you shouldn't *need* to know how to use the console like an expert. Look at windows 2000, the command prompt is all but needed,
Heh. Whenever I'm using a windows box I've always got at least 10 DOS prompts open and _nothing_ else. Windows user's think I'm really wierd. I guess it's the *nix user in me. Comes out even if I'm not on a *nix box:O)
Either that or the DOS user is in me is still there after all these years.... I never really did spend all that much time in a point 'n click environment. Pretty DOS and UNIX all my life...
But your post just reminded me of my parent's in law who always look over my shoulder when I'm using their computer and ask "Why do you do so much typing???? Can't you just point and click like everyone else?"
but lucasarts does have the right to defend a trademark they have invested millions of dollars in.
Well it's more than just that. As someone else pointed out if Lucas did _not_ defend the trademark than that would give _anyone_ the legal right to abuse it.
Trademark law (as I understand it) says that you have to defend it yourself and you can't pick and choose if and when you defend it.
So if Lucas did not defend it this time then the next time if Lucas decided to defend it he would have a very poor case because he let this one slide.
The Control Center, while powerful, is intimidating to users (so many panels!), and can't handle many things that Windows's can (like hardware setup - almost always requires command-line jockeying).
I hate getting into these kinds of discussions where people say "have you tried this or this yet?" but in this case I can't help it.
Regarding hardware set up and control panels. Have you used Mandrake 8.0? It provides all of this and makes it even easier to use than windows IMO.
For example, my little cousin got a new video card. He wanted me to install it for him because he's lazy and doesn't want to learn anything, so I told him no. When he plugged the thing in Mandrake detected it on startup and even set X's resolution and bitdepth to something more comfortable (he only had an old 2MB cirrus logic so it was running at 800x600 8bpp. It re-configured X to run at 1024x768 16bpp).
The KDE control panel in Mandrake 8.0 also has added sections for configuring and detecting hardware after startup. The only thing I don't like is that a lot of the stuff appears even if you're not root, possibly confusing the user into thinking that he/she can muck with the settings when really they can't.
Which insurance payed for a new monitor and computer. (wonder if that was legal).
I don't know about your friend's insurance plan. But the insurance that I have does cover computers . And in the event that a computer is stolen it is replaced by a brand new machine regardless of how old the machine that was stolen.
So if I had a 386 get stolen it would be replaced by whatever computer I want:O) But up to a certain point of course. It will only cover up to like $4k or something. So a Sun enterprise 10k is out of the question.
When I discussed this with my insurance broker he said the reasoning was simply that it would be a big PITA to track down equipment that old.
So how in the hell are they going to look up your name and trace your footprints regarding who downloads what, when all they really have (using reasonable security with cookies turned off) is your IP address? Sounds like a false alarm on the legal front to me.
If they really want to they can use HTTP request logging to get a list of IPs that download the source, at what time, from what user agent etc.
It would be a big PITA to trace each IP. But they could have charts set up that would automatically determine what ISP each IP block belongs to and then filter out the average home users from universities and companies that most likely get hosting from places like verio and tellus.
That would be one hell of a start if they really want to know who is downloading the source. But that's still a quite enormous amount of information to go through if they want to keep a list of names.
Okay. This is a reply to _everyone_ who replied to my comment.
I don't understand why people are putting words in my mouth. It seems as if a lot of people didn't quite understand what I was saying. So here is some clarification:
People who replied to me: Using a computer != Understanding it's internals, how to program in assembly, how to dissect the cpu etc. !!!
I never said that it was. This was a misunderstanding of my first sentence where I said "if you don't know how to use the tool, either learn how or don't use it.".
I will give you an example of what I meant: When my sister in law calls me and says "Garett I was surfing the net when the machine froze! What's wrong?!?". That is not knowing how to use a computer. I never expect her to learn how to program the PIC, but I do expect her to learn how to reboot the fscking thing when it freezes.
People who try to use a computer to do various tasks but never feel like taking the time to read a manual on how to use the thing are like people who pick up a gun and start using it without ever learning how. Or people who get behind the wheel of a car without ever learning how to drive.
