That's entirely and totally true. However that causes a self-perpetuating situation.
"I'd use linux but I play games"
"I don't play games that much, let me try Linux" --> Studies have shown that Linux users don't play any games - so why bother developing for them?
et cetera.
That said, there are games which work on Linux - including some awesome open source ones. Also thanks to java, pretty much anything written in that will work on Linux - including games.
Tarballs are confusing, that's true. The build-in installer is child-friendly. You just choose the whatever, press install and BAM. You're done.
There are also.deb files which are also the equivalent of the windows 'double click to install'. The tarballs are there because those work across all linux destros.
Then there are also repositories which you can add and which will update themselves using the updater = that doesn't get any simpler.
Gnome and KDE are the interfaces which you use to view your files, the desktop et cetera.
You're blaming the Operating System for the lack of people developing for it? That's not a very fair comparison - since its only because of the fact that its not the most popular thing to develop for.
If there was a minefield to get a linux game, or the design made it exceptionally difficult to develop for it - then it'd be fair.
I touched on it many times. What's horrible about it is that if something goes wrong - NOTHING happens. When you're trying to debug something and end up filling it full of popups to see when its failing...
Try GWT if you've got naught to do - it converts java to javascript code.
All large applications are chock-full of Javascript. Web applications are almost entirely written in Javascript.
Slashdot uses javascript.
Try getting noscript - leave it on and browse the web, see just how many stuff breaks. In fact, the only websites which don't use javascript are non-dynamic ones.
So yes, Javascript is becoming the language of the future. Pity its horrible as a language.
Marketting: So, how thick will it be? Development: X cms thick Marketting: Cool, that's almost as thick as the glass in my family picture frame, "No Thicker Than Sheet of Glass" - perfect Development: Uh, but won't that be ambigious - and since the majority of people who are going to care enough to read this are going to have more intelligence than a potted plant - and actually question how thick the glass will be... won't this make us look like a bunch of idiots? Marketting: Sheet of Glass! Perfect.
I'm pretty sure that telling the feds "You can look, but the entire drive is encrypted so you can't look at anything which isn't garbled" is not going to win you a free ticket.
Not to mention that having to encrypt/decrypt everything puts large overheads on I/O.
I think the idea behind the rules was that this couldn't happen:
"Yes sir, we have reason to believe you have terrorist training manuals on your hard-disk" *search* "Nope, none found, but we did find some music which the RIAA might be interested in, some videos the MPAA might be interested in, a particular movie Voltage might be interested in, also you said a rude joke in a chatroom which was not properly filtered and marked for adults only"
I used pornography as an example because I know there exist a number of pornographic websites which 'copied' youtube's name (in a way)
Now if there was bunnyrabbittube and knittingtube and rainbowtube I would have used those as an example, but couldn't think of any example where someone copied the name.
That's about it. I'm not trying to compare pornography to religions, race or genetic traits, its a coincidence.
Now my argument against 2 is that "Other popular sites have done it and 'gotten away with it' so there was no need to perform those actions to avoid getting sued because its been done before"
Slashdot Mirror
Allright class, who can tell me what the letter "O" stands for?
That's entirely and totally true. However that causes a self-perpetuating situation.
"I'd use linux but I play games"
"I don't play games that much, let me try Linux"
--> Studies have shown that Linux users don't play any games - so why bother developing for them?
et cetera.
That said, there are games which work on Linux - including some awesome open source ones. Also thanks to java, pretty much anything written in that will work on Linux - including games.
Tarballs are confusing, that's true. The build-in installer is child-friendly. You just choose the whatever, press install and BAM. You're done.
There are also .deb files which are also the equivalent of the windows 'double click to install'. The tarballs are there because those work across all linux destros.
Then there are also repositories which you can add and which will update themselves using the updater = that doesn't get any simpler.
Gnome and KDE are the interfaces which you use to view your files, the desktop et cetera.
