This is totally true. Funcom has, so far, shown themselves to be the type that will promise all sorts of stuff (DX10 support! Drunken brawling! Great PVP!--none of this actually implemented though it's listed *on the friggin box*), just to keep hype up. Sadly, I canceled my sub after 2 months. I got seriously tired of "it's coming in the next patch, honest!" and having every patch not implement what was promised, while breaking other things which kind of worked.
Too bad, really. It did have a lot of potential. But after a while, it gets old having things promised that are never delivered.
Given Microsoft's history, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking there has got to be some ulterior motive here. From the article:
Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux
What's concerning me here is the "into Suse Linux" phrase. Is it possible that MS might go after other Linux vendors, saying, "hey, we have an agreement with Novell, but not you."? This seems less pure paranoia given this line in the article:
By forging a peace pact with one seller of Linux, Microsoft could raise pressure on Red Hat Inc., the leading provider of Linux, and a Novell rival.
Either that, or Duke Nukem Forever is just around the corner...
I've known several people that have worked with GW, and for the most part they'd agree with a lot of what you've said. Especially the "hobby" part. It's true that GW may not be actively seeking to kill the mini-gaming market, it's just that their saturation of said market makes them slightly dangerous. Whenever I mention to non-gamer people that I play miniature wargames, they invariably ask, "You mean like Warhammer?" So, to the non-hardcore gamers in the real world, GW is miniature gaming.
Not to say that for their market (which is 100% geared towards 13 year old boys, as you mentioned), they don't do a great job. They do. Pretty pictures, pretty models (with few exceptions), and a "one-stop shopping" deal for all the related junk to go with the hobby. The problem is, though, that it is geared towards 13 year old boys--which means as those "customers" grow older, more often than not they wind up outgrowing GW's wares. Yes, they may not be worried about customer retention, but those 13 year old boys (and girls, for what few typically play these kinds of games) tend to wind up growing up and making more money, which they spend somewhere else usually. But, that's not really the point of your post.
GW may not be trying to monopolize or kill the miniature gaming market. Probably not. But they are trying to prevent their "hobby" from being seen as a competitor for other games (as you so clearly brought up)--which is one of the reasons why they are so draconian about their distribution/selling practices, particularly when it comes to traditional game stores. I think that GW would like to see all of those go away, and be replaced with one of their own stores, where they sold nothing but GW product. They've already done plenty of damage to small store owners here in the US, and you absolutely cannot view or purchase GW products via a web interface in the US (and possibly UK)--you have to go to GW's online shop.
For me, the crap game is enough to not buy their stuff. Their heavy-handed approach and egotistical business practices just make it easier for me to give them the 132-salute. (Count in binary on your hands...)
GW definitely has done (and is still doing) a lot to try to keep a stranglehold on the mini-gaming market. Privateer Press has put out an incredibly fun game in Warmachine, and now Hordes. Their models are at least equal, and in many cases (IMHO) better, than GW's stuff. But the real glory shines in the game play and setting.
I think that back in the late 90's, GW was definitely in position to completely kill the mini-gaming market right there after the fall of Ral Partha (yeah, Reaper's always been around, but has *never* managed to produce a half-way decent set of rules, so they're stuck in the "supporting other games" market for the most part). However, a couple of companies rose up to challenge them, mainly Rackham with their Confrontation game and Privateer Press with Warmachine. In some ways, GW has set the stage for their own overthrow by their abusive tactics (just try to find a place other than their own website that you can view and purchase their models online--you can't, because they don't allow it). I, for one, won't really miss them.
Just tried it with Konqueror 3.1.3 (on Linux, duh), and didn't get the "exploit" behavior--just got a new window with the CitiBank stuff. Tried both "with pop-up blocker" and "without pop-up blocker" methods, and was not able to reproduce the behavior.
If so, do you know if the results from these forensics tools are useful and/or admissible in court?
Admissibility is not so much tied to the specific tools (though this can be an issue; more on this later) used, but the methodology used.
DISCLAIMER: I am not by any means a forensics expert, but I am doing an independent study in computer forensics in college.
That said, many of the standard *nix tools are, in fact, acceptable for court use. For example, it is extremely unlikely that you will have a challenge presented in a courtroom questioning the integrity of your forensic duplications if you used 'dd' to make the images. At least, not on technical grounds--failure to document everything correctly and completely could wind up causing inadmissibility.
