The only reason that MP3s are used more is because they are the standard now and since there are so much more of them out there compared to WMA, they will remain as the prime music format...until some radically different format comes out:-)
Actually, mp3 is used more than wma because mp3 is an OPEN standard. It is supported on just about EVERY platform out there (win, mac, *nix, BSD, Be, etc...). It's good...it's small...it's easy...it's well-supported...it's portable...and it works.
In order for ANY format to "replace" mp3 as a "de facto" standard, it will have to match or beat mp3 on all of these points. wma doesn't do that. I'ts only supported on platforms MS sees fit to support it on. It's not portable - with all the copy-protection crap. Yes, it may compress better while still retaining sound quality - but compression isn't everything.
::sigh:: what is it today with the DirectX trolling?
Time and again the general public has voted with its wallets and bought Windows ME as a games platform or a playstation/dreamcast etc.
Reality check: More games are available for Windows than for linux. This is because (until recently) the interest in linux gaming has been fairly small - only recently has linux started taking a place on desktop machines, and thus only recently has there been much demand for games to run under linux. Taking that headstart into account, along with the fact that (through illegal means) MS has the majority of desktops cornered - it's tough to buy a machine from a major vendor WITHOUT Windows (note: tough, not impossible) - it's only natural that support for gaming APIs would be rather small at the moment. Loki has been doing a phenomenal job of getting some great games running under linux - I suggest you take a look.
Why do Linux people continue with the fantasy that their operating system is anything other than a tool for elitist, arrogant techies (nost of whom long for the days when computers were hard to use, and resent Microsoft for making computers easy for the man in the street).
Stability (my current uptime: 35 days)
Speed
Portability (runs on a VAST number of platforms)
Versitility (That old 386 makes a damn fine router/firewall/mail station)
Availibility of development tools (they're FREE!)
Customizability (I run what I want to run, not what some large company says I want to run)
Support (Email to debian-user: free. Support call to MS: $45 "incident fee" plus additional charges)
I could go on...
I also disagree with you about MS "making it easy" for people. Reality check: MS is only perceived as "easy" because everyone uses it. If your first experience with a computer is MS Windows - that's what will seem easy to you 2 years down the road. If your first experience was a *nix desktop, 2 years down the road THAT would seem easy to you. It's all a matter of perspective.
The Market has spoken, and it has said DirectX. Loud and clear, the message of the market is OpenGL sucks, DirectX rules. (I am speaking in simplistic terms here so the less intelligent slashdot morons can understand me).
One word: Bull.
To elaborate, "the market" only shows a strong showing for DirectX (a proprietary MS API) because Windows (a proprietary MS OS) has a vastly larger installation base (on desktops) than anything else right now. Naturally, more games will be available for it - and as a game developer, you'd be silly not to take advantage of any useful API that your host OS offers. That being said, many development houses are starting to see that there are better ways of doing graphics than DirectX. Take Baldur's Gate II for example - it uses OpenGL for graphics, but also makes use of DirectX for sound and other things. It's a case of using the best tool in your current toolkit for the job at hand. If your toolkit is MS Windows, then DirectX is in there, and can be used. Under linux, it's doubtful that you'll see support for a closed, proprietary API designed for an architecturally dissimilar OS. What you might see is a similar API developed in an open fashion (IE: done the "linux way") - but these things take time, and VERY few people are paid to do this stuff full-time. So...it can take a while. Linux is definitely capable of being as good of a gaming host OS as Windows - it just requires that developers spend the time to develop for it, and marketers to realize that there IS indeed a gaming market out there that WANTS to buy linux games. The availibility of dual-boot, however, stymies this a bit when developers release for Windows first -- as many people who would buy the linux version instead buy the Windows version, simply because it is available first.
Fact: Linux cannot and will not succeed in the games market. Period. Until it has good support for DirectX.
Reality check: DirectX is an API for Windows. Linux and Windows are dissimilar architecturally, so you're not going to see "DirectX for linux" anytime soon.
This, of course, isn't stopping Loki from porting games to linux. As linux gaming matures, I'm sure we WILL see a standardized API for direct system calls to hardware coalesce - it may not be there right now - but give it some time - linux gaming is still fairly new. Let Loki, id, and the other linux-gaming-friendly companies get some more games out, and start getting SIMULTANEOUS releases of games - then you'll start to see the market for linux games jump - and THEN you'll start seeing things like standardized APIs get discussed.
Unfortunately this will never happen because of the linux crowds pathological jealousy and hatred of Microsoft. Nonetheless it is the ONLY way that Linux is ever likely to get any real games support.
The linux crowd simply sees beyond the wool that's been pulled over your eyes. Microsoft has illegally forced it's grossly inferior product into a position of dominance - and has been supported by the government practically every step of the way. Do you think it's in Microsoft's best interests to EVER open the DirectX API, such that a port could even be conceived? No. Microsoft is in the business of making money. It's something they're very good at. They're conspiring with other large corporate interests (RIAA, MPAA, etc...) to strip your rights away. They want to make you RENT your OS, and the apps that run on it. They don't want you to have a choice.
Then again, I guess everything I've just said is completely irrational, isn't it?
Do us a favor, and crawl back under your bridge where it's dark and safe. Cuddle up with your "Tickle-Me-Steve-Ballmer" and your "Sleep-n-Snore-Bill-Gates", and stop spreading groundless FUD.
Of course they do -- that's their business. But locking people into a proprietary document format is making the same mistake that was made in the Windows world.
If the format is open, and accessible to many different apps, then there is a real reason for a vendor to make their application perform better. If the format field is levelled, and one vendor has a word processor app that is faster, more stable, and more portable than their competition - they will get more users.
The problems then come when, in order to have product distinction, companies "extend" the standard - thus making files made by their app incompatible with other apps. This is the situation we have to avoid. It also means that once a particular app is exceedingly fast, stable, and portable, there won't be much call for other apps to do the same job -- so the developers of the "winning" app will be stuck...either move on and make new software, or start "extending".
