There's one known issue with the Linux dedicated server taking up way too much CPU time. As other known issues come to light we'll try to keep you all in the loop. Please try and email q3feedback with a good sensible subject line, mention what sort of system/OS you have, and remember that humans read all the feedback.
Yes you can see thru the portal, and yes fast sky turns this off. However, I noticed that in the new 1.05 carmack turned the portal around 180 so you face the wall when you teleport and you can't see whats going on anyway.
Well, its not playable, but it is useful for getting a dedicated linux server going on a machine that does not have a 3dfx card...
(mine is at 24.131.182.112:27960;-)
like they said on other posts you install libMesaGL but a step I saw somewhere that wasn't mentioned here (?) is to copy libMesaGL.so.3.1 to your/q3test directory as libGL.so
Once I did this it finally worked, then got a glorious.25 fps - but like I said, this was more useful to get a dedicated server to run on my linux server, my workstation has a v2 and sb128pci and I had absolutely no issues installing or playing q3test on that setup.
nVidia is supposed to release linux drivers for their TNT2 boards so that may be an option if you are adverse to 3dfx. (don't lets start the flame war over open source vs binary-only drivers again, I'm just making a comment, not advocating nVidia)
Sad indeed. I was one of the many that was put out when script kiddies blew up all the q2 servers and no one could play for a couple weeks. My only guess was 'sour grapes' where ppl didn't have enough hardware or good enough connection to be able to play, so they decided *noone* would play.
Dammit!! I had just took a big chug of pepsi when I started reading this post and wound up expelling 1/2 out my nostrils and sucking the other 1/2 down my windpipe! Medic!
Man that's funny! (now to mop off my kbd and screen, grrrr:-D )
There are some interesting questions and answers on the topic of Linus' position as 'posterboy' for Linux and his role as keeper of the kernel.
What would really happen if (God forbid, crosses himself) Linus got killed in a car crash tomorrow, or some other circumstance arose that precluded him from continuing to manage the kernel?
Sure, Linus says there are lots of people who are capable of overseeing the coordination of kernel development. He names Alan and David as people whom he trusts and I don't think many would argue that they aren't capable of doing the job or that they wouldn't have the respect in the community that Linus enjoys.
But I think the more interesting question might be the non-technical aspects to Linus' leadership and how those shoes could be filled in his sudden absence. Linus makes mention of the 'personality cult' that must go. At first my reaction was "why?", Linus is a popular figure and is admired, nay, revered by the community. How could this be an undesirable thing?
Maybe this is a good reason: so the community won't go through crippling emotional spasms if Linus has to give up control over the kernel for some reason.
What do you think? How would the community cope with the sudden absence of Linus Torvalds?
If noting else just to have it sitting on my desk so visitors have something worthwhile to read while waiting to talk to me!
Also, we have a habit of photo-copying dilbert and what-not strips and taping them to the boss's door when an appropriate situation comes up (boss does something similar to PHB) and I've often had a desire to find a UF but was too lazy to search through archives to find the one I want.
Re:How do I filter out Jon Katz? huh?
on
DOJ vs NSI
·
· Score: 1
1) this isn't a Katz thread 2) register as a user and then you can set your prefs to block out anything on the site
NSI's defense seems to be that the WHOIS data is 'intellectual property'.
>NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because >the company's original agreement with the National Science >Foundation specified that it would own any "intellectual >property" created by the address-registration business. "It's very >clear that we have the rights to this data,"
I guess my concept of intellectual property is flawed. I always think of it as an idea or invention or some other unique creation. Ok, their process, code, etc for accumulating this data and the way it is stored and communicated seem like obvious intellectual property, but this just seems like this is public information that they want to hold hostage?
My basis for this line of thinking comes from my own experience at work. We run a data processing service bureau, with some in-house applications that our clients use to run their business. Our system is proprietary and we guard our 'intellectual property' jealously. But, the data belongs to the client, who created it. We won't disclose interals of how we collect, store and distribute the data, but we have no ownership of the data and we are obligated to allow the customer access in any way they want (granted, we may charge a fee to deliver it in a way which is not already supported).
So, it appears to me that the public who is NSI's collective customer 'owns' the information in WHOIS. Do they have a legitimate legal claim of intellectual property?
>Mindcraft is a business, and as a business they only want the almighty buck. I seriously doubt they really care about publishing correct results.
Exactly. But I bet they care very much about the *appearance* of correct results. If they slant the results and get busted again, it is over for them. Microsoft cannot ever use them again. No one else will ever use them (that may already be the case).
They cannot allow anything but to have NT beat Linux by a decent margin, and have no wide perception that their methods were suspect. This is the only whay (IMHO) for Mindcraft to survive.