And I completely agree that learning how to drive != learning how to install a new carburator, replacing the engine, lubing the pistons etc.
Now for the disagreements about user-friendliness being all in your heads. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. I agree with the one guy's comments about how computer have so far been designed for machines and not for people. But just because it takes a bit of learning to accomplish something doesn't mean it's hard.
If you don't have the time or the patience to learn how to drive a car then please stay the hell off the road.
I realize that's not the perfect analogy since no one will get killed if a clueless idiot uses a computer. But the underlying pricipal is the same.
Learn how to use the computer and stop bitching that you're computer illiterate. Go to chapters or some place, by a book on computer basics and read it.
And just for the record I have never flamed anyone and told them to RTFM. I actually love helping newbies. But I hate it when someone says "It's too hard" or "I'm computer illiterate". Nothings too hard. Just put your mind to it.
But for people who don't know the difference between an OS and a windowing system, who don't want to learn how to configure a system but rather want to use it right out of the box, who got a computer so they could send e-mail and look at web pages and type business letters and scan pictures of the kids, maybe handle finances, all with as little overhead (of time and brain power) as possible -- these are the bulk of computer users.
It's very unfortunate IMO that this is the case. The way I see it is if you don't know how to use the tool, either learn how or don't use it.
I keep remembering the days back in the 80's when people had comodore 64s and 386s running DOS. No one ever complained about having to type all the commands and edit.bat files etc (except MAC users:O). It was just when MS put out Windows and AOL came around that this new breed of computer users came about. It was then that the term "computer illiterate" was coined.
I'm sorry but the only reason people don't want to take the time to learn how to actually use a computer is because the companies that marketed the computer that their using told them that they're stupid and that the computer that they bought is "So easy that even some old lady on tv can use it!". It doesn't have to be this way.
User-friendliness, computer literacy, ease-of-use etc. are all just in your heads. They are marketing tacticts used by companies to sell computers. If Suzan Smith wanted to send e-mail and surf the net and all that was available to her was UNIX she would still buy that computer and she wouldn't complain about it being too hard to use because it realy isn't too hard.
The more "easy" you make computers to the more ignorant the users will be and the more "harder" using a computer will seem. Because the more about a computer you hide the more complex a computer seems to it's user.
Can anyone bring me one such person who likes Linux?
I can give you two. My two younger cousins only use their computer for sending e-mail, surfing the web etc. They both run Linux. They don't know all the shell commands, or how to program in PERL. They just know how to use WindowMaker to start up xmms, Galeon, Nautilus etc. They asked me to install Linux for them after Windows became unusable and we had to do a re-install for the X time that month.
There is no way that there are enough people using Digital televisions that this should be a problem.
Actually they've found a way around this. Newer cable subscriptions from the company that I'm with (Cegeco, owned by Rogers, owned by - I believe - AOL/Time Warner) come with a "Digital Cable Box" that hooks up to your TV, giving you digital cable.
You can watch TV without the box but there's a ton of stations that you don't get. For example I'm in Ontario Canada and we get the WB and UPN stations from L.A and NY on channels 209+ and 5 movie channels starting on channel 201. We don't get any of these stations without the box. So there's very little insentive to _not_ use the box.
I'm personally a little tired of hearing about security risks relating to ActiveX. There has been a lot of news of security problems related to ActiveX, but those problems have been the fault of IE's implementation of it. Not the technology's itself.
I like to relate ActiveX to a gun. When used properly it can be a great tool. When used improperly it can be very dangerous. ActiveX is actually quite useful and when implemented properly is just as safe as any other peice of software. Saying that ActiveX itself is a huge security risk is like saying that the domain name system is a huge security risk because bind has been known to have a lot of security holes.
And for those who think "well it's just another crap m$ technology to try and replace better, already existing technologies" the only thing I have to say is that ActiveX (like almost all MS 'innovations') was actually developed by a smaller company that was assimilated by MS. MS didn't create it themselves so stop saying ActiveX sucks just because it tends to be associated with MS.
