I don't think we can jump to that conclusion. While it's possible, there's no indication they have a linux port on RADGT's web site. And they said "If they'd asked", and I don't think Bioware has any psychics on staff. Even the part of this thread apparently didn't know about the port and he also works with this software.
No, I think I'm going to assume that Bioware are just as astonished as I am, and are looking forward to this eliminating a lot of work and headaches for them.
I'm also hoping this means a greater chance of games for linux in the future.;-)
Since I know that the Miles license includes access to the source code (I built Miles myself in search of a bug, and submitted a patch for it), so why not port it to Linux? I don't think it would be very hard at all (and in contrast to 99.9% of the other posters, I have seen the source), and it would also make bringing any other game using Miles to Linux that much easier.
Hrm. Interesting. I hope that bioware decides to take this route then. Sheesh, to me it's a no brainer for them to work with RAD Game Tools to port this thing, and RAD Game Tools should be all over it too.
This is a serious business opportunity here with a closing window. If RADGT gets on it and makes this work they will have seriously strengthened their place in their market. Not that I think that linux gaming is an unstoppable juggernaut (too many of us still keep windows boxes around for that to be true) but it's a big PR win. Even if a company doesn't plan to port to linux/mac/etc, using an excellent product (acc to igomaniac) that has that as an option if they should choose to do so is a no-brainer. Esp vs. using directX.
If you don't know of any cases where armed civilians have done good things with their firearms you have not looked too hard. It happens on a regular basis. Often it does not make it to the news as it is a non-event.
Agreed. When crime doesn't happen, it's not news. "If it bleeds it leads" as the saying goes. If anyone wants some good reading, check out this page. Yes, it's an NRA web page, however, the news information is from general sources (local newspapers/etc) and are independantly verifiable. It's just an index.
What cracks me up, is that while most of you think that anyone should be able to learn how to use a computer with a little time and effort, some of you think that as simple a machine as a gun is above the average person's grasp.
You having a gun would have helped if you were in one of those cars how?
And of course, in one of the cars is the only place he could've been right? I mean, he couldn't have been in a store nearby, or walking down the street or anything.
I am very sorry to hear that, although I am willing to defend your life, you are not willing to defend mine. But that is your choice and I will still defend you if we are ever in such a situation together.
If I am killed by someone elses actions that is not a in itself a freak accident it will then be while defending myself, my family, my friends or my country. And if in defending those I am killed then I do so willingly for that my friend is call HONOR!
You know, it's sad that people don't realize that it's largely people like yourself, stoolpigeon, myself, and others in this forum who have expressed or share in sentiments like this one who are primarily the law-abiding gun-carrying citizens in this country.
People who care about right and wrong, who care about their fellow men, their neighborhoods, their country, and most of all their family. While much is made of being willing to defend ourselves from our own government should it become necessary, we would even more willingly defend our soil from foreign aggression.
Unfortunately, the press and "anti-gunners" (what a lame term) would rather demonize us as idiots who can't tie our own shoes, regularly shooting family members.
I never entered the armed forces, mainly because I had the grave misfortune of attending public school and was subjected to years of anti-military rhetoric. It's one of the few regrets I have in my life. But to get to the point, those men share something we can never fully understand. However, we who carry, who share the attitude expressed here and elsewhere do share in it in part.
I can tell you that it is painful for those who have volunteered to be ready and willing at a moments notice to give their lives for their country to be demonized by the american public (which, granted, doesn't happen as much anymore, but it does still happen), and the same goes for us...or at least for me. I don't think you can understand the way it feels to know that every day you are strapping on not just a gun, but a heavy responsibility. One which might require you to offer up your life that day to save others. And then you turn on your radio or tv, open your paper, or visit/. and see people characterize you in these ways and it sucks.