If this is the case, I think it would be best for any 'Linux experts' to boycott this re-re-test. I think we already have thoroughly discredited Microsoft and Mindcraft, and we should leave it at that. Microso~1 may try to spin it to look like Linux advocates were afraid to participate in a comparison they knew they would be beaten. This might be hard to combat but would be less damaging than 'we reran the tests with Linux experts and NT *still* won!'
Better to have some un-biased entity (I have no idea who this is?:-/ ) perform their own set of benchmarks, maybe on a variety of configurations, not just duplicating the Mindcraft test (which probably favors NT, regardless of the tuning).
Huh? He was not my 'mangler', he was a colleague who happened to be in charge of the project in the office. What neglegence? This is a 15 year old system that none of us were around when it was designed, but it used the same date conventions everyone else did in the 80's. This is a in-house developed 1-off system. The difficulty was in making the ppl who run the company to understand the nature of the problem (apparently they are not alone)
Well yes, I agree that it probably wouldn't affect the outcome at all. But, one of the FUD-elements coming out of that paper was that there was no centralized place to go for tuning support, which lends credence to the MS line that Linux is not-supported by any one entitiy, and you will be left high and dry when things go wrong.
Granted, tunelinux may or may not be the right answer for an end-all, be-all tuning resource, but had it existed (and yes, been chock-full of organized, meaningful, detailed information) there might have been one less FUD point to come out of the Mind-less-craft BS. (but maybe not:-)
With the examples of engineers, lawyers and doctors, isn't the presumption that an un-licensed practicioner could some how cause you greivous harm (bad engineer = bridge collapses killing hundreds, bad lawyer = innocent defendant goes to jail, is executed, bad doctor = dead patient)?
And then the control of a license is then intended to promote confidence of the public that bridges won't fall, laywers won't bungle your case, your doctor won't amputate your head?
Have we now elevated practice of software development to this level where we need assurance that the public will be safeguarded from incompetent code that will cause some serious damage? (like your spreadsheet program crashes every time you open another specific app and you must reboot wour win-tel PC, and after this happens the nth time, you jump out a 49th floor window?;-)
I wanted to pull a quote from memory about the Carlin skit where he says ' of words in the English language, and only 7 can't be said on TV. Man those must be some bad #^@%$@ words' or something to that effect. So, not wanting to come up with some arbitrary number, I look at the nearest source, my office edition dictionary, and see it has 60,000 definitions. That's enough research for me to make my point.
But noooo.... Somehow this turns into a pissing contest about how many words are actually conceibably (sp?) in a 20 volume dictionary, including compund permutations and crap like that.
Then this constructive quote:
"If you think your Dude's Handy Pocket Reference to English has every word in the language, such thoughts are gravely erroneous."
My response to that is "If you think that your observation is somehow relevant and contributory (sp?) to this discussion about censorship of internet domain names, such thoughts are gravely erroneous".:P
oh, bs! So you're telling me I have a dictionary that has on 6% of the words in the english language defined. hooey! Post some credible source, if you can. (i'm sure there are more than 60,000 words, but twice or ten times as many?)
I did'nt say *I* had anything better to do!:-) Oh, and the dictionary proclaims the number of definitions contained right on the cover, I didn't count them (duh).:-)
It now remember this, there was a court case where a radio station played this on the air and the ACLU went to court. The transcript of Carlin's bit is part of the legal record. Bet that made for an interesting day in court!
This is a logically sound argument... However, logic does not always factor as the prime motivation in business communication.
I had this same (sortof) argument with the manager over our company's y2k project. He kept referring to the problem as 'infection' and I confronted him that this was not a virus, or a bug, or a glitch, or a coding error but a design and/or convention problem.
He did not disagree with me on factual arguments, he understood the origin of this problem well enough (heck, he was a coder in the trenches with me back in the old days). He said the problem was trying to get the 'suits' to carry the proper mindset about the y2k project.
Calling it an infection or bug was something the PHB's could understand. Trying to use more accurate language just overran their buffers. I suspect Microsoft and others probably use the same terminology for the same reasons.
Hmm... isn't *lack* of statement more FUD that making a statement that turns out to be false later?
Seems more like "the last thing I want to do is provide any concrete information that customers will use to prepare themselves, which might get reversed on me later and get me into trouble"
Slashdot Mirror
They already know...
There's one known issue with the Linux dedicated server taking up way too much CPU time. As other known issues come to light we'll try to keep you all in the loop. Please try and email q3feedback with a good sensible subject line, mention what sort of system/OS you have, and remember that humans read all the feedback.
Yes you can see thru the portal, and yes fast sky turns this off. However, I noticed that in the new 1.05 carmack turned the portal around 180 so you face the wall when you teleport and you can't see whats going on anyway.
linux q3 notes
Well, its not playable, but it is useful for getting a dedicated linux server going on a machine that does not have a 3dfx card...
