"Very little in common?" They have the same I/O manager, the same split memory between the user and the kernel, the same method of demand-paged virtual memory, the same executive layer, the same 32 levels of interrupts, the same scheduling priorities, the same object representation of system resources...etc.
There were so many similarities that there was an out-of-court settlement between DEC and Microsoft, and Bill Gates pledged support for the DEC Alpha. If there is so little in common, why the settlement?
To me, VATS feels like an unpredictable version of Max Payne's bullet-time.
Re:A site geared towards Linux user, to learn Open
on
OpenBSD 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm not that dumb. It is just starts eating into my production time quickly.
Oh, come on. It takes a couple of minutes to install bash from ports, and then you're done.
I can make out of fresh install of Debian something useful within half of an hour. And I can easily maintain it that way (weekly "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" rarely takes longer than one minute).
I can do the same with FreeBSD, and I can easily keep it up to date with one of the many available utilities in/usr/ports/ports-mgmt. Portsnap, portmanager, portupgrade...all of these are easy commands to use.
With BSD it never was the case: one or two days are spent on making out of the system something more useful than M$DOS. Later on, patching is also relatively time consuming.
I'm sitting next to a 64-bit dual-core FreeBSD box that took me half an hour to set up. You're flat-out lying.
Re:A site geared towards Linux user, to learn Open
on
OpenBSD 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hmmmmm, and what if I want said third-party software...
Then you install it? Or if you're using FreeBSD, browse the binary package list during the installer and choose what you want preinstalled?
I get it, though. BSD is not a desktop OS. Period.
I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.
Well, I bet you're much more desensitized to violence and gore than you would have been without games.
Re:A site geared towards Linux user, to learn Open
on
OpenBSD 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Unlike Linux, the BSDs don't come preinstalled with tons of third-party software you didn't ask for, because there's a clear separation between the base UNIX operating system and the ports/pkgsrc collection. If you're too damn dumb to go into/usr/pkgsrc and take the 2 minutes to install Bash, I think BSD is probably above you. Stick with Ubuntu.
What? Who complained about that? I and everyone I know praised the new viewpoint because it made driving so much easier. Most of the reasons for complaining about Fallout 3's first-person perspective had to do with the idea that Fallout 3 would become more of a first-person shooter than an RPG, and those complaints appear to be correct.
This game is Oblivion with guns and radiation. Not that that is a bad thing in any way.
Considering Oblivion was a boring, generic piece of shit that barely qualified as an RPG, I consider it a bad thing. From what I've seen, the game is very focused on guns and combat, so I already know it's not very Fallout-like either. I read somebody's preview in which they left corpses around and no NPCs noticed. They shot somebody, and the bodyguard standing next to him didn't react. Sounds like it's very much like Oblivion...
What's annoying is that you know what people are referring to when they say Linux--you're just being anal in order to feel more educated about how Linux is set up. We know how it's set up. It's just easier to call it Linux. The need for attribution on the part of RMS has more to do with his ego than accuracy.
Is FreeBSD actually GNU/FreeBSD because they use gcc? It gets silly after a point.
I would have it be about a son that Barenziah had who nobody knew about, which has been theorized before based on her past storyline. He should come back trying to claim the throne now that the Emperor is dead. Barenziah was always my favorite character from the lore, and it would be cool to have various factions trying to take over now that the Empire's in shambles, with Barenziah's son being the primary one. Given the history of the Empire and its leader, he would have a right to be pissed.
I don't know how that would set things up for play in Somerset Isles, which most people presume is the next setting. But maybe they could work it out somehow.
Several versions of OSX have been faster than their predecessors.
The first versions of OS X were dreadfully slow to begin with. There was nowhere to go but up. Tiger was the last OS X release that was noticeably faster on my hardware. Leopard was about the same or slower in some cases.
There is absolutely no reason why an new OS should be slower than a previous one -- other than pandering to a misguided marketing dept.
Get real. There are plenty of reasons an operating system would be slower, one of them being the introduction of new features that, while introducing overhead, are compensated for with increased processing power. Thus, system requirements go up. Examples would be file metadata indexing or resolution-independent widgets.
The software isn't getting slower because it's getting better. It's getting slower because it's getting sloppier, programmers no longer care about efficiency, and feature creep is given high priority.
Have you personally examined every line of code to be able to determine this? Software is getting "slower" because it's using new features that offset the increased computing power. Compare OS X and its frameworks to MacOS of 10 years ago. I have file metadata indexers, resolution-independent graphics compositors, garbage collection, wireless networking, Bluetooth, and so on. I'm also running many more apps at once than I ever did 10 years ago on my Windows 98 PC, and when one crashes, it doesn't bring down the whole system.
