Seconded. Since games are entirely discretionary income (and I have other, very pressing things to be doing instead), I won't buy a copy at full price unless there's a native Linux client. If there's official Codeweavers/Wine support from Blizzrd, I might buy it at an intermediate time, but if there's nothing then I'll maybe buy it when it's on the $10 shelf or so.
It probably helps to send them dead tree letters, though. E-mail is cheap.
you get working DSDTs too so that, even if the drivers haven't hit mainline yet, they'll work 100% when they do (as opposed to, e.g. sound devices not showing up because the DSDT is horked and the OS doesn't know where to find them!) .:)
Yes, it may be Linux inside, but it's Linux running on 64 MB of RAM, 64 MB of Flash, and with most of/usr/bin deleted to save space Expecting it to have Samba or NFS is actually quite a bit more ignorant than the grandparent.
Do you think the Linux community would be okay with us integrating DRM support into the downloadable codec pack?
We went over this. Most would be OK (provided, of course, that it's as non-invasive as the current codec packs are). Some wouldn't. Just like any other community, we're of diverse opinion.
Right, but the Mono people cannot implement the DRM; only MSFT can, and until the MSFT-provided codecs can do DRM, Linux will remain a second-class client. Whether this is a problem for your bosses is another matter.
What kind of DRM implementation would the Linux community accept in Moonlight?
Depends entirely on the segement of the community to which you're referring, rather like the Windows community. Most would rather like to be able to get the full experience.
Of course, in an ideal world, no DRM would be present at all. Sadly, the world isn't ideal.
It's also free for on Linux non-commercial use: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/non-commercial-software-download. The Fortran and C as well as vtune and a bunch of other software (e.g. the Math Kernel Library) are all available for free, non-commercial use on Linux. Of course, AMD's software doesn't even have that restriction.:)
there supposed to be a version of Silverlight for Linux?
Yes. It's called "moonlight". If you allow it to download the Microsoft codec pack, it can play back Windows Media files.
Well, not all Windows Media files. It doesn't do DRM, and the various movie studios have (according to Netflix reps I've talked to) mandated Windows Media with its DRM. So it won't help here.
Xegl is where we are going, we are not there yet, Xgl is what we have now, it has major pieces missing and only runs properly on a small subset of hardware (not as small as what Xegl runs on, though.)
I am aware of them. You did a comparison, which is not backed up. And the homepages themselves aren't that useful; an overview article or linking to a particular document on their page that backs up your assertions has still not been provided.
I won't do your research for you again
Actually, it's your homework. You provided the assertions, you must provide the backup links. Which you've still not provided.
Today we need 2 cores, 2 gb ram, super graphics cards just to run Office.
If you want limited resource use, you should try Gnumeric and AbiWord. They are really quite nice, and don't use many resources. With compiz, you get all of the glitz and glamour too. Oh, and gnumeric actually gets the numbers right.;)
This is the gospel truth, because Linux does not accelerate as much as they do.
[Citation needed]
you are going to use more of your computer to do those things under Linux than you will under Vista or OSX.
Vista won't be able to use the same hardware, so it seems that you're wrong. Linux's hardware requirements are significantly lower than Vista. Pony up some actual data to back up your assertion. "use more of your computer" is uselessly vague. More of what, as measured by what?
Linux does not accelerate as much as they do.
Please provide data to back up your assertion.
nVidia can properly handle video in such an environment today anyway (although I hear some ATI cards would do it) so there's limited usefulness there anyway.
So we're talking video playback. Yes, Linux has a hard time with video playback because the video card vendors haven't provided the info to do it. They're starting to, and that's changing. But that wasn't your original assertion.
If you want the full set of glitz and glamour, you are going to need more machine to get the same performance out of KDE or GNOME that you do out of Windows XP or Mac OS X.
Incorrect. The Asus EEE 701 (with the infamous vid chip that caused the Vista Ready / Capable debacle) with 512MB RAM can run compiz with all glitz turned on (tested with Ubuntu Hardy) It has a downclocked Celery-M for a CPU.
But I don't understand what you said either:P. Not sure where I need to put the linux backport modules or what I do with them, but thanks for your help
Sorry, my bad.
Once Intrepid is installed, you will need to go into System -> Administration and select 'Synaptic Package Manager'. Once synaptic has started, search (Ctrl+f or Edit -> Search) for "linux-backports-modules-intrepid". Mark "linux-backports-modules" for installation by double-clicking on it, and it should automatically select the correct packages for you to install. Then click the check mark on the toolbar to accept the changes and install. If you don't have network access, you'll have to download the correct package manually, and then perform the above procedure to ensure you keep the package up-to-date.
