Yeah, maybe Final Doom, because that was released around the time of Quake II. A lot of companies these days put their entire staff into the credits, even those who did not work on the game. Final Doom was an expansion-pack on top of DOOM V1.8, which was released before Abrash joined Id around the time of Quake.
That's how I remember it, anyway, and I have done a fair bit of business with the boys at Id.
The economy is a complex system with an emergent purpose and not a defined purpose. Saying it has a defined purpose is simply wrong, whichever school of economic philosophy you subscribe to.
The purpose emerges as an effect of the interactions of billions of people, as I said. A single person cannot make a choice as to which direction the economy goes. To claim otherwise is to be a fool.
Making this statement is not tantamount to propounding Randian capitalist philosophy, any more than saying "Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction" (an arguable fact) is tantamount to suggesting we rise up and sieze the state through violent means.
You know, that's pretty smart thinking, and I have to concur. I'm just impatient;)
Look at BSD and Mac OS X - that's a great example of starting with something free and making something innovative on top.
I was thinking this way myself, regarding bootstrapping a QoS media OS. I started writing one 5 years ago, on top of RISC OS. That turned out to be a little pointless, as RISC OS plummeted from "almost no users" to "actually no users" a little later;)
The great thing about RISC OS, compared with Linux, is that it's a single-tasking modular OS. That's bad for a production-quality OS, but if you want to bootstrap your own OS on top, it's actually the best thing you could have. You can run your own IRQ code for scheduling and device access, while the rest of the system happily continues.
I'm currently looking at bootstrapping my stuff onto OpenBSD (preferable license terms to Linux). The difficulty here is that the OpenBSD kernel is damned complex and it's not easy to just patch in a new "idea" without becoming involved in fixing a lot of other code. I know the Linux kernel is equally complex; possibly more so. So whereas it looks like OpenBSD or Linux should be a good starting point for creating truly novel OS architectures, the line is effectively drawn at the user-kernel interface. I know some people have added RTOS support to both OSes, though, so it's obviously possible to do some groovy things. [Incidentally, which free OS would you say has the best kernel docs? I can't find *anything* on the OpenBSD kernel architecture, other than the source code;) How's Linux for that?]
So although you've got an interesting perspective, I don't think the original designers intended this at all. If Linus wanted Linux to be just a stop-gap on the way to designing future OSs, he would have used a more easily extensible design, especially in the low-level kernel stuff. But, instead, he chose the design which gave maximum system performance at the expense of easily trying out new ideas. *BSD is the same.
But I do take your point. Linux is moving faster than Windows, so maybe someday soon it'll overtake it.
YHNBT. I don't know what makes a troll a troll, but trolling was not my intent. I just write the truth as I see it - you don't have to agree, but writing it off as a "troll" seems to be a pretty easy way to ignore the content.
Maybe I'm the only person who reads this site regularly who finds UNIX passe. In the lust for "openness" have people forgotten to drive for cool NEW things? It makes me sad that this generation is spending so much time re-inventing what's already been done perfectly well a hundred times already. The Linux community expends a God-awful amount of effort trying to beat Microsoft at its own game, when instead they could be outflanking Microsoft with actually superior technology.
Anyway, I don't know if the ideas expressed are new. But if there's other people with these same opinions, feel free to hook us up. Maybe I can get a band of programmers together to do something interesting and open-source.
WARNING: contains content not in keeping with the beliefs of the Linux religion. This post should be censored by moderating it down.
The problem with Open Source, is that it is manifestly all just re-inventing the wheel. GNOME/KDE are re-inventing the GUI wheel (with few new ideas thrown in). The kernels are re-inventing the inode/process/threads wheel.
There is absolutely no new research [I'll make an exception for those brilliant Ogg Vorbis coders]. And it is new research which is going to free programmers from re-inventing the wheel, because current language idioms fail spectacularly in re-use. [And GNU/Linux is based on old language idioms from C - it isn't even up-to-date with advances like C++ which improve code re-use somewhat, but still don't solve the problem. Still, the coders can sit back and pretend that OOP can be done effectively in C].
Unfortunately, the only way for research to happen is by funding, and the only way to fund research is to make a profit on your development. Microsoft knows this.
So expect Microsoft to come out with a bunch of new ideas in the next 10 years, and expect Linux to re-invent them (with a few extra bells and whistles) in the next 15. I submitted a story a year ago about one of Microsoft's initiatives - Intentional Programming. This shows real possibilities for write-once, compile-anywhere coding.
