If you have the patience to set it up intially, I think Gentoo might be your best bet, as the flexibility of Gentoo and it's packaging system is second to none.
You, sir, have never used apt.
Regardless, you did nothing to answer the OP's question, which is what distribution would be best for gaming. The real answer is that any distribution will be equally good for gaming (within a reasonable margin) since Cedega is the part that makes Windows games run.
The only factors the distribution contribute are: a) performance, which is virtually identical for most distributions, and b) whether or not Cedega is easy to install on the distribution.
Older hardware not as good as newer hardware! Crowds shocked!
On a serious note, I don't really understand why console manufacturers are so tight when it comes to memory. From my experience building personal computers, memory is usually the cheapest way to increase performance (up to a point). A fast processor will go nearly to waste if you don't have the memory to back it up.
The article, though short and not really all that noteworthy, does touch upon something confusing. Having an extremely memory bus means squat if there isn't all that much memory anyways.
That would be perfectly acceptable if we were in fact sacrificing run-time performance for maintainability, extensibility, compatibility, and other things.
Unfortunately, this is not usually the case. Most code is none of the above, simply because the developers don't know any better.
OpenGL is an open standard, mandated by the OpenGL Architectural Review Board. The interesting part of OpenGL is the API, not the actual implementations (such as Mesa3D, the Linux OpenGL implementation).
I think he was talking about doing a dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot pattern, rather than an SOS based on the alphabetical representation of the numbers.
Right, so his experience with his daughter is conclusive evidence.
No, it's anecdotal evidence, and as far as can be seen, he presented it as such. All his (and my) point is is that there is plenty more research to be done in the topic. After all, wouldn't it be rather strange if the only
difference between men and woman is their reproductive organs? Most rational people will admit that men tend to be categorically better at physical tasks than women do, although individual women can excel and certainly put other men to task. I wouldn't be surprised if similar differences existed on a mental level, although I in no way have the credibility to say what those differences are. I'm simply saying that it's naieve to suggest that none exist, especially when so little research has been conducted.
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
Oh I don't know, what about for the purposes of actually furthering human knowledge and science? What, you think we should just completely ignore the subject and push it under a rug, since someone might be offended by the results.
Now, who's substantiating his comments and who isn't?
To be fair, just because she thinks the hypothesis was refuted doesn't make it wrong. Especially knowing how sensitive the topic about differences between genders is, a lot of people go out of their way to find the results they're looknig for, and are completely unwilling to consider anything else.
While withholding my opinion about the accuracy of his statements, I do think it's an issue that still needs to be examined. For her to categorically reject the notion while there is still much ambiguity on the subjct, I believe she was acting emotionally rather than logically.
You can limit outgoing connections with iptables, too. For instance, only allowing outbound traffic to IPs on an internal "safe" network, and for the ports on which you have applications being served. Assuming they're low port numbers, only root can bind those. If someone is able to break in through a non-privileged service, they won't be able to get a shell over a random high port, or over ICMP traffic.
Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
I'll give you a hint. "apt-get" is just a tool. Likewise for "emerge". Better frontends can exist for them. As an example, Debian provides dselect and aptitude at the command line. More importantly, there's an entry in the GNOME 2 System Tools menu for the "Synaptic Package Manager". Sure enough, it's a nice, easily-understandible graphical interface for finding installing programs.
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues.
And likewise, your examples are ludicrous. When people say that software for Linux is generally easier to install than software for Windows, most people aren't referring to compiling from source. 99.999% of what anyone needs is provided as a package for the distribution, and is easily installed via whatever frontend you choose to use (remember Synaptic?).
The part I was contesting as a straw man was the fact that fiscal libertarians would be sitting on their duff waiting for competition to bring service to those areas.:-)
There you go: evidence that capitalism isn't meeting the needs of people, and the state is stepping in. Adam Smith and economic libertarians would have those people simply sitting around, waiting for the invisible hand to bring them their broadband. Nope, the city is intervening, the corporation is retaliating.. and the city should win.
Way to go with the straw man there. Most fiscal libertarians would say that it's simply not worth the cost of laying telecommunications cable to those areas. If the net gain of bringing telecom to the contested areas was high, people would be willing to pay BellSouth's prices, since the return on investment would be signficant. However, it is not. This indicates to me at least that there will be a net loss on this whole endeavor, and thus it is a waste of funds to do it.
Of course, Bellsouth could probably just win everything by stepping into the area and providing service (probably with an initial loss, but they'd recoup their costs)
Not to be rude or anything, but don't you think that if this was true that the evil, money-grubbing corporation would have already done it? You can't have it both ways.
Unfair competition they say? Yeah, how about their continual attempts throughout history to insure a monopoly position on what communications get to our homes.
I couldn't tell who you were talking: BellSouth, or the United States Federal Government. Both seem to fit the description.
Seeing as how so many big business supporters argue that government can't do things like this profitably, shouldn't the big business here be smiling, confident that they'll be able to make a profit because the government's pipeline will be too expensive? I wonder why they're not smiling.