The business world wants the latter, as it means locking people into a certain program/format, thus ensuring revenue from "upgrades". The former is generally better for users and the "community" as a whole, as it means more quality software.
This is one of those hurdles the linux/open source/free software/whatever community has to clear before free, open standards for this sort of thing will be possible.
So what really needs to happen is the KDE and GNOME people need to get together and decide on UI interoperability standards -- then any apps wishing to become a "de facto standard" would adhere to those, and run perfectly well in a GNOME or KDE environment, or a mix of the two, or neither.
To some extent, this has already occurred - AFAIK, it's possible to drag&drop between the two, and KDE is able to make use of GTK themes (haven't played with it myself though)
Admittedly, the differences in toolkits (qt vs gtk) aren't trivial - and the backend communications are even less so - but it doesn't seem out of the question that an interop standard could be agreed upon - then it's just a matter of porting the current apps to the new standards.
Hmm...I'm not sure it's an actual do-able idea - but I'd start with ONE wm, and make it compatible with the rest - then add the others.
For example...the original poster's itch was using Windowmaker themes in Sawfish. OK - first you have to make a "generic" Windowmaker theme for Sawfish (or if there's already a good one available, modify that) with "hooks" for the various Windowmaker theme components (gradients, pixmaps, etc...) -- then you'll have to make a parser that goes through the Windowmaker theme, and converts everything to a format your meta-theme can understand.
I'm not much of a programmer myself (I dabble in perl a bit) but that's a heckuva lot more complicated than I just made it sound. =)
The real problems will come when you're trying to convert a theme from an "uber-shell wm" like Enlightenment (that has many, many different configs) to a more restrictive wm, like Windowmaker.
Think about it for a second, if ID Software or someone invested a minimal amount into this to get it going, they would make their money back not only on the hardware, but on the software level too.
Hmm...they could drop development for other consoles, and get this thing renamed the "ego";)
Then, a year down the road, they could update the system (to the latest/greatest graphics chipset, and add more memory) and re-release it as the "SuperEgo"...
Actually...doesn't TRUSTe only guarantee that a company is doing exactly what they SAY they're doing? So even if a certain company is "TRUSTe certified" it only means that they're screwing you over in exactly the way that they say they are (in legalese, of course, which is intentionally so mind-bogglingly convoluted that only laywers generally understand it - a sufficient vocabulary and a knack for substitution helps - but ask the average Joe what they're actually saying, and he won't be able to tell)
In addition, if the selection committee prevents bad music from appearing on napster, it will greatly increase the rate at which napster users find good, independent music.
Wow...
Now...I may get accused of flaming here, but aren't "good" and "bad" VERY subjective terms?
For example, I loathe country music. To me, it qualifies as "bad". Many of my friends share my view. Some don't. I also dislike music from the rap, "hip-hop", R&B and "popular" genres. I'd go so far as to rate these types of music as "bad". IMHO, of course.
Now, given that I have these views, were I selected to perform good/bad picks on various bits of music, that would weed a LOT of music out.
Is that fair? No. Those artists have a right to produce their music. Their fans have a right to listen to it. (no matter how "bad" *I* think it is) Imposing my preferences upon them would be wrong.
This goes the other way too. I would feel cheated if someone else imposed their musical preferences on me.
So...the question is - who gets to say what is "good" in your proposal - and why are they qualified to make those kinds of decisions for everyone? How will the balance be made between standard (RIAA approved) musical preferences and non-standard ones?
Hell, the bill states that it STILL has to be provided, even if there is NO OS INSTALLED - that it has to be compatible with "at least one" OS that CAN be installed on the computer. I wonder exactly how much hardware you can sell before you have to include a box of censorware...
I smell money somewhere - probably coming from a TX based censorware company...
The problem comes when you take the "over the top" nature of advertizing technologies when they relate to the 'net.
First it was spam.
Then it was banners.
Then more spam, and more banners.
Then (people started catching on to spammers grabbing email addresses from innocuous-looking forms) gated "valid email address" pages that send some form of "password" to your address - you use the password, they know your address is real, and put it on the "verified real-deal email addresses" list, which they then sell to spammers.
Now - since none of that is working - places like CNet have decided that ads need to be BIGGER, and take over the content area to the point that they quite literally interrupt the browsing experience. (which of course is the point of advertizing anyway)
This is only going to get worse. Soon the ads will be larger and more abundant than the content itself.
Soon it'll be hard to tell what is "content" and what is an ad - pages will be designed not to display the article or content that it's audience will be looking for, but rather to "effectively" display the ads.
People will look for options to get rid of them - and they'll start to pay micropayments, or yearly/monthly/daily/hourly fees to get HALF of the ads stripped out (but you know they're going to pass some through even to the paying crowd)
So, people will turn to blocking software like Junkbuster -- at which point, I fully expect there to be a rash of "campaign contributions" to various elected officials, and some law making it illegal to block ads to be bought^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoted into law.
The sad thing is, the law actually goes the other way and protects THEM from YOUR possible DECRYPTING of the information.
They invade your computer, grab some personal information and encrypt it, then send it back to their servers (without your knowledge). You find out about this, and find a way to decrypt it. You find out they've taken a LOT more than anyone would want them to, so you publish your findings. They don't like this (it's bad press) so they sue you under the terms of the DMCA (the material was "protected" by encryption, and decrypting it for any reason is illegal...)
Sad state of affairs in this country. Very, very sad.
Making Linux *easier* to use may dumb down the interface, but it means
more freedom for all concerned, and therefore, a sweeter victory in
the information wars.
That's one beauty of *nix as a platform - the interface can be
controlled. Want a console-less desktop with access only to Netscape
(web, email, newsgroups), an ICQ/AIM client (jabber, gaim, licq,
etc...) and an mp3 player (xmms, etc...), all in large type for your
grandma to use? You can do that.
Then, you sit down at the same computer, log in, and get your
Enlightenment/Gnome/KDE/whatever desktop, complete with YOUR
preferences, and full access to the system.
