The closed platform makes all the difference and makes it much much easier to make a game appear to be "polished"
Gawd, you heard that so often that you thougth it must be true, right?
And you have never programmed anything more complicated than a VCR, right?
If you were a programmer you would know that you just program to an API and it's irrelevant what software/hardware sits behind this API. For example OpenGL runs on all 3 important systems for 3D-graphics: Linux (not important in gaming, but very in 3D modelling), PS2 and Windows.
Actually, that's exactly what happened in my case. I even got my old Athlon650 with a Win98-install, but I don't even boot it anymore because it's just too much hassle. (And it can't run the newest games anyway and I won't reboot my main machine)
No, it's not about the kernel. Linux itself is ready and usable, most standard hardware works out of the box and is configured graphically and easily.
Of course if you use some more exotic hardware, you might have to run an installer or manually do things - just like in Windows.
So, yes, Linux itself has been ready for (a few) years. We need 3rd party support, ie that stupid vendor needs to include the install-script on the CD (or homepage).
My point is:
Linux itself is ready, there is no change needed to Linux.
Oh, sure there's loads of peripheral software and support missing making it unusable as an operating but it's not Linux's fault!
Nonsense. Almost every hardware works right out of the box, missing Linux support has become the exception, not the rule.
And did I mention that Windows XP has also quite a fair share of unsupported hardware?
So according to your theory Windows XP is unusable because it doesn't support some hardware?
And never mind MacOSX, that must be the most unusable OS of all...
The ONLY thing missing for desktop Linux is apps, especially games, but also some business apps.
There is NOTHING wrong with KDE/Linux itself. A good distro like SuSE or Mandrake will be as easy to use as Windows and even a mediocre distro like RedHat made huge progress lately in that department. There is no desktop-centric setting left that can't be configured with the mouse. That you have to mangle with text files is about as likely as having to mangle the registry in Windows (that means: It can happen in some cases but normally shouldn't)
Absolutely no big change is needed to Linux itself.
What we need is better marketing, less "Linux is sooo hard" prejudices and especially more apps.
In the end, Linux will go the same way as Windows NT, the home-desktop will be the last step, not the first.
Wrong, Microsoft cares very much because WinCE should become "the standard" on embedded devices and appliances.
After the recent filings from Microsoft, we can savely say that every project Microsoft has started after 1990 is losing money: WinCE, MSN, XBox, even Mice and keyboards!
Microsoft is losing everything they recently built up and is reduced to desktop-Windows/x86 and Office/Windows. Everything else is going down the drain.
So in short you say that you are smart enough to use Window's graphical graphics settings panel but too dumb to use SuSE's or Mandrake's graphics settings panel?
I think it seems just as reasonable to think that in the same amount of time either KDE, Gnome, or Enlightenment will provide desktop environments that can rival anything MS can provide, and for absolutely no cost.
KDE provides everything the WindowsGUI does and much more RIGHT NOW and has done so for quite some time.
Well, I think there are a couple of reasons. First, PalmOS has a big library of apps (unlike OS/2), then Palm is several magnitudes lower on the "evil corp" scale than IBM. Sony certainly isn't afraid of Palm, even though they use their OS. And third, despite still being the market leader, Palm has gotten quite some heat lately from WinCE, so they just can't afford to fuck over their partners.
But in general, yes I think that Palm makes PDAs is the biggest disadvantage in using it for 3rd party vendors.
So what you are saying is that Compaq/HP/Dell never use IBM disk drives?
IBM disk drives are following standards. Using IBM drives does not make Compaq/HP/Dell/whoever dependent on IBM, they can switch to another vendor anytime because IBM does not control neither the IDE nor the SCSI platform.
Using OS/2 on the other hand, would make them dependent on IBM, because IBM obviously controls the OS/2 platform and you can't get an OS/2 compatible system from some other company.
Which is why BeOS had a 10+ year life span that brought in billions of dollars for Be...
Well, first OS/2 hardly made billions of dollars. Maybe a few million, if that. Secondly, OS/2 lived so long because it was used on IBM's own hardware.
The best marketing in the world couldn't have saved OS/2.
Imagine you are a PC maker, what operating system would you prefer: An OS made by some evil corporation or an OS made by some evil corporation which is also your competitor?
Compaq/HP/Dell whoever will never use an OS controlled by IBM and IBM will never use an OS controlled by Compaq/HP/Dell/someotherPCmaker.
BeOS had bigger chances of succeeding than OS/2...
Actually I think this is rather obvious. Why there are so many people crawling around claiming OS/2 failed because of poor marketing or too good Windows compatibility is beyound me.
Here's the deal: a switch from IRIX to Linux doesn't mean a fucking thing. They've switched from one variant of Unix to another. What was gained in the end? A net gain overall for Unix of not a fucking thing. Zero.
Well, there were several things gained:
Many studios were switching or were planning to switch to Windows NT. That was stopped.
Linux reunites Unix. Less compatibility problems, better 3rd party support, 'nuff said.
