It used an Intel 80186 - a rarity in and of itself.
What's unusual about 186-based machines? The RM Nimbus, Acorn's main rival for the British school market in the early 90s, used a 186; we had dozens of them at my school.
Personally, I'd say that Unreal II was the worst game I played in 2003. It was basically an engine demo. It had a really weak plot and offered absolutely no innovation on the standard FPS formula. Its only claim to fame was that it had more polygons than yesteryear's games.
Funny - I quite enjoyed Unreal II. A bit bland, sure, and much too linear, but it had some very nice level designs. Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but mediocre != terrible.
Of course consoles never had pc styled adventures.
Except for, um, Maniac Mansion for the NES. And the PS1 versions of the Broken Sword series. And Clock Tower on the SNES and PS1. And scores of lesser-known titles.
The mythology of Arthur puts the time period way before 1200 AD. The pre-romantic story, derived from Celtic mythology, via Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, and Layamon, and appearing in the second book of Malory (in the form of a rip-off of a C14th epic poem, the so-called Alliterative Morte Arthur), tells of the Roman emperor Lucius, who demanded tribute from the Britons; Arthur refused to pay, and invaded Rome instead. But at the moment of his victory he was suddenly called home, his throne having been usurped, and he was killed in the civil war that ensued.
Most of the stuff about damsels in distress was added later by the French, who admittedly applied a liberal coating of 1200-ness to the story, but only because that's when they wrote their versions; that's just like today's modern-dress productions of Shakespeare.
Well since god is a bit hard to reach (and it's questionable whether or not he'd resist arrest)...
I'm not sure there's any point suing God - according to his representatives here in the west, he's already in every jail in America. Not to mention already having been executed a couple of thousand years ago...
So presumably it's now to be called "the UserLinux distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system", a nice neat name to go with its primary application, "the OpenOffice.org office suite"...
Selling companies on paying an additional 1300 USD for a dev license per dev can be a difficult thing to do.
But - if we're talking about companies not currently using Linux - they're probably already paying at least that much for the proprietary development tools and libraries they use on Windows, Solaris, or whatever. On Linux they get a totally free compiler, choice of free IDEs, free libraries. They can afford commercial QT.
Besides, aren't these the same companies who are over-suspicious of the "free lunch" deal that Linux currently provides? I'd have thought that a $1300 license fee would be just the thing to convince them it's a serious product, and I'd rather it were Trolltech getting the money than SCO!
Mac's are so simple your grandma can use them. ... Windows people buy Pontiac Firebirds thinking they are powerful but really getting 4 cylinder peice of maintinence hell.
My grandmother uses Windows, and to the best of my knowledge she doesn't own a Pontiac Firebird. Of course, it doesn't help that I wouldn't recognise a Pontiac Firebird if I saw one (despite using Windows myself).
What I want to know is why the "reformers" started spelling -our as -or, but left -ous alone, despite it having exactly the same vowel sound. If "color", why not "dangeros"?
And that's without even mentioning things like "aluminum" (but not "helum", "sodum", etc), or "sulfur" (but not "fosforus").
Running these proprietary Linux's you don't get the Free or Open Source part . . . I just don't see the positive in jumping from from closed proprietary OS to another.
Lindows, Xandros, SuSE, etc. aren't closed proprietary OSes. They're free-as-in-speech open OSes with a handful of proprietary extensions. They use a totally free and open kernel, on which they run a totally free and open windowing system hosting a totally free and open desktop environment. The source code to all these things is available. And on top of that they put a handful of proprietary things... like installers, and package manager front ends, and compatibility layers for proprietary software.
Do you really not see any difference between that and a "black box" like Windows?
Have you ever looked at the file open/save dilogs? In a directory with lots of files/directorys with long names?
Yes, that can be a bit inconvenient. Easily solved, though, by switching to a non-default viewing mode, like Details, which gives you all the options in a convenient vertical list. (Right click on the viewing area, select "View" submenu).
If I wanted to troll, I'd mention the GTK file selector at this point. But that's OT, since Xandros uses KDE.
