So, you are saying you are proud to overpay for products that allow apple to have that money?
Well when the choice is a free product vs an (subjectively) overpriced product and the latter is more popular then clearly they are doing something right. I'm sure many would like to believe that what they are doing right is all just marketing so they can stick their collective head in the sand and pretend Linux is perfect and it's everybody who doesn't use it that is the problem and that's fine if you want to be ignorant.
The reality is that it is not just marketing, that the Mac really *is* a really good product and people are willing to pay for that (that said I find the Surface Pro to also be a really good product and that certainly isn't as popular so of course it is subjective).
Just why do they think anyone is going to want this code nowadays?
The Computer History Museum, obviously.
One doubts that it really has any value to anyone -- which I'm certain is why they're doing it
What value did you think something in the Computer History Museum was going to have to you?
Obviously it wasn't going to have a valuable contribution to development of modern software, it's over 2 decades old for god sake so it's pretty deluded to think otherwise. Were you actually expecting source code from their existing proprietary applications? Really?
Doesn't even looking at this source code create a minefield for open source developers?
No, otherwise we would have seen the same issues with restrictive open source licenses Vs permissive open source licenses or even open source licenses Vs proprietary software development. Otherwise I could publish a restrictively-licensed open source program and then sue every software developer who read it and wrote code that wasn't under the same license. I think it's pretty obvious that's FUD.
it's _entirely_ rational to desire this state of affairs.
That state of affairs? Yes. The path to getting there by begging to open source the firmware for closed hardware? No. The effort should go into creating the open hardware upon which you will either develop firmware or use an existing software solution like OsmocomBB rather than trying to get companies to give up the source code element that runs on closed hardware.
Fair point, but really I prefer the wacom digitizer in this form factor than on a touchscreen laptop as the latter really doesn't work for active digitizers. The keyboard isn't entirely rigid on your lap and it does sit a little close to you but I don't find myself using it (or any laptop for that matter) on my lap that much, it's always on a table in front of me because it's more about portability. I suppose if you want to do extensive amounts of work with it on your lap then it probably isn't for you but that's ok, that's the nice thing about choice.
Oh it's all so hard there's so much to do we may as well give up and not try.
AFAICT his point is that this is starting at an obviously stupid place. Opening up the baseband software serves little purpose because the hardware is closed anyway and if you design new open hardware you're going to write new open baseband software for it anyway or use something like OsmocomBB. Why waste the effort when it serves no purpose?
The implication being that he is lying because it is impossible for a microsoft product to meet any person's needs? Personally I find the Surface pro to be really good, the weight and battery life (i have the 1st gen) let it down a bit but the screen and stylus make up for that, I dual boot Windows and Linux (both Ubuntu and Gentoo work well) so that combined with my iPad covers pretty much everything I need. It won't replace my iPad - some things are more suited to iOS and some to Windows - but it's certainly been a damn good investment. I'm not sure what your specific issue is with it.
What good is that to them? Why do they have to prove anything to you? I'm not saying you're wrong or that your request is unreasonable but frankly I don't see any reason they would go to any effort to comply with your request.
How about to make sure there isn't a backdoor in the baseband software?
Well if there is then they're hardly going to open it up and show you now are they? If you take that as admission that there is then the next step would be to begin developing your own solution instead of badgering them to give you theirs that you probably don't want anyway.
He may be condescending and dismissive but I do see his point, this same formula has been repeated for years (first in desktops) with almost no successful results because it is flawed. Open source rarely gets used by end users because it's open source, it gets used because it is a more compelling product for one reason or another. Saying "you should open this up" inevitably leads to the question of "why" and if you cannot answer that then obviously it won't be opened up.
In general, rendering a large scene takes immense memory bandwidth as the data required to describe the scene (GL commands, texture data, other data for shaders, etc) and the representation of the output (framebuffer, other pixel buffers, etc) are very large.
You should have pretty much all of that uploaded to the GPU anyway, you aren't going to go and do it all again just to render the second frame of the same scene.
If they are trying to build stereoscopic 1080p, then you have the difficulty of rendering the scene twice (well, 2x over the normal number of render passes) and then reading out from 2 framebuffers. That is mostly a question of memory bandwidth in the GPU, though, and how their display controllers arbitrate the bus.
How is rendering the scene twice mostly a question of memory bandwidth? Increasing the memory bandwidth alone generally won't do much to increase your ability to render the scene, the limitation here is primarily the amount of ALUs on the GPU not memory bandwidth.
As a cushion then, while one comes up to speed on something else. Sounds fair enough.
Why write HTML5, Java (Android), native Windows/OS X/Linux versions directly when you can utilise your existing Flash knowledge (which admittedly I have very little so it's nor really for me) to write in OpenFL and multi-target?
