Hardware vendors like nVidia run a business. They run a business to make money. If nVidia didn't make financially-successful decisions, they wouldn't exist to be producing the graphics cards in the first place. That's all there is to it.
If there was money in Linux they'd be right there, open-source drivers and all, but there isn't. This is a fact that open-source developers never seem to understand. You can cheerfully dedicate half your life to creating this wonderful utopian software, but you can't force your ideals on someone else - especially on a company whose aims do not coincide with yours. Make it a financially beneficial proposition, and nVidia will spend the time and money on creating those drivers - but I doubt it's anything near that.
What responsibility do nVidia have towards the Linux desktop? The same as they have towards Windows: absolutely none. But they support Windows because 90% of desktops with their graphics cards installed run Windows.
And yes, Intel and ATI have managed to push out open source drivers - that's up to them, but I don't imagine they make profit from it. Yes, it's a real pain in the arse to work with binary drivers. Yes, if nVidia were to release open-source drivers the world would be a happier place. But to act like Linux users have some *right* to these drivers is childish and arrogant.
What Linux users have the right to do is buy a different graphics card.
Talk to your line manager. In a private meeting, explain the compromises you're having to make in your work. Explain that the code you're being forced to release is unmaintainable, is prone to be bugged or poorly-structured because of the time constraints being forced.
Explain a compromise where you get some of the time you want in return for some of the code quality you want. You'll never get all the time you want but, if you can convince your boss that it's going to be of overall benefit, you might get enough.
Most importantly, if the shit hits the fan and your product comes back to you, make sure you're absolutely realistic with management about why this has happened. Yes, the code was sub-quality. Yes, the design was insufficient. Yes, it's management's fault on both counts for not allowing enough time for the proper running of the project.
One of the main problems is that a typical lifecycle (specification, design, implementation, testing) makes no sense to management. Even a technical manager will try to rush the specification and design so they can have demonstrable progress - something to show the client, even if it's not been thought through. And, as soon as the product looks complete, they'll want to get it out where it makes money, regardless of how thoroughly it's been tested.
Educating your superiors about the reality of these things is hard work. You might have managers that will - slowly - learn, in which case you may make some progress. Alternatively, look elsewhere: it's one of the most subtly self-destructive things, to be stuck in a job without being given the opportunity to do it well. Find somewhere that gives you that freedom.
Re:Sigh no-one ever talks about EVE
on
Massive Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I gave up for a while because I realised that a couple of hours a week isn't nearly enough to put towards Eve. There's so much depth to the game that I don't think you could ever keep up with all of it.
Re:Sigh no-one ever talks about EVE
on
Massive Quickies
·
· Score: 1
And the best thing about Eve is that content and gameplay expansions of the like that would fill a CD come completely free, and the dev team are the most up-front and open group I've seen working on a game of this scale.
No other game I've seen has this level of meaningful player-generated content. In how many other games can the players actively rule a sizeable portion of the universe?
Free 14-day trials available through the buddy program - just find someone who plays already and ask!
Re:Maybe 20 years is long enough.
on
PG-13 Rating Turns 20
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is not "Interesting", this is "Ignorant." Rating schemes are not there to stop you watching things you want to watch. If (and I stress if) you're of mature age, you can watch any film you like. The rating is there to give some protection to people who aren't mature enough to make that decision for themselves.
Censorship is a different kettle of fish, and has nothing to do with sticking a PG-13 or any other cert on a film - or a game, or a CD, or a book.
You don't need 'Administrator' privilege to modify the registry, but you require at least 'Power User' privilege to modify the machine portion of the registry.
This is by design in Windows so that a user can modify their own settings (under HKEY_CURRENT_USER), but only suitably elevated users can modify system settings (under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE).
The fact that AutoCAD doesn't work without this access is an indication that the application is badly written - using local system registry where it should be using the user's registry. This is not a Windows' problem.
"60% of dial-up users weren't interested in switching, a year later in 2004 the percentage was roughly the same."
On the assumption that at least some of the existing dialup users made the switch, there are now less modemmers than in 2003. 60% of that smaller number means there are less people who aren't interested.
On one hand you say how YOU managed to rip all your CDs and YOU managed to play Quake 2... and then you say that neither of these things are important and why should "Joe User" care? Surely anyone who buys a PC with a soundcard (and who doesn't, these days?) would want and expect their machine to make sound?
