I remember trying to move a enemy path that didn't suck. Drawing graphics out of a limited palette. Making enemies follow another to get a snake effect. Trying to find decent sound samples and settling for a loop of "I'm a doctor not a bricklayer". Yeah - that was great.
And it made stand-alone bootable games.
Amiga Power had a few coverdisks with SEUCK games (all just tacky ripoffs of SWIV).
Traditionally, once a type of software becomes popular and then common there's an open-source version that eats the proprietary version.
How closed-source keeps alive is by moving to new places so the open-source (and any competitor) is always playing catch-up. It doesn't matter if this is a good technology so long as they get the name out there, and their competitors can't claim to have 'X' feature.
But you don't just add any feature. You choose something that makes the differences irrelevant.
DOS has different characters for line-breaks than Unix, or Mac. Rather than standardising line-breaks the platforms move to XML.
Software for Windows can't run on Linux or Mac. The operating system matters. Rather than making abstraction and platform-specific libraries they place a layer that makes the operating system irrelevant. Sun did it with Java, MS did it with.NET.
It's all about placing layers ontop that makes quibbles irrelevant. I believe that's the plan.
Not that these hidden features means anything in particular. While you're writing software you might well hide the options to your fresher code because it hasn't been tested yet. It may work most of the time but you don't want to support it, or document it when things might change too.
I agree, with one caveat. I don't think that run even has a place on the root hierarchy of the K-menu. The run command is a CLI programming interface - it's not an interface that (most) non-programmers want or need. It doesn't warrant such prominence.
It should be somewhere in the menu so that programmers can get to it and drag it to where they want.
People blame X-Windows yet they never go into any detail. So maybe it isn't a troll, but it's not rational. It's just mindless repeating of what other have said. It's something that can be ignored if you have better things to do.
Oh you're lying and you know it. Coding to standards doesn't mean it will work in browsers. You fucking know it, but you're pushing a political agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be so sure about that
I remember trying to move a enemy path that didn't suck. Drawing graphics out of a limited palette. Making enemies follow another to get a snake effect. Trying to find decent sound samples and settling for a loop of "I'm a doctor not a bricklayer". Yeah - that was great.
And it made stand-alone bootable games.
Amiga Power had a few coverdisks with SEUCK games (all just tacky ripoffs of SWIV).
How closed-source keeps alive is by moving to new places so the open-source (and any competitor) is always playing catch-up. It doesn't matter if this is a good technology so long as they get the name out there, and their competitors can't claim to have 'X' feature.
But you don't just add any feature. You choose something that makes the differences irrelevant.
DOS has different characters for line-breaks than Unix, or Mac. Rather than standardising line-breaks the platforms move to XML.
Software for Windows can't run on Linux or Mac. The operating system matters. Rather than making abstraction and platform-specific libraries they place a layer that makes the operating system irrelevant. Sun did it with Java, MS did it with .NET.
It's all about placing layers ontop that makes quibbles irrelevant. I believe that's the plan.
The hassle of nVidia cards and nVidia drivers are the main reason. Games will follow if they can get an audience.
Hey - you're speaking about the guy who directed the John Candy movie "Canadian Bacon" (little known fact, there)
That's not an argument, by the way.
Name the character that looks like a pierced ear.
And then suddenly you've got javascript flowing into the body of the email. Nuke everything between the tags too.
Not that these hidden features means anything in particular. While you're writing software you might well hide the options to your fresher code because it hasn't been tested yet. It may work most of the time but you don't want to support it, or document it when things might change too.
This post inspired my latest journal.
Now I'll have to use superior OSS software - MOzilla. It hasn't been affected by one of your tricks - oh well.
Hell Yes. I knight thee, Sir AC (pn."aceey")
It should be somewhere in the menu so that programmers can get to it and drag it to where they want.
(I mean, I know about deleting the copyrighted material, but as for the logs - prove it)
Exactly. It also makes me wonder if one home button is different to another.
isn't valid in X/HTML. They ask you to put a space there because dumb browsers parse the tag's name as "br/" and don't know what to do with it.
The problem is in Netscape 3 and lower. I'm not exactly sure what versions of IE were afficted but I believe it was 2 and lower.
If you're broke, try eclipse.org
If course, I'm reading /., so I don't.
HELLO LADIES!
I REMEMBER TECHNOCRAT. MY BABY MONITOR IS TELLING ALIENS THAT I'M HERE.
(LF: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling and stuff. Yup.)
IE has screwed the box model because IE5 adds rather than subtracts widths. Using nested DIVs you can work around the fixed background problem.
Oh you're lying and you know it. Coding to standards doesn't mean it will work in browsers. You fucking know it, but you're pushing a political agenda.