There's a lot of people who want 3D and have purchased various accelerators over the last two years. Supporting current model 3D accelerators is IMHO one of the smartest moves made by XFree86. I know there are some older drivers that are suffering bitrot in the new servers, but the reason for that is because none of the active XFree86 developers have an interest in supporting those particular chipsets. The way to make sure they are supported is to go out there and volunteer to be the maintainer.
The whole point of the SDL library is that you can abstract away the OS and hardware specifics. Given that a port of the library is done properly and that the Loki programmers know what they are doing (and if you can make a 32bit/64bit transparent program, you probably do know what you are doing) cross platform compatability is a non-issue as long as the libraries are there. QA, bugs, etc. should be the same in both versions as long as the libraries work.
3. Loki wants to port games to a platform that has the best chance of succeeding.
Loki is a business and should intelligently not allow evangelism to dictate their opportunities. If SDL is ported to BSD and that will allow them to build BSD versions of their products with simple recompiles, then it would make sense to do the build and include it on the CDs. If they can get two people to buy their games for BSD and the cost to produce the games is as simple as typing 'make bsd', then they have made money. Not doing so would be a waste of a possible income stream.
Re:The importance (or lack thereof) of uptime
on
Linux Kernel 2.2.14
·
· Score: 1
If they can change your kernel, they can change the value reported by uptime.
The point being made (if I read it correctly) is that Rob and Co. aren't particularily noteworthy, just infamous. Not the same thing, and certainly not to be emulated above other CS luminaries.
all it takes to use a computer without looking and sounding like a fool... is a bit of common sense...
Nah. For computers to be common sense to a person, they have to have a certain mode of thinking. A lot of smart people who think very well, don't think in such a way that computers are intuitive for them.
Apparently you don't read UF. More often than not the humour is about the techs. Look at the recent mini-serial about relationships. Substitute web programmer series. Look at the lord of the rings spoof. Duh.
Also it's important to note that a situation can be funny, and people can note that the situation is funny without making fun of the actual people involved.
"Netrek, now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time..." LOL.
OK, as one of the original Paradise coders (yeah, I know, boo-hiss) I spent a lot of time thinking about borgs and prevention and such. Here's the conclusion: there is no way to prevent cheating in a situation where you can't fully control both the client and the server. As long as you have to trust a data stream coming over a network, you are at the mercy of an hacker intelligent enough to reverse engineer your protocol.
The same thing applies to Quake. Even with Carmack's proposed solution, it's impossible to stop a determined wanker. You best bet is to make it as difficult as possible and then change stuff as quickly as is reasonable possible.
Bubbles
ps - does anybody know why that first responder up top has been moderated up to +4? Is it because he used big words or what? I know it's not because he has a clue what the hell he is talking about. Sheesh.
Think what you like, but what I said was grammatically correct. You may have misunderstood it, but it certainly is correct. Don't blaim the messenger if the receipient is an idiot.
I certainly understand the term elitist. It's a derogatory term and has been for some time. Anyone who thinks that they imbued with some special quality that makes their writings somehow more because they are writing "technically", is a prick in the core of their being.
Free is the only thing in your sentence that isn't misleading, biased and demonstrative of an elitist attitude.
Word is fully capable of, and is used to a greater extent than LaTeX and troff combined, to produce *real* books. Real by any intelligent definition of the word real.
I see my problem. I'm assuming that the people I am discussing with aren't close-minded twits. Maybe if I treat you like I treat my six year old nephew, we'll all be able to get along:
I guess if you are going to be pedantic about the rules of a dynamic and changing language, then sure, I'll admit it. You are right. Optimal is a superlative.
Now stop trying to show your intellectualism, and learn to understand the purpose of language. Namely to communicate. Your repeated pointing out that I used a word in a way you consider sub-par, does nothing to disguise the fact that you weren't able to come up with a coherent disputation of my claim that the previous poster used a logically unsound argument to support his claim that LaTeX/ is a better document preparation program than Word.
Wrong. You cannot produce, using vi/emacs and latex/troff, the same document that I can produce using postscript. The whole point is that yes, you may be able to recreate a some documents or publications using your choice of tools. But you chosing the wrong tools doesn't negate the value of a better tool.
Stop thinking so shallowly, go back and reread the beginning of this subthread and then go out and find out what you can and can't do with Word, and what you can and can't do with LaTeX, and what you can and can't do with pic/tbl/eqn/troff. And then see what it takes to do each of the various tasks that the different tools provide. Then you'll see which one is more enabling of the user. And that's the whole point of computers, not to create a new upper class of technocrats.
