Complicated 'protection' mechanisms are no longer found on many pieces of software. As they said, they found they still got paid even when they did *nothing* technical to prevent piracy.
Someone else brought up a good point that I think holds a lot of truth.
If we look to the software industry, for example... those little warez dudes who 'hoard' tons and tons of warez... so what? These software houses *don't give a shit*. It's not worth fighting, and they know it. WOuld any of those warez kiddies actually have a reason to buy the software? no. DO they need it ? No. Are they a 'lost sale'? No. Are the people who get it from them? No. Let's face it. 99% of the 'warez' scene are just people who like being part of the scene.. plain and simple. They are not threat to the outside world.
The average person (and most above-average persons) are simply unable to be focused enough to drive safely in 2 dimensions, let alone 3.
I mean, even myself.. I make every attempt to be a good driver, and usually I'm quite successful, but there are always times when you look the wrong way...
What we need is better public transportation, better forms of mass transport, not even *MORE* forms of personal transport. THey are wasteful, resource wise, and inefficient.
You elect politicians because you think they will do a good job of running the country, not because you think they will 'obey' you.
You elect them because you think they are good leaders (or at least you should). You elect them because you think they have good morals and will demonstrate them in leadership.
As for what is *right*... those 'rights' guaranteed in the constitution.. that part about 'congress shall make no law'.. means that *no matter how much the people beg, bitch, whine, and scream*, you *CANNOT* make a law that violates these rights. Such a law *cannot exist* by definition.
I meant, it didn't exist *in the modern PC world*. I don't meant that this guy/people *invented* the idea.. I don't even mean to say it's a wonderful idea.. just kind of 'neat' that someone is thinking of it again.
Fallacy in your logic. You ASSUME as a premise that people want to go back to the 5 1/2 inch floppy "bootable games" era is a "good thing", so you conclude that having an open way it's a benefit.
Can you name any much much richer benefits bootable games will provide, considering all the disadvantages and inconvenience it will bring?
If not, your statement simply wasn't right.
Look buddy. I mean that the fact that someone took the time to DO something, and present it as another OPTION that previously didn't exist, even if it's not all that useful, is still GOOD. I'm not implying that we should go back to bootable gaming.
You stated that I'm being a zealot because I think it's neat that, because the guy had linux available, he brought an idea to realization, namely, bootable gaming discs *regardless* of how 'good' or 'bad' the idea is. Linux enabled him to do this. I'm not implying any sort of
a) direct benefit to the gaming community b) godlike status of linux or c) saying it couldn't have been done without.
Yeah. I DID say I'm amazed at how people are slamming it. Rather than constructively look at what good merits there may be, everyone just says' what a fucking stupid idea'. Pessimists.
How's it neat? *I* think it's neat. Barely any practical use for it? Who said there has to be? And who is trying to answer 'benefits' questions? I'm simply commenting that everyone slamming on this because they can't see any use for it is rediculous.....
And I dont' go around preaaching linux.
And I'm in no way saying 'this is the future of game development!'.
Okay. Let's look at this again.
When I said that a benefit is that this hasn't been done in years, it means, if someone *wants* to do this, now they have a nice, open way to do so. Is that not a benefit?
When I said it was enabled because of linux.. well, WASN'T IT? Sheesh. Note that I did not say 'It was enabled because of linux, therefore it is the coolest thing on earth, praise Linus'.. I simply stated a fact.
Note that I never said 'linux is better than windows for games' or anything like that.
For fuck sakes, all I said was it was *neat* that someone did this, so why is everyone so fucking bitchy about it?
Sell an idea? The only 'idea' I'm selling is that people are being overcritical of something that was simply 'neat'. Nobody said it was a revolution, but obviously you feel offended by that.
No..
what I mean is, at any particular access point to the rest of hte Internet, THAT is where things like 'how should this access be provided' and 'waht kind of filtering' should be discussed, period. I'm not speaking technically, but politicaly.
If I want my kids to only use the intenret connection in the house if it's filtered, that's for me to decide, not the government.