You're blaming the Operating System for the lack of people developing for it? That's not a very fair comparison - since its only because of the fact that its not the most popular thing to develop for.
If there was a minefield to get a linux game, or the design made it exceptionally difficult to develop for it - then it'd be fair.
*cough Business section cough*
I have to say that Adobe Flash is horrible on Linux, it uses far more CPU time and its not as smooth either.
That said, there are plans (according to another /. article) for Steam to move into Linux too. And not even home user is there to play games.
Would be funny is someone releases a benchmark which shows that their software is less capable than others.
I touched on it many times. What's horrible about it is that if something goes wrong - NOTHING happens. When you're trying to debug something and end up filling it full of popups to see when its failing...
Try GWT if you've got naught to do - it converts java to javascript code.
Why don't they just grab the (say) 200 most visited sites on the internet, copy the JavaScript and use that to benchmark instead?
Simples.
All large applications are chock-full of Javascript. Web applications are almost entirely written in Javascript.
Slashdot uses javascript.
Try getting noscript - leave it on and browse the web, see just how many stuff breaks. In fact, the only websites which don't use javascript are non-dynamic ones.
So yes, Javascript is becoming the language of the future. Pity its horrible as a language.
Marketting: So, how thick will it be?
Development: X cms thick
Marketting: Cool, that's almost as thick as the glass in my family picture frame, "No Thicker Than Sheet of Glass" - perfect
Development: Uh, but won't that be ambigious - and since the majority of people who are going to care enough to read this are going to have more intelligence than a potted plant - and actually question how thick the glass will be... won't this make us look like a bunch of idiots?
Marketting: Sheet of Glass! Perfect.
"criticising the US Government after seeing a TV programme about 9/11."
Did I fall into a wormhole or something? Or was 9/11 a few years before Obama came into power?
Well the star's still there at least.
I'm pretty sure that telling the feds "You can look, but the entire drive is encrypted so you can't look at anything which isn't garbled" is not going to win you a free ticket.
Not to mention that having to encrypt/decrypt everything puts large overheads on I/O.
And he will be really really cranky towards Hollywood, Sony, LG, Samsung, etc if he has to pay $50 to someone who can do it for him.
Why am I not feeling as optimistic as you?
Meh why bother. They should just do a "RIAA Vs Citizens of the US" class action lawsuit. Saves them a lot of trouble.
I'm sure many of the latter class won't bother turning up.
(cont..)
"...and this video entitled MyGirlfriendThreeMenSomeMudAndABaseballBat.avi which we're all interested in..."
I think the idea behind the rules was that this couldn't happen:
"Yes sir, we have reason to believe you have terrorist training manuals on your hard-disk"
*search*
"Nope, none found, but we did find some music which the RIAA might be interested in, some videos the MPAA might be interested in, a particular movie Voltage might be interested in, also you said a rude joke in a chatroom which was not properly filtered and marked for adults only"
*lawsuits to death*
But now it can :)
Probably the 'movies' you were talking about.
You're misunderstanding.
I used pornography as an example because I know there exist a number of pornographic websites which 'copied' youtube's name (in a way)
Now if there was bunnyrabbittube and knittingtube and rainbowtube I would have used those as an example, but couldn't think of any example where someone copied the name.
That's about it. I'm not trying to compare pornography to religions, race or genetic traits, its a coincidence.
Now my argument against 2 is that "Other popular sites have done it and 'gotten away with it' so there was no need to perform those actions to avoid getting sued because its been done before"
That was my argument
Certain interpretations of the Koran suggest that you shouldn't draw images of Muhammed. So there's pretty much nothing else to show.
Youtube is owned by google
[whatever]tube is about the equivalent to youtube as jewgle is to google.
Since nobody bothered suing ${pornographicPrefix}tube - then I conclude that its not for that reason.
Didn't stop all the *tube porn sides did it?
I think baptizing the server would short it out.
Jewogle just sounds weird. Jewgle sounds like google only with a soft g.