As you are well aware, there are people who go to extremes when it comes to this stuff. It's one thing to have one or two, but when it starts to make you stand out, that's when it becomes an issue.
The best way to think about it is if others may think of you as a freak because of it. One on your arm generally won't cause any problems for most conservatives(I'm far from being a conservative but I understand how they think), but facial piercings, nose rings and facial tatoos are generally frowned on. For that matter, while there are SOME technical jobs that may tolorate these things, you will probably find that career advancement will be halted at a certain point due to them. It's why managers generally don't have the facial tattoos and body piercings. If you need to talk face to face with customers or investors, it's best to avoid giving them any reason not to be comfortable.
Microsoft already presses two different CDs since there are different install files. The thing is that Microsoft probably(I don't know off the top of my head) installs a lot of the junk from Windows XP Pro when you have XP Home, but doesn't activate those features. This means they are taking up more disk space than XP Home is supposed to based on features that Home isn't supposed to have.
If this is correct, then Microsoft is stealing hard drive space from people who are running Windows XP Home.
I've been playing games on a computer since the late 1970s and have seen things shift in the game market since then.
You had your text adventures for the computers, with some graphics, but for "arcade" type games, the early computers were no match. Adventure and puzzle type games DID do well on the home computers though.
As time went on, the graphics ability of home computers started to go up, and eventually met the quality of what was available in the dedicated arcade games, and then went beyond. Along the way, consoles came out. They were cheap, and compared to what was being done with PCs, they were UGLY. Does anyone remember the original Nintendo console?
As time went on, the TYPE of games started to change though. First person shooters began to dominate, and adventure games started to fade from the scene. Sierra dropped their adventure games, and we see fewer and fewer big release games that fit into a few categories.
First person shooters, Real Time Strategy, and Sports are the big types out there at this point. You see The Sims as one of the different games out there, but there arn't many.
In time, I see action games going to the consoles, including first person shooters. PC games will be the really complex games when it comes to controls and game play. PC gaming won't die, but it will change to become the platform for games that appeal to people who prefer to THINK their way through a game rather than shoot their way through. The PC is also going to be where cutting edge stuff comes from because the hardware will continue to evolve more quickly on a PC.
While the whole game industry is focused on first person shooters and action games, there are other types of games out there that arn't well suited to a console. The video quality on a PC is a LOT better as well when compared to what you see on a console at this point as well.
So, the console may cost you $400, but then you will be buying a flat panel display instead of the current $200 TV that most people play on. Or your quality ends up lower.
Hmmmm, 1600x1200 on a PC vs. low TV resolutions with perhaps 400 lines? There are people out there who would rather spend a bit more money to enhance their game experience, and you can't do that on a console. The day when you CAN select which level of video you want is the day you have $200, $400, and $800 consoles that all run the same games, but with different hardware inside.
Do console games look all that better on a flat panel compared to standard TV sets?
I'm the type who will pay $300 for a video card, not $400 or $500. I know there is better out there, and there is worse. But I also like to know that if I buy a new video card, it will be considered decent for at least a year and a half before it's considered a bit slow by current standards. Radeon 9800 pro level these days is still considered very acceptable when it comes to video performance, which is sub-$200 these days, but was $300 when I bought mine. I figure I will upgrade in the next year or so, but I don't see a real need to at this point.
The problem is that nothing innovative is being patented. Patents are being put in place and it requires a lawyer to defend the idea of natural evolution.
For example, the idea that you could adjust the resolution of a video game and at the same time change the detail level to match could be patented by one of the big players in the game business. It would take a lawyer and a lot of money to defend the use of this pre-existing technology, even though the original patent should never have been granted. The fact that monitors and operating systems have had this functionality for years doesn't matter, there is a patent in place for GAMES using that idea that came out after the idea was in widespread use.
Would you support this sort of software patent?
Copyrights don't help because you can't copyright a story, just the wording. So you are stuck there as well.
The end result is that the software market is screwed. If you come up with a great original idea, it will be coppied and nothing can properly protect you except for you to make new and better games compared to the competition.
Patents and copyrights in general are also flawed because large companies can buy smaller companies that have already granted widespread use of their patented/copyrighted work, then they try to claim the work as THEIR efforts to create and distribute the work. Rules need to be put in place to bring sanity to these two things that are meant to protect inventors and writers.
Blizzard came out with Warcraft and Warcraft 2 for example. A number of clones came out with virtually the same game design but with different graphics. In a fair world, the clones should be the sorce of income for Blizzard since we are talking about a blatant copy of their conceptual design work because no real improvement to the fundamental design was made.
Then you have games like Populous: The Beginning. That was a game that was similar in SOME ways, but instead of just making units from raw materials the way the Blizzard games did, you have a population that reproduces by itself, but you need to train the people to become the different specialized units. This system is clearly different from the Blizzard games(and their clones) so could be considered a true change to the game system.
First person shooters in general are similar in many ways, but then you have games that are similar in a lot of ways but are different, such as Thief. In Thief, it's first person, you CAN shoot at others, but the primary focus is to avoid being seen and not to kill. Again, it's not a clone of the first person shooter games.
Originality should be rewarded and protected, but there needs to be a time limit on that protection. I'd say five years should be enough time from the release of the original product before the protection expires.
The whole idea of experience points in the D&D/AD&D rule system already implemented such a system, so it can't be patented. Any game that has a game master has already given experience based on player actions above and beyond the normal pre-scripted stuff for the most part, so that would nullify the Microsoft patent since it was something in use prior to the patent application being filed.
When ATX first came out, there were a LOT of problems with the cases and motherboards of the time(Baby AT was the most common) for manufacturers. For those who don't remember the old days, we had:
All connectors were on a seperate back-plate, or you could punch out a cover and mount the serial, parallel, game port, SCSI connectors, and everything else except the keyboard connector. So building a system meant you had to connect every one of these connectors via a small ribbon cable to the motherboard. Today we have the extra USB connectors and firewire connectors, but back then, just about EVERYTHING had to be connected individually.
The power supply had to be hard-wired to the power button on the case. Since the documentation was poor on many of the power supplies and cases, it wasn't unusual to connect the wrong wire to the wrong connection on the power switch and fry the power supply. In most cases, when you bought a case with power supply, the power button would be pre-connected to the power supply, but not always.
You couldn't do a shutdown from within the operating system because the power button was independant of the motherboard. This is minor, but it's nice to be able to have the system shut itself down without needing to wait.
So, what does BTX bring that is so much better than ATX? Better air flow and having expansion cards where the chips are on the other side of the card? That doesn't seem like it would really be worth it if your system isn't overheating. You could also have an improved design in cases for improved air flow without changing from ATX. Cards could also have the chips mounted on the other side of the card. If this violates the ATX standard, but it fits into the motherboards and cases, then what harm has been done? Or let us keep the same motherboards, but adjust where they sit in the case and it still doesn't warrant a change in form factors.
To a large degree you are correct, though your wording is what generates the negative responses.
Having a properly educated employee is the key to what will make them useful in whatever field they go into. The problem is that most schools have lost sight of what a "proper education" really is.
The problem I have with the college/university system is that for most majors, the number of "in major" courses tends to be fairly small compared to what is required for the degree. Having to take non-major classes is useful IF the non-major classes contribute to the career the student wants to go into. If you are required to take a lot of non-major classes just to get students into those classes because of lack of interest, that's where the system fails.
Many businesses require a degree, not because it would make them a better employee, but because of obsolete ideas that indicate that someone with a degree has a better chance of being a good employee. The level of education in the elementary/high school level is also very low, so a college education may be required just to have students be ready for the real world, which is probably a more realistic reason.
But the worst problem is the idea that an MBA means that someone will make a better manager/executive than someone who works his/her way up from the bottom. That a high GPA is an indicator about how well someone will do in a company, and in some companies, you need a high GPA just to get a job there. These two things are why most businesses end up failing due to poor management. Knowing the right people, or having an MBA may be useful, but I've seen a lot of people with business degrees get promoted and then destroy a positive work environment. People who would work 14 hours a day willingly and enjoy it end up getting harassed by these business majors for not meeting their perceptions of what makes a good employee.
