It is a one thing to use gl4java which basically is nothing more than thin layer on top of Gl->Hardware but it is another thing to try to write reasonably sophisticated and FAST AI or other code where hardware cannot be of any help.
Take a look at the Grand Canyon demo I linked in one of my other replies. It does quite a bit of processing, including scene culling and LOD calculations, all in 100% pure Java (JDK 1.4).
Modern VMs are quite competitive with C++, and gcj should be close to a wash. See Binaries vs. Bytecodes for one interesting set of benchmarks, with source code. Java outperforms both gcc and msvc in different instances.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Keep in mind that 1.4 is a long way off from being standard. It's in beta and while 1.3 is pretty well rooted among developers, the _industry standard_ is still jdk 1.2.2.
This really doesn't matter, since most folk won't want to download any decent game (too large with all the multimedia resources). Therefore you can bundle the VM (JRE) with the game, of course checking to make sure its not already installed. This is actually good in the sense that you proliferate a modern VM to more computers.:-)
That being said, at Java One I saw a game written completely in Java. It was definitely an interesting concept and it seemed to run pretty smoothly (it was a FPS-type), but it was damn ugly. That may be just that they didn't have the artists necessary for the models, but it sure wasn't quake3. The technology is almost there, but other posters are right, Java isn't great at graphics. Almost, but not quite yet.
That was an art issue...you can do anything with gl4java you can do with OpenGL 1.2 (in other words Quake, or Doom 2).
Did you see the Grand Canyon Demo at JavaOne? Pretty impressive stuff, also using gl4java! I think an Open Source Java flight simulator using the FlightGear art and other data is fine idea in fact. Anyone interested?
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
There are only a few problems with this, primarily gcc (3.0 or otherwise) does not support graphics at all, they have yet to implement even the awt much less swing or java3D.
Check out gl4java. It is the graphics API used in Arkanae (linked in first post). It doesn't require , swing, or Java3D - just a 1.1 level VM. Not many commercial games use any GUI other than custom programmed 2D or 3D graphics.
In fact, gcj is ideal since gl4java could be ported to use CNI instead of JNI, which would gain efficiency. The same could be done for OpenAL and SDL bindings, which would be straightforward.
In fact, gcc, or more correctly gjc, only supports java 1.0.
Actually 1.1. On the gcj issue, I thought that was deprecated in the same way g++ was...but no big deal.
These being the facts, it is very unlikly that you will be able to do a game using java and gcc.
I don't think the word "facts" means what you think it means.;-)
As for the VM, even with jit technologies Java is still no where near fast enough to do any modern style of game.
And you base this on what evidence? Arkanae would seem to be an existence proof that works against you. JDK 1.4 should improve things much more, mainly through the DirectBuffer mechanism.
Now dont get em wrong, java is a good choice for server side apps, its just not there yet for the client side.
It is there to the extent that if I were starting a game project today, I would definitely go with Java. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, IMNSHO.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
What we need are elegant, cross platform game libraries (and languages) so one code base can be used.
I think the best current approach involves Java, which can be either natively compiled (gcc 3.0) or run on a VM (JDK 1.4 should be quite good). Check out Arkanae for an early preview.:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
OK, I'm going to need to set up a system with Win98, Win2K and Linux (RH 7.2) all booting from the same 30 GB drive (other storage on system is two 80 GB ATA100 drives on a Promise controller at Raid 0). It looks like XOSL might be just the ticket!
Any suggestions on install order and which boot loader to use? Anyone attempt something similar with XOSL? Would Grub be better since it's included with RH 7.2?
Thanks in advance for your opinions!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I missed this yesterday, but I have to respond.;-)
OpenGL 1.3 is too little too late.
DirectX has already taken the gaming community.
"Taken the gaming community" as in a con? Now that I might agree with. However, OpenGL is the 3D API for Macintosh and all Unix platforms, and is used for many games in addition to almost all professional 3D applications. It'll be around long after Direct3D is an old, bad memory.:-)
And for the 0.00001% of game developers that develope for linux, there is the SDL.
