Wake me when Windows ME is EOLed, where EOLed means ''Operation: The Last Blue Screen'' ("Strike-teams are moving in on all known installations, carrying with them a suitable set of military hardware to facilitate termination.")
TSG hasn't created a crisis. WTF? A crisis is when your house is on fire. Watching and cheering on the demise of a stock-scam in action isn't a crisis. It's a research opportunity.
That said, the 'aging debacle has created a crisis in Cringley. He pretends that it hasn't, but it has.'
Not sure what to add to that, but Machinae Supremacy is inspired by game music and they've done game music. But since you've reading this story you knew that already;-)
As for stand-alone soundtracks for Games I think that's going to be a niche for a very long time, but one that I think is worth having. Jeremy Soule and Inon Zur have done a lot of good music for games (BG, IWD, etc). Robert Holmes did good work on the GK games too (also available on soundtrack in the now somewhat-hard-to-get Gabriel Knight Mysteries (Limited Edition) package).
Don't go there. Don't comment. Just ignore the fucking idiot. No, no one [important] listens to him. The only one's that do already belong to his little choir. There's nothing to "debunk".
Don't jump to conclusions. Just because Keith 'et al' weren't happy with the way XFree was being run, doesn't mean he had an agenda.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. It's quite clear to me that he argued for (ie wanted) the core to be gone or revaped. Now it's gone. He quite literally won the argument. Of course, it took a lot of extra work that shouldn't have been required.
That just sucks. I don't think Stallman should just concede the point, but I'm not a GCC developer. I know it's a problem in some way for them, but its an important point.
If anyone on the Dawson team is reading this; SHAME ON YOU!
Err.. there's no BSD-equivalent of GCC that I know of (though LLVM is close from what I can make of the license). Let's not argue about hypotheticals or parables.
I think they're likely reusing the concepts and discoveries developed in and from the Stanford Checker, not the actual code.
There's lot's of compilers and compiler frameworks out there. I have no and don't presumt to have any idea about the pedigree, code-wise, of this company's particular checker.
What if they used Linux to develop proprietary software? That's OK.
Yes it is, but it's also not the same thing. It's more like, what if they built on top of linux an amazing threading framework. By using linux they got off the ground quickly, greatly speeding up the research. When they find that their new threading framework is working amazingly well in the linux machinery, they patent it and never release it to the community even though it was developed on top of and into linux.
I think that's closer to what seems to have happend with TSC, but I'm just trying to be vigilant, trying to point out something that could become and issue in the future.
I do have issues with software patents. I think the reason this is starting to upset me is that the whole idea behind Free Software is that it should improve the quality of code and make code available and freely useable by anyone. Therefore building on top of Free Software and then turning around and patenting the things you've discovered smells bad in my world. I'm sure they're withing their rights, but it smells bad just the same.
I'd love to be proved wrong here BTW, if someone working at Stanford would like to smack me down.
I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. Of course there's nothing stopping you from building commercial software using GCC, but the Standford Checker is -- as far as I know (and I could be wrong) -- built ON gcc, not only with. As in, the meta-compilation framework was added to gcc as backend (and if it wasn't, this is all moot, but I seem to recall that it was. Doubt it was LLVM)
Forget the legalities, I'm sure they're withing their _RIGHTS_ to take the research and move it into a compoany, but is it -- assuming my reasoning and background is correct -- ethical? Should we condone it? Is it within the spirit of the GPL?
Anyone know how this one is faring? Will it ever be released? It's based on GCC, right? How many students can it pass between until it's "distribution"?
The reason I'm asking is because I saw that one member of the team has jumped over to a company called Coverity where one can read:
Originally developed by a team of researchers in the Computer Systems Lab at Stanford University, Coverity's patent-pending source code analysis technology successfully detected over 2000 bugs in Linux including hundreds of security holes.
I just think it'd be horrible if they used the GPL'ed GCC to develop their methods (having access to a full portable compiler onto which to do research and development is hardly a "small thing"), and then lock these same methods away from the community.