The problem that people have is that most complaints don't include ideas that could be used to "fix it". Everyone has the right to complain, but unless you are willing to come up with how to make things better, then you are just adding to the problem.
For example, complaints about MS Windows. I've said for a while that what's needed is the ability to choose what you want installed and what not to install. If you don't like the CD burning wizard in Windows XP, you should have the option not to install or enable that feature to save disk space and memory. A $50 version of Windows that comes with ONLY notepad, the UI, drivers, things like regedit, chkdsk, and other critical features would sell well. I don't use the stupid backup program that can't backup the OS due to "files in use", so I don't want it in there. I don't want to pay for all the bloatware Microsoft puts in that no one has a use for.
Note that I make a suggestion on how to solve the source of my complaint. For consoles, the problem is that you can't connect a keyboard and mouse to extend the control set. The consoles have the processing power for more complex games like Civilization, the problem is the controls on most consoles don't provide the complexity we have with a keyboard/mouse on a PC.
The suggestion to go Apple isn't a good idea since the cost would be too high. You can't get a low cost system made by Apple.
Mac OS X isn't a bad OS, I just don't care for the price/performance of Apple hardware compared to a non-name brand Athlon 64 system for example.
Linux can be installed with a minimum of extra software packages(depending on the distribution), so for things like displaying information on a display with nothing else, Linux would be a good way to go.
BSD is another decent option, though it's not quite as easy to find people to help if you arn't familiar with a BSD setup.
If you want to argue Redhat vs. Debian vs. Slackware vs. all the other distributions of Linux, that's fine, but the key is to choose an OS that doesn't have a ton of other software on it that is never used but is installed and running so may crash or be exploited.
Windows wouldn't be as prone to crashing if there wern't all those other services and junk running that people don't need, want, or know about. The name brands tend to install a LOT of garbage with their systems, without asking the user what they might want. Does anyone really WANT Encarta? Ok, some people might, but maybe 1% of the people who get the thing pre-installed?
Microsoft should give the option for an "advanced" install, where they ask us if we want the CD-burning, backup software, and other stuff to be installed. A $50 version of Windows with no extra fluff, just explorer(start button), control panels, drivers, DirectX, and the basics. And notepad, regedit as well to let us fix problems if we know what we are doing.
Applications for MS Windows should also specifically tell us what services are needed for it to run, then we could shut ALL the extra services off and make it more stable.
Of course, if you REALLY need that much storage space, you should get a larger hard drive. If I know I need to store 80 gigs worth of information on a hard drive, I'd want 120 gigs just to give me some extra space. It's a pain to run out of room for log files and temp space for example.
Disk space is also VERY cheap these days, so how much room you have on a drive isn't as big a deal as it used to be. Remember the old days of 20 Megabyte hard drives and how they were more than enough for most people? Remember the cost?
This is why I keep saying that George W. needs to get off his ass and realize that the economy of the world isn't what it was in the past. Technology is where things are going, but the government only helps big businesses and universities. We need the entry level tech jobs to be available in THIS country.
One thing missing in the essay is that something people learn by working for others are things NOT to do. This is why the MBA crowd continues to make the same mistakes over and over. They make the contacts in school, and generally don't work their way up. So the same mistakes in management are made EVERYWHERE.
Work for any company with 150 or more employees, and you see a lot of mistakes made by management. From promoting the idiots into supervisor and manager positions, to bringing in upper management with no understanding of the industry your company is in, these things will KILL a company.
Another problem is that if you consider a position to be "unskilled", most people don't properly screen or hire for these positions. Customer Service positions are considered by many to not require a lot of experience to do the job, yet it DOES require skill in how to deal with upset customers. Tech Support by many companies was turned into a position that didn't take skill or ability. Scripts were written, and customer service people without any technical ability were put into tech support positions. The result is what we have today, tech support can be outsourced because many managers think that anyone off the street can do the job.
The problem that a lot of people seem to miss is that just about every living thing on this planet has some form of tolorance to the environment, including radiation. The thing is that over time, that tolorance may be reduced by continued exposure.
For example, you submerge your hand in water, and while it doesn't happen all at once, you get wrinkles if you keep your hand in water for long enough.
Or you go out in the sun, and some people get a sunburn while others get a tan. But even for those with a tan, over time you can get a sunburn.
Just because the human body can absorb a given level and type of radiation for several years without any negative side effects does NOT mean that the human body isn't being affected.
If 20-year testing isn't done, some things may continue for over 100 years that are making people sick but because no tests were done because it would take too long, people don't realize that we are seeing usage of many things going for far longer.
Nuclear power plants for example have been in operation for a LONG time. While I am not one of the people who automatically protest the construction of one, I wonder what might have been found by now if tests had started when the existing plants were first started up and to see what sort of things have happened in the area around them.
The only drives that I have run into that have a problem with the copy protection are garbage to begin with. Don't complain when you select systems with sub-standard components.
If you have a problem bringing a CD with you, then use a program like Alcohol 120% and run off the virtual CD drive.
The only legit complaint about copy protection is when the copy protection itself is bugged, which isn't all that often and gets patched after release if there is a problem.
As for upgrading your PC, you need to figure that as time goes on, if you want to see improvements in game quality and abilities, you need to upgrade at some point. On a console, things are stagnant. You sit on the same console, and see new consoles comming out that are "better". So you buy them, buy new games just for that console. Then you need to buy the next one, and next one. I don't see spending $450 every three years to be a horrible cost if you build your system yourself.
Motherboard costs $100 or so. I don't see SLI as something worth getting since the price is too high for the life you get out of it. Within two years, an individual card will come out that is as powerful as the two cards in an SLI setup. So spending $1200(two cards at $500 each plus $200 for the mobo) for an advantage that lasts under two years really isn't worth it in my opinion. A CPU that is considered good at the time you get it will run you $250 or so. 512 megs of memory will run you under $100. You don't need to buy a complete system when you upgrade a PC.
Problems with CD drive? The LG drives don't have issues with copy protection, and arn't expensive. A Radeon 9800 pro level video card, which is decent enough for games will run you around $200.
Laptops are a different issue. Get an Athlon 64 based laptop with a Radeon 9550 or 9600 video, and it will also play games decently. I havn't run into copy protection problems on the majority of these level laptops either.
In 1999 and 2000, it was going into the.com crash that saw a LOT of tech companies go under. If you make a product, opensource or not, and your customer base suddenly shrinks by a huge amount, is it the fault of the start-ups not having a good idea or product?
A huge part of the.com crash was due to companies that were getting funding in 1997 and 1998 that didn't have a product yet. The hype surrounding the Internet was enough to get funding for a lot of go-nowhere companies that didn't have a product, just an idea. So the venture money was burned through while developing the product, and there wasn't enough left after that to let the company survive while trying to build a customer base. These are the companies that finally caused the crash. Investors saw companies they had invested in with no money and a product that wasn't selling. So suddenly they pulled back, and you saw a number of these companies go under.
Another problem with a lot of start-ups going into the.com crash was that many were started by MBA types who had no technical ability on their own, but had an idea. They in turn would hire a bunch of vice presidents, who in turn would hire managers and directors. But there wasn't a product yet. These companies were running on venture money, and were acting like a successful business, except for the lack of product and customer revenue. By the time the company would have a product, there would be over 100 people working there, but with no revenue. So the race would start....get enough customers and money comming in to support all these people before the money ran out.
So, the money ran out, Sun and Cisco ran into problems because they had grown HUGE due to demand by all the start-ups over the previous three years. Once the.com crash happened, and the startups dropped out, there was a LOT of equipment out there, demand dropped by a LOT, and the big players needed to scale back or go out of business.
Now, there is the start of a recovery, and start-up companies are comming back, slowly. The venture firms have learned that they shouldn't invest in companies without a product(or so I would hope). Open source or not, if a company has a good product with a way of bringing in money and isn't bloated, these companies are worth looking at to bring in venture money.
Open Source doesn't mean a company doesn't bring in money, and that is the key. Management bloat is also the thing that will kill most companies, regardless of how well the company may be doing. Stupid decisions, like turning tech support into a non-technical job that is treated like customer service will also hurt or kill a company.
