I for one am *glad* that the new window keeps the same page. When I'm about to submit a form, I often want to go back and look at previous pages, and the simplest solution (while keeping the form) is to open a new window, and go back from there.
If I want a new blank window, I just start a new instance. (Yay for keyboard shortcuts...)
but we were still bound by our traditional change management processes - 7 days notification for an outage, and testing of all changes documented and submitted for approval in advance.
Well corporate policy or not it's pretty freakin' irresponsible for not having a security patch that was out more than 25 days before Code Red even hit. (Not to mention anyone who followed Microsoft's best practices for IIS wouldn't have been hit anyway).
Apache, IIS, MSSQL, PHP, BIND, OpenSSH--it doesn't matter... they all gotta be patched.
Not likely. id's biggest business is in engine licensing.
A single id game coming out on Linux wouldn't convert that many people to Linux. Some would dabble with dual booting, but none in the main stream.
id games are getting less and less popular--but their engine is where it's at. notice quake 3 and wolfenstein are only modestly popular (checking stats at gamespy), while the quake engine powered games like halflife and medal of honor have *far* more players.
engine licensees wouldn't pay a dime for a linux-only game engine--they'd all develop on the unreal engine instead.
But... which do you spend more time using: your average DVD, or your average CD?
I think DVDs should cost less than a CD. I'll probably watch the DVD 2 or 3 times at most then it'll sit on the shelf for ages, whereas the CD will be listened to hundreds of times.
That's why I rarely buy DVDs. It's cheaper to rent even a couple times.
This is sorta the same reason as to why we see CD Keys on cd cases, but never printed onto the front label side of the cd.
And here I thought they didn't put the CD-KEY on the CD itself because it would be pretty hard to see the CD Key to type it in... when it's in the CD-ROM drive.
IIRC there were so many false alarms on the ArsTechnica forums from this thing that the moderators will lock any Deadman Switch posts on sight.
It's an interesting idea, but it's way too easy to forget it's running, go on vacation, and then come back and find your hard disk wiped. Not to mention a forum filled with ArsTechnica loungers weeping over your passing, only to be bitter to find out you've tricked them...
Why should the PDA be the server? Why shouldn't it just be able to remotely access/synch the required information on a base machine?
Re:Do you really need 32mb VRAM at 1024x768?
on
Apple Updates iBook
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's not just gaming.
Quartz double buffers every window in memory. QE will do the same thing, but using hardware to do it. So, not only are you storing 1024x768x32 (3MB) in memory for the screen, but every window to be accelerated will also need to be stored in memory. This will add up very quick in an environment like the Mac. 16MB will be pushing it after only a few windows are opened.
But what's the point of that? If you wanna run X and *nix apps, then run it on a cheap x86 based Linux or FreeBSD box. You'll get better performance for way less.
They don't have to threaten AMD. AMD *needs* Microsoft. Microsoft's OSes generally only run on x86 chips. The Free Software competitors run on a variety of platforms. That's no good for AMD.
And how do people put licensing restrictions on what people implement from the documentation, anyhow... all of this still sounds quite bizarre to me.
i imagine it works like any other non-disclosure agreement.
the way i see it, either you reverse-engineer their protocols on your own and then do whatever you want with that information. if you want to use microsoft's information, then you play by their rules. they don't *have* to give that information out in the first place.
not that i like the way microsoft does things,..
but, can someone tell me this: can someone use the documents, implement code under the BSD license. then a third party can look at *that* code and develop code under code under a GPL license. how would that work?
Slashdot Mirror
Re: New Page logic.
I for one am *glad* that the new window keeps the same page. When I'm about to submit a form, I often want to go back and look at previous pages, and the simplest solution (while keeping the form) is to open a new window, and go back from there.
If I want a new blank window, I just start a new instance. (Yay for keyboard shortcuts...)
No, his point flew right over your head.
Sure, you can quite easily move POSIX apps over to OSX. How about moving cocoa apps to my BSD box?
Apple wants it to be quite easy to move from other unixes to theirs, but once you start using closed Mac apps, you won't be able to easily move back.
Gee, sounds like the way they do things up in Redmond. And I don't mean Lycoris, either.
No, he's pointing out that the patch was available a full month before the worm hit.
A full month.
And, being a competent admin, his boxen weren't hit.
If you think Linux is a "Safe Haven" then you're just asking for your ass to be handed to you.
