While it's all well and good to say that it's now cheaper to buy pre-built computers than to build, there are a couple of other reasons why you might still consider building.
Environmentalism. I always upgrade because I don't like the idea of an entire computer going into a landfill. I kept the full-size AT case I bought in 1990 for as long as possible -- the only reason I eventually ditched it was because of the switch to ATX form factor. I had the same case, the same power supply, etc. running nonstop for over a decade. I plan to keep my ATX case(s) for at least that long. Hey, it's the only planet we've got; we might as well take care of it!
Microsoft boycott. I'm willing to pay more for a PC that doesn't have Windows pre-installed, just on principle. I promise to go to the grave having shelled out exactly $0.00 to Mr. Gates in my lifetime.
I don't fault Microsoft for wanting to sell software. It's a respectable business and if there are people who want to buy packaged software, that's fine.
What Microsoft should do is play fairly. All they have to do is make an effort to adhere to standards. Document the protocols. Publish the API's. If there's a standard way of doing something, do it that way instead of building a black-box clone.
Microsoft says that they have the best software. If that's the case, why put so much effort into creating lock-in? They should simply create the best software they can, and play fairly like everyone else. They'd continue to make money and they wouldn't have everyone hating their guts. They wouldn't be able to hold a monopoly that way, but the customers they did have would be loyal and happy. And some real competition would force them to actually listen to what customers are asking for and deliver it to them, instead of the current "we know best" approach.
I'm convinced that this won't happen for as long as Gates is in charge. He has a "god complex" and wants to own and control every molecule in the universe. Perhaps a post-Gates Microsoft of the future will see the light.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm just completely unimpressed with the April Fools stories. It was funny the first couple of years, but it's so obvious and tired at this point that they really shouldn't even bother.
If you're going to do it, at least make the story believable. Writing stories about things that couldn't possibly be true is just way too obvious.
That's why I've always maintained the belief that your favorite friendly interactive BBS is still a better place to spend your online time. There are people there. People to interact with. People to share views, opinions, and feelings with. The web is a one-way medium, and with the commercialization of it, it has become as boring and sterile as the rest of mainstream media. The BBS is not, and never will be. That's why small, friendly online communities are thriving.
Go ahead. Visit a BBS and get back to what we all know the real online experience is all about!
This could be a great solution for multiuser systems. Think about this: the cost of a Windows server license, combined with the cost of CAL's, combined with Terminal Server licensing, combined with Citrix licensing (if applicable) is tremendous. If you could run Linux on, say, a quad Xeon, add the Crossover Office extension, and install Microsoft Office... you now have a multiuser installation of Office that can be shared to multiple users. You can even keep it legal by paying for as many instances of Office as you're running, and you're still saving many thousands of dollars.
Take it from me, I run boxes at a hosting center where some of our customers are ASP's. Terminal Server licensing is an absolute nightmare. Being able to share out Win32 apps without paying OS license fees would be a very big deal.
While it's great that Codeweavers has managed to get enough of WINE working to support Windows Media Player, it's still a very bad idea for us to use it. Here's why.
Every time you click on a Windows Media file, you are sending a message to the site operator which basically says "I support Microsoft's efforts to monopolize digital media." You're voting with your mouse.
Right now, in most places we still have a choice of formats: Windows Media, Real, streaming MP3, whatever. If everyone just mindlessly chooses the Windows Media formats without a second thought, site operators are going to look at their logs and say "well, nobody is using the Real/MP3/whatever formats, so let's just start webcasting exclusively in Windows Media format." Do you want that to happen? I sure don't. We cannot afford to let Microsoft monopolize this market. Think of the ramifications of Microsoft having a 100 percent lock on digital content. Digital Rights Management? Easy... just put it in Windows Media. Region lockouts? Put it in Windows Media. Want to work around those problems? Sorry, you can't, because digital media is Windows Media and you don't have any other choice!
Let's not forget that even though Windows Media Player may now run on Linux, you'll never see a Linux distribution that includes it, because the Crossover Plugin is not free, and Microsoft's licenses prevent WMP from appearing on Linux CD's.
Great technology, bad way to use it. As Linux users we must keep on clicking on those non-Microsoft formats, and politely asking site operators to maintain or add media in non-Microsoft formats. Let's not succumb to the urge to satisfy short-term viewing/listening needs at the expense of sacrificing long-term interoperability.
