Re:Uh, use you "brain"... *smacks chest*
on
Textmode Quake 2
·
· Score: 3
DISCLAIMER: this does not take into account compression, or encoding scemes used to reduce the number of characters sent/received
Nor does it take into account whether the whole screen is being updated each time, the overhead of the protocol, and the overhead of the terminal emulation. I.e., for a typical VT-102/ANSI type terminal, moving the cursor up 10 rows, for instance, involves <Esc>[10A. That's five extra bytes. Note that I don't know if the software relocates the cursor or draws every character in every frame as I have only a passing familiarity with AALib.
On the other hand, your comment was funny enough that it did make me spit my Pepsi all over the screen.:-)
This is just catering to the most idiotic morons who probably don't have jobs and can't afford a computer
Right...it's not an issue of computer illiterate vs. computer saavy... it's an issue of intelligence vs. stupidity. And there's a whole lot of stupidity out there. I'm probably going to kiss a lot of karma goodbye for saying this, but why else would Microsoft Windows be the #1 operating system and America Online be the #1 ISP? Because they both cater to the lowest common demoninator.
I'm not trying to make fun of Microsoft or AOL. They've made lots of money and have become very popular for doing what they do. But it doesn't change the immutable fact that they each cater to the stupidest people, rather than people with some intelligence. Intelligent people might have good reasons why they chose AOL or Microsoft, but their average customers choose them because they don't know any better.
You don't have to worry, they probably don't do it. If Ford is anything like General Motors, then they destroy their old computers. GM has a strict policy of destroying anything they are putting out to pasture, include furniture, computers, equipment, etc., because in the past people abused the giving employees first dibs bit. Managers would throw stuff away and buy new stuff just so they could take it to their house.
The name is not "Windows" but "Lindows" which gives the impression that it's not Windows but somehow connected to Windows.
Congratulations! You just successfully argued Microsoft's trademark infringement case for them! Just get that law degree, and you're well on your way to being a Microserf Lawyer(TM).
:-)
Seriously, that's Microsoft's whole case right there. It creates confusion. It causes users to think that Lindows is somehow connected to Windows, and naturally they will assume, like the stupid cattle your average Joe Sixpack is, that the software is from the same company that produces Windows® (Microsoft).
It's like this. Suppose I opened a sleeker, hipper, 2000's version of McDonald's® and called it McDon's (TM). I change the logo, but like Lindows does with Windows, I copy some of the same colors and fonts or use something in a similar vein, graphically speaking. Actually, even if I strike that last sentence, it's still possible that you might assume that McDon's (TM) is a new subsidiary of McDonald's® Corporation.
This is no different, and Microsoft® DOES have a really strong case, as much as I hate to admit it.:)
Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
McDonald's is a registered trademark of McDonald's Corporation.
McDon's is quite possibly a registered trademark of someone, so I'm going to mention that here.
I didn't have to be retrained when my company switched from Office 4.3 to Office 2000. And that was a multi-generation leap in Software versions.
Grrreeaaat..... Ya know what? I didn't have to be retrained when I went from Microsoft Office to StarOffice. But then again, if you and I are like most typical slashdot readers, we wouldn't have to be. When General Motors switched recently from Windows 3.1 (COe for any GMers out there) to Windows 95 and NT (GM Online for you GMers), most were running Windows 3.1 with Office 4.2 and switched to Windows 95 and Office 97. Most of these users did have to be retrained.
OTOH, I have a perfectly documented case of some Microsoft Windows users who moved to StarOffice on Solaris. These workers had the computer knowledge and expertise of most typical office workers. The users were familiar with Unix only to the point that they knew if they clicked this CDE panel button, it would launch this application. They were familiar with concept of permissions, too, admittedly this is the biggest hurdle, but permissions aren't difficult to explain.
Who the hell needs al Quaeda?