Really, including 3D? Man, the quality of the trolls around here is really dropping fast.
C'est la vie.
A saying Microsoft should really get used to...;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Why one propietary language should be used over another... kind of misses the point. I say they're both bad due to being closed and propietary.
Presuming you're referring to Java vs. C#, neither is proprietary.
Java (the language) has an open specification, and RedHat 7.2 ships with a Gnu Java compiler as part of gcc 3.x. There are also many other non-Sun Java implementations. Having great free-as-in-beer development tools and runtimes doesn't hurt either!
C# the language has been submitted to ECMA, and is also being implemented in Mono by Ximian. We'll see how things work out with it, but calling it proprietary isn't correct either. Other parts of.Net are certainly proprietary, including for instance the GUI library for C#. There are no Microsoft free-as-in-beer development tools for C#.
Personally, I think Java is by far the better idea between those two, and that it will pick up desirable features like operator overloading and lightweight objects with time. At least it is pretty solid and fast after 6+ years of development.
Microsoft is boldly saying "We want to run the Internet. Standards mean nothing except when its our standard."
I think all CS and IT people should strongly oppose this company both from the standpoint of the quality of it's engineering, and it's abysmal ethics and vision. Unix represents the best way (including Linux, *BSD and MacOS X) to fight back, and there are excellent rationales for doing so.
This is probably the best chance alternatives will ever have...let's hope they make the most of it. The reviews of RH 7.2 are an encouraging start at least!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I am not a big fan of Intel, but at least they are addressing the deficiencies of IA32 architecture. They are replacing it and not adding to it.
Are they addressing the deficiencies? By what metric do you make that claim?
The IA64 design isn't amazing by any means. But it's our best hope for a "next generation" processor.
How so? So far Itanium performance has been less than impressive (to put it kindly).
Why don't AMD clone Itanium? Considering their current position, I think it would be the smartest move for now.
AMD is trying to differentiate itself from Intel by providing superior price/performance, raw performance, and backward compatibility. So far Itanium has been a big disappointment (don't forget it was originally supposed to ship in 1998, IIRC). One important factor will be how Hammer die size stacks up against Itanium die size using the same process. Anyone have a clue?
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
While the thought of Itanium duking it out with Hammer may encourage visions of one company stomping another, plus heated discussions, flame wars, and so on, my interest has always of having a 64bit desktop. Intel some time back indicated that the Itanium was targetted exclusively at the server market, is likely rethinking that point.
Itanium isn't just for the server market now. IBM, SGI and several others are marketing Itanium technical workstations. Intel has also stated that it sees Itanium making it to the desktop at some point in the future, replacing x86.
Hammer, on the other hand (specifically Clawhammer) has always been targeted at the desktop from the get-go (along with server and workstation). Check it out on the AMD processor roadmap (which I just managed to find again;).
Another point to keep in mind is that the ability to compete in the server marketplace is a key for AMD. It will provide them with the same ability as Intel to subsidize desktop processors with expensive server processors. Right now Intel can sell P4s at a loss and still turn an overall profit, while AMD suffers. Once Hammer ships, the dynamic will change quite a bit...;-)
Perhaps McKinley (the joint project with HP) is Intel's idea of the post P4 desktop processor, as I've seen elsewhere that Itanium's x86 emulation makes a PIII look attractive.
I thought McKinley was just the.13 micron version of Itanium, perhaps with more cache. Does it have an enhanced ability to do IA32?
The ability to build a desktop workstation with the ability to run all my old x86 crap, fast, and move into 64bit software, also fast, is highly attractive. Athlon or P4 will undoubtably be the choices for the next year, but when AMD gets the Hammer out into the mainstream with a mainstream price, Intel watch out.
I couldn't agree more!