As far as I'm concerned I pay $40/month for internet (@home cable). That entitles me to be able to view all the content that I want (or at least that's how it was sold to me). So why should I pay more?
It sucks that the $40/month can't go to the content providers. I do wish that the people who allocate significant resources to producing online content that I use can be compensated for their work. But from a customer's point of view I have already payed for ability to view that content.
I use a text editor to write FAQs, READMEs, INSTALLS for programs that I write. I also use a text editor to write songs. I haven't found a decent program yet for Linux that writes guitar tab so I do it manually.
Other people may use a text editor to write recipes, reminders, various notes etc.
I agree. But if you're a programmer then when you do have the time you should probably try and learn because it can really help to hack out code faster.
I hated vi when I first started to use it. I stuck to pine actually. However, one day when I was really bored (no start trek on I guess) I forced myself to learn some vi commands and I haven't regretted it. It was actually like switching from the Windows UI to the UNIX shell. Not as easy but after you learn the commands you can get a lot more work done a lot faster.
However, if you just use a text editor to write text files every once in a while then I agree that it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle unless it was something that you _wanted_ to do.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with people who think that LSB needs a "standard desktop".
The problem here is not that GNOME and KDE apps don't play well together, it's that GNOME and KDE apps exist period.
GNOME and KDE are both great desktops, but they are not the only options. Most of the people who I know use WindowMaker (myself included), others I know use twm, others XFCE etc.
So if you say all of a sudden that the standard is KDE then you have all of a sudden said that "KDE is the Linux desktop." This is plain wrong. Here's my reasoning:
What do you need to develop a GUI program? An Xlib implementation, a C compiler and libc. If you want to make life easier then use gtk+, qt, wxwindows or whatever. But you do not need KDE or GNOME. KDE or GNOME are set of programs that add ease to using the OS. Why do we need to all of a sudden make so many applications that should not give a shit about what desktop you're using depend on a particular desktop?
When it comes down to it, developers should not make applications depend on a desktop.
Also, if you want to talk about icons and menu items and stuff like that, here's my opinion on that:
On a system where you have the choice to choose whatever desktop you want and customize whatever you want the user should have the sole responsibility of placing icons on his/her desktop. I don't want any installer automatically putting stuff in my menus. Plus, a UNIX system you do not run programs by clicking pictures. You run them by typing the full path of their executable at the shell. There's nothing wrong with someone running them by clicking pictures, but that someone should have set it up that way themselves. Stop trying to make the system work differently then it was designed to do.
So anyway, for a very long time the idea of kthis and gthat that frustrated me. Please keep the concept far far away from any standard.
If it's such a great thing to do, why haven't other gaming companies focused on creating an offspin development team focusing solely on creating Linux games? Could it be they think of Linux as still a `hobbyish' operating system not worthy of creating games for?
Right now it's a catch 22. Companies aren't going to put their money into Linux gaming until they see that there is a market worth investing in. They won't see that there is a market until there is a good portion of Linux games and the companies making them are making a nice profit.
Evenutally things will catch on as Loki starts turning a profit and other gaming companies see that. It was also a good idea to port other copmany's games to Linux instead of making them for scratch because that's a way to actually show companies that their games can make a profit on Linux.
Also, to get more on topic, this book is another step in the right direction because it will give companies a resource that their programmers can use to make the games. But more generaly it will help to encourage game development on Linux in general which is also a Good Thing (TM).
but the experiment also proves that electron neutrinos can also transform into other forms of neutrinos.
One of the biggest astronomical mysteries was why the sun was not producing anywhere near the predicted amount of electron neutrinos. This experiment proves that it is in fact producing them, but that 60% of them transform into other neutrinos before reaching the earth.
Furthermore, it is this transformation that proves that they have mass.
From the article:
But on Monday, representatives of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada announced that neutrinos made by nuclear reactions in the sun's core change from one type to another during their 93-million-mile journey to Earth. And only particles with mass can change form.
Personally I'm a little tired of hearing about programs being "GPL compatble". I'm especially tired of hearing RMS whine about this subject.