I'll save all the links and take my laptop to my computer-savvy programmer friend once I get back to my hometown and let him sort through it.
This is likely a good idea; it's usually easier to help when you have the computer right in front of you.:)
I think most of my problems is because I don't have something called "build essential", and that's what is preventing things from installing
http://packages.ubuntu.com/nl/intrepid/build-essential says "This package contains an informational list of packages which are considered essential for building Debian packages. This package also depends on the packages on that list, to make it easy to have the build-essential packages installed." It's unlikely that installing this package will be of immediate use to you. Rather, it would help if you have to compile a driver yourself (iirc, this is the situation prior to Intrepid).
It seems to me that the easiest way to get the AR5007 to work is to install Intrepid and then install the linux-backports-modules through Synaptic, as I outlined above.
Most user-friendly distribution of Linux my ***...
You were doing quite well up until this point. Generally, blanket insults (particularly one that blithely ignores highly salient details relevant to the situation) will turn people away from giving you help with the project you're insulting. If you want help, please be nice. Otherwise, you will only spark a flamewar.
To clarify: the "you" at the end is "those who buy games for Windows but want to run something else". Or, really, "those who buy games for Windows". But "those who buy games for Windows but want to run something else" should realize that they're causing their own problem there.
How long am I going to have to hang on to these licenses before [...] games companies start supporting Linux?"
They'll start support Linux when more people use it, supposedly. (This ignores things like Microsoft's own game studios and publishing, who will likely support Linux right after MS Office does, which is right after Duke Nukem Forever is released for the Commodore).
So ultimately, the biggest impediment to developers making Linux games is you.
Sorry, but "robust" does not mean "works exactly like NoScript."
But that's not your claim. Your claim was
That's nothing noscript does that you can't do via IE settings (or probably even FF settings)
I've shown things that can be done with NoScript that I argue cannot be done by standard IE settings. If I'm wrong, provide the evidence.
Also, the OPs focus was ONLY on disabling Javascript.
Yes.
You can do that on IE just fine, and NOT for the whole internet
You can block/allow sites via the security zones system in IE. However, whether or not it's "just fine" is highly dependent upon your perception. I'd argue that NoScript's method is much superior due to its ease of use. And that still ignores the things that NoScript does which have no parallel in IE settings.
The end result is largely the same; you don't have javascript for sites which you don't want javascript.
Yes, the end result--namely, sites being blocked/allowed to run JavaSript--is the same. However, only a fool would argue that a horse and a car are "just the same" or "just fine" because they both get you from point A to point B. Your argument, when applied to this situation, would argue the contrary.
I've spent a lot of time in both Linux newgroups and Windows ones. My experience is that the linux "community" suffers from alot more zealotry that the Windows one. Most people in the Windows groups are more focused on getting things done and possibly suggesting better ways, whereas most Linux responses were much less helpful.. basically "that is stupid, do it this way, or we won't bother to read your thread anymore. And don't mention MS."
Until we have solid statistics to back up the argument, we're down to your experience vs mine. Your experience is totally different from mine, likely due to the different places we go.
This is wrong and I belive I've outlined additional features that are beyond what IE (and default FF) do.
[citation needed]
Which is what I stated to the OP, who only added that "robust" comment after stating flat out "there is NO way to turn of Javascript."
Again, the OP stated
Not me, I use NoScript. Unless it's vital JS, I won't permit it to run and therefore it won't affect my experience (and you can't get a rubust solution to disable JS for IE -- only on Firefox.)
the claim on IE is there in the parentheses: "you can't get a rubust solution to disable JS for IE -- only on Firefox.". Which comes down to the definition of "robust" and is hardly your claim of
stating flat out "there is NO way to turn of Javascript."
You're making a lot of assumptions on his behalf, and again, I really fail to see why you bothered jumping in.
I think we're both reading the sentence differently. And then you subsequently made claims which I argue (with citation about what NoScript does) are wrong, and you then claim (without any citation) are right.
When you've provided the citation I requested above, I'll continue this thread.
The OP was complaining that you CAN'T disable Javascript in IE.
OP said
Not me, I use NoScript. Unless it's vital JS, I won't permit it to run and therefore it won't affect my experience (and you can't get a rubust solution to disable JS for IE -- only on Firefox.)
(emphasis mine). Not that you cannot disable JavaScript; that its zones-based solution isn't robust (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robust). To which you then responded
I believe going to the relevent Security Zone settings and disabling Active scripting will do the exact same thing.