They didn't use the BSD stack. The UNIX utilities like ftp came from BSD because those utilities came from licensed networking code from Spider Systems that was based on BSD. The licensed stack was intended as a stopgap until Microsoft wrote their own stack for NT 3.5. For whatever reason, the UNIX utilities weren't rewritten, and people saw the BSD copyrights and assumed Microsoft used BSD's stack.
Vista was stable for me even at RC1. It was the design of Vista that turned me off, like the redundant dialogs, the security prompts,and the increased amount of clicking to get to things. I found the visuals to be gaudy, so I'd drop back to classic, but then I'd wonder why I was bothering with that when I could just be running XP.
It wasn't that bad. My computer came with a Soundblaster 16 set to IRQ 5, DMA 1, HDMA 5. I mindlessly plugged those numbers into each game's setup, if it didn't autodetect the settings for me. No problem.
It was nice having every game install into a self-contained folder, and if you were low on resources to play the game, you could slap in a boot disk with a custom autoexec.bat and config.sys so your machine was solely devoted to that game (I had to do that with SimCity 2000 in 6th grade). MS-DOS was the closest that PCs ever got to being console-like. Maybe it's no surprise that as computers pack more into their GUI operating systems and create the perception of overhead (whether real or not), consoles become more popular for gaming.
I installed FreeDOS 1.0 in VMWare the other day, and it booted in seconds with full mouse and networking support. It even came with a DOS-based web browser. It was pretty interesting. Some folks use DOS to for their MAME-based home arcades.
That's cool to know. In online FPS games, people always whine about the reflexes of the 12-17 year olds and so on, but I've always felt like it was because older gamers just didn't devote the time into games to get as good.
That's probably because by mid-20s, most people are too busy with real lives to devote anything to pointless games.
Your problem is that you're just not reading anything I write....
I've read everything you've said. You're acting like one of those angry Linux zealots who gets upset when their anti-Windows propaganda is challenged.
If you buy a new hard drive and install windows on it, it is not partitioned to NTFS. I'll quote what I said since you didn't read it, hopefully you will this time..
Give me a break. Nearly all hard drives you ever buy will already be partitioned with one big partition taking up the whole drive. You don't "partition to NTFS"--partitioning and filesystem format are separate things. The majority of hard drives will be pre-formatted for NTFS too. How does this even help your case since, if the drive isn't pre-partitioned and pre-formatted, that's an extra step for Ubuntu as well?
You see those words? "empty disk", this was so that everyone knew what I was talking about.
I already said that in the real world, you most likely wouldn't even have to do that step because few hard drives are unpartitioned and unformatted. If it comes that way, that's a step for Ubuntu as well so it's meaningless to bring it up. Notice that you think it's important because it makes the Windows install longer, but you don't consider that it makes the Ubuntu installer longer too? That's proof you're not looking at this from a balanced viewpoint.
and what the fuck has an OEM disk got to do with any of this, it's a cheap answer. An OEM disk (if you're lucky enough to have kept it or not have a custom PC) does not come in the retail box of Microsoft Windows.
What does Office have to do with any of this? It's a cheap way to pad your list. It's like saying Ubuntu comes with an IRC client and Windows doesn't, and thus, that's an OMG-EXTRA-STEP that Windows users have to go through. Give me a break. It was a stupid attempt on your part to make the Windows install process seem longer than it is, so I pointed out that most Windows PCs already come with Office anyway.
And OpenOffice is a free download for Windows! So that point is moot and worthless.
Because it's one less piece of junk you need to install before you can start doing your work.
I thought your point was about the steps involved in the operating system installers. You were obviously just padding the list with "junk."
Ease of installation?! What a joke and did you even check out some of the other comments? I was being very restrictive in my list of steps, yet you lack any kind of thought in your response as though when people reinstall windows they don't need to take any of these steps.
I've installed Windows countless times. You were padding the list to make Windows look worse, like adding extra "Installing more files" steps. Don't you think I've seen posts like yours before on Slashdot? It's predictable propaganda.
Hell, you don't even mention Vista's installer which is even easier than XP's.
You start making up hypothetical situations of people having OEM computers with special install disks. I notice that when you give these lame situations you never give a balanced view of Ubuntu either..
Hypothetical situations? Every Windows-based PC you buy comes with an OEM disc that has the Windows installer and often a second disc with drivers and pre-installed applications. I just restored a Dell last night using that method. You're just mad that you have no counterargument for it. I don't need to give a view of Ubuntu because I'm not the one claiming anything like you. I'm merely responding to your biased comparisons between the two in terms of their installers. If you want to talk about balanced views, what should a user do if X.org doesn't properly auto-detect their integrated Intel video card like on one of the towers I hav
Your question is answered in the link, which says the numbers are skewed. Thus, this announcement is a bit of misleading marketing on the part of OpenOffice.