How about kernel-level QoS on media streams? I want to say "Sound card: you're using 16-sample blocks; soft-synth: you're calculating all the samples by this deadline; hard-drive: you're fetching a 10Gb multitrack file at this rate with blocks coming in for an earlier deadline so the soft-synth can process the data". And I want my httpd to be serving pages at the same time.
If Linux could do this, it truly would be a world-class OS. But it might require the kernel coders to get out of their 70s system designers' rut and start thinking about some tough new problems whose solution isn't immediately apparent.
You highlight a cell in a 2D or 3D space. Then you run the algorithm: for each highlighted cell, highlight its neighbours. The algorithm takes 1 unit of time. How many cells are highlighted after time T?
The answer, of course, is polynomial in T, and *not* exponential at all. For exponential growth the cells must move apart; in this algorithm, the early cells are quickly surrounded by other cells and can do no more work.
Managers are closer to the real constraints, but act as if the constraints determine their actions. Managers should be trying to optimize a benefit function within the constraint of cost; instead, they optimize the cost/benefit function with no constraints. It's not just mathematically inaccurate - it doesn't work.
Since when did the economy have a post-hoc rationalization attached? The economy isn't a designed entity, it just is. It's the word we give to the trillions of financial transactions which go on every day, from giving a buck to a bum, to paying a hundred million for a majority share in a multinational.
To say "The economy exists to..." is a non-sequiteur of the highest order. It's like giving the universe a purpose.
Say what you will about Steve Jobs and NeXT, but you won't see their like again in your lifetime
A hard statement to justify, given that the PC industry is just 20 years old, many people here weren't even born when the first IBM PC came out, and most people live to 70 or 80;)
I know this is going to sound like a really stupid question, but what exactly does it mean to say you "have a strong work ethic"? Does it mean any more than just to say "I don't mind working long hours if there's a big deadline ahead"? Who isn't going to say that at interview? What kind of indications is a potential employer looking for that you have a strong work ethic?
I'm waiting for a build so I had time to read all 19 pages.
Imagine Media published an unofficial strategy guide, including over 100 screenshots which, when pieced together, represent a large proportion of the Pokemon world. They included 250 images of Pokemon characters. They copied the cover style of the official strategy guides completely, adding merely the words "100% UNOFFICIAL". And then they added a copyright notice claiming all of that was their own creation.
I think Nintendo have a pretty good case against them. Fair use this ain't.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how I remember it, anyway, and I have done a fair bit of business with the boys at Id.
The purpose emerges as an effect of the interactions of billions of people, as I said. A single person cannot make a choice as to which direction the economy goes. To claim otherwise is to be a fool.
Making this statement is not tantamount to propounding Randian capitalist philosophy, any more than saying "Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction" (an arguable fact) is tantamount to suggesting we rise up and sieze the state through violent means.
Look at BSD and Mac OS X - that's a great example of starting with something free and making something innovative on top.
I was thinking this way myself, regarding bootstrapping a QoS media OS. I started writing one 5 years ago, on top of RISC OS. That turned out to be a little pointless, as RISC OS plummeted from "almost no users" to "actually no users" a little later ;)
The great thing about RISC OS, compared with Linux, is that it's a single-tasking modular OS. That's bad for a production-quality OS, but if you want to bootstrap your own OS on top, it's actually the best thing you could have. You can run your own IRQ code for scheduling and device access, while the rest of the system happily continues.
I'm currently looking at bootstrapping my stuff onto OpenBSD (preferable license terms to Linux). The difficulty here is that the OpenBSD kernel is damned complex and it's not easy to just patch in a new "idea" without becoming involved in fixing a lot of other code. I know the Linux kernel is equally complex; possibly more so. So whereas it looks like OpenBSD or Linux should be a good starting point for creating truly novel OS architectures, the line is effectively drawn at the user-kernel interface. I know some people have added RTOS support to both OSes, though, so it's obviously possible to do some groovy things. [Incidentally, which free OS would you say has the best kernel docs? I can't find *anything* on the OpenBSD kernel architecture, other than the source code ;) How's Linux for that?]