Which I took to mean "exactly the same thing as NoScript". Which is extremely wrong IMHO, and I then tried to show you how so. Admittedly smart-assedly, which is a bad way to convince someone that they're wrong.
Regarding zealotry
especially given the page you linked to, which smacks of zealotry itself
What, specifically (i.e. with references) is zealotous about the front page of NoScript?
I find it ironic that OSS zealots and anti-MS zealots have been far, far worse than any MS zealot I've encountered (of which, there are really very few).
That might be because either you've not been in the right place, or your biases are aligned such that the zealotousness is not apparent to you. Zealots are just as common on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. IMHO.
Anyhow, within the argument you've put forward here, namely that you can disable JavaScript within IE, yes. It's not nearly as robust as a NoScript solution, you can disable JavaScript for some sites. However, as I showed you in the post to which you're replying your argument (repeated below) is incorrect.
Your actual statement was
That's(sic) nothing noscript does that you can't do via IE settings (or probably even FF settings). It just puts a menu to make changing those settings easier.
Empasis mine. This is wrong and I belive I've outlined additional features that are beyond what IE (and default FF) do. Now it's your turn to show me how to do the features that I mentioned using straight IE settings, or admit your error.
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded. Since games are entirely discretionary income (and I have other, very pressing things to be doing instead), I won't buy a copy at full price unless there's a native Linux client. If there's official Codeweavers/Wine support from Blizzrd, I might buy it at an intermediate time, but if there's nothing then I'll maybe buy it when it's on the $10 shelf or so. It probably helps to send them dead tree letters, though. E-mail is cheap.
you get working DSDTs too so that, even if the drivers haven't hit mainline yet, they'll work 100% when they do (as opposed to, e.g. sound devices not showing up because the DSDT is horked and the OS doesn't know where to find them!) . :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Tutorials http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Samba_Filesystem http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Sshfs http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Nfs Synopsis: 64MB RAM and flash is luxury; you can get samba, nfs, and much more in (at least!) 1/4 that.
We went over this. Most would be OK (provided, of course, that it's as non-invasive as the current codec packs are). Some wouldn't. Just like any other community, we're of diverse opinion.
Right, but the Mono people cannot implement the DRM; only MSFT can, and until the MSFT-provided codecs can do DRM, Linux will remain a second-class client. Whether this is a problem for your bosses is another matter.
Depends entirely on the segement of the community to which you're referring, rather like the Windows community. Most would rather like to be able to get the full experience. Of course, in an ideal world, no DRM would be present at all. Sadly, the world isn't ideal.
Without DRM. Big, important exception, as this means e.g. no Netflix streaming.
Already included in Windows 7, apparently: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-&-technology/windows-7-to-include-punch%11screen-technology-200903271670/
It's also free for on Linux non-commercial use: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/non-commercial-software-download. The Fortran and C as well as vtune and a bunch of other software (e.g. the Math Kernel Library) are all available for free, non-commercial use on Linux. Of course, AMD's software doesn't even have that restriction. :)
Yes. It's called "moonlight". If you allow it to download the Microsoft codec pack, it can play back Windows Media files.
Well, not all Windows Media files. It doesn't do DRM, and the various movie studios have (according to Netflix reps I've talked to) mandated Windows Media with its DRM. So it won't help here.
At least they've got a player to whine about....
It can do multicoloured cells, but not translucent, sorry. ;)
Oh, and it has statistical analysis built-in.
I am aware of them. You did a comparison, which is not backed up. And the homepages themselves aren't that useful; an overview article or linking to a particular document on their page that backs up your assertions has still not been provided.
Actually, it's your homework. You provided the assertions, you must provide the backup links. Which you've still not provided.
If you want limited resource use, you should try Gnumeric and AbiWord. They are really quite nice, and don't use many resources. With compiz, you get all of the glitz and glamour too. Oh, and gnumeric actually gets the numbers right. ;)
[Citation needed]
Vista won't be able to use the same hardware, so it seems that you're wrong. Linux's hardware requirements are significantly lower than Vista. Pony up some actual data to back up your assertion. "use more of your computer" is uselessly vague. More of what, as measured by what?
Please provide data to back up your assertion.
So we're talking video playback. Yes, Linux has a hard time with video playback because the video card vendors haven't provided the info to do it. They're starting to, and that's changing. But that wasn't your original assertion.
Incorrect. The Asus EEE 701 (with the infamous vid chip that caused the Vista Ready / Capable debacle) with 512MB RAM can run compiz with all glitz turned on (tested with Ubuntu Hardy) It has a downclocked Celery-M for a CPU.
Sorry, my bad.