I'd strongly recommend Incident Response & Computer Forensics by Mandia and Prosise (of Foundstone, Inc.). This book has a LOT of technical information, and covers the aspects of evidence handling, documentation, etc. very well.
Looking at some of the tools listed in the Knoppix STD, I can say that many of them (like fatback, foremost, dcfldd, and cryptcat) are recommended tools in the Mandia/Prosise book. I've used each of these, and they are all definitely useful. If you're doing work that must stand up in court, however, make sure you document everything you do, and never, never write anything to your suspect drive! Doing so will not only risk losing evidence, but also invalidate the entire drive as evidence. All forensic analysis should be done on either a qualified forensic duplicate or full forensic duplicate.
Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
There you have it. They have hundreds of customers, which is a huge amount of people when you compare it to how many computers there are in the business world.;)
And SCO already said they had no plans to sue non-commercial Linux users, only commercial ones.
Yeah, and they also said that they had no plans on suing the end users, but suddenly that's changed, hasn't it? SCO changes their tactics (and story) daily, so you can't trust anything they say.
As for me, I'm going out and buying a copy of Red Hat. I probably won't run it (prefer Mandrake or Gentoo, depending on system), but I definitely want to throw my support behind them. (Yes, I have bought Mandrake distros, and plan to buy the next when it's released...)
Is it really that hard to take cc sales over the net?
The programming of the transaction is not difficult. What is difficult is the fact that in order to accept a CC you have to have a Merchant Account. Merchant Accounts are not free, and you still have to use a service for CC validation.
Granted, for large businesses which take in thousands of transactions per year, this is a cost effective method. However, for the smaller businesses and "Mom and Pop" type things (even in the brick and mortar world), such accounts can be cost prohibitive.
PayPal allows anyone to be able to take CC payments for pretty much any reason. Yeah, they charge you 3% or 4%, but there's no monthly fee (Merchant Accounts can run $60 a month or more).
Regardless of the reports of fraud, etc., I still think the PayPal idea, if not the company itself, is a good one. Besides, I've had my brick and mortar bank "accidentally" charge me 6 times for the same transaction (thanks Y2K "upgrade"). Just because there's a "regulatory body" doesn't mean that there won't be any fraud or other bad behavior.
Anyway, I admit that I stand corrected regarding the X server; I mistook "X server" to mean "video server," which is (now that it's been pointed out to me) obviously not the same thing. My apologies to any I offended; I'll go flog myself with a wet noodle now.;)
Apple DOESN'T HAVE AND X SERVER!!!! MacOSX has NOTHING TO DO WITH X WINDOWS.
I know that OS X doesn't mean "X-windows," and that, in fact, the "X" is the Roman numeral "10," which is what release the Macintosh OS will be. And I am positive they don't have "AND X SERVER," whatever that means. As always, don't let your lack of English grammar prevent "u" from posting...
But... the fact is you still have a video server on OS X (which, I admit, I may have incorrectly referred to as an "X server"), and the ability to run a CLI (a first for Macs).
According to the info available at apple.com, OpenGL will be supported, along with built-in support for PDF. Unfortunately, there isn't mention of compatibility issues with "X" applications (or at least, not that I could find). However, it would seem that since Apple is claiming "Unix-savvy" for this OS, there would be at least some level of compatibility, even if you had to compile your applications yourself.
Umm... You can still open a terminal and run in that mode under OS X. Xfree86 doesn't mean "ability to use a terminal;" it's an X-session driver/server.
If Apple already has included such a driver/server, why is it a "requirement" to port another? Of course, as I said, I haven't had the chance to fully test it, so I can't speak for the compatibility of X applications. If, for whatever reason, you can't run X apps on OS X (which seems highly unlikely from all I've read), then I can see a reason to bring on Xfree86. Otherwise, I can't see much point (not counting the "free software/open source" argument; which is valid for some people who feel strongly on those issues).
Or does this seem a bit silly to port Xfree86 to OS X?
Apple did a lot of work to get their X server working, and from what I've seen at a couple of expos (don't have a Mac at home to test it myself, yet...:( ), it's damn smooth.