If a community doesn't want its' public library to allow open internet access.. that's fine.
What's your opinion on peer to peer file sharing? What's your opinion on filters?
Gimme a break. These things should be done at a personal, houshold, or community level *at most*. The federal government has *ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS* even dictating things like this.
Since when do we even have to *pretend* like we even *care* what they think about it.
I'm amazed at how many people are slamming this like it's a crappy idea. Shame on you!
The benefit here is that a) it's something that hasn't been done on home cmoputers in years (bootable games), and b)was enabled because of linux.
The reason to do this is *not* to 'avoid installing linux'. Think of it as... you are a game developer.. you want a completely open API for games.. you write your game for linux.. but oh, you want that big marketshare. Now the game has been reduced to a 'bootable' game. Nevermind that it uses linux, that fact may even be hidden from the end user.
Oh, and of course, linux afficiandos can install it regularly and play it as well.
1) When windows changes the swapfile size, this causes fragmentation.
2) If you know the difference between windows & linux virtual memory, why do you think that Tux2 has *anything whatsoever* to do with swap partitions? It's a filesystem... not a partition.
3) One of the first 'recommendations' for tuning Windows servers is to lock the size of the swap file so it *doesn't* resize, as resizing causes fragmentation and hence, slowdown.
4) Adding additional swap files to linux has no worse an effect than enlarging the swap file on windows.
5) I said nothing about *partitions* I said swap *FILE*. Linux can do BOTH.
Downtime? Creating a new swap file takes seconds, and causes *NO* downtime whatsoever; activating it is virtually instant, with a single command.
The on-call employee should be paid all of the following:
a) An on-call fee that is reasonable. This need only be a fraction of their daily salary as if they are working, however, $60/week is rediculously low. Usually $50/day or something (provided the employee generally makes say, $150/day on a working day).
b) Time spent doing actual support should be paid at full wages, regardless of whether a trip in to the office is required or not. The 'on-call' fee is not supposed to compensate you for actual work done, only for keeping yourself available.
c) If you do have to go in, not only should wages be paid for work, but for the time driving to and from the site to solve the problem.
In short.. on-call fee is paid so that your time can become 'their time' on a moments notice. You give up some freedom in exchange for a fee.
If they decide to take that freedom and have you work, they shoudl pay you for it.
1) Windows does not use a swap 'partition', it uses a swap 'file'. Linux can use either. And if you use a swapfile, you cannot necessarily resize it on the fly, but you can make another one and add it in.. effectively the exact same thing.
2) How linux deals with swap (be it file or partition) has *nothing* to do with Tux2, Ext2fs, NTFS, or any other filesystem. They are not related in any way whatsoever.
3) if you find your swap partition is too small, simply make a swap file and mount it, on the fly, to add additional swap space.
But that's the whole point of how this new stuff works: You don't run an fsck. There is absolutely no point in doing so.
All the complex mechanisms behind the filesystem ensure that, if the FS thinks a file is there, then it *IS* there, period. If the power was yanked halfway through writing a file, it simply won't be there.
In the case of a Journalling system, this works because, instead of a fsck, you simply look at the journal. If there is stuff there, you know what hasn't been written (and now can't be, cause you crashed) and you can make the appropriate adjustments.
In the case of phase tree, it's even simpler to check: it appears to work something like... the new trees are written backwards, root last.. so if the root is htere, the write is complete. If it's not, you don't see it anyway!
Yeah.. that works too. Try combining the two! (I mean, a good stereo, AND good dope, not pink floyd & the dead.)
After posting last night, I dug into the subject a bit.
It turns out that many modern CDs are *very* badly mastered, in that they do not use the dynamic range available to them. They maximize everything to the loudest volume in order to get the loudest radio play. So... as a result, many modern stereos are configured (by the users) to listen to everyday pop music... and unfortunately, if something that has real dynamic range to it is used, you'll just miss most of it.
