Linux is an open source architecture that's geared towards users building their programs from source. Duh. This works great. However, there're are a few specific cases where you have to bite the bullet and use whatever distro big programs like Oracle were built for. Here's why:
Oracle was originally built for specific operating systems, and in the non Windows arena, specific versions of UNIX. It's not at all surprising that you'd need to run a specific version of Linux from a particular vender in order to use it. Sad but true fact. It really can't be helped at this point so focus on running your organization, not resisting some obvious limitations of the current architecture. (Oracle doesn't work on Debian or Slackware either - my shop tried, and as much as we hated doing it, we were forced to run it on RedHat.)
On another issue... Some people say, "companies should static link libraries to their programs!" Well, this is only taking a bad situation and making it worse. If this is done, binary only releases of software will suffer with flaws in existing versions of whatever system libs they're linked against. Then you have to wait for said company to release a new version whenever the bugs in a system library are fixed. Eventually, we'll manage to do what Windows does, and that is have readily backwards compatable libs that actually work properly.
To give you a perspective of the situation... Consider if you will this basketball representing the earth, this grape the asteroid, and this grain of salt the represents the probe... Landing the probe on the astroid would be like trying to land this salt grain on the grape without any roll from 20 miles away with an error margin as thick as this piece of paper.
It almost sounds as if the author is stating that P2P has damaged the music inudstry. Seems to me that he was going for shock value in a "dum-du-dum-dum-duuumm" sort of fashion.
He did this rather recklessly too, setting a tone for the whole article. I almost felt as I read this that the methods described for "Fabbing" products from files off the Net would be a bad thing (which of course, it's not in the slightest).
I'd consider reading that article with more care as well as who sees it. It's just the kind of tone that people who aren't convinced of the proper freedom of P2P distribution don't need (see, they know that what they're doing is wrong).
Just the facts please, and no attempts to excite or thrill us as to what you're writing about.
s/stagnated/suffocated/. The reason NS was stuck at version 4.x for so many years is because MS "cut off their air supply". They couldn't afford to develop a new version because there was no longer any way to recoup the development costs.
Netscape were doing well for a while - but they too had their dominance in the industry. They were so smug with what they ahd accomplished, they saw no need to improve. Communicator was an attempt to fight back at MS, who were building an impressive web browser. And, NS only went half-way with it. It was hardly anything new and impressive.
That is why we have the situation we have today. A lot of people liked (and still like) Netscape but were stuck with the 4.x browser because of MS's illegal business practices. So a lot of web developers had to develop for a bitrotten browser instead of making use of new standards like CSS (yes, NS4 had some sucky CSS support (so did IE 4)). Finally, everyone said "fuck it" and developed for IE 5.
Totally wrong. IE4 was probably the first browser to actually do CSS right. Now granted, IE2 and IE3 were worlds behind NS2 and 3 respectively, but IE4 is the one that sped away in the technology race. But you're only partially right on the issue of NS4 having some sucky CSS support... it had VERY sucky CSS support. Btw, you're comment about the hover function. Geez dude. Are you so myopic that you could only get that from the statement? The point was is there is a lot of very basic simple support that Netscape just neglected to product. Duh.
When MS won the browser war, it wasn't just NS who lost. We all did.
Pffft... You know, as a Linux user and open source advocate, the only things I find myself jealous of Windows users are their web browser and well design multimedia architecture. IE is so incredibly nice and it's such an excellent browser - faster, more stable, and cleaner overall. The only way we've lost is that we just don't get the source to IE and someday, that might even change. *shrug* Of course then again, I'm building my own technologies that are 100% browser independant (thankfully there's no conflicts over ECMA standards:-).