Lastly, Microsoft, last I read, didn't indicate any interest in doing a version of XP for the Hammer. Perhaps that hasn't changed. If not, there's a potential hole through which someone may exploit Microsoft's disinterest. Linux, sure, AOL, Hmmm, you know that's a mean fight going on between Reston, VA and Redmond, WA, if the Hammer is attractive to home users, don't be surprise if AOL chooses to support it. It's entertaining to think about, anyway, however you feel about the combatants.
I think Linux will be strong presence on the Hammer, along with potentially (wild prediction here) MacOS X. Microsoft will support it as soon as it begins to take marketshare like the US Rangers taking Omar's palace (not that I particularly care if Microsoft supports it). As for AOL, it should just get busy porting it's interface to Java like it said it would a year or so ago. That alone would be a big blow to Microsoft, and would simplify software development quite a bit for AOL as well as widening the number of AOL platforms substantially.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Did AMD design the pipeline to get very high clock speeds just for marketing purposes?
(because everyone they realised performance rating is doomed?)
No, like Itanium Hammer gets more done in a single clock. I can't see how this will hurt Hammer vs. Itanium. Itanium/McKinley will have much lower clock numbers than Hammer, which is supposed to debut at 2+ GHz.
I also disagree regarding the performance rating being 'doomed'. I think the jury is still out, and so far it has had the effect of raising ASPs (average selling prices) for AMD processors relative to the overrated P4 - which is a good thing for AMD.
Still, a very promising CPU. (but a lot can happen before the CPU is realeased sometime in 2003)
A small correction - Hammer is supposed to ship in small quantities in the first half of 2002, and in production quantities in the second half. The processor roadmap appears to missing at the moment, but the release date is mentioned in the x86-64 FAQ.
I can't wait to see the first SPEC numbers!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Linux has already been ported to the simulator, and supports 511 GB of memory per process. That should do for a start!
Each feature of the Hammer taken alone is evolutionary, but the overall effect should be revolutionary (at least with regard to Intel server market share;).
AMD stock is looking like quite a bargain at around $10/share...:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I suppose my opinion could have been expressed less controversially, but in part this was a test to see how poorly Slashdot moderation actually works. That question has been answered at least.:-p
2) C++ is just as useful as C in many kernel applications. For example, Linux has many implementations of lists, trees, etc. Using templating, you can get 99% of the advantages of having specialized lists for each datatype without the hassle of actually maintaining specialized lists. Also, Linux has a lot of structures filled with pointers to functions. ABC's fill that role much more cleanly. Operator overloading (like overriding 'new') also come in handy. Plus, its not like anyone is suggesting writing the kernel using STL or somesuch nonsense!
However, BeOS does expose all system functionality through C++ APIs. Thus you get lovely artifacts like vtable slots reserved for future use. Also, it is often difficult or impossible to call C++ from other languages (with the notable exception of Java, which supports C++ directly with JNI).
3) The BeOS kernel is written in 'C'.
That's nice, but does nothing to address the issues with exposing C++ system APIs.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
But my point is this - where's the fun in having an authorized version of Linux on PS2?
Self-hosted development? Ports of all the Loki titles? I don't know really, but it does have a definite 'cool' factor!
I think all the kernel hackers out there should put Linux on X-Box as soon as possible. Then MS can lose their $150 per box and sell zero games because everyone's using them as cheap process servers!:-)
This does sound like a fine plan!:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Since C++ is a pathetically inappropriate language for OS development (IMNSHO of course;) I hope BeOS dies a graceful death.
There, now I feel better!:-)
Seriously if you want something that plays in mostly the same space (except it is written in C, is well designed, has hard realtime capabilities, and is a commercial success) check out QNX.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The hypocrisy is amazing..slashdotters want the government to protect consumers from the evils of Microsoft, and "Big Business"..but when the government wants to protect citizens from terrorism..you guys go apeshit about "Big Brother".
Which is it?? You can't have it both ways.
Sure I can.
