I love RTCW:ET, but I wouldn't recommend it for the casual player.
The maps are very large and there's a complex set of objectives which have to be accomplished. Basically, you have to know where to be and where to go or else you are largely going to be useless.
I tried it with some friends of mine -- while in standard RTCW you could just bumrush the Map Room or whatever, these guys never really got the hang of ET and were always wandering around the wrong side of the map.
The good thing about the games is that if you aren't the best FPS shooter, you can be a Medic or Engineer and just play defense.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the directory and management tools that come with Netware and Windows. No Unix is currently competing with this stuff. And NFS? Yuck. (real authentication was added when? three years ago?)
msdn.microsoft.com. Download the NET SDK to get compilers Download the Windows SDK to get headers Use the included EDLIN program to code your masterpiece.
Hi -- I don't want to argue Microsoft's side too strenuously, but most of your counter-points are pretty shallow.
Windows XP Pro is $300 compared to Redhat at $180 is still a cost savings Redhat ELWS is $180 Per Year, versus $300 (retail, which nobody pays) for XPPro for a 5 year support window. Not hard to figure out which is cheaper.
They may cost more per admin but it takes less to do the same job. And that's the fun of doing TCO studies! Microsoft's numbers disagree with you, so a PHB is going to want to see a TCO study proving your assertation.
What I've noticed in places that I've worked is that the Windows and Unix people are doing very different things in different ways, so it's difficult to make an Apples to Apples comparison. Check out this article -- it that argues a cheaper Unix network "removes the user empowerment" Windows networks have. Which basically means the Unix Admin can do more because the users can do less.
in independent tests [Samba]was reported to be 2.5 times faster Last thing people are worried about is speed. It's really the management tools.
Hence the magic word "some". Sure IBM will let you download Eclipse, but they will also sell you "WebSphere Enterprise Developer Studio" at a price so expensive they refuse to list it on their website.
Last I checked, the 'official' prices for BEA or WebSphere were something like $10,000 per developer.
Sorta like how you can do MS dev for free, or you can drop $3000 for MSDN & VisualStudio.
First of all, any vendor TCO study is going to be completely bullshit. However, there's a glimmer of truth in the Microsoft stuff:
+ Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE.
+ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).
+ MS selected specific scenerios to favor them. For example, File and Print have never been a strong spot for Unix -- Novell and MS have owned that segement for years and years. It will be interesting to see what Novell/SuSE puts on the market.
And attacking Linux on Mainframes is like hitting the broad side of a barn -- There might be some scenarios where it makes sense, but for the most part a mainframe has pathetic price/performance and is very expensive to keep running. (Although, that wouldn't stop IBM from selling you one.)
And as for J2EE -- some of the tools are ridiclously expensive, so that's a pretty easy cost study to rig.
I think you greatly overestimate the casual thief.
This kind of person does not operate on the abstract notion that (big company) may have (valuable items) on their loading dock. However if you inform them that Microsoft has PowerMac G5s at XYZ Building, they may be motivated to go check it out.
And furthermore, the security at the average loading dock is not as great as you seem to believe (although, I'm sure MS beefed it up after this incident).
We agree that the information couldn't be seen as really security important to the company,
I don't. The guy just announced to the Internet the exact location of their loading docks, and the fact there could be bunch of very desirable kit sitting there.
While that might not be top secret information, good sense indicates that you don't broadcast it to the potential thieves out there.
Will Longhorn have a Linux sub-system that will allow it to run all XP apps as well as all Linux apps with a built-in X server?
It certainly might. They already make a product called Microsoft SFU/Interix, which is a UNIX subsystem for Windows.
It wouldn't be that hard for them to make Interix binary-compatible with Linux. (Although I think a built-in X server is unlikely.. It would probably be positioned to migrate server deamons to Windows.)
Re:Idiocy - bluetooth just taking off
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I have terrible luck with my AT&T GSM phone (central San Francisco). Never had any problems with CDMA.
This isn't phone-specific either, because friends with other GSM models have the same problems.
Supposedly the build-out isn't complete, but this really smells like a "worse is better" type of situation where they switched to inferior technology so that they could get sexier phones (with Bluetooth, to be ontopic).
The DOS and Win16 emulation are not done entirely in software. They use hardware support such as "virtual real mode", which are not available when running AMD64 in 64-bit native mode.
So, the only way you are going to run DOS Apps on AMD64 is to either boot to 32-bit mode or install a full emulator (which probably will be better for games than the DOS Box anyway).
I don't get it. How does $20 under your mattress "profit" the federal government any more than $20 in your checking account? The Fed looks at the total amount of money in circulation, not just the currency.
I've also heard that the coins-in-jars phenomenon costs the federal government a lot of money because they have to keep stamping out coins that never get put back into circulation. (I bet an enormous number of pennies just get thrown out and taken to the landfill).