What really gets me, is that nobody is asking you to carry a gun. We are not asking you to adopt these principles. We are not asking you to cheer for us, or give us a medal. For the most part, we don't even want you to know we're carrying. For most of us, none but our closes friends and family even know we carry. It's closely guarded information. All we want is for you to leave us in peace. To stop infringing/trying to infringe on our natural rights.
I carry a gun every day, in fact. It's MY
responsibility for my and my family's safety, not the police deparment who will show up 20 minutes late to clean up the mess.
>>>>>>>
This post reflects that attitude, (or fear of that attitude, which is not unfounded) by stating that he always carries a gun. I don't think that solves the problem. I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else.
Carrying a gun does not indicate a need to exert physical force on someone else. In fact, most people carry a gun to prevent that, and the vast majority of people who carry do so hoping and praying every day that they don't get called on to use it.
This is an excellent book, and consists of one of the largest studies ever compiled on the statistics gathered by the various US agencies and other sources.
Since I'm sure this will be blasted as being biased, let me suggest something. No matter what, every study you read is going to be accused of being biased towards whatever outcome it has. If you want lots of statistics with the reasoning behind it and so on however, you should check out this book. It is quite thorough...almost to thorough for some people however...as some parts can be almost painful to wade through if you aren't fascinated by statistics and so on.
If that's not included I'm shocked. So called "Issue Ads" are generally considered the major loophole and are considered "soft-money" ads which are exactly what "campaign finance reform" is supposed to kill.
The government steals enough of my money. I don't need a union to extort additional funds from my paycheck. I also say no thanks to the potential of being forced into joining if I want a job, glares, hatred, or worse...physical violence, from union workers when I go to work while they're all on some stupid strike.
I think I'll pass. Unions were a good thing in their day, now they're nothing but legalized crime syndicates.
Re:An intro that actually introduces would be help
on
Fresco M1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Heh. I find this attitude bizzare. This is a news site dedicated to a specific market. Chances are, if you're in that market, you know what berlin is. However, if you don't, you can go look, that's the beauty of having the link in the story.
So, do you make comments like this on CNN? "Where the heck is Israel and what's the big deal about the west bank? Sheesh, can't you guys put a short history lesson about each area and the conflicts involved in every article?"
Re:You know, Fresco...doesn't ring a bell?
on
Fresco M1 Released
·
· Score: 2
And of course, we should fill up the front page defining all the terms a minority of users might possibly not know rather than expect you to click on the damn link and find out for yourself.
On the positive side of this, I do consulting on the side, and one of my clients has a gateway machine. It's a very small office, so there's no corporate support. He had a problem with it recently (wouldn't post, no video) so I checked and it was under warranty and gave them a ring.
Now, their tech support was pretty much par for the course. I gave them the information, and they made me walk through all the crap I'd already done, (typical) but then said ok, and sent me out a new motherboard. However, what I found/really/ impressive was that they sent the board, a new processor/sink/fan, and memory. Highly unlikely that wouldn't fix the problem.
So sure, dealing with the "task list" support was anoying, but it didn't take much time, and they sent it out as promised.
Sure, if I'm right there, I can fix a networking problem. Heck, with a reasonably intelligent proxy on the other end I can even likely fix a simple config problem of that nature.
But you don't normally get calls about that, or at least I don't. No, I get calls like "My computer runs slow". "Windows keeps giving me this blue screen that says..." "My computer crashes, doyou know why?" "Every once in awhile, my computer will lock up."
These are not issues that can be debugged easily over the phone with someone who is good with windows!
And, if you are used to certain high quality tools being available, trying to sit down and debug an easy problem on another os that doesn't have them can be a huge pita.
You aren't very specific here. If you're talking about people who are Microsoft Admins (which imo don't qualify for the term "sysadmin" in large part) then maybe. Even then you're only talking about a segment of the group...arguably a large one, but still a segment. There are still some MS admins with a clue.