Why does it really matter if programs are GPL compatible? I understand the whole linking issue and legalities behind it still seems ridiculous to me.
Let me explain my point of view: RMS whines about the freedoms of users and programmers regarding software, but what about the freedom to use the license that you want to for your software? I know RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL or a compatible license, but who out there believes that he wouldn't if he could?
The impression I get is that RMS treats free software as a religion and like most religions it's followers not only believe that it is the only right one and all others should convert, but they preach it to everyone that they can regardless of wether they care or not. It's really annoying to me. (Please Note: I didn't intend this as an attack on religions, just an observation. I respect everyone's beliefs regardless of what they may be).
Now my other opinion is that it's a little conceited to say that "If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL". I agree that most Linux distros have an incredibly high concentration of GPL software, but that's only Linux distros. What about commercial UNIX's and the BSD's?
Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.
<sarcasm>
From this point forward I urge everyone to choose a license that is compatible with the NPL (Netscape Public License). I will create a list shortly and post it on the web somewhere and every free software developer should read this list and choose one on it for their software.
</sarcasm>
I mean, imagine never even having been in a car and having someone explain driving to you by ripping an engine apart. Whoa, there... I mean, why not show them "look, you hit the gas, it goes faster" and find out if they're at all interested in why, first.
The way I see it, we are not teaching people to drive the car we are teaching people to build it. So yes you teach people to build an engine by ripping one apart.
Driving the car is equal to running the software IMO. I would assume that anyone that wants to write an application knows how to execute one.
The second thing I want to discuss is slightly off topic but your comment brings it up:
Anyway. Java isn't a toy language, and if it's a fad, so is OO programming itself. Java is a powerful language, being used in some of the biggest software projects out there right now, by some of the biggest software development houses out there. I know because I work at one, and I do Java development.
I agree. I HATE Java but I don't hate the language itself. I hate the VM. If we took just the language itself and wrote a decent optimizing compiler for it and generated executables that did not require the VM then I think I would be happy writing in Java.
Yes that would destroy the whole point behind Java, but I still think Java is a pretty nice language and I would probably choose to write some applications in it. Screw the write once run anywhere philosophy. I just want to make my users happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Whenever I'm using a windows box I've always got at least 10 DOS prompts open and _nothing_ else. Windows user's think I'm really wierd. I guess it's the *nix user in me. Comes out even if I'm not on a *nix box :O)
Either that or the DOS user is in me is still there after all these years.... I never really did spend all that much time in a point 'n click environment. Pretty DOS and UNIX all my life...
But your post just reminded me of my parent's in law who always look over my shoulder when I'm using their computer and ask "Why do you do so much typing???? Can't you just point and click like everyone else?"
--
Garett
Well it's more than just that. As someone else pointed out if Lucas did _not_ defend the trademark than that would give _anyone_ the legal right to abuse it.
Trademark law (as I understand it) says that you have to defend it yourself and you can't pick and choose if and when you defend it.
So if Lucas did not defend it this time then the next time if Lucas decided to defend it he would have a very poor case because he let this one slide.
--
Garett
To paraphrase his presentation he said "Each byte in the file is XOR'd with every character in the word 'encrypted'."
So the code I wrote was how I interpreted it.
--
Garett
The thing that angers me the most about Dmitri's imprisonment is how much actual work he had to do to break Adobe's so-called "secure solution".
I don't live in the U.S so I don't really have a problem doing this:
#define key "encrypted" /* this is no joke according to Dmitri's presentation */
while((c = get_byte()) {
 byte = c;
 for(i = 0; i < strlen(key); i++)
byte ^= key[i];
}
Slightly better than rot13. But not that much... The only real work was figuring out the key. Oh they made that _really_ hard.....
--
Garett
>Why? I found your comment informative and helpful.
Mainly because they usualy have to do with distro wars or KDE vs. GNOME stuff.
I'm waiting for the usual response from someone that goes "Yeah well RH this" or" "Debian that"...
--
Garett
I hate getting into these kinds of discussions where people say "have you tried this or this yet?" but in this case I can't help it.