Not to worry. The only reason there aren't any Unix, Mac, etc. clients for RDP is because Microsoft's contract with Citrix Systems (maker of the "multiwin" engine that enables Windows Terminal Services to work) specified that Microsoft would not release RDP clients for non-Windows operating systems; that market would belong to Citrix. Citrix believed that they would make the bulk of their money selling ICA protocol to terminal vendors, but then Microsoft turned around and muscled the terminal vendors into using Windows CE on their terminals.
But it's all irrelevant now: the five-year contract was signed in 1997 and expires this year. Therefore, Citrix is scheduled to die this year. Rest assured that all of the value add that Citrix provides will now be built into the system by Microsoft.
That includes clients for non Windows platforms. It's a downright draconian licensing model: for each client connecting to Terminal Services, you have to buy a Client Access License, a Terminal Services Client Access License (yes, they're two different things), a Citrix license (if you're using Citrix), and... if you're using a non-Microsoft operating system, or a Microsoft operating system older than the one running on the Terminal Services host... you also have to buy a Windows [2000] Workstation license!
Add up all that free money for Microsoft and it doesn't really matter what OS you're connecting from.
While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.
I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.
That's exactly the issue, and it's exactly why AOL is wise to move right now. Any sooner and Gecko would have been "not quite ready," any later and you'd risk the complete MSification of the web.
And what's that "extension?" Personally, I think it'll be a Microsoft-led effort to replace Java applets with.NET applets. It's only a matter of time before Internet Explorer gains the ability to embed.NET applets in web pages. Once that happens, it'll take something the size of AOL's user base being on the 'net to prevent webmasters from using this ultra-proprietary technology and assuming that it'll work for "nearly everyone."
Yes, I already know that browser-embedded Java isn't a great technology either, but at least it's available on every platform. If we ended up with a Web largely dependent on.NET applets, it's essentially game-over for non Microsoft browsers. Thank you, AOL, for making this switch now.
It's a great idea! I think that all software companies based in the state of Washington should be taxed 3000% or more on everything they create, acquire, sell, think about, or come within 100 feet of. If the federal government can't rein in those monopolists, perhaps the Washington state government can. (grin)
rpm vs. deb, Gnome vs. KDE... and now Linux vs. HURD? All this is doing is making the free software platform more convoluted. Now you have to pick a kernel, and it has to be one that's compatible with the apps you're running, and the hardware you're running...
Linux is finally establishing itself as the 'Single Unix' panacea that the unix world has been trying to achieve for 20 years. Now the HURD comes out and they expect to fragment things again? No way.
With the exception of geeks who like to tinker with something obscure, HURD is going nowhere. Linux has won, and with good reason: solid engineering, liberal distribution terms, and a project leader who isn't an asshole. Let's focus on making the Linux platform better, not on fragmenting the free software world even further. The "I Can Do That Better" attitude is our biggest liability.
Now, with many websites turning into paysites, if AOL people cannot see your website in a proper and appealing way (font types, font syzes, table rendering, html extensions.... all those things that makes a website "designed for IExplorer".... and mostly unfriendly to mozilla/W3C) they will start to see that their projected visitors/revenue fall down because of lack of standards adherement.
And that's a beautiful thing.
I'm a die-hard Linux advocate, but as soon as AOL 8.0 is released, I'm going to begin strongly recommending AOL to Mac and Windows people who need a dial-up ISP. AOL is pushing a standards-compliant browser, and that's good for the whole of the Internet. AOL also continues to push RealPlayer, which isn't all that great, but it's better than the alternative (Windoze Media everywhere) and will at least keep the market divvied up until an open standard for digital media can be adopted as well.
As the webmaster of xiph.org so elegantly wrote, "The Internet exists today and continues to move forward despite, not because of, corporate self-interest; critical mass passed the point of no return long before Microsoft and Netscape tried to salt the earth of their rivals.
" Open standards are very important, and it's good to see that someone as big as AOL is going to cause the Internet to be a bit more standards-based. Obviously they're doing it to suit their own ends, of course, but they're doing it.
Geez, for an article written by someone who claims to be a techie, he sure spends a lot of time obsessing about breasts. I count no less than four references. I thought he was supposed to be talking about operating systems? (There's another comment that I'd like to make about people from Utah, but it'd get modded way down so I shall refrain.)