Have you ever wandered through 5-6 layers of dialogs looking for what seems like a simple setting?
No, I haven't - the worst I've ever used was about three layers. But Linux suffers from this just as badly as Windows; the KDE control center is particularly bad. Even MacOS X, which some hold to be the pinnacle of GUI design, suffers from the same thing to a limited extent - I find its networking configuration window hopelessly muddled.
Have you ever mis-clicked a menu item because the stupid "smart" menu moved all the items around in a cludge to combat poor UI design?
Nope - "smart" menus are the first thing I turn off. I can't think of a single application with "smart" menus that doesn't make it incredibly easy to disable them.
Have you ever used Windows?
Have you ever bothered to spent five minutes learning how to configure Windows?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a blind Windows apologist. The first thing I install on any Windows machine I use is Cygwin, to give me a usable CLI and some decent utilities, followed rather quickly by Firebird, to get me away from the security nightmare that is Internet Explorer. I just don't think the GUI is all that bad.
I'm sorry, but that's borderline FUD. Small studios and minor publishers generally release their disks without region coding at all. Of the DVDs I've imported from the USA, about half of them have turned out not to have any region coding, even where Amazon claimed they did.
Region coding pretty much only affects the stuff the big corps put out. Sure, as it happens, that's most of what most people want to see, which is why it's a big deal. But I'd be amazed if that Iranian documentary you can't find in your local stores is region-coded.
If that's the case, then why isn't Britain in region 1? We don't need French, German, Spanish, and Italian audio, subtitles, or menus. And it's not like the European releases ever feature any British localisation.
Not that I'm complaining personally - most of the DVDs I buy are Japanese imports, so being in region 2 suits me just fine.;)
Okay, another analogy: a FLOSS application that refused to compile on SCO Unix would be like a web page which refused to display on Internet Explorer. It's quite practical, and people can very easily install another free browser to visit your website. They'd benefit from it, too, because IE has so many security issues!
Except that my response, while I still used IE, to the handful of sites that do this, was to say "fuck you" and go somewhere else. I went back to some of them when I switched to Firebird, and realised that I hadn't missed anything - they were all obviously written by early teens who thought blocking IE was "kewl". It's the "I don't like you, so I'm not going to play with you any more" attitude one expects of schoolchildren.
One doesn't expect it of mature adults, though.
"Why support a vendor who publically froths at the mouth for your destruction?" you ask. But you're not supporting a vendor who publicly froths at the mouth for your destruction. You're supporting their customers, who haven't done anything worse than sell you a Big Mac.
Besides... "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you," and all that. Giving in to the childish urge for revenge is neither positive nor constructive, and it will not convince anyone else to change their ways. You're just sinking to their level. Show them an example of mature and tolerant behaviour, and you might just shame them into realising their error. And even if they don't, at least you haven't lost the moral high ground.
The reviewer makes his bias very plain with passages such as:
I want to be as objective as possible, but I'd be a fool to think such a review could possibly avoid the controversy and raw emotions surrounding the company offering the product I've chosen to evaluate.
Do you think so? If he'd said "I don't give a damn about SCO's legislation, so I'm not biased at all", followed by the exact same article, would you have believed him when he claimed not to be biased? The fact is that he admitted from the start that he had a bias, and then did his best to overcome it.
Note also that the one benchmark he chose to use - and it's irrelevant to my point whether it was a good choice or not - the one benchmark he used, showed UnixWare in a positive light. If he were writing "cheerleading propoganda", one would expect his little bar chart to show the LKP resulting in a huge performance hit, and a caption saying "UnixWare tries to emulate Linux but can't come close". Instead he professes to be impressed by it. That doesn't sound like someone who can't see past the chip on their shoulder to me.
Wait, though - you need to be certain that the disassembler wasn't compiled with ICC, since the hypothetical trojan code might be smart enough to recognise that it was compiling a disassembler, and insert code into it to make it strip out the trojan code if it ever disassembled ICC. Indeed, you can't be sure that the utility is safe if ICC ever compiled any tool which was used to build it, or if an Intel employee ever had access to the source of any of those tools.