And I'd be interested in letting random websites execute arbitrary C++ code on my machine why exactly???
You wouldn't, but then that's not what OpenFL is doing so that isn't really relevant.
The whole notion of Flash is terrible -- no, I do not trust you or your advertisers to run code on my machine.
You don't trust who? Anybody? Ultimately how are you even going to know whether an application used OpenFL? The result that you run is just a native program like any other.
No I do not think it makes your site any better, it makes it shittier and I won't use it.
Website? What are you talking about? This isn't a Flash plugin, it has nothing to do with websites.
It's that simple. And to date I've yet to find a single compelling reason of why I'd use Flash in the first place. And, for the same reason, this OpenFL is equally something I'm not interested in.
No, because OpenFL isn't Flash, it isn't a replacement for Flash and it isn't a plugin.
...except this was no different from someone doing the same thing to a bank.
It's totally different! Unlike a normal bank bitcoin transactions are irreversible, untraceable and the deposits are uninsured, the whole thing is unregulated and anonymous by design.
The problem is paying off that loan AFTER you leave college.
The Australian system seems to work very well. Their degrees are government-funded loans that are only subject to interest based on inflation and I believe you pay it back by your employer deducting repayments from your pre-tax income after you start earning over a specified threshold (which I think is somewhere in the $45k region). The amount of your repayments is calculated and adjusted based on your income but you do get additional discounts for paying off lump sums yourself.
WinRT is a stripped down version of Windows that does not include the desktop or related functionality. Windows on the desktop is a superset of WinRT and includes "the interface formerly known as Metro".
No, WinRT is the Windows Runtime, it is an application platform for Metro apps. You are thinking of the operating system called Windows RT.
Metro is fine for applications designed purely for touch devices but frankly desktop web browsers like Chrome and Firefox work fine in Windows 8 on touch devices and with a mouse and keyboard anyway so why bother creating a "Metro" version? I never saw the point in that at all.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are saying you are proud to overpay for products that allow apple to have that money?
Well when the choice is a free product vs an (subjectively) overpriced product and the latter is more popular then clearly they are doing something right. I'm sure many would like to believe that what they are doing right is all just marketing so they can stick their collective head in the sand and pretend Linux is perfect and it's everybody who doesn't use it that is the problem and that's fine if you want to be ignorant.
The reality is that it is not just marketing, that the Mac really *is* a really good product and people are willing to pay for that (that said I find the Surface Pro to also be a really good product and that certainly isn't as popular so of course it is subjective).
Just why do they think anyone is going to want this code nowadays?
The Computer History Museum, obviously.
One doubts that it really has any value to anyone -- which I'm certain is why they're doing it
What value did you think something in the Computer History Museum was going to have to you?
Obviously it wasn't going to have a valuable contribution to development of modern software, it's over 2 decades old for god sake so it's pretty deluded to think otherwise. Were you actually expecting source code from their existing proprietary applications? Really?
Doesn't even looking at this source code create a minefield for open source developers?
No, otherwise we would have seen the same issues with restrictive open source licenses Vs permissive open source licenses or even open source licenses Vs proprietary software development. Otherwise I could publish a restrictively-licensed open source program and then sue every software developer who read it and wrote code that wasn't under the same license. I think it's pretty obvious that's FUD.
it's _entirely_ rational to desire this state of affairs.
That state of affairs? Yes. The path to getting there by begging to open source the firmware for closed hardware? No. The effort should go into creating the open hardware upon which you will either develop firmware or use an existing software solution like OsmocomBB rather than trying to get companies to give up the source code element that runs on closed hardware.
Fair point, but really I prefer the wacom digitizer in this form factor than on a touchscreen laptop as the latter really doesn't work for active digitizers. The keyboard isn't entirely rigid on your lap and it does sit a little close to you but I don't find myself using it (or any laptop for that matter) on my lap that much, it's always on a table in front of me because it's more about portability. I suppose if you want to do extensive amounts of work with it on your lap then it probably isn't for you but that's ok, that's the nice thing about choice.
Oh it's all so hard there's so much to do we may as well give up and not try.
AFAICT his point is that this is starting at an obviously stupid place. Opening up the baseband software serves little purpose because the hardware is closed anyway and if you design new open hardware you're going to write new open baseband software for it anyway or use something like OsmocomBB. Why waste the effort when it serves no purpose?
The implication being that he touches the top 15 marketing points for the product in three paragraphs. Nothing more, nothing less.
But he didn't. You seem pretty vested in trying to bury his opinion simply because you don't like it not because there is anything wrong with it.