Once Intrepid is installed, you will need to go into System -> Administration and select 'Synaptic Package Manager'. Once synaptic has started, search (Ctrl+f or Edit -> Search) for "linux-backports-modules-intrepid". Mark "linux-backports-modules" for installation by double-clicking on it, and it should automatically select the correct packages for you to install. Then click the check mark on the toolbar to accept the changes and install. If you don't have network access, you'll have to download the correct package manually, and then perform the above procedure to ensure you keep the package up-to-date.
This is likely a good idea; it's usually easier to help when you have the computer right in front of you. :)
http://packages.ubuntu.com/nl/intrepid/build-essential says "This package contains an informational list of packages which are considered essential for building Debian packages. This package also depends on the packages on that list, to make it easy to have the build-essential packages installed." It's unlikely that installing this package will be of immediate use to you. Rather, it would help if you have to compile a driver yourself (iirc, this is the situation prior to Intrepid).
It seems to me that the easiest way to get the AR5007 to work is to install Intrepid and then install the linux-backports-modules through Synaptic, as I outlined above.
Is OK. I'm just glad you're not intentionally trolling. :)
Going over the relevant bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24/+bug/182489) it looks like the answer is "yes, but there's a twist". The driver was included, but turned out to cause more problems than it solved, but the release window closed too soon. So the solution is to install the 'linux-backport-modules' package for intrepid (http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=linux-backports-modules-intrepid). If you can't connect to the 'net to get the package, you can download it manually at http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/i386/linux-backports-modules-2.6.27-7-generic/download by clicking on one of the mirror links. This page was found from http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=linux-backports-modules-intrepid by making assumptions about your system, namely that it was a desktop system (click on "intrepid" in "intrepid (devel): Backported drivers for generic kernel image"), that it was 32-bit system instead of AMD 64-bit (the "i386" link). You'll need to go through the selection process again if you use a different system than what I assumed, or if you wait too long and there's a kernel update (because you'd end up downloading the package for the old kernel instead of the package for the new kernel, and it would fail to install). HTH.
You were doing quite well up until this point. Generally, blanket insults (particularly one that blithely ignores highly salient details relevant to the situation) will turn people away from giving you help with the project you're insulting. If you want help, please be nice. Otherwise, you will only spark a flamewar.
To clarify: the "you" at the end is "those who buy games for Windows but want to run something else". Or, really, "those who buy games for Windows". But "those who buy games for Windows but want to run something else" should realize that they're causing their own problem there.
They'll start support Linux when more people use it, supposedly. (This ignores things like Microsoft's own game studios and publishing, who will likely support Linux right after MS Office does, which is right after Duke Nukem Forever is released for the Commodore).
So ultimately, the biggest impediment to developers making Linux games is you.
Still no requested references, only ridiculous accusations and misrepresntations. Come back when you have an argument.
But that's not your claim. Your claim was
I've shown things that can be done with NoScript that I argue cannot be done by standard IE settings. If I'm wrong, provide the evidence.
Yes.
You can block/allow sites via the security zones system in IE. However, whether or not it's "just fine" is highly dependent upon your perception. I'd argue that NoScript's method is much superior due to its ease of use. And that still ignores the things that NoScript does which have no parallel in IE settings.
Yes, the end result--namely, sites being blocked/allowed to run JavaSript--is the same. However, only a fool would argue that a horse and a car are "just the same" or "just fine" because they both get you from point A to point B. Your argument, when applied to this situation, would argue the contrary.
Until we have solid statistics to back up the argument, we're down to your experience vs mine. Your experience is totally different from mine, likely due to the different places we go.
I've used it exclusively since 2002. I think it works just fine.
OP said
(emphasis mine). Not that you cannot disable JavaScript; that its zones-based solution isn't robust (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robust). To which you then responded
Which I took to mean "exactly the same thing as NoScript". Which is extremely wrong IMHO, and I then tried to show you how so. Admittedly smart-assedly, which is a bad way to convince someone that they're wrong. Regarding zealotry
What, specifically (i.e. with references) is zealotous about the front page of NoScript?
That might be because either you've not been in the right place, or your biases are aligned such that the zealotousness is not apparent to you. Zealots are just as common on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. IMHO.
Anyhow, within the argument you've put forward here, namely that you can disable JavaScript within IE, yes. It's not nearly as robust as a NoScript solution, you can disable JavaScript for some sites. However, as I showed you in the post to which you're replying your argument (repeated below) is incorrect.
Your actual statement was
Empasis mine. This is wrong and I belive I've outlined additional features that are beyond what IE (and default FF) do. Now it's your turn to show me how to do the features that I mentioned using straight IE settings, or admit your error.