it's great Loki ported this to linux and offered the binary on their webpage
*Sigh* Loki did not port it. Epic ported it, and released the binaries online when the Windows version came to stores. Loki did some work maintaining it later, but they did not port the game.
I doubt Loki made real money with it
Duh. I'd be surprised if they made a penny off of UT, seeing as they didn't sell it or have anything to do with its distribution.
There was a slight delay shipping it, but if you bought the Windows version instead of the Linux one, it's your own fault.
Yep, very slight. I got my copy 5 or 6 days after the Windows version hit the hard drives of Microserfs everywhere. It sucked when I couldn't play with my friends for that week, but I had one thing keeping me going - their constant bitching about the game crashing in the middle of a round, and other Windows related annoyances.:)
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. I volunteered to be editor for the QNX category, but haven't heard a word. No rejection, nothing. That was over a month ago.
I've been looking at getting a Mac for sometime, but unfortunately my funds are rather limited, and the high price of Macintosh computers only makes that even more profound. So I've been looking at iMacs... I know the original iMac was near impossible to upgrade, so what about the new ones? Can the CPU/memory/video/etc be easily upgraded, as with Power Mac machines? Or is it like before, where you get stuck with whatever you buy initially?
... grab your Apache/websnarf/something-that-listens-on-port-80 logs and send them to places like DShield.org so they can track the spread of the worm.
One of my friends runs a small (500 user) IRC server, and their services went berzerk when the billennium came. Mostly because they were poorly coded and there were problems with g-line times, etc. which are stored in seconds.
While @home has been good overall, for me, the few problems I had were filled with incredible amounts of frustration.
For example, earlier this year, my cable connection started stalling regularly. Every 5 minutes or so, all data going in and out would just... die. It wouldn't all come in at once, it just went into a black void, never to return. After about 90 seconds, the connection would work again.
I called @home about it, and after 2 hours of digging through lame menus and finally getting hold of a human being, they did nothing really. They pinged my cable modem and said "everything looked fine," which of course it did since I wasn't experiencing that humongous drop in data transfer at that moment. Then they handed me some BS about waiting three hours at least while they "attempted to fix something that might be related." I.E. Buzz off, we're tired of pretending we want to help you.
That problem eventually got resolved on its own, but it would have been nice if they hadn't given me the run-around and treated me like some newbie.
I love Comcast, @home is another matter. While my cable connection has been great aside from the months that problem went on, I wouldn't be saddened to have to use another provider... So long as they're Linux compatible, that is.;)
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
^^^^^^^^^
... one of the problems with closed source software, too. Consider this:
Tribes 2 is closed source software. Dynamix, its primary developer, is gone. Loki, its primary means of Linux support, is in danger. Now let's say that Loki completely folds next month. Considering Sierra's track record, do you honestly think they'll diligently support the Linux clients as well as Loki did? Do you think we'll still have same-day patches and updates?
The dedicated servers will undoubtedly be maintained, since they are so important to the Tribes 2 community, and so many of them are for Linux. But will the client itself keep pace with the Windows development? Sierra doesn't seem to care much about public opinion in their grand decisions, so can we expect them to continue with Linux development because it's the "right thing to do"?
It'll be an interesting situation to watch in the coming months. But given Sierra's track record for screwing over employees and customers alike, I don't hold high hopes.
> from the letting-any-sport-it-in-now dept.
Speaking of drugs, what are you guys on when you write those "dept." headers?:) Or are you just dyslexic...
Keep in mind, this guy will be running it on a P2 266. I have a K6-2 350mhz box running Mandrake 8, and it crawls a bit, because of KDE2. Just think what would happen on a 266...
"Good" depends on your needs, and since you're going to be working on a fairly slow system, that will make your choices a bit interesting.
Normally, for people who want an easy Linux system, I'd recommend Mandrake 8. It has an excellent installer, the internet connection sharing is easy as pie to set up, the firewalling works reasonably well, etc. However, it really crawls on a K6-2 (or equivelant) 350 or below. This is mostly because KDE2 isn't the most efficient GUI for low-end machines, but anyway...
