Money, like flying pigs, simply can't be found in nature. It is a construct of government. Yet, it is a neccessary reality to survive, feed our family, and even to enjoy life (to an extent).
You obviously haven't played UT2003 at 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA. Of course, the video card is a much bigger issue then the CPU. However, the physics and AI for BOT's eat up a lot of CPU - I noticed a ~10% increase in performance just from removing one bot from the game.
Well, either that, or you had to have gone to school.
This is a very assuming (and a bit arrogant) statement. There are many, many college graduates that do not know even an ounce of trig or calc let alone physics.
...a world completely without the concept of intellectual property... or the overhead of a paycheck to feed our families. I'm sorry, but intellectual property is what a lot of us are paid for. I think for the most part, however, copyright law protects the intellectual property of software, so I'm not sure if EULA's are really necessary except to prevent us from reverse engineering, which of course should not be a crime.
Contrary to the rediuclous amount of conspiracy theorists, MS has publically stated that it is creating DRM as an OPTION for it's customers. We can argue if this breaks the entire concept of DRM, but that's not the point. Read the facts here instead of spouting off speculations.
The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.
Unless they are Linux users. I know so many people that would rather download RH for free (or buy the CD for $4 and get it shipped) then pay for it. The entire mentality is different. I'd rather this argument be made for OSX.
Okay, so because NVidia is protecting thier intellectual property you don't support them? Sure, ATI's drivers are Open Source, but big whoop - ATI's infamous for poorly written drivers. nVidia's detonators were almost a revolution to the industry - like hell they're just going to give that away. The real issue is that nVidia obviously doesn't see a business reason to write good drivers for Linux. So then buy an ATI!
Regardless, I too hope that the UT2003 engine moves away from nVidia (even though I have a GF3). I like how game engines exploit it to the fullest, but I believe in focusing on standard API's like DirectX and OpenGL, not a piece of hardware.
Try getting your statistics from something more reputable like Market Metrix. Basing a sites popularity by sites linking to it is bad science. I'll agree that IIS is not the most popular, but at a glance it looks like IIS servers a very sizeable amount of traffic.
Actually, this is becoming less true. Sure, there may be millions of servers running Apache, but how much web traffic is handled by Apache? Of the most hit sites on the Internet (AOL, Microsoft, Dell, etc.) it seems like there's just as many IIS sites as Apache.
Right - and how many small businesses have the time to do this? And how many large businesses can risk a patch that has not been fully regression tested? Just because OSS can release an unstable patch in 12 hours doesn't mean that OSS is faster then CSS when it comes to stable patches.
I love IE, I love.NET, I love my Win2K box, I love SQL server, and I really love my XBox. But when it comes to Office (Outlook especially) I have to look for a nother solution due to these ongoing security issues. I've been using Eudora for email for years and I've finally tried Open Office a month ago so that I could uninstall my old copy of MS Works. I'm not "pro" or "anti" OSS, but I just wanted a decent office package. OO is not great, but at least I don't have to worry about these security issues. Maybe I'll plunk the cash for Star Office if it looks any better. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't have time to look through the code, but paying for MS Office is like paying someone to install back orifice on your machine.
The irony continues as I sent my resume into MS last week - the resume was created with Open Office of course:-).
One of the great things about UML - unlike a lot of other OSS projects - is that it's very well documented. Thanks to the UML diagrams on UML, there is no confusion as to what UML is or what it does.
If you're going to talk to people get your facts straight. You will see here, that Microsoft is not the enemy in this matter. Read down a bit and you'll see that MS's stance is to let the consumer choose, not to force DRM down your throats. You act like they're going to ban "insecure" MP3's or something. Talk to people about the DMCA, the MPAA, the RIAA, and most importantly about the legal bribary (soft money, etc.) that allows crap like the DMCA to get passed.
Thank you for these great notes. It's interesting how the conspiracy theorists are missing key points such as:
Microsoft does not have the desire or means to control any information which is input into a computer via a means beyond the scope of DRM or Palladium (in unencrypted formats such as MP3), and intends to continue supporting such formats.
Microsoft employees have a broad variety of opinions on legal and technical issues related to copyright enforcement. The company's position is that the use of DRM should be purely voluntary (in the sense in which the industry uses that term; they do not have a public position that the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions need to be modified).
You're missing the point. I'm not going to do the research for you, rather, I'm saying that you shouldn't effectively blow off the person who pointed out that "God Created the World" is a plausable concept.
