You're trying to start your mother on Slackware 3.5?
For a parent, Red Hat 6.2 would be much better, as it comes with all the basic software she would need, installed and ready to run.
Yes, I realize you were trying to be sarcastic, and to make us Linux users seem silly - but your point is invalid. With a modern Linux distro the issues you point out arn't issues, all the aps/libs/etc that a user, even a technologically inept user, could need are *already installed*.
From my experiance, CompUSA , or Best Buy, or Fry's won't *sell* Linux apps. I've been watching a local CompUSA for almost a year now, and although they have 6 different Linux distros for sale, the only Linux app they sell is Corel Office (which I would have bought if I hadn't heard it was less stable than a Win95 origional box with half it's windows\system directory corrupted.
When they offer the apps and games, I'll be first in line to buy them.
Try the DOOM model on for size. There are bunches of open source DOOM engines avalible, but in order to use the official WADs you have to buy them from ID software.
When you point a gun at your head and pull the trigger, It's pretty obvious what the result will be.
E-mail attachments, on the other hand, should be relitively safe. If it's executable, your Windows email client should helpfully ask you "Executable files can compromise your data and security. Are you sure you want to execute this file?"
First, I'd like to see these "numbers" that say the linux comunity could produce enough sales to pay for the port.
You don't need to see any "numbers". The simple fact that Lokisoft, a company that has the single buisness of porting Windows games to Linux, is still in buisness should be enough evidence to show that Linux ports of Windows games can pay for themselves.
If game companies would go to the little bit of trouble nessisary to make their products portable, the cost to port would be trivial.
My solution is a dual boot, don't worry, that windows CD won't bite.
I don't have a Windows CD. I'm sure as hell not going to pay $200 or so for such a CD, nor will I waste a gig or so of hard disk space installing it.
There's a quote from Linus Torvalds that would be appropriate right about now. It goes something like this:
Backups are for wusses. I just upload my harddrive to an FTP server and let the world mirror it.
I think that the library of congress would find themselves in a similar situation. And redundancy in supply is good. Even if the LOC is hit by an astroid (or A-Bomb), that won't screw up Metalab too bad.
Don't store the data on floppys or tape, store it on a redundant cluster of HTTP servers backed up by selling copys of it on CD.
If you have 500,000 copys of it on CD on the shelves of computer stores across the country, and that becomes DVD... datacrystal... whatever as the SOTA changes, media reliability and obsolecence become a non-issue, and the work pays for it'sself pretty quick.
I'd love to help them beta test their game, and I'd love to buy it once they finally release it. I've wanted to play this game since I saw the preview on the StarCraft CD.
The problem is that Blizzard won't let me participate in the beta, and once they release the final, they won't let me run the game, even if I buy it.
You see, they're releasing the game for Win32 Only - and they know I don't have Win32.
There's no good technical reason why the game shouldn't be able to run on my computer. It's got a K6-2/350 processor and 128 megs of RAM, it's video hardware can run at a sufficient resolution and color depth, I've even got a sound system.
My computer even runs other games fine. It runs Civilization: Call to Power, Quake II, and I've even heard of people with nearly identical systems running previous Blizzard games such as WarCraft: Orcs and Humans.
Blizzard hasn't given anybody the finger, they've said "we can't afford to port a game to a system that won't be able to generate the sales to pay for the port."
The Linux game audience is large enough that it would pay for the cost of the port. That isn't the problem. The numbers actually show that the number of gamers interested in buying Diablo II may be greater on Linux than on the Mac - which Diablo II is being ported to.
Actually, Loki would be more than happy to do the port any time Blizzard wanted at no cost to Blizzard.
This leaves Blizzard with absolutely no good reason not to have a Linux version of Diablo II in the works.
Basically, they've given us the finger.
"It's worth delaying the game three months for the 5% of the market that uses the Mac, but letting Loki do a port for another 5% of the market would be a waste."
Getting a new 512 bit key for symmetric strong encryption every second should be Good Enough(tm), seing as we can't even crack a 64 bit key with current tech...
Hmmm... kiddie porn is not about some 15 yo being photographed by her boyfriend. Look, what's the problem if her b/f takes pictures of her? Ok, people might see it, she might be ashamed, ridiculed at worse, and that's it. That's not a crime. What people are talking about here is 10yo or something being raped in front of a camera; quite a different matter. The problem is not so much that there be pictures of the act or not, but instead that the existence of customers for that kind of stuff might encourage the production of it. Quite a different issue.
Legally they are the same issue. If someone gives you numbers about "child pornography" you get both of the above mentioned types combined.
Yet another example of how fucked up the US legal system is.
Hasn't anyone in government there learned anything in the last 80 years?
Apparently not.
Re:Because Intel has a vastly superior reputation.
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 2
None of my friends buy Athlons because AMD has a poor reputation. One of my friends bought a K6-2 and it was a POS. We had to underclock it around 100 mhz just to use it at all, and it crashed frequently for no reason.