Do you really not understand the argument? It's not about what can be accomplished, it's about what is the better tool. Does your thinking only follow in the same ruts it's travelled hundreds of times? Can't you understand the phrase "any of a numerous variety of non-trivial documents"?
Moron you say? Chump? Ah, yes. Instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation (and perhaps doing something about it with your l33t h4ck3r 5k1llz) you resort to strawman arguments and ad hominim attacks. As your next act are you going to demonstrate your mighty physical prowess by stealing candy from a baby?
Sorry my simple-minded friend, but the fact that I can code up a postscript document in vi or emacs doesn't make either of them the proper tool for producing any of a numerous variety of non-trivial documents. The ability to edit text, does not a word processor make.
Perhaps you shouldn't equate the quality of the tool with the your biased perception of the quality of the product. Can you explain why your argument lacks logical integrity? Are you truly stupid enough to think that LaTeX's facility at producing equations and a basic level of document structuring, make it the most optimal choice for all document processing tasks?
In your quest for sub-average intelligence, you might find that it takes longer to find the examples you seek if you were to remove the mirror from in front of you.
Look into it and you'll find that, in reality, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Eh? Would you prefer hearing horror stories of midnight masses, baby sacrifices, various dark rituals, assassinations, pay-offs, and kidnappings? Is that what you figure Microsoft must get up to in their spare time?
Not to mention the fact that a zone transfer takes bandwidth and forcing people to write scripts/code will deterr your average net user from pulling your zone out of curiousity.
Are you a moron? I'm serious here. Until you get a full featured Word port for your favorite Unix, you will never have the word processing capabilities with vi and friends that the lowliest Windows weenie has with Word.
The original owner should sue them for losing his domain. I can't see at what point they could take a domain from someone as part of a transfer and put it in the open list. If the original owner properly initiated a transfer then NSI should be responsible for not fucking up the transfer. This would be like AT&T taking IBM's 800 number and giving it to a pizza joint.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of people who want 3D and have purchased various accelerators over the last two years. Supporting current model 3D accelerators is IMHO one of the smartest moves made by XFree86. I know there are some older drivers that are suffering bitrot in the new servers, but the reason for that is because none of the active XFree86 developers have an interest in supporting those particular chipsets. The way to make sure they are supported is to go out there and volunteer to be the maintainer.
The whole point of the SDL library is that you can abstract away the OS and hardware specifics. Given that a port of the library is done properly and that the Loki programmers know what they are doing (and if you can make a 32bit/64bit transparent program, you probably do know what you are doing) cross platform compatability is a non-issue as long as the libraries are there. QA, bugs, etc. should be the same in both versions as long as the libraries work.
Loki is a business and should intelligently not allow evangelism to dictate their opportunities. If SDL is ported to BSD and that will allow them to build BSD versions of their products with simple recompiles, then it would make sense to do the build and include it on the CDs. If they can get two people to buy their games for BSD and the cost to produce the games is as simple as typing 'make bsd', then they have made money. Not doing so would be a waste of a possible income stream.
If they can change your kernel, they can change the value reported by uptime.
Theoretically it's possible to do that now. But if you aren't Terje Matheson or on of the L0pht guys, it might be difficult.
The point being made (if I read it correctly) is that Rob and Co. aren't particularily noteworthy, just infamous. Not the same thing, and certainly not to be emulated above other CS luminaries.
And taaa-daaaa, I have an upgraded OS.
Does your kernel == your OS? It doesn't in my world.
Nah. For computers to be common sense to a person, they have to have a certain mode of thinking. A lot of smart people who think very well, don't think in such a way that computers are intuitive for them.
Apparently you don't read UF. More often than not the humour is about the techs. Look at the recent mini-serial about relationships. Substitute web programmer series. Look at the lord of the rings spoof. Duh.
Also it's important to note that a situation can be funny, and people can note that the situation is funny without making fun of the actual people involved.
"Netrek, now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time..." LOL.
OK, as one of the original Paradise coders (yeah, I know, boo-hiss) I spent a lot of time thinking about borgs and prevention and such. Here's the conclusion: there is no way to prevent cheating in a situation where you can't fully control both the client and the server. As long as you have to trust a data stream coming over a network, you are at the mercy of an hacker intelligent enough to reverse engineer your protocol.