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Microsoft can put bugs, trojans and viruses in XP all by itself It doesn't need al Quaeda to do that at all:-)
The user has already learned the interface. (The learning curve for command-line interfaces is steeper than for GUIs, especially if the user has first experience with a GUI. With a blank slate computer user, the learning curve is about the same...but how many blank slates who've never used Windows -- or a video game controller -- do you find?
Actually, I think the poster of the parent comment was talking about OFMs. These actually don't have a steep learning curve because A) they're usually at least quasi-GUI, and B) they all use the same keystrokes, so once you've learned one OFM, the others are all pretty much the same (F5 for copy, F6 for move, F7 for mkdir, F8 for delete, yada yada) (this contradicts your second point)
I've worked in the U.S. auto industry for nearly 3 years now, and having been born, raised and living in the Detroit area most of my life, the auto industry has been a big part of my existence.
I can tell you that the U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are hardly in cahoots. The biggest problem is that the companies working on alternative fuel vehicles/electric vehicles/fuel cell vehicles basically keep screwing themselves over.
One problem is that they develop a technology, spending billions of dollars. As soon as it's proven that they can't make cars that are affordable or practical to the general populace, they scrap it and start over, rather than introducing the vehicles to certain niche market segments, learning from that and making improvements, all the while collecting revenue from the people and companies that are buying the vehicles.
Another problem is that they're too worried and too wrapped up in trying to make a vehicle that can be produced by existing manufacturing techniques. The car comapanies don't want to spend the required billions to completely retool all their factories to produce a different product.
Of course you know what the funny thing is? The car companies completely retool their factories every few years ANYWAY and spend those billions ANYWAY, because their current method of designing and building tooling pretty much involves this: if there is a change in the body style (for instance), no matter how insignificant, START OVER and redesign and rebuild the tool FROM SCRATCH. Really. I've worked with the tooling companies for years, trust me.:)
Shhh! Don't tell the car company execs that! They think they have billions invested in their current manufacturing techniques and that they haven't changed in years, when in fact they get completely overhauled every few years.
The car companies really have no loyalties to the oil industry. They're whores. They'll do anything to sell vehicles. And they KNOW that they must develop fuel cell technologies and make them so that they are affordable and practical for the everyday person. Otherwise, they face extinction. I've seen their business plans, and they definitely involve exploring every technology possible, be it borax-derivative fuel cells, solar power, wind power, ethanol, batteries, other technologies. Whatever it takes.
But, as a parent, I think I can tell which toys are too explicitly (or even suggestively) violent for my child. And even if I didn't know anything about software and video games, they now have a ratings system that tells me which age group for which they are most appropriate.
<tongue in cheek mode>
Oh, no way. You are WAY too stupid To be deciding what toys to buy for your children. We have WAYYY more experience then you, we have so many degrees after our names, we've lost count! We are the Experts (tm). How DARE you question us!
True, but how important this is to you depends on how often you upgrade. If you're upgrading every couple of years, this is not as much of a concern if you're one of those people who wait every 5 or 10 years to get something new.
And if you're one of those people, this product isn't for you anyway.
The Zilog Z-80 is was used in many embedded applications...I think it's being used less and less now, but I can think of a few devices off the top of my head that are still Z80 based. The Sharp Wizard electronic organizer is one example, the Gameboy is another. It's probably used in a lot of things you wouldn't think of, like phones and such too.
As a former corporate support person I'd also want the DOA rate on Dells, with apple it's near zero (and I know that Dell ain't even close).
As a current corporate support person I can tell you that A) Dell ain't the only manufacturer of x86-based PCs and B) most manufacturers have a near zero DOA rate, Apple just happens to be one of them.
Sure, you can go down to your local cheap computer dealer and get more bang for your buck, but then you'll probably end up with cheap components that won't run Linux, may crash under Windows more often.
Local cheap computer shop? I build all my own boxes, buying best-of-breed components from various places and end up with a box that has higher-end components than those put in that overpriced Dell bitty box.
Yes, but the $799 iMac is not even as well equipped as a comparable Intel-based machine for the same money. For $799 I'd have double the processor speed, double the hard drive capacity, and quadruple the RAM. Be realistic, ok?