So, it's not strange to see Open Source products getting venture money, but it is unusual to see an Open Source start-up that is able to bring in money.
My feeling is that you should use the best product for the job, not just the product that gets the most press coverage or is the most easily available.
In the case of Mozilla based browsers for example, they have a faster engine, as well as more useful features and better security.
Linux is better for most server applications. You get the best use of the equipment and you can tune up a Linux box for performance where you really can't with a Microsoft OS. On the desktop, it depends on your purposes. Linux or Windows XP for newer machines, Linux or Win98SE for older machines.
I personally hate seeing good applications fade away because while they are the best, they get ignored due to things like being added(for free) to Windows, or because of poor marketing/distribution. That last of course is the fault of the company that makes the better product, but when Microsoft decides to add a "feature" just to hurt a smaller company(such as Netscape), you see why people go anti-Microsoft.
People tend to push the products they find to be the best of their type, or best for the money. For many people, OpenOffice is a great choice, but there are a number of people who based on their needs will best be served with Microsoft Office. Most people don't realize there are alternatives to the Microsoft solution, so that is why people who know better tend to push the alternatives.
And, like anything, you have the rebels out there who will push whatever product that isn't popular, regardless of how well it works.
If the new version is a big step forward compared to previous versions, it's worth getting excited about.
If you are old enough to remember the old days of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, the jump to Windows 95 was a HUGE step forward.
The jump from Windows 95 to 98 wasn't as big, but it was a decent step forward and again was worth looking forward to.
Going from 98 to XP was another nice jump. In addition to a lot of the bloatware, there were a number of rather nice additions when it came to plug and play, as well as things like CD burning. I know that it's bloat for a lot of people, but for an end user, it's nice that there is a way to easily drop files onto a CD without manually needing to run a third party program.
Going from 2000 to XP helped from a compatability perspective with older Win95/98/ME programs. The big negative is the bloat with no way to get rid of it.
So, now we have Longhorn comming up. With 64 bit versions, if Longhorn is more compatable with old 8 and 16 bit programs than Win XP 64 bit, that would drive sales for people who still enjoy older games. And since I KNOW that comment will draw some responses, I don't have the room to set up an older computer just for that purpose so that isn't a solution.
legally fine is one part of the issue. The other part is that if your company is small and doesn't make millions upon millions of dollars in profits each year, it's not "competition" to make a copy, it's undermining the people who are trying to make a living by developing good software.
When you are looking at free software that isn't being used as a revenue sorce by the author, then what does it matter if it gets coppied? If you are talking about duplicating a commercial product, then you get into the issue of what is right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.
In the case of Samba, the whole point was to provide a way to communicate between Windows machines and non-Windows machines. It wasn't trying to copy Windows or how Windows did things, it was to be able to communicate with Windows.
File formats are another area that are open since you want to be able to have a way to share documents written for different applications. So reverse engineering file formats is considered acceptable.
But to make a new product that does the same thing just to undermine the revenue generation of a company, that is what's wrong. It's the same thing Microsoft did when they added IE to Windows. Microsoft decided to add a web browser because Netscape was doing well. They didn't NEED to add it, they intentionally harmed Netscape for no justified reason.
So, while people may like or dislike Bitkeeper, Bitkeeper was not THE only software of it's type. If it were a matter of needing a tool because you needed to be able to inter-operate with Linus, then you could have developed it but only used it yourself and for others who directly asked for it for work on that project.
So, Tridge did what he might have meant to, to reduce the chances of a company deciding to make a commercial product for Linux.
My own thought is that you missed the point that many old-school gamers have been trying to point out.
I agree that there are SOME people who will never be happy, but most want to see an evolution of the game industry to allow for new innovative titles. We see sequels, and games that are a clone of other pre-existing games with slight improvements, but there are very few games that break out of the mold set by the original game.
The most popular for example, is the first person shooter. Since Castle Wolfenstein 3D came out, there were some decent upgrades added such as multi-player. But aside from game engine upgrades, the whole genre hasn't evolved all that much when it comes to how you play the game. It's still about shooting everything that moves. In multi-player, it's still deathmatch, or team vs. team this or that. Some RPG elements would be an improvement in the multi-player game. Add things like medics for example where if a player "dies", they are out of action until a medic gets to that player and either applies some healing or drags the body back to base or something.
RTS games are all too often a copy from Warcraft 2 with extra features. You gather resources, tell a building to make a unit out of thin air, and you advance. Games like Populous: The Beginning had a new approach where your population can grow, then you train the new people to become whatever unit. You don't make units out of nothing, you make units from your general population. Your limits are in the raw materials needed to make a training structure and houses for your people, as well as other structures.
Roleplaying games in general fall into the Dungeons and Dragons CLONE market. Almost every fantasy RPG in the computer industry uses a lot of the old stupid rules of D&D. If it's not a Dungeons and Dragons licensed product, then chances are the game rules follow something similar.
You get the Diablo clones, which are still evolving a bit, but any attempt to add RPG elements to them tend to be poorly implemented without giving any choices. I keep watching this segment because there IS the potential that this type of game will grow closer toward the true RPG type. But there is still the D&D copy element that these games also tend to have.
The old adventure games are gone for the most part. The old Sierra adventures and games like them have mostly faded out of existance.
City simulators are still around and there is still a lot of growth possible for this type of game, but you also don't see many new ones comming out.
Graphics will help support a decent game, but the problem that many of us old-school players have is that we look for gameplay upgrades beyond a tileset or a re-hash of the original just with a new set of rules or new graphics thrown on top of the old game.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but after playing games on a computer since 1978 or so, is it any wonder that I keep looking for something new that will make me say, "Wow, now THIS is a nice upgrade from the last game", or to see a GOOD blend of two different types that arn't done half-way on each part?
Going forward, with multi-processor or multi-core CPU computers comming closer to being mainstream(it will happen, but who knows when), it will be possible for games to have many different layers that you can switch between which you can't do well with a single-threaded design. I can see the possible combination in a single game of city simulator plus civilization, or a Sims-type game merged with a city simulator. There are so many ways that things can get BETTER, without needing to just copy the conceptual work of others.
Bioware is one of the few companies that seems to "get it". They are evolving game concepts and pushing to avoid stagnation. Neverwinter Nights for example may not have been the most wonderful game, but it was a good attempt to bring the tabletop game experience to a computer game.
What I find interesting is how few people understand what an RPG is intended to be. I see games like Diablo listed as an RPG, which it is definately not.
So, what is a role playing game...that should be the first thing that has to be thought about.
A role playing game, or RPG is about having the players play the part of one or more fictional characters, and taking control of that character as he/she/it goes through adventures. In the ideal game environment, the player would play the characters according to the statistics that define the character. So a GOOD character would never choose to perform an evil act, while an evil character would enjoy him/her/itself at the expense of the feelings or health of others, or in extreme cases take pleasure in hurting others.
A skilled game master and player(s) will tell a story that revolves around how the players go through adventures and in time may rise to greatness.
So, what happened when this idea tried to make it's way onto a computer screen? Early games such as Wizardry used a simple combat system similar in many ways to Dungeons and Dragons. The idea of going up in levels, getting more hit points and powers, and so on were followed faithfully. While it wasn't exactly the same game system as D&D, it was close enough. Computers wern't advanced enough to allow for a lot of choices. You followed the storyline, but there was no choice. It was a true "hack and slash" type dungeon crawl.
Games like Bard's Tale came out that were a step up in a lot of ways. But again, it was a dungeon crawl, hack and slash adventure type of game. Advances had been made, but a true RPG it wasn't.
There were other games out that were in this same attempt to bring some of the Dungeons and Dragons experience to the computer, including the "Gold Box" games. SSI did bring the D&D ruleset to computers, but still, there wasn't a lot of choice. You did have some choices as you adventured though, so it was closer than those earlier games.
Games have clearly evolved quite a bit since those early games, but it's amazing how many games get a "RPG" label slapped on them. If you have no choice in how you respond to an NPC(non-player character), then it can't really be considered a RPG because you can't roleplay. It's more of a story on the computer that you follow, but isn't a true roleplaying game.