So although you've got an interesting perspective, I don't think the original designers intended this at all. If Linus wanted Linux to be just a stop-gap on the way to designing future OSs, he would have used a more easily extensible design, especially in the low-level kernel stuff. But, instead, he chose the design which gave maximum system performance at the expense of easily trying out new ideas. *BSD is the same.
But I do take your point. Linux is moving faster than Windows, so maybe someday soon it'll overtake it.
Overtaking Windows would be cool.
Erk. I hope so ;)
Maybe I'm the only person who reads this site regularly who finds UNIX passe. In the lust for "openness" have people forgotten to drive for cool NEW things? It makes me sad that this generation is spending so much time re-inventing what's already been done perfectly well a hundred times already. The Linux community expends a God-awful amount of effort trying to beat Microsoft at its own game, when instead they could be outflanking Microsoft with actually superior technology.
Anyway, I don't know if the ideas expressed are new. But if there's other people with these same opinions, feel free to hook us up. Maybe I can get a band of programmers together to do something interesting and open-source.
Funnily enough, sharing object code between applications actually reduces bloat.
The problem with Open Source, is that it is manifestly all just re-inventing the wheel. GNOME/KDE are re-inventing the GUI wheel (with few new ideas thrown in). The kernels are re-inventing the inode/process/threads wheel.
There is absolutely no new research [I'll make an exception for those brilliant Ogg Vorbis coders]. And it is new research which is going to free programmers from re-inventing the wheel, because current language idioms fail spectacularly in re-use. [And GNU/Linux is based on old language idioms from C - it isn't even up-to-date with advances like C++ which improve code re-use somewhat, but still don't solve the problem. Still, the coders can sit back and pretend that OOP can be done effectively in C].
Unfortunately, the only way for research to happen is by funding, and the only way to fund research is to make a profit on your development. Microsoft knows this.
So expect Microsoft to come out with a bunch of new ideas in the next 10 years, and expect Linux to re-invent them (with a few extra bells and whistles) in the next 15. I submitted a story a year ago about one of Microsoft's initiatives - Intentional Programming. This shows real possibilities for write-once, compile-anywhere coding.
The story was rejected, naturally.
So send your outbound email to their SMTP server. Bingo!
OTOH, I thought I'd mention it, since the Linux community has so much more bandwidth than me, but so few new ideas.
If Linux could do this, it truly would be a world-class OS. But it might require the kernel coders to get out of their 70s system designers' rut and start thinking about some tough new problems whose solution isn't immediately apparent.
The answer, of course, is polynomial in T, and *not* exponential at all. For exponential growth the cells must move apart; in this algorithm, the early cells are quickly surrounded by other cells and can do no more work.
Managers are closer to the real constraints, but act as if the constraints determine their actions. Managers should be trying to optimize a benefit function within the constraint of cost; instead, they optimize the cost/benefit function with no constraints. It's not just mathematically inaccurate - it doesn't work.
No, everyone thinks that Managers are these 'super-idiots' who can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Interesting story, but it doesn't even qualify as a metaphor. Can't philosophy professors do a little better than this?
That's demonstrable nonsense. Look at NeXT.
To say "The economy exists to ..." is a non-sequiteur of the highest order. It's like giving the universe a purpose.
The Acorn Archimedes kicked the crap out of the Amiga.
A hard statement to justify, given that the PC industry is just 20 years old, many people here weren't even born when the first IBM PC came out, and most people live to 70 or 80 ;)
I remain optimistic.
Secondly, these web sites are not adaptive anyway. They require external agents to change their content.
If a web site wrote itself, now *that* would be adaptive ;)
Why, Super Turbo Pokemon Alpha, of course ;)
I know this is going to sound like a really stupid question, but what exactly does it mean to say you "have a strong work ethic"? Does it mean any more than just to say "I don't mind working long hours if there's a big deadline ahead"? Who isn't going to say that at interview? What kind of indications is a potential employer looking for that you have a strong work ethic?
Can you really solve a halting problem? ;)
Whatever.
Some states (e.g. CA) prohibit ownership of IP which is done off-site and off-hours.
Imagine Media published an unofficial strategy guide, including over 100 screenshots which, when pieced together, represent a large proportion of the Pokemon world. They included 250 images of Pokemon characters. They copied the cover style of the official strategy guides completely, adding merely the words "100% UNOFFICIAL". And then they added a copyright notice claiming all of that was their own creation.
I think Nintendo have a pretty good case against them. Fair use this ain't.