Very simple. The ECMA draft standard is for an incomplete implimentation.
Well, you can believe what you hear on/., or you can actually read the ECMA standard. C# is all there. See my link at the bottom for go-mono. They wouldn't be able to do this if it wasn't for C# being a standard. You're confusing parts of the class library (Windows specific GUI classes (GDI+), ASP.NET, etc.) with C# the language, and the other relevant standards (CTS,CLI,CLS, etc.)
Not really. There's an antitrust law that prevents "underselling" to drive out competition, and once the competition is virtually extinct, you jack the price up. If MS all of the suddon started charging $40 (like it used to) for IE, then they would be in violation.
They just have to give you whatever is barely good enough to keep you from wanting to spend extra money to replace it.
I wouldn't call IE "barely good enough". Also, this is like saying that MS Calculator should be stripped from the OS because it's a "barely good enough" calculator (which hasn't been improved for years). Ludicrous.
So if you're a monopoly you have to give the customers LESS value? If MS want's to package OFFICE with Windows, power to them (as long as it doesn't directly raise the price). They them keep adding value. IE and WM are Added Value Features to Windows whether or not you personally like them or not. If the end-user (or OEM) want to install Netscape, I say power to them as well.
and has embraced (not extended) the open source ideal.
Only in that they support Linux. Have you ever used WebSphere (IBM's J2EE platform). It has so many proprietary hooks that this so called "vendor locking" that Java avoids is moot. You are very locked into WebSphere if you use what you paid big bucks for. This doesn't sound like the "open source ideal".
The.NET "ideology" is no more/less inherintly secure then the J2EE "ideology"..NET is a Framework of Class Libraries and a Runtime Engine (Virtual Machine) with multiple languages (C#, etc.). For example, my company has built 3 different.NET apps from the ground up (none of which use passport). What technical ground do you have to assert that these apps are inherintly less secure then if we built them on J2EE? Actually, the application design is IDENTICAL to the design we had before we went chose to use.NET (as Cold Fusion/J2EE was to be our future platform). Heck, the design would have been similar even if we had gone with mod_perl(!). Of course, how we implented the design is far different, in that it was [arguably] far easier to implement on.NET then on J2EE.
.NET is also a Marketing Spin from MS. Of course this bears zero relevance as "Marketing" can not be secure nor insecure.
You are talking about Microsoft Passport.NET, which utilizes the.NET technology. They could have written Passport on J2EE if they wanted to. This doesn't bear any relevance to.NET being secure or not, just as it wouldn't bear any relevance to J2EE being secure or not.
I'll admit that it's pretty funny seeing like 1 snowboard sim a MONTH come out on the XBox. YASS ("Yet Another Snowboard Sim") should be a new game genre for the XBox. But, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean that they suck. I held the same view as you, until I played Amped. My friend bought it, I scoffed him, played it, and bought it myself! It's pretty fun.
GT3 is in a league of it's own, and is an awesome game. A lot of people don't want to be quite as "hardcore" though. Rallisport challenge is a great blend of realism and fun, and is easily the best rally game that I've ever played. I think it is much better then GT3's rally racing.
Halo may be boring single player (I don't really have time to play it single so I don't know), but, to my surprise, is really fun multiplayer. At first I thought, hey, we have our PC's and can connect via the Internet to play awesome FPS's - we don't need them on the console. But there's nothing like bringing 2 or 3 XBox's and TV's together and playing 6-12 player Halo. Awesome.
DOA3 is really fun. You're right it doesn't have the depth as other games, but remember, Soul Caliber 2 is coming out for all platforms, and Mortal Kombat may be an XBox exclusive.
XBox also has the "Crash" name, which will lead to Crash Bandicoot, and hopefully Crash Team Racing.
So, although PS2 has the best game library overall, I think that the XBox has enough developers (Sega,Konomai,Microsoft,etc.) and the hardware to be a very good console. The GameCube will be best for those who really like the Nintendo games that aren't available elsewhere. The PS2 does have the strongest overall library, but I think the competition will get more fierce within the next 6-9 months. XBox may still come in 3rd (they are the newbies, afterall), but it will be a much closer race. Personally, I'll continue to enjoy my current 7 game collection:-).
Apparently, Microsoft and Unisys have launched a website dealing with people who have "Cross Platform Issues": http://www.wehavethewayout.com/.
Re:Allowing for a drop in price perhaps?
on
New PlayStation 2 Chip
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
well, if you call all 2 good games for the Xbox compitition
How does a Troll get modded as insightful? Oh, it's against an MS product!