If you want to get the most efficiency and speed out of your box, I'd recommend Slackware or Debian. Neither one is as easy to set up as Mandrake, from a new user perspective. However, I've generally found them to be more straightforward as long as you pay attention, and have some computing experience. Slackware is a bit simpler than Debian for installation, but they're both excellent distros. Very secure, very efficient, and excellent for servers and power user desktops alike. The ultimate downside (or perhaps benefit, depending on your confidence with Linux and computers in general) is there aren't many/any bundled GUI tools for configuring things easily with these distros. You'll often find yourself firing up vi and getting your hands dirty in config files. Personally I like that, but it's a matter of taste.:)
The other major option, of course, is Red Hat. I've always had problems getting Red Hat to fully recognize all my hardware, while Mandrake never had a problem with it. That's just me, so YMMV. Red Hat is a fairly good distro for starting out, just make sure you avoid the.0 releases (example: 7.0 really sucks and requires tons of patching, otherwise it will literally stop working in 3 weeks; later 7.x versions are much better though).
I think, in the end, my recommendation would be this: grab copies of each of these major distributions, ideally in ISO format from the net so you don't have to cough up too much money. Install one, play around with it for a week, then install another, etc. and see what you think of them after a little bit of usage. Then, when you have an idea of which one suits your needs best, go all out and buy the CD set with bundled manuals etc. for that respective distribution.
When Sierra started out, it was a nothing, nobody company that made it to the top with some really awesome ideas. It was "driven by passion, not profit." Dynamix was one of the few segments of Sierra that was still respectable, in my view, and put good gaming first.
It looks like Sierra is trying to shed itself of any remaining talent and decency. They pull this kind of crap every year, screwing over some part of their workforce. It's no wonder the company does so poorly, they shoot themselves in the foot annually. "Oh, gee, we have so few good titles, we're not making much money. Let's dump the people that make our few remaining good games, and save money! YEAH!"
They could have cut access to those running compromised servers, but instead chose to deny the ability to run a web server to all subscribers to their service.
Running such a server is against their TOS anyway, unless you upgrade to a more expensive service.
At any rate, I do disagree with this action. I (and some others I know on @home) have been logging the code red attempts using programs like websnarf, and sending the logs to DShield and SecurityFocus. This, I believe, is important to monitoring the spread of Code Red, and of course now that can't happen. @Home users were the hardest hit and the most infected, judging from my logs.
@Home could've simply blocked the port on machines that were infected. They routinely scan their users throughout the day for security holes, it wouldn't be difficult at all to adapt that to a code red scan. But no, let's take the easy way out, and block potentially useful information from being gathered.
I'm an @home user, and even though running servers is against the TOS for basic @home cable modem, I strongly oppose any measures at blocking port 80 outright. Why? Because I, like a number of people, am using tools to log the code red attempts that come into my machine, and I send my logs to DShield.org. This is important, I believe, for tracking the progress and severity of the worm.
As somebody suggested for Road Runner, the ISPs should scan for vulnerable IIS servers specifically, and block THEM. @Home certainly has the ability... My logs show dozens of scans and security checks by them every day, so a Code Red-oriented scan probably wouldn't be much more of a stretch for their security systems.
Here are some of the major problems with this situation, as I see it:
Firstly, Sklyarov works for a Russian company, and that *COMPANY* distributed the allegedly illegal software. Disregarding the fact that said software is legal in Russia, did Adobe try to take any diplomatic approaches to dealing with this company?
Because this has to deal with a company distributing this copyright-circumventing software, the company is the one you go after, not an individual. If this is allowed to continue, it will set a terrible precedence. It would mean I could go sue Joe DLL Author in the Windows division at Microsoft, because I didn't like CMCTRL32.DLL crashing my computer and causing me to lose my data. Of course, I'd never win against Microsoft's team of lawyers that would charge to his defense, but interestingly Sklyarov doesn't have that option now does he?
This guy was arrested for his research, which was put to use by the company he works for. If Adobe was smart, they might have tried to get this guy on board, or buy out the Russian company, and use them to help IMPROVE their security (if you can call using rot13
security). But of course not, these are the "Reds" and, what's worse, this guy is a hacker! So much for justice and liberty for all.
It's situations like this that really make me wonder about the direction America, and humanity in general, is going.
> throwing some low-level Microsoft programmer in jail for incompetent programming, or writing a piece of software used to illegally leverage Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't be at all acceptable.