If I spend 1200 Euros on a computer and the sound card didn't work out of the box, I personally would be pretty miffed. I spend 1200 Euros and I expect to get a working product, not one that needs two days' work to set up.
"Commercial drivers suck" is not an excuse for Linux sound support to suck. "Joe User shouldn't use it anyway" is not an excuse for Linux sound support be unusable. "Games are the domain of windows/console/DOS" (DOS?!) is surely a situation that needs to be improved, if Linux is ever to make headway into the home/desktop market.
"I am Debian cultist... never going back to M$"... and your reply isn't as biased as the article? The article may be a little harsh, but it's not unduly inaccurate - and while maybe not the end of the world, it's a pretty important thing in terms of making Linux mainstream.
... and while the display isn't ideal, it's certainly not a problem. All it takes is holding the 'phone at a suitable angle and the display is perfectly usable; some of the higher-contrast themes also help.
The buttons I actually find nicer than many units on the market - though it is an irritation that some of the buttons' functions can't be changed from their (never-used) default.
For those Windows users who have this phone, I find floAt's Mobile Agent a most useful piece of software (though occasionally buggy). A useful feature at work is the option to automatically lock and mute your machine as you leave the room (with phone). Useful for forgetful souls (like me;)
So, let's see you tell me what's behind the sofa on that nice photograph of yours... but of course, you can't, because the photograph isn't actually 3D.
It's not "fake 3D", it's 2D. It's a 2D viewport of a 3D space, and it's useful for viewing information NOT for manipulation.
There was no analogy. A 3D game is a real thing, and the games are much more exciting and in depth for being in three dimensions. The limiting factor of the display doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the game - though it does take some getting used to.
However, the purpose of a game in comparison to a desktop is different. Three dimensions in a game adds complexity, it adds more restriction to the field of view, and more possibilities for obstactcles. Easy navigation and viewing of the entire 3D environment is rarely the goal of the game designer. And yes, a game like (say) "Black & White is pretty, and three dimensional, but the display would have been more functionally useful as a birds-eye map with icons instead of avatars.
A desktop should not be hard to look at. Contrary to most people's opinion, it should not be pretty. Aesthetic consideration should be secondary to the goal of providing an accessible, functional, and fast interface. Is it easier to see a list of available resources, or to have to fly/spin/slide through a maze of them?
If I could reach into the 3D display to pick an item (say, a hologram display with a VR glove interface instead of a mouse), it would be useful. Having a clumsy two-dimensional viewport of a three-dimensional desktop does not add to usability, it detracts from it. What a two-dimensional display needs is an improved two-dimensional interface, to fix some of the drawbacks of our current desktop paradigm.
The problem that nobody developing 3D desktops seems to acknowledge is blatant. A monitor display is two-dimensional. It is suited to displaying two-dimensional artefacts.
When you try to display something in three dimensions on a monitor, not only does it not really exist, but your brain can't deal with it. Watch computer game novices (and some experts!) try to lean their head around to peek round a corner playing a FPS game. See how quickly most people get motion sick watching someone else play a game. It's all because the visuals are faking 3D and our eyes & brain can't deal.
A 3D desktop is not going to be a feasible reality until we have a feasible 3D display to draw it on. Only if/when hologram or 3D-projection displays become a reality will there be a useful case for a desktop to match; in the meantime, this just adds unnecessary complexity to the 2D desktop.
Half the point of any MMO game is community... Is sharing a game... Is a bajillion people sat on a server sharing an experience - either competitively or as part of a team.
So, it's okay to foul in football while nobody's looking? Okay to cut corners in a race when you're not being watched? I think not.
Whatever the bug was, as part of the MMO community the players involved had a moral duty to report the bug to the devs - and help to fix the game they are supposed to be a part of. Abusing an exploit to the detriment of other players is no different to using an aimbot in *insert FPS here*. Do you condone aimbots too?
The fact that the exploit was there is moot - bugs will happen in that size program regardless of testing. Any programmer worth his salt knows that - and also knows that the exact manifestation of those bugs could be anything. It might just be that a tree appears blue instead of green; in this case it was more serious.
All I see are selfish, cheating people who thought they could get away with it. If this exploit gave them advantage over other players, I doubt those other players have much sympathy. Why should the game admins be any different?
The attitude of the parent post ("players who exploited the bug were well within their right to do so") is exactly what leads to the kind of degenerative community that's becoming prevalent in online games - cheat because you can; complain when you get your dues.
