IBM already has their own cleanroom JVM. Anyone who HASN'T already seen the Sun JVM source code can write their own JVM (and there are already some opensource ones). It's all just a matter of manpower.
It kills me how on the one hand you guys got absolutely nuts about web standards, document standards, etc. -- "just code to the standard and it'll magically work!" is the mantra around here. But as soon someone says that the Linux desktop or Linux distributions need to standardize on this or that the tired old "but that would stifle choice!" line gets trotted out.
Hmm, maybe that's what Microsoft thinks. They break standards because standards would just limit their choice...
I thought this was a site for geeks? What self-respecting geek doesn't have more than one computer? There's these neat things called KVM switches that allow you to share a keyboard, mouse, and monitor between multiple systems. So uh... who cares about dual booting in the age of cheap PCs?
More to the point, why would you spend large sums of money on a Mac just so you can run an OS on it that can be run on a faster PC for far less money?
The beauty of XML is that the format is simple and there is a huge stack of technologies that build on it. If you store some data in an XML format, you instantly have the ability to transform you data into any number of formats (via arbitrarily-complex XSL transforms), perform automatic validation (via XML schema or a DTD), perform arbitrarily-complex queries on your data (via XPath/XQuery), automatically include other resources (XInclude), etc. Thanks to namespace support, you can aggregate multiple XML data formats into a single document -- an example of which is XHTML, which allows a single web page to include things like mathematical annotations (MathML), vector graphics (SVG), multimedia (SMIL), complicated input forms (XForms), and so on. Like so many other people, you just see XML as a substitute for comma separated value files, and don't realize the rich set of complicated functionality that's available to you "for free" just by storing your data in an XML format.
And BTW, XML is a tree format, not strictly key/value. And when you parse an XML file, you're never having to do direct text manipulation (which is error-prone). You're either receiving the information stored in the XML file as a series of events (SAX) or you're manipulating it via an object model (DOM).
Plot nazis
on
Black Review
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I can't get over the fact that guys like the reviewer will condemn games for not having an intricate, engrossing plot on one hand and on the other hand cry about the lack of "fun" games. As far as I can remember, games like Pacman and Super Mario Brothers didn't really have much of a plot at all (far less than Black, I'm sure), but nobody cared then, and nobody cares now. They're fun games. If you're looking for mental stimulation in video games, you're not doing enough thinking in your day-to-day life. Graduate high school and enter the real world and maybe you'll come to appreciate mindless entertertainment.
This really doesn't have anything to do with improving the student's college experience. In fact, I doubt they'll be making any real changes to the curriculum to incorporate laptops into classes, and I think the value of using laptops during class is marginal at best. This is all about making the school look better. I remember a number of years ago that some poll or survery found that more NC State students had computers than UNC students. So what does UNC do? They require all incoming freshmen to have a computer. UNC wins because they won't look "bad" for having "technologically backward" students, and they get to make money by selling the computers. My understanding is that the classroom experience didn't shift much (if any) to incorporate the computers into learning. I mean, for the past ten years students probably have had to use computers to some extent just to do their work, so this really doesn't change anything. It's all about making the school look better and cashing in.
This is completely untrue. They have only been ordered to document how their server interacts with their monopoly desktop product. They just need to document the communication, not the format on the server.
So what server would this be? The articles I've seen aren't specific enough. And what makes you think that forcing Microsoft to open file format specs for its other products isn't next? After all, Microsoft has an unfair advantage with MS Office, that being that they're the market leader.
Gee, then maybe they should just not break the law in the first place?
You keep repeating this. If Microsoft had never been slapped with that anti-trust conviction, you'd have nothing to stand on, but they'd be the same company they are today. It's like Slashdot is on eternal repeat:
Headline: "EU forces Microsoft to open specs" Slashdotters: "Well, that's what they get for being convicted monopolists!"
Headline: "EU forces Microsoft to fund development of competitor's products" Slashdotters: "Perfectly reasonable, they are a monopoly after all!"
Exactly how long do you guys plan on holding the "convicted monopolist" thing against them anyway? I'm convinced that the EU could continue to impose more and more penalties against Microsoft for the next ten years and you guys wouldn't have any problem with it, no matter how much Microsoft cleaned up their act.