You might just about be safe examining the physical arrangement of bits on the hard disk, but you'd need to make certain first that your DNA wasn't compiled with ICC, otherwise they might have implanted a trojan in your brain that prevents you from recognising trojans in ICC binaries in any form.
And I sure hope you trust the guy who sold you the tinfoil for your hat...;)
The question I want to ask: why would you intentionally write source code whose object code can be significantly improved by optimizations?
Let's consider a very basic example:
{
int i, j[1000];
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
j[i] = foo(); }
If you read old C textbooks, they'll actually tell you to write the above code as something like
/* Fill an array with the results of 1000 calls to foo() */ {
int *i, j[1000], *endptr;
i = &j;
endptr = i + 1000;
while (i < endptr)
*i++ = foo(); }
Why? Because this saves the program from having to calculate &j + i * sizeof(int) every iteration of the loop.
Now, a modern optimising compiler is probably going to automatically detect that i is only used to index j, and will therefore automatically generate code equivalent to the second example from the first example.
Do you see what I mean? Comments are no substitute for readable code. If an optimising compiler can make readable code run as fast as unreadable "optimised" code, then that is a thing worth having.
Hopefully all the multi-byte character support and such built into the systems such as this can improve the same on other OSes.
Other OSes already have excellent MBCS and Unicode support. Windows has been 100% Unicode since about NT 4; MacOS was designed to support Far Eastern languages from the ground up, and since OS 9 even the American version has had that support built in; and most modern Unix desktops (CDE, KDE, Gnome) have pretty good I18n, although it can be a little tricky to get CJK input working, and a lot of older Unix applications still assume all characters are 8 bits.
In fact, the only thing I spend much time looking at on my computer that doesn't support multi-byte characters is Slashdot.;)
Slashdot Mirror
It used an Intel 80186 - a rarity in and of itself.
What's unusual about 186-based machines? The RM Nimbus, Acorn's main rival for the British school market in the early 90s, used a 186; we had dozens of them at my school.
Personally, I'd say that Unreal II was the worst game I played in 2003. It was basically an engine demo. It had a really weak plot and offered absolutely no innovation on the standard FPS formula. Its only claim to fame was that it had more polygons than yesteryear's games.
Funny - I quite enjoyed Unreal II. A bit bland, sure, and much too linear, but it had some very nice level designs. Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but mediocre != terrible.
Of course consoles never had pc styled adventures.
Except for, um, Maniac Mansion for the NES. And the PS1 versions of the Broken Sword series. And Clock Tower on the SNES and PS1. And scores of lesser-known titles.
The mythology of Arthur puts the time period way before 1200 AD. The pre-romantic story, derived from Celtic mythology, via Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, and Layamon, and appearing in the second book of Malory (in the form of a rip-off of a C14th epic poem, the so-called Alliterative Morte Arthur), tells of the Roman emperor Lucius, who demanded tribute from the Britons; Arthur refused to pay, and invaded Rome instead. But at the moment of his victory he was suddenly called home, his throne having been usurped, and he was killed in the civil war that ensued.
Most of the stuff about damsels in distress was added later by the French, who admittedly applied a liberal coating of 1200-ness to the story, but only because that's when they wrote their versions; that's just like today's modern-dress productions of Shakespeare.
prefix.c:postfix.c:Both compiled with gcc, default options.
Well since god is a bit hard to reach (and it's questionable whether or not he'd resist arrest)...
I'm not sure there's any point suing God - according to his representatives here in the west, he's already in every jail in America. Not to mention already having been executed a couple of thousand years ago...
So presumably it's now to be called "the UserLinux distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system", a nice neat name to go with its primary application, "the OpenOffice.org office suite"...
Selling companies on paying an additional 1300 USD for a dev license per dev can be a difficult thing to do.
But - if we're talking about companies not currently using Linux - they're probably already paying at least that much for the proprietary development tools and libraries they use on Windows, Solaris, or whatever. On Linux they get a totally free compiler, choice of free IDEs, free libraries. They can afford commercial QT.
