Surely if there was a standard distro, called for the sake of argument Standard Linux, which implemented a commonly-agreed basic minimum, this would be a good thing? It would give people something to base other distros around while still retaining core compatibility, keeping all the paths the same, as well as giving an agreed minimum development platform. This would in turn attract developers to Linux, as they could guarantee a given set of available libraries etc to code for.
Also, this Standard Linux could be the agreed standard for comparisons with other operating systems for benchmarking, rather than letting biased people take on the weakest of the current lot. This would allow Linux as a brand to compete, instead of Linux being fragmented into RedHat, SuSe, Debian, etc - these would still exist, but the core of each would be the same or similar.
As a long-time lurker there, Sega really haven't got a leg to stand on. There is no way that a visitor to the isonews website will be able to find anything to download other than nfo files as a DIRECT result of information posted on the site. Sega can bluster all they like, but the site isn't breaking the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law. And to the question posted elsewhere: if my house got burgled and someone posted an advert for the break-in on the internet, I'd be super-pissed at it, but I couldn't do a single thing about it within the law. I'd have to live with that, even if I didn't like it.
If you use beta software, you should understand what you're getting into. It may not work, thats why its been released as a beta - so that it can be fixed before a final release!
To be honest, I think its good that id are bothering to listen to the bugs people want fixed, and are fixing them on a regular basis. If only all companies, and not just in games either, worked this way...
Think about it and you'll see what I mean - too simple is different from too easy to use. If the UI lets you do what you want instantly with no need for excessive hunting about, and in a consistent logical way, its easy to use. If the interface lacks some function, or puts it in an illogical place for simplicities sake, its too basic. Big difference.
Since it is an entry-level course, I think its a perfectly valid way to teach programming - all the class organisers are trying to do is to keep a level playing field, as well as to encourage co-operation (note to students: NOT plagarism!!!;o). Things at this level are all about getting the basics in place, and forcing one platform onto all students is one of the best ways of making sure that knowledge assumed by later classes is definitely given in the early ones. Oh, and it makes the lecturer's job easier if you have to submit code for marking if he can load all code into one app instead of having to go to different machines or reboot into a different OS just to check one student's work. Do what I did - code the uni stuff the way they want it, then redo it in your preferred environment (or indeed language - I converted stuff from my Java classes into C++).
First off, Napster users aren't claiming they have "the right to take whatever they want" in general, only that music should be freely shared over the Internet. It's an important point to make, because your first sentence is dishonest in portraying napster users as current or would be felons.
But why should music be shared over the internet if the people going to the expense of funding, writing and creating that music don't want it to be? Why shouldn't it be the same as the software industry, where you have commercial and closed source software on one hand, and freeware, free and open-source software on the other hand? For what its worth, everyone I know who uses Napster uses it in an illegal way. I don't (believe it or not, your call) - all the MP3s I have I have ripped from my own CDs.
Why do you think that IP is 'ridiculous'? If I create something, it is mine. My property, to do with as I please (as long as its within the law). So if a musician chooses within the constraints of a contract to make music, it is intellectually theirs even if legally someone elses. If you say that the legal right of the record company is morally wrong, for what its worth I agree with you. However, I am of the opinion that it is the artists right to say what people should and should not do with their music. I don't believe it is enforcable. In Napster's case, its the attitude of Napster which I find distasteful, and now they've dug themselves a hole which they will probably never get out of.
In principle, I agree with sharing music and any other files over the internet or any other transmission medium. However, if it is done in a way of dubious legality (as with Napster and its vicarious liability screw-up), then the parties dancing with the law better expect to get their toes jumped on, and I won't be sorry to see it happen.
So we can safely say that Prince doesn't mind his music being distributed through Napster et al. OK!
Now, Metallica and Dr Dre, and probably quite a few other artists, do not want their music distributed throught Napster et al. What would you say fair treatment would be in this case:
Distribute it anyway - music should be free, and I have the right to take what I want!
Obey the wishes of the artist, since in all but the legal sense it is their music.
I'll give you a clue - the first answer is a load of rubbish...
3D Studio Max R2.5 - runs fine when installed on my P2 Laptop, where it now lives because it crashes very very regularly with no error on my K6-2 desktop. Similar spec, main difference is that the laptop has less memory.