In the case of Microsoft, I want the government to act to restore some competitive balance in the software industry, and to prevent Microsoft from becoming the toll booth for every e-commerce transaction (with all of the attendant privacy and security concerns). I don't see it happening without government intervention, which, by the way, is nice and constitutional.
In the case of the US government turning into Big Brother, I oppose throwing away the Constitution for illusory security. It isn't clear at all that any of the proposed increases in police powers will catch a single terrorist. Personally, I think law enforcement can do fine under the current laws, given sufficient budget and manpower.
I don't see those two viewpoints as being in conflict in the slightest.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Unlike a console, the X-Box is a PC. It uses a PC processor, and a PC graphics chip. These are obviously considerably more advanced than anything in a console, and are therefore more likely to go wrong. Its one of the prices to pay for being on the bleeding edge.
Horse-bleep. I'm typing at a PC right now, with an Athlon and a GeForce graphics card. It often has uptimes of weeks (voluntary reboots only), running RH 7.1 of course.
Face it, Microsoft has brainwashed you into thinking crashes are inevitable...;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Not trying to troll here, I am simply amazed at all the people that are so concerned about what length's the government will goto to "invade their privacy". Give it a rest. Ask the 5000 people at the WTC if they would have minded if the FBI had their power expanded in order to prevent the 9-11 things from happening.
Sure, if you make the breathtaking leap to presume that 'tapping' unencrypted internet traffic would have contributed anything worthwhile...especially given that Echelon was probably already doing it for all international traffic.
That's right you can't because they are dead . Ask the people on the planes if they would have minded, that's right they're dead too. Try and imagine what it would have been like if the FBI or CIA would of had the extra bit of power to do the things they want to do now.
Yes, and then let's imagine the United States in another 20 years, when it has become a tyrannical police state...
They may or may not have been able to stop it from happening, but they definately won't be able to stop things in the future from happening without laws changing.
Oh really? To what insight do you attribute this gem of logic?
I value my privacy and rights as much as every American does, but I am more than willing to give in on some things if it helps prevent future terrorist attacks.
I agree with Ben:
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin--
Besides, if you're not a criminal, you really have no worries.
I'd guess exactly the same thing was said to those that registered their guns in 1930's Nazi Germany.;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Maybe it boils down to the simple fact that the proposed SSSCA legislation is so outrageous and would cause so many problems that it really is getting the negative attention it deserves.
I think so.
In this case, I think Microsoft is simply aligning itself with it's hardware partners. They have no desire to increase their engineering and legal costs in order to cripple their machines with hardware content protection devices.
On the other hand, Microsoft is probably very eager to control software based content protection.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at the Grand Canyon demo I linked in one of my other replies. It does quite a bit of processing, including scene culling and LOD calculations, all in 100% pure Java (JDK 1.4).
Modern VMs are quite competitive with C++, and gcj should be close to a wash. See Binaries vs. Bytecodes for one interesting set of benchmarks, with source code. Java outperforms both gcc and msvc in different instances.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
This really doesn't matter, since most folk won't want to download any decent game (too large with all the multimedia resources). Therefore you can bundle the VM (JRE) with the game, of course checking to make sure its not already installed. This is actually good in the sense that you proliferate a modern VM to more computers. :-)
That being said, at Java One I saw a game written completely in Java. It was definitely an interesting concept and it seemed to run pretty smoothly (it was a FPS-type), but it was damn ugly. That may be just that they didn't have the artists necessary for the models, but it sure wasn't quake3. The technology is almost there, but other posters are right, Java isn't great at graphics. Almost, but not quite yet.
That was an art issue...you can do anything with gl4java you can do with OpenGL 1.2 (in other words Quake, or Doom 2).
Did you see the Grand Canyon Demo at JavaOne? Pretty impressive stuff, also using gl4java! I think an Open Source Java flight simulator using the FlightGear art and other data is fine idea in fact. Anyone interested?
