You make a very poor judgment of the last decade developers. And somewhat lack of history knowledge.
What did PS3 a good start was the huge Microsoft failure on delivering a faithfully working hardware (that Red Ring of Death issue, remember?). Any other company would had fold, but Microsoft had (and still has) a huge cash cow to milk (Microsoft Office), and that was the sorely reason XBox didn't fold at that time.
But Microsoft people aren't stupid (for the most part, at least), and XBox was fixed. And they did a really big thing: the Microsoft Live. This really changed the game, and Sony got a really nasty bite in the ass. Sony took too much time to get the PSN up to the Live level (still doing it by the way).
By the way, The XBox 360 is also a PowerPC machine - the same core used on sony's PS3. And the NIntendo Wii (and also the WIi-U). And also on GameCube, Apple's failed Pippin and a lot of others dead on arrived videgames. There's absolutely nothing weird on PowerPC being used on videogames. Sony made things complicated for developers by tacking 6 specialized coprocessors inside its chip - what, for programmers used to have just one (MMX, 3DNow!, etc), was clearly a new level of computing. However, parallel computing appears to be here to stay (look at the ARM chips) - and having EIGHT general purposes CPUs competing for the same resources is not for the faint of the heart (Microsoft took years to learn, look at that crappy piece os software called Microsoft Windows). The complexity is still there - we just shifted it to another side.
Videogame Makers choose their hardware based on price, power and next years availability. Power PC had won the maker's heart in the past, but by some reasons IBM choose to abandon this race, giving the PowerPc a low priority on to research and development. AMD, on the other hand, spend a lot of efforts and money by upscaling their CPU to the current levels. The decision on using AMD's x64 over the previous PowerPC one was taken based on CURRENT chip power, CURRENT chip pricing and guarantees for chip supply for the product's lifetime.
The current new chip is easier to program? Beneficial side effect, nothing more. Not a single videogame maker will sacrifice any of the previous requirements to make the developer's life easier. We are not in the 90's anymore, there's a lot more people with programming skills nowadays, and a lot of them will be willing to deal with any extra complexity to take your job from you. (sad but true)
Because IBM didn't improve the PowerPC processor line since them, while Intel, AMD et all spent a lot of money on the x86_64 architecture.
In the end, it's not what the architecture did in the past - what matters is what the architecture will do in the future. Now, x86_64 is far more capable than the CELL architecture. So, if you want to build a top performance machine today, you will go with x86_64.
I think that the old and faithful meta-moderating should come back, and once a bad moderator it's detected, he/she should be silently flagged - and then silently banned from moderating for some time when the flag is downed, and the cycle restarts from scratch, with the previously offender having to rebuild his "reputation".
It's damn too easy to be a troll around here, and damn too hard to prevent the harm. One must be a kind of masochist to be a assidual contributor of this site.
(I frequently get feed up, and spend some weeks ignoring the site until I cool down - I prefer being absent that being abusive)
Recently, somebody down voted all of my comments in one thread so they were 0'd, and then/. suddenly decided that I'll only deserve 5 mod points every few days. That, to me, is obviously weird. I thought my comments weren't that bad, even if they weren't great. This is the 2nd time this has happened to me, and it happens far too easily.
It happens all the time to me, too.
I just don't care. The 15 mod points will come back, and then someday some mod-troll will hit you again, and you will pass some time with 5 mod points again, and then by some reason the 15 mod points will come back again.
Some time ago, the meta-moderating used to be used against such practices, but no more.
My advice? Just ignore the problem. Enjoy the "free time" from moderating and try to enjoy it - you are not paid to moderate this thing, if Slashdot is OK with mod-trolling fskcing up the good moderators, why should we bother either?
Fragmentation is the cost of the freedom: without the rights that can lead to fragmentation, Software would never be free (neither "libre").
A fragmented community is not a software problem - it's a leadership problem: we must learn to choose better our leaders. Since people rarely agree with other - forking is the best (but not always the cheaper) way to decide who's right.
By your statement, Microsoft should not release the patch!:-)
Remember, we're talking about the guys that used to sabotage every competitor on the market (Wordperfect, DR-DOS among many others) and double cross (almost?) every partner.
It's business, you can say. But's still sabotage and double crossing.
The EULA can state anything. If one decides to sue besides it, and the judge agrees with the guy, so that's it.
EULAs are not the ultimante agreement between the parts. This role is played by a bunch os guys that call themselves "congressistes", "judges" and "lawyers".
What does Ubuntu for Phones offer that android doesn't? (honest question as I haven't used it)
I don't have a clue.