Re:Maybe I'm a little slow...
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Learn to read and then go troll somewhere else, retard.
Re:Maybe I'm a little slow...
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
If you can live without "0 Day" security patches, then Mozilla is a fine end user product.
Otherwise, when a vulerability becomes known, you either have to wait for a milestone, use a potentially unstable CVS build, or backport the fix yourself. This might be fine for you personally, but one might think twice before rolling out Mozilla to an organization.
First software that I ever bought -- it was an Avalon Hill game that came on cassette tape with versions for TRS, Apple and PET. If I remember correctly, it was a fancier version of Battleship.
I'd include requiring </table> as another fine example of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face in the same vein as not supporting document.all
The issue is that there's lots of legacy code which uses document.all, including tons of stuff copy-n-pasted in from MSDN and other resources by people who don't know what it means. Except for the trivial s/document.all/document.getElementById/, this code is generally standards-compliant.
Much of this code will never be modified for Netscape-compatibility. Partially because lack of know-how, but mostly because the Intranet world just plain doesn't give a flying fuck about Netscape or the users (like you and I) that want to use Netscape.
It's high time that Mozilla/Netscape stops pandering to the standards boards and starts pandering to the users by providing trival compatibility tweaks to maximize it's usefullness on a Internet Explorer WWW.
The fact is that Netscape doesn't have the weight to get private sites to change their code anymore (as they did in 1998 when they took their high and mighty stands), and in a year or so, their corporate penetration will be down below 1% the way it's going.
(I'd include requiring as another fine example of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face in the same vein as not supporting document.all).
If Mozilla/Netscape 6 had a 5% marketshare it would be a no-brainer. The problem that it doesn't -- the numbers I've seen are under 1%, and the browser just isn't on the radar at all among the 'normal user' community.
I test my stuff on Moz as a sanity check, but nobody's ever written it into the project requirements.
Instead, your 5% is Nutscrape 4.x users, and catering to them could cause you to produce some non-compliant and/or ugly HTML/JS in order to get the thing to render correctly. That makes actually more difficult to support Mozilla in the longrun.
Maybe two thirds of the Intranet/Vertical stuff I've seen that is IE-only is only that way because writing a second javascript path for Netscape 4 isn't worth the trouble. If Mozilla supported document.all, the stuff would run unmodified. The other third uses client-side activex or data-binding or other nasty stuff.
(Also, Baki makes a good point about that using MS extentions is risky because they've been known to change.)
What MS is attempting to solve here is "how can I trust party X out there? How do I even know that party X is party X? And how can I trust party X not to share my private information with party Y?"
The classic application of "trusted systems" of the sort you describe are used in security-sensitive government systems. Places where you have to avoid mixing your "secret" and "top secret" information with your e-mail.
In-house is irrelevant. That's not what this is marketed/designed toward.
The Newsweek article the other day reported that MS is planning on marketing this stuff first to government, second to corporations, and finally to consumers. It could be a real win for the first two. For consumers, it had better provide something beyond just prohbiting you from copying MP3s.
"If the OS is commoditized, they still have to make their money elsewhere."
That's true, but it solves the core issue of the anti-trust case -- Microsoft muscling OEMs that had no other reasonable choice but to ship Windows.
Microsoft might have dodged the bullet on the breakup plan, but that only buys them time to use pre-installation to get everyone hooked on.NET -- the end result is probably the same. And that result is Windows being worthless (it's already down to ~$30 in bulk).
Furthermore, it's a hellava lot easier to switch word processors than it is to switch OSes. There's historical precedence of that actually happening (WordPerfect once had 80%+ marketshare).
I know that IBM is valorized around here for their support of Linux, but to call them a "OSS advocate" is really stretching the point. Their strategy is quite simple.
Microsoft Strategy: Commoditize the middleware (COM,.NET, etc) and sell fat operating system (Windows) licenses.
IBM Counter-Strategy: Commoditize the operating system (Linux) and sell fat middleware (WebSphere, MQ) licenses.
Classic Free Software Strategy: Commoditize everything you can by reverse-engineering and rewriting it.
In essence, IBM's strategy reduces Linux to nothing more than a cheap runtime for their usual proprietary stuff. That strategy works well for some of their customers but absolutely does not jibe with the Open Sourcers dream of open protocols and open code.
I've purchased: + SimCity Original + SimCity Color Upgrade + SimCity 2000 + SimCity 3000
But I'm not buying this one unless they get rid of the 90 degree grid and the fixed elevations.
(And just maabyee I'm a little bored of the gameplay by now. It's still a good idea, but they really need to add new aspects to the simulation rather than just adding some slick disaster effects.)
Slashdot Mirror
I love RTCW:ET, but I wouldn't recommend it for the casual player.