Oh wow, you actually think that MS can only compete my hiding their file formats and protocols?
I think you guys look at closed source software through open source lenses too much. In the open source world, cost isn't an issue. If a particular piece of software has the best interface, speed, or what-have-you, it's the best.
Suddenly you're trying to apply the open source concepts to closed source Microsoft software. Now everything that Microsoft does can be cloned exactly. Microsoft release "Exchange Server" and three months later I take their specs, clone their UI, and release "Share Server" for $19.95. Or hell, you could just come along and put us both out of business by just releasing your version for free. Adding new features would be pointless, as you'll just clone them anyway since you have access to all the specs. Suddenly the only money to be made is in "support", which is a less than stellar business model.
"But just make your product faster and more secure, and people will naturally choose it!", you say. Sure. Let's imagine for a second that Microsoft Access stores its databases in some revolutionary new file format that increases query speeds by several orders of magnitude. Great, there's their competitive advantage! Whoops, sorry, because of the EU ruling, Microsoft has to open the specs on their proprietary file format in order to allow other companies to compete. Suddenly that competitive advantage goes out the window.
A contrived example? Perhaps. But sometimes proprietary protocols and file formats CAN give you a competitive advantage.
They could write better, more efficient code that runs faster, is more secure, and is more reliable. But that is not really the MS way is it?
Even if they did, I doubt anyone would ever believe it's possible that Microsoft could write software that is faster and more secure than other competing software. You just said it yourself. And the bottom line is always about money. People are willing to forgive a slower, less-compatible implementation if it's cheaper, or free. Look at OO.org for instance. Microsoft would pretty much have to write flawless software and sell it for pennies before they could compete, at which point others like you will complain that Microsoft is breaking the law by dumping...
MS, as the first implementor of a standard and as the maker of most of the interoperating software can implement new features and has a time to market advantage on them, just like everyone else in the industry.
Specs are traditionally released before an implementation exists. If Microsoft were to do the reverse, i.e., create a new version of their software and THEN release the spec, they'd get slammed. Why? Because they'd have a lead on their competitors, during which early adopters would get locked into multi-year contracts with Microsoft. Hey, that just isn't fair! I predict Microsoft would instead be forced to release specs ahead of their implementation, allowing other companies to implement the spec before Microsoft.
What?!? Everyone is bound by the same standards. They are called laws. MS intentionally broke them as part of their business model.
OK then, riddle me this. Let's assume that everything about Microsoft was the same, except for being ruled a monopoly. I assume you would be in complete opposition to the EU's rulings, since Microsoft isn't a monopoly, despite having a large portion of its respective markets? Yeah that's right, you'd come up with some other excuse ("I know in my heart they're a monopoly...").
Let's say I come up with some product that, out of sheer inertia, claims 95% of the market. I also use proprietary formats. The natural barriers to entry just flat out prevent other companies from competing with my product, but I am not engaging in any anti-competitive practices. Should I have to open up my specs to other competitors so they can compete? Why?
Yes, I'm aware of the consequences of actually pulling out...
But complying is also a stupid move. Now that Microsoft is competing "fairly" by opening up all their trade secrets, absolutely NOTHING they do can't be duplicated by someone else for cheaper. "Exchange Server? No problem! We've got all the protocol and file format specs right here!"
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
I think it's pretty obvious what the EU is after. They want full disclosure of all of Microsoft's file formats and protocols so that 100% compatible cheap (or free) alternatives become available (please STOP pointing at OO.org, SAMBA, etc., they're not 100% compatible alternatives). If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway. I'd think it would be better to pull out now and leave the EU holding the bag...
Can someone please give specific examples of these "massively violent" commercials that seem to be all over American television (or TV shows, for that matter)? As someone who's not squeamish about violent movies/TV, I have to say that the amount of violence on American TV has gone way, way down in the last ten to fifteen years. It used to be the case that movies shown on TV had little violence cut out, TV shows featured more violence, etc. but today's TV is a shadow of its former self in that regard. The way some of you talk you'd think American TV was nothing but uncut slasher movies 24/7 (with all the T&A removed of course, because we're prudes).
So please, list off some examples. I guarantee you not a single commercial for a movie or TV program in many, many years has ever shown a direct shot of someone getting shot, stabbed, sliced, or any amount of bloodshed. Simply having a gun or knife in frame doesn't count in my book. I think you guys are confusing "tense" commercials or teasers for "massively violent" ones.