Linux is easily available. Nobody can easily try out Irix. It costs a lot. Linux, on the other hand is everywhere and makes it much easier for startups.
I see the story on servers repeated:
1) First, many switch from Unix to Windows.
2) Then, many switch from Unix to Linux.
3) Then, many switch from Windows to Linux.
On servers, we are on stage 3), in the movie industrie we are on stage 2). Just wait another 2 years and we will see massive Windows to Linux switches.
Some hairsplitters say that Linux is not Unix because the kernel is not the same codebase.
Well MacOSX uses a Mach kernel, which is not even remotely a Unix kernel.
I will start to consider MacOSX a Unix when they
support more than one desktop out of the box. Currently, it's the "run only one app at a time"-Windows feeling, not the "I got all my 16 desktops stuffed with apps"-Unix feeling.
support 3-button mice. Really, not half-assed. Also they would actually have to ship those mice so that apps start to support them too. I want to middle-click a scrollbar and the handle shall jump where I clicked. I want to push windows into the background with the middle mouse button. And the KDE-like acceleration key for faster resizing and moving would also come handy.
support pasting with the middle mouse button
support X apps out of the box
Yes, I tried it. Yes, the animations are nifty, the first half hour I used it, I was stunned, it felt great. After 2 hours I got used to it and after 4 hours the animations are just slowing you down. (BTW, any way to tell MacOSX not to animate the "minimize window" action? It gives me choices for 2 types of animations, but no "no animation" choice. That's one of the things that annoy me most) Also, the dock is rather counterproductive. The icons wander around depending on how many apps you are running, it's not funny.
To get some actual work done, I prefer KDE/Linux over MacOSX any time. MacOSX may barely beat the Windows GUI (also a matter of preference, I guess), but it's still miles away in the usability (note that usability does not equate demoability and eye-candy) department to KDE or even GNOME.
I see so many computers that only run one application. In a bar I saw a laptop running Winamp for the music - and nothing else. On my campus, there are lots of computers running only a browser - and nothing else. And lots of people only run a browser, wordprocessing and
Can any of the Microsoft fanboys tell my why anybody should pay the 100$ extra for Windows in these cases?
Actually I don't get why this would be such a great thing. I mean why not download the whole track? The bandwidth you save because of the already downloaded bits from your low-quality sample is neglegtible.
But for streaming and portable players, it's sure great.
Please explain how a train with a theoretical maximum standard speed of 500km/h is faster than a plane which cruises at 1000km/h.
Well, first planes cruise at about 800 to 900 km/h and second 500km/h is not the theoretical maximum at all. Once you go magnetic (like Transrapid) there is not really a limit anymore. It is possible that in 20 years Transrapid trains can go as fast as planes or even faster. (Faster than sound could be a problem, though.)
but once the distance exceeds about 400km (around 250 miles), the plane starts winning all races.
What?
At 500km/h, 400km is less than an hour. Al the check-in, check-out, etc. takes longer than an hour. Also the train station is usually closer than the airport (also at the destination)
So in your 400km example, I'm already at the destination, while you are just taking off the airport.
Slashdot Mirror
Gawd, you heard that so often that you thougth it must be true, right?
And you have never programmed anything more complicated than a VCR, right?
If you were a programmer you would know that you just program to an API and it's irrelevant what software/hardware sits behind this API. For example OpenGL runs on all 3 important systems for 3D-graphics: Linux (not important in gaming, but very in 3D modelling), PS2 and Windows.
Of course if you use some more exotic hardware, you might have to run an installer or manually do things - just like in Windows.
So, yes, Linux itself has been ready for (a few) years. We need 3rd party support, ie that stupid vendor needs to include the install-script on the CD (or homepage).
My point is:
Linux itself is ready, there is no change needed to Linux.
Oh, sure there's loads of peripheral software and support missing making it unusable as an operating but it's not Linux's fault!
Nonsense. Almost every hardware works right out of the box, missing Linux support has become the exception, not the rule.
And did I mention that Windows XP has also quite a fair share of unsupported hardware?
So according to your theory Windows XP is unusable because it doesn't support some hardware?
And never mind MacOSX, that must be the most unusable OS of all...
Wow, there was no change needed to be made for Linux.
Yes, 3rd party support isn't as good on Linux, but 1) it got a lot better lately and 2) that's not a technical or usability problem within Linux.
WinCE and Win-embedded are only getting a part of former DOS-users and almost no real new users, in sum they are losing marketshare.
What changes dammit?
The ONLY thing missing for desktop Linux is apps, especially games, but also some business apps.
There is NOTHING wrong with KDE/Linux itself. A good distro like SuSE or Mandrake will be as easy to use as Windows and even a mediocre distro like RedHat made huge progress lately in that department. There is no desktop-centric setting left that can't be configured with the mouse. That you have to mangle with text files is about as likely as having to mangle the registry in Windows (that means: It can happen in some cases but normally shouldn't)
Absolutely no big change is needed to Linux itself.
What we need is better marketing, less "Linux is sooo hard" prejudices and especially more apps.
In the end, Linux will go the same way as Windows NT, the home-desktop will be the last step, not the first.
