Note that the source rpm packages for all the Redhat Enterprise editions are still publicaly available - as per GPL requirements. While Redhat won't give you free binaries, there are plenty of places that will. If you're looking for Redhat Enterprise 3 or 4, try: Scientific Linux. It's basically just a recompile of all the Redhat packages with some bundled scientific software (which you can easily remove). I've got SL3 deployed on about a hundred and fifty desktop hosts and it's rock solid. --M
You'll also see significant space savings by throwing away all the extra content produced for the DVD release that was not shown in the theater. Some people want to preserve everything on the DVD.
I don't think this is true. Of course, it depends on the DVD release - some DVD sets offer more secondary content than others. But I don't believe that in most cases it's a "significant" amount in comparison to the primary content. Now I'm talking storage space consumed here, not desirability of the secondary content. The point here is that MPEG4 compresses better than MPEG2 used in DVDs. So at the same image quality, with the same content, you'll use less disk space. Much less.
But do the common DVD-to-MPEG-4 tools preserve the multiple audio tracks, the menus, and extra Titles such as making-of featurettes and deleted scenes, or do they only store the primary video and primary audio of the main Title?
OK. So I"ve seen MPEG4/DivX do DD5.1. I haven't seen any encodings of various commentary tracks, menus, etc. Then again, neither have I looked for that feature. So I don't know. And the published specs on this device says nothing about playing that secondary even were you able to encode it. So - beats me. --M
And what you ask isn't there in the article. Missing those features wouldn't bother me as much as the poor screen and lack of component/DVI output. If I could hook it up to my projector or HDTV and get 480p out, then one could argue the value proposition - I suppose. But lacking then, then - for me - forget it. We each have a killer feature we demand, I suppose. --M
Can [this] commercial MPEG-4 implementation[s] handle those DVD features?
That's a good question. The published specs don't say, so I can't argue one way or the other. MPEG4/DivX will rip a movie with significantly higher compression, as I assume you're aware. I've seen DVD quality or better movies ripped at about 1GB or so. My belief - based not on what's published about this player, but personal experience - is that yes, you'll see significant space savings over DVD at MPEG2. The eye candy like menus, directors commentaries, and other features don't take much space. Documentaries ripped at MPEG4 offer the same compression savings over MPEG2. So - again, yeah. 100GB with MPEG4/Divx is going to give you a hell of a lot more than 20 DVD quality movies. --M
I don't want to spend $800 on a portable display device that doesn't render at least 480p DVD quality. The specs listed are ambiguous. It says that there's a doc station for pass through to a VCR. Does this mean that its only external output is composite? If so - yuck. I expect at least component, and preferably also DVI/HDMI. And why would I want to carry 100GB of disk space on a portable if it won't output true 480p? Never mind that disk space like that is appropriate for HD as well.
While the legality of EULA agreements may be in dispute, one still can't call making this change an "upgrade". At best it's a hack to gain new functionality which has been disabled. At worst, it's a copyright violation. In both cases, you still don't get Microsoft support - whatever the value of that. The article title really is misleading. --M
Only one battery replacement and I've still got a useful mp3 player. I do wish they would have taken that battery back, instead of the ipod though. *That* would have been useful. --M
If you want your XBox360 to be as rad as rad can be, you're going to need to buy a $2000-$5000 HDTV.... Instead, I'll take that $2000-$5000, get a computer that can display HDTV, and get an HDTV-res display.... Because televisions are fucking expensive.
Yes they are. But buying a PC with HDTV support won't get you the one feature people spend $2000 - $5000 on an HDTV for: a large screen in a widescreen formfactor. There is a qualitative difference between viewing a 20" - 24" High Definition screen vs. a 50" - 100" screen. And that is essentially the difference between a home theater and having a cheap tube TV in your old entertainment center.
Not to dissuade you from buying a PC, if that's what you want. But an HDTV card and 23" LCD display won't get you the one thing people spend money on commercial HDTVs for: huge screens. And I promise you, HD looks almost film quality when front projected against a 100" screen (even DVD 480p looks pretty damn good). IMO it's worth every penny. At least every penny *I* earned. Your pennies - you spend them as you see fit.
"If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" [NASA Administrator Griffin] said.
This is not about space science or free market economics in space, this is about the United States maintaining hegemony in space. Ultimately, when a nation talks about turf it is talking about military control, whether for tactical or resource reasons. It's interesting that the next quoted statement by Griffin downplays the international power struggle angle by bringing in humanistic rhetoric:
"If you ask anyone in this country, 'Do you believe that the United States should cede the moon to say the Chinese, Europeans, Russians, whoever?' I bet you the answer would be, 'No,'" [NASA Administrator Griffin] said.