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Check out gl4java. It is the graphics API used in Arkanae (linked in first post). It doesn't require , swing, or Java3D - just a 1.1 level VM. Not many commercial games use any GUI other than custom programmed 2D or 3D graphics.
In fact, gcj is ideal since gl4java could be ported to use CNI instead of JNI, which would gain efficiency. The same could be done for OpenAL and SDL bindings, which would be straightforward.
In fact, gcc, or more correctly gjc, only supports java 1.0.
Actually 1.1. On the gcj issue, I thought that was deprecated in the same way g++ was...but no big deal.
These being the facts, it is very unlikly that you will be able to do a game using java and gcc.
I don't think the word "facts" means what you think it means. ;-)
As for the VM, even with jit technologies Java is still no where near fast enough to do any modern style of game.
And you base this on what evidence? Arkanae would seem to be an existence proof that works against you. JDK 1.4 should improve things much more, mainly through the DirectBuffer mechanism.
Now dont get em wrong, java is a good choice for server side apps, its just not there yet for the client side.
It is there to the extent that if I were starting a game project today, I would definitely go with Java. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, IMNSHO.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I think the best current approach involves Java, which can be either natively compiled (gcc 3.0) or run on a VM (JDK 1.4 should be quite good). Check out Arkanae for an early preview. :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I bet it can perform as fast as 10,000 desktop PC's combined in one year, too! (WHATEVER the hell that means!)
I presume the author meant it was "10,000 times faster than a desktop PC".
I wonder if Hammer will be faster than those Alphas per processor...I'd think so.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Any suggestions on install order and which boot loader to use? Anyone attempt something similar with XOSL? Would Grub be better since it's included with RH 7.2?
Thanks in advance for your opinions!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
OpenGL 1.3 is too little too late.
DirectX has already taken the gaming community.
"Taken the gaming community" as in a con? Now that I might agree with. However, OpenGL is the 3D API for Macintosh and all Unix platforms, and is used for many games in addition to almost all professional 3D applications. It'll be around long after Direct3D is an old, bad memory. :-)
And for the 0.00001% of game developers that develope for linux, there is the SDL.
Really, including 3D? Man, the quality of the trolls around here is really dropping fast.
C'est la vie.
A saying Microsoft should really get used to... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Presuming you're referring to Java vs. C#, neither is proprietary.
Java (the language) has an open specification, and RedHat 7.2 ships with a Gnu Java compiler as part of gcc 3.x. There are also many other non-Sun Java implementations. Having great free-as-in-beer development tools and runtimes doesn't hurt either!
C# the language has been submitted to ECMA, and is also being implemented in Mono by Ximian. We'll see how things work out with it, but calling it proprietary isn't correct either. Other parts of .Net are certainly proprietary, including for instance the GUI library for C#. There are no Microsoft free-as-in-beer development tools for C#.
Personally, I think Java is by far the better idea between those two, and that it will pick up desirable features like operator overloading and lightweight objects with time. At least it is pretty solid and fast after 6+ years of development.
Of course there are other reasons to avoid Microsoft products and initiatives (my polemic for the day;).
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Microsoft is boldly saying "We want to run the Internet. Standards mean nothing except when its our standard."
I think all CS and IT people should strongly oppose this company both from the standpoint of the quality of it's engineering, and it's abysmal ethics and vision. Unix represents the best way (including Linux, *BSD and MacOS X) to fight back, and there are excellent rationales for doing so.
This is probably the best chance alternatives will ever have...let's hope they make the most of it. The reviews of RH 7.2 are an encouraging start at least!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Are they addressing the deficiencies? By what metric do you make that claim?
The IA64 design isn't amazing by any means. But it's our best hope for a "next generation" processor.
How so? So far Itanium performance has been less than impressive (to put it kindly).
Why don't AMD clone Itanium? Considering their current position, I think it would be the smartest move for now.