If you're talking about (real|unix) sysadmins then I think you're probably way off base. Or at least I certainly hope so. If you're right, then we've had some serious degeneration going on. I've got a rather cynical view as it is considering the number of clueless people I run into even on the unix side but the majority I meet still do know what the hell they're talking about. And few if any would just use some pre-defined firewall ruleset, and even fewer would be unable to understand a request of this nature.
You really have to wonder if Microsoft has their eye on BK, as a financial investment. They could afford to purchase BitKeeper, and from the sound of McVoy, he is no friend of Open Source and would jump at the chance to make a buck. So MS owns BK, maybe quietly, and starts doing their EULA magic on it, hoping nobody will notice. Whoops, suddenly MS owns the rights to the Linux kernel.
While I'm not exactly thrilled with the stunt LM has pulled here, I hardly think this is a fair characterization. I don't think it's fair to say he's no friend to open-source either. He doesn't happen to find it a viable business model, but that doesn't make him a bad person. While I don't agree with him 100% on this point, I can appreciate his position. He certainly would never have gotten bK to the point it is now (this quickly) w/out paying people for their effort.
While I wouldn't put that type of effort past MS, Larry would never allow that to happen. He may be making (what I would consider to be) some poor choices (irt the license change) but that hardly justifies such a malicious attack against his character. He would sell it I think for the right price, maybe even to MS, but not without the lk group knowing, and not without ensuring they'd be safe from MS first.
You've missed the point. You should have said "imagine a Microsoft EULA that says: if you don't contribute to Linux you can use Windows for free". Not such an issue anymore, is it?
I disagree. It's still very much an issue. Think further along. Now you have companies that COULD be getting windows for free, but because of those damn linux guys they have on staff they have to pay for it. Now you have companies who are going to screen their applicants and discriminate against linux contributors because hiring them would require them to buy licenses.
This is not a study of windows IT people supporting workstations. It's an analysis of webserver costs. They are managing servers, which is an altogether different story from managing the pcs of cow-orkers.
Windows admins managing production webservers in fortune 2000 companies are just plain going to make more money, and be able to manage fewer boxes.
Keep in mind how long it takes to patch and reboot and test a windows server vs. a unix machine. Now you have to multiply the windows process by some unknown number because of how much more often they have to do it than unix admins do. In addition, config changes can be made a lot more quickly through some quick ssh sessions to multiple unix machines than it can over a windows machine. All the way down to just restarting apache. On a really high end windows server, apache still takes a helluva lot longer to restart than it does on linux. Same for IIS on windows. Those seconds add up.
Also note that this is an average. A really good NT admin who really understands the OS could probably manage more than that, unfortunatley, the average is going to be brought down by the hordes of ignorant people who claim the title of windows admin with their paper MCSEs.
The really unfortunate thing is that linux is starting to get its fair share of those people as it becomes more and more easy to use. People who think that cause they managed to install it on their home machine that they are ready to go get a job as a professional sysadmin. Sad. On both sides.
where are this jobs as linux admins for $71k/ year?
Heh. That's actually really low in my experience. At least for a really good senior admin. Even junior admin positions usually go at about 60-65k. This is for real linux admins though, not for people who've "played with it at home a little"
Slashdot Mirror
Oops...my bad. I must've had a synapse misfire there when typing it.
Probably Tradewars or LoRD as those were among the most popular.
No, I think I'm going to assume that Bioware are just as astonished as I am, and are looking forward to this eliminating a lot of work and headaches for them.
I'm also hoping this means a greater chance of games for linux in the future. ;-)
They wrote me back already:
Hrm. Interesting. I hope that bioware decides to take this route then. Sheesh, to me it's a no brainer for them to work with RAD Game Tools to port this thing, and RAD Game Tools should be all over it too.
This is a serious business opportunity here with a closing window. If RADGT gets on it and makes this work they will have seriously strengthened their place in their market. Not that I think that linux gaming is an unstoppable juggernaut (too many of us still keep windows boxes around for that to be true) but it's a big PR win. Even if a company doesn't plan to port to linux/mac/etc, using an excellent product (acc to igomaniac) that has that as an option if they should choose to do so is a no-brainer. Esp vs. using directX.