Having been on the consumer end of the home-pc market for a long time.. I can say...
know how we've always mentioned, when new, faster boxes come out, that part of the reason we need them is becuase the software is getting more bloated? That's been happening at a faster and faster rate as well.
We're at the point where my few year old Cerelon 300A/450 still does me *fine*, and I'm a computer geek. Sure... A PIII is faster.. but for what.. some games? Because that's about it. Sure.. if I was doing renders or other compute intensive tasks, I would want a faster machine... but really. Now they talk P-IV? Gimme a break.
Oh.. and on the business side of things.
Sure, I have a cad guy who wouldn't mind a faster machine.. and some programmers that like instant compiles, but for the most part, nobody *needs* anything faster than the PII/PIII they have now. It will be a couple years before we buy new computers, unless they are application specific boxes, like servers.
I would have said that before experiencing it firsthand. Sounds lame, I know... but it's actually more difficult and costly to upgrade a piece at a time than it is to simply say 'this year, we're using XXX.
Why? Stuff breaks.. you end up with computers with different hardware.. support gets harder.... and it takes more time. Sure, you could get more employees.... low-level tech persons. But that's more money again.. more than you think, once you account for benefits, office space, etc...
Now, I'm not saying it's not cheaper.. but it's a lot more logistics for a small improvement in price.
But how much research into buildling spacegoing structures went into building it? Is that not research? I mean, part of research involves actually *DOING* something.
And if their budgets weren't continually cut, they wouldn't ahve to cancel more research in order to actually do something.
If we are ever going to go further into space, we need to start *somewhere*. Gee.. never mind all the other technologies that actually trying to put people in space have brought us..
LIttle research? Do you know how much microgravity research is still sitting earthside waiting to be done? YEARS OF THE STUFF! MANY YEARS!
Yes, but an attack that is *easy* to stop. The offending network provider would simply have his traffic filtered by his peers, as the source of the offending traffic.
And where is it that cable hosts typically have 128kbps? I have several times that, as do many I have met... and what is shared bandwidth? The internet is packet switched.....
In short, no. Nothign ends up that way.
Others make MD players. The one thing that kept MD players from saturating the market was price... too expensive at first. More reasonable now, but not flexible enough given the current age. (I have a player, but never use it; I don't like not having direct access to copy my MDs)
HOw can one blame sony for this? Did they *hurt* you by inventing a new technology and then making it expensive? No.. you didn't have it in the first place.
I mean, I hate corporatism (to coin katz) (I can't believe I did that) as much as anyone, but Sony is just not one of the companies that I think of as 'evil'.
I think some of their stuff is too expensive.. but that's their loss.
I'm amazed how so many Americans find the fact that Napster is being sued to outrageous... hell, you Americans sue each other like there's no tomorrow!
What do you mean 'once again reinventing'? How is this bad? So they come out with a new CD format that's proprietary and must be licensed from sony.. how is this going to hurt you?
The reason that people tend to think that mp3 is 'cd quality' is due to two things.
1) The majority of mp3 afficiandos are listening to pop music (or former pop music). To get the effect of this music, a really high quality setup is not required (may times because they have only listened to the CDs on crappy headphones or a mediocre stereo). So to them, the mp3 sounds perhaps slightly different, but not really any worse, and completely listenable. I know the first time I heard Pink Floyd: The Wall on a *nice* stereo (hand built & tuned amp, nice speakers..).. I was amazed. I could not *BELIEVE* what I heard.
2) people use 'cd quality' to mean 'acceptable quality for me to listen to without pops and hisses'. You are entirely correct. They don't mean it's the same quality is a CD recording; they mean they couldn't care if it is or not.
And if any of them really loved symphony... you'd see that difference right away.
Slashdot Mirror
Complicated 'protection' mechanisms are no longer found on many pieces of software. As they said, they found they still got paid even when they did *nothing* technical to prevent piracy.
Someone else brought up a good point that I think holds a lot of truth.