...since over here it seems that ISPs and other service providers (as in this respect Slashdot is, obviously, an information service provider or something) are responsible for libellous or other illegal content as soon as they are notified of its presence and are asked to remove it, and since now MS have told you they feel it breaks the law, and if its found that it does break the law, a UK judge would find in their favour. Note it doesn't matter if Slashdot is morally in the right by not removing these posts right away (which, for what its worth, I don't think they are, but thats another story) - the law is the law, even if its a crappy and unfair law. Courts are there to uphold the letter and spirit of the law, not to comment on its 'rightness'...
Well, its that time again folks. MS is on the agenda, and the FUD starts flying... Just a shame therefore that its from both sides of the argument!
To my tale: I'm a long time computer user, various formats and various Operating Systems, from the old (DOS and whatever CP/M the Amstrad used, AmigaOS) to the new (Mac OS briefly, Win9x/NT/2000, Linux, Solaris). I know what I have found to be the practical plus-points of all of these systems, as well as the minus points. I have read all about the business practices of the people who make (made) these systems, and judged for myself when I think they're being unfair, and when they're just being plain stupid.
However, I don't let the business practices of the companies involved dictate my choice of operating system. Nor do I base my choice on my ideas of 'free as in speech', or even 'free as in beer'. Nope, I've decided on Windows because I can use it to get the job done with the minimum of fuss in almost all circumstances. I love the idea of Linux, BeOS, *BSD, any and all free operating systems and open source software in general. I just don't like the practical aspect of using them.
I don't consider myself to be a geek by the standards people on here seem to apply (I mainly use my computer for 3D art, in fact), so maybe what I'm saying isn't true for everyone. But for my needs, NT/9x are stable enough and give me months of use with virtually no maintainance, run all the software I need or use, and don't stand between me and what I want to do. On the occasions it has crashed, and yes there have been quite a few, a reboot has sufficed. So, when people talk about how unstable Windows is, I take it with a very large pinch of salt, because I can see the FUD going both ways.
In a way its a bit like the subject story - MS users like myself have irreconcilable differences with many Linux advocates, who seek to persuade us to use their favoured operating system, all the while deriding our choice which has been made for logical reasons which just don't fit their world-view. Which is sad, really.
Air Traffic Control - who would assign flight-paths, landing patterns, schedules, etc? Sounds like a complicated task. Its bad enough when they all run on timetables like scheduled flights, but imagine what would happen to the ATC stress-level if even only a few hundred of these went up and about in a major city - heart attack imminent!
Its like having a huge warez site, with a message at the front saying "You can only download these backups if you own the original software." Why does everyone suddenly change their stance when it becomes music rather than software?
Surely the record label / publisher / artist is well within their rights to stop mp3.com from distributing their works if there is a strong possibility that an illegal act is occurring? No, Mr McCartney doesn't need the money, nor does his label, but enforcing their legal rights is, if you'll pardon the expression, their right in this society. After all, we all have the right to free speech to criticise them at every turn, don't we?:o)
Tim Burton will, I think, be making a completely different film. It may have the same story roughly, but given his approach to past films (namely the Batmans he directed, and more recently Sleepy Hollow), it will probably be a lot darker than the original, which was in the main quite a bright and at least fairly cheery film despite the subject matter and the ending.
Be prepared for the Apes to profess an interest in darkened dungeons and torture chambers...
If the person manages to write the patch without referring to the code, then I assume the patch wouldn't be covered by the original software's license. Of course, this would be a bit tricky. Also, the burden of proof would be on the side of the original software's owners if they chose to sue - try proving that someone didn't compose the patch out of thin air, using pure luck or pixie dust!:o)
So, exactly what hardware would people like them to 'open'? You can already stick in any graphics, sound, whatever, yeah? Dunno but I think you can also attach USB and FireWire devices too(not a MacMan, sorry if I'm talking crap!)
Open the motherboard or processor? Hmm. Don't think that'll be happening any time soon. Then again, why care? Transmeta has already raised interesting possibilities in the area of hardware emulation of other platforms, so soon you could run all your Apple and x86 software on one of those. So why care about what Apple does with its hardware? If its good, buy it. I was under the impression that this was the way most people thought...:o)
...it won't make much difference to a lot of people, such as most British netheads - in Britain, an ISDN line costs about the equivalent of $150 per month, plus calls, and if you're lucky then cable modems might be available in your area soon! ADSL? Whats that???:o(
Not much fun living in a low-bandwidth country with a piss-poor telecoms monopoly...
Seems to me like much of the argument is based on the problem that although many people know *what* they want their computer to do, they don't always know *how* to do it. As a programmer and long-time computer user, I know that explaining to other people why you have to do certain things before others can prove difficult.