One datapoint does not a trend make.
All of my computer literate friends have K6-2s or K6-3s and I haven't heard a single complaint.
If students are to have computers, *everyone* (teachers, students, administraitors) need to go through a good computer education program.
When most people I've talked to hear "computer education program" they think "learn how to use Windows 98 and MS Office 2000 in a step-by-step task-based manner". That's an absoute waste of time - when they try to use something else they will have absolutely no useable knowledge. (Note that it's not 'if they use something else', it's 'when they use something else'. Even Windows ME will be sufficiently different from '98 to break this type of education model).
What would work better is a generalized course on "using computers". That would include modern GUI usage, CLI theory, a quick overview of GUI design and event driven app theory.
Students and teachers don't need to learn how to use Microsoft Word, they need to be able to sit down in front of *any* program that uses *any* user interface, and be able to use it fluently within 5 minutes of experimentation.
In the current a current computer education class you might hear:
In the bottom left corner of your screen there is a button lableled start. Click your mouse on that and a menu will pop up. Move your mouse over 'Programs' and then click on the program labeled 'Microsoft Word'.
Instead, I want to hear this on the first day:
Welcome to Basic Computer Usage. In this class we will explore the how and why of using a computer. You use the computer through something called the 'interface', that's a relitively self consistant way that the computer software designers came up with to display the data in the computer to you and to allow you to control that data. Origionally programmers controlled computers by directly entering binary data into the computer through a set of switches on the front...
People shouldn't be tought when to single click and when to double click - they should be taught to recognize the difference between an icon and a button, and that if you experiment with an icon and determine how it works, what else is also an icon and has the same rules.
As I understand it, the way the GPL works is that the author first copyrights their work, making it illegal for anyone else to distribute or modify it. Then the author offers a licence (the GPL) which, if the user accepts it, allows the user to distribute and modify the software under the terms of the licence.
The licence is somewhat restrictive as to what types of modification are allowed. Specifically, you may not modifiy a GPLed program *AT ALL*, unless the resultant work would be covered under the GPL.
Assuming that it would be possible to create a patch that was not derived work of GPLed code, it would still be illegal to apply the patch if the resultant work was not GPL covered.
So, creating a non-GPLed patch for GPLed code would be legal but completely useless.
What do you suggest, people should make movies for the good of all mankind, with their political and social agendas screened by some committee for ideological purity? You think people are too stpuid to be allowed to spend their money on what they want? Fucking elitist commie! That so called "Money Machine" is the only thing that keeps you lazy peaceniks alive.
No, a movie director should get a severe ass whupping for taking a good book, removing the content, and turning it into an action movie.
B&N didn't do anything wrong, they just used a basic, obvious e-commerce technique. Amazon on the other hand attempted to use unfair methods to damage their competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse Io with Europa. AFAIK Clarke wrote about life on Europa.
You're trying to start your mother on Slackware 3.5?
For a parent, Red Hat 6.2 would be much better, as it comes with all the basic software she would need, installed and ready to run.
Yes, I realize you were trying to be sarcastic, and to make us Linux users seem silly - but your point is invalid. With a modern Linux distro the issues you point out arn't issues, all the aps/libs/etc that a user, even a technologically inept user, could need are *already installed*.
From my experiance, CompUSA , or Best Buy, or Fry's won't *sell* Linux apps. I've been watching a local CompUSA for almost a year now, and although they have 6 different Linux distros for sale, the only Linux app they sell is Corel Office (which I would have bought if I hadn't heard it was less stable than a Win95 origional box with half it's windows\system directory corrupted.
When they offer the apps and games, I'll be first in line to buy them.
Try the DOOM model on for size. There are bunches of open source DOOM engines avalible, but in order to use the official WADs you have to buy them from ID software.
This type of model makes almost everyone happy.
Yea. We wish.
A book that will teach you to read if you don't know how...
There are some few cases where windows will ignore the file extention on something and treat it as .EXE anyway. Outlook isn't one of them.
*Most* programs on Windows just ask the registry what the standard action for the file extention is, and then do that.
When you point a gun at your head and pull the trigger, It's pretty obvious what the result will be.
E-mail attachments, on the other hand, should be relitively safe. If it's executable, your Windows email client should helpfully ask you "Executable files can compromise your data and security. Are you sure you want to execute this file?"
You don't need to see any "numbers". The simple fact that Lokisoft, a company that has the single buisness of porting Windows games to Linux, is still in buisness should be enough evidence to show that Linux ports of Windows games can pay for themselves.
If game companies would go to the little bit of trouble nessisary to make their products portable, the cost to port would be trivial.
I don't have a Windows CD. I'm sure as hell not going to pay $200 or so for such a CD, nor will I waste a gig or so of hard disk space installing it.