Indeed, that's the whole idea of corporations -- that they be a single entity, and the individuals that operate within it not be liable for the entity's actions. Oh well, so much for that, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
(Score:4, Flamebait)
WTF... Who modded the parent flamebait? This is useful information from the author. Jesus...
it's great Loki ported this to linux and offered the binary on their webpage
*Sigh* Loki did not port it. Epic ported it, and released the binaries online when the Windows version came to stores. Loki did some work maintaining it later, but they did not port the game.
I doubt Loki made real money with it
Duh. I'd be surprised if they made a penny off of UT, seeing as they didn't sell it or have anything to do with its distribution.
There was a slight delay shipping it, but if you bought the Windows version instead of the Linux one, it's your own fault.
Yep, very slight. I got my copy 5 or 6 days after the Windows version hit the hard drives of Microserfs everywhere. It sucked when I couldn't play with my friends for that week, but I had one thing keeping me going - their constant bitching about the game crashing in the middle of a round, and other Windows related annoyances. :)
You can check out the Loki site at various points in time with The Wayback Machine.
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. I volunteered to be editor for the QNX category, but haven't heard a word. No rejection, nothing. That was over a month ago.
I've been looking at getting a Mac for sometime, but unfortunately my funds are rather limited, and the high price of Macintosh computers only makes that even more profound. So I've been looking at iMacs... I know the original iMac was near impossible to upgrade, so what about the new ones? Can the CPU/memory/video/etc be easily upgraded, as with Power Mac machines? Or is it like before, where you get stuck with whatever you buy initially?
Everybody knows, NetHack is the best. :)
Try this:
GNOME Basic
I'm going to start my own internet, with blackjack, and whores.
... grab your Apache/websnarf/something-that-listens-on-port-80 logs and send them to places like DShield.org so they can track the spread of the worm.
One of my friends runs a small (500 user) IRC server, and their services went berzerk when the billennium came. Mostly because they were poorly coded and there were problems with g-line times, etc. which are stored in seconds.
While @home has been good overall, for me, the few problems I had were filled with incredible amounts of frustration.
;)
For example, earlier this year, my cable connection started stalling regularly. Every 5 minutes or so, all data going in and out would just... die. It wouldn't all come in at once, it just went into a black void, never to return. After about 90 seconds, the connection would work again.
I called @home about it, and after 2 hours of digging through lame menus and finally getting hold of a human being, they did nothing really. They pinged my cable modem and said "everything looked fine," which of course it did since I wasn't experiencing that humongous drop in data transfer at that moment. Then they handed me some BS about waiting three hours at least while they "attempted to fix something that might be related." I.E. Buzz off, we're tired of pretending we want to help you.
That problem eventually got resolved on its own, but it would have been nice if they hadn't given me the run-around and treated me like some newbie.
I love Comcast, @home is another matter. While my cable connection has been great aside from the months that problem went on, I wouldn't be saddened to have to use another provider... So long as they're Linux compatible, that is.
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
^^^^^^^^^
hmm, I'm not too sure about this. what about my beloved smilies? ⌢
<resigned>oh well</resigned>
<face action="puzzled" method="human://savrinor:1337/face.cgi">
<expression type="eyebrow" left="normal" right="raise">
</face>
Well when you've got games like these it's no wonder, now is it?
Tribes 2 is closed source software. Dynamix, its primary developer, is gone. Loki, its primary means of Linux support, is in danger. Now let's say that Loki completely folds next month. Considering Sierra's track record, do you honestly think they'll diligently support the Linux clients as well as Loki did? Do you think we'll still have same-day patches and updates?
The dedicated servers will undoubtedly be maintained, since they are so important to the Tribes 2 community, and so many of them are for Linux. But will the client itself keep pace with the Windows development? Sierra doesn't seem to care much about public opinion in their grand decisions, so can we expect them to continue with Linux development because it's the "right thing to do"?
It'll be an interesting situation to watch in the coming months. But given Sierra's track record for screwing over employees and customers alike, I don't hold high hopes.
> from the letting-any-sport-it-in-now dept. Speaking of drugs, what are you guys on when you write those "dept." headers? :) Or are you just dyslexic...
Keep in mind, this guy will be running it on a P2 266. I have a K6-2 350mhz box running Mandrake 8, and it crawls a bit, because of KDE2. Just think what would happen on a 266...