Nah... First of all, a flat-screen iMac would have a bigger screen, full sized keyboard, faster hard drive, etc. You aren't worried about power consumption nearly as much in a desktop as a laptop, so you can afford to put regular desktop components, which also happen to be cheaper.
Which leads me to my second point, which is that LCDs aren't the only reason laptops are expensive compared to desktops. Miniature hard drives, low-power consumption CPUs, etc. are more expensive (and are also slower) than their desktop cousins.
Thirdly, is the right price? I dunno. At $1200 the current iMac is pretty pricey for a so-called "low end" machine. I think Apple will probably put this machine in the same price category. They sold a bunch of iMac's at that price, they could sell a newer and better iMac at that price, I'm sure.
Yeah... Lotus Notes is so tied in to the Win32 platform it's not funny. I mean, the stupid thing integrates with Microsith Planet Exploder.
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
After I get a hold of it it will...:-P
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
Exzactly. If they can get this thing to the mass populous, this thing will cause cities to be redesigned. This thing is more important than than any invention in the last 100 years.
Imagine... you've got cities where everything is within couple of miles of each other...compartmentalized so that you can "walk" using this device to work, to school, to shopping, to entertainment...the only thing you need a car for is traveling between cities!
There's no learning curve with this thing, you just get on it, and takes you anywhere using your own natural instinctive body movements.
Wow...
If you don't get it yet, don't worry you will eventually...
Wow. Basically it's illegal to threaten the POTUS, his successors, yadayada... Conspiring to kill them is also illegal.
It's certainly not a threat: A threat would be "Hey, Mr. Vice President, I'm going to kill you with smallpox." or even simply "I'm going to kill the VP with smallpox." (DISCLAIMER: I am not, will not, and have never considered nor do I condone the killing of the President or the Vice President or really any higher form of life than a cockroach.)
Micros~1 didn't fail to meet demand. This is a very old trick. Purposely limit your supply, and when these things fly off the shelf really really fast, it will seem in the minds of Joe Six Pack consumer-types that these things must be really super-popular and therefore this is the product that he must have.
People are stupid. They assume that because something is hard to get, it must be popular. (in high demand). They completely ignore the SUPPLY side of the equation.:-)
And they have licenced their portion of the work in such a way that it taints the entire project. In a nutshell, you are prohibited from _selling_ any product that uses WINE and their source. So if you want to write a DirectX Linux app, and sell it, you're FUBARed.
IANAL, however, from what I understand of copyright law this wouldn't be possible.
As long as you don't use any of their source, including #include files, then you're alright. Where Troll Tech can control the QT licensing is that you need to use their #include and other source files to write a QT-based application.
However, if you are targetting DirectX, there's no really no telling whether you are targetting Microsoft's implementation of DirectX or TG's. As long as you A) don't include any of their source in your project and B) don't distribute TG's binaries with your program, you can sell your Linux-based DirectX application all you want and they cannot stop you. Simply include instructions with your program on how to obtain WineX from TransGaming.
That's it. Writing an app to conform to a particular API would be considered fair use as long as you don't have to use TransGaming's source to write your app. Simple.
Yes, but then you have to buy a Mac. Clearly the readers of slashdot are past the hand-holding and don't need to pay a premium for colored plastic.
It's firewire and uses a 5GB hard disk. Write a Linux driver for it.:) And actually, come to think of it, on a Mac it acts as a firewire hard drive, so I'm assuming that if you had a standard firewire hard disk driver coupled with the the Mac hfs file system driver that's already in Linux, you're probably already 90% of the way there.
Rather than complain "you have to buy a Mac" WRITE DRIVERS! This is the advantage of having an open source operating system to hack, folks.
It is true that Microsoft's contract with IBM, which stipulated that Microsoft could sell its operating system software to whomever it wanted, allowed Microsoft's creation of a universal operating system which would run on any computer similar to those made by IBM.