If Apple would only open the source for their video server... Now that would be cool.
You can already do most of this stuff with Windows.
Do most of what stuff? Professional audio recording? I think not.
Now, before the flames start...I majored in music theory and composition back in college. Being the geek that I am, I was naturally inclined towards MIDI and the electronic music scene (not the same as Electronica, though that's cool, too).
While this was a few years ago, the only real choice for professional-level sequencing and digital audio was either Cubase or Performer/Digital Performer. While Cubase was (and is) available for other platforms, namely Atari's, Performer was (and is) only on the Mac.
Windows barely has any reliable sequencing and/or digital audio applications. Part of this is due to the instability of the OS itself, and part is due to the selection of software.
I'm not the only one with this view: a good number of professional recording studios use Macs running either of the software titles I mentioned, or even Atari's with Cubase. Why? When it comes to reliability, the Mac and Atari are more stable than Windows. Yes, the Mac doesn't have a command-line (well...didn't), but for the specific application, it doesn't need one. Ditto for the Atari.
I would love to see Linux take off in the recording/sequencing field. It's hard enough for we musicians to afford good instruments; having to shell out even more cash for a reliable workstation and software just adds insult to injury. If it was possible to get good sequencing/recording software for Linux (which is the least expensive OS) that can run on slightly out of date equipment (read: cheap), I think you'd have a bunch of very happy musicians composing penguin ballads!;^)
They care about the Linux community about as much as Microsoft does. Don't doubt it for a second.
I wouldn't say that they care less about the Linux community than Microsoft. They do, however, care in a very different way...
A prime example of this can be found in an interview with Bill Joy in Linux Magazine a couple of months back (November 1999):
"If I look at the graph of what percentage of customer dollars I'm likely to get next, it's much higher if they start with Linux than if they start with Windows. So in all cases, I'd rather win and get Sparc/Solaris/Java as the solution. But Linux/Sparc/Java would be my second choice."
Granted, they aren't going to be making any money directly off of Linux, and that is, afterall, the goal of any corporation, especially the big ones.
It's interesting to note that in the same article, Bill Joy talks about how he doesn't see any benefits for releasing software under the GPL or something similar...Apparently there is now some kind of benefit. Whether that is a benefit to the product and the code itself, or to Sun as a PR move remains to be seen.
I totally agree that NSI sux. I work for a large web hosting company, and we unfortunately deal with them for most domain registrations we process.:^(
As for changing the registrar for your domain, the Network Solutions site actually has instructions on how to change *to* them: http://www.networksolutions.com/catalog/domainname /change-registrar/.
You should be able to get similar information from your registrar of choice. Register.com has their version at: http://www.register.com/faq/transfer-register.cgi? 1|1181650281|.
Slashdot Mirror
This is totally true. Funcom has, so far, shown themselves to be the type that will promise all sorts of stuff (DX10 support! Drunken brawling! Great PVP!--none of this actually implemented though it's listed *on the friggin box*), just to keep hype up. Sadly, I canceled my sub after 2 months. I got seriously tired of "it's coming in the next patch, honest!" and having every patch not implement what was promised, while breaking other things which kind of worked.
Too bad, really. It did have a lot of potential. But after a while, it gets old having things promised that are never delivered.
Given Microsoft's history, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking there has got to be some ulterior motive here. From the article:
What's concerning me here is the "into Suse Linux" phrase. Is it possible that MS might go after other Linux vendors, saying, "hey, we have an agreement with Novell, but not you."? This seems less pure paranoia given this line in the article:
Either that, or Duke Nukem Forever is just around the corner...
I've known several people that have worked with GW, and for the most part they'd agree with a lot of what you've said. Especially the "hobby" part. It's true that GW may not be actively seeking to kill the mini-gaming market, it's just that their saturation of said market makes them slightly dangerous. Whenever I mention to non-gamer people that I play miniature wargames, they invariably ask, "You mean like Warhammer?" So, to the non-hardcore gamers in the real world, GW is miniature gaming.
Not to say that for their market (which is 100% geared towards 13 year old boys, as you mentioned), they don't do a great job. They do. Pretty pictures, pretty models (with few exceptions), and a "one-stop shopping" deal for all the related junk to go with the hobby. The problem is, though, that it is geared towards 13 year old boys--which means as those "customers" grow older, more often than not they wind up outgrowing GW's wares. Yes, they may not be worried about customer retention, but those 13 year old boys (and girls, for what few typically play these kinds of games) tend to wind up growing up and making more money, which they spend somewhere else usually. But, that's not really the point of your post.