;-)
/q3test directory as libGL.so
.25 fps - but like I said, this was more useful to get a dedicated server to run on my linux server, my workstation has a v2 and sb128pci and I had absolutely no issues installing or playing q3test on that setup.
(mine is at 24.131.182.112:27960
like they said on other posts you install libMesaGL but a step I saw somewhere that wasn't mentioned here (?) is to copy libMesaGL.so.3.1 to your
Once I did this it finally worked, then got a glorious
nVidia is supposed to release linux drivers for their TNT2 boards so that may be an option if you are adverse to 3dfx. (don't lets start the flame war over open source vs binary-only drivers again, I'm just making a comment, not advocating nVidia)
what kind of loser takes down a game server?
Sad indeed. I was one of the many that was put out when script kiddies blew up all the q2 servers and no one could play for a couple weeks. My only guess was 'sour grapes' where ppl didn't have enough hardware or good enough connection to be able to play, so they decided *noone* would play.
Dammit!! I had just took a big chug of pepsi when I started reading this post and wound up expelling 1/2 out my nostrils and sucking the other 1/2 down my windpipe! Medic!
:-D )
Man that's funny! (now to mop off my kbd and screen, grrrr
(does sp715 make me look fat?)
There are some interesting questions and answers on the topic of Linus' position as 'posterboy' for Linux and his role as keeper of the kernel.
What would really happen if (God forbid, crosses himself) Linus got killed in a car crash tomorrow, or some other circumstance arose that precluded him from continuing to manage the kernel?
Sure, Linus says there are lots of people who are capable of overseeing the coordination of kernel development. He names Alan and David as people whom he trusts and I don't think many would argue that they aren't capable of doing the job or that they wouldn't have the respect in the community that Linus enjoys.
But I think the more interesting question might be the non-technical aspects to Linus' leadership and how those shoes could be filled in his sudden absence. Linus makes mention of the 'personality cult' that must go. At first my reaction was "why?", Linus is a popular figure and is admired, nay, revered by the community. How could this be an undesirable thing?
Maybe this is a good reason: so the community won't go through crippling emotional spasms if Linus has to give up control over the kernel for some reason.
What do you think? How would the community cope with the sudden absence of Linus Torvalds?
If noting else just to have it sitting on my desk so visitors have something worthwhile to read while waiting to talk to me!
Also, we have a habit of photo-copying dilbert and what-not strips and taping them to the boss's door when an appropriate situation comes up (boss does something similar to PHB) and I've often had a desire to find a UF but was too lazy to search through archives to find the one I want.
1) this isn't a Katz thread
2) register as a user and then you can set your prefs to block out anything on the site
:-D
NSI's defense seems to be that the WHOIS data is 'intellectual property'.
>NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because
>the company's original agreement with the National Science
>Foundation specified that it would own any "intellectual
>property" created by the address-registration business. "It's very
>clear that we have the rights to this data,"
I guess my concept of intellectual property is flawed. I always think of it as an idea or invention or some other unique creation. Ok, their process, code, etc for accumulating this data and the way it is stored and communicated seem like obvious intellectual property, but this just seems like this is public information that they want to hold hostage?
My basis for this line of thinking comes from my own experience at work. We run a data processing service bureau, with some in-house applications that our clients use to run their business. Our system is proprietary and we guard our 'intellectual property' jealously. But, the data belongs to the client, who created it. We won't disclose interals of how we collect, store and distribute the data, but we have no ownership of the data and we are obligated to allow the customer access in any way they want (granted, we may charge a fee to deliver it in a way which is not already supported).
So, it appears to me that the public who is NSI's collective customer 'owns' the information in WHOIS. Do they have a legitimate legal claim of intellectual property?
>Mindcraft is a business, and as a business they only want the almighty buck. I seriously doubt they really care about publishing correct results.
:-/ ) perform their own set of benchmarks, maybe on a variety of configurations, not just duplicating the Mindcraft test (which probably favors NT, regardless of the tuning).
Exactly. But I bet they care very much about the *appearance* of correct results. If they slant the results and get busted again, it is over for them. Microsoft cannot ever use them again. No one else will ever use them (that may already be the case).
They cannot allow anything but to have NT beat Linux by a decent margin, and have no wide perception that their methods were suspect. This is the only whay (IMHO) for Mindcraft to survive.
If this is the case, I think it would be best for any 'Linux experts' to boycott this re-re-test. I think we already have thoroughly discredited Microsoft and Mindcraft, and we should leave it at that. Microso~1 may try to spin it to look like Linux advocates were afraid to participate in a comparison they knew they would be beaten. This might be hard to combat but would be less damaging than 'we reran the tests with Linux experts and NT *still* won!'
