Considering that IDlikes using OpenGL, I'm a bit surprised they aren't using Mesa, a free implementation of the OpenGL pipeline in software. Everyone who has XFree86 has it on their machine. It's reasonably fast, and gives you flexibility on platforms that either have no 3D accelerator, or have a much faster CPU.
The only reasons I could think of that they'd want to write their own would be:
They wanted to optimize for the only the operations they use. Their renderer performs no lighting calculations, for instance.
They can optimize for a specific operating system and processor. They use MMX instructions, for instance.
But that's about all I can come up with. And the compiler should optimize things for a given processor.
Anyone have any other ideas why they decided not to go with Mesa?
Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly...
I've enjoyed reading iht for a while now. When I see a news.google.com hit for it, I'll choose iht over other news sources, just because of the nice way it provides article reading.
There's something rather amusing about reading a Slashdot article about gaming increasing productivity while sitting at my desk at work, avoiding writing some annoying error-checking code...
And who do you think the FTC will allow to buy SCO? Letting Microsoft get its hands on the core technologies (assuming SCOs claims are valid) of its largest competitors is not something that a convicted monopolist will be allowed to do.
I wondered about that ship docking scene. It did seem rather gratuitous.
But after watching the Matrix: Revolutions trailer at the end, I've decided that it was merely setup for things we're going to see in the third movie. I believe that the battle for Zion is going to feature that docking bay in a big way. Rather than spend the time setting all that up in the third movie, they put it into the second movie.
One thing that really bothered me about that bay: there is one set of doors between the outside world and the "safe" docking bay. And the doors move really, really slowly. So slowly that they have to have these vulnerable mechanical walker dudes with guns protecting it while it's open. Why not have an "airlock" of two sets of doors? That would provide continuous security, while also allowing authorized access in and out.
Know someone with . in their path? echo "#!/bin/rm -f" > cat; chmod a+x cat
I've had . in my path for many years, and wouldn't do without it. It's at the end of my path, so there's no way you're going to spoof my "cat". It's only those who have . at the beginning of their path that get screwed.
And supposedly Tolkien was also disappointed that publishers of his day didn't recognize the Christian symbolism and allegories that he wrote into the LotR trilogy. Which do you believe?
I believe that Tolkien refrained from putting any explicit parallels into the story. But there are a lot of more subtle Christian themes that you can find with little effort.
I think the answer is more than just black or white.
Based on the criterion that the government should only tax that which it has a hand in, as it were, then you are probably also against many other taxes:
But I'll go a bit farther. How is the government supposed to pay for services it provides where there is no direct taxpayer involvement? The biggest ones that come to mind are law enforcement and military defense. How do you propose that those be paid for?
They then go on to explain that the argument is that OpenOffice and Linux will be less expensive than MS Office and Windows. Their attempt to debunk this is to say that OpenOffice is available on Windows.
Somehow this means that the "myth" is false? Their arguments don't stand to reason.
First off, the argument of Linux being less expensive is much, much larger than just the cost of an office productivity suite. It has to do with licensing, user support, applications, TCO, uptime, and all sorts of other things. Saying "OO is available on Windows. Q.E.D." is almost a non sequitur.
And how does saving money on an office suite, even if you don't migrate to Linux, mean that Linux costs more? It doesn't follow! If they argued other costs of migration (apps, user training, etc.), maybe they'd start down a logical line of argument. But the office suite argument is a dead end that doesn't lead to the conclusion that their headline would suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe there is: devolve. Look at verb, intransitive, definition 2: To degenerate or deteriorate gradually.
Oops! Duh.
The only reasons I could think of that they'd want to write their own would be:
- They wanted to optimize for the only the operations they use. Their renderer performs no lighting calculations, for instance.
- They can optimize for a specific operating system and processor. They use MMX instructions, for instance.
But that's about all I can come up with. And the compiler should optimize things for a given processor.Anyone have any other ideas why they decided not to go with Mesa?
Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly...
I've enjoyed reading iht for a while now. When I see a news.google.com hit for it, I'll choose iht over other news sources, just because of the nice way it provides article reading.
And I'm doing this all in Mozilla 1.3.