IMO this is simply smoke for the real military purpose behind the new space initiative. Now the question to ask is: what do we want there? Is this a resource or land grab or are we after a new tactical position? The moon seems like a poor hilltop to take in comparison to lagrange orbits. And Mars? What tactical advantage does Mars offer - other than maybe as a publicity stunt??? --M
Well, when I bought mine USB wasn't an issue. I think the newer ones support USB though. And certainly ps/2 to USB converters aren't expensive compared to the keyboard itself. What you're buying with a Kinesis is a specific contoured key layout that no other split keyboard offers. It looks somewhat like shaping the keys to the inside of a brassiere. Though, not having tits, I can't say if strapping it up against my chest would feel like one. Probably not. *cough!* --M
I bought a Kinesis split bowl keyboard five years ago and haven't looked back since. It's still in use, and as sturdy as ever. While the article in question may offer a cheaper alternative, frankly I consider the ~$300 I spent on that keyboard worth every penny. It saved me from countless hours of finger and wrist pain while keeping me on the job when I might have been further injured. $300 is chump change compared to a career. I'd still gladly recommend the Kinesis, especially if you're beginning to feel keyboarding pain after a days work. --M
OK. For some reason I thought you were the same poster who replied to my top post. Please accept my apologies if my first reply to you appeared uncivil due to exasperation. --M
I don't think you understand me. You seem to assume that I want EU software patents to be enacted, when that is not the truth. As a US citzen I've certainly seen the downside of this in action. I do not ask this question to promote software patents, but to consider the fallback outcome should they (in all likelihood) be enacted. It's a rational question. To bury one's head in the sand and refuse to consider the outcome is most irrational. IMO) --M
The problem with patents is that noone outside of the safe haven nation is allowed to run the programs developed there. The same thing goes for writing the programs.
Not legally. But at least development could continue and the software would be available once the patent expires. It's still a terrible outcome for those who oppose software patents though. Still, if it's going to happen - what's the fallback position? There has to be one. Either that or - FS/OSS developers give up and stop coding? That seems an unlikely outcome. --M
Seriously, dude - you buy a console, aimed squarely at fast-paced arcadey twitch-gaming (the occasional good strategy/RPG notwithstanding), then slate it because it doesn't do well what it patently isn't designed for?
As I pointed out in the prior post, I bought it (in 2001) because those games did exit for the PS1. Why should I have assumed, at the time, that such games wouldn't have been written for the PS2 as well? As for the PC strategy game market, well I own a Mac. And while some have been ported to the Mac, I happen to use my computer to do work. It's a tool primarily used to make money. I will not buy a PC just so I can play a game. IMO, that's what "game machines" or "consoles" are intended for. But, no doubt, I appear to be mistaken - as such games were not aggressively marketed on my platform. *sigh* --M
So, assuming the legislation will be passed (regardless of popular will), what are the prospects for continued development? Another safe haven nation? Living within the patent system for better or worse? As much as I may dislike the outcome, I think it's almost certain this will go through. While it's good that RMS continues to fight on, I wonder what are the appropriate fallback positisions. --M
I eagerly bought one of the first generation PS2s when they came out, in the hope that ps2 game developers would continue the playstation tradition of releasing good war strategy games. Games like Command and Concur, or Allied General, or maybe a decent civilization type strategy game. But no. So now the damned thing sits idle because I got sick of playing car crash and kill games (grand theft auto), FPS games (red faction et all), I never liked the final fantasy games, etc etc etc. I like pretty graphics. But this 37yo wants a game that takes more planning than pressing a button to take out the enemy or jump at the right time. I'm bored with these damn games and haven't bought a new one in over a year. That can't be good business. How 'bout some better games folks? --M
Wow, just what did that press release say beyond "we're going to help create a national ID using Microsoft.net"??? A whole lot of veribiage and redundant terminology. For example:
22 instances of "indentify" or "identification"
7 instances of "integrate"
7 instances of "system"
5 instances of "e-government"
4 instances of ".NET framework"
3 instances of "authenticate"
Feh. That's enough of reading through that tripe. Now I need to take a bath. --M
It comes down to a) the level of support you can get from whoever provided you with your software and b) your freedom to get support from elsewhere if you need it.