Better to have some un-biased entity (I have no idea who this is?
Huh? He was not my 'mangler', he was a colleague who happened to be in charge of the project in the office. What neglegence? This is a 15 year old system that none of us were around when it was designed, but it used the same date conventions everyone else did in the 80's. This is a in-house developed 1-off system. The difficulty was in making the ppl who run the company to understand the nature of the problem (apparently they are not alone)
Sorry, I don't get the point of your question.
Well yes, I agree that it probably wouldn't affect the outcome at all. But, one of the FUD-elements coming out of that paper was that there was no centralized place to go for tuning support, which lends credence to the MS line that Linux is not-supported by any one entitiy, and you will be left high and dry when things go wrong.
:-)
Granted, tunelinux may or may not be the right answer for an end-all, be-all tuning resource, but had it existed (and yes, been chock-full of organized, meaningful, detailed information) there might have been one less FUD point to come out of the Mind-less-craft BS. (but maybe not
someone gave out an ip of
http://193.243.238.236
but this resolves to custard.org
Funny how some can get this but not others. Tought it was my proxy but must be some nameserver issue somewhere.
With the examples of engineers, lawyers and doctors, isn't the presumption that an un-licensed practicioner could some how cause you greivous harm (bad engineer = bridge collapses killing hundreds, bad lawyer = innocent defendant goes to jail, is executed, bad doctor = dead patient)?
;-)
And then the control of a license is then intended to promote confidence of the public that bridges won't fall, laywers won't bungle your case, your doctor won't amputate your head?
Have we now elevated practice of software development to this level where we need assurance that the public will be safeguarded from incompetent code that will cause some serious damage? (like your spreadsheet program crashes every time you open another specific app and you must reboot wour win-tel PC, and after this happens the nth time, you jump out a 49th floor window?
Wow this has really gotten out of hand.
:P
I wanted to pull a quote from memory about the Carlin skit where he says ' of words in the English language, and only 7 can't be said on TV. Man those must be some bad #^@%$@ words' or something to that effect. So, not wanting to come up with some arbitrary number, I look at the nearest source, my office edition dictionary, and see it has 60,000 definitions. That's enough research for me to make my point.
But noooo.... Somehow this turns into a pissing contest about how many words are actually conceibably (sp?) in a 20 volume dictionary, including compund permutations and crap like that.
Then this constructive quote:
"If you think your Dude's Handy Pocket Reference to English has every word in the language, such thoughts are gravely erroneous."
My response to that is "If you think that your observation is somehow relevant and contributory (sp?) to this discussion about censorship of internet domain names, such thoughts are gravely erroneous".
What about the town of Norfuck in Virginia?
oh, bs! So you're telling me I have a dictionary that has on 6% of the words in the english language defined. hooey! Post some credible source, if you can. (i'm sure there are more than 60,000 words, but twice or ten times as many?)
I did'nt say *I* had anything better to do! :-) :-)
:-/
Oh, and the dictionary proclaims the number of definitions contained right on the cover, I didn't count them (duh).
(god i'm in a pissy mood today)
This is funny, I found a link
http://www.aclu.org/court/pacifica.html#append
It now remember this, there was a court case where a radio station played this on the air and the ACLU went to court. The transcript of Carlin's bit is part of the legal record. Bet that made for an interesting day in court!
Oh, and where can I get definitions for the 940,000 words that are not defined in my American Heritage Dictionary (office edition)?
Be anal all you want :-) if you have notheing better to do!
I was just going by the paperback american heritage dictionary I have here on my desk which has '60,000' definitions.
Heh, it mentions the George Carlin "Seven dirty Words" bit, I'm looking now for a link to the monologue (sp?).
..."
60,000 words in the English language, 7 can't be said on TV, Man, those must be some $%*@#!$ bad words!
The stuff I like best are the borderline words that are okay in some contexts...
"its okay to prick your finger, but you better not finger your
This is a logically sound argument...
However, logic does not always factor as the prime motivation in business communication.
I had this same (sortof) argument with the manager over our company's y2k project. He kept referring to the problem as 'infection' and I confronted him that this was not a virus, or a bug, or a glitch, or a coding error but a design and/or convention problem.
He did not disagree with me on factual arguments, he understood the origin of this problem well enough (heck, he was a coder in the trenches with me back in the old days). He said the problem was trying to get the 'suits' to carry the proper mindset about the y2k project.
Calling it an infection or bug was something the PHB's could understand. Trying to use more accurate language just overran their buffers. I suspect Microsoft and others probably use the same terminology for the same reasons.
Hmm... isn't *lack* of statement more FUD that making a statement that turns out to be false later?
Seems more like "the last thing I want to do is provide any concrete information that customers will use to prepare themselves, which might get reversed on me later and get me into trouble"