The only reason that IBM allowed this stipulation, however, is that IBM wasn't serious about the PC. The purpose of Project Chess, as it was called, was really to see what was out there and see if they could make money.
The group Jack Sams worked with at this time, the Boca Raton group, were something of a rebellion within IBM. The big brass at Big Blue only gave them the green light on Project Chess because they were curious where this would go. IBM was at that time not banking on the PC at all...as far as they were concerned, mainframes were their core business and would remain their core business. The PC was just something to throw out there to see if it would fly.
So when Big Blue allowed Microsoft to distribute PC-DOS to anyone they wanted, it was more out of ignorance than out of wanting to creating a universal PC for everyone to use. IBM had no illusions of grandeur for the PC, and neither did Bill Gates.
What? Neither did Bill Gates? That's right. Microsoft's forte was not operating systems. It was languages. Gates only wanted to sell an operating system to IBM because it wanted to sell its languages, especially Microsoft BASIC, to IBM. Gates didn't give a rat's ass about DOS, and only insisted on the stipulation because he figured he might be able to make some money on this thing after all.
Oh, and the "Pirates of Silicon Valley," while entertaining and partially based in fact, is not historically accurate.
Seriously, modern Pascal compilers like Delphi/Kylix are capable of some compile-time checking...Pascal already has strict var type checking, and all you have to do is make sure its turned on when you compile.
This also includes bounds checking for arrays. Pointers are handled better than most C compilers, too.
The key difference here is that it sounds as if Cyclone checks the code for *intent* rather than just checking the types and such. That IS a hard problem.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
DISCLAIMER: this does not take into account compression, or encoding scemes used to reduce the number of characters sent/received
:-)
Nor does it take into account whether the whole screen is being updated each time, the overhead of the protocol, and the overhead of the terminal emulation. I.e., for a typical VT-102/ANSI type terminal, moving the cursor up 10 rows, for instance, involves <Esc>[10A. That's five extra bytes. Note that I don't know if the software relocates the cursor or draws every character in every frame as I have only a passing familiarity with AALib.
On the other hand, your comment was funny enough that it did make me spit my Pepsi all over the screen.
This is just catering to the most idiotic morons who probably don't have jobs and can't afford a computer
Right...it's not an issue of computer illiterate vs. computer saavy... it's an issue of intelligence vs. stupidity. And there's a whole lot of stupidity out there. I'm probably going to kiss a lot of karma goodbye for saying this, but why else would Microsoft Windows be the #1 operating system and America Online be the #1 ISP? Because they both cater to the lowest common demoninator.
I'm not trying to make fun of Microsoft or AOL. They've made lots of money and have become very popular for doing what they do. But it doesn't change the immutable fact that they each cater to the stupidest people, rather than people with some intelligence. Intelligent people might have good reasons why they chose AOL or Microsoft, but their average customers choose them because they don't know any better.
You don't have to worry, they probably don't do it. If Ford is anything like General Motors, then they destroy their old computers. GM has a strict policy of destroying anything they are putting out to pasture, include furniture, computers, equipment, etc., because in the past people abused the giving employees first dibs bit. Managers would throw stuff away and buy new stuff just so they could take it to their house.
The name is not "Windows" but "Lindows" which gives the impression that it's not Windows but somehow connected to Windows.
:)
:-)
Congratulations! You just successfully argued Microsoft's trademark infringement case for them! Just get that law degree, and you're well on your way to being a Microserf Lawyer(TM).
:-)
Seriously, that's Microsoft's whole case right there. It creates confusion. It causes users to think that Lindows is somehow connected to Windows, and naturally they will assume, like the stupid cattle your average Joe Sixpack is, that the software is from the same company that produces Windows® (Microsoft).
It's like this. Suppose I opened a sleeker, hipper, 2000's version of McDonald's® and called it McDon's (TM). I change the logo, but like Lindows does with Windows, I copy some of the same colors and fonts or use something in a similar vein, graphically speaking. Actually, even if I strike that last sentence, it's still possible that you might assume that McDon's (TM) is a new subsidiary of McDonald's® Corporation.