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the closest games that I have seen to a computer RPG. You have the main character, and for most characters in the game world you talk to, you have choices about how you talk to that character and what you want to say. Planesape: Torment is another that gives you MORE control in some ways, though less choice in gameplay in some ways.
Both of these games give you some choices about what to say and how to say them, but they arn't perfect. The perfect game would also allow you to change sides if you choose, or to give yet more choices in what you say and do to the people in the game world.
A part of the problem is that when a game company uses an existing game world and/or ruleset, you are bound by certain requirements. For example, Wizards of the Coast would never accept certain things to happen in a game based on a world they have licensed. So game developers need freedom when it comes to content. A game that lets the player choose to be good, neutral, or evil, greedy, selfish, sadistic, or a champion of good and doing the right thing is what most gamers look for if they love RPGs. A game where the end really can have dozens of possible endings based on the choices the player has made is also a part of this. What fun is it if you choose to be evil, yet end up being the good leader or sacrifice yourself in the end?
Other game types are out there, but it's hard to say what game or games define a genre without having a good understanding about that genre.
I think of an RPG as a game that lets me develop characters the way I choose to, as well as to decide what my characters do, and how they will respond to people in the game environment.
With that said, Diablo doesn't qualify because you can't choose if you want to accept a quest, or even how you will interact with an NPC. Games that only let you accept or reject a quest without choosing the tone also fall short.
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the best when it comes to computer role playing games. You can pick a tone when it comes to dialog choices, and that will alter the way the dialog flows. You can also choose to be nice(good), or you can be nasty and greedy. It's up to you. The only thing that most find limiting is that you can't necessarily ally yourself with the side of evil. You can BE evil, but you can't choose to ally yourself with the person who starts as the enemy.
Wizardry 6-8(the three games are a trilogy that tells a story) is the flip side. You have your choice about which side to ally yourself with, but you don't have a lot of choices about how you interact with NPCs.
You also have the old-school dungeon crawl type games that many think of as RPGs. The original Wizardry, or Bard's Tale arn't great RPGs by the standards of today, but back in those early days they were fun games.
Then you have the old "Gold Box" games, with Pool of Radiance being the first. They used the old Dungeons and Dragons rules(none of this 3rd edition junk we have today), but added things that made the game more like a RPG, such as maps(in the manual).
The sad thing is how many games coppied Dungeons and Dragons when it came to a combat system, yet none of them really improved on it. When you go up in level, you get more hit points. The original Dungeons and Dragons system had a decent enough reason, because Hit Points also reflect your ability to avoid taking damage, and as you gain experience adventuring, your endurance will go up in theory. Other game systems that use stamina or endurance really have no good reason to award more hit points because you go up in level.
One thing that other people havn't said yet is that the government here in the USA has been sitting around and not really doing anything to encourage the development of technology. In eastern Asia, the governments have been pushing to improve the availability of broadband and technology. In the USA, the government is pushing for things that will help George W. Bush in his war on the middle east.
When the.com crash hit, did government step in to see how they could help the companies that had a good product survive? How about all the people who lost their jobs and had to take retail sales jobs because the programming, IT, and support jobs disappeared when the company they worked for went out of business? After being out of work for over a year, it becomes VERY difficult for people to get back into the work force, and that's what happened to a LOT of people.
So now, the USA is falling behind. All the entry level support jobs are going to India and other countries. There hasn't been a huge surge of new companies starting up with new ideas to take the place of those who disappeared after the.com crash. And people wonder why this country is losing it's edge?
The Extreme Edition processors are available in what quantities and from how many companies? It's been said that the EE version of the Pentium 4 was made for Dell because AMD had an edge in performance and Dell needed SOMETHING a bit better than the normal P4 and Xeon chips. This would be the equivilant of AMD making 1000 1600-series Opteron processors for one customer then saying how that gave an extra edge compared to the 800 series. The cost/performance ratio doesn't matter, it's hype.
When it comes to stability, the issue has been about the chipset issues out there, not about the processor. VIA had a LOT of issues with their chipsets, and since VIA was the only choice besides AMD for chipsets just after the Athlon first came out, you saw issues. Now, you can say what you want about motherboard quality, but from a CPU standpoint, AMD processors are as stable if not more stable than Intel due to heat related issues with Prescott. Blame motherboards for AMD based systems if you want to have a good point.
The chipset is what causes the driver problems, not the CPU. If you overclock, that's also not the fault of the CPU if things arn't "stable".
Back on topic, we don't know that AMD hasn't already shipped the dual core Opteron processors in volume but due to NDA no one is saying anything. April 21st is the suspected launch date for dual-core Opteron processors, so we will see if vendors have the product in-stock and for sale on release day.
We will also see how the products perform in comparisons on that day(I hope). Does it matter if Intel got their product out the door a week earlier, yet has much worse performance in almost every application? Let's face it, a clock speed advantage only helps in certain situations and benchmarks. But what if the architecture differences make it so AMD's dual-core lets them catch up in the benchmarks that have favored Intel processors?
Nothing is stopping you from going to the testing distribution. Unlike most of the other distributions, Debian has an OPEN development cycle which EVERYONE can upgrade to. Sarge at this point is probably as stable as most of the other released distribution versions.
Something to think about is that people look at BSD and love how stable and secure the different flavors are. Debian tends to be as stable as possible because of the testing that is done.
If you want to go with the latest features, nothing is stopping you from installing them. Production environments are almost never about having EVERY new feature, they are about stability and security.
In addition to this, if you need a specific package, you can generally just get that package and any packages it depends on, compile the application yourself, or upgrade to one of the development releases. You do NOT need to wait for something to be added to the latest released version of the distribution.
If you are a true system administrator for a production environment, then for security reasons, you should be more than able to compile and install any specific requirements for your needs anyway. If you can't, and MUST have things done for you, then your production environments will always be at risk of being broken into due to some configuration setting that doesn't work well with your environment.
Most people don't lock down their systems, they take an easy install method like "web server", without editing the package list before installing. What this does is to allow access to your machine in ways you arn't even aware of.
Which web server do you want to use? Do you really need ftp access to the box, or do you use ONLY ssh/scp to transfer files to the machine for security reasons? How about other little features? Do you NEED a GUI on that machine at all, and why since a command line should be enough? Have you checked the configurations to make sure they point to the right places? How about locking down any remote access methods to make sure that ONLY the machine and perhaps the subnet it is on gets access to the configuration interface(if you have one)?
And last but not least, the kernel is something that EVERY system admin should manually compile for their system. Instead of just using kernel modules, compile in what you need, and don't bother with support for things your system has no use for. Distributions put in as many modules as they can into the kernel for compatability with all the different systems, but once you have the machine up, why not custom compile your kernel for the purpose of the machine? If you don't use NFS for example, why should you bother with NFS support in the kernel unless you may want to use it at some point?
So, sarge is pretty much there. You can upgrade to it, and since you arn't installing from scratch, you don't need to wait for the installer to be tested/upgraded. Going to a.95 version of a beta is for the most part going to be just as stable for most people as the 1.0 version. sarge is at that point, and even if there are a couple of little things that need to be done on it, there should be NO reason at this point not to be running it. This isn't a Microsoft style release where at release it has lots of bugs and holes. Debian may take a long time between official releases, but even in testing it's pretty stable. Except for the first eight months of a new unstable, the unstable tree tends to be fairly solid though SOME things can break randomly from day to day or week to week.
Let's face it, not everyone has the equipment to view HDTV broadcasts. That's the main problem, that there isn't enough of a customer base to make a dedicated HDTV service do well. The numbers are growing, but it's not there yet.
How many more $200 27 inch conventional TVs are sold each year compared to HDTV ready displays? Until HDTV ready displays become the norm, HDTV won't thrive.
You can buy a 32 inch conventional TV new for $300 if you look hard enough. To get a 30 inch HD-TV you are looking at quite a bit more. Now, based on the lack of HD programming, do you spend the extra money if money is an issue for you? I'd love a nice flat panel display, but I can't justify the $2000 price for one at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
As you are well aware, there are people who go to extremes when it comes to this stuff. It's one thing to have one or two, but when it starts to make you stand out, that's when it becomes an issue.