We're always arguing... "NS supports the standards." "IE supports the standards." Well, the thing is... it was a rush to become more popular with the standards that your browser introduced. In the case of IE vs. NS, the two biggest players when a lot of our standards were being formed, IE introduced the features that made webpages more flexable and dynamic. Netscape stagnated however, not really coming up with anything new. Internet Explorer won out and the W3C had to conform to it. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. Think about how far behind web technologies would be if NS was the dominant browser? Sure, NS and IE can do a lot of the same things - problem is, IE does them more cleanly whereas equivalent NS implimentations are essentially big ugly hacks. And well, of course, there's a plethora of useful features that are in IE that you could never do with NS. And when is the last time NS introduced anything new? *pfft*
What makes browsers suck now? Everyone who makes a browser is very reluctant to follow the path of the ones who won the war. I can think of a few examples - specifically a few that IE introduced to CSS standards that Netscape rejected, Mozilla implimented then broke or removed, and no other browsers will do. I'm referring to the:hover property. Is this feature a bad thing? Absolutely not! Better than making a big hacky JavaScript solution to do the same thing. But will any other browsers support this? No. That's just stupid - and it's not the only example.
Well, this post may jump around a lot and lack consistency, but I'm rushing to the point and I think the point is clear. Browsers suck because web developers want to use new technologies being developed by companies who build web browsers that introduce them. Then the other browsers refuse to adopt the new technologies - in several cases simply because the authors hate the company *coughMicrosoftcough* that introduced them. That's just stupid.
Development of software and the development of hardware are radically different processes. Software development really costs nothing but time invested in design, research, coding, and testing. Development of hardware on the otherhand takes more than just time. You can't just "compile" your scematics and test them. There's exprensive fabrication processes that requires large amounts of money for equipment (both for production and testing). The amount of time is also a factor. It takes a LOT longer to design a processor than to produce even an operating system.
Because of these factors, who would be willing to open up their processor designs? Also, if processor designs were open, how many people would realistically be able to make meaningful contributions? I imagine very few people on the street could tell you how to create an XOR operation with a simple set of logic gates.:-) (And I'm not saying I could either.) However, I'd say a large majority of people could pick up C++ in a few weeks (and they do) versus the years up years of studying that hardware engineers suffer though.
Who knows. It could work. It'd just take some completely new thinking.
Screw dual booting. If you only need to use Doze for menial tasks like the occasional Word doc, go to www.vmware.com and get VMware workstation. You can try it out for 30 days, btw. Also there's win4lin that can allow you to execute Windows programs. These solutions are probably best for you because you'll still be able to share data between your virtual machines and Linux without having to reboot.
But...
If you're not running Linux, you should be able to build Wine on your platform. As far as I know, Wine will properly do international fonts & formatting if the copy of Windows installed on the box is configured properly.
Gendou
Comes from my favorite character in Shin Seiki: Evangelion. I like the character because he's incredibly focused and determined to accomplish his goals. *shrug* I think there are good qualities here.:-)
the Silicon Dragon
Yes, he was a member of Future Crew, but when I saw his alias, I just could believe how cool it was... so I ripped it. (I actually though the fact that I did was good when I found out he was killed in a car crash. Some people will remember... and the name floats around.) The reason I like this handle is because, well, I love dragons - they're majestic and fantastic creatures. Now, imagine a robotic one. That's this.:-) To those of you that saw the NY1 H2K Video: that was me.:-) The reason I said that I was one of MANY silicon dragons is because well, how many people pick an animal they like and tack on "silicon"? Pah! I'm cooler though. I got on television and I own the domain.:)
Lethyos
Main character from a book I'm writing. He's an underdog with some very impressive skills (much like hackers, yes?) Not very well liked (also a common factor with geeks), but everyone will depend on him to save their asses in the end. Very poetic.
You know, isn't there a parable about this? Microsoft is sitting around, smuggly announcing to the world that "Oh yeah, Linux will fail. Sure, trust us on this one." The fact that this caustic retort to M$ came so quickly just gives me chills! I tells me that everyone is going to want to work harder just to end up showing M$ off. The collective "grrs" that the community has made at M$'s statement fills the air with electricity.
Stupid Microsoft! What BETTER way to provoke your enemies than to tell the spectators that your enemy is doomed? How foolish!:-)
It's played on the junkbot planet. I think that song is the perfect theme for this auction.
The seller could put an mp3 of the song "Dare To Be Stupid" playing in the background as you try to decide whether or not to bid $10,000 for some junk.
But this is worse than paying insanely high bid amounts for a PSX2. They're pieces of plastic and I don't care how cool they are/were, anyone who'd be willing to pay even a 1/10th of that is simply demonstrating a ridiculous amount of sentimentalism.