Linux on mobile devices are a mess since the good old times from PalmOS (see OPIE - interesting at that time, but slow as hell).
Android was the single and best successful attempt to use Linux on mobiles (BADA and TIZEN are far from being successful - mainly BADA, I did some projects on BADA, and this thing is mainly a updated Symbian API!! Honest!). I just can't see how yet another Linux for mobile would get any traction.
if they aren't going to do anything with the code anyways, why not release it
Because if they do it, some other distro will use the code to itself and fatally will launch a Linux over Android disto that will, for sure, undermine the need for Ubuntu for Phones.
Good point. Perhaps it's time to another try - the occasion could not be better, as I'm changing job and I need to setup a new development box (I need a notebook, and I have no need to another MacOS machine in house - I own a Mac Mini).
Since I *REALLY* backuped that last Gnome 2 installation, I will compare my current workflow on MacOS X to that installation (since it's still be best development box I have memory), and also to Gnome 3.
I"m not sure what you mean by multi-headed?
Multiple monitors acting as a single, large and asymmetric one.
The best setup for me would be 3 monitors: 2 in landscape for code, monitoring, debugging and some GIMPing (and emailing and video), and a third, smaller one on portrait for issue tracking, browsing and documentation. But two monitors in landscape are enough - a bit less comfortable, but that's all.
One of the troubles Gnome 3 caused to me was the default behaviour of one desktop per monitor, so switching desktops would change only one display - again, good for multiple content consumption, but terrible for context switching (content producing).
I know that there's a configuration option on some.conf file. But at that time I was already pissed of, my work was already behind schedule and I just recovered the Gnome 2 installation and gone back to work.
But it is undeniable that there are users who do not like it because it is different. There are also others who completely love GNOME 3 and how it works as well as its aesthetics.
And there're some others that just need the job done.
You're right on this, however: you just can't satisfy everyone.
Problem is that, as it appears (and I can be wrong), a lot of people you're not satisfying nowadays was people the supported Gnome in the past, and a lot of people you're satisfying nowadays are not supporting you back.
Bug again, I may be wrong.
Time will tell.
(I hope I'm wrong, by the way - I mean no prejudice)
You really think that a touch centric look and feel is the best paradigm to a desktop (keyboard and mouse) device? That a content consuming interface should be used by content producing softwares? That changing fonts and putting gadgets on my display worths more than the fluidity of my day to day workflow?
If so, in my humble opinion you're a bad technician (at least, on UX). This is alright (I'm horrible on UX too), as long you don't do decisions on UX. But if your job is exactly this, then someone above you is not doing his job very well.
I don't care about the fonts. I care about my workflow, and Mac OS X respected my workflow.
Good thing you mentioned Mission Control. I hate it. I miss Expose very much, it served me fine. Being that one of the reasons I migrated to Gnome 2 - why spend a lot of money on a MacOS machine if Gnome 2 also does exactly what I need (and somewhat faster)?
When Gnome 3 came, the choose I had was jeopardizing my workflow with Gnome 3 or jeopardizing my workflow with something else. So I used Gnome 3 for a week. Then I used Windows 7 for another week. And finally I used Mac OS for a third week - and choose the one that troubled me less.
Problem is that nobody learns a "foreign" language in a day. The same happens with Desktop paradigms.
I think I would like to use Gnome 3 on a tablet, but on my desktop I could not (and I did tried). It simply broke all my day to day workflow practices.
And that sad decision to use the same library names prevented me to have Gnome 2 and 3 at the same time on my machine, what would keep me working productively at the same time I'm probing the "foreign" paradigms without compromising my deadlines.
I remember cursing aloud because the theme I chose had a flaw (the clock's font color became illegible when the clock's window loses the focus - the designer choose a too dark font color), and I took hours to figure out where to find the customization tool (changing font colors on "Advanced Options"?). I didn't get pissed with the color mistake (it happens!). I got totally mad because there wasn't a way to fix that the proper way - and I'm talking about a fscking clock on my desktop!
Another problem is that I don't consume content. I produce it. I don't want and don't need my windows grouped by application, but by context! I need multiple multiheaded desktops so I can switch tasks easily.
In the Desktop 1 with eclipse with my java project, a browser with the issue tracking, a OpenOffice with the Requirements and a PDF or two with specifications. On the Desktop 2, another eclipse for a python project that has a bug I need to fix, with another browser window logged into another issue tracker, and so goes on. Some little urgent task arises? Do it in the Desktop3, and then go back to where you was. And this I could not accomplish (easily) with Gnome 3 when it replaced Gnome 2.