Regarding hardware set up and control panels. Have you used Mandrake 8.0? It provides all of this and makes it even easier to use than windows IMO.
For example, my little cousin got a new video card. He wanted me to install it for him because he's lazy and doesn't want to learn anything, so I told him no. When he plugged the thing in Mandrake detected it on startup and even set X's resolution and bitdepth to something more comfortable (he only had an old 2MB cirrus logic so it was running at 800x600 8bpp. It re-configured X to run at 1024x768 16bpp).
The KDE control panel in Mandrake 8.0 also has added sections for configuring and detecting hardware after startup. The only thing I don't like is that a lot of the stuff appears even if you're not root, possibly confusing the user into thinking that he/she can muck with the settings when really they can't.
--
Garett
I don't know about your friend's insurance plan. But the insurance that I have does cover computers . And in the event that a computer is stolen it is replaced by a brand new machine regardless of how old the machine that was stolen.
So if I had a 386 get stolen it would be replaced by whatever computer I want :O) But up to a certain point of course. It will only cover up to like $4k or something. So a Sun enterprise 10k is out of the question.
When I discussed this with my insurance broker he said the reasoning was simply that it would be a big PITA to track down equipment that old.
"Ignorance is bliss" - Sypher in the Matrix
--
Garett
If they really want to they can use HTTP request logging to get a list of IPs that download the source, at what time, from what user agent etc.
It would be a big PITA to trace each IP. But they could have charts set up that would automatically determine what ISP each IP block belongs to and then filter out the average home users from universities and companies that most likely get hosting from places like verio and tellus.
That would be one hell of a start if they really want to know who is downloading the source. But that's still a quite enormous amount of information to go through if they want to keep a list of names.
--
Garett
I don't understand why people are putting words in my mouth. It seems as if a lot of people didn't quite understand what I was saying. So here is some clarification:
People who replied to me: Using a computer != Understanding it's internals, how to program in assembly, how to dissect the cpu etc. !!!
I never said that it was. This was a misunderstanding of my first sentence where I said "if you don't know how to use the tool, either learn how or don't use it.".
I will give you an example of what I meant: When my sister in law calls me and says "Garett I was surfing the net when the machine froze! What's wrong?!?". That is not knowing how to use a computer. I never expect her to learn how to program the PIC, but I do expect her to learn how to reboot the fscking thing when it freezes.
People who try to use a computer to do various tasks but never feel like taking the time to read a manual on how to use the thing are like people who pick up a gun and start using it without ever learning how. Or people who get behind the wheel of a car without ever learning how to drive.
And I completely agree that learning how to drive != learning how to install a new carburator, replacing the engine, lubing the pistons etc.
Now for the disagreements about user-friendliness being all in your heads. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. I agree with the one guy's comments about how computer have so far been designed for machines and not for people. But just because it takes a bit of learning to accomplish something doesn't mean it's hard.
If you don't have the time or the patience to learn how to drive a car then please stay the hell off the road.
I realize that's not the perfect analogy since no one will get killed if a clueless idiot uses a computer. But the underlying pricipal is the same.
Learn how to use the computer and stop bitching that you're computer illiterate. Go to chapters or some place, by a book on computer basics and read it.
And just for the record I have never flamed anyone and told them to RTFM. I actually love helping newbies. But I hate it when someone says "It's too hard" or "I'm computer illiterate". Nothings too hard. Just put your mind to it.
Thank you.
--
Garett
It's very unfortunate IMO that this is the case. The way I see it is if you don't know how to use the tool, either learn how or don't use it.
I keep remembering the days back in the 80's when people had comodore 64s and 386s running DOS. No one ever complained about having to type all the commands and edit .bat files etc (except MAC users :O). It was just when MS put out Windows and AOL came around that this new breed of computer users came about. It was then that the term "computer illiterate" was coined.
I'm sorry but the only reason people don't want to take the time to learn how to actually use a computer is because the companies that marketed the computer that their using told them that they're stupid and that the computer that they bought is "So easy that even some old lady on tv can use it!". It doesn't have to be this way.