The best way to think about it is if others may think of you as a freak because of it. One on your arm generally won't cause any problems for most conservatives(I'm far from being a conservative but I understand how they think), but facial piercings, nose rings and facial tatoos are generally frowned on. For that matter, while there are SOME technical jobs that may tolorate these things, you will probably find that career advancement will be halted at a certain point due to them. It's why managers generally don't have the facial tattoos and body piercings. If you need to talk face to face with customers or investors, it's best to avoid giving them any reason not to be comfortable.
Microsoft already presses two different CDs since there are different install files. The thing is that Microsoft probably(I don't know off the top of my head) installs a lot of the junk from Windows XP Pro when you have XP Home, but doesn't activate those features. This means they are taking up more disk space than XP Home is supposed to based on features that Home isn't supposed to have.
If this is correct, then Microsoft is stealing hard drive space from people who are running Windows XP Home.
I've been playing games on a computer since the late 1970s and have seen things shift in the game market since then.
You had your text adventures for the computers, with some graphics, but for "arcade" type games, the early computers were no match. Adventure and puzzle type games DID do well on the home computers though.
As time went on, the graphics ability of home computers started to go up, and eventually met the quality of what was available in the dedicated arcade games, and then went beyond. Along the way, consoles came out. They were cheap, and compared to what was being done with PCs, they were UGLY. Does anyone remember the original Nintendo console?
As time went on, the TYPE of games started to change though. First person shooters began to dominate, and adventure games started to fade from the scene. Sierra dropped their adventure games, and we see fewer and fewer big release games that fit into a few categories.
First person shooters, Real Time Strategy, and Sports are the big types out there at this point. You see The Sims as one of the different games out there, but there arn't many.
In time, I see action games going to the consoles, including first person shooters. PC games will be the really complex games when it comes to controls and game play. PC gaming won't die, but it will change to become the platform for games that appeal to people who prefer to THINK their way through a game rather than shoot their way through. The PC is also going to be where cutting edge stuff comes from because the hardware will continue to evolve more quickly on a PC.
While the whole game industry is focused on first person shooters and action games, there are other types of games out there that arn't well suited to a console. The video quality on a PC is a LOT better as well when compared to what you see on a console at this point as well.
So, the console may cost you $400, but then you will be buying a flat panel display instead of the current $200 TV that most people play on. Or your quality ends up lower.
Hmmmm, 1600x1200 on a PC vs. low TV resolutions with perhaps 400 lines? There are people out there who would rather spend a bit more money to enhance their game experience, and you can't do that on a console. The day when you CAN select which level of video you want is the day you have $200, $400, and $800 consoles that all run the same games, but with different hardware inside.
Do console games look all that better on a flat panel compared to standard TV sets?
I'm the type who will pay $300 for a video card, not $400 or $500. I know there is better out there, and there is worse. But I also like to know that if I buy a new video card, it will be considered decent for at least a year and a half before it's considered a bit slow by current standards. Radeon 9800 pro level these days is still considered very acceptable when it comes to video performance, which is sub-$200 these days, but was $300 when I bought mine. I figure I will upgrade in the next year or so, but I don't see a real need to at this point.
The problem is that nothing innovative is being patented. Patents are being put in place and it requires a lawyer to defend the idea of natural evolution.
For example, the idea that you could adjust the resolution of a video game and at the same time change the detail level to match could be patented by one of the big players in the game business. It would take a lawyer and a lot of money to defend the use of this pre-existing technology, even though the original patent should never have been granted. The fact that monitors and operating systems have had this functionality for years doesn't matter, there is a patent in place for GAMES using that idea that came out after the idea was in widespread use.
Would you support this sort of software patent?
Copyrights don't help because you can't copyright a story, just the wording. So you are stuck there as well.
The end result is that the software market is screwed. If you come up with a great original idea, it will be coppied and nothing can properly protect you except for you to make new and better games compared to the competition.
Patents and copyrights in general are also flawed because large companies can buy smaller companies that have already granted widespread use of their patented/copyrighted work, then they try to claim the work as THEIR efforts to create and distribute the work. Rules need to be put in place to bring sanity to these two things that are meant to protect inventors and writers.
Blizzard came out with Warcraft and Warcraft 2 for example. A number of clones came out with virtually the same game design but with different graphics. In a fair world, the clones should be the sorce of income for Blizzard since we are talking about a blatant copy of their conceptual design work because no real improvement to the fundamental design was made.
Then you have games like Populous: The Beginning. That was a game that was similar in SOME ways, but instead of just making units from raw materials the way the Blizzard games did, you have a population that reproduces by itself, but you need to train the people to become the different specialized units. This system is clearly different from the Blizzard games(and their clones) so could be considered a true change to the game system.
First person shooters in general are similar in many ways, but then you have games that are similar in a lot of ways but are different, such as Thief. In Thief, it's first person, you CAN shoot at others, but the primary focus is to avoid being seen and not to kill. Again, it's not a clone of the first person shooter games.
Originality should be rewarded and protected, but there needs to be a time limit on that protection. I'd say five years should be enough time from the release of the original product before the protection expires.
The whole idea of experience points in the D&D/AD&D rule system already implemented such a system, so it can't be patented. Any game that has a game master has already given experience based on player actions above and beyond the normal pre-scripted stuff for the most part, so that would nullify the Microsoft patent since it was something in use prior to the patent application being filed.
When ATX first came out, there were a LOT of problems with the cases and motherboards of the time(Baby AT was the most common) for manufacturers. For those who don't remember the old days, we had:
All connectors were on a seperate back-plate, or you could punch out a cover and mount the serial, parallel, game port, SCSI connectors, and everything else except the keyboard connector. So building a system meant you had to connect every one of these connectors via a small ribbon cable to the motherboard. Today we have the extra USB connectors and firewire connectors, but back then, just about EVERYTHING had to be connected individually.
The power supply had to be hard-wired to the power button on the case. Since the documentation was poor on many of the power supplies and cases, it wasn't unusual to connect the wrong wire to the wrong connection on the power switch and fry the power supply. In most cases, when you bought a case with power supply, the power button would be pre-connected to the power supply, but not always.
You couldn't do a shutdown from within the operating system because the power button was independant of the motherboard. This is minor, but it's nice to be able to have the system shut itself down without needing to wait.
So, what does BTX bring that is so much better than ATX? Better air flow and having expansion cards where the chips are on the other side of the card? That doesn't seem like it would really be worth it if your system isn't overheating. You could also have an improved design in cases for improved air flow without changing from ATX. Cards could also have the chips mounted on the other side of the card. If this violates the ATX standard, but it fits into the motherboards and cases, then what harm has been done? Or let us keep the same motherboards, but adjust where they sit in the case and it still doesn't warrant a change in form factors.
To a large degree you are correct, though your wording is what generates the negative responses.
Having a properly educated employee is the key to what will make them useful in whatever field they go into. The problem is that most schools have lost sight of what a "proper education" really is.
The problem I have with the college/university system is that for most majors, the number of "in major" courses tends to be fairly small compared to what is required for the degree. Having to take non-major classes is useful IF the non-major classes contribute to the career the student wants to go into. If you are required to take a lot of non-major classes just to get students into those classes because of lack of interest, that's where the system fails.
Many businesses require a degree, not because it would make them a better employee, but because of obsolete ideas that indicate that someone with a degree has a better chance of being a good employee. The level of education in the elementary/high school level is also very low, so a college education may be required just to have students be ready for the real world, which is probably a more realistic reason.
But the worst problem is the idea that an MBA means that someone will make a better manager/executive than someone who works his/her way up from the bottom. That a high GPA is an indicator about how well someone will do in a company, and in some companies, you need a high GPA just to get a job there. These two things are why most businesses end up failing due to poor management. Knowing the right people, or having an MBA may be useful, but I've seen a lot of people with business degrees get promoted and then destroy a positive work environment. People who would work 14 hours a day willingly and enjoy it end up getting harassed by these business majors for not meeting their perceptions of what makes a good employee.