Re:Disappointed by Mac Mini as entertainment cente
on
Mac mini, Apple DVR?
·
· Score: 1
You're correct, but there is a sizable "Mac Mini HTPC" online community, for whatever reason. I was just commenting on all of that.
Re:Disappointed by Mac Mini as entertainment cente
on
Mac mini, Apple DVR?
·
· Score: 1
You don't understand. I'm not talking about simply getting a single out of an optical connection. That's no problem. The problem I was having was getting AC3 (I.e., DD 5.1) sound passed over the optical connection.
Re:Disappointed by Mac Mini as entertainment cente
on
Mac mini, Apple DVR?
·
· Score: 1
Well, that's the first I've heard of Tiger having generic AC3 passthrough support (I use Tiger BTW). I never went ahead and bought one of those USB audio devices because of the cost and the fact that I couldn't find any comments online stating that AC3 worked without significant hassle.
At any rate, the audio thing is the least of my worries:).
Anyway, I did say that, where there is ambiguity, that should be worked out in a community process, rather than guessed at.
Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen when you've got multiple companies developing proprietary software that implements a standard (I'm not talking in particular about these standards, but such scenarios occur in many other situations). Besides which, nothing stops someone from coming along and interpreting the standard in the way that best works for them. After all, the standard is very ambiguous. The problem lies with the standard, not necessarily the implementors.
They are actually in compliance with PNG standards with respect to transparency -- I quote from the W3 PNG spec which Slashdotters hold near and dear to their hearts but have probably never read:
13.16 Alpha channel processing The alpha channel can be used to composite a foreground image against a background image. The PNG datastream defines the foreground image and the transparency mask, but not the background image. PNG decoders are not required to support this most general case. It is expected that most will be able to support compositing against a single background colour.
This is the funny thing about standards. They're generally not as black and white as people think they are! They contain lots of passages that say implentors "should" do this or "are not required" to do that. In this case, IE simply composites against a single background color (gray, IIRC).
Another Slashdot myth busted...
Disappointed by Mac Mini as entertainment center
on
Mac mini, Apple DVR?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This may be a little offtopic, but I just wanted to share my disappointment in using the Mac Mini as an entertainment center (didn't even bother with the DVR stuff).
Cost -- the Mac Mini is a little expensive. But that's OK, I had originally bought it as a general-purpose desktop, and later decided to it a shot as an entertainment center and having constant problems with my Windows entertainment center.
Audio -- the only decent 5.1 audio solutions for the Mini are USB or Firewire hardware from M-Audio. The cheapest one I could find that does proper AC3 passthrough was something like $80-$100, and it was just some cheezy little USB thing! Turtle Beach sells pretty much the same thing for $20, and it works on the Mac, but without the AC3 passthrough (if you're curious, AC3 passthrough works on Windows). Oh, and let's not forget, the M-Audio units require you to do a manual AC3/PCM selection! I.e., you can't just go from listening to MP3s to 5.1 sound when watching a movie unless you manually change the output format. Geez.
Video -- the DVI connection works great on my HDTV. Unfortunately, I have to shell out $20 for a program that will allow me to set the Mini's display resolution to 1280x768 (the TVs native resolution). VGA is not an option, because my TV will do image realignment every time I switch back to the VGA input, and if I'm watching 4:3 pillarboxed material, the image will be shifted quite a bit to the left.
Remotes -- The only IR remote I could find was the crappy Keyspan remote. That thing has only like 20 buttons! You've really got to get creative if you want this thing to control your entertainment center. And before you ask, I can't use the ATI Remote Wonder because it's an RF remote, and I want to use my IR universal remote to control the Mini.
Software -- By far the worst offender. CenterStage just plain didn't work with my ripped DVDs (a series of VIDEO_TS folders on a share). Matinee didn't seem to work either. I wasn't going to bother with MythTV (way too much hassle on OS X). There really is a stunning lack of passable frontend software for the Mac. It's a shame, really.
These are all the problems I ran into, and I can't imagine how much trouble it would've been getting emulators to work in addition to movies/music (none of the frontends seemed to support emulators).