Besides, aren't these the same companies who are over-suspicious of the "free lunch" deal that Linux currently provides? I'd have thought that a $1300 license fee would be just the thing to convince them it's a serious product, and I'd rather it were Trolltech getting the money than SCO!
Mac's are so simple your grandma can use them.
...
Windows people buy Pontiac Firebirds thinking they are powerful but really getting 4 cylinder peice of maintinence hell.
My grandmother uses Windows, and to the best of my knowledge she doesn't own a Pontiac Firebird. Of course, it doesn't help that I wouldn't recognise a Pontiac Firebird if I saw one (despite using Windows myself).
Nice troll, though.
What I want to know is why the "reformers" started spelling -our as -or, but left -ous alone, despite it having exactly the same vowel sound. If "color", why not "dangeros"?
And that's without even mentioning things like "aluminum" (but not "helum", "sodum", etc), or "sulfur" (but not "fosforus").
4.5- Did Win98SE take the XP partition with it?
How would it do that? Your XP partition should be NTFS, and 98 can't even read NTFS, let alone write it.
So there you go. Now the whole site is unusable unless the user disables pop-up protection.
A site that broken, run by someone with that little regard for his users, is a site I have zero interest in visiting anyway. So what's the problem?
Running these proprietary Linux's you don't get the Free or Open Source part . . . I just don't see the positive in jumping from from closed proprietary OS to another.
Lindows, Xandros, SuSE, etc. aren't closed proprietary OSes. They're free-as-in-speech open OSes with a handful of proprietary extensions. They use a totally free and open kernel, on which they run a totally free and open windowing system hosting a totally free and open desktop environment. The source code to all these things is available. And on top of that they put a handful of proprietary things... like installers, and package manager front ends, and compatibility layers for proprietary software.
Do you really not see any difference between that and a "black box" like Windows?
Have you ever looked at the file open/save dilogs? In a directory with lots of files/directorys with long names?
Yes, that can be a bit inconvenient. Easily solved, though, by switching to a non-default viewing mode, like Details, which gives you all the options in a convenient vertical list. (Right click on the viewing area, select "View" submenu).
If I wanted to troll, I'd mention the GTK file selector at this point. But that's OT, since Xandros uses KDE.
Have you ever wandered through 5-6 layers of dialogs looking for what seems like a simple setting?
No, I haven't - the worst I've ever used was about three layers. But Linux suffers from this just as badly as Windows; the KDE control center is particularly bad. Even MacOS X, which some hold to be the pinnacle of GUI design, suffers from the same thing to a limited extent - I find its networking configuration window hopelessly muddled.
Have you ever mis-clicked a menu item because the stupid "smart" menu moved all the items around in a cludge to combat poor UI design?
Nope - "smart" menus are the first thing I turn off. I can't think of a single application with "smart" menus that doesn't make it incredibly easy to disable them.
Have you ever used Windows?
Have you ever bothered to spent five minutes learning how to configure Windows?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a blind Windows apologist. The first thing I install on any Windows machine I use is Cygwin, to give me a usable CLI and some decent utilities, followed rather quickly by Firebird, to get me away from the security nightmare that is Internet Explorer. I just don't think the GUI is all that bad.
So what I want to know is, are there any system simulations based on different political ideologies? SimCollectiveFarm, or SimCommune, or whatever?
;)
Sounds like this is what you're after.
My favourite quote: "Because Windows NT is designed to be a secure system, there is NO backdoor into the system."
I'm sorry, but that's borderline FUD. Small studios and minor publishers generally release their disks without region coding at all. Of the DVDs I've imported from the USA, about half of them have turned out not to have any region coding, even where Amazon claimed they did.
Region coding pretty much only affects the stuff the big corps put out. Sure, as it happens, that's most of what most people want to see, which is why it's a big deal. But I'd be amazed if that Iranian documentary you can't find in your local stores is region-coded.
If that's the case, then why isn't Britain in region 1? We don't need French, German, Spanish, and Italian audio, subtitles, or menus. And it's not like the European releases ever feature any British localisation.