Yes Apple is competing with MS. They are competing for the desktop and they are starting to compete in the server space as well. Just because they're not competing against x86 OEM's (read: they have a plausable business plan) doesn't mean they're not competing against MS.
I've coded 10's of thousands of lines of code in.NET w/o using Web Services. If J2EE has good Web Services support does that mean using J2EE is using Web Services? No..NET is an enterprise server development platform, similar to J2EE. It also has a huge API for building Windows applications, and I've heard many a MS rep say that it will eventually replace the Windows API for most applications, as well as replace MFC, ATL, etc.
I'll agree that none of us know for sure, however, we could get into quite a discussion that gives credit to:
A) There is a higher being or higher beings B) There is a single higher being. C) There is a single higher being in which a part of him was born human ("Who being in very nature God, but did not consider equality with God, something to be grasped." Philipians 2 something - I'm too lazy to look it up!) Furthermore, this human revolutionized the entire concept of religion and essentially destroyed a lot of what religion stood for (and stands for today).
After this point we start arguing "morality" and that can get rediculous!
Re:Cost effectiveness?
on
XBox Linux HOWTOs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Looking at the instructions you mention the possibility of breaking the XBox multiple times. Doesn't seem worth it except for those who use a soldering iron with delicate hardware on a regular basis.
Yet, somehow, a unix on the desktop is succeeding VERY WELL (see: OSX). Microsoft, through aggressive business tactics, essentially owns the consumer x86 market. They do not own the home PC market, however, and Apple has proven once again that if you make a product that doesn't suck, you can fairly compete. It's probably not the best business choice to try to compete against Windows OEM's. But then again, Linux isn't a business, so it's no wonder it's having a hard time competing.
The real point is that it's no secret that Unix is a much more mature platform. Windows was originally designed for the disconnected desktop, just as Unix was used in a closed networks. Unix learned it's lesson at a certain point in it's maturity. Windows has not quite gone that far, but they are where Unix was not too long ago (I think I was 12 when I first hacked into a university system running Solaris). So far all we've seen is PR from MS. Now it's time to wait and see if there will be actual results. We can be skeptical, but we also have to be reasonable about our assertions.
Slashdot Mirror
Money, like flying pigs, simply can't be found in nature. It is a construct of government. Yet, it is a neccessary reality to survive, feed our family, and even to enjoy life (to an extent).
You obviously haven't played UT2003 at 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA. Of course, the video card is a much bigger issue then the CPU. However, the physics and AI for BOT's eat up a lot of CPU - I noticed a ~10% increase in performance just from removing one bot from the game.
Well, either that, or you had to have gone to school.
This is a very assuming (and a bit arrogant) statement. There are many, many college graduates that do not know even an ounce of trig or calc let alone physics.
...a world completely without the concept of intellectual property...
or the overhead of a paycheck to feed our families. I'm sorry, but intellectual property is what a lot of us are paid for. I think for the most part, however, copyright law protects the intellectual property of software, so I'm not sure if EULA's are really necessary except to prevent us from reverse engineering, which of course should not be a crime.
How in the world is posting a link to an EFF member's interview of Microsoft Flaimbait? Oh, I'm using a factual basis to defend MS.
Please metamoderate accordingly.
If you'd RTFA that I linked to you'd answer all of your questions.
Contrary to the rediuclous amount of conspiracy theorists, MS has publically stated that it is creating DRM as an OPTION for it's customers. We can argue if this breaks the entire concept of DRM, but that's not the point. Read the facts here instead of spouting off speculations.
s/then/than/
The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.
Unless they are Linux users. I know so many people that would rather download RH for free (or buy the CD for $4 and get it shipped) then pay for it. The entire mentality is different. I'd rather this argument be made for OSX.
Okay, so because NVidia is protecting thier intellectual property you don't support them? Sure, ATI's drivers are Open Source, but big whoop - ATI's infamous for poorly written drivers. nVidia's detonators were almost a revolution to the industry - like hell they're just going to give that away. The real issue is that nVidia obviously doesn't see a business reason to write good drivers for Linux. So then buy an ATI!
Regardless, I too hope that the UT2003 engine moves away from nVidia (even though I have a GF3). I like how game engines exploit it to the fullest, but I believe in focusing on standard API's like DirectX and OpenGL, not a piece of hardware.
Try getting your statistics from something more reputable like Market Metrix. Basing a sites popularity by sites linking to it is bad science. I'll agree that IIS is not the most popular, but at a glance it looks like IIS servers a very sizeable amount of traffic.