The same thing applies to Quake. Even with Carmack's proposed solution, it's impossible to stop a determined wanker. You best bet is to make it as difficult as possible and then change stuff as quickly as is reasonable possible.
Bubbles
ps - does anybody know why that first responder up top has been moderated up to +4? Is it because he used big words or what? I know it's not because he has a clue what the hell he is talking about. Sheesh.
Think what you like, but what I said was grammatically correct. You may have misunderstood it, but it certainly is correct. Don't blaim the messenger if the receipient is an idiot.
I certainly understand the term elitist. It's a derogatory term and has been for some time. Anyone who thinks that they imbued with some special quality that makes their writings somehow more because they are writing "technically", is a prick in the core of their being.
Free is the only thing in your sentence that isn't misleading, biased and demonstrative of an elitist attitude.
Word is fully capable of, and is used to a greater extent than LaTeX and troff combined, to produce *real* books. Real by any intelligent definition of the word real.
You might mean "I wish I were", but I mean "I wish I was."
I see my problem. I'm assuming that the people I am discussing with aren't close-minded twits. Maybe if I treat you like I treat my six year old nephew, we'll all be able to get along:
"Wow. I wish I was as l33t as you."
Or maybe even simpler:
"Yeah. You're cool."
I guess if you are going to be pedantic about the rules of a dynamic and changing language, then sure, I'll admit it. You are right. Optimal is a superlative.
Now stop trying to show your intellectualism, and learn to understand the purpose of language. Namely to communicate. Your repeated pointing out that I used a word in a way you consider sub-par, does nothing to disguise the fact that you weren't able to come up with a coherent disputation of my claim that the previous poster used a logically unsound argument to support his claim that LaTeX/ is a better document preparation program than Word.
Wrong. You cannot produce, using vi/emacs and latex/troff, the same document that I can produce using postscript. The whole point is that yes, you may be able to recreate a some documents or publications using your choice of tools. But you chosing the wrong tools doesn't negate the value of a better tool.
Stop thinking so shallowly, go back and reread the beginning of this subthread and then go out and find out what you can and can't do with Word, and what you can and can't do with LaTeX, and what you can and can't do with pic/tbl/eqn/troff. And then see what it takes to do each of the various tasks that the different tools provide. Then you'll see which one is more enabling of the user. And that's the whole point of computers, not to create a new upper class of technocrats.
Do you really not understand the argument? It's not about what can be accomplished, it's about what is the better tool. Does your thinking only follow in the same ruts it's travelled hundreds of times? Can't you understand the phrase "any of a numerous variety of non-trivial documents"?
Maybe you should understand that optimal is not a state one is ever in, it's the destination one desires to achieve.
Moron you say? Chump? Ah, yes. Instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation (and perhaps doing something about it with your l33t h4ck3r 5k1llz) you resort to strawman arguments and ad hominim attacks. As your next act are you going to demonstrate your mighty physical prowess by stealing candy from a baby?
Sorry my simple-minded friend, but the fact that I can code up a postscript document in vi or emacs doesn't make either of them the proper tool for producing any of a numerous variety of non-trivial documents. The ability to edit text, does not a word processor make.
-sw
Perhaps you shouldn't equate the quality of the tool with the your biased perception of the quality of the product. Can you explain why your argument lacks logical integrity? Are you truly stupid enough to think that LaTeX's facility at producing equations and a basic level of document structuring, make it the most optimal choice for all document processing tasks?
In your quest for sub-average intelligence, you might find that it takes longer to find the examples you seek if you were to remove the mirror from in front of you.
Look into it and you'll find that, in reality, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.
...how evil they really are.
Eh? Would you prefer hearing horror stories of midnight masses, baby sacrifices, various dark rituals, assassinations, pay-offs, and kidnappings? Is that what you figure Microsoft must get up to in their spare time?
Not to mention the fact that a zone transfer takes bandwidth and forcing people to write scripts/code will deterr your average net user from pulling your zone out of curiousity.
Are you a moron? I'm serious here. Until you get a full featured Word port for your favorite Unix, you will never have the word processing capabilities with vi and friends that the lowliest Windows weenie has with Word.
The original owner should sue them for losing his domain. I can't see at what point they could take a domain from someone as part of a transfer and put it in the open list. If the original owner properly initiated a transfer then NSI should be responsible for not fucking up the transfer. This would be like AT&T taking IBM's 800 number and giving it to a pizza joint.