Agreed. When crime doesn't happen, it's not news. "If it bleeds it leads" as the saying goes. If anyone wants some good reading, check out this page. Yes, it's an NRA web page, however, the news information is from general sources (local newspapers/etc) and are independantly verifiable. It's just an index.
What cracks me up, is that while most of you think that anyone should be able to learn how to use a computer with a little time and effort, some of you think that as simple a machine as a gun is above the average person's grasp.
And of course, in one of the cars is the only place he could've been right? I mean, he couldn't have been in a store nearby, or walking down the street or anything.
If I am killed by someone elses actions that is not a in itself a freak accident it will then be while defending myself, my family, my friends or my country. And if in defending those I am killed then I do so willingly for that my friend is call HONOR!
You know, it's sad that people don't realize that it's largely people like yourself, stoolpigeon, myself, and others in this forum who have expressed or share in sentiments like this one who are primarily the law-abiding gun-carrying citizens in this country.
People who care about right and wrong, who care about their fellow men, their neighborhoods, their country, and most of all their family. While much is made of being willing to defend ourselves from our own government should it become necessary, we would even more willingly defend our soil from foreign aggression.
Unfortunately, the press and "anti-gunners" (what a lame term) would rather demonize us as idiots who can't tie our own shoes, regularly shooting family members.
I never entered the armed forces, mainly because I had the grave misfortune of attending public school and was subjected to years of anti-military rhetoric. It's one of the few regrets I have in my life. But to get to the point, those men share something we can never fully understand. However, we who carry, who share the attitude expressed here and elsewhere do share in it in part.
I can tell you that it is painful for those who have volunteered to be ready and willing at a moments notice to give their lives for their country to be demonized by the american public (which, granted, doesn't happen as much anymore, but it does still happen), and the same goes for us...or at least for me. I don't think you can understand the way it feels to know that every day you are strapping on not just a gun, but a heavy responsibility. One which might require you to offer up your life that day to save others. And then you turn on your radio or tv, open your paper, or visit /. and see people characterize you in these ways and it sucks.
What really gets me, is that nobody is asking you to carry a gun. We are not asking you to adopt these principles. We are not asking you to cheer for us, or give us a medal. For the most part, we don't even want you to know we're carrying. For most of us, none but our closes friends and family even know we carry. It's closely guarded information. All we want is for you to leave us in peace. To stop infringing/trying to infringe on our natural rights.
Carrying a gun does not indicate a need to exert physical force on someone else. In fact, most people carry a gun to prevent that, and the vast majority of people who carry do so hoping and praying every day that they don't get called on to use it.
<sarcasm>
Yes, because what kind of sense does it make to title the book after the conclusion of the study. It must be biased.
</sarcasm>
How annoying.
More Guns, Less Crime - John Lott
This is an excellent book, and consists of one of the largest studies ever compiled on the statistics gathered by the various US agencies and other sources.
Since I'm sure this will be blasted as being biased, let me suggest something. No matter what, every study you read is going to be accused of being biased towards whatever outcome it has. If you want lots of statistics with the reasoning behind it and so on however, you should check out this book. It is quite thorough...almost to thorough for some people however...as some parts can be almost painful to wade through if you aren't fascinated by statistics and so on.
If that's not included I'm shocked. So called "Issue Ads" are generally considered the major loophole and are considered "soft-money" ads which are exactly what "campaign finance reform" is supposed to kill.
In my opinion, is that support for middle-click pasting urls is back!
The government steals enough of my money. I don't need a union to extort additional funds from my paycheck. I also say no thanks to the potential of being forced into joining if I want a job, glares, hatred, or worse...physical violence, from union workers when I go to work while they're all on some stupid strike. I think I'll pass. Unions were a good thing in their day, now they're nothing but legalized crime syndicates.