So to all those that think the Mac Mini is a good entertainment center choice, I say think again! It's really expensive, the software is terrible, and the hardware issues are a real pain. You know what I did recently? Spent far less money on an XBox and put XBMC on it. It works just the way I expect it to, and with a lot less hassle!
I don't really need to tell you -- this is Slashdot. If a two-sentence anecdote posted on some guy's blog declares Linux to be a better choice than Windows in a corporate environment, the results will be accepted without question, and probably used as evidence in future Windows versus Linux Slashdot discussions. And try all they might, no study finding Windows to be a better choice than Linux will ever be accepted by the Slashdot crowd, because "it's just not possible that Windows could ever be a better choice, in any circumstance."
I find it particularly funny that creationists are bashed mercilessly on Slashdot for their blind faith, while Slashbots act in very much the same manner when it comes to Windows versus Linux.
Don't worry. In a few month's time the Democrats will find a way to make the public think that the Republicans were responsible for this. Remember the draft bill proposed by two Democrats that was widely believed to be Republican sponsored?
Slashdot Mirror
IBM already has their own cleanroom JVM. Anyone who HASN'T already seen the Sun JVM source code can write their own JVM (and there are already some opensource ones). It's all just a matter of manpower.
It kills me how on the one hand you guys got absolutely nuts about web standards, document standards, etc. -- "just code to the standard and it'll magically work!" is the mantra around here. But as soon someone says that the Linux desktop or Linux distributions need to standardize on this or that the tired old "but that would stifle choice!" line gets trotted out.
Hmm, maybe that's what Microsoft thinks. They break standards because standards would just limit their choice...
I thought this was a site for geeks? What self-respecting geek doesn't have more than one computer? There's these neat things called KVM switches that allow you to share a keyboard, mouse, and monitor between multiple systems. So uh... who cares about dual booting in the age of cheap PCs?
More to the point, why would you spend large sums of money on a Mac just so you can run an OS on it that can be run on a faster PC for far less money?
The beauty of XML is that the format is simple and there is a huge stack of technologies that build on it. If you store some data in an XML format, you instantly have the ability to transform you data into any number of formats (via arbitrarily-complex XSL transforms), perform automatic validation (via XML schema or a DTD), perform arbitrarily-complex queries on your data (via XPath/XQuery), automatically include other resources (XInclude), etc. Thanks to namespace support, you can aggregate multiple XML data formats into a single document -- an example of which is XHTML, which allows a single web page to include things like mathematical annotations (MathML), vector graphics (SVG), multimedia (SMIL), complicated input forms (XForms), and so on. Like so many other people, you just see XML as a substitute for comma separated value files, and don't realize the rich set of complicated functionality that's available to you "for free" just by storing your data in an XML format.
And BTW, XML is a tree format, not strictly key/value. And when you parse an XML file, you're never having to do direct text manipulation (which is error-prone). You're either receiving the information stored in the XML file as a series of events (SAX) or you're manipulating it via an object model (DOM).
I can't get over the fact that guys like the reviewer will condemn games for not having an intricate, engrossing plot on one hand and on the other hand cry about the lack of "fun" games. As far as I can remember, games like Pacman and Super Mario Brothers didn't really have much of a plot at all (far less than Black, I'm sure), but nobody cared then, and nobody cares now. They're fun games. If you're looking for mental stimulation in video games, you're not doing enough thinking in your day-to-day life. Graduate high school and enter the real world and maybe you'll come to appreciate mindless entertertainment.
I mean really, who wants to hear a speech about living your mom's basement?
"Slashdot Breeds Worthless 'Original Content'?"
This really doesn't have anything to do with improving the student's college experience. In fact, I doubt they'll be making any real changes to the curriculum to incorporate laptops into classes, and I think the value of using laptops during class is marginal at best. This is all about making the school look better. I remember a number of years ago that some poll or survery found that more NC State students had computers than UNC students. So what does UNC do? They require all incoming freshmen to have a computer. UNC wins because they won't look "bad" for having "technologically backward" students, and they get to make money by selling the computers. My understanding is that the classroom experience didn't shift much (if any) to incorporate the computers into learning. I mean, for the past ten years students probably have had to use computers to some extent just to do their work, so this really doesn't change anything. It's all about making the school look better and cashing in.