;)
Not that I'm complaining personally - most of the DVDs I buy are Japanese imports, so being in region 2 suits me just fine.
Or just install Cygwin and use your favourite Unix shell.
Okay, another analogy: a FLOSS application that refused to compile on SCO Unix would be like a web page which refused to display on Internet Explorer. It's quite practical, and people can very easily install another free browser to visit your website. They'd benefit from it, too, because IE has so many security issues!
Except that my response, while I still used IE, to the handful of sites that do this, was to say "fuck you" and go somewhere else. I went back to some of them when I switched to Firebird, and realised that I hadn't missed anything - they were all obviously written by early teens who thought blocking IE was "kewl". It's the "I don't like you, so I'm not going to play with you any more" attitude one expects of schoolchildren.
One doesn't expect it of mature adults, though.
"Why support a vendor who publically froths at the mouth for your destruction?" you ask. But you're not supporting a vendor who publicly froths at the mouth for your destruction. You're supporting their customers, who haven't done anything worse than sell you a Big Mac.
Besides... "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you," and all that. Giving in to the childish urge for revenge is neither positive nor constructive, and it will not convince anyone else to change their ways. You're just sinking to their level. Show them an example of mature and tolerant behaviour, and you might just shame them into realising their error. And even if they don't, at least you haven't lost the moral high ground.
The reviewer makes his bias very plain with passages such as:
I want to be as objective as possible, but I'd be a fool to think such a review could possibly avoid the controversy and raw emotions surrounding the company offering the product I've chosen to evaluate.
Do you think so? If he'd said "I don't give a damn about SCO's legislation, so I'm not biased at all", followed by the exact same article, would you have believed him when he claimed not to be biased? The fact is that he admitted from the start that he had a bias, and then did his best to overcome it.
Note also that the one benchmark he chose to use - and it's irrelevant to my point whether it was a good choice or not - the one benchmark he used, showed UnixWare in a positive light. If he were writing "cheerleading propoganda", one would expect his little bar chart to show the LKP resulting in a huge performance hit, and a caption saying "UnixWare tries to emulate Linux but can't come close". Instead he professes to be impressed by it. That doesn't sound like someone who can't see past the chip on their shoulder to me.
Wait, though - you need to be certain that the disassembler wasn't compiled with ICC, since the hypothetical trojan code might be smart enough to recognise that it was compiling a disassembler, and insert code into it to make it strip out the trojan code if it ever disassembled ICC. Indeed, you can't be sure that the utility is safe if ICC ever compiled any tool which was used to build it, or if an Intel employee ever had access to the source of any of those tools.
;)
You might just about be safe examining the physical arrangement of bits on the hard disk, but you'd need to make certain first that your DNA wasn't compiled with ICC, otherwise they might have implanted a trojan in your brain that prevents you from recognising trojans in ICC binaries in any form.
And I sure hope you trust the guy who sold you the tinfoil for your hat...
Let's consider a very basic example:If you read old C textbooks, they'll actually tell you to write the above code as something likeWhy? Because this saves the program from having to calculate &j + i * sizeof(int) every iteration of the loop.
Now, a modern optimising compiler is probably going to automatically detect that i is only used to index j, and will therefore automatically generate code equivalent to the second example from the first example.
Do you see what I mean? Comments are no substitute for readable code. If an optimising compiler can make readable code run as fast as unreadable "optimised" code, then that is a thing worth having.
Hopefully all the multi-byte character support and such built into the systems such as this can improve the same on other OSes.
;)
Other OSes already have excellent MBCS and Unicode support. Windows has been 100% Unicode since about NT 4; MacOS was designed to support Far Eastern languages from the ground up, and since OS 9 even the American version has had that support built in; and most modern Unix desktops (CDE, KDE, Gnome) have pretty good I18n, although it can be a little tricky to get CJK input working, and a lot of older Unix applications still assume all characters are 8 bits.
In fact, the only thing I spend much time looking at on my computer that doesn't support multi-byte characters is Slashdot.