After the recent filings from Microsoft, we can savely say that every project Microsoft has started after 1990 is losing money: WinCE, MSN, XBox, even Mice and keyboards!
Microsoft is losing everything they recently built up and is reduced to desktop-Windows/x86 and Office/Windows. Everything else is going down the drain.
Wow.
KDE provides everything the WindowsGUI does and much more RIGHT NOW and has done so for quite some time.
But in general, yes I think that Palm makes PDAs is the biggest disadvantage in using it for 3rd party vendors.
IBM disk drives are following standards. Using IBM drives does not make Compaq/HP/Dell/whoever dependent on IBM, they can switch to another vendor anytime because IBM does not control neither the IDE nor the SCSI platform.
Using OS/2 on the other hand, would make them dependent on IBM, because IBM obviously controls the OS/2 platform and you can't get an OS/2 compatible system from some other company.
Which is why BeOS had a 10+ year life span that brought in billions of dollars for Be...
Well, first OS/2 hardly made billions of dollars. Maybe a few million, if that. Secondly, OS/2 lived so long because it was used on IBM's own hardware.
Imagine you are a PC maker, what operating system would you prefer: An OS made by some evil corporation or an OS made by some evil corporation which is also your competitor?
Compaq/HP/Dell whoever will never use an OS controlled by IBM and IBM will never use an OS controlled by Compaq/HP/Dell/someotherPCmaker.
BeOS had bigger chances of succeeding than OS/2...
Actually I think this is rather obvious. Why there are so many people crawling around claiming OS/2 failed because of poor marketing or too good Windows compatibility is beyound me.
That reminds me of the Simpsons-episode in which Homer did the same thing...
No, this post doesn't have a point.
Well, there were several things gained:
I see the story on servers repeated:
1) First, many switch from Unix to Windows.
2) Then, many switch from Unix to Linux.
3) Then, many switch from Windows to Linux.
On servers, we are on stage 3), in the movie industrie we are on stage 2). Just wait another 2 years and we will see massive Windows to Linux switches.
Yeah, rrrright. Because Steve sais so, right?
Some hairsplitters say that Linux is not Unix because the kernel is not the same codebase.
Well MacOSX uses a Mach kernel, which is not even remotely a Unix kernel.
I will start to consider MacOSX a Unix when they
support 3-button mice. Really, not half-assed. Also they would actually have to ship those mice so that apps start to support them too. I want to middle-click a scrollbar and the handle shall jump where I clicked. I want to push windows into the background with the middle mouse button. And the KDE-like acceleration key for faster resizing and moving would also come handy.
support pasting with the middle mouse button
support X apps out of the box
Yes, I tried it. Yes, the animations are nifty, the first half hour I used it, I was stunned, it felt great. After 2 hours I got used to it and after 4 hours the animations are just slowing you down. (BTW, any way to tell MacOSX not to animate the "minimize window" action? It gives me choices for 2 types of animations, but no "no animation" choice. That's one of the things that annoy me most) Also, the dock is rather counterproductive. The icons wander around depending on how many apps you are running, it's not funny.
To get some actual work done, I prefer KDE/Linux over MacOSX any time. MacOSX may barely beat the Windows GUI (also a matter of preference, I guess), but it's still miles away in the usability (note that usability does not equate demoability and eye-candy) department to KDE or even GNOME.
Hehe, you just made my day.
SuSE included a "fucking graphical tool" for ages and most other distros also do for quite some time.
But that doesn't matter to you of course because you don't need to know that to troll around.
Funny, I would be more worried if they would use GNOME/RedHat than using anything KDE-based, be it SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows or whatever.
I see so many computers that only run one application. In a bar I saw a laptop running Winamp for the music - and nothing else. On my campus, there are lots of computers running only a browser - and nothing else. And lots of people only run a browser, wordprocessing and
Can any of the Microsoft fanboys tell my why anybody should pay the 100$ extra for Windows in these cases?
But for streaming and portable players, it's sure great.
No, mp3 would have to be reencoded, which would make the quality much worse and would take a lot of time.
When I want to put music into my player, I want it now, I don't want to wait 1-2 hours.
Why do all the Wintrolls always assume that Viruses, Troyans and downtime can happen to everybode except themselves?
I would take any of those systems (with PCI-slots, with serial ports and most importantly without an attached monitor) over any iMac anytime.
You can't get a real computer at Apple near 1000$ unfortunately.
Well, first planes cruise at about 800 to 900 km/h and second 500km/h is not the theoretical maximum at all. Once you go magnetic (like Transrapid) there is not really a limit anymore. It is possible that in 20 years Transrapid trains can go as fast as planes or even faster. (Faster than sound could be a problem, though.)
but once the distance exceeds about 400km (around 250 miles), the plane starts winning all races.
What?
At 500km/h, 400km is less than an hour. Al the check-in, check-out, etc. takes longer than an hour. Also the train station is usually closer than the airport (also at the destination)
So in your 400km example, I'm already at the destination, while you are just taking off the airport.