I don't know where you get 30% faster, on my hardware performance is about equale between win2k, linux and 98. As for truetype fonts, your blamming X for a problem with netscape 4, go use mozilla sometime and see the difference. I'll give you the configuration argument, they really should make getting XF86Setup working a must.
That's not really fair, Xfree86 has open source TNT and Geforce drivers that work just fine. There may be no 3d, but I'm pretty sure there is not 3d drivers for any hardware on Hurd.
ATI has never really gone after the performance segment, and the readon is really just a replacement in their lineup for the rage 128.
ATI's stategy has always been to build a cipset that is fast enough to get media attention as a 3d contender when it first comes out, but design it so that will scale down so they can make the big bucks in the value segment. Witness the ATI's sucsess in the OEM market with Rage 2, Rage pro, Rage 128, etc...
This is where 3dfx has always failed, there chips are very fast when introduced, but they just can't scale into different segments.
X has it's faults, but I don't really see what everyone has against it. X in it's current form (XFree86 4.01) does many things very well, truetype fonts work wonderfully, 3d graphics are extremely fast, stability is good, X remote display works well even over a modem link, and even the notorious X bloat has been put on a diet. There are many well known defiencies, such as limited suport for drawing primitives, lack of alpha channel support, not to mention lack of dynamic resolution/ color depth changing, but they are all comming down the pipeline.
I like Be in many ways, but Be is really no closser to being ready for mainstream users than Linux. Linux may be somewhat more complicated, but Linux and is more atractive to skilled users, and has security features and services that they will appreciate. Be is very easy to use, but since it has so few applications, it's hard to recommend it to non-techies, and techies will most likely be happier with Linux.
GPL applications can be linked with proprietary libraries with no problems. Otherwise all GPL applications written for windows solaris ( including emacs) would be in violation of the GPL. You do NOT need to link applications with commercial libraries.
OK, say it with me one time... QT was never incompatible with the GPL. If the author/copyright holder rights an aplication using QT and publishes it under the GPL it is perfectly legal. Why? Simple. The author/copyright holder is the only person who has the right to defend the copyright, and the whole notion of author suing himself for copyright violation is rediculous. Got It?
Actually they have the geforce 2 mx (sub $150), and the tnt 2 64 (sub $90). Nvidia has done verry well in all segments of the market, but they don't have anything like the market share in the low end that ATI and Intel have.
I agree that there are several issues like patents, and the ASP loophole that need fixing, but should we be considering changing the rules to the GPL just as more business, and users are getting to understand it? Hopefully RMS can avoid making any controvercial changes that whould devide the community ( I remember a few months back reading a article on advgato that advocated barring use of any GPL'd software by anyone suing any free software author over patent infringement, that I found to be a verry bad idea).
Apllix always tried to sell their products the traditional boxed product way. But that system can never keep up with the speed of internet distributed, by the time their product hit the shelves, there was always a new update of Star Office, or Abisuite, or Koffice on the net. They never allowed you to "try before you buy" or evaluate their product over the net, So why would anyone buy their porduct if you can try out every other product first?
Re:WWine's slow compared to other options...
on
Linux Sin Demo
·
· Score: 1
The point is I did'nt buy those games, I have been playing numerous games under wine for ages, these games (particularly BG) run flawlessly for me, and any company that had bothered to look at running them under wine would have had an easy job of porting them over. But since they did not I had to buy the windows version, so Loki lost a sale, and likely a many more.
Loki needs to look into poting games using wine.
on
Linux Sin Demo
·
· Score: 1
Loki seems to do native linux versions of their games, instead of porting them using wine. I've been playing Balder's Gate 1 on linux since it caim out, but Loki, or anyone else, has not bothered to do a commercial port. Sin is another game that has been working perfectly for me for over a year, but no one bothered doing a commercial port using wine. As far as I can see, they have missed their chance on several easy ports that would have made money, if they kept their eye open.
Netscape 6 is out, but as everyboddy knows, its a total POS. The thing is totally unstable under Linux, a pukes on dozens of web pages. However I have found that the java plugin that comes with ns6 works perfectly with mozilla (something the sun plugin won't do). so all you have to do is install ns6 and copy java2 from the plugins directory into mozilla/plugins and symlink the javaplugin_oji in the folder into mozilla/plugins.
So, not only does MS raise it's own tax on computers ( the near mandatory windows license), they don't even pay taxes themselves. This is b*llsh*t people, I say it's time Microsoft and Cisco payed their share.
You don't seem to get the basic idea behind full disclosure security, and moreover, you fall into all the classic pitfalls of "security through obscurity". First off, you don't really know what crackers are capable of, do you? Do I? no I don't. I have never met a true expert cracker, and have only met a couple script kiddiez on irc. I short I don't really know what crackers are capable of, but most importantly * *I don't assume that I do * *. When you start to make blind guesses about a sucurity risk, you open yourself up to becomming overconfident, and you make yourself vulnerable.
Second, you say "You have no need for a coded exploit - if you can't write it yourself, what chance do you have to understand it? And if you don't understand it, what possible LEGITIMATE use do you have for it?" but without exploit code how does one test to see if a security hole has *really* been fixed, if you can't test it?
