Since we do a lot of work at home, broadband is necessary to get things done in a timely manner... and guess who the sole provider of broadband in the area is? AT&T! They have decent service and all, but it's always nice to know they're free to charge me whatever they want and I have to pay it.
In this case, reverse engineering DIRECTLY RESULTED in widespread piracy of the Warcraft 3 beta. Without the reverse engineering of battle.net's functions, the bnetd program could not have been released. Without the release of the bnetd program, warforge would not have been able to release a server (and loader, which bypasses some checks) with which to play 100% illegitimate and pirated software.
If reverse engineering of the bnet protocol had not been utilized, piracy of the warcraft 3 beta could not have existed.
While not all (in fact not many) uses of reverse engineering lead to piracy, it most certainly did in this case.
MS has a lot of "disadvantages" here that it had nothing like in the OS/Browser/Office/whatever market.
- It's entertainment, you actually have to make it fun. They can't just buy up chunks of other people's products and stick them in theirs.
- They don't have that cohesive OS+product bond that they can leverage with Windows+IE/Office/IIS/etc.
- Releasing a new version costs them a ton. Whereas it costs them $5 or so to print a Windows CD and box (even less in a corporate situation where they just sell licenses), it costs them $200+ to release a new XBox. While R+D costs may or may not be similar, they aren't just selling "licenses" anymore.
Most importantly:
- They need help from other companies. They can't own it all, because that just won't produce enough quality games.
While I agree that Win2k is a pretty sweet version of Windows, I 'm not really sure that you've proven what you set out to prove.
- It was fine for Win9x line to be so crashy for so many years (and to release two versions that were almost as crashy as the previous)?
- People should pay to remove such significant problems?
If XBox 2 comes out next year, and it actually has lots of good games, should XBox 1 users have to pay $200 to upgrade to it?
A few things to keep in mind about the names "Linux", "GNU/Linux", etc.
1. A system can be named by just one portion of it. I.E. "Windows" (the component that draws the windows?). The same could be true for Linux. Naming a system after it's kernel doesn't seem like an idea that's strange.
2. In favor of "GNU/Linux", one has to ask what good a free kernel would be without a free compiler. Or a free shell. Or free command utilities.
As I see it, the primary disfunction in free, shared software is naming a system. I mean, you can have "Redhat Linux 7.1", but that's not some release the developers agreed to. You can have individual releases, but what do you call those? Things will be thrown into an even BIGGER turmoil if/when GNU/HURD takes off. Are all of those companies gonna change their names from "Linuxcare", "Linux-Mandrake", etc to "Linux/HURDcare", "HURD/Linux-Mandrake"?
Ah, but the joy of it is that one groups writes those disclaimers for us! Therefore we can save years of development time not having to come up with our own license!
I think the idea of the article is to represent how much free software there is in a shipping GNU/Linux system, as well as how much it would cost to develop all of this software in a proprietary model. I don't think the intention is to claim the works of others as GPL'd software.
It is very easy to release a high quality, simple application quickly.
GNOME is not a simple project, and thus will go through ups and downs of release quality. Especially now, where they're trying to gear up to GNOME 2, there will be lots of glitches and problems while they develop the new software.
Also remember that the Evo/Naut problems were before either of them were even released. You can't expect coders to have release worthy software while they're still developing it, that would just be silly.
Slashdot Mirror
You can reduce every game to the point that it sounds stupid. :) It's especially bad if you're going to be condescending in doing so. :)
;)
Maybe you could mention a few of your entertainment interests and someone could enlighten you as to how simple and rediculous they are.
Mozilla can't beat IE at everything, so don't get a case of fanaticism just yet. :)
Since we do a lot of work at home, broadband is necessary to get things done in a timely manner... and guess who the sole provider of broadband in the area is? AT&T! They have decent service and all, but it's always nice to know they're free to charge me whatever they want and I have to pay it.
There are a lot of classic-style games on there :)
They recieve donations and run ad banners. Whether they make a PROFIT is a different story, but they are receiving money for it.
I mean, it takes a whole lot of motivation and skill to completely recreate a game server like that.
;)
As long as you don't go to jail, this is a great way to get a job doing security programming.