The implication being that he is lying because it is impossible for a microsoft product to meet any person's needs? Personally I find the Surface pro to be really good, the weight and battery life (i have the 1st gen) let it down a bit but the screen and stylus make up for that, I dual boot Windows and Linux (both Ubuntu and Gentoo work well) so that combined with my iPad covers pretty much everything I need. It won't replace my iPad - some things are more suited to iOS and some to Windows - but it's certainly been a damn good investment. I'm not sure what your specific issue is with it.
Mark Shuttlesworth, heard of him? bought a ticket to space.
...thanks to the fortune he made selling his company (Thawte) to Verisign.
What good is that to them? Why do they have to prove anything to you? I'm not saying you're wrong or that your request is unreasonable but frankly I don't see any reason they would go to any effort to comply with your request.
How about to make sure there isn't a backdoor in the baseband software?
Well if there is then they're hardly going to open it up and show you now are they? If you take that as admission that there is then the next step would be to begin developing your own solution instead of badgering them to give you theirs that you probably don't want anyway.
He may be condescending and dismissive but I do see his point, this same formula has been repeated for years (first in desktops) with almost no successful results because it is flawed. Open source rarely gets used by end users because it's open source, it gets used because it is a more compelling product for one reason or another. Saying "you should open this up" inevitably leads to the question of "why" and if you cannot answer that then obviously it won't be opened up.
In general, rendering a large scene takes immense memory bandwidth as the data required to describe the scene (GL commands, texture data, other data for shaders, etc) and the representation of the output (framebuffer, other pixel buffers, etc) are very large.
You should have pretty much all of that uploaded to the GPU anyway, you aren't going to go and do it all again just to render the second frame of the same scene.
If they are trying to build stereoscopic 1080p, then you have the difficulty of rendering the scene twice (well, 2x over the normal number of render passes) and then reading out from 2 framebuffers. That is mostly a question of memory bandwidth in the GPU, though, and how their display controllers arbitrate the bus.
How is rendering the scene twice mostly a question of memory bandwidth? Increasing the memory bandwidth alone generally won't do much to increase your ability to render the scene, the limitation here is primarily the amount of ALUs on the GPU not memory bandwidth.
Thankyou for that insight Sony Marketing team! Very valuable and useful information.
As a cushion then, while one comes up to speed on something else. Sounds fair enough.
Why write HTML5, Java (Android), native Windows/OS X/Linux versions directly when you can utilise your existing Flash knowledge (which admittedly I have very little so it's nor really for me) to write in OpenFL and multi-target?
But OpenFL is not a plugin, so what's your point?
And I'd be interested in letting random websites execute arbitrary C++ code on my machine why exactly???
You wouldn't, but then that's not what OpenFL is doing so that isn't really relevant.
The whole notion of Flash is terrible -- no, I do not trust you or your advertisers to run code on my machine.
You don't trust who? Anybody? Ultimately how are you even going to know whether an application used OpenFL? The result that you run is just a native program like any other.
No I do not think it makes your site any better, it makes it shittier and I won't use it.
Website? What are you talking about? This isn't a Flash plugin, it has nothing to do with websites.
It's that simple. And to date I've yet to find a single compelling reason of why I'd use Flash in the first place. And, for the same reason, this OpenFL is equally something I'm not interested in.
No, because OpenFL isn't Flash, it isn't a replacement for Flash and it isn't a plugin.
You could also look out the window.
That's hardly a forecast though. What is the point of the weather channel if you can just look out the window?
...except this was no different from someone doing the same thing to a bank.
It's totally different! Unlike a normal bank bitcoin transactions are irreversible, untraceable and the deposits are uninsured, the whole thing is unregulated and anonymous by design.
The problem is paying off that loan AFTER you leave college.
The Australian system seems to work very well. Their degrees are government-funded loans that are only subject to interest based on inflation and I believe you pay it back by your employer deducting repayments from your pre-tax income after you start earning over a specified threshold (which I think is somewhere in the $45k region). The amount of your repayments is calculated and adjusted based on your income but you do get additional discounts for paying off lump sums yourself.
Even if you don't consider DRM to be malware there is still the NSA (and "friends") to look out for.
If you're really that concerned about the NSA then you aren't using a computer or network for communications anyway.
WinRT is a stripped down version of Windows that does not include the desktop or related functionality. Windows on the desktop is a superset of WinRT and includes "the interface formerly known as Metro".
No, WinRT is the Windows Runtime, it is an application platform for Metro apps. You are thinking of the operating system called Windows RT.
Metro is fine for applications designed purely for touch devices but frankly desktop web browsers like Chrome and Firefox work fine in Windows 8 on touch devices and with a mouse and keyboard anyway so why bother creating a "Metro" version? I never saw the point in that at all.
No you don't realise that just because something is the default doesn't mean you have to use it? Welcome to the world of basic customisation then!