I'm grateful for their work on checking linux, but really... this smells bad, IMHO.
(If you don't know what I'm taking about, don't assume it's off-topic, okay? The Standford Checker is a related topic to the Reasoning analysis of MySQL, and I'm not sure we'll ever have a _better_ fitting topic to discuss this)
>I want clean bright color, I do not care how fast the card is.
Tried enabling 'Digital Vibrance' on your nVidia-card?
It's available under "Color Correction" in the nVidia Settings. Older cards will only allow fixed settings (none, low, mid, high) while the newer cards work on a smooth interval.
We can see that zero persons hit the correct day! There's three on the 16:th and two on the 18:th. C'mon Linus, you did this on purpose, didn't you? Bastard. We'll, there'll be a winner anyhow.
Disclosure: I'm not affiliated with MaSu. I'm not affiliated with Sqream. I get no money or other kickbacks for this. I don't own one of these yet since they were announced just a couple of hours ago. Yes, I've ordered one myself. Yes, it's expensive.
I can't say I really care whether or not person A use FS/OSS instead of MS.
I'm mostly concerned about my personal freedom and what my taxes are used for, both concerns for which the existance of Lindows is pretty much totally insignificant.
I think you're wrong. This is news in IDG papers and magazines over here. These are very widely distributed and read, even by people who only "use" a computer and isn't in 'the biz' per se.
While I think it sucks, I believe the end outcome might be good. This pisses people off, so maybe one or two will try linux just in spite of MS and if they don't at least they'll hear about an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Crush them. Sheesh, since when do you negotiate with terrorists?
(hidden deals with terrorists notwithstanding, see for instance the German Olympic Games incident)
Wake me when Windows ME is EOLed, where EOLed means ''Operation: The Last Blue Screen'' ("Strike-teams are moving in on all known installations, carrying with them a suitable set of military hardware to facilitate termination.")
TSG hasn't created a crisis. WTF? A crisis is when your house is on fire. Watching and cheering on the demise of a stock-scam in action isn't a crisis. It's a research opportunity.
That said, the 'aging debacle has created a crisis in Cringley. He pretends that it hasn't, but it has.'
Wow, that was amazingly simple!
Not sure what to add to that, but Machinae Supremacy is inspired by game music and they've done game music. But since you've reading this story you knew that already ;-)
As for stand-alone soundtracks for Games I think that's going to be a niche for a very long time, but one that I think is worth having. Jeremy Soule and Inon Zur have done a lot of good music for games (BG, IWD, etc). Robert Holmes did good work on the GK games too (also available on soundtrack in the now somewhat-hard-to-get Gabriel Knight Mysteries (Limited Edition) package).
DON'T FEED THAT FUCKING TROLL!
Sheeesh.
Don't go there. Don't comment. Just ignore the fucking idiot. No, no one [important] listens to him. The only one's that do already belong to his little choir. There's nothing to "debunk".
Ignore.
Don't jump to conclusions. Just because Keith 'et al' weren't happy with the way XFree was being run, doesn't mean he had an agenda.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. It's quite clear to me that he argued for (ie wanted) the core to be gone or revaped. Now it's gone. He quite literally won the argument. Of course, it took a lot of extra work that shouldn't have been required.
(..and 'agenda' is a derogatory term? Weird.)
Wasn't this what Keith Packard et.al wanted?
They should talk about minutes of music at some bitrate instead, that way both sides get what they want from the information.
Maybe a 'Cornice Storage Element', like the iGP-100?
edit: "I know it's a problem in some ways for them"... and why couldn't Dawson just license the EDG front-end if they wanted to go commercial?
I guess the ideals are lost on some people. The SCO Group seems to have the same problem :-P
That just sucks. I don't think Stallman should just concede the point, but I'm not a GCC developer. I know it's a problem in some way for them, but its an important point.
If anyone on the Dawson team is reading this; SHAME ON YOU!