This would have been an intelligent comment, if more than 10% of it was correct.
Telnet is on the standard Windows install of every machine I've seen in the last 5 years. And I don't recall that Jug's post was ANYTHING to do with what shell you do or don't have, just that Windows has telnet too.
Grow. Up.
Not trying to jump on the Star Wars is sci-fi bandwagon at all (because I'm not a SW fan), but I'd be interested to hear why you think SW isn't sci-fi and Battlestar Galactica is (even if BG is a bad example)...
That's exactly the kind of nonchalance that'd get people, a species or a planet wiped out under the right circumstance.
We have no idea what's up there. Fascinating, yes. But worth being that arrogant about? No.
"... likening an e-mail message to a message left on a telephone answering machine."
It may be only my opinion, but there's a huge difference between the use of a delivered email and the monitoring of every communication from the computer.
It would okay for a written letter, sent by an accused party to a victim, to be used as evidence with no warrant (AFAIK) - if the letter was submitted after delivery (EG: submitted by the victim). There's a big difference between this and checking every letter that the accused mails. As the judge implies: monitoring a telephone conversation is different to retrieving a recorded message on an answerphone. One is monitoring or tapping of [all] communications, and the other is collection of a single item.
IMO the same distinction should apply to monitoring outgoing email from a person's computer or account: a single email that's already delivered into someone else's inbox shouldn't require a surviellance warrant. Monitoring everything a person sends is akin to a telephone wiretap, but this isn't the case in the story given.
As another thought: is there a law/precedent governing ownership of such communications? I would suspect that, upon delivery of a paper letter, the ownership of the letter & its content transfers to the recipient. Wouldn't this also apply to email? Once the email is delivered, the recipient can use it as they wish unless other laws (copyright, etc) apply to the content.
"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product [...] If you do not accept [...] you should promptly contact the manufacturer of the computer for information on returning the product for a refund."
That's an OEM version, and says nothing about the license on a PS game, but still... if you don't accept, get a refund.
Your $500 per view is unavoidable and thus the contract couldn't be upheld. Installing and executing software is not unavoidable and as such there's no good reason why the terms of the EULA shouldn't stand up legally. If you don't agree to the license, terminate the contract by getting a refund.
Whilst signed agreements are more binding, they're not the sole binding form of contract. There's no real reason why an EULA couldn't stand up in court because you don't have to break it to read it.
Which brings up another point: vendors who refuse refunds because the plastic wrapping on software is broken are actually legally bound to give you said refund if you haven't installed the software: statutary rights and the EULA both say so.
Slashdot Mirror
If there was money in Linux they'd be right there, open-source drivers and all, but there isn't. This is a fact that open-source developers never seem to understand. You can cheerfully dedicate half your life to creating this wonderful utopian software, but you can't force your ideals on someone else - especially on a company whose aims do not coincide with yours. Make it a financially beneficial proposition, and nVidia will spend the time and money on creating those drivers - but I doubt it's anything near that.
What responsibility do nVidia have towards the Linux desktop? The same as they have towards Windows: absolutely none. But they support Windows because 90% of desktops with their graphics cards installed run Windows.
And yes, Intel and ATI have managed to push out open source drivers - that's up to them, but I don't imagine they make profit from it. Yes, it's a real pain in the arse to work with binary drivers. Yes, if nVidia were to release open-source drivers the world would be a happier place. But to act like Linux users have some *right* to these drivers is childish and arrogant.
What Linux users have the right to do is buy a different graphics card.
Talk to your line manager. In a private meeting, explain the compromises you're having to make in your work. Explain that the code you're being forced to release is unmaintainable, is prone to be bugged or poorly-structured because of the time constraints being forced.
Explain a compromise where you get some of the time you want in return for some of the code quality you want. You'll never get all the time you want but, if you can convince your boss that it's going to be of overall benefit, you might get enough.
Most importantly, if the shit hits the fan and your product comes back to you, make sure you're absolutely realistic with management about why this has happened. Yes, the code was sub-quality. Yes, the design was insufficient. Yes, it's management's fault on both counts for not allowing enough time for the proper running of the project.
One of the main problems is that a typical lifecycle (specification, design, implementation, testing) makes no sense to management. Even a technical manager will try to rush the specification and design so they can have demonstrable progress - something to show the client, even if it's not been thought through. And, as soon as the product looks complete, they'll want to get it out where it makes money, regardless of how thoroughly it's been tested.