This is no different, and Microsoft® DOES have a really strong case, as much as I hate to admit it.
Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
McDonald's is a registered trademark of McDonald's Corporation.
McDon's is quite possibly a registered trademark of someone, so I'm going to mention that here.
Trademark holders: please don't sue me!
I didn't have to be retrained when my company switched from Office 4.3 to Office 2000. And that was a multi-generation leap in Software versions.
Grrreeaaat..... Ya know what? I didn't have to be retrained when I went from Microsoft Office to StarOffice. But then again, if you and I are like most typical slashdot readers, we wouldn't have to be. When General Motors switched recently from Windows 3.1 (COe for any GMers out there) to Windows 95 and NT (GM Online for you GMers), most were running Windows 3.1 with Office 4.2 and switched to Windows 95 and Office 97. Most of these users did have to be retrained.
OTOH, I have a perfectly documented case of some Microsoft Windows users who moved to StarOffice on Solaris. These workers had the computer knowledge and expertise of most typical office workers. The users were familiar with Unix only to the point that they knew if they clicked this CDE panel button, it would launch this application. They were familiar with concept of permissions, too, admittedly this is the biggest hurdle, but permissions aren't difficult to explain.
Microsoft can put bugs, trojans and viruses in XP all by itself It doesn't need al Quaeda to do that at all :-)
The user has already learned the interface. (The learning curve for command-line interfaces is steeper than for GUIs, especially if the user has first experience with a GUI. With a blank slate computer user, the learning curve is about the same...but how many blank slates who've never used Windows -- or a video game controller -- do you find?
Actually, I think the poster of the parent comment was talking about OFMs. These actually don't have a steep learning curve because A) they're usually at least quasi-GUI, and B) they all use the same keystrokes, so once you've learned one OFM, the others are all pretty much the same (F5 for copy, F6 for move, F7 for mkdir, F8 for delete, yada yada) (this contradicts your second point)
I've worked in the U.S. auto industry for nearly 3 years now, and having been born, raised and living in the Detroit area most of my life, the auto industry has been a big part of my existence.
:)
I can tell you that the U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are hardly in cahoots. The biggest problem is that the companies working on alternative fuel vehicles/electric vehicles/fuel cell vehicles basically keep screwing themselves over.
One problem is that they develop a technology, spending billions of dollars. As soon as it's proven that they can't make cars that are affordable or practical to the general populace, they scrap it and start over, rather than introducing the vehicles to certain niche market segments, learning from that and making improvements, all the while collecting revenue from the people and companies that are buying the vehicles.
Another problem is that they're too worried and too wrapped up in trying to make a vehicle that can be produced by existing manufacturing techniques. The car comapanies don't want to spend the required billions to completely retool all their factories to produce a different product.
Of course you know what the funny thing is? The car companies completely retool their factories every few years ANYWAY and spend those billions ANYWAY, because their current method of designing and building tooling pretty much involves this: if there is a change in the body style (for instance), no matter how insignificant, START OVER and redesign and rebuild the tool FROM SCRATCH. Really. I've worked with the tooling companies for years, trust me.
Shhh! Don't tell the car company execs that! They think they have billions invested in their current manufacturing techniques and that they haven't changed in years, when in fact they get completely overhauled every few years.
The car companies really have no loyalties to the oil industry. They're whores. They'll do anything to sell vehicles. And they KNOW that they must develop fuel cell technologies and make them so that they are affordable and practical for the everyday person. Otherwise, they face extinction. I've seen their business plans, and they definitely involve exploring every technology possible, be it borax-derivative fuel cells, solar power, wind power, ethanol, batteries, other technologies. Whatever it takes.
But, as a parent, I think I can tell which toys are too explicitly (or even suggestively) violent for my child. And even if I didn't know anything about software and video games, they now have a ratings system that tells me which age group for which they are most appropriate.