From this we can conclude that he is visually oriented, so it's no wonder he's fallen in love with the gorgeous looks of Mac OS X. Good for him. This doesn't make OS X inherently better than Linux, and someone else's choice doesn't make Linux inherently better than Mac OS X. It's his choice, and he shouldn't try to paint it as the only correct choice. The only wrong choice is Windows.
While it's great that Codeweavers has managed to get enough of WINE working to support Windows Media Player, it's still a very bad idea for us to use it. Here's why.
Every time you click on a Windows Media file, you are sending a message to the site operator which basically says "I support Microsoft's efforts to monopolize digital media." You're voting with your mouse.
Right now, in most places we still have a choice of formats: Windows Media, Real, streaming MP3, whatever. If everyone just mindlessly chooses the Windows Media formats without a second thought, site operators are going to look at their logs and say "well, nobody is using the Real/MP3/whatever formats, so let's just start webcasting exclusively in Windows Media format." Do you want that to happen? I sure don't. We cannot afford to let Microsoft monopolize this market. Think of the ramifications of Microsoft having a 100 percent lock on digital content. Digital Rights Management? Easy... just put it in Windows Media. Region lockouts? Put it in Windows Media. Want to work around those problems? Sorry, you can't, because digital media is Windows Media and you don't have any other choice!
Let's not forget that even though Windows Media Player may now run on Linux, you'll never see a Linux distribution that includes it, because the Crossover Plugin is not free, and Microsoft's licenses prevent WMP from appearing on Linux CD's.
Great technology, bad way to use it. As Linux users we must keep on clicking on those non-Microsoft formats, and politely asking site operators to maintain or add media in non-Microsoft formats. Let's not succumb to the urge to satisfy short-term viewing/listening needs at the expense of sacrificing long-term interoperability.
In retrospect, it's fairly obvious that the Bell System was broken up in the wrong place. Local and long distance service have a rather blurry line between them at this point. With colocation facilities available for CLEC's, the thing everyone needs access to is the 'last mile' local loop. And that's exactly where the split needs to be.
Your local telco should be nothing more than a company that provisions local loops and provides colocation facilities for LEC's. Not ILEC's, not CLEC's, just LEC's. If they provide the local loop, and only the local loop, no one company has an unfair advantage.
At that point, the various LEC's could be completely deregulated. They can provide local dial tone, long distance, Internet service, digital audio/video, whatever... it doesn't matter, because nobody would have this big monster competitor that they also have to buy a piece of their service from.
Sun! Get with the program here. One of your most successful technologies is being directly targeted for destruction by the Evil Empire... and you're fighting with the open source community? This is a sure-fire way to get yourself killed. You've got to have allies somewhere.
Sun's problem is that they want to be a big monopoly like Microsoft, but they aren't one. It may be totallty obvious to Slashdot readers that the only way to successfully complete with Microsoft is to be allied with the open source community, but some players (Sun, Oracle, and even Apple to some extent) still think they can "win."
The problem with the computer industry is that most of the companies involved act like spoiled children. The only exception is IBM, which is a mature company and acts like one.
There's some real danger here. If they're changing the track format, it requires a new player. This means that they have the opportunity to select a new codec as well. Will the standard codec for the next generation of optical video discs be Windows Media? If so, the free world is truly f**ked.
However, as the article notes, cracked software can be detected. No matter how good the cracker, there's little that can be done against online verification. If MS keeps a record of all valid keys, then anyone attempting to use online MS services of any kind with a genned key can be detected and denied/disabled.
Soooooo... what you're saying is that if someone uses a non-MS-generated key to activate Windows XP, then they won't be able to connect to MSN, MS Instant MEssenger, Hotmail, and.NET My Services?
This could be super useful for the mainline version of WINE... Direct3D support can be in the main tree now.
If nothing else, this could pressure TransGaming into putting their Direct3D code into the main WINE tree.
Either way, WINE gets Direct3D support. Check off one more box on the list of things needed for full Windows compatibility. (And then buy native Linux apps anyway because it's a good idea.)
CLR is no big deal. It's basically a clone of parts of the Java framework. As with any programming environment, it's the API's that make things happen. The CLR claims "language independence" but in reality it favors languages that look and quack like C#.
But the API's... well, it's a pretty safe bet that the.NET version of Visual Basic is going to generate code that makes calls to lots of Windows-specific, unpublished, and possibly patented API's. Forget about running them under Linux, ever.
I'm singularly unimpressed by claims that the.NET framework will revolutionize programming. It's just the new way for Windows developers to write Windows programs that run on Windows. So what? If you want true cross-platform ability, you write it in a portable runtime environment like Java or Python, or you write to a portable toolkit like Qt or wxWindows.