If we look to the software industry, for example... those little warez dudes who 'hoard' tons and tons of warez... so what? These software houses *don't give a shit*. It's not worth fighting, and they know it. WOuld any of those warez kiddies actually have a reason to buy the software? no. DO they need it ? No. Are they a 'lost sale'? No. Are the people who get it from them? No. Let's face it. 99% of the 'warez' scene are just people who like being part of the scene.. plain and simple. They are not threat to the outside world.
The average person (and most above-average persons) are simply unable to be focused enough to drive safely in 2 dimensions, let alone 3.
I mean, even myself.. I make every attempt to be a good driver, and usually I'm quite successful, but there are always times when you look the wrong way...
What we need is better public transportation, better forms of mass transport, not even *MORE* forms of personal transport. THey are wasteful, resource wise, and inefficient.
But that's not 'prescribing how it will be proved'.. that's simply saying 'you can ignore it'.
You elect politicians because you think they will do a good job of running the country, not because you think they will 'obey' you.
You elect them because you think they are good leaders (or at least you should). You elect them because you think they have good morals and will demonstrate them in leadership.
As for what is *right*... those 'rights' guaranteed in the constitution.. that part about 'congress shall make no law'.. means that *no matter how much the people beg, bitch, whine, and scream*, you *CANNOT* make a law that violates these rights. Such a law *cannot exist* by definition.
NO kidding.
I meant, it didn't exist *in the modern PC world*. I don't meant that this guy/people *invented* the idea.. I don't even mean to say it's a wonderful idea.. just kind of 'neat' that someone is thinking of it again.
Fallacy in your logic. You ASSUME as a premise that people want to go back to the 5 1/2 inch floppy "bootable games" era is a "good thing", so you conclude that having an open way it's a benefit.
Can you name any much much richer benefits bootable games will provide, considering all the disadvantages and inconvenience it will bring?
If not, your statement simply wasn't right.
Look buddy. I mean that the fact that someone took the time to DO something, and present it as another OPTION that previously didn't exist, even if it's not all that useful, is still GOOD. I'm not implying that we should go back to bootable gaming.
You stated that I'm being a zealot because I think it's neat that, because the guy had linux available, he brought an idea to realization, namely, bootable gaming discs *regardless* of how 'good' or 'bad' the idea is. Linux enabled him to do this. I'm not implying any sort of
a) direct benefit to the gaming community b) godlike status of linux or c) saying it couldn't have been done without.
Yeah. I DID say I'm amazed at how people are slamming it. Rather than constructively look at what good merits there may be, everyone just says' what a fucking stupid idea'. Pessimists.
How's it neat? *I* think it's neat. Barely any practical use for it? Who said there has to be? And who is trying to answer 'benefits' questions? I'm simply commenting that everyone slamming on this because they can't see any use for it is rediculous.....
And I dont' go around preaaching linux.
And I'm in no way saying 'this is the future of game development!'.
Okay. Let's look at this again.
When I said that a benefit is that this hasn't been done in years, it means, if someone *wants* to do this, now they have a nice, open way to do so. Is that not a benefit?
When I said it was enabled because of linux.. well, WASN'T IT? Sheesh. Note that I did not say 'It was enabled because of linux, therefore it is the coolest thing on earth, praise Linus'.. I simply stated a fact.
Note that I never said 'linux is better than windows for games' or anything like that.
For fuck sakes, all I said was it was *neat* that someone did this, so why is everyone so fucking bitchy about it?
Sell an idea? The only 'idea' I'm selling is that people are being overcritical of something that was simply 'neat'. Nobody said it was a revolution, but obviously you feel offended by that.
No..
what I mean is, at any particular access point to the rest of hte Internet, THAT is where things like 'how should this access be provided' and 'waht kind of filtering' should be discussed, period. I'm not speaking technically, but politicaly.
If I want my kids to only use the intenret connection in the house if it's filtered, that's for me to decide, not the government.
If a community doesn't want its' public library to allow open internet access.. that's fine.
But at a federal level? Shouldn't happen period.
What's your opinion on peer to peer file sharing? What's your opinion on filters?