<tongue in cheek mode>
Oh, no way. You are WAY too stupid To be deciding what toys to buy for your children. We have WAYYY more experience then you, we have so many degrees after our names, we've lost count! We are the Experts (tm). How DARE you question us!
--The Thought Police
</tongue in cheek mode>
True, but how important this is to you depends on how often you upgrade. If you're upgrading every couple of years, this is not as much of a concern if you're one of those people who wait every 5 or 10 years to get something new.
And if you're one of those people, this product isn't for you anyway.
The Zilog Z-80 is was used in many embedded applications...I think it's being used less and less now, but I can think of a few devices off the top of my head that are still Z80 based. The Sharp Wizard electronic organizer is one example, the Gameboy is another. It's probably used in a lot of things you wouldn't think of, like phones and such too.
What's a firewire card for your little P4 system run these days?
Firewire = US$14.95
As a former corporate support person I'd also want the DOA rate on Dells, with apple it's near zero (and I know that Dell ain't even close).
As a current corporate support person I can tell you that A) Dell ain't the only manufacturer of x86-based PCs and B) most manufacturers have a near zero DOA rate, Apple just happens to be one of them.
Not only are there all the warrenties to deal with but you also have to buy an operating system to run your spiffy new box. Windows XP Professional
:)
I don't have to purchase Linux or *BSD, and downloading a copy of that certainly won't land me in jail.
Dell is almost as overpriced as Apple! Sheesh.
Sure, you can go down to your local cheap computer dealer and get more bang for your buck, but then you'll probably end up with cheap components that won't run Linux, may crash under Windows more often.
Local cheap computer shop? I build all my own boxes, buying best-of-breed components from various places and end up with a box that has higher-end components than those put in that overpriced Dell bitty box.
I just priced out the following system for
$550:
1.4GHz Athlon
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
15" Monitor
64 MB ATI RADEON
SB AWE64 Sound
52x CD-ROM
Firewire
10/100 Ethernet + Modem
Shoot. I for an extra $100 or so (bringing our total to $650) I could have gotten a 17" monitor. This even includes the translucent case!
Heck, I could throw on a DVD-ROM or a even CD-RW drive and still be under your price.
Oh, and AMD processors have far more bang-for-the-buck than comparable Intel CPUs.
Yes, but the $799 iMac is not even as well equipped as a comparable Intel-based machine for the same money. For $799 I'd have double the processor speed, double the hard drive capacity, and quadruple the RAM. Be realistic, ok?
..it's called an iBook.
Nah... First of all, a flat-screen iMac would have a bigger screen, full sized keyboard, faster hard drive, etc. You aren't worried about power consumption nearly as much in a desktop as a laptop, so you can afford to put regular desktop components, which also happen to be cheaper.
Which leads me to my second point, which is that LCDs aren't the only reason laptops are expensive compared to desktops. Miniature hard drives, low-power consumption CPUs, etc. are more expensive (and are also slower) than their desktop cousins.
Thirdly, is the right price? I dunno. At $1200 the current iMac is pretty pricey for a so-called "low end" machine. I think Apple will probably put this machine in the same price category. They sold a bunch of iMac's at that price, they could sell a newer and better iMac at that price, I'm sure.
Yeah... Lotus Notes is so tied in to the Win32 platform it's not funny. I mean, the stupid thing integrates with Microsith Planet Exploder.
After I get a hold of it it will... :-P
Exzactly. If they can get this thing to the mass populous, this thing will cause cities to be redesigned. This thing is more important than than any invention in the last 100 years.
... you've got cities where everything is within couple of miles of each other...compartmentalized so that you can "walk" using this device to work, to school, to shopping, to entertainment...the only thing you need a car for is traveling between cities!
Imagine
There's no learning curve with this thing, you just get on it, and takes you anywhere using your own natural instinctive body movements.
Wow...
If you don't get it yet, don't worry you will eventually...
Wow. Basically it's illegal to threaten the POTUS, his successors, yadayada... Conspiring to kill them is also illegal.