While you would think OpenOffice would be most popular among Linux users, the demand for Windows users came as a surprise to many people. The numbers are skewed however, because many Linux users receive their updates from Linux distributors rather than the website. Still, it shows that Microsoft's Office software is slowly loosing its market dominance now that there are suitable alternatives available.
Most Linux users get their software from their distro, so that's the reason for the predominance of Windows in the downloads. However, the conclusion reached by the author is arbitrary. There is nothing here showing that Office is "loosing" market dominance. All you have are OpenOffice download numbers, which don't prove anything about market dominance. Office isn't even available for Linux, so how is its market dominance changing from what it was before?
"Click install" is obviously a figure of speech used to illustrate the ease of installation. You're being overly literal to score points with the anti-Windows crowd. I'm no fan of Windows (typing this on a Mac sitting next to a compiling FreeBSD box), but I've seen posts exactly like yours in the past that did the very same padding of the list to make it look like a favored-distro-of-the-month is easier to install while Windows is some overly complicated procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
"Very little in common?" They have the same I/O manager, the same split memory between the user and the kernel, the same method of demand-paged virtual memory, the same executive layer, the same 32 levels of interrupts, the same scheduling priorities, the same object representation of system resources...etc.
There were so many similarities that there was an out-of-court settlement between DEC and Microsoft, and Bill Gates pledged support for the DEC Alpha. If there is so little in common, why the settlement?
To me, VATS feels like an unpredictable version of Max Payne's bullet-time.
Oh, come on. It takes a couple of minutes to install bash from ports, and then you're done.
I can do the same with FreeBSD, and I can easily keep it up to date with one of the many available utilities in /usr/ports/ports-mgmt. Portsnap, portmanager, portupgrade...all of these are easy commands to use.
I'm sitting next to a 64-bit dual-core FreeBSD box that took me half an hour to set up. You're flat-out lying.
Then you install it? Or if you're using FreeBSD, browse the binary package list during the installer and choose what you want preinstalled?
Please, go back to Ubuntu and stay there.
Well, I bet you're much more desensitized to violence and gore than you would have been without games.
Unlike Linux, the BSDs don't come preinstalled with tons of third-party software you didn't ask for, because there's a clear separation between the base UNIX operating system and the ports/pkgsrc collection. If you're too damn dumb to go into /usr/pkgsrc and take the 2 minutes to install Bash, I think BSD is probably above you. Stick with Ubuntu.
What? Who complained about that? I and everyone I know praised the new viewpoint because it made driving so much easier. Most of the reasons for complaining about Fallout 3's first-person perspective had to do with the idea that Fallout 3 would become more of a first-person shooter than an RPG, and those complaints appear to be correct.
Considering Oblivion was a boring, generic piece of shit that barely qualified as an RPG, I consider it a bad thing. From what I've seen, the game is very focused on guns and combat, so I already know it's not very Fallout-like either. I read somebody's preview in which they left corpses around and no NPCs noticed. They shot somebody, and the bodyguard standing next to him didn't react. Sounds like it's very much like Oblivion...
Are you a fanboi or what? A less than of a percentage increase isn't "the ball rolling."
Next time, post on your account, coward.
What's annoying is that you know what people are referring to when they say Linux--you're just being anal in order to feel more educated about how Linux is set up. We know how it's set up. It's just easier to call it Linux. The need for attribution on the part of RMS has more to do with his ego than accuracy.
Is FreeBSD actually GNU/FreeBSD because they use gcc? It gets silly after a point.
From 0.57% to 0.91%...I wouldn't hold my breath.
I would have it be about a son that Barenziah had who nobody knew about, which has been theorized before based on her past storyline. He should come back trying to claim the throne now that the Emperor is dead. Barenziah was always my favorite character from the lore, and it would be cool to have various factions trying to take over now that the Empire's in shambles, with Barenziah's son being the primary one. Given the history of the Empire and its leader, he would have a right to be pissed.
I don't know how that would set things up for play in Somerset Isles, which most people presume is the next setting. But maybe they could work it out somehow.
The first versions of OS X were dreadfully slow to begin with. There was nowhere to go but up. Tiger was the last OS X release that was noticeably faster on my hardware. Leopard was about the same or slower in some cases.
Get real. There are plenty of reasons an operating system would be slower, one of them being the introduction of new features that, while introducing overhead, are compensated for with increased processing power. Thus, system requirements go up. Examples would be file metadata indexing or resolution-independent widgets.
Have you personally examined every line of code to be able to determine this? Software is getting "slower" because it's using new features that offset the increased computing power. Compare OS X and its frameworks to MacOS of 10 years ago. I have file metadata indexers, resolution-independent graphics compositors, garbage collection, wireless networking, Bluetooth, and so on. I'm also running many more apps at once than I ever did 10 years ago on my Windows 98 PC, and when one crashes, it doesn't bring down the whole system.