Besides the obvious fact that "good games" is a subjective topic, there are a lot of good exclusive games on the XBox (RalliSport, Halo, JSRF, DOA3, etc...). And the "PS2 Remakes" (Like MGS X) are really "Game remakes with better graphics" and hopefully gameplay improvements based on feedback from the PS2 version. Just because it was on PS2 first, doesn't mean the game won't be at least as good, if not better on the XBox. There's no doubt that PS2's game library is incredible, but that doesn't make the XBox's (temporarily) smaller library something to scoff at. I also find it funny that you don't diss on the GC, considering that they have a lot less games, and aside from a few really fun games (like Super Smash Brothers), there are complete genres missing from it's library.
This is called justification by trivialization. The all too common "It's Just Science" statement is easily just as narrow minded as many of the religious people getting all worked up just because they don't understand something.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
The problem with your logic is that it leads to all sorts of interesting debates. Such as, using inmates for all sorts of life threatening medical experiments (such as injecting a disease and studying the effects of an experimental drug). We attach full human rights to a human, not a small cluster of human cells. A cloned person is, in fact, a person, and they do have rights.
However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
This is not inconsistent at all if you believe that humans are above all other organisms. If you don't believe that, fine, but then you have to logically accept my example about inmates. What's inconsistent is people saying, "humans are just another mammal" but then give special rights to humans.
Disclaimer: I _HAVE_ produced a short-run CD, I _DO_ know what it takes (money, energy, talent) to produce a CD.
I have absolutely no qualms with paying $20 for a CD.
Remember when full albums where $8.99? Especially with many CD's, where only 2-3 songs are decent, I generally do not want to spend any more then $10-$11 on a CD. The last CD I bought was $14 (Chemical Brothers), and as good as it is, it wasn't worth $14. Consider this, a good DVD is $15-$20. A movie (which I also have had amateur experience with) takes a LOT more resources to develop, yet you get a 2hr movie (plus 30-45min of extras usually) for the same price OR LESS then a 60minute CD.
Okay. It doesn't directly address a lot of things related to business. We can be legalistic, or we can think outside of the box and look at the attitude behind it. The word "Labor" does not even come up in any legalistic definition of Capitalism, however, it is implicit that as a capitalist I will hire the best labor for the cheapest dollar. Maybe I should say that it "goes against the culture of Capitalism". Regardless of how it's worded, my point is still clear. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think you are being to literal. Look at America's implementation of Capitalism, look at the spirit behind it, then look at the spirit behind the GPL. Capitalism and profit go hand in hand. The GPL, in spirit, is closer to Communalism.
Donated labor under *any* circumstances is something capitalism doesn't comment on at all.
I guess I have to disagree again. If Capitalism is all about profiting, what profit do I get from working for free?
No, it isn't a fallacy. Please read this entire thread with my posts explaining this point (I delt with non-profits specifically). The problem with your scenario is, you are comparing labor donated to a non-profit, to labor being donated to a for-profit organization. The latter is what goes against capitalism, the former bears no relevance to the topic.
Maybe I should disclaim to everyone that I don't have the answers to how to run an economy, and I think there are other solutions (such as social democracy) that may prove better then capitalism. This is not what this discussion is about, however. We're not arguing about capitalism, we're discussing the definition of the GPL. Capitalism is about making money. The GPL isn't. That's all I'm saying.
Given the limited funding (forget space, we need missile defense!)
This is a very poor observation. It's more like, "let's re-evaluate how much we are funding space, especially as our education system is crumbling, and decent health care not available to over 20% of our population". Space research should not be forgotten, but let's remember that gobs of money for space research is not a God give right, nor is it anywhere near the most important line item in our countries budget.
You bring up some interesting points, but I think that this is much more a trivial subject then we're making it. First, I'm not saying that there is no room for GPL in a Capitalistic economy, nor am I saying that it's bad. I'm simply defining that they are logical opposites.
For example, society as a whole benefits from the work of many non-profit organizations (like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and even NPR). However, these organizations are not out to capitalize on a market and profit on it, so by simple definition they are not capitalistic organizations. Similar things can be said about the GPL. The programmers are not out to profit or capitalize on a market. Sure, there's "support" companies like Red Hat that make money off of it, but they do not contribute the vast majority of the source, nor do they pass profits down to code contributers. What part of the definition of capitalism includes working for free?
Capitalist businesses will benefit greatly by not having to pay for restrictive software licenses.
This is obviously true for any business. We could also assert that businesses would benefit if 100's of people worked for them for free. I'm not talking about those who use GPL'd software, I'm talking about those who write it. Those who write it don't get paid. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it goes against what capitalism stands for.