Long story made short, too much hassle and no tangible return.
Gnome 3 could be a good thing, but the way it arrives on my desktop prevented me to discover that. I have bills to pay, deadlines to meet. I don't need and don't want a tool that prevents me to do my work the way I'm used to abruptly, without respecting that little human factor called "learning curve".
"Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine before upgrading. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days and reverted everything to the backup."
The Gnome developers actually tried to do something new in desktop UIs, they actually tried to innovate. And as with any innovation, some of the things they did worked, and some didn't.
No problem with that.
My problem is that they took the choice from us. I, me, myself, is the only one that should judge what works for me - but some Bastard Operatorw Decision Maker from Hell decided to use the same library names on Gnome 3, making impossible to me to install Gnome 2 to keep working the way I'm used to, and Gnome 3 to start probing the new paradigm.
Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days.
Do you want to take a peek about what was happening at that time?
Here (I'm L.T. on this thread) and here (go to the bottom of the page).
Thing is: dealing with RMS *is very hard*. I'm not saying you're lying or whatever, but at least in the mails above, RMS was being... how I can say... RMS was being RMS, defending his points of view without caring about people's feelings. This is not necessarily wrong, but this commonly leads to people getting angry with you.
(I know what I'm talking, I'm a bit like RMS too.)
It would help to understand what you're meaning if you could exemplify with a link.
MATE is being developed, and has ome support from some distros. Even OpenSUSE is offering a MATE package (they took only TWO FSCKING YEARS to do so, but at least they did).
You can donate here - but perhaps we should wait their statement about how the money will be spent. Just in case.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was not. =D
You make a very poor judgment of the last decade developers. And somewhat lack of history knowledge.
What did PS3 a good start was the huge Microsoft failure on delivering a faithfully working hardware (that Red Ring of Death issue, remember?). Any other company would had fold, but Microsoft had (and still has) a huge cash cow to milk (Microsoft Office), and that was the sorely reason XBox didn't fold at that time.
But Microsoft people aren't stupid (for the most part, at least), and XBox was fixed. And they did a really big thing: the Microsoft Live. This really changed the game, and Sony got a really nasty bite in the ass. Sony took too much time to get the PSN up to the Live level (still doing it by the way).
By the way, The XBox 360 is also a PowerPC machine - the same core used on sony's PS3. And the NIntendo Wii (and also the WIi-U). And also on GameCube, Apple's failed Pippin and a lot of others dead on arrived videgames. There's absolutely nothing weird on PowerPC being used on videogames. Sony made things complicated for developers by tacking 6 specialized coprocessors inside its chip - what, for programmers used to have just one (MMX, 3DNow!, etc), was clearly a new level of computing. However, parallel computing appears to be here to stay (look at the ARM chips) - and having EIGHT general purposes CPUs competing for the same resources is not for the faint of the heart (Microsoft took years to learn, look at that crappy piece os software called Microsoft Windows). The complexity is still there - we just shifted it to another side.
Videogame Makers choose their hardware based on price, power and next years availability. Power PC had won the maker's heart in the past, but by some reasons IBM choose to abandon this race, giving the PowerPc a low priority on to research and development. AMD, on the other hand, spend a lot of efforts and money by upscaling their CPU to the current levels. The decision on using AMD's x64 over the previous PowerPC one was taken based on CURRENT chip power, CURRENT chip pricing and guarantees for chip supply for the product's lifetime.
The current new chip is easier to program? Beneficial side effect, nothing more. Not a single videogame maker will sacrifice any of the previous requirements to make the developer's life easier. We are not in the 90's anymore, there's a lot more people with programming skills nowadays, and a lot of them will be willing to deal with any extra complexity to take your job from you. (sad but true)
And that's why this kind of abuse should be detected, and the abuser hit in his/her reputation hardly.
The problem is not the moderation system. It's the absolute lack of attitude against the abusers.
Because IBM didn't improve the PowerPC processor line since them, while Intel, AMD et all spent a lot of money on the x86_64 architecture.
In the end, it's not what the architecture did in the past - what matters is what the architecture will do in the future. Now, x86_64 is far more capable than the CELL architecture. So, if you want to build a top performance machine today, you will go with x86_64.
Because the PS3's hardware was stupid.
No, it was not.
I think that the old and faithful meta-moderating should come back, and once a bad moderator it's detected, he/she should be silently flagged - and then silently banned from moderating for some time when the flag is downed, and the cycle restarts from scratch, with the previously offender having to rebuild his "reputation".