What the.NET framework might do for us, however, is create a Windows platform on which more apps are well-behaved. This would mean that once WINE is able to successfully run the DLL's that implement the.NET framework, all apps built on that framework will begin to run properly. I'll take that much.
But the patent stuff... that scares the hell outta me. Rather than obscure the API's, they simply put 'em right out in the open, slap a patent on, and stand an army of lawyers in front of us saying "don't even think of cloning this." Dead stop. We have to avoid this at all costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't fault Microsoft for wanting to sell software. It's a respectable business and if there are people who want to buy packaged software, that's fine.
What Microsoft should do is play fairly. All they have to do is make an effort to adhere to standards. Document the protocols. Publish the API's. If there's a standard way of doing something, do it that way instead of building a black-box clone.
Microsoft says that they have the best software. If that's the case, why put so much effort into creating lock-in? They should simply create the best software they can, and play fairly like everyone else. They'd continue to make money and they wouldn't have everyone hating their guts. They wouldn't be able to hold a monopoly that way, but the customers they did have would be loyal and happy. And some real competition would force them to actually listen to what customers are asking for and deliver it to them, instead of the current "we know best" approach.
I'm convinced that this won't happen for as long as Gates is in charge. He has a "god complex" and wants to own and control every molecule in the universe. Perhaps a post-Gates Microsoft of the future will see the light.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm just completely unimpressed with the April Fools stories. It was funny the first couple of years, but it's so obvious and tired at this point that they really shouldn't even bother.
If you're going to do it, at least make the story believable. Writing stories about things that couldn't possibly be true is just way too obvious.
Sorry folks, but they won't get my web hits. Teoma runs on Windoze. I'd rather support Google and its Linux/Unix powered search engine.
bash-2.04$ telnet www.teoma.com 80
Trying 65.214.39.14...
Connected to teoma.ask.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 07:53:46 GMT
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 5645
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDGGGGQUBK=GBAEPIAAOHPHNIGEMCKJMFCI; path=/
Cache-control: private
This is not news, folks. Most of the web is crap.
That's why I've always maintained the belief that your favorite friendly interactive BBS is still a better place to spend your online time. There are people there. People to interact with. People to share views, opinions, and feelings with. The web is a one-way medium, and with the commercialization of it, it has become as boring and sterile as the rest of mainstream media. The BBS is not, and never will be. That's why small, friendly online communities are thriving.
Go ahead. Visit a BBS and get back to what we all know the real online experience is all about!
This could be a great solution for multiuser systems. Think about this: the cost of a Windows server license, combined with the cost of CAL's, combined with Terminal Server licensing, combined with Citrix licensing (if applicable) is tremendous. If you could run Linux on, say, a quad Xeon, add the Crossover Office extension, and install Microsoft Office ... you now have a multiuser installation of Office that can be shared to multiple users. You can even keep it legal by paying for as many instances of Office as you're running, and you're still saving many thousands of dollars.
Take it from me, I run boxes at a hosting center where some of our customers are ASP's. Terminal Server licensing is an absolute nightmare. Being able to share out Win32 apps without paying OS license fees would be a very big deal.
"Microsoft must be free to innovate"
While it's great that Codeweavers has managed to get enough of WINE working to support Windows Media Player, it's still a very bad idea for us to use it. Here's why.
Every time you click on a Windows Media file, you are sending a message to the site operator which basically says "I support Microsoft's efforts to monopolize digital media." You're voting with your mouse.
Right now, in most places we still have a choice of formats: Windows Media, Real, streaming MP3, whatever. If everyone just mindlessly chooses the Windows Media formats without a second thought, site operators are going to look at their logs and say "well, nobody is using the Real/MP3/whatever formats, so let's just start webcasting exclusively in Windows Media format." Do you want that to happen? I sure don't. We cannot afford to let Microsoft monopolize this market. Think of the ramifications of Microsoft having a 100 percent lock on digital content. Digital Rights Management? Easy... just put it in Windows Media. Region lockouts? Put it in Windows Media. Want to work around those problems? Sorry, you can't, because digital media is Windows Media and you don't have any other choice!
Let's not forget that even though Windows Media Player may now run on Linux, you'll never see a Linux distribution that includes it, because the Crossover Plugin is not free, and Microsoft's licenses prevent WMP from appearing on Linux CD's.