Completely agree with you here. Free software offers source access benefits that most proprietary vendors can't (or won't) match without significant expense. And there are some good support alternatives with FS/OSS software out there too. But it's a corporate decision (for good or bad)... --M
Slashdot Mirror
Note that the source rpm packages for all the Redhat Enterprise editions are still publicaly available - as per GPL requirements. While Redhat won't give you free binaries, there are plenty of places that will. If you're looking for Redhat Enterprise 3 or 4, try: Scientific Linux. It's basically just a recompile of all the Redhat packages with some bundled scientific software (which you can easily remove). I've got SL3 deployed on about a hundred and fifty desktop hosts and it's rock solid. --M
You'll also see significant space savings by throwing away all the extra content produced for the DVD release that was not shown in the theater. Some people want to preserve everything on the DVD.
I don't think this is true. Of course, it depends on the DVD release - some DVD sets offer more secondary content than others. But I don't believe that in most cases it's a "significant" amount in comparison to the primary content. Now I'm talking storage space consumed here, not desirability of the secondary content. The point here is that MPEG4 compresses better than MPEG2 used in DVDs. So at the same image quality, with the same content, you'll use less disk space. Much less.
But do the common DVD-to-MPEG-4 tools preserve the multiple audio tracks, the menus, and extra Titles such as making-of featurettes and deleted scenes, or do they only store the primary video and primary audio of the main Title?
OK. So I"ve seen MPEG4/DivX do DD5.1. I haven't seen any encodings of various commentary tracks, menus, etc. Then again, neither have I looked for that feature. So I don't know. And the published specs on this device says nothing about playing that secondary even were you able to encode it. So - beats me. --M
And what you ask isn't there in the article. Missing those features wouldn't bother me as much as the poor screen and lack of component/DVI output. If I could hook it up to my projector or HDTV and get 480p out, then one could argue the value proposition - I suppose. But lacking then, then - for me - forget it. We each have a killer feature we demand, I suppose. --M
Can [this] commercial MPEG-4 implementation[s] handle those DVD features?
That's a good question. The published specs don't say, so I can't argue one way or the other. MPEG4/DivX will rip a movie with significantly higher compression, as I assume you're aware. I've seen DVD quality or better movies ripped at about 1GB or so. My belief - based not on what's published about this player, but personal experience - is that yes, you'll see significant space savings over DVD at MPEG2. The eye candy like menus, directors commentaries, and other features don't take much space. Documentaries ripped at MPEG4 offer the same compression savings over MPEG2. So - again, yeah. 100GB with MPEG4/Divx is going to give you a hell of a lot more than 20 DVD quality movies. --M
No. It records and plays MPEG4 and DivX, not MPEG2. You'll get more than 20 full length movies out of 100GB of storage. Read the article. --M
I don't want to spend $800 on a portable display device that doesn't render at least 480p DVD quality. The specs listed are ambiguous. It says that there's a doc station for pass through to a VCR. Does this mean that its only external output is composite? If so - yuck. I expect at least component, and preferably also DVI/HDMI. And why would I want to carry 100GB of disk space on a portable if it won't output true 480p? Never mind that disk space like that is appropriate for HD as well.
So, my opinion: nice toy; waste of money. --M
While the legality of EULA agreements may be in dispute, one still can't call making this change an "upgrade". At best it's a hack to gain new functionality which has been disabled. At worst, it's a copyright violation. In both cases, you still don't get Microsoft support - whatever the value of that. The article title really is misleading. --M
Yeah, I'd like a newer one too. But as long as the damn thing keeps working, why upgrade? And 10GB is still more than enough. *shrug* --M
Only one battery replacement and I've still got a useful mp3 player. I do wish they would have taken that battery back, instead of the ipod though. *That* would have been useful. --M
If you want your XBox360 to be as rad as rad can be, you're going to need to buy a $2000-$5000 HDTV. ... Instead, I'll take that $2000-$5000, get a computer that can display HDTV, and get an HDTV-res display. ... Because televisions are fucking expensive.
Yes they are. But buying a PC with HDTV support won't get you the one feature people spend $2000 - $5000 on an HDTV for: a large screen in a widescreen formfactor. There is a qualitative difference between viewing a 20" - 24" High Definition screen vs. a 50" - 100" screen. And that is essentially the difference between a home theater and having a cheap tube TV in your old entertainment center.