I'll lose a great deal of my faith in our species if this guy gets even one bid. I shouldn't hold my breath, I know someone is going to buy into this nonsense.
DirectTV may, as soon as customers realize that their investment of a large sum is in danger, reconsider. Now, they most likely put this in the fine print (a TOS perhaps?) that most people won't read, but there is no way that this is going to be quiet. Also consider the salesperson level of the deal. They'll be sure to point out the cons of a cheaper product (I think:).
I'm not sure on this, but I'd wager that this will seriously hurt their business and they'll change if they want to survive.
I'm sorry, but most of your responses here are just too poorly informed to be remarked on. Grr... But I will make a few comments.
And I bet the Giant's offense won't just hand the ball over to Baltimore. What a bunch of bad guys they are.
This comment is ridiculous. Microsoft has a myriad of API's in Windows that they keep to themselves. This gives them a serious upperhand over other software developers and it's unfair because they are a monopoly. Not to mention that your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they give the ball over, they no longer have the ball. And comparing the ball to source is also silly. I am not saying Microsoft give up Windows for free, I am saying that they document their API's so that other developers can use them to make better products. Sheesh. You must not have done well on the english section of your SATs.
Don't like the high price? Try to offer a similar product at a better price. That's what a free market is all about. There is nothing immoral about them charging as much as they like for an OS. You might counter that this takes money from the pockets of organizations like hospitals that offer lifesaving services. The counterpoint is that if they charged less it would reduce the quality of life of employees and stockholders, which can kill just as many people as bad health care (poverty is no better for your health than an x-ray machine that crashes, it just kills in a less dramatic fashion).
First of all, have you ever read any of the reasons the DOJ was going after Microsoft? Their OEM practices are deplorable. But I'll let you mill through archives for info on that. Yes, it is a very bad thing to over charge for an OS when you're monopolizing. Try a similar product? There is much to choose from, but you still have to support the mainstream. If Dell or Compaq suddenly decided that they cannot afford Microsoft's products, and go entirely with BSD, Linux, etc., they'd quickly run out of business because of the MS monopoly. In the medical business, you go to several different companies if you want to buy equipment. They quote you prices. You make your selection based on deals. You cannot do this with MS. The information to make a competing x-ray machine is open and available to everyone. It's in science journals. Designs are public knowledge. No one said "you cannot infringe upon our rights to make x-ray machines." However, Microsoft makes their design closed and unavailable so that no one can make an alternative (instead, we use clean room tactics to get as much as we can, hence WINE), therefore, there is no choice to try a similar product at a better price. If Microsoft turned open source, they'd still have a business. People would choose Microsoft as an authority on Windows, but other companies could make Windows-compatible alternatives that would be cheaper and perhaps even better (then again, the source is a mess).
Ugh. I should give up. People like you infuriate me so much that I can barely form a coherent arguement against your rebutal to my case of Microsoft's wrong-doings in their monopolizing, greedy, and certainly tyrannical business policies. I have nothing against capitalism, of course it's a great system. BUT, evolution cannot occur when there's only one way of doing things and no way to break out of it. And WHY must you go on with this clearly stupid view of OSS==socialism? Socialism is about everyone being equal and surviving equally regardless. OSS is about survival of the fittest! THINK!
We do not bash Microsoft because they deliver poor products. This is utterly untrue. Microsoft Office is the model of every other office suite out there. IE is the ideal browser. Windows has AMAZING hardware support (well, NT5+ does - the Win2000 driver model is genius). Microsoft devotes a VERY large sum of money to research.
Microsoft has many good things about them. But, they have a few critically bad things. These things should be the reasons we bash MS:
1. They monopolize the computer industry and stifle competition.
2. They do not open their source so that other developers can create software on an even playing field with them.
3. They are not responsive to fixing flaws in their systems that are discovered by the community at large.
4. They overcharge for their software and force their clients into a nasty, anti-competetive business relationship.
None of these are "bash Microsoft because their software sucks." Now, it's true that Windows is below par, but that's not the only thing they do.