Great technology, bad way to use it. As Linux users we must keep on clicking on those non-Microsoft formats, and politely asking site operators to maintain or add media in non-Microsoft formats. Let's not succumb to the urge to satisfy short-term viewing/listening needs at the expense of sacrificing long-term interoperability.
Not to worry. The only reason there aren't any Unix, Mac, etc. clients for RDP is because Microsoft's contract with Citrix Systems (maker of the "multiwin" engine that enables Windows Terminal Services to work) specified that Microsoft would not release RDP clients for non-Windows operating systems; that market would belong to Citrix. Citrix believed that they would make the bulk of their money selling ICA protocol to terminal vendors, but then Microsoft turned around and muscled the terminal vendors into using Windows CE on their terminals.
But it's all irrelevant now: the five-year contract was signed in 1997 and expires this year. Therefore, Citrix is scheduled to die this year. Rest assured that all of the value add that Citrix provides will now be built into the system by Microsoft.
That includes clients for non Windows platforms. It's a downright draconian licensing model: for each client connecting to Terminal Services, you have to buy a Client Access License, a Terminal Services Client Access License (yes, they're two different things), a Citrix license (if you're using Citrix), and... if you're using a non-Microsoft operating system, or a Microsoft operating system older than the one running on the Terminal Services host... you also have to buy a Windows [2000] Workstation license!
Add up all that free money for Microsoft and it doesn't really matter what OS you're connecting from.
And what's that "extension?" Personally, I think it'll be a Microsoft-led effort to replace Java applets with
Yes, I already know that browser-embedded Java isn't a great technology either, but at least it's available on every platform. If we ended up with a Web largely dependent on
In other news, new antitrust lawsuits are being filed against Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and AT&T.
It's a great idea! I think that all software companies based in the state of Washington should be taxed 3000% or more on everything they create, acquire, sell, think about, or come within 100 feet of. If the federal government can't rein in those monopolists, perhaps the Washington state government can. (grin)
Do we really need more fragmentation?
rpm vs. deb, Gnome vs. KDE... and now Linux vs. HURD? All this is doing is making the free software platform more convoluted. Now you have to pick a kernel, and it has to be one that's compatible with the apps you're running, and the hardware you're running...
Linux is finally establishing itself as the 'Single Unix' panacea that the unix world has been trying to achieve for 20 years. Now the HURD comes out and they expect to fragment things again? No way.
With the exception of geeks who like to tinker with something obscure, HURD is going nowhere. Linux has won, and with good reason: solid engineering, liberal distribution terms, and a project leader who isn't an asshole. Let's focus on making the Linux platform better, not on fragmenting the free software world even further. The "I Can Do That Better" attitude is our biggest liability.
I'm a die-hard Linux advocate, but as soon as AOL 8.0 is released, I'm going to begin strongly recommending AOL to Mac and Windows people who need a dial-up ISP. AOL is pushing a standards-compliant browser, and that's good for the whole of the Internet. AOL also continues to push RealPlayer, which isn't all that great, but it's better than the alternative (Windoze Media everywhere) and will at least keep the market divvied up until an open standard for digital media can be adopted as well.
As the webmaster of xiph.org so elegantly wrote, "The Internet exists today and continues to move forward despite, not because of, corporate self-interest; critical mass passed the point of no return long before Microsoft and Netscape tried to salt the earth of their rivals. " Open standards are very important, and it's good to see that someone as big as AOL is going to cause the Internet to be a bit more standards-based. Obviously they're doing it to suit their own ends, of course, but they're doing it.
Geez, for an article written by someone who claims to be a techie, he sure spends a lot of time obsessing about breasts. I count no less than four references. I thought he was supposed to be talking about operating systems? (There's another comment that I'd like to make about people from Utah, but it'd get modded way down so I shall refrain.)
From this we can conclude that he is visually oriented, so it's no wonder he's fallen in love with the gorgeous looks of Mac OS X. Good for him. This doesn't make OS X inherently better than Linux, and someone else's choice doesn't make Linux inherently better than Mac OS X. It's his choice, and he shouldn't try to paint it as the only correct choice. The only wrong choice is Windows.
While it's great that Codeweavers has managed to get enough of WINE working to support Windows Media Player, it's still a very bad idea for us to use it. Here's why.
Every time you click on a Windows Media file, you are sending a message to the site operator which basically says "I support Microsoft's efforts to monopolize digital media." You're voting with your mouse.