They didn't use the BSD stack. The UNIX utilities like ftp came from BSD because those utilities came from licensed networking code from Spider Systems that was based on BSD. The licensed stack was intended as a stopgap until Microsoft wrote their own stack for NT 3.5. For whatever reason, the UNIX utilities weren't rewritten, and people saw the BSD copyrights and assumed Microsoft used BSD's stack.
Vista was stable for me even at RC1. It was the design of Vista that turned me off, like the redundant dialogs, the security prompts,and the increased amount of clicking to get to things. I found the visuals to be gaudy, so I'd drop back to classic, but then I'd wonder why I was bothering with that when I could just be running XP.
It wasn't that bad. My computer came with a Soundblaster 16 set to IRQ 5, DMA 1, HDMA 5. I mindlessly plugged those numbers into each game's setup, if it didn't autodetect the settings for me. No problem.
It was nice having every game install into a self-contained folder, and if you were low on resources to play the game, you could slap in a boot disk with a custom autoexec.bat and config.sys so your machine was solely devoted to that game (I had to do that with SimCity 2000 in 6th grade). MS-DOS was the closest that PCs ever got to being console-like. Maybe it's no surprise that as computers pack more into their GUI operating systems and create the perception of overhead (whether real or not), consoles become more popular for gaming.
I installed FreeDOS 1.0 in VMWare the other day, and it booted in seconds with full mouse and networking support. It even came with a DOS-based web browser. It was pretty interesting. Some folks use DOS to for their MAME-based home arcades.
Why do you say that? They're still in demand and hard to find.
That's probably true for most people. After 30, most folks have settled into raising a family, etc. and that takes time away from work.
"It just is" sounds like a halt in the pursuit of answers.
That's probably because by mid-20s, most people are too busy with real lives to devote anything to pointless games.
I've read everything you've said. You're acting like one of those angry Linux zealots who gets upset when their anti-Windows propaganda is challenged.
Give me a break. Nearly all hard drives you ever buy will already be partitioned with one big partition taking up the whole drive. You don't "partition to NTFS"--partitioning and filesystem format are separate things. The majority of hard drives will be pre-formatted for NTFS too. How does this even help your case since, if the drive isn't pre-partitioned and pre-formatted, that's an extra step for Ubuntu as well?
I already said that in the real world, you most likely wouldn't even have to do that step because few hard drives are unpartitioned and unformatted. If it comes that way, that's a step for Ubuntu as well so it's meaningless to bring it up. Notice that you think it's important because it makes the Windows install longer, but you don't consider that it makes the Ubuntu installer longer too? That's proof you're not looking at this from a balanced viewpoint.
What does Office have to do with any of this? It's a cheap way to pad your list. It's like saying Ubuntu comes with an IRC client and Windows doesn't, and thus, that's an OMG-EXTRA-STEP that Windows users have to go through. Give me a break. It was a stupid attempt on your part to make the Windows install process seem longer than it is, so I pointed out that most Windows PCs already come with Office anyway.
And OpenOffice is a free download for Windows! So that point is moot and worthless.
I thought your point was about the steps involved in the operating system installers. You were obviously just padding the list with "junk."
I've installed Windows countless times. You were padding the list to make Windows look worse, like adding extra "Installing more files" steps. Don't you think I've seen posts like yours before on Slashdot? It's predictable propaganda.
Hell, you don't even mention Vista's installer which is even easier than XP's.
Hypothetical situations? Every Windows-based PC you buy comes with an OEM disc that has the Windows installer and often a second disc with drivers and pre-installed applications. I just restored a Dell last night using that method. You're just mad that you have no counterargument for it. I don't need to give a view of Ubuntu because I'm not the one claiming anything like you. I'm merely responding to your biased comparisons between the two in terms of their installers. If you want to talk about balanced views, what should a user do if X.org doesn't properly auto-detect their integrated Intel video card like on one of the towers I hav
Your question is answered in the link, which says the numbers are skewed. Thus, this announcement is a bit of misleading marketing on the part of OpenOffice.
Most Linux users get their software from their distro, so that's the reason for the predominance of Windows in the downloads. However, the conclusion reached by the author is arbitrary. There is nothing here showing that Office is "loosing" market dominance. All you have are OpenOffice download numbers, which don't prove anything about market dominance. Office isn't even available for Linux, so how is its market dominance changing from what it was before?
"Click install" is obviously a figure of speech used to illustrate the ease of installation. You're being overly literal to score points with the anti-Windows crowd. I'm no fan of Windows (typing this on a Mac sitting next to a compiling FreeBSD box), but I've seen posts exactly like yours in the past that did the very same padding of the list to make it look like a favored-distro-of-the-month is easier to install while Windows is some overly complicated procedure.