Six clicks? Goodness! And amazingly, you still have the strength to post on Slashdot.
This is completely untrue. They have only been ordered to document how their server interacts with their monopoly desktop product. They just need to document the communication, not the format on the server.
So what server would this be? The articles I've seen aren't specific enough. And what makes you think that forcing Microsoft to open file format specs for its other products isn't next? After all, Microsoft has an unfair advantage with MS Office, that being that they're the market leader.
Gee, then maybe they should just not break the law in the first place?
You keep repeating this. If Microsoft had never been slapped with that anti-trust conviction, you'd have nothing to stand on, but they'd be the same company they are today. It's like Slashdot is on eternal repeat:
Headline: "EU forces Microsoft to open specs"
Slashdotters: "Well, that's what they get for being convicted monopolists!"
Headline: "EU forces Microsoft to fund development of competitor's products"
Slashdotters: "Perfectly reasonable, they are a monopoly after all!"
Exactly how long do you guys plan on holding the "convicted monopolist" thing against them anyway? I'm convinced that the EU could continue to impose more and more penalties against Microsoft for the next ten years and you guys wouldn't have any problem with it, no matter how much Microsoft cleaned up their act.
Oh wow, you actually think that MS can only compete my hiding their file formats and protocols?
I think you guys look at closed source software through open source lenses too much. In the open source world, cost isn't an issue. If a particular piece of software has the best interface, speed, or what-have-you, it's the best.
Suddenly you're trying to apply the open source concepts to closed source Microsoft software. Now everything that Microsoft does can be cloned exactly. Microsoft release "Exchange Server" and three months later I take their specs, clone their UI, and release "Share Server" for $19.95. Or hell, you could just come along and put us both out of business by just releasing your version for free. Adding new features would be pointless, as you'll just clone them anyway since you have access to all the specs. Suddenly the only money to be made is in "support", which is a less than stellar business model.
"But just make your product faster and more secure, and people will naturally choose it!", you say. Sure. Let's imagine for a second that Microsoft Access stores its databases in some revolutionary new file format that increases query speeds by several orders of magnitude. Great, there's their competitive advantage! Whoops, sorry, because of the EU ruling, Microsoft has to open the specs on their proprietary file format in order to allow other companies to compete. Suddenly that competitive advantage goes out the window.
A contrived example? Perhaps. But sometimes proprietary protocols and file formats CAN give you a competitive advantage.
They could write better, more efficient code that runs faster, is more secure, and is more reliable. But that is not really the MS way is it?
Even if they did, I doubt anyone would ever believe it's possible that Microsoft could write software that is faster and more secure than other competing software. You just said it yourself. And the bottom line is always about money. People are willing to forgive a slower, less-compatible implementation if it's cheaper, or free. Look at OO.org for instance. Microsoft would pretty much have to write flawless software and sell it for pennies before they could compete, at which point others like you will complain that Microsoft is breaking the law by dumping...
MS, as the first implementor of a standard and as the maker of most of the interoperating software can implement new features and has a time to market advantage on them, just like everyone else in the industry.
Specs are traditionally released before an implementation exists. If Microsoft were to do the reverse, i.e., create a new version of their software and THEN release the spec, they'd get slammed. Why? Because they'd have a lead on their competitors, during which early adopters would get locked into multi-year contracts with Microsoft. Hey, that just isn't fair! I predict Microsoft would instead be forced to release specs ahead of their implementation, allowing other companies to implement the spec before Microsoft.
What?!? Everyone is bound by the same standards. They are called laws. MS intentionally broke them as part of their business model.
OK then, riddle me this. Let's assume that everything about Microsoft was the same, except for being ruled a monopoly. I assume you would be in complete opposition to the EU's rulings, since Microsoft isn't a monopoly, despite having a large portion of its respective markets? Yeah that's right, you'd come up with some other excuse ("I know in my heart they're a monopoly...").
Let's say I come up with some product that, out of sheer inertia, claims 95% of the market. I also use proprietary formats. The natural barriers to entry just flat out prevent other companies from competing with my product, but I am not engaging in any anti-competitive practices. Should I have to open up my specs to other competitors so they can compete? Why?
Yes, I'm aware of the consequences of actually pulling out...