The maps are very large and there's a complex set of objectives which have to be accomplished. Basically, you have to know where to be and where to go or else you are largely going to be useless.
I tried it with some friends of mine -- while in standard RTCW you could just bumrush the Map Room or whatever, these guys never really got the hang of ET and were always wandering around the wrong side of the map.
The good thing about the games is that if you aren't the best FPS shooter, you can be a Medic or Engineer and just play defense.
Get your story straight and then get back to me, ok?
If that's what you think, why don't you go tell the people who invented NIS, or the OpenLDAP developers?
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the directory and management tools that come with Netware and Windows. No Unix is currently competing with this stuff. And NFS? Yuck. (real authentication was added when? three years ago?)
msdn.microsoft.com.
Download the NET SDK to get compilers
Download the Windows SDK to get headers
Use the included EDLIN program to code your masterpiece.
In a nutshell, Linux is always going to be cheaper, faster, and more versitile.
I'll just point out that by starting with the conclusion and working backwards, you are doing the exact same thing Microsoft is.
Hi -- I don't want to argue Microsoft's side too strenuously, but most of your counter-points are pretty shallow.
Windows XP Pro is $300 compared to Redhat at $180 is still a cost savings
Redhat ELWS is $180 Per Year, versus $300 (retail, which nobody pays) for XPPro for a 5 year support window. Not hard to figure out which is cheaper.
They may cost more per admin but it takes less to do the same job.
And that's the fun of doing TCO studies! Microsoft's numbers disagree with you, so a PHB is going to want to see a TCO study proving your assertation.
What I've noticed in places that I've worked is that the Windows and Unix people are doing very different things in different ways, so it's difficult to make an Apples to Apples comparison. Check out this article -- it that argues a cheaper Unix network "removes the user empowerment" Windows networks have. Which basically means the Unix Admin can do more because the users can do less.
in independent tests [Samba]was reported to be 2.5 times faster
Last thing people are worried about is speed. It's really the management tools.
Hence the magic word "some". Sure IBM will let you download Eclipse, but they will also sell you "WebSphere Enterprise Developer Studio" at a price so expensive they refuse to list it on their website.
Last I checked, the 'official' prices for BEA or WebSphere were something like $10,000 per developer.
Sorta like how you can do MS dev for free, or you can drop $3000 for MSDN & VisualStudio.
First of all, any vendor TCO study is going to be completely bullshit. However, there's a glimmer of truth in the Microsoft stuff:
+ Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE.
+ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).
+ MS selected specific scenerios to favor them. For example, File and Print have never been a strong spot for Unix -- Novell and MS have owned that segement for years and years. It will be interesting to see what Novell/SuSE puts on the market.
And attacking Linux on Mainframes is like hitting the broad side of a barn -- There might be some scenarios where it makes sense, but for the most part a mainframe has pathetic price/performance and is very expensive to keep running. (Although, that wouldn't stop IBM from selling you one.)
And as for J2EE -- some of the tools are ridiclously expensive, so that's a pretty easy cost study to rig.
I think you greatly overestimate the casual thief.
This kind of person does not operate on the abstract notion that (big company) may have (valuable items) on their loading dock. However if you inform them that Microsoft has PowerMac G5s at XYZ Building, they may be motivated to go check it out.
And furthermore, the security at the average loading dock is not as great as you seem to believe (although, I'm sure MS beefed it up after this incident).
We agree that the information couldn't be seen as really security important to the company,
I don't. The guy just announced to the Internet the exact location of their loading docks, and the fact there could be bunch of very desirable kit sitting there.
While that might not be top secret information, good sense indicates that you don't broadcast it to the potential thieves out there.
Will Longhorn have a Linux sub-system that will allow it to run all XP apps as well as all Linux apps with a built-in X server?
.. It would probably be positioned to migrate server deamons to Windows.)
It certainly might. They already make a product called Microsoft SFU/Interix, which is a UNIX subsystem for Windows.
It wouldn't be that hard for them to make Interix binary-compatible with Linux. (Although I think a built-in X server is unlikely
I agree. I have terrible luck with my AT&T GSM phone (central San Francisco). Never had any problems with CDMA.
This isn't phone-specific either, because friends with other GSM models have the same problems.
Supposedly the build-out isn't complete, but this really smells like a "worse is better" type of situation where they switched to inferior technology so that they could get sexier phones (with Bluetooth, to be ontopic).
The DOS and Win16 emulation are not done entirely in software. They use hardware support such as "virtual real mode", which are not available when running AMD64 in 64-bit native mode.
So, the only way you are going to run DOS Apps on AMD64 is to either boot to 32-bit mode or install a full emulator (which probably will be better for games than the DOS Box anyway).
I don't get it. How does $20 under your mattress "profit" the federal government any more than $20 in your checking account? The Fed looks at the total amount of money in circulation, not just the currency.