Calm down. Poor quality software is the *worst* reason to bash a closed-source, inflexable, monopolizing corporation. Fundamental matters of principle carry a lot more weight.
I am wondering why the slack team is putting so much effort into porting slack to more esoteric platforms. The way I see it, most people that own these kinds of boxen are most likely in a corporate setting. As far as I can tell, companies don't like distros that aren't RedHat because most others don't already have "corporate acceptance." So, would any sys. admin actually be able to install slack on Alphas at their company? Most likely not. Other than for Alpha enthusiasts who can never give up slack - which I'm sure there are plenty, why bother otherwise? Especially since the Debian project has done this for us (and with Debian, you have just about no branding in the distro and everything a lot nicer with SystemV scripts as opposed to slack's BSD style).
Being a slack-to-Debian convert, I really don't see the point of this. There's many other places they could devote their energies... and somehow, this just seems to satisfy the deep-running, almost primal urge a lot of Linux junkies have to run Linux on every platform (even if it's already done). Nevertheless, I have to say "good work!" to the slack team for moving it to SPARC and Alpha so quickly!
My friend and I were discussing how it wouldn't be long before Linux hacks got Jealous (with a capital 'J') of MacOS X's slick, pretty, OpenGL-accellerated interface. Well, here we are. This is the beginning foundation for much more powerful, fast, and flexable GUI's under X.
And of course, other than just for the sake of shear beauty, using 3D accellerators to draw interfaces makes perfect sense. Most companies that make accellerated cards put a LOT more effort and design consideration into the accellerators, but not so much into the 2D accelleration. As a result, 3D graphics are rendered more quickly on just about all cards. Let's use that power for more than just games!:-)
Does anybody remember the old trailer? Take particular notice of the one scene of the orc armies marching. The old version looked incredible, but they've greatly improved the CGI for that shot! It's unbelievable! I can't imagine how good the rest of the film is going to look.
Maybe they won't botch this like they did the DnD movie.:-)
They'll be essential to our survival. Have you ever wondered about the rate in which our technology increases? It keeps doubling. Do you ever ponder that there might be a threshold where we reach critical mass? Something moving so fast and so furious... it simply falls out of our control?
That's going to happen to humanity eventually. We keep packing more and more into less and less (for example, more schooling in shorting time frame - you easily knew twice as much by your senior year in HS than your parents).
We're going to need to take the smaller and more trivial tasks off our hands. There will be no alternative. What's the solution? Certainly not a group of people engineer to be simple/stupid (Brave New World), but rather, machines.
Right now, robots are unfriendly, imposing, and insanely clumsy. We *need* them to be able to move and act naturally as we do. We need them to not be scary. We need them to be more fluid. They'll inevitably have to interact with us in a personal fashion.
And if you're still unconvinced, think about the applications of robotics technology with fluid, human-like motion in medicine. Wouldn't it be nice to give amputees brand new arms that move flawlessly when compared to the real thing?
I'm tired, so I'm not going to go on any longer... but wow, the possibilities!
Will this enable us to build tracking floors that can accurately allow me to walk in place as I'm navigating a virtual reality scene? (That is of course, without tripping over myself?)
Think about it, you couldn't just have loose bearings beneath you - you'd need something that held its position and could move any direction to correct your movement to make it feel as if you're on solid ground.
If you could make them about half the size of marbles, wow, the possibilities would be endless. That one idea of the spinning discs on tables to rearrange things is already outdated. This would rock!
I used to really, really hate Apple. I would swear up and down that not a single soul aughta buy their computers. But, that was before I really sat back and thought about the Microsoft influence on things. This is around the time Windows95 came out. Without Apple, M$ would be a lot stronger than they are now. Without Apple, there'd be a lot less drive from many companies to produce powerful graphics technologies on the PC (would Photoshop be around if it wasn't for Apple?). Without Apple, we'd be short one big supporter of *nix and the open source community.
Regardless of what their machines are capable of or whether or not their current OS crashes more than Doze, we owe a great deal to this company.
*shrug*
Evangelion fans wrote this?
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 2
Does anybody else notice the similarities between this movie's "NURV" and the "NERV" from Evangelion? (Software called 'Synapse'? Geez, rip off!)