AMD is trying to differentiate itself from Intel by providing superior price/performance, raw performance, and backward compatibility. So far Itanium has been a big disappointment (don't forget it was originally supposed to ship in 1998, IIRC). One important factor will be how Hammer die size stacks up against Itanium die size using the same process. Anyone have a clue?
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Itanium isn't just for the server market now. IBM, SGI and several others are marketing Itanium technical workstations. Intel has also stated that it sees Itanium making it to the desktop at some point in the future, replacing x86.
Hammer, on the other hand (specifically Clawhammer) has always been targeted at the desktop from the get-go (along with server and workstation). Check it out on the AMD processor roadmap (which I just managed to find again;).
Another point to keep in mind is that the ability to compete in the server marketplace is a key for AMD. It will provide them with the same ability as Intel to subsidize desktop processors with expensive server processors. Right now Intel can sell P4s at a loss and still turn an overall profit, while AMD suffers. Once Hammer ships, the dynamic will change quite a bit... ;-)
Perhaps McKinley (the joint project with HP) is Intel's idea of the post P4 desktop processor, as I've seen elsewhere that Itanium's x86 emulation makes a PIII look attractive.
I thought McKinley was just the .13 micron version of Itanium, perhaps with more cache. Does it have an enhanced ability to do IA32?
The ability to build a desktop workstation with the ability to run all my old x86 crap, fast, and move into 64bit software, also fast, is highly attractive. Athlon or P4 will undoubtably be the choices for the next year, but when AMD gets the Hammer out into the mainstream with a mainstream price, Intel watch out.
I couldn't agree more!
Lastly, Microsoft, last I read, didn't indicate any interest in doing a version of XP for the Hammer. Perhaps that hasn't changed. If not, there's a potential hole through which someone may exploit Microsoft's disinterest. Linux, sure, AOL, Hmmm, you know that's a mean fight going on between Reston, VA and Redmond, WA, if the Hammer is attractive to home users, don't be surprise if AOL chooses to support it. It's entertaining to think about, anyway, however you feel about the combatants.
I think Linux will be strong presence on the Hammer, along with potentially (wild prediction here) MacOS X. Microsoft will support it as soon as it begins to take marketshare like the US Rangers taking Omar's palace (not that I particularly care if Microsoft supports it). As for AOL, it should just get busy porting it's interface to Java like it said it would a year or so ago. That alone would be a big blow to Microsoft, and would simplify software development quite a bit for AOL as well as widening the number of AOL platforms substantially.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
No, like Itanium Hammer gets more done in a single clock. I can't see how this will hurt Hammer vs. Itanium. Itanium/McKinley will have much lower clock numbers than Hammer, which is supposed to debut at 2+ GHz.
I also disagree regarding the performance rating being 'doomed'. I think the jury is still out, and so far it has had the effect of raising ASPs (average selling prices) for AMD processors relative to the overrated P4 - which is a good thing for AMD.
Still, a very promising CPU. (but a lot can happen before the CPU is realeased sometime in 2003)
A small correction - Hammer is supposed to ship in small quantities in the first half of 2002, and in production quantities in the second half. The processor roadmap appears to missing at the moment, but the release date is mentioned in the x86-64 FAQ.
I can't wait to see the first SPEC numbers!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Each feature of the Hammer taken alone is evolutionary, but the overall effect should be revolutionary (at least with regard to Intel server market share;).
AMD stock is looking like quite a bargain at around $10/share... :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I think not, just opinionated. ;-)
I suppose my opinion could have been expressed less controversially, but in part this was a test to see how poorly Slashdot moderation actually works. That question has been answered at least. :-p
2) C++ is just as useful as C in many kernel applications. For example, Linux has many implementations of lists, trees, etc. Using templating, you can get 99% of the advantages of having specialized lists for each datatype without the hassle of actually maintaining specialized lists. Also, Linux has a lot of structures filled with pointers to functions. ABC's fill that role much more cleanly. Operator overloading (like overriding 'new') also come in handy. Plus, its not like anyone is suggesting writing the kernel using STL or somesuch nonsense!