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software.
Like Apple?
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
Well, it is. Now, whethor or not a threat to capitalism is a good or bad thing is left to the reader to determine. The bottom line is, there is still no proven way for coders to make money off of GPL's software. Red Hat makes money, true, but little of that money makes it to the major contributers of Linux. Capitalism is about making money. The GPL is about programming for fun and community innovation. They are logical opposites.
I think Apple has proved Open Source's usefulness for businesses and the general consumer market. Yes, their license is strictly controlled, but look at the innovation that has come out of it. They have the first and only viable "Unix for the Masses(tm)".
Why are we comparing a ~$600 chip (P4) to a ~$250 chip (Athlon)? Sure, it's fun for a little ego brawl to see who has the fastest chip on the block, but this has little practical information for the consumer. All this says for Intel is "Hey look, I can build a slightly faster chip for SSE2 optimized apps for 250% more!". I'm not impressed. It's not only the MHZ that don't matter, the AMD "model numbers" should be irrelevant too. What really matters is price/performance. I'd rather see a ~$250 Athlon benchmarked against a ~$250 P4. Then simply mention that if you want P4's fastest offering, you can plunge $600 for it.
We don't compare the MHZ or model numbers between the Geforce and Radeon video cards - we only compare price and performance. The same should go for CPU's.
This Isn't News. And here's why. Their "Anti-UNIX" campaign is not an Anti-Unix campaign. It's an anti-OldSchoolMainFrameBigIron campaign. They where running the website on FreeBSD on x86 hardware. Plus, MS has always been frendly with BSD (.NET on BSD, BSD TCP/IP stack in WinNT, etc.).
I would argue that Sony is no more at fault than NASCAR is for unsafe teenage driving.
These are completely different cases. NASCAR is most definitely liable because:
A) They teach poor driving habit's by only turning the stearing wheel in one direction. All of the sudden, the teen has to make a right turn and he's very confused.
B) They encourage "sleeping at the wheel" via bordem by driving around in circles for hours on end.
C) They are encouraged by their sponsors to "crash" to make driving more exciting to watch, and to help offset the affects of B.
Slashdot Mirror
Please site your references for pricing. I have been following windows pricing since Win'95 and they have barely kept up with Inflation (AFAIK).
Very simple. The ECMA draft standard is for an incomplete implimentation.
/., or you can actually read the ECMA standard. C# is all there. See my link at the bottom for go-mono. They wouldn't be able to do this if it wasn't for C# being a standard. You're confusing parts of the class library (Windows specific GUI classes (GDI+), ASP.NET, etc.) with C# the language, and the other relevant standards (CTS,CLI,CLS, etc.)
Well, you can believe what you hear on
That is a shortsighted view of the situation.
Not really. There's an antitrust law that prevents "underselling" to drive out competition, and once the competition is virtually extinct, you jack the price up. If MS all of the suddon started charging $40 (like it used to) for IE, then they would be in violation.
They just have to give you whatever is barely good enough to keep you from wanting to spend extra money to replace it.
I wouldn't call IE "barely good enough". Also, this is like saying that MS Calculator should be stripped from the OS because it's a "barely good enough" calculator (which hasn't been improved for years). Ludicrous.
So if you're a monopoly you have to give the customers LESS value? If MS want's to package OFFICE with Windows, power to them (as long as it doesn't directly raise the price). They them keep adding value. IE and WM are Added Value Features to Windows whether or not you personally like them or not. If the end-user (or OEM) want to install Netscape, I say power to them as well.
98lite does NOT remove a significant portion of IE. IE is still on your box, whethor you see the icon or not.
C# a "pseudo" standard
Please elaborate. How is C# a "pseudo" standard, as you put it?
and has embraced (not extended) the open source ideal.
Only in that they support Linux. Have you ever used WebSphere (IBM's J2EE platform). It has so many proprietary hooks that this so called "vendor locking" that Java avoids is moot. You are very locked into WebSphere if you use what you paid big bucks for. This doesn't sound like the "open source ideal".
The .NET "ideology" is no more/less inherintly secure then the J2EE "ideology". .NET is a Framework of Class Libraries and a Runtime Engine (Virtual Machine) with multiple languages (C#, etc.). For example, my company has built 3 different .NET apps from the ground up (none of which use passport). What technical ground do you have to assert that these apps are inherintly less secure then if we built them on J2EE? Actually, the application design is IDENTICAL to the design we had before we went chose to use .NET (as Cold Fusion/J2EE was to be our future platform). Heck, the design would have been similar even if we had gone with mod_perl(!). Of course, how we implented the design is far different, in that it was [arguably] far easier to implement on .NET then on J2EE.