Right now, in most places we still have a choice of formats: Windows Media, Real, streaming MP3, whatever. If everyone just mindlessly chooses the Windows Media formats without a second thought, site operators are going to look at their logs and say "well, nobody is using the Real/MP3/whatever formats, so let's just start webcasting exclusively in Windows Media format." Do you want that to happen? I sure don't. We cannot afford to let Microsoft monopolize this market. Think of the ramifications of Microsoft having a 100 percent lock on digital content. Digital Rights Management? Easy... just put it in Windows Media. Region lockouts? Put it in Windows Media. Want to work around those problems? Sorry, you can't, because digital media is Windows Media and you don't have any other choice!
Let's not forget that even though Windows Media Player may now run on Linux, you'll never see a Linux distribution that includes it, because the Crossover Plugin is not free, and Microsoft's licenses prevent WMP from appearing on Linux CD's.
Great technology, bad way to use it. As Linux users we must keep on clicking on those non-Microsoft formats, and politely asking site operators to maintain or add media in non-Microsoft formats. Let's not succumb to the urge to satisfy short-term viewing/listening needs at the expense of sacrificing long-term interoperability.
In retrospect, it's fairly obvious that the Bell System was broken up in the wrong place. Local and long distance service have a rather blurry line between them at this point. With colocation facilities available for CLEC's, the thing everyone needs access to is the 'last mile' local loop. And that's exactly where the split needs to be.
Your local telco should be nothing more than a company that provisions local loops and provides colocation facilities for LEC's. Not ILEC's, not CLEC's, just LEC's. If they provide the local loop, and only the local loop, no one company has an unfair advantage.
At that point, the various LEC's could be completely deregulated. They can provide local dial tone, long distance, Internet service, digital audio/video, whatever... it doesn't matter, because nobody would have this big monster competitor that they also have to buy a piece of their service from.
Sun! Get with the program here. One of your most successful technologies is being directly targeted for destruction by the Evil Empire ... and you're fighting with the open source community? This is a sure-fire way to get yourself killed. You've got to have allies somewhere.
Sun's problem is that they want to be a big monopoly like Microsoft, but they aren't one. It may be totallty obvious to Slashdot readers that the only way to successfully complete with Microsoft is to be allied with the open source community, but some players (Sun, Oracle, and even Apple to some extent) still think they can "win."
The problem with the computer industry is that most of the companies involved act like spoiled children. The only exception is IBM, which is a mature company and acts like one.
The rule about maximum ownership was what originally spawned the idea of national networks having local affiliate stations.
If the 35 percent rule goes away, we'll be very likely to see the big networks simply merge with their affiliate stations, or buy them outright.
There's some real danger here. If they're changing the track format, it requires a new player. This means that they have the opportunity to select a new codec as well. Will the standard codec for the next generation of optical video discs be Windows Media? If so, the free world is truly f**ked.
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
This could be super useful for the mainline version of WINE ... Direct3D support can be in the main tree now.
If nothing else, this could pressure TransGaming into putting their Direct3D code into the main WINE tree.
Either way, WINE gets Direct3D support. Check off one more box on the list of things needed for full Windows compatibility. (And then buy native Linux apps anyway because it's a good idea.)
CLR is no big deal. It's basically a clone of parts of the Java framework. As with any programming environment, it's the API's that make things happen. The CLR claims "language independence" but in reality it favors languages that look and quack like C#.
... well, it's a pretty safe bet that the .NET version of Visual Basic is going to generate code that makes calls to lots of Windows-specific, unpublished, and possibly patented API's. Forget about running them under Linux, ever.
.NET framework will revolutionize programming. It's just the new way for Windows developers to write Windows programs that run on Windows. So what? If you want true cross-platform ability, you write it in a portable runtime environment like Java or Python, or you write to a portable toolkit like Qt or wxWindows.
.NET framework might do for us, however, is create a Windows platform on which more apps are well-behaved. This would mean that once WINE is able to successfully run the DLL's that implement the .NET framework, all apps built on that framework will begin to run properly. I'll take that much.
... that scares the hell outta me. Rather than obscure the API's, they simply put 'em right out in the open, slap a patent on, and stand an army of lawyers in front of us saying "don't even think of cloning this." Dead stop. We have to avoid this at all costs.
But the API's
I'm singularly unimpressed by claims that the
What the
But the patent stuff
And now... Radio 4 will explode.
BOOM