Code is the langua franca of the open source movement, code is often the best possible way to demonstate a security hole to programmers, and more inportantly, what mistakes other programmers should try *not to make*.
Third, and main reason that I agree with full disclosure, is the idea that sucurity comes when all the good guys have every possible tool at their disposal to secure their networks. I don't want company A (cough Netscape) or B (cough Microsoft) should sit around debating if they should release information about security problems, or trying to pretend problems don't exist when they do. I want the businesses that I work with to trust me, and to let me be the judge of how vulnerable I am.
So, you propose turning over control of the english language to the media? So what if there defenition is deferent than mine, I'm not about to start using some media buzzword defenition of the word hacker, when a more acurate defenition exists. Someone who breaks into computers, and destroys personal property, is by my defenition a criminal.
If anyone wants really slick looking skins for xmms then you need to go to http://www.dgs.monash.edu.au/~timf/xmms/ and get the kjolfol plugin for xmms. I adds support for all kinds of cool sonique-ish skins, then go to customize.org and download some cool skins for it.
That's only for 98 users. If it was any higher there would be alot of bitching about needing to upgrade after only 18 months, that and ME has next to nothing worth upgrading to.
The simple proof that microsoft don't steal GPL code is that there software would come out on time, and it would not have so many bugs if it they were actually stealing Code.:)
That said, you can't just slap in code from one app int another, and changing it to work with MS existing code base, as well as making it look and act diferently that the original would be more trouble than it's worth.
There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits the sharing the knolledge that the software contains. So if microsoft programmers want to learn how to code, they have all this free software to learn from.:)
I can't see how you can argue that this is about product stability, chips don't get overclocked by accident, this is about AMD and Intel blocking chip remarking.
IMHO I don think apple ever had serious intentions to put the mac on PC's, if they did, it would have made much more sense to build apple branded PCs, and sell it with MacOS installed. This way they whould have maintained control over the hardware, as well as having cheaper PC hardware, and they would be able to bypass MS entirely.
Maybe this is just 20/20 hindsight, but If they were going to do it, this is the only way that would make any sense, since apple has always been first and formost a hardware company.
It is not illegal as in "you are going to jail", it is a breach of contract, meaning they can revoke your privileges granted to you under the license. They cannot sue you, they cannot have you arrested, and they cannot come to your house looking for the CD. The Rules of fair use do apply, and nothing they put in a license can change that. All they can do is cancel your account, and ban you from their service, that's ALL.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you get 30% faster, on my hardware performance is about equale between win2k, linux and 98. As for truetype fonts, your blamming X for a problem with netscape 4, go use mozilla sometime and see the difference. I'll give you the configuration argument, they really should make getting XF86Setup working a must.
That's not really fair, Xfree86 has open source TNT and Geforce drivers that work just fine. There may be no 3d, but I'm pretty sure there is not 3d drivers for any hardware on Hurd.
ATI has never really gone after the performance segment, and the readon is really just a replacement in their lineup for the rage 128.
...
ATI's stategy has always been to build a cipset that is fast enough to get media attention as a 3d contender when it first comes out, but design it so that will scale down so they can make the big bucks in the value segment. Witness the ATI's sucsess in the OEM market with Rage 2, Rage pro, Rage 128, etc
This is where 3dfx has always failed, there chips are very fast when introduced, but they just can't scale into different segments.
X has it's faults, but I don't really see what everyone has against it. X in it's current form (XFree86 4.01) does many things very well, truetype fonts work wonderfully, 3d graphics are extremely fast, stability is good, X remote display works well even over a modem link, and even the notorious X bloat has been put on a diet. There are many well known defiencies, such as limited suport for drawing primitives, lack of alpha channel support, not to mention lack of dynamic resolution/ color depth changing, but they are all comming down the pipeline.
As I stated before Be has next to no decent applications, and no Opera 3.62 does not count.
I like Be in many ways, but Be is really no closser to being ready for mainstream users than Linux. Linux may be somewhat more complicated, but Linux and is more atractive to skilled users, and has security features and services that they will appreciate. Be is very easy to use, but since it has so few applications, it's hard to recommend it to non-techies, and techies will most likely be happier with Linux.
that should read you do not need permission to link against non-free libraries.
GPL applications can be linked with proprietary libraries with no problems. Otherwise all GPL applications written for windows solaris ( including emacs) would be in violation of the GPL. You do NOT need to link applications with commercial libraries.
OK, say it with me one time... QT was never incompatible with the GPL. If the author/copyright holder rights an aplication using QT and publishes it under the GPL it is perfectly legal. Why? Simple. The author/copyright holder is the only person who has the right to defend the copyright, and the whole notion of author suing himself for copyright violation is rediculous. Got It?
Actually they have the geforce 2 mx (sub $150), and the tnt 2 64 (sub $90). Nvidia has done verry well in all segments of the market, but they don't have anything like the market share in the low end that ATI and Intel have.