There's something rather amusing about reading a Slashdot article about gaming increasing productivity while sitting at my desk at work, avoiding writing some annoying error-checking code...
who do you think SCO will sell out to?
...or so I'd hope.
And who do you think the FTC will allow to buy SCO? Letting Microsoft get its hands on the core technologies (assuming SCOs claims are valid) of its largest competitors is not something that a convicted monopolist will be allowed to do.
And, in this example alone, you can end with:
5. Profit!
Interestingly enough, your steps are exactly what the Borg do with new species. There's a reason that MS is compared to them.
Cruithne
I wondered about that ship docking scene. It did seem rather gratuitous.
But after watching the Matrix: Revolutions trailer at the end, I've decided that it was merely setup for things we're going to see in the third movie. I believe that the battle for Zion is going to feature that docking bay in a big way. Rather than spend the time setting all that up in the third movie, they put it into the second movie.
One thing that really bothered me about that bay: there is one set of doors between the outside world and the "safe" docking bay. And the doors move really, really slowly. So slowly that they have to have these vulnerable mechanical walker dudes with guns protecting it while it's open. Why not have an "airlock" of two sets of doors? That would provide continuous security, while also allowing authorized access in and out.
Well, "l" is an alias/function in my shell. And chomd...hm. Don't know. I do type "wc-l" more often than I'd like to admit. :-)
I get your point. I'll have to think about that some more - see if I spend time in publically-writable directories. Not sure I do...
It's an interesting thing to think about, though. Thanks.
Know someone with . in their path?
echo "#!/bin/rm -f" > cat; chmod a+x cat
I've had . in my path for many years, and wouldn't do without it. It's at the end of my path, so there's no way you're going to spoof my "cat". It's only those who have . at the beginning of their path that get screwed.
Makes me wonder whether such a "mutation" could be a beneficial or detrimental thing, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And supposedly Tolkien was also disappointed that publishers of his day didn't recognize the Christian symbolism and allegories that he wrote into the LotR trilogy. Which do you believe?
I believe that Tolkien refrained from putting any explicit parallels into the story. But there are a lot of more subtle Christian themes that you can find with little effort.
I think the answer is more than just black or white.
I think the slashdot version would be:
/loo'zr/ n. ...
luser
A user; esp. one who is also a looser. (luser and looser are pronounced identically.)
Fair enough. It's certainly not Linux, by any stretch.
But there's a heck of lot of code out there. Supposedly there's a fairly active community contributing code back to Darwin.
And they're starting to release their source to other things, though the selection is pretty darn skimpy.
Full source code - oops.
Oops is right. You can find the source code here.
He forgot the closing ). Doesn't really affect his argument.
Your google skills are sorely lacking
No joke! The link in the post doesn't even connect to Google - it's a Yahoo link.
Based on the criterion that the government should only tax that which it has a hand in, as it were, then you are probably also against many other taxes:
+ Sales tax
+ Income tax
+ Fishing/hunting licenses
+ Gasoline taxes
+ "Sin" taxes
But I'll go a bit farther. How is the government supposed to pay for services it provides where there is no direct taxpayer involvement? The biggest ones that come to mind are law enforcement and military defense. How do you propose that those be paid for?
I thought I would loose it to the /. people.
Sorry, 2 slashdot demerits for using "loose" correctly. Go to the back of the line!
:-)
agreed.
-1: Wrong
It's the opposite of +1: Informative
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
They then go on to explain that the argument is that OpenOffice and Linux will be less expensive than MS Office and Windows. Their attempt to debunk this is to say that OpenOffice is available on Windows.
Somehow this means that the "myth" is false? Their arguments don't stand to reason.
First off, the argument of Linux being less expensive is much, much larger than just the cost of an office productivity suite. It has to do with licensing, user support, applications, TCO, uptime, and all sorts of other things. Saying "OO is available on Windows. Q.E.D." is almost a non sequitur.
And how does saving money on an office suite, even if you don't migrate to Linux, mean that Linux costs more? It doesn't follow! If they argued other costs of migration (apps, user training, etc.), maybe they'd start down a logical line of argument. But the office suite argument is a dead end that doesn't lead to the conclusion that their headline would suggest.
This article is mostly FUD.
Or deprivation, even! :-)
;-)
You'd think that anything that involved depravation might include his wife.