Your little brother wants to chat online with his pals from school?
No problem - he logs in with his account, and there's his own desktop,
with access only to the programs YOU want him to access. No fear of
him trashing the system with a few mouseclicks. He only has access to
his own stuff
Sure, there's stuff for Windows/Mac to do much the same thing, but
*nix has it from the ground up. =)
In any case, couldn't you just add.01 second of silence to the end of the file and change the MD5 sum?
Or...you could...
use a different bitrate
use a different encoder
use a different computer to encode it
use a different id3 tag (unsure)
compress the mp3 with zip, gzip, bz2, etc...
Any number of things could change the MD5 for the file... I don't think it's very realistic to do checksums to validate mp3s, as any single song could be encoded by any of at least 5-10 different encoders, at any number of different bitrates...the number of md5 sums for any SINGLE song would be enormous -- multiply that by the millions of songs the RIAA wants blocked...
Then again, blocking every string used in a song title will be nearly as bad - and will unfairly stop independant non-RIAA artists from LAWFULLY distributing their music via Napster.
Well...I'd say it's just a case of users having an overwhelming sense of pride in their distribution =)
I admit, I'm a debian convert (used Redhat for 3 years, then tried debian once - can't ever go back) but I try to be an understanding one - No distribution is "right" for everyone...debian just happenes to be "right" for me (and for quite a few other, more opinionated folks as well, it seems;P )
I'm also not a descendant of an amiga user (never owned one - never owned anything made by commodore, although I'm in the process of acquiring an old c64 to play with).
Don't make general statements like that - it just makes us all look bad.
Square has been BIG into Sony for the past few years (basically ever since they dumped Nintendo) -- they've already announced the intention for FFXI -- MMORPG done right. Square makes great games (FFXIII excluded) so there's a chance they could actually pull it off.
Now...Sony has basically won the console market (Nintendo's been slipping due to a lack of good games, Sega dropped out, even though their console is just as good as a PS2) - so now it's time to make a bid for power -- imagine the temptation of a MMORPG-done-right that's accessible (for $$, of course) at the local mall arcade...
Wife decided to go to Bath & Body Works again? Go down to the arcade and play your character for a little while - sure, it'll cost a couple bucks, but you won't have to put up with the boredom =)
That's just an example, of course, but I think it's a possibility of what Sony's going for here.
This is clearly posted in their privacy policy and terms of service.
...which, assuming Juno is your only ISP, they can change without notice while you're offline, then you implicitly agree to while you connect to them, before you even have a chance to read it. Dirty pool.
People are smart enough to read and understand TOS's, if they choose not to then they shouldn't act surprised when revelations like this
occur.
The problem with this logic is that, quite frankly, our society goes out of it's way to tell people "You're not smart enough to understand legalese - that's why laywers go to law school" -- so the average Joe, who may or may not actually be smart enough, and posess an advanced enough vocabulary to comprehend the legalese, generally doesn't think that they CAN understand it, so why bother reading it. Most people in the US at least are sheep. They trust others implicitly when it comes to stuff like this. They trust Juno NOT to have crap like this in their agreement -- not that that's right at all, I'm just making a point here.
Using Juno is a choice. If you don't like their choices, DON'T use them.
I agree wholeheartedly - but WE'RE not the ones who need to know about this. The "sheep" need to know about this. I like the idea that someone came up with about spamming Juno's users with an email about exactly what their TOS allows...
Juno is without an explicit cost, but nothing in life is free.
Ah yes. True again. But Juno goes out of their way to hide the nefarious stuff in the legalese of their agreement. Nowhere on their website or in their advertizing materials do they even pay lip service to "Computational Software" or "You must keep your computer on 24/7 or we reserve the right to take it away from you, store it in our bunker in the middle of the pacific ocean, and charge you for the electricity and long-distance charges". Their advertrizing basically ammounts to "Free, easy email! Use us!"
It's a stunning slap to the face in the name of "always read the fine print" though.
If you want to get really fancy, but still keep.inc for includes, you can simply set apache up to Deny.inc files to anyone who requests them. That way, you can keep them anywhere you want, but you can't get at them from the web (you can include them just fine, however).
I was working at an ISP, doing web programming (after clawing my way up from tech support) - getting paid about half what I was worth, being unhappy, unfulfilled, and unappreciated.
The parent company (a telco) was taking more and more control of the ISP side of things, making poor decisions, and trying to enforce shirt-and-tie policies in a formerly t-shirt-and-jeans company.
In short it wasn't pretty.
None of us in the department (and a couple of other departments) were happy. We'd been happy in the early days, but those days were over.
The first wake-up call was when out department manager (a web designer, and a damn good one) was deposed, in favor of the newly hired project manager, and her "mentor", who was in sales. He left a few weeks later.
Second wakeup call was when the founder of the ISP (who sold out to the telco, and regretted his decision to do it for years afterwards) left to become a project manager at a competing web design house. This was the most laid-back, cool guy you could imagine - and a big slap-in-the-face to those of us who were still there.
At that point, those of us in the department were already starting to put out some feelers (Monster, Techies, etc...) to see what the market was like.
Still though - even though we were unhappy - we felt kind of weird about leaving - the department was very small as it was - the loss of our former manager increased our workloads quite a bit - it was almost unimaginable what another one of us leaving would do to the workloads of the remaining few.
Then, the senior designer left - to the same company as our former manager. 4 remained.
At that point, I had to assess my priorities. I was having a hard time going into work every day - and a harder time staying there once I got there - the atmosphere was becoming more and more opressive - management expecting 4 people to do the same work as 6 in the same timeframe - corporate snootiness clashing against geekish laid-backness, etc...
I laid out my own priorities this way:
My family (fiancee, mom & dad, etc...) comes first.
Myself comes second.
My friends come third.
My job comes last.
