because it was correct 30 years ago doesn't mean things haven't changed.
When I close the lid on my MacBook, OS X puts it to sleep. When I open the lid, it wakes up. Every time. Why can't Windows do this?
This is going to sound annoying and typical, but it can. It works flawlessly for my with Windows 7 for example. BUT... Windows has to handle a vastly larger array of configurations to deal with when compared to the very specific configurations of MacBooks. Obviously with that level of control over the important bits of the hardware, OS X is going to have a much easier time of consistently going to sleep and resuming than an OS which has to accommodate a shedload of different hardware.
Really, we are. If our "fellow" humans are seeing fit to make out lives more difficult than they need to be for no real benefit (as the FBI are doing with Wikipedia), then how the fuck are we suppose to progress as a race? We're wasting time and effort making up bullshit reasons for messing around with each other, suing each other and other legal threats for petty things like this, when all it does is increase stress levels and make us despise each other that little bit more.
It's amazing how much headache and pain would go away if people just chilled once in a while, so that we could live and let live.
Achievements which reward the player for doing something that is tricky, requires ingenuity or patience and is NOT a mandatory part of the game are good. An example would be in getting the gnome in HL2: Episode 2 into space.
Achievements which reward the player for doing something that they'll have to do anyway if they want to progress in the game are not. An example would be be a good portion of the Fallout 3 achievements which are mandatory plot tasks.
Well it would have been nice if Microsoft bothered to sell the Zune overseas, such as here in Australia. But they didn't. Why they didn't is an exercise left up to those who give a shit. Not my problem if Microsoft didn't think seriously enough about their product to warrant worldwide competition with the iPod.
Yes, Red Faction. A game which touted the ability to use a rocket launcher to blow the shit out of rocky caverns and construct new tunnels to traverse through... and yet when fired at the partitions in office cubicles would do absolutely nothing.
Still, apparently it worked much better in multiplayer. Probably because the need to artificially limit the player was less of a requirement in MP than it was in SP.
Slashdot Mirror
There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".
Now, unfortunately, it's no-longer the case you can make that generalization. The whole world's gone crazy...
Actually we do. Microsoft has somehow managed to convince quite a lot of people that they are different to the old scummy Microsoft of the 90s. People need to be reminded of the fact they're not, they just hide it well.
An MIT student works out an interesting way to merge Kinetic with existing technologies for the benefit of users.
vs.
A Microsoft rep talks about how Kinetic can be used to foster yet more advertising on people ...
Interesting difference in the application of advanced technology.
I've always wanted to know why Con gave it the name that it has. It certainly grabs attention, but does it reference anything or is it just a use of profanity for no purpose?
Damn straight. Going from Vista to 7 was an amazing improvement.
Possible, maybe. But not only would it be really difficult, you wouldn't make a fuckton of money from it either. No wonder it's not a popular model.
I'd hate to have been an engineer working on this thing. Putting all your heart and soul into the R&D trying to make something novel, interesting and cutting-edge, and all you get in response is hate.
Not that I'm defending the product or Microsoft. Theory is nice but if the physical product sucks then it sucks, but it's kinda obvious why companies are afraid to try something different.
Quite true, and yet people run applications, not operating systems. The OS in a means to an end and if suitable apps (or driver support in our cases) is not up to snuff, then there's little surprise if it's got low market share.
I shall predict how the comments here are going to go:
* Someone will complain how Linux doesn't work as well as Windows for X, which is used as evidence why desktop Linux sucks.
* Someone will counter-complain how Windows doesn't work as well as Linux for Y, which is used as evidence why complainers suck.
* Repeat the first two endlessly
* Someone will say Linux is free (beer/speech) and if there's a problem, you can fix it.
* Someone will present a well thought-out essay as to why Linux has failed and continues to fail on the desktop, but will be ignored.
* Someone will state it already IS the year of Linux on the desktop... for them, their family, friends, pets and their friend's pets.
* There will be 1000+ comments in total.
To add my 2c, I tried Ubuntu 10.10 recently. The supplied open-source drivers for my ATI card had working vertical sync but crap power management, so my laptop would run hot and the fans were extremely noisy. I also didn't have much customization of features due to lack of control panel. The proprietary drivers had broken vertical sync but working power management, and the catalyst control panel. I needed the control panel for various functionality and the need to run the fans correctly was not in question, but the drivers couldn't properly vsync to save their life, and so videos tore. The control panel could force vsync to be enabled, but the next time the X server restarts, it conveniently "forgets" this and tears once more. The solution is then to disable vsync and reenable it.
I did tons of research, hoping to find a solution. There isn't none. ATI drivers are the responsibility of ATI, I am aware of that. It doesn't help that they suck balls though, and it affects the quality of my experience with Ubuntu (and hence Linux) as a whole. In the end I thought "fuck this" and went back to a working Windows 7 install.