Gimme a break. These things should be done at a personal, houshold, or community level *at most*. The federal government has *ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS* even dictating things like this.
Since when do we even have to *pretend* like we even *care* what they think about it.
I'm amazed at how many people are slamming this like it's a crappy idea. Shame on you!
The benefit here is that a) it's something that hasn't been done on home cmoputers in years (bootable games), and b)was enabled because of linux.
The reason to do this is *not* to 'avoid installing linux'. Think of it as... you are a game developer.. you want a completely open API for games.. you write your game for linux.. but oh, you want that big marketshare. Now the game has been reduced to a 'bootable' game. Nevermind that it uses linux, that fact may even be hidden from the end user.
Oh, and of course, linux afficiandos can install it regularly and play it as well.
Judge Kamplan issued a *prelimenary injunction, as required by law*, until the trial is over.
He did not 'decide that linking to DeCSS was illegal'.
1) When windows changes the swapfile size, this causes fragmentation.
2) If you know the difference between windows & linux virtual memory, why do you think that Tux2 has *anything whatsoever* to do with swap partitions? It's a filesystem... not a partition.
3) One of the first 'recommendations' for tuning Windows servers is to lock the size of the swap file so it *doesn't* resize, as resizing causes fragmentation and hence, slowdown.
4) Adding additional swap files to linux has no worse an effect than enlarging the swap file on windows.
5) I said nothing about *partitions* I said swap *FILE*. Linux can do BOTH.
Downtime? Creating a new swap file takes seconds, and causes *NO* downtime whatsoever; activating it is virtually instant, with a single command.
Ahh.. but the difference is that, if you happen to be not home, not available, or drunk... you don't get fired.
When you are paid to be on-call, you *MUST* be available.
The on-call employee should be paid all of the following:
a) An on-call fee that is reasonable. This need only be a fraction of their daily salary as if they are working, however, $60/week is rediculously low. Usually $50/day or something (provided the employee generally makes say, $150/day on a working day).
b) Time spent doing actual support should be paid at full wages, regardless of whether a trip in to the office is required or not. The 'on-call' fee is not supposed to compensate you for actual work done, only for keeping yourself available.
c) If you do have to go in, not only should wages be paid for work, but for the time driving to and from the site to solve the problem.
In short.. on-call fee is paid so that your time can become 'their time' on a moments notice. You give up some freedom in exchange for a fee.
If they decide to take that freedom and have you work, they shoudl pay you for it.
You are confusing two issues.
1) Windows does not use a swap 'partition', it uses a swap 'file'. Linux can use either. And if you use a swapfile, you cannot necessarily resize it on the fly, but you can make another one and add it in.. effectively the exact same thing.
2) How linux deals with swap (be it file or partition) has *nothing* to do with Tux2, Ext2fs, NTFS, or any other filesystem. They are not related in any way whatsoever.
3) if you find your swap partition is too small, simply make a swap file and mount it, on the fly, to add additional swap space.
But that's the whole point of how this new stuff works: You don't run an fsck. There is absolutely no point in doing so.
All the complex mechanisms behind the filesystem ensure that, if the FS thinks a file is there, then it *IS* there, period. If the power was yanked halfway through writing a file, it simply won't be there.
In the case of a Journalling system, this works because, instead of a fsck, you simply look at the journal. If there is stuff there, you know what hasn't been written (and now can't be, cause you crashed) and you can make the appropriate adjustments.
In the case of phase tree, it's even simpler to check: it appears to work something like... the new trees are written backwards, root last.. so if the root is htere, the write is complete. If it's not, you don't see it anyway!
Yeah.. that works too. Try combining the two! (I mean, a good stereo, AND good dope, not pink floyd & the dead.)
After posting last night, I dug into the subject a bit.
It turns out that many modern CDs are *very* badly mastered, in that they do not use the dynamic range available to them. They maximize everything to the loudest volume in order to get the loudest radio play. So... as a result, many modern stereos are configured (by the users) to listen to everyday pop music... and unfortunately, if something that has real dynamic range to it is used, you'll just miss most of it.
yeah.. and that is just *soo* hard to fix.