So, do you make comments like this on CNN? "Where the heck is Israel and what's the big deal about the west bank? Sheesh, can't you guys put a short history lesson about each area and the conflicts involved in every article?"
Good grief.
On the positive side of this, I do consulting on the side, and one of my clients has a gateway machine. It's a very small office, so there's no corporate support. He had a problem with it recently (wouldn't post, no video) so I checked and it was under warranty and gave them a ring. Now, their tech support was pretty much par for the course. I gave them the information, and they made me walk through all the crap I'd already done, (typical) but then said ok, and sent me out a new motherboard. However, what I found /really/ impressive was that they sent the board, a new processor/sink/fan, and memory. Highly unlikely that wouldn't fix the problem.
So sure, dealing with the "task list" support was anoying, but it didn't take much time, and they sent it out as promised.
Sure, if I'm right there, I can fix a networking problem. Heck, with a reasonably intelligent proxy on the other end I can even likely fix a simple config problem of that nature. But you don't normally get calls about that, or at least I don't. No, I get calls like "My computer runs slow". "Windows keeps giving me this blue screen that says..." "My computer crashes, doyou know why?" "Every once in awhile, my computer will lock up." These are not issues that can be debugged easily over the phone with someone who is good with windows! And, if you are used to certain high quality tools being available, trying to sit down and debug an easy problem on another os that doesn't have them can be a huge pita.
If you're talking about (real|unix) sysadmins then I think you're probably way off base. Or at least I certainly hope so. If you're right, then we've had some serious degeneration going on. I've got a rather cynical view as it is considering the number of clueless people I run into even on the unix side but the majority I meet still do know what the hell they're talking about. And few if any would just use some pre-defined firewall ruleset, and even fewer would be unable to understand a request of this nature.
It won't check for masks if you explicitly give the full path instead of just the package name.
While I'm not exactly thrilled with the stunt LM has pulled here, I hardly think this is a fair characterization. I don't think it's fair to say he's no friend to open-source either. He doesn't happen to find it a viable business model, but that doesn't make him a bad person. While I don't agree with him 100% on this point, I can appreciate his position. He certainly would never have gotten bK to the point it is now (this quickly) w/out paying people for their effort.
While I wouldn't put that type of effort past MS, Larry would never allow that to happen. He may be making (what I would consider to be) some poor choices (irt the license change) but that hardly justifies such a malicious attack against his character. He would sell it I think for the right price, maybe even to MS, but not without the lk group knowing, and not without ensuring they'd be safe from MS first.
I disagree. It's still very much an issue. Think further along. Now you have companies that COULD be getting windows for free, but because of those damn linux guys they have on staff they have to pay for it. Now you have companies who are going to screen their applicants and discriminate against linux contributors because hiring them would require them to buy licenses.
Windows admins managing production webservers in fortune 2000 companies are just plain going to make more money, and be able to manage fewer boxes.
Keep in mind how long it takes to patch and reboot and test a windows server vs. a unix machine. Now you have to multiply the windows process by some unknown number because of how much more often they have to do it than unix admins do. In addition, config changes can be made a lot more quickly through some quick ssh sessions to multiple unix machines than it can over a windows machine. All the way down to just restarting apache. On a really high end windows server, apache still takes a helluva lot longer to restart than it does on linux. Same for IIS on windows. Those seconds add up.
Also note that this is an average. A really good NT admin who really understands the OS could probably manage more than that, unfortunatley, the average is going to be brought down by the hordes of ignorant people who claim the title of windows admin with their paper MCSEs.
The really unfortunate thing is that linux is starting to get its fair share of those people as it becomes more and more easy to use. People who think that cause they managed to install it on their home machine that they are ready to go get a job as a professional sysadmin. Sad. On both sides.
Heh. That's actually really low in my experience. At least for a really good senior admin. Even junior admin positions usually go at about 60-65k. This is for real linux admins though, not for people who've "played with it at home a little"