I think there are enough opportunities out there for people to enjoy the challenge of creating something fun, new, original and USEFUL. We have tons of pointless crap done every day that gets attention. I like reading about useful developments more, if they came from a challenge.
The main reason why I try to use the latest version of Ubuntu is mainly due to having the latest kernel and packages. The latest kernel is obvious - bug fixes in things like filesystems, drivers and other lower-level components are rather important. Regarding packages, it's an unfortunate fact that despite PPAs, it's still a bitch to keep up to date with the latest versions of most software. Ubuntu generally only packages security and minor version updates for things, and that's generally not enough for a desktop Linux distro where a lot of applications are undergoing fast-paced development, with major changes between versions.
That and the fact, from my experience at least, Canonical has a habit of leaving anything that's critically broken in an older version of Ubuntu and instead focusing on the latest distro. LTS versions are useless if all they're getting are security updates but half-implemented functionality is only being finished in later releases.
So if Canonical paid manufacturers to put "Supports Ubuntu" or other marketing material on each page (because it's simply that - marketing), would you consider that a "bribe" as well? Or is it just a bribe if it's Microsoft? Fucking hell.
True, and for the most part I'm not either. But knowing a little about pop culture makes it easier to understand what's going on with the rest of the population. Makes you a lot more sociable, or it would if you interact with others on a daily basis.
That script will also fail if, like we do, Autorun is (sensibly) disabled using Group Policy. If it isn't then I'd go talking to your IT department as to why not. :)
[quote]Wow... you don't want to put a resource embargo on Japan. That has a tendency to cause problems, like Pearl Harbor.[/quote]
[quote]Or Gundam suits.[/quote]
Here's the problem I have with your situation - one of the key selling points of GOG not having DRM on their games means that you are not tied to the service if and when it goes down (as you would be with Steam). So, by choosing to go with no DRM but not taking the time to BACK UP the installers means that you aren't taking advantage of the benefits that come with a lack of DRM, so there's no benefit to having gone with GOG in the first place.
Of course, if the no-DRM angle wasn't your primary interest in GOG, then there's no operational difference I suppose. But if you're given a chance to purchase something that has no DRM, then backup the files, cos there's no guarantee the service to download them again will remain available.
Languages change and evolve. The term "hackers" is used appropriately here because everyone knows what it means. Even the people who complain about how it should instead be "crackers" know what mainstream folks mean by the term "hackers", and so the meaning of "hackers" is at least correctly understood by everyone.
The war between the meaning of one term over the other is ridiculous. Just because it was correct 30 years ago doesn't mean things haven't changed.
This is going to sound annoying and typical, but it can. It works flawlessly for my with Windows 7 for example. BUT... Windows has to handle a vastly larger array of configurations to deal with when compared to the very specific configurations of MacBooks. Obviously with that level of control over the important bits of the hardware, OS X is going to have a much easier time of consistently going to sleep and resuming than an OS which has to accommodate a shedload of different hardware.
Why must everything be a "war"?
The browser wars
The operating system wars
The friggin' video codec wars
Everyone wants to get into fights for some reason, when all that's really happening is competition.
Funny how an AC is the only one who picked up on this rather important fact.
Really, we are. If our "fellow" humans are seeing fit to make out lives more difficult than they need to be for no real benefit (as the FBI are doing with Wikipedia), then how the fuck are we suppose to progress as a race? We're wasting time and effort making up bullshit reasons for messing around with each other, suing each other and other legal threats for petty things like this, when all it does is increase stress levels and make us despise each other that little bit more.
It's amazing how much headache and pain would go away if people just chilled once in a while, so that we could live and let live.
Achievements which reward the player for doing something that is tricky, requires ingenuity or patience and is NOT a mandatory part of the game are good. An example would be in getting the gnome in HL2: Episode 2 into space.
Achievements which reward the player for doing something that they'll have to do anyway if they want to progress in the game are not. An example would be be a good portion of the Fallout 3 achievements which are mandatory plot tasks.
Well it would have been nice if Microsoft bothered to sell the Zune overseas, such as here in Australia. But they didn't. Why they didn't is an exercise left up to those who give a shit. Not my problem if Microsoft didn't think seriously enough about their product to warrant worldwide competition with the iPod.
Yes, Red Faction. A game which touted the ability to use a rocket launcher to blow the shit out of rocky caverns and construct new tunnels to traverse through... and yet when fired at the partitions in office cubicles would do absolutely nothing.
Still, apparently it worked much better in multiplayer. Probably because the need to artificially limit the player was less of a requirement in MP than it was in SP.