The problem that people have is that most complaints don't include ideas that could be used to "fix it". Everyone has the right to complain, but unless you are willing to come up with how to make things better, then you are just adding to the problem.
For example, complaints about MS Windows. I've said for a while that what's needed is the ability to choose what you want installed and what not to install. If you don't like the CD burning wizard in Windows XP, you should have the option not to install or enable that feature to save disk space and memory. A $50 version of Windows that comes with ONLY notepad, the UI, drivers, things like regedit, chkdsk, and other critical features would sell well. I don't use the stupid backup program that can't backup the OS due to "files in use", so I don't want it in there. I don't want to pay for all the bloatware Microsoft puts in that no one has a use for.
Note that I make a suggestion on how to solve the source of my complaint. For consoles, the problem is that you can't connect a keyboard and mouse to extend the control set. The consoles have the processing power for more complex games like Civilization, the problem is the controls on most consoles don't provide the complexity we have with a keyboard/mouse on a PC.
The suggestion to go Apple isn't a good idea since the cost would be too high. You can't get a low cost system made by Apple.
Mac OS X isn't a bad OS, I just don't care for the price/performance of Apple hardware compared to a non-name brand Athlon 64 system for example.
Linux can be installed with a minimum of extra software packages(depending on the distribution), so for things like displaying information on a display with nothing else, Linux would be a good way to go.
BSD is another decent option, though it's not quite as easy to find people to help if you arn't familiar with a BSD setup.
If you want to argue Redhat vs. Debian vs. Slackware vs. all the other distributions of Linux, that's fine, but the key is to choose an OS that doesn't have a ton of other software on it that is never used but is installed and running so may crash or be exploited.
Windows wouldn't be as prone to crashing if there wern't all those other services and junk running that people don't need, want, or know about. The name brands tend to install a LOT of garbage with their systems, without asking the user what they might want. Does anyone really WANT Encarta? Ok, some people might, but maybe 1% of the people who get the thing pre-installed?
Microsoft should give the option for an "advanced" install, where they ask us if we want the CD-burning, backup software, and other stuff to be installed. A $50 version of Windows with no extra fluff, just explorer(start button), control panels, drivers, DirectX, and the basics. And notepad, regedit as well to let us fix problems if we know what we are doing.
Applications for MS Windows should also specifically tell us what services are needed for it to run, then we could shut ALL the extra services off and make it more stable.
Of course, if you REALLY need that much storage space, you should get a larger hard drive. If I know I need to store 80 gigs worth of information on a hard drive, I'd want 120 gigs just to give me some extra space. It's a pain to run out of room for log files and temp space for example.
Disk space is also VERY cheap these days, so how much room you have on a drive isn't as big a deal as it used to be. Remember the old days of 20 Megabyte hard drives and how they were more than enough for most people? Remember the cost?
This is why I keep saying that George W. needs to get off his ass and realize that the economy of the world isn't what it was in the past. Technology is where things are going, but the government only helps big businesses and universities. We need the entry level tech jobs to be available in THIS country.
One thing missing in the essay is that something people learn by working for others are things NOT to do. This is why the MBA crowd continues to make the same mistakes over and over. They make the contacts in school, and generally don't work their way up. So the same mistakes in management are made EVERYWHERE.
Work for any company with 150 or more employees, and you see a lot of mistakes made by management. From promoting the idiots into supervisor and manager positions, to bringing in upper management with no understanding of the industry your company is in, these things will KILL a company.
Another problem is that if you consider a position to be "unskilled", most people don't properly screen or hire for these positions. Customer Service positions are considered by many to not require a lot of experience to do the job, yet it DOES require skill in how to deal with upset customers. Tech Support by many companies was turned into a position that didn't take skill or ability. Scripts were written, and customer service people without any technical ability were put into tech support positions. The result is what we have today, tech support can be outsourced because many managers think that anyone off the street can do the job.
The problem that a lot of people seem to miss is that just about every living thing on this planet has some form of tolorance to the environment, including radiation. The thing is that over time, that tolorance may be reduced by continued exposure.
For example, you submerge your hand in water, and while it doesn't happen all at once, you get wrinkles if you keep your hand in water for long enough.
Or you go out in the sun, and some people get a sunburn while others get a tan. But even for those with a tan, over time you can get a sunburn.
Just because the human body can absorb a given level and type of radiation for several years without any negative side effects does NOT mean that the human body isn't being affected.
If 20-year testing isn't done, some things may continue for over 100 years that are making people sick but because no tests were done because it would take too long, people don't realize that we are seeing usage of many things going for far longer.
Nuclear power plants for example have been in operation for a LONG time. While I am not one of the people who automatically protest the construction of one, I wonder what might have been found by now if tests had started when the existing plants were first started up and to see what sort of things have happened in the area around them.
The only drives that I have run into that have a problem with the copy protection are garbage to begin with. Don't complain when you select systems with sub-standard components.
If you have a problem bringing a CD with you, then use a program like Alcohol 120% and run off the virtual CD drive.
The only legit complaint about copy protection is when the copy protection itself is bugged, which isn't all that often and gets patched after release if there is a problem.
As for upgrading your PC, you need to figure that as time goes on, if you want to see improvements in game quality and abilities, you need to upgrade at some point. On a console, things are stagnant. You sit on the same console, and see new consoles comming out that are "better". So you buy them, buy new games just for that console. Then you need to buy the next one, and next one. I don't see spending $450 every three years to be a horrible cost if you build your system yourself.
Motherboard costs $100 or so. I don't see SLI as something worth getting since the price is too high for the life you get out of it. Within two years, an individual card will come out that is as powerful as the two cards in an SLI setup. So spending $1200(two cards at $500 each plus $200 for the mobo) for an advantage that lasts under two years really isn't worth it in my opinion. A CPU that is considered good at the time you get it will run you $250 or so. 512 megs of memory will run you under $100. You don't need to buy a complete system when you upgrade a PC.
Problems with CD drive? The LG drives don't have issues with copy protection, and arn't expensive. A Radeon 9800 pro level video card, which is decent enough for games will run you around $200.
Laptops are a different issue. Get an Athlon 64 based laptop with a Radeon 9550 or 9600 video, and it will also play games decently. I havn't run into copy protection problems on the majority of these level laptops either.
Buy garbage, and you get garbage.
In 1999 and 2000, it was going into the .com crash that saw a LOT of tech companies go under. If you make a product, opensource or not, and your customer base suddenly shrinks by a huge amount, is it the fault of the start-ups not having a good idea or product?
.com crash was due to companies that were getting funding in 1997 and 1998 that didn't have a product yet. The hype surrounding the Internet was enough to get funding for a lot of go-nowhere companies that didn't have a product, just an idea. So the venture money was burned through while developing the product, and there wasn't enough left after that to let the company survive while trying to build a customer base. These are the companies that finally caused the crash. Investors saw companies they had invested in with no money and a product that wasn't selling. So suddenly they pulled back, and you saw a number of these companies go under.
.com crash was that many were started by MBA types who had no technical ability on their own, but had an idea. They in turn would hire a bunch of vice presidents, who in turn would hire managers and directors. But there wasn't a product yet. These companies were running on venture money, and were acting like a successful business, except for the lack of product and customer revenue. By the time the company would have a product, there would be over 100 people working there, but with no revenue. So the race would start....get enough customers and money comming in to support all these people before the money ran out.
.com crash happened, and the startups dropped out, there was a LOT of equipment out there, demand dropped by a LOT, and the big players needed to scale back or go out of business.
A huge part of the
Another problem with a lot of start-ups going into the
So, the money ran out, Sun and Cisco ran into problems because they had grown HUGE due to demand by all the start-ups over the previous three years. Once the
Now, there is the start of a recovery, and start-up companies are comming back, slowly. The venture firms have learned that they shouldn't invest in companies without a product(or so I would hope). Open source or not, if a company has a good product with a way of bringing in money and isn't bloated, these companies are worth looking at to bring in venture money.
Open Source doesn't mean a company doesn't bring in money, and that is the key. Management bloat is also the thing that will kill most companies, regardless of how well the company may be doing. Stupid decisions, like turning tech support into a non-technical job that is treated like customer service will also hurt or kill a company.