For me, It was a no-brainer. The company wasn't doing me, or my friends any good. My family wanted me to be happy, and I wasn't. I wanted my family to be happy - my fiancee in particular, and I couldn't do that on the salary I was making.
So, I left. It was actually fairly easy and quick to find a job in a better area of the country, for a MUCH better salary, and working for a MUCH better company.
The other 3 members of our former team are still there - two negotiated for higher salaries in return for a one-year contract (AKA - no matter how bad it gets, they're stuck there for a year) - one is simply biding his time until he finishes college this summer - at which point he plans on leaving.
I get messages every day from them - and things aren't getting better - they're getting worse. One at least regrets signing the contract that binds him for a year.
The moral of the story is that you've got to decide what's right for you, given your priorities. The job market is fairly good right now - a company isn't doing you any favors by keeping you employed - you're doing them a favor by continuing to work there.
There are bigger, better fish in the sea - maybe if you leave, it'll be a slap-in-the-face to your friends, who are probably in the same boat as you are.
Man - I just realized how long this post is - sorry 'bout that!
But (unless you're rich or have one of those auto-upgrade leases) you don't upgrade your car every year or two - the average lifespan is more around 4-10 years (depending on use and abuse level)
Now...what MS has done is say - "Thanks for buying MS tires for your 2000 Ford Explorer - We appreciate your business" - then turn around, after you upgrade from the 2000 model to the 2001 model "We're sorry, but you can't put those (bought/paid for/perfectly good) tires on your new 2001 Explorer, even though they'll fit - instead, you have to buy four new tires from us"
This is a fairly logical extension of the current licensing policies - where even though you have gone to a store, paid money, and brought home a physical object, YOU DON'T OWN IT -- this kind of thing *shouldn't* be legal - in the above case, you paid money for a product - you should OWN it. Extending this a bit further gets us to this issue with Whistler - where not only don't you OWN it, but you can't USE it if you get a new computer - or even upgrade certain parts of your current computer.
We used to joke about the "MS Tax" on a new computer because of the restrictions MS used on vendors such as Dell or Gateway - forcing you to buy a copy of Windows with your new computer, even if you didn't plan on EVER running Windows on the computer.
Now they want to implement this on a larger scale - tying Windows to the hardware you have in your system at install-time. Change some major aspect of your system - pay the MS tax - ditch one computer for another one - pay the MS tax.
If we don't find some EFFECTIVE way of fighting bull$#!^ like this, we'll get stuck with more and more of it. It's even getting to the point that US not buying it isn't going to dent their bottom line. Getting Dell or Gateway or Compaq to stop buying it - that might hurt 'em a little more. The question is how the heck do we do that? (and email/letters don't seem to work on something as big as this - the shareholders want $$$ - Dell/Gateway surely think that the only way to keep making $$$ is to acquiese to MS - as the big corporate buyers want windows...
So now we've identified the target as the corporate buyers - how do we tell them this is a bad thing? Moving to a new OS requires extensive training (especially for all-MS shops who have "standardized" on MS Office, Outlook, Exchange, NT, ASP, etc...) -- most pointy-haired types don't go for that very well.
Re:When the Martians Land
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
Nah - perl support is just a concession - a PR move of sorts.
M$ adds support for their new C# language, and for Visual Basic (their 'we're going to shove this down your throat whether you like it or not' language), and perl.
M$ controls C# and VB. It doesn't control perl. Basically they'll say "Hey -.NET is open - see - it can use perl!" while surrepticiously "enhancing" the support for C# and VB - so more.NET developers will start moving over from perl to C# (I can't see VB being big with perl people, no matter how hard I try) for the added features/support.
At least, that's probably how M$ is looking at it.
It's entirely possible that this will go the other way and perl will become the standard language for.NET stuff. I doubt it - but it could happen.
M$ doesn't need to make it's own perl - it just has to shoulder it out of the way.
I think you're missing the point - which is that anythig that is a barrier to content, makes it more likely that said content won't be seen.
Content is what keeps people coming back. It's what's made the 'Net so popular, and what has kept it going. It's what the 'Net was made to convey.
Now - if you start sucking up bandwidth and time with super-obtrusive ads that can't be ignored - not only will bandwidth usage skyrocket (inflating 'net access costs along the way) but people WILL NOT feel obligated to buy your product. They'll be pissed that it took them another 1-5 minutes (depending on connection type) to access what they wanted to see.
People keep saying that it's "just like TV" to do this - I hate to bust bubbles, but it isn't -- I can turn on the TV at 8:00 - watch until 8:10 - turn off the TV for 3.5 minutes (7 30 second ads) - turn it back on, and watch till 8:20 - lather, rinse, repeat - and avoid 90% of the ads (I realize that this isn't an EXACT schedule - I'm just using it as an example).
I could also flip the channels as soon as an ad comes on, and watch something else for a couple of minutes (that's how we originally found Iron Chef;) ) - and again, I've avoided the ads.
What they're proposing for 'net ads are COMPLETELY different - they subvert focus from your browser window (in the case of popups) [TV analogy: I turn to Food Network, the TV goes to Ad Channel 4 instead, until I change the channel a SECOND time], keep you from closing your browser (in the case of on-exit scripts) [TV analogy: I turn my TV off, but it instead changes to Ad Channel 2 - I again try to turn it off, and it instead changes to Ad Channel 5, ad nauseum], or worse, force you to view the ad before seeing the content (in the case of "interstitials") [TV analogy: I turn my TV to the SciFi channel, and it instead turns to Ad Channel 8 for 2 minutes, then changes to my desired channel].
The more barriers there are to the content, the more people who will simply get fed up with it and go elsewhere. I'm one of those people. Companies who use these forms of ads won't get my eyeballs. They'll get my anger and resentment.
Of course, I can't simply bash the concept without offering an alternative. Micropayment CAN work - they just have to figure out a way to do it right. People wouldn't mind paying a TINY payment to download their mp3s or read commercial news articles.
I won't lie - Free (speech) sites would always come first - but I definitely wouldn't mind a small payment for decent content.