Educating your superiors about the reality of these things is hard work. You might have managers that will - slowly - learn, in which case you may make some progress. Alternatively, look elsewhere: it's one of the most subtly self-destructive things, to be stuck in a job without being given the opportunity to do it well. Find somewhere that gives you that freedom.
Yeah, I gave up for a while because I realised that a couple of hours a week isn't nearly enough to put towards Eve. There's so much depth to the game that I don't think you could ever keep up with all of it.
And the best thing about Eve is that content and gameplay expansions of the like that would fill a CD come completely free, and the dev team are the most up-front and open group I've seen working on a game of this scale.
No other game I've seen has this level of meaningful player-generated content. In how many other games can the players actively rule a sizeable portion of the universe?
Free 14-day trials available through the buddy program - just find someone who plays already and ask!
Censorship is a different kettle of fish, and has nothing to do with sticking a PG-13 or any other cert on a film - or a game, or a CD, or a book.
And what is the "age of majority," anyway?
"...tend to lag by about 20 minutes."
*ahem*
This is by design in Windows so that a user can modify their own settings (under HKEY_CURRENT_USER), but only suitably elevated users can modify system settings (under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE).
The fact that AutoCAD doesn't work without this access is an indication that the application is badly written - using local system registry where it should be using the user's registry. This is not a Windows' problem.
On the assumption that at least some of the existing dialup users made the switch, there are now less modemmers than in 2003. 60% of that smaller number means there are less people who aren't interested.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics...
On one hand you say how YOU managed to rip all your CDs and YOU managed to play Quake 2... and then you say that neither of these things are important and why should "Joe User" care? Surely anyone who buys a PC with a soundcard (and who doesn't, these days?) would want and expect their machine to make sound?
If I spend 1200 Euros on a computer and the sound card didn't work out of the box, I personally would be pretty miffed. I spend 1200 Euros and I expect to get a working product, not one that needs two days' work to set up.
"Commercial drivers suck" is not an excuse for Linux sound support to suck. "Joe User shouldn't use it anyway" is not an excuse for Linux sound support be unusable. "Games are the domain of windows/console/DOS" (DOS?!) is surely a situation that needs to be improved, if Linux is ever to make headway into the home/desktop market.
"I am Debian cultist ... never going back to M$" ... and your reply isn't as biased as the article? The article may be a little harsh, but it's not unduly inaccurate - and while maybe not the end of the world, it's a pretty important thing in terms of making Linux mainstream.
The buttons I actually find nicer than many units on the market - though it is an irritation that some of the buttons' functions can't be changed from their (never-used) default.
For those Windows users who have this phone, I find floAt's Mobile Agent a most useful piece of software (though occasionally buggy). A useful feature at work is the option to automatically lock and mute your machine as you leave the room (with phone). Useful for forgetful souls (like me ;)
And here's me thinking we have two eyes for a reason ;)
It's not "fake 3D", it's 2D. It's a 2D viewport of a 3D space, and it's useful for viewing information NOT for manipulation.
*sigh*
Looks pretty, sells games, but ultimately isn't the state of the game easier to view and understand from a birds-eye?
However, the purpose of a game in comparison to a desktop is different. Three dimensions in a game adds complexity, it adds more restriction to the field of view, and more possibilities for obstactcles. Easy navigation and viewing of the entire 3D environment is rarely the goal of the game designer. And yes, a game like (say) "Black & White is pretty, and three dimensional, but the display would have been more functionally useful as a birds-eye map with icons instead of avatars.
A desktop should not be hard to look at. Contrary to most people's opinion, it should not be pretty. Aesthetic consideration should be secondary to the goal of providing an accessible, functional, and fast interface. Is it easier to see a list of available resources, or to have to fly/spin/slide through a maze of them?
If I could reach into the 3D display to pick an item (say, a hologram display with a VR glove interface instead of a mouse), it would be useful. Having a clumsy two-dimensional viewport of a three-dimensional desktop does not add to usability, it detracts from it. What a two-dimensional display needs is an improved two-dimensional interface, to fix some of the drawbacks of our current desktop paradigm.
IMHO, anyway ;)
When you try to display something in three dimensions on a monitor, not only does it not really exist, but your brain can't deal with it. Watch computer game novices (and some experts!) try to lean their head around to peek round a corner playing a FPS game. See how quickly most people get motion sick watching someone else play a game. It's all because the visuals are faking 3D and our eyes & brain can't deal.