I agree that there are several issues like patents, and the ASP loophole that need fixing, but should we be considering changing the rules to the GPL just as more business, and users are getting to understand it? Hopefully RMS can avoid making any controvercial changes that whould devide the community ( I remember a few months back reading a article on advgato that advocated barring use of any GPL'd software by anyone suing any free software author over patent infringement, that I found to be a verry bad idea).
Apllix always tried to sell their products the traditional boxed product way. But that system can never keep up with the speed of internet distributed, by the time their product hit the shelves, there was always a new update of Star Office, or Abisuite, or Koffice on the net. They never allowed you to "try before you buy" or evaluate their product over the net, So why would anyone buy their porduct if you can try out every other product first?
The point is I did'nt buy those games, I have been playing numerous games under wine for ages, these games (particularly BG) run flawlessly for me, and any company that had bothered to look at running them under wine would have had an easy job of porting them over. But since they did not I had to buy the windows version, so Loki lost a sale, and likely a many more.
Loki seems to do native linux versions of their games, instead of porting them using wine. I've been playing Balder's Gate 1 on linux since it caim out, but Loki, or anyone else, has not bothered to do a commercial port. Sin is another game that has been working perfectly for me for over a year, but no one bothered doing a commercial port using wine. As far as I can see, they have missed their chance on several easy ports that would have made money, if they kept their eye open.
Netscape 6 is out, but as everyboddy knows, its a total POS. The thing is totally unstable under Linux, a pukes on dozens of web pages. However I have found that the java plugin that comes with ns6 works perfectly with mozilla (something the sun plugin won't do). so all you have to do is install ns6 and copy java2 from the plugins directory into mozilla/plugins and symlink the javaplugin_oji in the folder into mozilla/plugins.
So, not only does MS raise it's own tax on computers ( the near mandatory windows license), they don't even pay taxes themselves. This is b*llsh*t people, I say it's time Microsoft and Cisco payed their share.
You don't seem to get the basic idea behind full disclosure security, and moreover, you fall into all the classic pitfalls of "security through obscurity". First off, you don't really know what crackers are capable of, do you? Do I? no I don't. I have never met a true expert cracker, and have only met a couple script kiddiez on irc. I short I don't really know what crackers are capable of, but most importantly * *I don't assume that I do * *. When you start to make blind guesses about a sucurity risk, you open yourself up to becomming overconfident, and you make yourself vulnerable.
Second, you say "You have no need for a coded exploit - if you can't write it yourself, what chance do you have to understand it? And if you don't understand it, what possible LEGITIMATE use do you have for it?" but without exploit code how does one test to see if a security hole has *really* been fixed, if you can't test it?
Code is the langua franca of the open source movement, code is often the best possible way to demonstate a security hole to programmers, and more inportantly, what mistakes other programmers should try *not to make*.
Third, and main reason that I agree with full disclosure, is the idea that sucurity comes when all the good guys have every possible tool at their disposal to secure their networks. I don't want company A (cough Netscape) or B (cough Microsoft) should sit around debating if they should release information about security problems, or trying to pretend problems don't exist when they do. I want the businesses that I work with to trust me, and to let me be the judge of how vulnerable I am.
So, you propose turning over control of the english language to the media? So what if there defenition is deferent than mine, I'm not about to start using some media buzzword defenition of the word hacker, when a more acurate defenition exists. Someone who breaks into computers, and destroys personal property, is by my defenition a criminal.
If anyone wants really slick looking skins for xmms then you need to go to http://www.dgs.monash.edu.au/~timf/xmms/ and get the kjolfol plugin for xmms. I adds support for all kinds of cool sonique-ish skins, then go to customize.org and download some cool skins for it.
That's only for 98 users. If it was any higher there would be alot of bitching about needing to upgrade after only 18 months, that and ME has next to nothing worth upgrading to.
The simple proof that microsoft don't steal GPL code is that there software would come out on time, and it would not have so many bugs if it they were actually stealing Code. :)
:)
That said, you can't just slap in code from one app int another, and changing it to work with MS existing code base, as well as making it look and act diferently that the original would be more trouble than it's worth.
There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits the sharing the knolledge that the software contains. So if microsoft programmers want to learn how to code, they have all this free software to learn from.
Better upgrade to 2.4 or you will run into the 2gb file limit
I can't see how you can argue that this is about product stability, chips don't get overclocked by accident, this is about AMD and Intel blocking chip remarking.
IMHO I don think apple ever had serious intentions to put the mac on PC's, if they did, it would have made much more sense to build apple branded PCs, and sell it with MacOS installed. This way they whould have maintained control over the hardware, as well as having cheaper PC hardware, and they would be able to bypass MS entirely.
Maybe this is just 20/20 hindsight, but If they were going to do it, this is the only way that would make any sense, since apple has always been first and formost a hardware company.
It is not illegal as in "you are going to jail", it is a breach of contract, meaning they can revoke your privileges granted to you under the license. They cannot sue you, they cannot have you arrested, and they cannot come to your house looking for the CD. The Rules of fair use do apply, and nothing they put in a license can change that. All they can do is cancel your account, and ban you from their service, that's ALL.