Slashdot Mirror
...ahem..."Cartman". One word.
The only reason that MP3s are used more is because they are the standard now and since there are so much more of them out there compared to WMA, they will remain as the prime music format...until some radically different format comes out
Actually, mp3 is used more than wma because mp3 is an OPEN standard. It is supported on just about EVERY platform out there (win, mac, *nix, BSD, Be, etc...). It's good...it's small...it's easy...it's well-supported...it's portable...and it works.
In order for ANY format to "replace" mp3 as a "de facto" standard, it will have to match or beat mp3 on all of these points. wma doesn't do that. I'ts only supported on platforms MS sees fit to support it on. It's not portable - with all the copy-protection crap. Yes, it may compress better while still retaining sound quality - but compression isn't everything.
Time and again the general public has voted with its wallets and bought Windows ME as a games platform or a playstation/dreamcast etc.
Reality check: More games are available for Windows than for linux. This is because (until recently) the interest in linux gaming has been fairly small - only recently has linux started taking a place on desktop machines, and thus only recently has there been much demand for games to run under linux. Taking that headstart into account, along with the fact that (through illegal means) MS has the majority of desktops cornered - it's tough to buy a machine from a major vendor WITHOUT Windows (note: tough, not impossible) - it's only natural that support for gaming APIs would be rather small at the moment. Loki has been doing a phenomenal job of getting some great games running under linux - I suggest you take a look.
Why do Linux people continue with the fantasy that their operating system is anything other than a tool for elitist, arrogant techies (nost of whom long for the days when computers were hard to use, and resent Microsoft for making computers easy for the man in the street).
I could go on...
I also disagree with you about MS "making it easy" for people. Reality check: MS is only perceived as "easy" because everyone uses it. If your first experience with a computer is MS Windows - that's what will seem easy to you 2 years down the road. If your first experience was a *nix desktop, 2 years down the road THAT would seem easy to you. It's all a matter of perspective.
The Market has spoken, and it has said DirectX. Loud and clear, the message of the market is OpenGL sucks, DirectX rules. (I am speaking in simplistic terms here so the less intelligent slashdot morons can understand me).
One word: Bull.
To elaborate, "the market" only shows a strong showing for DirectX (a proprietary MS API) because Windows (a proprietary MS OS) has a vastly larger installation base (on desktops) than anything else right now. Naturally, more games will be available for it - and as a game developer, you'd be silly not to take advantage of any useful API that your host OS offers. That being said, many development houses are starting to see that there are better ways of doing graphics than DirectX. Take Baldur's Gate II for example - it uses OpenGL for graphics, but also makes use of DirectX for sound and other things. It's a case of using the best tool in your current toolkit for the job at hand. If your toolkit is MS Windows, then DirectX is in there, and can be used. Under linux, it's doubtful that you'll see support for a closed, proprietary API designed for an architecturally dissimilar OS. What you might see is a similar API developed in an open fashion (IE: done the "linux way") - but these things take time, and VERY few people are paid to do this stuff full-time. So...it can take a while. Linux is definitely capable of being as good of a gaming host OS as Windows - it just requires that developers spend the time to develop for it, and marketers to realize that there IS indeed a gaming market out there that WANTS to buy linux games. The availibility of dual-boot, however, stymies this a bit when developers release for Windows first -- as many people who would buy the linux version instead buy the Windows version, simply because it is available first.
Fact: Linux cannot and will not succeed in the games market. Period. Until it has good support for DirectX.
Reality check: DirectX is an API for Windows. Linux and Windows are dissimilar architecturally, so you're not going to see "DirectX for linux" anytime soon.
This, of course, isn't stopping Loki from porting games to linux. As linux gaming matures, I'm sure we WILL see a standardized API for direct system calls to hardware coalesce - it may not be there right now - but give it some time - linux gaming is still fairly new. Let Loki, id, and the other linux-gaming-friendly companies get some more games out, and start getting SIMULTANEOUS releases of games - then you'll start to see the market for linux games jump - and THEN you'll start seeing things like standardized APIs get discussed.
Unfortunately this will never happen because of the linux crowds pathological jealousy and hatred of Microsoft. Nonetheless it is the ONLY way that Linux is ever likely to get any real games support.
The linux crowd simply sees beyond the wool that's been pulled over your eyes. Microsoft has illegally forced it's grossly inferior product into a position of dominance - and has been supported by the government practically every step of the way. Do you think it's in Microsoft's best interests to EVER open the DirectX API, such that a port could even be conceived? No. Microsoft is in the business of making money. It's something they're very good at. They're conspiring with other large corporate interests (RIAA, MPAA, etc...) to strip your rights away. They want to make you RENT your OS, and the apps that run on it. They don't want you to have a choice.
Then again, I guess everything I've just said is completely irrational, isn't it?
Do us a favor, and crawl back under your bridge where it's dark and safe. Cuddle up with your "Tickle-Me-Steve-Ballmer" and your "Sleep-n-Snore-Bill-Gates", and stop spreading groundless FUD.
I, of course, am prone to being completely wrong.
Of course they do -- that's their business. But locking people into a proprietary document format is making the same mistake that was made in the Windows world.
If the format is open, and accessible to many different apps, then there is a real reason for a vendor to make their application perform better. If the format field is levelled, and one vendor has a word processor app that is faster, more stable, and more portable than their competition - they will get more users.
The problems then come when, in order to have product distinction, companies "extend" the standard - thus making files made by their app incompatible with other apps. This is the situation we have to avoid. It also means that once a particular app is exceedingly fast, stable, and portable, there won't be much call for other apps to do the same job -- so the developers of the "winning" app will be stuck...either move on and make new software, or start "extending".
The business world wants the latter, as it means locking people into a certain program/format, thus ensuring revenue from "upgrades". The former is generally better for users and the "community" as a whole, as it means more quality software.
This is one of those hurdles the linux/open source/free software/whatever community has to clear before free, open standards for this sort of thing will be possible.