This isn't the only time generals are the antag...
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
Mars Attacks is the first movie off the top of my head that I can think of (I know there are others, their names just escape me). The hard right wing war-loving military guys versus the left wing peace-loving President has so often been used as a plot device.
I don't think we should pay much attention to this silliness. Hollywood movie writers just aren't creative/intelligent enough to come up with anymore more original. Now, I'm not a republicrat and I'm as anti-war as the next guy, but it's getting incredibly old. *shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle was originally built for specific operating systems, and in the non Windows arena, specific versions of UNIX. It's not at all surprising that you'd need to run a specific version of Linux from a particular vender in order to use it. Sad but true fact. It really can't be helped at this point so focus on running your organization, not resisting some obvious limitations of the current architecture. (Oracle doesn't work on Debian or Slackware either - my shop tried, and as much as we hated doing it, we were forced to run it on RedHat.)
On another issue... Some people say, "companies should static link libraries to their programs!" Well, this is only taking a bad situation and making it worse. If this is done, binary only releases of software will suffer with flaws in existing versions of whatever system libs they're linked against. Then you have to wait for said company to release a new version whenever the bugs in a system library are fixed. Eventually, we'll manage to do what Windows does, and that is have readily backwards compatable libs that actually work properly.
For now, conform and produce working results.
To give you a perspective of the situation... Consider if you will this basketball representing the earth, this grape the asteroid, and this grain of salt the represents the probe... Landing the probe on the astroid would be like trying to land this salt grain on the grape without any roll from 20 miles away with an error margin as thick as this piece of paper.
He did this rather recklessly too, setting a tone for the whole article. I almost felt as I read this that the methods described for "Fabbing" products from files off the Net would be a bad thing (which of course, it's not in the slightest).
I'd consider reading that article with more care as well as who sees it. It's just the kind of tone that people who aren't convinced of the proper freedom of P2P distribution don't need (see, they know that what they're doing is wrong).
Just the facts please, and no attempts to excite or thrill us as to what you're writing about.
Netscape were doing well for a while - but they too had their dominance in the industry. They were so smug with what they ahd accomplished, they saw no need to improve. Communicator was an attempt to fight back at MS, who were building an impressive web browser. And, NS only went half-way with it. It was hardly anything new and impressive.
That is why we have the situation we have today. A lot of people liked (and still like) Netscape but were stuck with the 4.x browser because of MS's illegal business practices. So a lot of web developers had to develop for a bitrotten browser instead of making use of new standards like CSS (yes, NS4 had some sucky CSS support (so did IE 4)). Finally, everyone said "fuck it" and developed for IE 5.
Totally wrong. IE4 was probably the first browser to actually do CSS right. Now granted, IE2 and IE3 were worlds behind NS2 and 3 respectively, but IE4 is the one that sped away in the technology race. But you're only partially right on the issue of NS4 having some sucky CSS support... it had VERY sucky CSS support. Btw, you're comment about the hover function. Geez dude. Are you so myopic that you could only get that from the statement? The point was is there is a lot of very basic simple support that Netscape just neglected to product. Duh.
When MS won the browser war, it wasn't just NS who lost. We all did.
Pffft... You know, as a Linux user and open source advocate, the only things I find myself jealous of Windows users are their web browser and well design multimedia architecture. IE is so incredibly nice and it's such an excellent browser - faster, more stable, and cleaner overall. The only way we've lost is that we just don't get the source to IE and someday, that might even change. *shrug* Of course then again, I'm building my own technologies that are 100% browser independant (thankfully there's no conflicts over ECMA standards :-).
This feature worked in earlier milestones - I remember it specifically working on my own web site. When'd it break?
What makes browsers suck now? Everyone who makes a browser is very reluctant to follow the path of the ones who won the war. I can think of a few examples - specifically a few that IE introduced to CSS standards that Netscape rejected, Mozilla implimented then broke or removed, and no other browsers will do. I'm referring to the :hover property. Is this feature a bad thing? Absolutely not! Better than making a big hacky JavaScript solution to do the same thing. But will any other browsers support this? No. That's just stupid - and it's not the only example.