A 3D desktop is not going to be a feasible reality until we have a feasible 3D display to draw it on. Only if/when hologram or 3D-projection displays become a reality will there be a useful case for a desktop to match; in the meantime, this just adds unnecessary complexity to the 2D desktop.
That was an ANTI-spam site DDOSed out of existance. This is no Good Thing at all.
.... And I'm so full of conviction I daren't even put my name to the post.
No, but the point of genetic algorithms is that you could if you wanted to. It just takes orders of magnitude longer to reach a decent result.
Half the point of any MMO game is community... Is sharing a game... Is a bajillion people sat on a server sharing an experience - either competitively or as part of a team.
So, it's okay to foul in football while nobody's looking? Okay to cut corners in a race when you're not being watched? I think not.
Whatever the bug was, as part of the MMO community the players involved had a moral duty to report the bug to the devs - and help to fix the game they are supposed to be a part of. Abusing an exploit to the detriment of other players is no different to using an aimbot in *insert FPS here*. Do you condone aimbots too?
The fact that the exploit was there is moot - bugs will happen in that size program regardless of testing. Any programmer worth his salt knows that - and also knows that the exact manifestation of those bugs could be anything. It might just be that a tree appears blue instead of green; in this case it was more serious.
All I see are selfish, cheating people who thought they could get away with it. If this exploit gave them advantage over other players, I doubt those other players have much sympathy. Why should the game admins be any different?
The attitude of the parent post ("players who exploited the bug were well within their right to do so") is exactly what leads to the kind of degenerative community that's becoming prevalent in online games - cheat because you can; complain when you get your dues.
This would have been an intelligent comment, if more than 10% of it was correct. Telnet is on the standard Windows install of every machine I've seen in the last 5 years. And I don't recall that Jug's post was ANYTHING to do with what shell you do or don't have, just that Windows has telnet too. Grow. Up.
It's called BROADBAND and is generally an ALWAYS ON connection. For crying out loud, this is the 21st century! Jeez... ;P
Not trying to jump on the Star Wars is sci-fi bandwagon at all (because I'm not a SW fan), but I'd be interested to hear why you think SW isn't sci-fi and Battlestar Galactica is (even if BG is a bad example)...
That's exactly the kind of nonchalance that'd get people, a species or a planet wiped out under the right circumstance. We have no idea what's up there. Fascinating, yes. But worth being that arrogant about? No.
"... likening an e-mail message to a message left on a telephone answering machine."
It may be only my opinion, but there's a huge difference between the use of a delivered email and the monitoring of every communication from the computer.
It would okay for a written letter, sent by an accused party to a victim, to be used as evidence with no warrant (AFAIK) - if the letter was submitted after delivery (EG: submitted by the victim). There's a big difference between this and checking every letter that the accused mails. As the judge implies: monitoring a telephone conversation is different to retrieving a recorded message on an answerphone. One is monitoring or tapping of [all] communications, and the other is collection of a single item.
IMO the same distinction should apply to monitoring outgoing email from a person's computer or account: a single email that's already delivered into someone else's inbox shouldn't require a surviellance warrant. Monitoring everything a person sends is akin to a telephone wiretap, but this isn't the case in the story given.
As another thought: is there a law/precedent governing ownership of such communications? I would suspect that, upon delivery of a paper letter, the ownership of the letter & its content transfers to the recipient. Wouldn't this also apply to email? Once the email is delivered, the recipient can use it as they wish unless other laws (copyright, etc) apply to the content.
First CD box to hand: MS Office.
"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product [...] If you do not accept [...] you should promptly contact the manufacturer of the computer for information on returning the product for a refund."
That's an OEM version, and says nothing about the license on a PS game, but still... if you don't accept, get a refund.
Your $500 per view is unavoidable and thus the contract couldn't be upheld. Installing and executing software is not unavoidable and as such there's no good reason why the terms of the EULA shouldn't stand up legally. If you don't agree to the license, terminate the contract by getting a refund.
Whilst signed agreements are more binding, they're not the sole binding form of contract. There's no real reason why an EULA couldn't stand up in court because you don't have to break it to read it.
Which brings up another point: vendors who refuse refunds because the plastic wrapping on software is broken are actually legally bound to give you said refund if you haven't installed the software: statutary rights and the EULA both say so.