So what really needs to happen is the KDE and GNOME people need to get together and decide on UI interoperability standards -- then any apps wishing to become a "de facto standard" would adhere to those, and run perfectly well in a GNOME or KDE environment, or a mix of the two, or neither.
To some extent, this has already occurred - AFAIK, it's possible to drag&drop between the two, and KDE is able to make use of GTK themes (haven't played with it myself though)
Admittedly, the differences in toolkits (qt vs gtk) aren't trivial - and the backend communications are even less so - but it doesn't seem out of the question that an interop standard could be agreed upon - then it's just a matter of porting the current apps to the new standards.
I am, of course, prone to being wrong.
Hmm...I'm not sure it's an actual do-able idea - but I'd start with ONE wm, and make it compatible with the rest - then add the others.
For example...the original poster's itch was using Windowmaker themes in Sawfish. OK - first you have to make a "generic" Windowmaker theme for Sawfish (or if there's already a good one available, modify that) with "hooks" for the various Windowmaker theme components (gradients, pixmaps, etc...) -- then you'll have to make a parser that goes through the Windowmaker theme, and converts everything to a format your meta-theme can understand.
I'm not much of a programmer myself (I dabble in perl a bit) but that's a heckuva lot more complicated than I just made it sound. =)
The real problems will come when you're trying to convert a theme from an "uber-shell wm" like Enlightenment (that has many, many different configs) to a more restrictive wm, like Windowmaker.
Think about it for a second, if ID Software or someone invested a minimal amount into this to get it going, they would make their money back not only on the hardware, but on the software level too.
Hmm...they could drop development for other consoles, and get this thing renamed the "ego" ;)
Then, a year down the road, they could update the system (to the latest/greatest graphics chipset, and add more memory) and re-release it as the "SuperEgo"...
Then they'd have a full triad...
Actually...doesn't TRUSTe only guarantee that a company is doing exactly what they SAY they're doing? So even if a certain company is "TRUSTe certified" it only means that they're screwing you over in exactly the way that they say they are (in legalese, of course, which is intentionally so mind-bogglingly convoluted that only laywers generally understand it - a sufficient vocabulary and a knack for substitution helps - but ask the average Joe what they're actually saying, and he won't be able to tell)
In addition, if the selection committee prevents bad music from appearing on napster, it will greatly increase the rate at which napster users find good, independent music.
Wow...
Now...I may get accused of flaming here, but aren't "good" and "bad" VERY subjective terms?
For example, I loathe country music. To me, it qualifies as "bad". Many of my friends share my view. Some don't. I also dislike music from the rap, "hip-hop", R&B and "popular" genres. I'd go so far as to rate these types of music as "bad". IMHO, of course.
Now, given that I have these views, were I selected to perform good/bad picks on various bits of music, that would weed a LOT of music out.
Is that fair? No. Those artists have a right to produce their music. Their fans have a right to listen to it. (no matter how "bad" *I* think it is) Imposing my preferences upon them would be wrong.
This goes the other way too. I would feel cheated if someone else imposed their musical preferences on me.
So...the question is - who gets to say what is "good" in your proposal - and why are they qualified to make those kinds of decisions for everyone? How will the balance be made between standard (RIAA approved) musical preferences and non-standard ones?
Hell, the bill states that it STILL has to be provided, even if there is NO OS INSTALLED - that it has to be compatible with "at least one" OS that CAN be installed on the computer. I wonder exactly how much hardware you can sell before you have to include a box of censorware...
I smell money somewhere - probably coming from a TX based censorware company...
The problem comes when you take the "over the top" nature of advertizing technologies when they relate to the 'net.
First it was spam.
Then it was banners.
Then more spam, and more banners.
Then (people started catching on to spammers grabbing email addresses from innocuous-looking forms) gated "valid email address" pages that send some form of "password" to your address - you use the password, they know your address is real, and put it on the "verified real-deal email addresses" list, which they then sell to spammers.
Now - since none of that is working - places like CNet have decided that ads need to be BIGGER, and take over the content area to the point that they quite literally interrupt the browsing experience. (which of course is the point of advertizing anyway)
This is only going to get worse. Soon the ads will be larger and more abundant than the content itself.
Soon it'll be hard to tell what is "content" and what is an ad - pages will be designed not to display the article or content that it's audience will be looking for, but rather to "effectively" display the ads.
People will look for options to get rid of them - and they'll start to pay micropayments, or yearly/monthly/daily/hourly fees to get HALF of the ads stripped out (but you know they're going to pass some through even to the paying crowd)
So, people will turn to blocking software like Junkbuster -- at which point, I fully expect there to be a rash of "campaign contributions" to various elected officials, and some law making it illegal to block ads to be bought^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoted into law.
Ahh - I see my error - I was under the impression that once they encrypted it, it counted as a "work" and was thus implicitly protected.
I stand corrected.
The sad thing is, the law actually goes the other way and protects THEM from YOUR possible DECRYPTING of the information.
They invade your computer, grab some personal information and encrypt it, then send it back to their servers (without your knowledge). You find out about this, and find a way to decrypt it. You find out they've taken a LOT more than anyone would want them to, so you publish your findings. They don't like this (it's bad press) so they sue you under the terms of the DMCA (the material was "protected" by encryption, and decrypting it for any reason is illegal...)
Sad state of affairs in this country. Very, very sad.
gov.slashdot.org ;)
Same focus, no need for another domain =)
Making Linux *easier* to use may dumb down the interface, but it means more freedom for all concerned, and therefore, a sweeter victory in the information wars.
That's one beauty of *nix as a platform - the interface can be controlled. Want a console-less desktop with access only to Netscape (web, email, newsgroups), an ICQ/AIM client (jabber, gaim, licq, etc...) and an mp3 player (xmms, etc...), all in large type for your grandma to use? You can do that.
Then, you sit down at the same computer, log in, and get your Enlightenment/Gnome/KDE/whatever desktop, complete with YOUR preferences, and full access to the system.