If you think you can put ANY server up on a public network and not maintiain it--you WILL be in for a rude awakening one day.
but we were still bound by our traditional change management processes - 7 days notification for an outage, and testing of all changes documented and submitted for approval in advance.
Well corporate policy or not it's pretty freakin' irresponsible for not having a security patch that was out more than 25 days before Code Red even hit. (Not to mention anyone who followed Microsoft's best practices for IIS wouldn't have been hit anyway).
Apache, IIS, MSSQL, PHP, BIND, OpenSSH--it doesn't matter... they all gotta be patched.
Unfortunately, Real has a lot of big content deals--that's what keeps them going. Major League Baseball for one.
Not likely. id's biggest business is in engine licensing.
A single id game coming out on Linux wouldn't convert that many people to Linux. Some would dabble with dual booting, but none in the main stream.
id games are getting less and less popular--but their engine is where it's at. notice quake 3 and wolfenstein are only modestly popular (checking stats at gamespy), while the quake engine powered games like halflife and medal of honor have *far* more players.
engine licensees wouldn't pay a dime for a linux-only game engine--they'd all develop on the unreal engine instead.
But... which do you spend more time using: your average DVD, or your average CD?
I think DVDs should cost less than a CD. I'll probably watch the DVD 2 or 3 times at most then it'll sit on the shelf for ages, whereas the CD will be listened to hundreds of times.
That's why I rarely buy DVDs. It's cheaper to rent even a couple times.
Except... Motorola is a member of the TPCA. And so is IBM. And so is nVidia. And so are a whole lot of other companies.
r s. asp)
In other words: good luck.
(http://www.trustedcomputing.org/tcpaasp4/membe
And here I thought they didn't put the CD-KEY on the CD itself because it would be pretty hard to see the CD Key to type it in... when it's in the CD-ROM drive.
huh.
IIRC there were so many false alarms on the ArsTechnica forums from this thing that the moderators will lock any Deadman Switch posts on sight.
It's an interesting idea, but it's way too easy to forget it's running, go on vacation, and then come back and find your hard disk wiped. Not to mention a forum filled with ArsTechnica loungers weeping over your passing, only to be bitter to find out you've tricked them...
Why do webmasters have to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" to be cached?
Shouldn't the default be "don't allow spiders and caching" ? And if I want it then I should specifically allow it.
Why should the PDA be the server? Why shouldn't it just be able to remotely access/synch the required information on a base machine?
It's not just gaming.
Quartz double buffers every window in memory. QE will do the same thing, but using hardware to do it. So, not only are you storing 1024x768x32 (3MB) in memory for the screen, but every window to be accelerated will also need to be stored in memory. This will add up very quick in an environment like the Mac. 16MB will be pushing it after only a few windows are opened.
but he said specifically to get rid of the aqua nonsense, which would imply not running any normal mac apps, making the mac an overpriced *nix box.
But what's the point of that? If you wanna run X and *nix apps, then run it on a cheap x86 based Linux or FreeBSD box. You'll get better performance for way less.
Glen Phillips.
but his code would have worked fine in C# ;)
They don't have to threaten AMD. AMD *needs* Microsoft. Microsoft's OSes generally only run on x86 chips. The Free Software competitors run on a variety of platforms. That's no good for AMD.
And Intel wants Microsoft propped up any less than AMD?
In the past Intel has been as bad as Microsoft in trying to lock out its competitors of its markets.
Which monopoly is more dangerous? There will always be alternatives to Microsoft. I haven't seen any open source hardware out there though...
Really, now, this is getting ridiculous, and I've seen similar things like this posted 5 times already.
I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other random corporation on the net. And why should I? Do I know these people?
Um, no.
And how do people put licensing restrictions on what people implement from the documentation, anyhow... all of this still sounds quite bizarre to me.
i imagine it works like any other non-disclosure agreement.
the way i see it, either you reverse-engineer their protocols on your own and then do whatever you want with that information. if you want to use microsoft's information, then you play by their rules. they don't *have* to give that information out in the first place.
not that i like the way microsoft does things,..
but, can someone tell me this: can someone use the documents, implement code under the BSD license. then a third party can look at *that* code and develop code under code under a GPL license. how would that work?
Huh? Everyone else gets the interoperability they want, and MS gets a return on giving out the specs. So what?
No, they are saying that it can't be distributable under a license that *requires* it to be redistributed at no charge.
Ex. BSD licensed code does not *require* the code to be redistributed for free, but it certainly allows it.
Exactly. Microsoft is anti-GPL, not anti-BSD license.