I'm surprised the typical Slashdot cyncism hasn't been shown yet. How do we know this guy is for real? How often is someone assigned a project years in the future, with a multi-million dollar grant, to spend on basically "something technological" and he asks SLASHDOT for opinions?
Always-on cellular connection at slow bandwidth, vs. always-on 802.11 connection, provided we have thousands of free nodes so we can roam city to city, always having an internet connection (and not having to pay by the minute). Hmm...
I'm an XBox fan (I think some of the "extra" features absolutely rock, like having a Media Player type set up to play on my stereo when I'm working out) and I think a lot of points mentioned were valid, but I think the article was a bit *too* gushing. Needless to say graphics are important, but so are games. Those who are arguing that graphics are more important are wrong - those who are arguing that games on the XBox suck are even more wrong (or simply haven't played).
One point I found particularly hopeful (and hope it holds up) is if the system can really handle 1024x768 well in future games. One of the biggest problems with consoles have been claiming a high-resolution (for example, Nintendo 64's 640x480) then running a majority of games at a lower resolution because the system can't handle it (320x240). Graphically, many of the games are stunning on XBox right now, but I'd like to see them take advantage of HDTV setups to their full potential. If they can figure that out (and figure out how to easily set up online gaming so they don't have a Dreamcast-like bomb) they'll be able to take a signficant chunk out of Sony's market share.
If I hear this crap about "I can make a gaming PC for less than $300" one more time...
Ok, dude. Give me a price list with all specs and hardware. Don't forget to include connections to my HDTV set, a hub for four controllers, 5.1 dolby sound card, etc.
"To be a big player in the console industry, you have to have both countries."
Actually, this isn't so true as that you have to have the right games for both countries. The two cultures have totally different gaming lifestyles and, as evidenced by the Japanese XBox site, completely different ways of looking at games.
I actually expect the Japanese launch to be tame but kind of successful - probably 500,000 units through the first year.
But Nintendo *is* for kids. They've argued it a million times over in their products (Pokemon stadium, Pokemon league, Pokemon stores), their practices (no blood in games up until Nintendo 64) and their policies. Nintendo knows where their bread basket is and, unfortunately, it's not for adults. By their argument teenagers spend more money - and they have a point, they do spend a great deal of money. But for my market demographic, XBox or PS2 is it.
I agree with you. I think everything released on the OS side after 2000 and everything released on the Office side after 2000 have been stable, reliable products. XP is my OS of choice right now for reliability and compatibility reasons.
I know Microsoft's trials are rigorous. The problem, though, lies in the consensus that there are a lot of bugs in Microsoft software (like most software) and that these bugs, presumably, wouldn't be so easily missed by super-developers. I'm not saying Microsoft's coders are bad - I'm just saying they are probably equal with every other company's out there. It's just that their products get a baptism by fire because so many people use them.
"you cant Beat the stable debian kernel 2.2",p>One could also argue that you couldn't beat the original DOS in internet security because it couldn't (easily) connect to the internet. Anyone who argues that an older version is the way to go is fooling themselves.
"The latest P3's are so low power that you just need a heatsink or fan-sink, depending on frequency."
That doesn't mean they necessarily run cooler. My machine of choice (a laptop) has a SpeedStep PIII which runs blazing hot at peak CPU levels. True, this is mostly while playing Unreal Tournament;) but the chip gets hot enough that I literally can't keep the machine on my lap without some serious pain.
Slightly? Word (the king of exageration) runs fine on my machine when I only have 32 megs of RAM free. StarOffice's word processor does reasonably well with 16. Heck, earlier versions of Office (up until around 2000) worked with 8.
They eat up more room on the hard drive, definitely. But in terms of memory in usage they are still extremely lightweight (as they should be).
I doubt very much in that. Many techheads I know (outside of the few in the late 90s who were taking administration courses to "make a quick buck") are totally indebted to technology and play with it just as much at home as at work. That includes coding. That included Microsoft developers who go home and (guess what) work on code for everything, and in all likelihood other OS's.
So you're saying that its easier to find holes in Open Source software? Wouldn't this make it easier for a cracker to read the source code and build an exploit off it?
There is some advantage to security through obscurity. Say, for starters, some hacker X tries to exploit OS's Y and Z. Y is Open Source. He looks at the code, finds a bad buffer, builds his exploit. Z is closed. He has to root around with BlackIC (or any of the other hacking tools), play around with the assembly, maybe even wreck a few OS's in the process?
Which one do you think is faster?
Further, once the vulnerability is released, what makes people think it'll be "easier" to discover on the Open side? I'm in the same situation as if my OS was closed. For example, I've just discovered a vulnerability that causes my screen to show "Hey Dude". Someone must have broken in. But where's the problem? The screen buffer? The IP stack? A misguided pointer? While thousands of people are spending hours to pour over the Open code finding a needle in a haystack, Microsoft's (admittally) no better developers, who are a much smaller group and can work with a much more homogeneous code base, don't have to work nearly as hard because they pretty much know the code inside out.