Your little brother wants to chat online with his pals from school? No problem - he logs in with his account, and there's his own desktop, with access only to the programs YOU want him to access. No fear of him trashing the system with a few mouseclicks. He only has access to his own stuff
Sure, there's stuff for Windows/Mac to do much the same thing, but *nix has it from the ground up. =)
In any case, couldn't you just add .01 second of silence to the end of the file and change the MD5 sum?
Or...you could...
Any number of things could change the MD5 for the file... I don't think it's very realistic to do checksums to validate mp3s, as any single song could be encoded by any of at least 5-10 different encoders, at any number of different bitrates...the number of md5 sums for any SINGLE song would be enormous -- multiply that by the millions of songs the RIAA wants blocked...
Then again, blocking every string used in a song title will be nearly as bad - and will unfairly stop independant non-RIAA artists from LAWFULLY distributing their music via Napster.
In short, a lose, lose situation.
Well...I'd say it's just a case of users having an overwhelming sense of pride in their distribution =)
;P )
I admit, I'm a debian convert (used Redhat for 3 years, then tried debian once - can't ever go back) but I try to be an understanding one - No distribution is "right" for everyone...debian just happenes to be "right" for me (and for quite a few other, more opinionated folks as well, it seems
I'm also not a descendant of an amiga user (never owned one - never owned anything made by commodore, although I'm in the process of acquiring an old c64 to play with).
Don't make general statements like that - it just makes us all look bad.
Other than that, nice troll =)
You know...you may have something there...
Square has been BIG into Sony for the past few years (basically ever since they dumped Nintendo) -- they've already announced the intention for FFXI -- MMORPG done right. Square makes great games (FFXIII excluded) so there's a chance they could actually pull it off.
Now...Sony has basically won the console market (Nintendo's been slipping due to a lack of good games, Sega dropped out, even though their console is just as good as a PS2) - so now it's time to make a bid for power -- imagine the temptation of a MMORPG-done-right that's accessible (for $$, of course) at the local mall arcade...
Wife decided to go to Bath & Body Works again? Go down to the arcade and play your character for a little while - sure, it'll cost a couple bucks, but you won't have to put up with the boredom =)
That's just an example, of course, but I think it's a possibility of what Sony's going for here.
Good call.
This is clearly posted in their privacy policy and terms of service.
...which, assuming Juno is your only ISP, they can change without notice while you're offline, then you implicitly agree to while you connect to them, before you even have a chance to read it. Dirty pool.
People are smart enough to read and understand TOS's, if they choose not to then they shouldn't act surprised when revelations like this occur.
The problem with this logic is that, quite frankly, our society goes out of it's way to tell people "You're not smart enough to understand legalese - that's why laywers go to law school" -- so the average Joe, who may or may not actually be smart enough, and posess an advanced enough vocabulary to comprehend the legalese, generally doesn't think that they CAN understand it, so why bother reading it. Most people in the US at least are sheep. They trust others implicitly when it comes to stuff like this. They trust Juno NOT to have crap like this in their agreement -- not that that's right at all, I'm just making a point here.
Using Juno is a choice. If you don't like their choices, DON'T use them.
I agree wholeheartedly - but WE'RE not the ones who need to know about this. The "sheep" need to know about this. I like the idea that someone came up with about spamming Juno's users with an email about exactly what their TOS allows...
Juno is without an explicit cost, but nothing in life is free.
Ah yes. True again. But Juno goes out of their way to hide the nefarious stuff in the legalese of their agreement. Nowhere on their website or in their advertizing materials do they even pay lip service to "Computational Software" or "You must keep your computer on 24/7 or we reserve the right to take it away from you, store it in our bunker in the middle of the pacific ocean, and charge you for the electricity and long-distance charges". Their advertrizing basically ammounts to "Free, easy email! Use us!"
It's a stunning slap to the face in the name of "always read the fine print" though.
(today's obligatory obscure anime reference:)
Nah - reverse the g and the n: Nergel - close enough to Nergal for me =)
If you want to get really fancy, but still keep .inc for includes, you can simply set apache up to Deny .inc files to anyone who requests them. That way, you can keep them anywhere you want, but you can't get at them from the web (you can include them just fine, however).
I was there a few months ago.
I was working at an ISP, doing web programming (after clawing my way up from tech support) - getting paid about half what I was worth, being unhappy, unfulfilled, and unappreciated.
The parent company (a telco) was taking more and more control of the ISP side of things, making poor decisions, and trying to enforce shirt-and-tie policies in a formerly t-shirt-and-jeans company.
In short it wasn't pretty.
None of us in the department (and a couple of other departments) were happy. We'd been happy in the early days, but those days were over.
The first wake-up call was when out department manager (a web designer, and a damn good one) was deposed, in favor of the newly hired project manager, and her "mentor", who was in sales. He left a few weeks later.
Second wakeup call was when the founder of the ISP (who sold out to the telco, and regretted his decision to do it for years afterwards) left to become a project manager at a competing web design house. This was the most laid-back, cool guy you could imagine - and a big slap-in-the-face to those of us who were still there.
At that point, those of us in the department were already starting to put out some feelers (Monster, Techies, etc...) to see what the market was like.
Still though - even though we were unhappy - we felt kind of weird about leaving - the department was very small as it was - the loss of our former manager increased our workloads quite a bit - it was almost unimaginable what another one of us leaving would do to the workloads of the remaining few.
Then, the senior designer left - to the same company as our former manager. 4 remained.
At that point, I had to assess my priorities. I was having a hard time going into work every day - and a harder time staying there once I got there - the atmosphere was becoming more and more opressive - management expecting 4 people to do the same work as 6 in the same timeframe - corporate snootiness clashing against geekish laid-backness, etc...
I laid out my own priorities this way:
My family (fiancee, mom & dad, etc...) comes first.
Myself comes second.
My friends come third.
My job comes last.