It's certainly not a threat: A threat would be "Hey, Mr. Vice President, I'm going to kill you with smallpox." or even simply "I'm going to kill the VP with smallpox." (DISCLAIMER: I am not, will not, and have never considered nor do I condone the killing of the President or the Vice President or really any higher form of life than a cockroach.)
No, no, no. You have it all wrong! :)
:-)
Micros~1 didn't fail to meet demand. This is a very old trick. Purposely limit your supply, and when these things fly off the shelf really really fast, it will seem in the minds of Joe Six Pack consumer-types that these things must be really super-popular and therefore this is the product that he must have.
People are stupid. They assume that because something is hard to get, it must be popular. (in high demand). They completely ignore the SUPPLY side of the equation.
And they have licenced their portion of the work in such a way that it taints the entire project. In a nutshell, you are prohibited from _selling_ any product that uses WINE and their source. So if you want to write a DirectX Linux app, and sell it, you're FUBARed.
IANAL, however, from what I understand of copyright law this wouldn't be possible.
As long as you don't use any of their source, including #include files, then you're alright. Where Troll Tech can control the QT licensing is that you need to use their #include and other source files to write a QT-based application.
However, if you are targetting DirectX, there's no really no telling whether you are targetting Microsoft's implementation of DirectX or TG's. As long as you A) don't include any of their source in your project and B) don't distribute TG's binaries with your program, you can sell your Linux-based DirectX application all you want and they cannot stop you. Simply include instructions with your program on how to obtain WineX from TransGaming.
That's it. Writing an app to conform to a particular API would be considered fair use as long as you don't have to use TransGaming's source to write your app. Simple.
Yes, but then you have to buy a Mac. Clearly the readers of slashdot are past the hand-holding and don't need to pay a premium for colored plastic.
:) And actually, come to think of it, on a Mac it acts as a firewire hard drive, so I'm assuming that if you had a standard firewire hard disk driver coupled with the the Mac hfs file system driver that's already in Linux, you're probably already 90% of the way there.
It's firewire and uses a 5GB hard disk. Write a Linux driver for it.
Rather than complain "you have to buy a Mac" WRITE DRIVERS! This is the advantage of having an open source operating system to hack, folks.
It is true that Microsoft's contract with IBM, which stipulated that Microsoft could sell its operating system software to whomever it wanted, allowed Microsoft's creation of a universal operating system which would run on any computer similar to those made by IBM.
The only reason that IBM allowed this stipulation, however, is that IBM wasn't serious about the PC. The purpose of Project Chess, as it was called, was really to see what was out there and see if they could make money.
The group Jack Sams worked with at this time, the Boca Raton group, were something of a rebellion within IBM. The big brass at Big Blue only gave them the green light on Project Chess because they were curious where this would go. IBM was at that time not banking on the PC at all...as far as they were concerned, mainframes were their core business and would remain their core business. The PC was just something to throw out there to see if it would fly.
So when Big Blue allowed Microsoft to distribute PC-DOS to anyone they wanted, it was more out of ignorance than out of wanting to creating a universal PC for everyone to use. IBM had no illusions of grandeur for the PC, and neither did Bill Gates.
What? Neither did Bill Gates? That's right. Microsoft's forte was not operating systems. It was languages. Gates only wanted to sell an operating system to IBM because it wanted to sell its languages, especially Microsoft BASIC, to IBM. Gates didn't give a rat's ass about DOS, and only insisted on the stipulation because he figured he might be able to make some money on this thing after all.
Oh, and the "Pirates of Silicon Valley," while entertaining and partially based in fact, is not historically accurate.
I heard those groans of disgust!
:-)
Seriously, modern Pascal compilers like Delphi/Kylix are capable of some compile-time checking...Pascal already has strict var type checking, and all you have to do is make sure its turned on when you compile.
This also includes bounds checking for arrays. Pointers are handled better than most C compilers, too.
The key difference here is that it sounds as if Cyclone checks the code for *intent* rather than just checking the types and such. That IS a hard problem.