"Not to mention the reason that so many Linux patches were "found" rather than "discovered" is that bored sysadmins can sit around with sheets of source code, hoping to find a hole and make a name for themselves on BugTraq. With windows...well, you'd better be good with BlackIC and ASM, because it's the only way you're finding the hole."
So you're saying that its easier to find holes in Open Source software? Wouldn't this make it easier for a cracker to read the source code and build an exploit off it?
There is some advantage to security through obscurity. Say, for starters, some hacker X tries to exploit OS's Y and Z. Y is Open Source. He looks at the code, finds a bad buffer, builds his exploit. Z is closed. He has to root around with BlackIC (or any of the other hacking tools), play around with the assembly, maybe even wreck a few OS's in the process?
Which one do you think is faster?
Further, once the vulnerability is released, what makes people think it'll be "easier" to discover on the Open side? I'm in the same situation as if my OS was closed. For example, I've just discovered a vulnerability that causes my screen to show "Hey Dude". Someone must have broken in. But where's the problem? The screen buffer? The IP stack? A misguided pointer? While thousands of people are spending hours to pour over the Open code finding a needle in a haystack, Microsoft's (admittally) no better developers, who are a much smaller group and can work with a much more homogeneous code base, don't have to work nearly as hard because they pretty much know the code inside out.
"These questions seem to me more important than pure quantity and should be taken into account when building a threat assesment of a system."
Oh please. This is the same Slashdot that touted 30K bugs for Windows 2000 (like every other major tech publisher) regardless of the fact that the bugs were not known and many were probably "We spelled "maximize" wrong here".
Under the basis that most workstation now *act* as servers (whether intentionally as Unix machines or unintentionally as Windows machine with sharing turned on), one should assume that the number of Windows machines on the net, in general, is the most important statistic.
"linux has always been very open about what is wrong with linux."
Open, maybe. Willing to change, rarely. Just look at the recent code rift between pre-release forks and the slowly growing consensus that Linux isn't up to the task. Something as simple as a paging system has to be debated endlessly (in the meantime, having different systems with different potential vulnerabilities). We may not be able to look at the MS code, but we can be pretty sure what doesn't work on one machine shouldn't work on another.
"so the message I want to send to those guys it "hey thanks, great job. good start!" so that maybe in the future, they'll go a little bit farther next time and have even fewer things closed."
And the reason for this is? Personally, as a developer, I could care less if the system I'm coding on has an open or closed OS. Very few games, if any, are going to made for Linux on PS2. Those that are won't take advantage of the underlying hardware - not only because of the reasons stated in the article (that Sony's version of Linux hides some of the hardware) but also because the system wasn't built to run games in Linux. It was build, mastered, and tweaked by engineers to run in its native enviroment.
I sometimes think arguments for "openness" are silly, particularly on devices that hardware manufacturer's created to be closed. You can argue all you want for "open standards" - it isn't going to mean jack to the millions of PS2 (and XBox, and GameCube, etc.) game players out there who don't care what OS their system is running, just if the graphics are fast and the control is solid.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why is Katz turned off for the front page more than CmdrTaco? By your statement, you'd think it be both.
I'm surprised the typical Slashdot cyncism hasn't been shown yet. How do we know this guy is for real? How often is someone assigned a project years in the future, with a multi-million dollar grant, to spend on basically "something technological" and he asks SLASHDOT for opinions?
Aye, but this be not Britain. A crucial difference, lad.
Always-on cellular connection at slow bandwidth, vs. always-on 802.11 connection, provided we have thousands of free nodes so we can roam city to city, always having an internet connection (and not having to pay by the minute). Hmm...
Pro XBox = overrated? Whatever.
One point I found particularly hopeful (and hope it holds up) is if the system can really handle 1024x768 well in future games. One of the biggest problems with consoles have been claiming a high-resolution (for example, Nintendo 64's 640x480) then running a majority of games at a lower resolution because the system can't handle it (320x240). Graphically, many of the games are stunning on XBox right now, but I'd like to see them take advantage of HDTV setups to their full potential. If they can figure that out (and figure out how to easily set up online gaming so they don't have a Dreamcast-like bomb) they'll be able to take a signficant chunk out of Sony's market share.
Ok, dude. Give me a price list with all specs and hardware. Don't forget to include connections to my HDTV set, a hub for four controllers, 5.1 dolby sound card, etc.
Actually, this isn't so true as that you have to have the right games for both countries. The two cultures have totally different gaming lifestyles and, as evidenced by the Japanese XBox site, completely different ways of looking at games.
I actually expect the Japanese launch to be tame but kind of successful - probably 500,000 units through the first year.
But Nintendo *is* for kids. They've argued it a million times over in their products (Pokemon stadium, Pokemon league, Pokemon stores), their practices (no blood in games up until Nintendo 64) and their policies. Nintendo knows where their bread basket is and, unfortunately, it's not for adults. By their argument teenagers spend more money - and they have a point, they do spend a great deal of money. But for my market demographic, XBox or PS2 is it.