But anyway, to my main point. Currently, all operating systems seems to focus on how things are done. I've been thinking about this (not for very long, admittedly), but this seems to be akin to the way old database systems worked. Anyone out there know if anyone has looked into non-procedural methods? Again to use the database analogy, something like SQL where you specify what you want to happen, but the OS decides how its done, and makes sure its done safely and correctly.
I don't know how viable this is, just thought of it over the past hour or two. Any responses?
But what you would get would be a 3d view of one side of the object. For example, if you took a picture of a soccer ball, it would tell you that the particular angle you were looking at it from was rounded, but it could well stretch off behind like a cylinder or pipe.
The camera could well be used from different sides (eg take a pic from the top and bottom, then the front, back and left sides), but since software exists that lets you do this already (including Metacreations' own Canoma software, but its not too good) it seems a bit gimmicky. Then again, I'm sure it would help novice 3D modellers get decent-looking objects if the detection mechanism was of a high enough resolution to capture a lot of detail.
Anoter example: it might well be excellent for capturing human faces, which is a tricky £$%£$^%$ to make by hand. So all in all, could be useful for some people some of the time. Bit like most things:o)
Well, not knowing too much about the performance of the Crusoe, I can't really say whether it would be a good alternative to a G4. However...
Compatability problems? Depending on the correctness of the Crusoe software, it could well be a good thing. If there was a problem with some kinds of software running on the beast, that would damage Crusoe's reputation for cross-platform software running.
Incidentally, has anyone considered the possibility of doing Crusoe-style code morphing in software (sort of a non-Java virtual machine)?
This entire strategy isn't designed to appeal to people of a technical disposition, who know the shortcomings both of ecommerce as a whole, and digital signatures in this context. This is a law pitched at Joe Public, in an attempt to make people less afraid of buying online.
However, unless the entire scheme is implemented with the utmost care and attention, the confidence built with this legislation might be totally misplaced. If people end up losing money over this, by fraud, hacking or whatever, the bad publicity generated could well lead to a general loss of confidence in ecommerce and the internet as a whole.
You don't need me to tell you what that would lead to, but hey: less revenue generated by advertising and commerce leads to less commercial interest, which may in the end lead to stagnation and a lack of interest in research and improvements in the 'net as a whole. Bad things! Now I don't want that, and I'm sure the American Government wants those e-taxable purchases rolling on through, so they do have a vested interest in making sure its done right. But we all know what happens when non-techies start making techy decisions...:o(
Surely it is better to try and legislate something like this than leave things as they are: currently, there is no form of verification for online purchases that I am aware of in general use.
So, if some little hax0r gets his hands on my credit card details, he can buy as much as he likes. At least a digital signature, although not fully secure, adds more security rather than making things any worse?
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if there was a standard distro, called for the sake of argument Standard Linux, which implemented a commonly-agreed basic minimum, this would be a good thing? It would give people something to base other distros around while still retaining core compatibility, keeping all the paths the same, as well as giving an agreed minimum development platform. This would in turn attract developers to Linux, as they could guarantee a given set of available libraries etc to code for.
Also, this Standard Linux could be the agreed standard for comparisons with other operating systems for benchmarking, rather than letting biased people take on the weakest of the current lot. This would allow Linux as a brand to compete, instead of Linux being fragmented into RedHat, SuSe, Debian, etc - these would still exist, but the core of each would be the same or similar.
As a long-time lurker there, Sega really haven't got a leg to stand on. There is no way that a visitor to the isonews website will be able to find anything to download other than nfo files as a DIRECT result of information posted on the site. Sega can bluster all they like, but the site isn't breaking the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law. And to the question posted elsewhere: if my house got burgled and someone posted an advert for the break-in on the internet, I'd be super-pissed at it, but I couldn't do a single thing about it within the law. I'd have to live with that, even if I didn't like it.
If you use beta software, you should understand what you're getting into. It may not work, thats why its been released as a beta - so that it can be fixed before a final release!
To be honest, I think its good that id are bothering to listen to the bugs people want fixed, and are fixing them on a regular basis. If only all companies, and not just in games either, worked this way...
Think about it and you'll see what I mean - too simple is different from too easy to use. If the UI lets you do what you want instantly with no need for excessive hunting about, and in a consistent logical way, its easy to use. If the interface lacks some function, or puts it in an illogical place for simplicities sake, its too basic. Big difference.
Since it is an entry-level course, I think its a perfectly valid way to teach programming - all the class organisers are trying to do is to keep a level playing field, as well as to encourage co-operation (note to students: NOT plagarism!!! ;o).