.NET is also a Marketing Spin from MS. Of course this bears zero relevance as "Marketing" can not be secure nor insecure.
It's not possible to create .NET securely.
.NET technology. They could have written Passport on J2EE if they wanted to. This doesn't bear any relevance to .NET being secure or not, just as it wouldn't bear any relevance to J2EE being secure or not.
You are talking about Microsoft Passport.NET, which utilizes the
I'll admit that it's pretty funny seeing like 1 snowboard sim a MONTH come out on the XBox. YASS ("Yet Another Snowboard Sim") should be a new game genre for the XBox. But, the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean that they suck. I held the same view as you, until I played Amped. My friend bought it, I scoffed him, played it, and bought it myself! It's pretty fun.
:-).
GT3 is in a league of it's own, and is an awesome game. A lot of people don't want to be quite as "hardcore" though. Rallisport challenge is a great blend of realism and fun, and is easily the best rally game that I've ever played. I think it is much better then GT3's rally racing.
Halo may be boring single player (I don't really have time to play it single so I don't know), but, to my surprise, is really fun multiplayer. At first I thought, hey, we have our PC's and can connect via the Internet to play awesome FPS's - we don't need them on the console. But there's nothing like bringing 2 or 3 XBox's and TV's together and playing 6-12 player Halo. Awesome.
DOA3 is really fun. You're right it doesn't have the depth as other games, but remember, Soul Caliber 2 is coming out for all platforms, and Mortal Kombat may be an XBox exclusive.
XBox also has the "Crash" name, which will lead to Crash Bandicoot, and hopefully Crash Team Racing.
So, although PS2 has the best game library overall, I think that the XBox has enough developers (Sega,Konomai,Microsoft,etc.) and the hardware to be a very good console. The GameCube will be best for those who really like the Nintendo games that aren't available elsewhere. The PS2 does have the strongest overall library, but I think the competition will get more fierce within the next 6-9 months. XBox may still come in 3rd (they are the newbies, afterall), but it will be a much closer race. Personally, I'll continue to enjoy my current 7 game collection
Apparently, Microsoft and Unisys have launched a website dealing with people who have "Cross Platform Issues": http://www.wehavethewayout.com/.
well, if you call all 2 good games for the Xbox compitition
How does a Troll get modded as insightful? Oh, it's against an MS product!
Besides the obvious fact that "good games" is a subjective topic, there are a lot of good exclusive games on the XBox (RalliSport, Halo, JSRF, DOA3, etc...). And the "PS2 Remakes" (Like MGS X) are really "Game remakes with better graphics" and hopefully gameplay improvements based on feedback from the PS2 version. Just because it was on PS2 first, doesn't mean the game won't be at least as good, if not better on the XBox. There's no doubt that PS2's game library is incredible, but that doesn't make the XBox's (temporarily) smaller library something to scoff at. I also find it funny that you don't diss on the GC, considering that they have a lot less games, and aside from a few really fun games (like Super Smash Brothers), there are complete genres missing from it's library.
This is called justification by trivialization. The all too common "It's Just Science" statement is easily just as narrow minded as many of the religious people getting all worked up just because they don't understand something.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
The problem with your logic is that it leads to all sorts of interesting debates. Such as, using inmates for all sorts of life threatening medical experiments (such as injecting a disease and studying the effects of an experimental drug). We attach full human rights to a human, not a small cluster of human cells. A cloned person is, in fact, a person, and they do have rights.
However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
This is not inconsistent at all if you believe that humans are above all other organisms. If you don't believe that, fine, but then you have to logically accept my example about inmates. What's inconsistent is people saying, "humans are just another mammal" but then give special rights to humans.
Disclaimer: I _HAVE_ produced a short-run CD, I _DO_ know what it takes (money, energy, talent) to produce a CD.
I have absolutely no qualms with paying $20 for a CD.
Remember when full albums where $8.99? Especially with many CD's, where only 2-3 songs are decent, I generally do not want to spend any more then $10-$11 on a CD. The last CD I bought was $14 (Chemical Brothers), and as good as it is, it wasn't worth $14. Consider this, a good DVD is $15-$20. A movie (which I also have had amateur experience with) takes a LOT more resources to develop, yet you get a 2hr movie (plus 30-45min of extras usually) for the same price OR LESS then a 60minute CD.
CD's are way too expensive.