User-friendliness, computer literacy, ease-of-use etc. are all just in your heads. They are marketing tacticts used by companies to sell computers. If Suzan Smith wanted to send e-mail and surf the net and all that was available to her was UNIX she would still buy that computer and she wouldn't complain about it being too hard to use because it realy isn't too hard.
The more "easy" you make computers to the more ignorant the users will be and the more "harder" using a computer will seem. Because the more about a computer you hide the more complex a computer seems to it's user.
Can anyone bring me one such person who likes Linux?
I can give you two. My two younger cousins only use their computer for sending e-mail, surfing the web etc. They both run Linux. They don't know all the shell commands, or how to program in PERL. They just know how to use WindowMaker to start up xmms, Galeon, Nautilus etc. They asked me to install Linux for them after Windows became unusable and we had to do a re-install for the X time that month.
--
Garett
Actually they've found a way around this. Newer cable subscriptions from the company that I'm with (Cegeco, owned by Rogers, owned by - I believe - AOL/Time Warner) come with a "Digital Cable Box" that hooks up to your TV, giving you digital cable.
You can watch TV without the box but there's a ton of stations that you don't get. For example I'm in Ontario Canada and we get the WB and UPN stations from L.A and NY on channels 209+ and 5 movie channels starting on channel 201. We don't get any of these stations without the box. So there's very little insentive to _not_ use the box.
--
Garett
--
Garett
--
Garett
I'm personally a little tired of hearing about security risks relating to ActiveX. There has been a lot of news of security problems related to ActiveX, but those problems have been the fault of IE's implementation of it. Not the technology's itself.
I like to relate ActiveX to a gun. When used properly it can be a great tool. When used improperly it can be very dangerous. ActiveX is actually quite useful and when implemented properly is just as safe as any other peice of software. Saying that ActiveX itself is a huge security risk is like saying that the domain name system is a huge security risk because bind has been known to have a lot of security holes.
And for those who think "well it's just another crap m$ technology to try and replace better, already existing technologies" the only thing I have to say is that ActiveX (like almost all MS 'innovations') was actually developed by a smaller company that was assimilated by MS. MS didn't create it themselves so stop saying ActiveX sucks just because it tends to be associated with MS.
--
Garett
It sucks that the $40/month can't go to the content providers. I do wish that the people who allocate significant resources to producing online content that I use can be compensated for their work. But from a customer's point of view I have already payed for ability to view that content.
--
Garett
$ telnet server 110
USER <user>
PASS <pass>
LIST
1
2
RETR 2
Dear blah,
Blah blah
....
QUIT
Or for a local mailbox: /var/spool/mail/foo
$ vi
--
Garett
I use a text editor to write FAQs, READMEs, INSTALLS for programs that I write. I also use a text editor to write songs. I haven't found a decent program yet for Linux that writes guitar tab so I do it manually.
Other people may use a text editor to write recipes, reminders, various notes etc.
--
Garett
To: foo@foo.foo
From: bar@bar.foo
Subject: foo
Dear blah,
blah blah
Yours Truly,
Blah
--
Garett
I hated vi when I first started to use it. I stuck to pine actually. However, one day when I was really bored (no start trek on I guess) I forced myself to learn some vi commands and I haven't regretted it. It was actually like switching from the Windows UI to the UNIX shell. Not as easy but after you learn the commands you can get a lot more work done a lot faster.
However, if you just use a text editor to write text files every once in a while then I agree that it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle unless it was something that you _wanted_ to do.
--
Garett
The problem here is not that GNOME and KDE apps don't play well together, it's that GNOME and KDE apps exist period.
GNOME and KDE are both great desktops, but they are not the only options. Most of the people who I know use WindowMaker (myself included), others I know use twm, others XFCE etc.
So if you say all of a sudden that the standard is KDE then you have all of a sudden said that "KDE is the Linux desktop." This is plain wrong. Here's my reasoning:
What do you need to develop a GUI program? An Xlib implementation, a C compiler and libc. If you want to make life easier then use gtk+, qt, wxwindows or whatever. But you do not need KDE or GNOME. KDE or GNOME are set of programs that add ease to using the OS. Why do we need to all of a sudden make so many applications that should not give a shit about what desktop you're using depend on a particular desktop?