Things at this level are all about getting the basics in place, and forcing one platform onto all students is one of the best ways of making sure that knowledge assumed by later classes is definitely given in the early ones. Oh, and it makes the lecturer's job easier if you have to submit code for marking if he can load all code into one app instead of having to go to different machines or reboot into a different OS just to check one student's work. Do what I did - code the uni stuff the way they want it, then redo it in your preferred environment (or indeed language - I converted stuff from my Java classes into C++).
Why do you think that IP is 'ridiculous'? If I create something, it is mine. My property, to do with as I please (as long as its within the law). So if a musician chooses within the constraints of a contract to make music, it is intellectually theirs even if legally someone elses. If you say that the legal right of the record company is morally wrong, for what its worth I agree with you. However, I am of the opinion that it is the artists right to say what people should and should not do with their music. I don't believe it is enforcable. In Napster's case, its the attitude of Napster which I find distasteful, and now they've dug themselves a hole which they will probably never get out of.
In principle, I agree with sharing music and any other files over the internet or any other transmission medium. However, if it is done in a way of dubious legality (as with Napster and its vicarious liability screw-up), then the parties dancing with the law better expect to get their toes jumped on, and I won't be sorry to see it happen.
Now, Metallica and Dr Dre, and probably quite a few other artists, do not want their music distributed throught Napster et al. What would you say fair treatment would be in this case:
I'll give you a clue - the first answer is a load of rubbish...
3D Studio Max R2.5 - runs fine when installed on my P2 Laptop, where it now lives because it crashes very very regularly with no error on my K6-2 desktop. Similar spec, main difference is that the laptop has less memory.
...since over here it seems that ISPs and other service providers (as in this respect Slashdot is, obviously, an information service provider or something) are responsible for libellous or other illegal content as soon as they are notified of its presence and are asked to remove it, and since now MS have told you they feel it breaks the law, and if its found that it does break the law, a UK judge would find in their favour. Note it doesn't matter if Slashdot is morally in the right by not removing these posts right away (which, for what its worth, I don't think they are, but thats another story) - the law is the law, even if its a crappy and unfair law. Courts are there to uphold the letter and spirit of the law, not to comment on its 'rightness'...
Well, its that time again folks. MS is on the agenda, and the FUD starts flying... Just a shame therefore that its from both sides of the argument!
To my tale: I'm a long time computer user, various formats and various Operating Systems, from the old (DOS and whatever CP/M the Amstrad used, AmigaOS) to the new (Mac OS briefly, Win9x/NT/2000, Linux, Solaris). I know what I have found to be the practical plus-points of all of these systems, as well as the minus points. I have read all about the business practices of the people who make (made) these systems, and judged for myself when I think they're being unfair, and when they're just being plain stupid.
However, I don't let the business practices of the companies involved dictate my choice of operating system. Nor do I base my choice on my ideas of 'free as in speech', or even 'free as in beer'. Nope, I've decided on Windows because I can use it to get the job done with the minimum of fuss in almost all circumstances. I love the idea of Linux, BeOS, *BSD, any and all free operating systems and open source software in general. I just don't like the practical aspect of using them.
I don't consider myself to be a geek by the standards people on here seem to apply (I mainly use my computer for 3D art, in fact), so maybe what I'm saying isn't true for everyone. But for my needs, NT/9x are stable enough and give me months of use with virtually no maintainance, run all the software I need or use, and don't stand between me and what I want to do. On the occasions it has crashed, and yes there have been quite a few, a reboot has sufficed. So, when people talk about how unstable Windows is, I take it with a very large pinch of salt, because I can see the FUD going both ways.
In a way its a bit like the subject story - MS users like myself have irreconcilable differences with many Linux advocates, who seek to persuade us to use their favoured operating system, all the while deriding our choice which has been made for logical reasons which just don't fit their world-view. Which is sad, really.
Air Traffic Control - who would assign flight-paths, landing patterns, schedules, etc? Sounds like a complicated task. Its bad enough when they all run on timetables like scheduled flights, but imagine what would happen to the ATC stress-level if even only a few hundred of these went up and about in a major city - heart attack imminent!
Its like having a huge warez site, with a message at the front saying "You can only download these backups if you own the original software." Why does everyone suddenly change their stance when it becomes music rather than software?
:o)
Surely the record label / publisher / artist is well within their rights to stop mp3.com from distributing their works if there is a strong possibility that an illegal act is occurring? No, Mr McCartney doesn't need the money, nor does his label, but enforcing their legal rights is, if you'll pardon the expression, their right in this society. After all, we all have the right to free speech to criticise them at every turn, don't we?