For me, It was a no-brainer. The company wasn't doing me, or my friends any good. My family wanted me to be happy, and I wasn't. I wanted my family to be happy - my fiancee in particular, and I couldn't do that on the salary I was making.
So, I left. It was actually fairly easy and quick to find a job in a better area of the country, for a MUCH better salary, and working for a MUCH better company.
The other 3 members of our former team are still there - two negotiated for higher salaries in return for a one-year contract (AKA - no matter how bad it gets, they're stuck there for a year) - one is simply biding his time until he finishes college this summer - at which point he plans on leaving.
I get messages every day from them - and things aren't getting better - they're getting worse. One at least regrets signing the contract that binds him for a year.
The moral of the story is that you've got to decide what's right for you, given your priorities. The job market is fairly good right now - a company isn't doing you any favors by keeping you employed - you're doing them a favor by continuing to work there.
There are bigger, better fish in the sea - maybe if you leave, it'll be a slap-in-the-face to your friends, who are probably in the same boat as you are.
Man - I just realized how long this post is - sorry 'bout that!
But (unless you're rich or have one of those auto-upgrade leases) you don't upgrade your car every year or two - the average lifespan is more around 4-10 years (depending on use and abuse level)
Now...what MS has done is say - "Thanks for buying MS tires for your 2000 Ford Explorer - We appreciate your business" - then turn around, after you upgrade from the 2000 model to the 2001 model "We're sorry, but you can't put those (bought/paid for/perfectly good) tires on your new 2001 Explorer, even though they'll fit - instead, you have to buy four new tires from us"
This is a fairly logical extension of the current licensing policies - where even though you have gone to a store, paid money, and brought home a physical object, YOU DON'T OWN IT -- this kind of thing *shouldn't* be legal - in the above case, you paid money for a product - you should OWN it. Extending this a bit further gets us to this issue with Whistler - where not only don't you OWN it, but you can't USE it if you get a new computer - or even upgrade certain parts of your current computer.
We used to joke about the "MS Tax" on a new computer because of the restrictions MS used on vendors such as Dell or Gateway - forcing you to buy a copy of Windows with your new computer, even if you didn't plan on EVER running Windows on the computer.
Now they want to implement this on a larger scale - tying Windows to the hardware you have in your system at install-time. Change some major aspect of your system - pay the MS tax - ditch one computer for another one - pay the MS tax.
If we don't find some EFFECTIVE way of fighting bull$#!^ like this, we'll get stuck with more and more of it. It's even getting to the point that US not buying it isn't going to dent their bottom line. Getting Dell or Gateway or Compaq to stop buying it - that might hurt 'em a little more. The question is how the heck do we do that? (and email/letters don't seem to work on something as big as this - the shareholders want $$$ - Dell/Gateway surely think that the only way to keep making $$$ is to acquiese to MS - as the big corporate buyers want windows...
So now we've identified the target as the corporate buyers - how do we tell them this is a bad thing? Moving to a new OS requires extensive training (especially for all-MS shops who have "standardized" on MS Office, Outlook, Exchange, NT, ASP, etc...) -- most pointy-haired types don't go for that very well.
Nah - perl support is just a concession - a PR move of sorts.
.NET is open - see - it can use perl!" while surrepticiously "enhancing" the support for C# and VB - so more .NET developers will start moving over from perl to C# (I can't see VB being big with perl people, no matter how hard I try) for the added features/support.
.NET stuff. I doubt it - but it could happen.
M$ adds support for their new C# language, and for Visual Basic (their 'we're going to shove this down your throat whether you like it or not' language), and perl.
M$ controls C# and VB. It doesn't control perl. Basically they'll say "Hey -
At least, that's probably how M$ is looking at it.
It's entirely possible that this will go the other way and perl will become the standard language for
M$ doesn't need to make it's own perl - it just has to shoulder it out of the way.
I think you're missing the point - which is that anythig that is a barrier to content, makes it more likely that said content won't be seen.
;) ) - and again, I've avoided the ads.
Content is what keeps people coming back. It's what's made the 'Net so popular, and what has kept it going. It's what the 'Net was made to convey.
Now - if you start sucking up bandwidth and time with super-obtrusive ads that can't be ignored - not only will bandwidth usage skyrocket (inflating 'net access costs along the way) but people WILL NOT feel obligated to buy your product. They'll be pissed that it took them another 1-5 minutes (depending on connection type) to access what they wanted to see.
People keep saying that it's "just like TV" to do this - I hate to bust bubbles, but it isn't -- I can turn on the TV at 8:00 - watch until 8:10 - turn off the TV for 3.5 minutes (7 30 second ads) - turn it back on, and watch till 8:20 - lather, rinse, repeat - and avoid 90% of the ads (I realize that this isn't an EXACT schedule - I'm just using it as an example).
I could also flip the channels as soon as an ad comes on, and watch something else for a couple of minutes (that's how we originally found Iron Chef
What they're proposing for 'net ads are COMPLETELY different - they subvert focus from your browser window (in the case of popups) [TV analogy: I turn to Food Network, the TV goes to Ad Channel 4 instead, until I change the channel a SECOND time], keep you from closing your browser (in the case of on-exit scripts) [TV analogy: I turn my TV off, but it instead changes to Ad Channel 2 - I again try to turn it off, and it instead changes to Ad Channel 5, ad nauseum], or worse, force you to view the ad before seeing the content (in the case of "interstitials") [TV analogy: I turn my TV to the SciFi channel, and it instead turns to Ad Channel 8 for 2 minutes, then changes to my desired channel].
The more barriers there are to the content, the more people who will simply get fed up with it and go elsewhere. I'm one of those people. Companies who use these forms of ads won't get my eyeballs. They'll get my anger and resentment.
Of course, I can't simply bash the concept without offering an alternative. Micropayment CAN work - they just have to figure out a way to do it right. People wouldn't mind paying a TINY payment to download their mp3s or read commercial news articles.
I won't lie - Free (speech) sites would always come first - but I definitely wouldn't mind a small payment for decent content.