But complying is also a stupid move. Now that Microsoft is competing "fairly" by opening up all their trade secrets, absolutely NOTHING they do can't be duplicated by someone else for cheaper. "Exchange Server? No problem! We've got all the protocol and file format specs right here!"
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
I think it's pretty obvious what the EU is after. They want full disclosure of all of Microsoft's file formats and protocols so that 100% compatible cheap (or free) alternatives become available (please STOP pointing at OO.org, SAMBA, etc., they're not 100% compatible alternatives). If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway. I'd think it would be better to pull out now and leave the EU holding the bag...
Still no cure for cancer yet.
You forgot dupes and lack of proofreading -- the secret to Slashdot's success, no?
Can someone please give specific examples of these "massively violent" commercials that seem to be all over American television (or TV shows, for that matter)? As someone who's not squeamish about violent movies/TV, I have to say that the amount of violence on American TV has gone way, way down in the last ten to fifteen years. It used to be the case that movies shown on TV had little violence cut out, TV shows featured more violence, etc. but today's TV is a shadow of its former self in that regard. The way some of you talk you'd think American TV was nothing but uncut slasher movies 24/7 (with all the T&A removed of course, because we're prudes).
So please, list off some examples. I guarantee you not a single commercial for a movie or TV program in many, many years has ever shown a direct shot of someone getting shot, stabbed, sliced, or any amount of bloodshed. Simply having a gun or knife in frame doesn't count in my book. I think you guys are confusing "tense" commercials or teasers for "massively violent" ones.
You're correct, but there is a sizable "Mac Mini HTPC" online community, for whatever reason. I was just commenting on all of that.
You don't understand. I'm not talking about simply getting a single out of an optical connection. That's no problem. The problem I was having was getting AC3 (I.e., DD 5.1) sound passed over the optical connection.
Well, that's the first I've heard of Tiger having generic AC3 passthrough support (I use Tiger BTW). I never went ahead and bought one of those USB audio devices because of the cost and the fact that I couldn't find any comments online stating that AC3 worked without significant hassle.
:).
At any rate, the audio thing is the least of my worries
Anyway, I did say that, where there is ambiguity, that should be worked out in a community process, rather than guessed at.
Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen when you've got multiple companies developing proprietary software that implements a standard (I'm not talking in particular about these standards, but such scenarios occur in many other situations). Besides which, nothing stops someone from coming along and interpreting the standard in the way that best works for them. After all, the standard is very ambiguous. The problem lies with the standard, not necessarily the implementors.
They are actually in compliance with PNG standards with respect to transparency -- I quote from the W3 PNG spec which Slashdotters hold near and dear to their hearts but have probably never read:
13.16 Alpha channel processing
The alpha channel can be used to composite a foreground image against a background image. The PNG datastream defines the foreground image and the transparency mask, but not the background image. PNG decoders are not required to support this most general case. It is expected that most will be able to support compositing against a single background colour.
This is the funny thing about standards. They're generally not as black and white as people think they are! They contain lots of passages that say implentors "should" do this or "are not required" to do that. In this case, IE simply composites against a single background color (gray, IIRC).
Another Slashdot myth busted...
These are all the problems I ran into, and I can't imagine how much trouble it would've been getting emulators to work in addition to movies/music (none of the frontends seemed to support emulators).
So to all those that think the Mac Mini is a good entertainment center choice, I say think again! It's really expensive, the software is terrible, and the hardware issues are a real pain. You know what I did recently? Spent far less money on an XBox and put XBMC on it. It works just the way I expect it to, and with a lot less hassle!
I don't really need to tell you -- this is Slashdot. If a two-sentence anecdote posted on some guy's blog declares Linux to be a better choice than Windows in a corporate environment, the results will be accepted without question, and probably used as evidence in future Windows versus Linux Slashdot discussions. And try all they might, no study finding Windows to be a better choice than Linux will ever be accepted by the Slashdot crowd, because "it's just not possible that Windows could ever be a better choice, in any circumstance."
I find it particularly funny that creationists are bashed mercilessly on Slashdot for their blind faith, while Slashbots act in very much the same manner when it comes to Windows versus Linux.
Don't worry. In a few month's time the Democrats will find a way to make the public think that the Republicans were responsible for this. Remember the draft bill proposed by two Democrats that was widely believed to be Republican sponsored?