Actually, this is becoming less true. Sure, there may be millions of servers running Apache, but how much web traffic is handled by Apache? Of the most hit sites on the Internet (AOL, Microsoft, Dell, etc.) it seems like there's just as many IIS sites as Apache.
Right - and how many small businesses have the time to do this? And how many large businesses can risk a patch that has not been fully regression tested? Just because OSS can release an unstable patch in 12 hours doesn't mean that OSS is faster then CSS when it comes to stable patches.
I love IE, I love .NET, I love my Win2K box, I love SQL server, and I really love my XBox. But when it comes to Office (Outlook especially) I have to look for a nother solution due to these ongoing security issues. I've been using Eudora for email for years and I've finally tried Open Office a month ago so that I could uninstall my old copy of MS Works. I'm not "pro" or "anti" OSS, but I just wanted a decent office package. OO is not great, but at least I don't have to worry about these security issues. Maybe I'll plunk the cash for Star Office if it looks any better. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't have time to look through the code, but paying for MS Office is like paying someone to install back orifice on your machine.
:-).
The irony continues as I sent my resume into MS last week - the resume was created with Open Office of course
One of the great things about UML - unlike a lot of other OSS projects - is that it's very well documented. Thanks to the UML diagrams on UML, there is no confusion as to what UML is or what it does.
Or stealing? Was that comment even necessary? It's no secret that AMD and IBM have worked together in the past.
If you're going to talk to people get your facts straight. You will see here, that Microsoft is not the enemy in this matter. Read down a bit and you'll see that MS's stance is to let the consumer choose, not to force DRM down your throats. You act like they're going to ban "insecure" MP3's or something. Talk to people about the DMCA, the MPAA, the RIAA, and most importantly about the legal bribary (soft money, etc.) that allows crap like the DMCA to get passed.
Thank you for these great notes. It's interesting how the conspiracy theorists are missing key points such as:
Microsoft does not have the desire or means to control any information which is input into a computer via a means beyond the scope of DRM or Palladium (in unencrypted formats such as MP3), and intends to continue supporting such formats.
Microsoft employees have a broad variety of opinions on legal and technical issues related to copyright enforcement. The company's position is that the use of DRM should be purely voluntary (in the sense in which the industry uses that term; they do not have a public position that the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions need to be modified).
You're missing the point. I'm not going to do the research for you, rather, I'm saying that you shouldn't effectively blow off the person who pointed out that "God Created the World" is a plausable concept.
Yes Apple is competing with MS. They are competing for the desktop and they are starting to compete in the server space as well. Just because they're not competing against x86 OEM's (read: they have a plausable business plan) doesn't mean they're not competing against MS.
I've coded 10's of thousands of lines of code in .NET w/o using Web Services. If J2EE has good Web Services support does that mean using J2EE is using Web Services? No. .NET is an enterprise server development platform, similar to J2EE. It also has a huge API for building Windows applications, and I've heard many a MS rep say that it will eventually replace the Windows API for most applications, as well as replace MFC, ATL, etc.
I'll agree that none of us know for sure, however, we could get into quite a discussion that gives credit to:
A) There is a higher being or higher beings
B) There is a single higher being.
C) There is a single higher being in which a part of him was born human ("Who being in very nature God, but did not consider equality with God, something to be grasped." Philipians 2 something - I'm too lazy to look it up!)
Furthermore, this human revolutionized the entire concept of religion and essentially destroyed a lot of what religion stood for (and stands for today).
After this point we start arguing "morality" and that can get rediculous!
Looking at the instructions you mention the possibility of breaking the XBox multiple times. Doesn't seem worth it except for those who use a soldering iron with delicate hardware on a regular basis.
Yet, somehow, a unix on the desktop is succeeding VERY WELL (see: OSX). Microsoft, through aggressive business tactics, essentially owns the consumer x86 market. They do not own the home PC market, however, and Apple has proven once again that if you make a product that doesn't suck, you can fairly compete. It's probably not the best business choice to try to compete against Windows OEM's. But then again, Linux isn't a business, so it's no wonder it's having a hard time competing.
The real point is that it's no secret that Unix is a much more mature platform. Windows was originally designed for the disconnected desktop, just as Unix was used in a closed networks. Unix learned it's lesson at a certain point in it's maturity. Windows has not quite gone that far, but they are where Unix was not too long ago (I think I was 12 when I first hacked into a university system running Solaris). So far all we've seen is PR from MS. Now it's time to wait and see if there will be actual results. We can be skeptical, but we also have to be reasonable about our assertions.