GW may not be trying to monopolize or kill the miniature gaming market. Probably not. But they are trying to prevent their "hobby" from being seen as a competitor for other games (as you so clearly brought up)--which is one of the reasons why they are so draconian about their distribution/selling practices, particularly when it comes to traditional game stores. I think that GW would like to see all of those go away, and be replaced with one of their own stores, where they sold nothing but GW product. They've already done plenty of damage to small store owners here in the US, and you absolutely cannot view or purchase GW products via a web interface in the US (and possibly UK)--you have to go to GW's online shop.
For me, the crap game is enough to not buy their stuff. Their heavy-handed approach and egotistical business practices just make it easier for me to give them the 132-salute. (Count in binary on your hands...)
GW definitely has done (and is still doing) a lot to try to keep a stranglehold on the mini-gaming market. Privateer Press has put out an incredibly fun game in Warmachine, and now Hordes. Their models are at least equal, and in many cases (IMHO) better, than GW's stuff. But the real glory shines in the game play and setting.
I think that back in the late 90's, GW was definitely in position to completely kill the mini-gaming market right there after the fall of Ral Partha (yeah, Reaper's always been around, but has *never* managed to produce a half-way decent set of rules, so they're stuck in the "supporting other games" market for the most part). However, a couple of companies rose up to challenge them, mainly Rackham with their Confrontation game and Privateer Press with Warmachine. In some ways, GW has set the stage for their own overthrow by their abusive tactics (just try to find a place other than their own website that you can view and purchase their models online--you can't, because they don't allow it). I, for one, won't really miss them.
Just tried it with Konqueror 3.1.3 (on Linux, duh), and didn't get the "exploit" behavior--just got a new window with the CitiBank stuff. Tried both "with pop-up blocker" and "without pop-up blocker" methods, and was not able to reproduce the behavior.
If so, do you know if the results from these forensics tools are useful and/or admissible in court?
Admissibility is not so much tied to the specific tools (though this can be an issue; more on this later) used, but the methodology used.
DISCLAIMER: I am not by any means a forensics expert, but I am doing an independent study in computer forensics in college.
That said, many of the standard *nix tools are, in fact, acceptable for court use. For example, it is extremely unlikely that you will have a challenge presented in a courtroom questioning the integrity of your forensic duplications if you used 'dd' to make the images. At least, not on technical grounds--failure to document everything correctly and completely could wind up causing inadmissibility.
I'd strongly recommend Incident Response & Computer Forensics by Mandia and Prosise (of Foundstone, Inc.). This book has a LOT of technical information, and covers the aspects of evidence handling, documentation, etc. very well.
Looking at some of the tools listed in the Knoppix STD, I can say that many of them (like fatback, foremost, dcfldd, and cryptcat) are recommended tools in the Mandia/Prosise book. I've used each of these, and they are all definitely useful. If you're doing work that must stand up in court, however, make sure you document everything you do, and never, never write anything to your suspect drive! Doing so will not only risk losing evidence, but also invalidate the entire drive as evidence. All forensic analysis should be done on either a qualified forensic duplicate or full forensic duplicate.
Yeah, and they also said that they had no plans on suing the end users, but suddenly that's changed, hasn't it? SCO changes their tactics (and story) daily, so you can't trust anything they say.
As for me, I'm going out and buying a copy of Red Hat. I probably won't run it (prefer Mandrake or Gentoo, depending on system), but I definitely want to throw my support behind them. (Yes, I have bought Mandrake distros, and plan to buy the next when it's released...)
The programming of the transaction is not difficult. What is difficult is the fact that in order to accept a CC you have to have a Merchant Account. Merchant Accounts are not free, and you still have to use a service for CC validation.
Granted, for large businesses which take in thousands of transactions per year, this is a cost effective method. However, for the smaller businesses and "Mom and Pop" type things (even in the brick and mortar world), such accounts can be cost prohibitive.