In this case, reverse engineering DIRECTLY RESULTED in widespread piracy of the Warcraft 3 beta. Without the reverse engineering of battle.net's functions, the bnetd program could not have been released. Without the release of the bnetd program, warforge would not have been able to release a server (and loader, which bypasses some checks) with which to play 100% illegitimate and pirated software.
If reverse engineering of the bnet protocol had not been utilized, piracy of the warcraft 3 beta could not have existed.
While not all (in fact not many) uses of reverse engineering lead to piracy, it most certainly did in this case.
Who standardizes what major version increments mean? You sound like you're looking for an arguement rather than insight.
Unless of course you were somehow deluded into thinking this was some sort of mecha action kiddy show. :) :)
Just kidding with you. :)
MS has a lot of "disadvantages" here that it had nothing like in the OS/Browser/Office/whatever market.
- It's entertainment, you actually have to make it fun. They can't just buy up chunks of other people's products and stick them in theirs.
- They don't have that cohesive OS+product bond that they can leverage with Windows+IE/Office/IIS/etc.
- Releasing a new version costs them a ton. Whereas it costs them $5 or so to print a Windows CD and box (even less in a corporate situation where they just sell licenses), it costs them $200+ to release a new XBox. While R+D costs may or may not be similar, they aren't just selling "licenses" anymore.
Most importantly:
- They need help from other companies. They can't own it all, because that just won't produce enough quality games.
Do you know how hot GTA3 is? JSRF is a great game, don't get me wrong, but don't go out of your way to say it's a GTA3-class "system seller".
While I agree that Win2k is a pretty sweet version of Windows, I 'm not really sure that you've proven what you set out to prove.
- It was fine for Win9x line to be so crashy for so many years (and to release two versions that were almost as crashy as the previous)?
- People should pay to remove such significant problems?
If XBox 2 comes out next year, and it actually has lots of good games, should XBox 1 users have to pay $200 to upgrade to it?
I dunno about you, but I can hit 8 PS buttons at once, as opposed to 6 on the SNES controller...
I'm in the same boat as you. :)
:)
Once you're a minor celebrity, news sites continue reporting things about you even though you may not matter anymore.
That's the best "lie to the newbies" post I've seen in a long time lol. :) :)
:)
BTW, I'm not making fun of Ximian, I love the guys.
It didn't actually do things to achieve more optimum performance...
IT DECREASED THE VISUAL QUALITY, effectively giving the cards less to do and thus making the cards perform better.
not the unix permissions system itself. Publishing what bugs existed would allow people to write programs that would exploit unpatched systems.
Security guards having guns does not make it easier to distribute guns, it just makes it easier to stop those who bring guns to certain areas.
And there aren't even that many dial up providers anymore.
/. rarely makes me laugh, but that one was a great one. :) :)
A few things to keep in mind about the names "Linux", "GNU/Linux", etc.
1. A system can be named by just one portion of it. I.E. "Windows" (the component that draws the windows?). The same could be true for Linux. Naming a system after it's kernel doesn't seem like an idea that's strange.
2. In favor of "GNU/Linux", one has to ask what good a free kernel would be without a free compiler. Or a free shell. Or free command utilities.
As I see it, the primary disfunction in free, shared software is naming a system. I mean, you can have "Redhat Linux 7.1", but that's not some release the developers agreed to. You can have individual releases, but what do you call those? Things will be thrown into an even BIGGER turmoil if/when GNU/HURD takes off. Are all of those companies gonna change their names from "Linuxcare", "Linux-Mandrake", etc to "Linux/HURDcare", "HURD/Linux-Mandrake"?
Ah, but the joy of it is that one groups writes those disclaimers for us! Therefore we can save years of development time not having to come up with our own license!
I think the idea of the article is to represent how much free software there is in a shipping GNU/Linux system, as well as how much it would cost to develop all of this software in a proprietary model. I don't think the intention is to claim the works of others as GPL'd software.
It is very easy to release a high quality, simple application quickly.
GNOME is not a simple project, and thus will go through ups and downs of release quality. Especially now, where they're trying to gear up to GNOME 2, there will be lots of glitches and problems while they develop the new software.
Also remember that the Evo/Naut problems were before either of them were even released. You can't expect coders to have release worthy software while they're still developing it, that would just be silly.