However, BeOS does expose all system functionality through C++ APIs. Thus you get lovely artifacts like vtable slots reserved for future use. Also, it is often difficult or impossible to call C++ from other languages (with the notable exception of Java, which supports C++ directly with JNI).
3) The BeOS kernel is written in 'C'.
That's nice, but does nothing to address the issues with exposing C++ system APIs.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Self-hosted development? Ports of all the Loki titles? I don't know really, but it does have a definite 'cool' factor!
I think all the kernel hackers out there should put Linux on X-Box as soon as possible. Then MS can lose their $150 per box and sell zero games because everyone's using them as cheap process servers! :-)
This does sound like a fine plan! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Since C++ is a pathetically inappropriate language for OS development (IMNSHO of course;) I hope BeOS dies a graceful death.
There, now I feel better! :-)
Seriously if you want something that plays in mostly the same space (except it is written in C, is well designed, has hard realtime capabilities, and is a commercial success) check out QNX.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Which is it?? You can't have it both ways.
Sure I can.
In the case of Microsoft, I want the government to act to restore some competitive balance in the software industry, and to prevent Microsoft from becoming the toll booth for every e-commerce transaction (with all of the attendant privacy and security concerns). I don't see it happening without government intervention, which, by the way, is nice and constitutional.
In the case of the US government turning into Big Brother, I oppose throwing away the Constitution for illusory security. It isn't clear at all that any of the proposed increases in police powers will catch a single terrorist. Personally, I think law enforcement can do fine under the current laws, given sufficient budget and manpower.
I don't see those two viewpoints as being in conflict in the slightest.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The article was posted on Cnet 20 minutes before this topic came up on Slashdot. I thought it was interesting, and hadn't seen it anywhere else.
Sorry to rain on your parade... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Horse-bleep. I'm typing at a PC right now, with an Athlon and a GeForce graphics card. It often has uptimes of weeks (voluntary reboots only), running RH 7.1 of course.
Face it, Microsoft has brainwashed you into thinking crashes are inevitable... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Sony to expand Linux for PlayStation 2
Now I know which console I'll be getting this holiday season! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Not trying to troll here, I am simply amazed at all the people that are so concerned about what length's the government will goto to "invade their privacy". Give it a rest. Ask the 5000 people at the WTC if they would have minded if the FBI had their power expanded in order to prevent the 9-11 things from happening.
Sure, if you make the breathtaking leap to presume that 'tapping' unencrypted internet traffic would have contributed anything worthwhile...especially given that Echelon was probably already doing it for all international traffic.
That's right you can't because they are dead . Ask the people on the planes if they would have minded, that's right they're dead too. Try and imagine what it would have been like if the FBI or CIA would of had the extra bit of power to do the things they want to do now.
Yes, and then let's imagine the United States in another 20 years, when it has become a tyrannical police state...
They may or may not have been able to stop it from happening, but they definately won't be able to stop things in the future from happening without laws changing.
Oh really? To what insight do you attribute this gem of logic?
I value my privacy and rights as much as every American does, but I am more than willing to give in on some things if it helps prevent future terrorist attacks.
I agree with Ben:
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin--
Besides, if you're not a criminal, you really have no worries.
I'd guess exactly the same thing was said to those that registered their guns in 1930's Nazi Germany. ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I think so.
In this case, I think Microsoft is simply aligning itself with it's hardware partners. They have no desire to increase their engineering and legal costs in order to cripple their machines with hardware content protection devices.
On the other hand, Microsoft is probably very eager to control software based content protection.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Please pardon me if my post exceeded your intellectual capacity. (Hmmm, I may have just found my new .sig. ;)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Tech giants pan anti-piracy mandate!
It's good to see this, after all the press the evil big-media giants have been getting lately! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Check your references again...you're mistaken. In English units it's 186,282 mi/s.
Sorry, it's the law! ;)
Perhaps in some alternate universe... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!