PayPal allows anyone to be able to take CC payments for pretty much any reason. Yeah, they charge you 3% or 4%, but there's no monthly fee (Merchant Accounts can run $60 a month or more).
Regardless of the reports of fraud, etc., I still think the PayPal idea, if not the company itself, is a good one. Besides, I've had my brick and mortar bank "accidentally" charge me 6 times for the same transaction (thanks Y2K "upgrade"). Just because there's a "regulatory body" doesn't mean that there won't be any fraud or other bad behavior.
Anyway, I admit that I stand corrected regarding the X server; I mistook "X server" to mean "video server," which is (now that it's been pointed out to me) obviously not the same thing. My apologies to any I offended; I'll go flog myself with a wet noodle now. ;)
Your Friend,
But... the fact is you still have a video server on OS X (which, I admit, I may have incorrectly referred to as an "X server"), and the ability to run a CLI (a first for Macs).
According to the info available at apple.com, OpenGL will be supported, along with built-in support for PDF. Unfortunately, there isn't mention of compatibility issues with "X" applications (or at least, not that I could find). However, it would seem that since Apple is claiming "Unix-savvy" for this OS, there would be at least some level of compatibility, even if you had to compile your applications yourself.
Your Friend,
If Apple already has included such a driver/server, why is it a "requirement" to port another? Of course, as I said, I haven't had the chance to fully test it, so I can't speak for the compatibility of X applications. If, for whatever reason, you can't run X apps on OS X (which seems highly unlikely from all I've read), then I can see a reason to bring on Xfree86. Otherwise, I can't see much point (not counting the "free software/open source" argument; which is valid for some people who feel strongly on those issues).
Your Friend,
Apple did a lot of work to get their X server working, and from what I've seen at a couple of expos (don't have a Mac at home to test it myself, yet... :( ), it's damn smooth.
If Apple would only open the source for their video server... Now that would be cool.
Your Friend,
This explains why your search didn't turn up anything. Try neew...
Your Friend,
Do most of what stuff? Professional audio recording? I think not.
Now, before the flames start...I majored in music theory and composition back in college. Being the geek that I am, I was naturally inclined towards MIDI and the electronic music scene (not the same as Electronica, though that's cool, too).
While this was a few years ago, the only real choice for professional-level sequencing and digital audio was either Cubase or Performer/Digital Performer. While Cubase was (and is) available for other platforms, namely Atari's, Performer was (and is) only on the Mac.
Windows barely has any reliable sequencing and/or digital audio applications. Part of this is due to the instability of the OS itself, and part is due to the selection of software.
I'm not the only one with this view: a good number of professional recording studios use Macs running either of the software titles I mentioned, or even Atari's with Cubase. Why? When it comes to reliability, the Mac and Atari are more stable than Windows. Yes, the Mac doesn't have a command-line (well...didn't), but for the specific application, it doesn't need one. Ditto for the Atari.
I would love to see Linux take off in the recording/sequencing field. It's hard enough for we musicians to afford good instruments; having to shell out even more cash for a reliable workstation and software just adds insult to injury. If it was possible to get good sequencing/recording software for Linux (which is the least expensive OS) that can run on slightly out of date equipment (read: cheap), I think you'd have a bunch of very happy musicians composing penguin ballads! ;^)
Your Friend,
I wouldn't say that they care less about the Linux community than Microsoft. They do, however, care in a very different way...
A prime example of this can be found in an interview with Bill Joy in Linux Magazine a couple of months back (November 1999):
Granted, they aren't going to be making any money directly off of Linux, and that is, afterall, the goal of any corporation, especially the big ones.
It's interesting to note that in the same article, Bill Joy talks about how he doesn't see any benefits for releasing software under the GPL or something similar...Apparently there is now some kind of benefit. Whether that is a benefit to the product and the code itself, or to Sun as a PR move remains to be seen.
Your Friend,
I totally agree that NSI sux. I work for a large web hosting company, and we unfortunately deal with them for most domain registrations we process. :^(
e /change-registrar/.
? 1|1181650281|.
As for changing the registrar for your domain, the Network Solutions site actually has instructions on how to change *to* them: http://www.networksolutions.com/catalog/domainnam
You should be able to get similar information from your registrar of choice. Register.com has their version at: http://www.register.com/faq/transfer-register.cgi
HTH
Your Friend,