Well, this post may jump around a lot and lack consistency, but I'm rushing to the point and I think the point is clear. Browsers suck because web developers want to use new technologies being developed by companies who build web browsers that introduce them. Then the other browsers refuse to adopt the new technologies - in several cases simply because the authors hate the company *coughMicrosoftcough* that introduced them. That's just stupid.
Before any of you freak out about the chip being 1.5ft^2... the actual size is actually reported at 46.2mm^2. Read more closely.
Because of these factors, who would be willing to open up their processor designs? Also, if processor designs were open, how many people would realistically be able to make meaningful contributions? I imagine very few people on the street could tell you how to create an XOR operation with a simple set of logic gates. :-) (And I'm not saying I could either.) However, I'd say a large majority of people could pick up C++ in a few weeks (and they do) versus the years up years of studying that hardware engineers suffer though.
Who knows. It could work. It'd just take some completely new thinking.
But...
If you're not running Linux, you should be able to build Wine on your platform. As far as I know, Wine will properly do international fonts & formatting if the copy of Windows installed on the box is configured properly.
Gendou :-)
Comes from my favorite character in Shin Seiki: Evangelion. I like the character because he's incredibly focused and determined to accomplish his goals. *shrug* I think there are good qualities here.
the Silicon Dragon :-) To those of you that saw the NY1 H2K Video: that was me. :-) The reason I said that I was one of MANY silicon dragons is because well, how many people pick an animal they like and tack on "silicon"? Pah! I'm cooler though. I got on television and I own the domain. :)
Yes, he was a member of Future Crew, but when I saw his alias, I just could believe how cool it was... so I ripped it. (I actually though the fact that I did was good when I found out he was killed in a car crash. Some people will remember... and the name floats around.) The reason I like this handle is because, well, I love dragons - they're majestic and fantastic creatures. Now, imagine a robotic one. That's this.
Lethyos
Main character from a book I'm writing. He's an underdog with some very impressive skills (much like hackers, yes?) Not very well liked (also a common factor with geeks), but everyone will depend on him to save their asses in the end. Very poetic.
Uhm.. I didn't mean to post this on this story. :P Uhm, go here instead:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/01/175921 1&mode=thread
Stupid Microsoft! What BETTER way to provoke your enemies than to tell the spectators that your enemy is doomed? How foolish! :-)
The seller could put an mp3 of the song "Dare To Be Stupid" playing in the background as you try to decide whether or not to bid $10,000 for some junk.
I'll lose a great deal of my faith in our species if this guy gets even one bid. I shouldn't hold my breath, I know someone is going to buy into this nonsense.
I'm not sure on this, but I'd wager that this will seriously hurt their business and they'll change if they want to survive.
And I bet the Giant's offense won't just hand the ball over to Baltimore. What a bunch of bad guys they are.
This comment is ridiculous. Microsoft has a myriad of API's in Windows that they keep to themselves. This gives them a serious upperhand over other software developers and it's unfair because they are a monopoly. Not to mention that your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they give the ball over, they no longer have the ball. And comparing the ball to source is also silly. I am not saying Microsoft give up Windows for free, I am saying that they document their API's so that other developers can use them to make better products. Sheesh. You must not have done well on the english section of your SATs.
Don't like the high price? Try to offer a similar product at a better price. That's what a free market is all about. There is nothing immoral about them charging as much as they like for an OS. You might counter that this takes money from the pockets of organizations like hospitals that offer lifesaving services. The counterpoint is that if they charged less it would reduce the quality of life of employees and stockholders, which can kill just as many people as bad health care (poverty is no better for your health than an x-ray machine that crashes, it just kills in a less dramatic fashion).