But hey, if you like FUD...
*scratches head*You can create multiple passports like I have. You don't even need to include your contact information.
I know Microsoft's trials are rigorous. The problem, though, lies in the consensus that there are a lot of bugs in Microsoft software (like most software) and that these bugs, presumably, wouldn't be so easily missed by super-developers. I'm not saying Microsoft's coders are bad - I'm just saying they are probably equal with every other company's out there. It's just that their products get a baptism by fire because so many people use them.
Sad.
"you cant Beat the stable debian kernel 2.2",p>One could also argue that you couldn't beat the original DOS in internet security because it couldn't (easily) connect to the internet. Anyone who argues that an older version is the way to go is fooling themselves.
Your calculator also has a lack of cache, a variety of register instructions and compatibility with other architecture. Your point is?
That doesn't mean they necessarily run cooler. My machine of choice (a laptop) has a SpeedStep PIII which runs blazing hot at peak CPU levels. True, this is mostly while playing Unreal Tournament ;) but the chip gets hot enough that I literally can't keep the machine on my lap without some serious pain.
They eat up more room on the hard drive, definitely. But in terms of memory in usage they are still extremely lightweight (as they should be).
I doubt very much in that. Many techheads I know (outside of the few in the late 90s who were taking administration courses to "make a quick buck") are totally indebted to technology and play with it just as much at home as at work. That includes coding. That included Microsoft developers who go home and (guess what) work on code for everything, and in all likelihood other OS's.
There is some advantage to security through obscurity. Say, for starters, some hacker X tries to exploit OS's Y and Z. Y is Open Source. He looks at the code, finds a bad buffer, builds his exploit. Z is closed. He has to root around with BlackIC (or any of the other hacking tools), play around with the assembly, maybe even wreck a few OS's in the process?
Which one do you think is faster?
Further, once the vulnerability is released, what makes people think it'll be "easier" to discover on the Open side? I'm in the same situation as if my OS was closed. For example, I've just discovered a vulnerability that causes my screen to show "Hey Dude". Someone must have broken in. But where's the problem? The screen buffer? The IP stack? A misguided pointer? While thousands of people are spending hours to pour over the Open code finding a needle in a haystack, Microsoft's (admittally) no better developers, who are a much smaller group and can work with a much more homogeneous code base, don't have to work nearly as hard because they pretty much know the code inside out.
So you're saying that its easier to find holes in Open Source software? Wouldn't this make it easier for a cracker to read the source code and build an exploit off it?
There is some advantage to security through obscurity. Say, for starters, some hacker X tries to exploit OS's Y and Z. Y is Open Source. He looks at the code, finds a bad buffer, builds his exploit. Z is closed. He has to root around with BlackIC (or any of the other hacking tools), play around with the assembly, maybe even wreck a few OS's in the process?
Which one do you think is faster?
Further, once the vulnerability is released, what makes people think it'll be "easier" to discover on the Open side? I'm in the same situation as if my OS was closed. For example, I've just discovered a vulnerability that causes my screen to show "Hey Dude". Someone must have broken in. But where's the problem? The screen buffer? The IP stack? A misguided pointer? While thousands of people are spending hours to pour over the Open code finding a needle in a haystack, Microsoft's (admittally) no better developers, who are a much smaller group and can work with a much more homogeneous code base, don't have to work nearly as hard because they pretty much know the code inside out.
Oh please. This is the same Slashdot that touted 30K bugs for Windows 2000 (like every other major tech publisher) regardless of the fact that the bugs were not known and many were probably "We spelled "maximize" wrong here".
Under the basis that most workstation now *act* as servers (whether intentionally as Unix machines or unintentionally as Windows machine with sharing turned on), one should assume that the number of Windows machines on the net, in general, is the most important statistic.
Open, maybe. Willing to change, rarely. Just look at the recent code rift between pre-release forks and the slowly growing consensus that Linux isn't up to the task. Something as simple as a paging system has to be debated endlessly (in the meantime, having different systems with different potential vulnerabilities). We may not be able to look at the MS code, but we can be pretty sure what doesn't work on one machine shouldn't work on another.
And the reason for this is? Personally, as a developer, I could care less if the system I'm coding on has an open or closed OS. Very few games, if any, are going to made for Linux on PS2. Those that are won't take advantage of the underlying hardware - not only because of the reasons stated in the article (that Sony's version of Linux hides some of the hardware) but also because the system wasn't built to run games in Linux. It was build, mastered, and tweaked by engineers to run in its native enviroment.
I sometimes think arguments for "openness" are silly, particularly on devices that hardware manufacturer's created to be closed. You can argue all you want for "open standards" - it isn't going to mean jack to the millions of PS2 (and XBox, and GameCube, etc.) game players out there who don't care what OS their system is running, just if the graphics are fast and the control is solid.
What about costs to maintain redundancy (if a server goes down?)