Okay. It doesn't directly address a lot of things related to business. We can be legalistic, or we can think outside of the box and look at the attitude behind it. The word "Labor" does not even come up in any legalistic definition of Capitalism, however, it is implicit that as a capitalist I will hire the best labor for the cheapest dollar. Maybe I should say that it "goes against the culture of Capitalism". Regardless of how it's worded, my point is still clear. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think you are being to literal. Look at America's implementation of Capitalism, look at the spirit behind it, then look at the spirit behind the GPL. Capitalism and profit go hand in hand. The GPL, in spirit, is closer to Communalism.
Donated labor under *any* circumstances is something capitalism doesn't comment on at all.
I guess I have to disagree again. If Capitalism is all about profiting, what profit do I get from working for free?
No, it isn't a fallacy. Please read this entire thread with my posts explaining this point (I delt with non-profits specifically). The problem with your scenario is, you are comparing labor donated to a non-profit, to labor being donated to a for-profit organization. The latter is what goes against capitalism, the former bears no relevance to the topic.
Maybe I should disclaim to everyone that I don't have the answers to how to run an economy, and I think there are other solutions (such as social democracy) that may prove better then capitalism. This is not what this discussion is about, however. We're not arguing about capitalism, we're discussing the definition of the GPL. Capitalism is about making money. The GPL isn't. That's all I'm saying.
Given the limited funding (forget space, we need missile defense!)
This is a very poor observation. It's more like, "let's re-evaluate how much we are funding space, especially as our education system is crumbling, and decent health care not available to over 20% of our population". Space research should not be forgotten, but let's remember that gobs of money for space research is not a God give right, nor is it anywhere near the most important line item in our countries budget.
You bring up some interesting points, but I think that this is much more a trivial subject then we're making it. First, I'm not saying that there is no room for GPL in a Capitalistic economy, nor am I saying that it's bad. I'm simply defining that they are logical opposites.
For example, society as a whole benefits from the work of many non-profit organizations (like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and even NPR). However, these organizations are not out to capitalize on a market and profit on it, so by simple definition they are not capitalistic organizations. Similar things can be said about the GPL. The programmers are not out to profit or capitalize on a market. Sure, there's "support" companies like Red Hat that make money off of it, but they do not contribute the vast majority of the source, nor do they pass profits down to code contributers. What part of the definition of capitalism includes working for free?
Capitalist businesses will benefit greatly by not having to pay for restrictive software licenses.
This is obviously true for any business. We could also assert that businesses would benefit if 100's of people worked for them for free. I'm not talking about those who use GPL'd software, I'm talking about those who write it. Those who write it don't get paid. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it goes against what capitalism stands for.
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software.
Like Apple?
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
Well, it is. Now, whethor or not a threat to capitalism is a good or bad thing is left to the reader to determine. The bottom line is, there is still no proven way for coders to make money off of GPL's software. Red Hat makes money, true, but little of that money makes it to the major contributers of Linux. Capitalism is about making money. The GPL is about programming for fun and community innovation. They are logical opposites.
I think Apple has proved Open Source's usefulness for businesses and the general consumer market. Yes, their license is strictly controlled, but look at the innovation that has come out of it. They have the first and only viable "Unix for the Masses(tm)".
Why are we comparing a ~$600 chip (P4) to a ~$250 chip (Athlon)? Sure, it's fun for a little ego brawl to see who has the fastest chip on the block, but this has little practical information for the consumer. All this says for Intel is "Hey look, I can build a slightly faster chip for SSE2 optimized apps for 250% more!". I'm not impressed. It's not only the MHZ that don't matter, the AMD "model numbers" should be irrelevant too. What really matters is price/performance. I'd rather see a ~$250 Athlon benchmarked against a ~$250 P4. Then simply mention that if you want P4's fastest offering, you can plunge $600 for it.
We don't compare the MHZ or model numbers between the Geforce and Radeon video cards - we only compare price and performance. The same should go for CPU's.
This Isn't News. And here's why. Their "Anti-UNIX" campaign is not an Anti-Unix campaign. It's an anti-OldSchoolMainFrameBigIron campaign. They where running the website on FreeBSD on x86 hardware. Plus, MS has always been frendly with BSD (.NET on BSD, BSD TCP/IP stack in WinNT, etc.).
I would argue that Sony is no more at fault than NASCAR is for unsafe teenage driving.
These are completely different cases. NASCAR is most definitely liable because:
A) They teach poor driving habit's by only turning the stearing wheel in one direction. All of the sudden, the teen has to make a right turn and he's very confused.
B) They encourage "sleeping at the wheel" via bordem by driving around in circles for hours on end.
C) They are encouraged by their sponsors to "crash" to make driving more exciting to watch, and to help offset the affects of B.