First of all, have you ever read any of the reasons the DOJ was going after Microsoft? Their OEM practices are deplorable. But I'll let you mill through archives for info on that. Yes, it is a very bad thing to over charge for an OS when you're monopolizing. Try a similar product? There is much to choose from, but you still have to support the mainstream. If Dell or Compaq suddenly decided that they cannot afford Microsoft's products, and go entirely with BSD, Linux, etc., they'd quickly run out of business because of the MS monopoly. In the medical business, you go to several different companies if you want to buy equipment. They quote you prices. You make your selection based on deals. You cannot do this with MS. The information to make a competing x-ray machine is open and available to everyone. It's in science journals. Designs are public knowledge. No one said "you cannot infringe upon our rights to make x-ray machines." However, Microsoft makes their design closed and unavailable so that no one can make an alternative (instead, we use clean room tactics to get as much as we can, hence WINE), therefore, there is no choice to try a similar product at a better price. If Microsoft turned open source, they'd still have a business. People would choose Microsoft as an authority on Windows, but other companies could make Windows-compatible alternatives that would be cheaper and perhaps even better (then again, the source is a mess).
Ugh. I should give up. People like you infuriate me so much that I can barely form a coherent arguement against your rebutal to my case of Microsoft's wrong-doings in their monopolizing, greedy, and certainly tyrannical business policies. I have nothing against capitalism, of course it's a great system. BUT, evolution cannot occur when there's only one way of doing things and no way to break out of it. And WHY must you go on with this clearly stupid view of OSS==socialism? Socialism is about everyone being equal and surviving equally regardless. OSS is about survival of the fittest! THINK!
Microsoft has many good things about them. But, they have a few critically bad things. These things should be the reasons we bash MS:
1. They monopolize the computer industry and stifle competition.
2. They do not open their source so that other developers can create software on an even playing field with them.
3. They are not responsive to fixing flaws in their systems that are discovered by the community at large.
4. They overcharge for their software and force their clients into a nasty, anti-competetive business relationship.
None of these are "bash Microsoft because their software sucks." Now, it's true that Windows is below par, but that's not the only thing they do.
Calm down. Poor quality software is the *worst* reason to bash a closed-source, inflexable, monopolizing corporation. Fundamental matters of principle carry a lot more weight.
Being a slack-to-Debian convert, I really don't see the point of this. There's many other places they could devote their energies... and somehow, this just seems to satisfy the deep-running, almost primal urge a lot of Linux junkies have to run Linux on every platform (even if it's already done). Nevertheless, I have to say "good work!" to the slack team for moving it to SPARC and Alpha so quickly!
** Gendou tosses in his $.02
And of course, other than just for the sake of shear beauty, using 3D accellerators to draw interfaces makes perfect sense. Most companies that make accellerated cards put a LOT more effort and design consideration into the accellerators, but not so much into the 2D accelleration. As a result, 3D graphics are rendered more quickly on just about all cards. Let's use that power for more than just games! :-)
Maybe they won't botch this like they did the DnD movie. :-)
That's going to happen to humanity eventually. We keep packing more and more into less and less (for example, more schooling in shorting time frame - you easily knew twice as much by your senior year in HS than your parents).
We're going to need to take the smaller and more trivial tasks off our hands. There will be no alternative. What's the solution? Certainly not a group of people engineer to be simple/stupid (Brave New World), but rather, machines.
Right now, robots are unfriendly, imposing, and insanely clumsy. We *need* them to be able to move and act naturally as we do. We need them to not be scary. We need them to be more fluid. They'll inevitably have to interact with us in a personal fashion.
And if you're still unconvinced, think about the applications of robotics technology with fluid, human-like motion in medicine. Wouldn't it be nice to give amputees brand new arms that move flawlessly when compared to the real thing?
I'm tired, so I'm not going to go on any longer... but wow, the possibilities!
Think about it, you couldn't just have loose bearings beneath you - you'd need something that held its position and could move any direction to correct your movement to make it feel as if you're on solid ground.
If you could make them about half the size of marbles, wow, the possibilities would be endless. That one idea of the spinning discs on tables to rearrange things is already outdated. This would rock!
Regardless of what their machines are capable of or whether or not their current OS crashes more than Doze, we owe a great deal to this company.
*shrug*
Does anybody else notice the similarities between this movie's "NURV" and the "NERV" from Evangelion? (Software called 'Synapse'? Geez, rip off!)
I don't think we should pay much attention to this silliness. Hollywood movie writers just aren't creative/intelligent enough to come up with anymore more original. Now, I'm not a republicrat and I'm as anti-war as the next guy, but it's getting incredibly old. *shrug*