Normally, for people who want an easy Linux system, I'd recommend Mandrake 8. It has an excellent installer, the internet connection sharing is easy as pie to set up, the firewalling works reasonably well, etc. However, it really crawls on a K6-2 (or equivelant) 350 or below. This is mostly because KDE2 isn't the most efficient GUI for low-end machines, but anyway...
If you want to get the most efficiency and speed out of your box, I'd recommend Slackware or Debian. Neither one is as easy to set up as Mandrake, from a new user perspective. However, I've generally found them to be more straightforward as long as you pay attention, and have some computing experience. Slackware is a bit simpler than Debian for installation, but they're both excellent distros. Very secure, very efficient, and excellent for servers and power user desktops alike. The ultimate downside (or perhaps benefit, depending on your confidence with Linux and computers in general) is there aren't many/any bundled GUI tools for configuring things easily with these distros. You'll often find yourself firing up vi and getting your hands dirty in config files. Personally I like that, but it's a matter of taste. :)
The other major option, of course, is Red Hat. I've always had problems getting Red Hat to fully recognize all my hardware, while Mandrake never had a problem with it. That's just me, so YMMV. Red Hat is a fairly good distro for starting out, just make sure you avoid the .0 releases (example: 7.0 really sucks and requires tons of patching, otherwise it will literally stop working in 3 weeks; later 7.x versions are much better though).
I think, in the end, my recommendation would be this: grab copies of each of these major distributions, ideally in ISO format from the net so you don't have to cough up too much money. Install one, play around with it for a week, then install another, etc. and see what you think of them after a little bit of usage. Then, when you have an idea of which one suits your needs best, go all out and buy the CD set with bundled manuals etc. for that respective distribution.
Good luck, and happy Linuxing!
It looks like Sierra is trying to shed itself of any remaining talent and decency. They pull this kind of crap every year, screwing over some part of their workforce. It's no wonder the company does so poorly, they shoot themselves in the foot annually. "Oh, gee, we have so few good titles, we're not making much money. Let's dump the people that make our few remaining good games, and save money! YEAH!"
Running such a server is against their TOS anyway, unless you upgrade to a more expensive service.
At any rate, I do disagree with this action. I (and some others I know on @home) have been logging the code red attempts using programs like websnarf, and sending the logs to DShield and SecurityFocus. This, I believe, is important to monitoring the spread of Code Red, and of course now that can't happen. @Home users were the hardest hit and the most infected, judging from my logs.
@Home could've simply blocked the port on machines that were infected. They routinely scan their users throughout the day for security holes, it wouldn't be difficult at all to adapt that to a code red scan. But no, let's take the easy way out, and block potentially useful information from being gathered.
Feh.
As somebody suggested for Road Runner, the ISPs should scan for vulnerable IIS servers specifically, and block THEM. @Home certainly has the ability... My logs show dozens of scans and security checks by them every day, so a Code Red-oriented scan probably wouldn't be much more of a stretch for their security systems.
Just my 2 cents.
Gee, I don't know... maybe as a service to their users?
Firstly, Sklyarov works for a Russian company, and that *COMPANY* distributed the allegedly illegal software. Disregarding the fact that said software is legal in Russia, did Adobe try to take any diplomatic approaches to dealing with this company?
Because this has to deal with a company distributing this copyright-circumventing software, the company is the one you go after, not an individual. If this is allowed to continue, it will set a terrible precedence. It would mean I could go sue Joe DLL Author in the Windows division at Microsoft, because I didn't like CMCTRL32.DLL crashing my computer and causing me to lose my data. Of course, I'd never win against Microsoft's team of lawyers that would charge to his defense, but interestingly Sklyarov doesn't have that option now does he?
This guy was arrested for his research, which was put to use by the company he works for. If Adobe was smart, they might have tried to get this guy on board, or buy out the Russian company, and use them to help IMPROVE their security (if you can call using rot13 security). But of course not, these are the "Reds" and, what's worse, this guy is a hacker! So much for justice and liberty for all.
It's situations like this that really make me wonder about the direction America, and humanity in general, is going.
> throwing some low-level Microsoft programmer in jail for incompetent programming, or writing a piece of software used to illegally leverage Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't be at all acceptable. Indeed, that's the whole idea of corporations -- that they be a single entity, and the individuals that operate within it not be liable for the entity's actions. Oh well, so much for that, eh?