When it comes down to it, developers should not make applications depend on a desktop.
Also, if you want to talk about icons and menu items and stuff like that, here's my opinion on that:
On a system where you have the choice to choose whatever desktop you want and customize whatever you want the user should have the sole responsibility of placing icons on his/her desktop. I don't want any installer automatically putting stuff in my menus. Plus, a UNIX system you do not run programs by clicking pictures. You run them by typing the full path of their executable at the shell. There's nothing wrong with someone running them by clicking pictures, but that someone should have set it up that way themselves. Stop trying to make the system work differently then it was designed to do.
So anyway, for a very long time the idea of kthis and gthat that frustrated me. Please keep the concept far far away from any standard.
Thank you.
--
Garett Spencley
Right now it's a catch 22. Companies aren't going to put their money into Linux gaming until they see that there is a market worth investing in. They won't see that there is a market until there is a good portion of Linux games and the companies making them are making a nice profit.
Evenutally things will catch on as Loki starts turning a profit and other gaming companies see that. It was also a good idea to port other copmany's games to Linux instead of making them for scratch because that's a way to actually show companies that their games can make a profit on Linux.
Also, to get more on topic, this book is another step in the right direction because it will give companies a resource that their programmers can use to make the games. But more generaly it will help to encourage game development on Linux in general which is also a Good Thing (TM).
--
Garett Spencley
One of the biggest astronomical mysteries was why the sun was not producing anywhere near the predicted amount of electron neutrinos. This experiment proves that it is in fact producing them, but that 60% of them transform into other neutrinos before reaching the earth.
Furthermore, it is this transformation that proves that they have mass.
From the article:
But on Monday, representatives of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada announced that neutrinos made by nuclear reactions in the sun's core change from one type to another during their 93-million-mile journey to Earth. And only particles with mass can change form.
--
Garett
--
Garett
Why does it really matter if programs are GPL compatible? I understand the whole linking issue and legalities behind it still seems ridiculous to me.
Let me explain my point of view: RMS whines about the freedoms of users and programmers regarding software, but what about the freedom to use the license that you want to for your software? I know RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL or a compatible license, but who out there believes that he wouldn't if he could?
The impression I get is that RMS treats free software as a religion and like most religions it's followers not only believe that it is the only right one and all others should convert, but they preach it to everyone that they can regardless of wether they care or not. It's really annoying to me. (Please Note: I didn't intend this as an attack on religions, just an observation. I respect everyone's beliefs regardless of what they may be).
Now my other opinion is that it's a little conceited to say that "If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL". I agree that most Linux distros have an incredibly high concentration of GPL software, but that's only Linux distros. What about commercial UNIX's and the BSD's?
Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.
<sarcasm>
From this point forward I urge everyone to choose a license that is compatible with the NPL (Netscape Public License). I will create a list shortly and post it on the web somewhere and every free software developer should read this list and choose one on it for their software.
</sarcasm>
--
Garett
The way I see it, we are not teaching people to drive the car we are teaching people to build it. So yes you teach people to build an engine by ripping one apart.
Driving the car is equal to running the software IMO. I would assume that anyone that wants to write an application knows how to execute one.
The second thing I want to discuss is slightly off topic but your comment brings it up:
Anyway. Java isn't a toy language, and if it's a fad, so is OO programming itself. Java is a powerful language, being used in some of the biggest software projects out there right now, by some of the biggest software development houses out there. I know because I work at one, and I do Java development.
I agree. I HATE Java but I don't hate the language itself. I hate the VM. If we took just the language itself and wrote a decent optimizing compiler for it and generated executables that did not require the VM then I think I would be happy writing in Java.
Yes that would destroy the whole point behind Java, but I still think Java is a pretty nice language and I would probably choose to write some applications in it. Screw the write once run anywhere philosophy. I just want to make my users happy.
--
Garett