(PS. Your "view games" link seems to be broken)
Err.. there's no BSD-equivalent of GCC that I know of (though LLVM is close from what I can make of the license). Let's not argue about hypotheticals or parables.
I think they're likely reusing the concepts and discoveries developed in and from the Stanford Checker, not the actual code.
There's lot's of compilers and compiler frameworks out there. I have no and don't presumt to have any idea about the pedigree, code-wise, of this company's particular checker.
Yes it is, but it's also not the same thing. It's more like, what if they built on top of linux an amazing threading framework. By using linux they got off the ground quickly, greatly speeding up the research. When they find that their new threading framework is working amazingly well in the linux machinery, they patent it and never release it to the community even though it was developed on top of and into linux.
I think that's closer to what seems to have happend with TSC, but I'm just trying to be vigilant, trying to point out something that could become and issue in the future.
I do have issues with software patents. I think the reason this is starting to upset me is that the whole idea behind Free Software is that it should improve the quality of code and make code available and freely useable by anyone. Therefore building on top of Free Software and then turning around and patenting the things you've discovered smells bad in my world. I'm sure they're withing their rights, but it smells bad just the same.
I'd love to be proved wrong here BTW, if someone working at Stanford would like to smack me down.
I think someone beat you to it.
I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. Of course there's nothing stopping you from building commercial software using GCC, but the Standford Checker is -- as far as I know (and I could be wrong) -- built ON gcc, not only with. As in, the meta-compilation framework was added to gcc as backend (and if it wasn't, this is all moot, but I seem to recall that it was. Doubt it was LLVM)
Forget the legalities, I'm sure they're withing their _RIGHTS_ to take the research and move it into a compoany, but is it -- assuming my reasoning and background is correct -- ethical? Should we condone it? Is it within the spirit of the GPL?
Anyone know how this one is faring? Will it ever be released? It's based on GCC, right? How many students can it pass between until it's "distribution"?
The reason I'm asking is because I saw that one member of the team has jumped over to a company called Coverity where one can read:
I just think it'd be horrible if they used the GPL'ed GCC to develop their methods (having access to a full portable compiler onto which to do research and development is hardly a "small thing"), and then lock these same methods away from the community.
I'm grateful for their work on checking linux, but really... this smells bad, IMHO.
(If you don't know what I'm taking about, don't assume it's off-topic, okay? The Standford Checker is a related topic to the Reasoning analysis of MySQL, and I'm not sure we'll ever have a _better_ fitting topic to discuss this)
>I want clean bright color, I do not care how fast the card is.
Tried enabling 'Digital Vibrance' on your nVidia-card?
It's available under "Color Correction" in the nVidia Settings. Older cards will only allow fixed settings (none, low, mid, high) while the newer cards work on a smooth interval.
We can see that zero persons hit the correct day! There's three on the 16:th and two on the 18:th. C'mon Linus, you did this on purpose, didn't you? Bastard. We'll, there'll be a winner anyhow.
Not me, that's for sure. The results doesn't seem to be in yet.
Available now.
Disclosure: I'm not affiliated with MaSu. I'm not affiliated with Sqream. I get no money or other kickbacks for this. I don't own one of these yet since they were announced just a couple of hours ago. Yes, I've ordered one myself. Yes, it's expensive.
It is interesting to note that even a religiously zealous [...]
Even? I suggest that's precisely the kind of mental handicap ("disconnect" if you want to be nicer) that's required.
I can't say I really care whether or not person A use FS/OSS instead of MS.
I'm mostly concerned about my personal freedom and what my taxes are used for, both concerns for which the existance of Lindows is pretty much totally insignificant.
I think you're wrong. This is news in IDG papers and magazines over here. These are very widely distributed and read, even by people who only "use" a computer and isn't in 'the biz' per se.
While I think it sucks, I believe the end outcome might be good. This pisses people off, so maybe one or two will try linux just in spite of MS and if they don't at least they'll hear about an alternative.