So, it's not strange to see Open Source products getting venture money, but it is unusual to see an Open Source start-up that is able to bring in money.
My feeling is that you should use the best product for the job, not just the product that gets the most press coverage or is the most easily available.
In the case of Mozilla based browsers for example, they have a faster engine, as well as more useful features and better security.
Linux is better for most server applications. You get the best use of the equipment and you can tune up a Linux box for performance where you really can't with a Microsoft OS. On the desktop, it depends on your purposes. Linux or Windows XP for newer machines, Linux or Win98SE for older machines.
I personally hate seeing good applications fade away because while they are the best, they get ignored due to things like being added(for free) to Windows, or because of poor marketing/distribution. That last of course is the fault of the company that makes the better product, but when Microsoft decides to add a "feature" just to hurt a smaller company(such as Netscape), you see why people go anti-Microsoft.
People tend to push the products they find to be the best of their type, or best for the money. For many people, OpenOffice is a great choice, but there are a number of people who based on their needs will best be served with Microsoft Office. Most people don't realize there are alternatives to the Microsoft solution, so that is why people who know better tend to push the alternatives.
And, like anything, you have the rebels out there who will push whatever product that isn't popular, regardless of how well it works.
If the new version is a big step forward compared to previous versions, it's worth getting excited about.
If you are old enough to remember the old days of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, the jump to Windows 95 was a HUGE step forward.
The jump from Windows 95 to 98 wasn't as big, but it was a decent step forward and again was worth looking forward to.
Going from 98 to XP was another nice jump. In addition to a lot of the bloatware, there were a number of rather nice additions when it came to plug and play, as well as things like CD burning. I know that it's bloat for a lot of people, but for an end user, it's nice that there is a way to easily drop files onto a CD without manually needing to run a third party program.
Going from 2000 to XP helped from a compatability perspective with older Win95/98/ME programs. The big negative is the bloat with no way to get rid of it.
So, now we have Longhorn comming up. With 64 bit versions, if Longhorn is more compatable with old 8 and 16 bit programs than Win XP 64 bit, that would drive sales for people who still enjoy older games. And since I KNOW that comment will draw some responses, I don't have the room to set up an older computer just for that purpose so that isn't a solution.
legally fine is one part of the issue. The other part is that if your company is small and doesn't make millions upon millions of dollars in profits each year, it's not "competition" to make a copy, it's undermining the people who are trying to make a living by developing good software.
When you are looking at free software that isn't being used as a revenue sorce by the author, then what does it matter if it gets coppied? If you are talking about duplicating a commercial product, then you get into the issue of what is right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.
In the case of Samba, the whole point was to provide a way to communicate between Windows machines and non-Windows machines. It wasn't trying to copy Windows or how Windows did things, it was to be able to communicate with Windows.
File formats are another area that are open since you want to be able to have a way to share documents written for different applications. So reverse engineering file formats is considered acceptable.
But to make a new product that does the same thing just to undermine the revenue generation of a company, that is what's wrong. It's the same thing Microsoft did when they added IE to Windows. Microsoft decided to add a web browser because Netscape was doing well. They didn't NEED to add it, they intentionally harmed Netscape for no justified reason.
So, while people may like or dislike Bitkeeper, Bitkeeper was not THE only software of it's type. If it were a matter of needing a tool because you needed to be able to inter-operate with Linus, then you could have developed it but only used it yourself and for others who directly asked for it for work on that project.
So, Tridge did what he might have meant to, to reduce the chances of a company deciding to make a commercial product for Linux.
My own thought is that you missed the point that many old-school gamers have been trying to point out.
I agree that there are SOME people who will never be happy, but most want to see an evolution of the game industry to allow for new innovative titles. We see sequels, and games that are a clone of other pre-existing games with slight improvements, but there are very few games that break out of the mold set by the original game.
The most popular for example, is the first person shooter. Since Castle Wolfenstein 3D came out, there were some decent upgrades added such as multi-player. But aside from game engine upgrades, the whole genre hasn't evolved all that much when it comes to how you play the game. It's still about shooting everything that moves. In multi-player, it's still deathmatch, or team vs. team this or that. Some RPG elements would be an improvement in the multi-player game. Add things like medics for example where if a player "dies", they are out of action until a medic gets to that player and either applies some healing or drags the body back to base or something.
RTS games are all too often a copy from Warcraft 2 with extra features. You gather resources, tell a building to make a unit out of thin air, and you advance. Games like Populous: The Beginning had a new approach where your population can grow, then you train the new people to become whatever unit. You don't make units out of nothing, you make units from your general population. Your limits are in the raw materials needed to make a training structure and houses for your people, as well as other structures.
Roleplaying games in general fall into the Dungeons and Dragons CLONE market. Almost every fantasy RPG in the computer industry uses a lot of the old stupid rules of D&D. If it's not a Dungeons and Dragons licensed product, then chances are the game rules follow something similar.
You get the Diablo clones, which are still evolving a bit, but any attempt to add RPG elements to them tend to be poorly implemented without giving any choices. I keep watching this segment because there IS the potential that this type of game will grow closer toward the true RPG type. But there is still the D&D copy element that these games also tend to have.
The old adventure games are gone for the most part. The old Sierra adventures and games like them have mostly faded out of existance.
City simulators are still around and there is still a lot of growth possible for this type of game, but you also don't see many new ones comming out.
Graphics will help support a decent game, but the problem that many of us old-school players have is that we look for gameplay upgrades beyond a tileset or a re-hash of the original just with a new set of rules or new graphics thrown on top of the old game.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but after playing games on a computer since 1978 or so, is it any wonder that I keep looking for something new that will make me say, "Wow, now THIS is a nice upgrade from the last game", or to see a GOOD blend of two different types that arn't done half-way on each part?
Going forward, with multi-processor or multi-core CPU computers comming closer to being mainstream(it will happen, but who knows when), it will be possible for games to have many different layers that you can switch between which you can't do well with a single-threaded design. I can see the possible combination in a single game of city simulator plus civilization, or a Sims-type game merged with a city simulator. There are so many ways that things can get BETTER, without needing to just copy the conceptual work of others.
Bioware is one of the few companies that seems to "get it". They are evolving game concepts and pushing to avoid stagnation. Neverwinter Nights for example may not have been the most wonderful game, but it was a good attempt to bring the tabletop game experience to a computer game.
What I find interesting is how few people understand what an RPG is intended to be. I see games like Diablo listed as an RPG, which it is definately not.
So, what is a role playing game...that should be the first thing that has to be thought about.
A role playing game, or RPG is about having the players play the part of one or more fictional characters, and taking control of that character as he/she/it goes through adventures. In the ideal game environment, the player would play the characters according to the statistics that define the character. So a GOOD character would never choose to perform an evil act, while an evil character would enjoy him/her/itself at the expense of the feelings or health of others, or in extreme cases take pleasure in hurting others.
A skilled game master and player(s) will tell a story that revolves around how the players go through adventures and in time may rise to greatness.
So, what happened when this idea tried to make it's way onto a computer screen? Early games such as Wizardry used a simple combat system similar in many ways to Dungeons and Dragons. The idea of going up in levels, getting more hit points and powers, and so on were followed faithfully. While it wasn't exactly the same game system as D&D, it was close enough. Computers wern't advanced enough to allow for a lot of choices. You followed the storyline, but there was no choice. It was a true "hack and slash" type dungeon crawl.
Games like Bard's Tale came out that were a step up in a lot of ways. But again, it was a dungeon crawl, hack and slash adventure type of game. Advances had been made, but a true RPG it wasn't.
There were other games out that were in this same attempt to bring some of the Dungeons and Dragons experience to the computer, including the "Gold Box" games. SSI did bring the D&D ruleset to computers, but still, there wasn't a lot of choice. You did have some choices as you adventured though, so it was closer than those earlier games.
Games have clearly evolved quite a bit since those early games, but it's amazing how many games get a "RPG" label slapped on them. If you have no choice in how you respond to an NPC(non-player character), then it can't really be considered a RPG because you can't roleplay. It's more of a story on the computer that you follow, but isn't a true roleplaying game.