It's damn too easy to be a troll around here, and damn too hard to prevent the harm. One must be a kind of masochist to be a assidual contributor of this site.
(I frequently get feed up, and spend some weeks ignoring the site until I cool down - I prefer being absent that being abusive)
Recently, somebody down voted all of my comments in one thread so they were 0'd, and then /. suddenly decided that I'll only deserve 5 mod points every few days. That, to me, is obviously weird. I thought my comments weren't that bad, even if they weren't great. This is the 2nd time this has happened to me, and it happens far too easily.
It happens all the time to me, too.
I just don't care. The 15 mod points will come back, and then someday some mod-troll will hit you again, and you will pass some time with 5 mod points again, and then by some reason the 15 mod points will come back again.
Some time ago, the meta-moderating used to be used against such practices, but no more.
My advice? Just ignore the problem. Enjoy the "free time" from moderating and try to enjoy it - you are not paid to moderate this thing, if Slashdot is OK with mod-trolling fskcing up the good moderators, why should we bother either?
The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?
I wonder how much you'll cry when Mozilla finally goes under from having the dippiest and most self-entitled fanbase in history.
I don't expect that the GP will be still alive in 2015 AC (After Cataclysm),
Fragmentation is the cost of the freedom: without the rights that can lead to fragmentation, Software would never be free (neither "libre").
A fragmented community is not a software problem - it's a leadership problem: we must learn to choose better our leaders. Since people rarely agree with other - forking is the best (but not always the cheaper) way to decide who's right.
Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.
By your statement, Microsoft should not release the patch! :-)
Remember, we're talking about the guys that used to sabotage every competitor on the market (Wordperfect, DR-DOS among many others) and double cross (almost?) every partner.
It's business, you can say. But's still sabotage and double crossing.
The EULA can state anything. If one decides to sue besides it, and the judge agrees with the guy, so that's it.
EULAs are not the ultimante agreement between the parts. This role is played by a bunch os guys that call themselves "congressistes", "judges" and "lawyers".
What does Ubuntu for Phones offer that android doesn't? (honest question as I haven't used it)
I don't have a clue.
Linux on mobile devices are a mess since the good old times from PalmOS (see OPIE - interesting at that time, but slow as hell).
Android was the single and best successful attempt to use Linux on mobiles (BADA and TIZEN are far from being successful - mainly BADA, I did some projects on BADA, and this thing is mainly a updated Symbian API!! Honest!). I just can't see how yet another Linux for mobile would get any traction.
if they aren't going to do anything with the code anyways, why not release it
Because if they do it, some other distro will use the code to itself and fatally will launch a Linux over Android disto that will, for sure, undermine the need for Ubuntu for Phones.
Because people are still signing that god damned contracts.
When did you last try it?
Good point. Perhaps it's time to another try - the occasion could not be better, as I'm changing job and I need to setup a new development box (I need a notebook, and I have no need to another MacOS machine in house - I own a Mac Mini).
Since I *REALLY* backuped that last Gnome 2 installation, I will compare my current workflow on MacOS X to that installation (since it's still be best development box I have memory), and also to Gnome 3.
I"m not sure what you mean by multi-headed?
Multiple monitors acting as a single, large and asymmetric one.
The best setup for me would be 3 monitors: 2 in landscape for code, monitoring, debugging and some GIMPing (and emailing and video), and a third, smaller one on portrait for issue tracking, browsing and documentation. But two monitors in landscape are enough - a bit less comfortable, but that's all.
One of the troubles Gnome 3 caused to me was the default behaviour of one desktop per monitor, so switching desktops would change only one display - again, good for multiple content consumption, but terrible for context switching (content producing).
I know that there's a configuration option on some .conf file. But at that time I was already pissed of, my work was already behind schedule and I just recovered the Gnome 2 installation and gone back to work.
(bug = but)
But it is undeniable that there are users who do not like it because it is different. There are also others who completely love GNOME 3 and how it works as well as its aesthetics.
And there're some others that just need the job done.
You're right on this, however: you just can't satisfy everyone.
Problem is that, as it appears (and I can be wrong), a lot of people you're not satisfying nowadays was people the supported Gnome in the past, and a lot of people you're satisfying nowadays are not supporting you back.
Bug again, I may be wrong.
Time will tell.
(I hope I'm wrong, by the way - I mean no prejudice)
I beg your pardon, but...