Tim Burton will, I think, be making a completely different film. It may have the same story roughly, but given his approach to past films (namely the Batmans he directed, and more recently Sleepy Hollow), it will probably be a lot darker than the original, which was in the main quite a bright and at least fairly cheery film despite the subject matter and the ending.
Be prepared for the Apes to profess an interest in darkened dungeons and torture chambers...
If the person manages to write the patch without referring to the code, then I assume the patch wouldn't be covered by the original software's license. Of course, this would be a bit tricky. Also, the burden of proof would be on the side of the original software's owners if they chose to sue - try proving that someone didn't compose the patch out of thin air, using pure luck or pixie dust! :o)
So, exactly what hardware would people like them to 'open'? You can already stick in any graphics, sound, whatever, yeah? Dunno but I think you can also attach USB and FireWire devices too(not a MacMan, sorry if I'm talking crap!)
:o)
Open the motherboard or processor? Hmm. Don't think that'll be happening any time soon. Then again, why care? Transmeta has already raised interesting possibilities in the area of hardware emulation of other platforms, so soon you could run all your Apple and x86 software on one of those. So why care about what Apple does with its hardware? If its good, buy it. I was under the impression that this was the way most people thought...
...it won't make much difference to a lot of people, such as most British netheads - in Britain, an ISDN line costs about the equivalent of $150 per month, plus calls, and if you're lucky then cable modems might be available in your area soon! ADSL? Whats that??? :o(
Not much fun living in a low-bandwidth country with a piss-poor telecoms monopoly...
Seems to me like much of the argument is based on the problem that although many people know *what* they want their computer to do, they don't always know *how* to do it. As a programmer and long-time computer user, I know that explaining to other people why you have to do certain things before others can prove difficult.
But anyway, to my main point. Currently, all operating systems seems to focus on how things are done. I've been thinking about this (not for very long, admittedly), but this seems to be akin to the way old database systems worked. Anyone out there know if anyone has looked into non-procedural methods? Again to use the database analogy, something like SQL where you specify what you want to happen, but the OS decides how its done, and makes sure its done safely and correctly.
I don't know how viable this is, just thought of it over the past hour or two. Any responses?
But what you would get would be a 3d view of one side of the object. For example, if you took a picture of a soccer ball, it would tell you that the particular angle you were looking at it from was rounded, but it could well stretch off behind like a cylinder or pipe.
:o)
The camera could well be used from different sides (eg take a pic from the top and bottom, then the front, back and left sides), but since software exists that lets you do this already (including Metacreations' own Canoma software, but its not too good) it seems a bit gimmicky. Then again, I'm sure it would help novice 3D modellers get decent-looking objects if the detection mechanism was of a high enough resolution to capture a lot of detail.
Anoter example: it might well be excellent for capturing human faces, which is a tricky £$%£$^%$ to make by hand. So all in all, could be useful for some people some of the time. Bit like most things
Well, not knowing too much about the performance of the Crusoe, I can't really say whether it would be a good alternative to a G4. However...
Compatability problems? Depending on the correctness of the Crusoe software, it could well be a good thing. If there was a problem with some kinds of software running on the beast, that would damage Crusoe's reputation for cross-platform software running.
Incidentally, has anyone considered the possibility of doing Crusoe-style code morphing in software (sort of a non-Java virtual machine)?
Another thought occurs to me (2 in one day!!!)
This entire strategy isn't designed to appeal to people of a technical disposition, who know the shortcomings both of ecommerce as a whole, and digital signatures in this context. This is a law pitched at Joe Public, in an attempt to make people less afraid of buying online.
However, unless the entire scheme is implemented with the utmost care and attention, the confidence built with this legislation might be totally misplaced. If people end up losing money over this, by fraud, hacking or whatever, the bad publicity generated could well lead to a general loss of confidence in ecommerce and the internet as a whole.
You don't need me to tell you what that would lead to, but hey: less revenue generated by advertising and commerce leads to less commercial interest, which may in the end lead to stagnation and a lack of interest in research and improvements in the 'net as a whole. Bad things! Now I don't want that, and I'm sure the American Government wants those e-taxable purchases rolling on through, so they do have a vested interest in making sure its done right. But we all know what happens when non-techies start making techy decisions...
Surely it is better to try and legislate something like this than leave things as they are: currently, there is no form of verification for online purchases that I am aware of in general use.
So, if some little hax0r gets his hands on my credit card details, he can buy as much as he likes. At least a digital signature, although not fully secure, adds more security rather than making things any worse?