SOrry for the snotty tone.. but it really pisses me off how obscure VPN stuff always seems to be.
It's SO SIMPLE to fix.
A nat/firewall box that supports ipsec? SURE! Why the hell not? I could sure use one.
Having been on the consumer end of the home-pc market for a long time.. I can say...
know how we've always mentioned, when new, faster boxes come out, that part of the reason we need them is becuase the software is getting more bloated? That's been happening at a faster and faster rate as well.
We're at the point where my few year old Cerelon 300A/450 still does me *fine*, and I'm a computer geek. Sure... A PIII is faster.. but for what.. some games? Because that's about it. Sure.. if I was doing renders or other compute intensive tasks, I would want a faster machine... but really. Now they talk P-IV? Gimme a break.
Oh.. and on the business side of things.
Sure, I have a cad guy who wouldn't mind a faster machine.. and some programmers that like instant compiles, but for the most part, nobody *needs* anything faster than the PII/PIII they have now. It will be a couple years before we buy new computers, unless they are application specific boxes, like servers.
I would have said that before experiencing it firsthand. Sounds lame, I know... but it's actually more difficult and costly to upgrade a piece at a time than it is to simply say 'this year, we're using XXX.
Why? Stuff breaks.. you end up with computers with different hardware.. support gets harder.... and it takes more time. Sure, you could get more employees.... low-level tech persons. But that's more money again.. more than you think, once you account for benefits, office space, etc...
Now, I'm not saying it's not cheaper.. but it's a lot more logistics for a small improvement in price.
But how much research into buildling spacegoing structures went into building it? Is that not research? I mean, part of research involves actually *DOING* something.
And if their budgets weren't continually cut, they wouldn't ahve to cancel more research in order to actually do something.
If we are ever going to go further into space, we need to start *somewhere*. Gee.. never mind all the other technologies that actually trying to put people in space have brought us..
LIttle research? Do you know how much microgravity research is still sitting earthside waiting to be done? YEARS OF THE STUFF! MANY YEARS!
Yes, but an attack that is *easy* to stop. The offending network provider would simply have his traffic filtered by his peers, as the source of the offending traffic.
And where is it that cable hosts typically have 128kbps? I have several times that, as do many I have met... and what is shared bandwidth? The internet is packet switched.....
In short, no. Nothign ends up that way.
Others make MD players. The one thing that kept MD players from saturating the market was price... too expensive at first. More reasonable now, but not flexible enough given the current age. (I have a player, but never use it; I don't like not having direct access to copy my MDs)
HOw can one blame sony for this? Did they *hurt* you by inventing a new technology and then making it expensive? No.. you didn't have it in the first place.
I mean, I hate corporatism (to coin katz) (I can't believe I did that) as much as anyone, but Sony is just not one of the companies that I think of as 'evil'.
I think some of their stuff is too expensive.. but that's their loss.
I'm amazed how so many Americans find the fact that Napster is being sued to outrageous... hell, you Americans sue each other like there's no tomorrow!
What do you mean 'once again reinventing'? How is this bad? So they come out with a new CD format that's proprietary and must be licensed from sony.. how is this going to hurt you?
The reason that people tend to think that mp3 is 'cd quality' is due to two things.
1) The majority of mp3 afficiandos are listening to pop music (or former pop music). To get the effect of this music, a really high quality setup is not required (may times because they have only listened to the CDs on crappy headphones or a mediocre stereo). So to them, the mp3 sounds perhaps slightly different, but not really any worse, and completely listenable. I know the first time I heard Pink Floyd: The Wall on a *nice* stereo (hand built & tuned amp, nice speakers..).. I was amazed. I could not *BELIEVE* what I heard.
2) people use 'cd quality' to mean 'acceptable quality for me to listen to without pops and hisses'. You are entirely correct. They don't mean it's the same quality is a CD recording; they mean they couldn't care if it is or not.
And if any of them really loved symphony... you'd see that difference right away.
You are both correct.