I've also heard that the coins-in-jars phenomenon costs the federal government a lot of money because they have to keep stamping out coins that never get put back into circulation. (I bet an enormous number of pennies just get thrown out and taken to the landfill).
Learn to read and then go troll somewhere else, retard.
If you can live without "0 Day" security patches, then Mozilla is a fine end user product.
Otherwise, when a vulerability becomes known, you either have to wait for a milestone, use a potentially unstable CVS build, or backport the fix yourself. This might be fine for you personally, but one might think twice before rolling out Mozilla to an organization.
First software that I ever bought -- it was an Avalon Hill game that came on cassette tape with versions for TRS, Apple and PET. If I remember correctly, it was a fancier version of Battleship.
Retry:
I'd include requiring </table> as another fine example of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face in the same vein as not supporting document.all
The issue is that there's lots of legacy code which uses document.all, including tons of stuff copy-n-pasted in from MSDN and other resources by people who don't know what it means. Except for the trivial s/document.all/document.getElementById/, this code is generally standards-compliant.
Much of this code will never be modified for Netscape-compatibility. Partially because lack of know-how, but mostly because the Intranet world just plain doesn't give a flying fuck about Netscape or the users (like you and I) that want to use Netscape.
It's high time that Mozilla/Netscape stops pandering to the standards boards and starts pandering to the users by providing trival compatibility tweaks to maximize it's usefullness on a Internet Explorer WWW.
The fact is that Netscape doesn't have the weight to get private sites to change their code anymore (as they did in 1998 when they took their high and mighty stands), and in a year or so, their corporate penetration will be down below 1% the way it's going.
(I'd include requiring as another fine example of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face in the same vein as not supporting document.all).
If Mozilla/Netscape 6 had a 5% marketshare it would be a no-brainer. The problem that it doesn't -- the numbers I've seen are under 1%, and the browser just isn't on the radar at all among the 'normal user' community.
I test my stuff on Moz as a sanity check, but nobody's ever written it into the project requirements.
Instead, your 5% is Nutscrape 4.x users, and catering to them could cause you to produce some non-compliant and/or ugly HTML/JS in order to get the thing to render correctly. That makes actually more difficult to support Mozilla in the longrun.
Maybe two thirds of the Intranet/Vertical stuff I've seen that is IE-only is only that way because writing a second javascript path for Netscape 4 isn't worth the trouble. If Mozilla supported document.all, the stuff would run unmodified. The other third uses client-side activex or data-binding or other nasty stuff.
(Also, Baki makes a good point about that using MS extentions is risky because they've been known to change.)
What MS is attempting to solve here is "how can I trust party X out there? How do I even know that party X is party X? And how can I trust party X not to share my private information with party Y?"
The classic application of "trusted systems" of the sort you describe are used in security-sensitive government systems. Places where you have to avoid mixing your "secret" and "top secret" information with your e-mail.
In-house is irrelevant. That's not what this is marketed/designed toward.
The Newsweek article the other day reported that MS is planning on marketing this stuff first to government, second to corporations, and finally to consumers. It could be a real win for the first two. For consumers, it had better provide something beyond just prohbiting you from copying MP3s.
"If the OS is commoditized, they still have to make their money elsewhere."
.NET -- the end result is probably the same. And that result is Windows being worthless (it's already down to ~$30 in bulk).
That's true, but it solves the core issue of the anti-trust case -- Microsoft muscling OEMs that had no other reasonable choice but to ship Windows.
Microsoft might have dodged the bullet on the breakup plan, but that only buys them time to use pre-installation to get everyone hooked on
Furthermore, it's a hellava lot easier to switch word processors than it is to switch OSes. There's historical precedence of that actually happening (WordPerfect once had 80%+ marketshare).
I know that IBM is valorized around here for their support of Linux, but to call them a "OSS advocate" is really stretching the point. Their strategy is quite simple.
.NET, etc) and sell fat operating system (Windows) licenses.
Microsoft Strategy: Commoditize the middleware (COM,
IBM Counter-Strategy: Commoditize the operating system (Linux) and sell fat middleware (WebSphere, MQ) licenses.
Classic Free Software Strategy: Commoditize everything you can by reverse-engineering and rewriting it.
In essence, IBM's strategy reduces Linux to nothing more than a cheap runtime for their usual proprietary stuff. That strategy works well for some of their customers but absolutely does not jibe with the Open Sourcers dream of open protocols and open code.
I've purchased:
+ SimCity Original
+ SimCity Color Upgrade
+ SimCity 2000
+ SimCity 3000
But I'm not buying this one unless they get rid of the 90 degree grid and the fixed elevations.
(And just maabyee I'm a little bored of the gameplay by now. It's still a good idea, but they really need to add new aspects to the simulation rather than just adding some slick disaster effects.)