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the closest games that I have seen to a computer RPG. You have the main character, and for most characters in the game world you talk to, you have choices about how you talk to that character and what you want to say. Planesape: Torment is another that gives you MORE control in some ways, though less choice in gameplay in some ways.
Both of these games give you some choices about what to say and how to say them, but they arn't perfect. The perfect game would also allow you to change sides if you choose, or to give yet more choices in what you say and do to the people in the game world.
A part of the problem is that when a game company uses an existing game world and/or ruleset, you are bound by certain requirements. For example, Wizards of the Coast would never accept certain things to happen in a game based on a world they have licensed. So game developers need freedom when it comes to content. A game that lets the player choose to be good, neutral, or evil, greedy, selfish, sadistic, or a champion of good and doing the right thing is what most gamers look for if they love RPGs. A game where the end really can have dozens of possible endings based on the choices the player has made is also a part of this. What fun is it if you choose to be evil, yet end up being the good leader or sacrifice yourself in the end?
Other game types are out there, but it's hard to say what game or games define a genre without having a good understanding about that genre.
I think of an RPG as a game that lets me develop characters the way I choose to, as well as to decide what my characters do, and how they will respond to people in the game environment.
With that said, Diablo doesn't qualify because you can't choose if you want to accept a quest, or even how you will interact with an NPC. Games that only let you accept or reject a quest without choosing the tone also fall short.
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the best when it comes to computer role playing games. You can pick a tone when it comes to dialog choices, and that will alter the way the dialog flows. You can also choose to be nice(good), or you can be nasty and greedy. It's up to you. The only thing that most find limiting is that you can't necessarily ally yourself with the side of evil. You can BE evil, but you can't choose to ally yourself with the person who starts as the enemy.
Wizardry 6-8(the three games are a trilogy that tells a story) is the flip side. You have your choice about which side to ally yourself with, but you don't have a lot of choices about how you interact with NPCs.
You also have the old-school dungeon crawl type games that many think of as RPGs. The original Wizardry, or Bard's Tale arn't great RPGs by the standards of today, but back in those early days they were fun games.
Then you have the old "Gold Box" games, with Pool of Radiance being the first. They used the old Dungeons and Dragons rules(none of this 3rd edition junk we have today), but added things that made the game more like a RPG, such as maps(in the manual).
The sad thing is how many games coppied Dungeons and Dragons when it came to a combat system, yet none of them really improved on it. When you go up in level, you get more hit points. The original Dungeons and Dragons system had a decent enough reason, because Hit Points also reflect your ability to avoid taking damage, and as you gain experience adventuring, your endurance will go up in theory. Other game systems that use stamina or endurance really have no good reason to award more hit points because you go up in level.
One thing that other people havn't said yet is that the government here in the USA has been sitting around and not really doing anything to encourage the development of technology. In eastern Asia, the governments have been pushing to improve the availability of broadband and technology. In the USA, the government is pushing for things that will help George W. Bush in his war on the middle east.
.com crash hit, did government step in to see how they could help the companies that had a good product survive? How about all the people who lost their jobs and had to take retail sales jobs because the programming, IT, and support jobs disappeared when the company they worked for went out of business? After being out of work for over a year, it becomes VERY difficult for people to get back into the work force, and that's what happened to a LOT of people.
.com crash. And people wonder why this country is losing it's edge?
When the
So now, the USA is falling behind. All the entry level support jobs are going to India and other countries. There hasn't been a huge surge of new companies starting up with new ideas to take the place of those who disappeared after the
The Extreme Edition processors are available in what quantities and from how many companies? It's been said that the EE version of the Pentium 4 was made for Dell because AMD had an edge in performance and Dell needed SOMETHING a bit better than the normal P4 and Xeon chips. This would be the equivilant of AMD making 1000 1600-series Opteron processors for one customer then saying how that gave an extra edge compared to the 800 series. The cost/performance ratio doesn't matter, it's hype.
When it comes to stability, the issue has been about the chipset issues out there, not about the processor. VIA had a LOT of issues with their chipsets, and since VIA was the only choice besides AMD for chipsets just after the Athlon first came out, you saw issues. Now, you can say what you want about motherboard quality, but from a CPU standpoint, AMD processors are as stable if not more stable than Intel due to heat related issues with Prescott. Blame motherboards for AMD based systems if you want to have a good point.
The chipset is what causes the driver problems, not the CPU. If you overclock, that's also not the fault of the CPU if things arn't "stable".
Back on topic, we don't know that AMD hasn't already shipped the dual core Opteron processors in volume but due to NDA no one is saying anything. April 21st is the suspected launch date for dual-core Opteron processors, so we will see if vendors have the product in-stock and for sale on release day.
We will also see how the products perform in comparisons on that day(I hope). Does it matter if Intel got their product out the door a week earlier, yet has much worse performance in almost every application? Let's face it, a clock speed advantage only helps in certain situations and benchmarks. But what if the architecture differences make it so AMD's dual-core lets them catch up in the benchmarks that have favored Intel processors?
Nothing is stopping you from going to the testing distribution. Unlike most of the other distributions, Debian has an OPEN development cycle which EVERYONE can upgrade to. Sarge at this point is probably as stable as most of the other released distribution versions.
.95 version of a beta is for the most part going to be just as stable for most people as the 1.0 version. sarge is at that point, and even if there are a couple of little things that need to be done on it, there should be NO reason at this point not to be running it. This isn't a Microsoft style release where at release it has lots of bugs and holes. Debian may take a long time between official releases, but even in testing it's pretty stable. Except for the first eight months of a new unstable, the unstable tree tends to be fairly solid though SOME things can break randomly from day to day or week to week.
Something to think about is that people look at BSD and love how stable and secure the different flavors are. Debian tends to be as stable as possible because of the testing that is done.
If you want to go with the latest features, nothing is stopping you from installing them. Production environments are almost never about having EVERY new feature, they are about stability and security.
In addition to this, if you need a specific package, you can generally just get that package and any packages it depends on, compile the application yourself, or upgrade to one of the development releases. You do NOT need to wait for something to be added to the latest released version of the distribution.
If you are a true system administrator for a production environment, then for security reasons, you should be more than able to compile and install any specific requirements for your needs anyway. If you can't, and MUST have things done for you, then your production environments will always be at risk of being broken into due to some configuration setting that doesn't work well with your environment.
Most people don't lock down their systems, they take an easy install method like "web server", without editing the package list before installing. What this does is to allow access to your machine in ways you arn't even aware of.
Which web server do you want to use? Do you really need ftp access to the box, or do you use ONLY ssh/scp to transfer files to the machine for security reasons? How about other little features? Do you NEED a GUI on that machine at all, and why since a command line should be enough? Have you checked the configurations to make sure they point to the right places? How about locking down any remote access methods to make sure that ONLY the machine and perhaps the subnet it is on gets access to the configuration interface(if you have one)?
And last but not least, the kernel is something that EVERY system admin should manually compile for their system. Instead of just using kernel modules, compile in what you need, and don't bother with support for things your system has no use for. Distributions put in as many modules as they can into the kernel for compatability with all the different systems, but once you have the machine up, why not custom compile your kernel for the purpose of the machine? If you don't use NFS for example, why should you bother with NFS support in the kernel unless you may want to use it at some point?
So, sarge is pretty much there. You can upgrade to it, and since you arn't installing from scratch, you don't need to wait for the installer to be tested/upgraded. Going to a
Let's face it, not everyone has the equipment to view HDTV broadcasts. That's the main problem, that there isn't enough of a customer base to make a dedicated HDTV service do well. The numbers are growing, but it's not there yet.
How many more $200 27 inch conventional TVs are sold each year compared to HDTV ready displays? Until HDTV ready displays become the norm, HDTV won't thrive.
You can buy a 32 inch conventional TV new for $300 if you look hard enough. To get a 30 inch HD-TV you are looking at quite a bit more. Now, based on the lack of HD programming, do you spend the extra money if money is an issue for you? I'd love a nice flat panel display, but I can't justify the $2000 price for one at the moment.