Not to dissuade you from buying a PC, if that's what you want. But an HDTV card and 23" LCD display won't get you the one thing people spend money on commercial HDTVs for: huge screens. And I promise you, HD looks almost film quality when front projected against a 100" screen (even DVD 480p looks pretty damn good). IMO it's worth every penny. At least every penny *I* earned. Your pennies - you spend them as you see fit.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Well, when I bought mine USB wasn't an issue. I think the newer ones support USB though. And certainly ps/2 to USB converters aren't expensive compared to the keyboard itself. What you're buying with a Kinesis is a specific contoured key layout that no other split keyboard offers. It looks somewhat like shaping the keys to the inside of a brassiere. Though, not having tits, I can't say if strapping it up against my chest would feel like one. Probably not. *cough!* --M
I bought a Kinesis split bowl keyboard five years ago and haven't looked back since. It's still in use, and as sturdy as ever. While the article in question may offer a cheaper alternative, frankly I consider the ~$300 I spent on that keyboard worth every penny. It saved me from countless hours of finger and wrist pain while keeping me on the job when I might have been further injured. $300 is chump change compared to a career. I'd still gladly recommend the Kinesis, especially if you're beginning to feel keyboarding pain after a days work. --M
OK. For some reason I thought you were the same poster who replied to my top post. Please accept my apologies if my first reply to you appeared uncivil due to exasperation. --M
I don't think you understand me. You seem to assume that I want EU software patents to be enacted, when that is not the truth. As a US citzen I've certainly seen the downside of this in action. I do not ask this question to promote software patents, but to consider the fallback outcome should they (in all likelihood) be enacted. It's a rational question. To bury one's head in the sand and refuse to consider the outcome is most irrational. IMO) --M
The problem with patents is that noone outside of the safe haven nation is allowed to run the programs developed there. The same thing goes for writing the programs.
Not legally. But at least development could continue and the software would be available once the patent expires. It's still a terrible outcome for those who oppose software patents though. Still, if it's going to happen - what's the fallback position? There has to be one. Either that or - FS/OSS developers give up and stop coding? That seems an unlikely outcome. --M
Seriously, dude - you buy a console, aimed squarely at fast-paced arcadey twitch-gaming (the occasional good strategy/RPG notwithstanding), then slate it because it doesn't do well what it patently isn't designed for?
As I pointed out in the prior post, I bought it (in 2001) because those games did exit for the PS1. Why should I have assumed, at the time, that such games wouldn't have been written for the PS2 as well? As for the PC strategy game market, well I own a Mac. And while some have been ported to the Mac, I happen to use my computer to do work. It's a tool primarily used to make money. I will not buy a PC just so I can play a game. IMO, that's what "game machines" or "consoles" are intended for. But, no doubt, I appear to be mistaken - as such games were not aggressively marketed on my platform. *sigh* --M
So, assuming the legislation will be passed (regardless of popular will), what are the prospects for continued development? Another safe haven nation? Living within the patent system for better or worse? As much as I may dislike the outcome, I think it's almost certain this will go through. While it's good that RMS continues to fight on, I wonder what are the appropriate fallback positisions. --M
I'll try to rent one or two of those and see if I like it. Thanks! --M
The spell checker did me in here. *sigh* I should have re-read before hitting submit. --M
I eagerly bought one of the first generation PS2s when they came out, in the hope that ps2 game developers would continue the playstation tradition of releasing good war strategy games. Games like Command and Concur, or Allied General, or maybe a decent civilization type strategy game. But no. So now the damned thing sits idle because I got sick of playing car crash and kill games (grand theft auto), FPS games (red faction et all), I never liked the final fantasy games, etc etc etc. I like pretty graphics. But this 37yo wants a game that takes more planning than pressing a button to take out the enemy or jump at the right time. I'm bored with these damn games and haven't bought a new one in over a year. That can't be good business. How 'bout some better games folks? --M
No. I would be happier with several million dollars, a beautiful house, a yaught, and a hot brunette wife. But that's just me. --M
Wow, just what did that press release say beyond "we're going to help create a national ID using Microsoft .net"??? A whole lot of veribiage and redundant terminology. For example:
- 22 instances of "indentify" or "identification"
- 7 instances of "integrate"
- 7 instances of "system"
- 5 instances of "e-government"
- 4 instances of ".NET framework"
- 3 instances of "authenticate"
Feh. That's enough of reading through that tripe. Now I need to take a bath. --MIt comes down to a) the level of support you can get from whoever provided you with your software and b) your freedom to get support from elsewhere if you need it.
Completely agree with you here. Free software offers source access benefits that most proprietary vendors can't (or won't) match without significant expense. And there are some good support alternatives with FS/OSS software out there too. But it's a corporate decision (for good or bad)... --M