You really think that a touch centric look and feel is the best paradigm to a desktop (keyboard and mouse) device? That a content consuming interface should be used by content producing softwares? That changing fonts and putting gadgets on my display worths more than the fluidity of my day to day workflow?
If so, in my humble opinion you're a bad technician (at least, on UX). This is alright (I'm horrible on UX too), as long you don't do decisions on UX. But if your job is exactly this, then someone above you is not doing his job very well.
A non techie at least would have an excuse.
I don't care about the fonts. I care about my workflow, and Mac OS X respected my workflow.
Good thing you mentioned Mission Control. I hate it. I miss Expose very much, it served me fine. Being that one of the reasons I migrated to Gnome 2 - why spend a lot of money on a MacOS machine if Gnome 2 also does exactly what I need (and somewhat faster)?
When Gnome 3 came, the choose I had was jeopardizing my workflow with Gnome 3 or jeopardizing my workflow with something else. So I used Gnome 3 for a week. Then I used Windows 7 for another week. And finally I used Mac OS for a third week - and choose the one that troubled me less.
Problem is that nobody learns a "foreign" language in a day. The same happens with Desktop paradigms.
I think I would like to use Gnome 3 on a tablet, but on my desktop I could not (and I did tried). It simply broke all my day to day workflow practices.
And that sad decision to use the same library names prevented me to have Gnome 2 and 3 at the same time on my machine, what would keep me working productively at the same time I'm probing the "foreign" paradigms without compromising my deadlines.
I remember cursing aloud because the theme I chose had a flaw (the clock's font color became illegible when the clock's window loses the focus - the designer choose a too dark font color), and I took hours to figure out where to find the customization tool (changing font colors on "Advanced Options"?). I didn't get pissed with the color mistake (it happens!). I got totally mad because there wasn't a way to fix that the proper way - and I'm talking about a fscking clock on my desktop!
Another problem is that I don't consume content. I produce it. I don't want and don't need my windows grouped by application, but by context! I need multiple multiheaded desktops so I can switch tasks easily.
In the Desktop 1 with eclipse with my java project, a browser with the issue tracking, a OpenOffice with the Requirements and a PDF or two with specifications. On the Desktop 2, another eclipse for a python project that has a bug I need to fix, with another browser window logged into another issue tracker, and so goes on. Some little urgent task arises? Do it in the Desktop3, and then go back to where you was. And this I could not accomplish (easily) with Gnome 3 when it replaced Gnome 2.
Long story made short, too much hassle and no tangible return.
Gnome 3 could be a good thing, but the way it arrives on my desktop prevented me to discover that. I have bills to pay, deadlines to meet. I don't need and don't want a tool that prevents me to do my work the way I'm used to abruptly, without respecting that little human factor called "learning curve".
pressed "submit" too early.
Follows my 3rd paragraph correctly phrased:
"Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine before upgrading. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days and reverted everything to the backup."
The Gnome developers actually tried to do something new in desktop UIs, they actually tried to innovate. And as with any innovation, some of the things they did worked, and some didn't.
No problem with that.
My problem is that they took the choice from us. I, me, myself, is the only one that should judge what works for me - but some Bastard Operatorw Decision Maker from Hell decided to use the same library names on Gnome 3, making impossible to me to install Gnome 2 to keep working the way I'm used to, and Gnome 3 to start probing the new paradigm.
Guess what? When my distro switched to Gnome 3, I made the happy decision to backup my whole machine. Thanks God I did that, I couldn't stand using that piece of crap for more than 2 days.
Do you want to take a peek about what was happening at that time?
Here (I'm L.T. on this thread) and here (go to the bottom of the page).
Are you talking about things like this?
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
Problem is... RMS *is* rude. But he's (almost the time) right too. But he can be wrong sometimes:
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
Thing is: dealing with RMS *is very hard*. I'm not saying you're lying or whatever, but at least in the mails above, RMS was being... how I can say... RMS was being RMS, defending his points of view without caring about people's feelings. This is not necessarily wrong, but this commonly leads to people getting angry with you.
(I know what I'm talking, I'm a bit like RMS too.)
It would help to understand what you're meaning if you could exemplify with a link.
MATE is being developed, and has ome support from some distros. Even OpenSUSE is offering a MATE package (they took only TWO FSCKING YEARS to do so, but at least they did).
You can donate here - but perhaps we should wait their statement about how the money will be spent. Just in case. :-)
This has nothing to do with the Executive Director. I am a board member.
So can you, please, explain what happened? Or at least, give a educated guess?
How the most used Desktop environment on many UNICes (I used to use it on Solaris!) managed to get into this sad situation?