There's a quote from Linus Torvalds that would be appropriate right about now. It goes something like this:
I think that the library of congress would find themselves in a similar situation. And redundancy in supply is good. Even if the LOC is hit by an astroid (or A-Bomb), that won't screw up Metalab too bad.
Don't store the data on floppys or tape, store it on a redundant cluster of HTTP servers backed up by selling copys of it on CD.
If you have 500,000 copys of it on CD on the shelves of computer stores across the country, and that becomes DVD... datacrystal... whatever as the SOTA changes, media reliability and obsolecence become a non-issue, and the work pays for it'sself pretty quick.
I'd love to help them beta test their game, and I'd love to buy it once they finally release it. I've wanted to play this game since I saw the preview on the StarCraft CD.
The problem is that Blizzard won't let me participate in the beta, and once they release the final, they won't let me run the game, even if I buy it.
You see, they're releasing the game for Win32 Only - and they know I don't have Win32.
There's no good technical reason why the game shouldn't be able to run on my computer. It's got a K6-2/350 processor and 128 megs of RAM, it's video hardware can run at a sufficient resolution and color depth, I've even got a sound system.
My computer even runs other games fine. It runs Civilization: Call to Power, Quake II, and I've even heard of people with nearly identical systems running previous Blizzard games such as WarCraft: Orcs and Humans.
Blizzard.... Why won't you take my Money?
The Linux game audience is large enough that it would pay for the cost of the port. That isn't the problem. The numbers actually show that the number of gamers interested in buying Diablo II may be greater on Linux than on the Mac - which Diablo II is being ported to.
Actually, Loki would be more than happy to do the port any time Blizzard wanted at no cost to Blizzard.
This leaves Blizzard with absolutely no good reason not to have a Linux version of Diablo II in the works.
Basically, they've given us the finger.
"It's worth delaying the game three months for the 5% of the market that uses the Mac, but letting Loki do a port for another 5% of the market would be a waste."
Getting a new 512 bit key for symmetric strong encryption every second should be Good Enough(tm), seing as we can't even crack a 64 bit key with current tech...
Legally they are the same issue. If someone gives you numbers about "child pornography" you get both of the above mentioned types combined.
Yet another example of how fucked up the US legal system is.
Yes.
Apparently not.
One datapoint does not a trend make.
All of my computer literate friends have K6-2s or K6-3s and I haven't heard a single complaint.
Another X-33.
Compared to what a shuttle costs, the X-33's are free.
A server is a program that sits and waits for requests.
This could be something like Apache, where the request looks like
Or something like ICQ where the request looks like Or even something like the X Window System where the request looks likeA restriction on "servers" by an ISP is a restriction on what programs you can run on your computer. Agreeing to such a thing is just moronic.
If students are to have computers, *everyone* (teachers, students, administraitors) need to go through a good computer education program.
When most people I've talked to hear "computer education program" they think "learn how to use Windows 98 and MS Office 2000 in a step-by-step task-based manner". That's an absoute waste of time - when they try to use something else they will have absolutely no useable knowledge. (Note that it's not 'if they use something else', it's 'when they use something else'. Even Windows ME will be sufficiently different from '98 to break this type of education model).
What would work better is a generalized course on "using computers". That would include modern GUI usage, CLI theory, a quick overview of GUI design and event driven app theory.
Students and teachers don't need to learn how to use Microsoft Word, they need to be able to sit down in front of *any* program that uses *any* user interface, and be able to use it fluently within 5 minutes of experimentation.
In the current a current computer education class you might hear:
Instead, I want to hear this on the first day:
People shouldn't be tought when to single click and when to double click - they should be taught to recognize the difference between an icon and a button, and that if you experiment with an icon and determine how it works, what else is also an icon and has the same rules.
Yes, but the backdoor would be unique to your machine, not forcing anyone who didn't want one to have a back door on their machine.
The GPL covers both distribution and modification. Patching a source file is modifying it. You may not patch a GPL source file with a non-GPL patch.
As I understand it, the way the GPL works is that the author first copyrights their work, making it illegal for anyone else to distribute or modify it. Then the author offers a licence (the GPL) which, if the user accepts it, allows the user to distribute and modify the software under the terms of the licence.
The licence is somewhat restrictive as to what types of modification are allowed. Specifically, you may not modifiy a GPLed program *AT ALL*, unless the resultant work would be covered under the GPL.
Assuming that it would be possible to create a patch that was not derived work of GPLed code, it would still be illegal to apply the patch if the resultant work was not GPL covered.
So, creating a non-GPLed patch for GPLed code would be legal but completely useless.
No, a movie director should get a severe ass whupping for taking a good book, removing the content, and turning it into an action movie.
B&N didn't do anything wrong, they just used a basic, obvious e-commerce technique. Amazon on the other hand attempted to use unfair methods to damage their competition.
Because it would obviously answer with whatever OS it was currently running on.