Perhaps because no matter how inefficient or unprofitable government happens to be in these matters, it will never ever back out? After all, it can always increase taxes.
Oh, wait -- if that whole "the government can't do it efficiently" thing is just a smokescreen for preserving monopolies, that would explain it. Hmm.
Right. Because capitalists totally love monopolies even more than bacon. We think that it's totally in every consumer's interest for services to be provided by one inefficient overarching body. Oh wait, that's exactly what we're talking about here.
Well, IBM has been hard at work on the Rational XDE, integrating it with Eclipse. Supposedly a Linux client is due to be out sometime at the beginning of the year. Whether or not it'll be open sourced is anyone's guess.
Best of luck to IBM in this clearly magnanimous move but they're simply giving away a potential competitive edge.
To the contrary, moves like this only serve to sharpen their competitive edge. This is not the magnanimous move you might think it is, but one that will both benefit open source and IBM quite greatly.
You see, IBM isn't really in software development any more. Besides Eclipse, WebSphere, and Lotus, they don't make too many more software products. Their entire business is service deployment. In other words, they let the geeks write the software, then they package it up nicely, integrate it, and sell it off to their customers along with a service agreement.
This is IBM trying to commoditize the software market, and it's an excellent strategy.
With the sixteenth amendment, they are most certainly constitutional. Don't get me wrong--I'm a Libertarian--but there's no sense in stretching the truth. The IRS is already bad enough that it doesn't warrant exaggeration.
Why would framebuffer options need to be in the installer prompt? Not trying to flame or anything; I just don't see a legitimate need for the option to exist. The installer works great at the resolution it's at; is there any reason to include this as an option?
Why does each and every distribution need to reinvent the installer and the package management tools and the portage system and the system layout?
Debian is "reinventing" the installer, because it needed to be. The Debian project needed an installer that could be run on any of the dozen or so architectures it supports. Not only that, but they did an excellent job of separating the installer from the frontend it uses. Now that the installer is near completion, it shouldn't be hard to create a GUI frontend to the install scripts.
Not to mention, your question can be answered with the same answer that is used to argue why we shouldn't all just use one operating system, one brand of processor, and one computer manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, unfortunately, the spell-checker :(
If you have the patience to set it up intially, I think Gentoo might be your best bet, as the flexibility of Gentoo and it's packaging system is second to none.
You, sir, have never used apt.
Regardless, you did nothing to answer the OP's question, which is what distribution would be best for gaming. The real answer is that any distribution will be equally good for gaming (within a reasonable margin) since Cedega is the part that makes Windows games run.
The only factors the distribution contribute are: a) performance, which is virtually identical for most distributions, and b) whether or not Cedega is easy to install on the distribution.
Older hardware not as good as newer hardware! Crowds shocked!
On a serious note, I don't really understand why console manufacturers are so tight when it comes to memory. From my experience building personal computers, memory is usually the cheapest way to increase performance (up to a point). A fast processor will go nearly to waste if you don't have the memory to back it up.
The article, though short and not really all that noteworthy, does touch upon something confusing. Having an extremely memory bus means squat if there isn't all that much memory anyways.
That would be perfectly acceptable if we were in fact sacrificing run-time performance for maintainability, extensibility, compatibility, and other things.
Unfortunately, this is not usually the case. Most code is none of the above, simply because the developers don't know any better.
Not being done hasn't stopped them from shipping CDs before.
OpenGL is an open standard, mandated by the OpenGL Architectural Review Board. The interesting part of OpenGL is the API, not the actual implementations (such as Mesa3D, the Linux OpenGL implementation).
Excuse me, sir, but I believe you spelled ridiculous correctly. This is Slashdot; the correct use is "rediculous".
I think he was talking about doing a dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot pattern, rather than an SOS based on the alphabetical representation of the numbers.
Not sure why you got modded flamebait for this. =\
Right, so his experience with his daughter is conclusive evidence.
No, it's anecdotal evidence, and as far as can be seen, he presented it as such. All his (and my) point is is that there is plenty more research to be done in the topic. After all, wouldn't it be rather strange if the only
difference between men and woman is their reproductive organs? Most rational people will admit that men tend to be categorically better at physical tasks than women do, although individual women can excel and certainly put other men to task. I wouldn't be surprised if similar differences existed on a mental level, although I in no way have the credibility to say what those differences are. I'm simply saying that it's naieve to suggest that none exist, especially when so little research has been conducted.What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
Oh I don't know, what about for the purposes of actually furthering human knowledge and science? What, you think we should just completely ignore the subject and push it under a rug, since someone might be offended by the results.
Now, who's substantiating his comments and who isn't?
To be fair, just because she thinks the hypothesis was refuted doesn't make it wrong. Especially knowing how sensitive the topic about differences between genders is, a lot of people go out of their way to find the results they're looknig for, and are completely unwilling to consider anything else.
While withholding my opinion about the accuracy of his statements, I do think it's an issue that still needs to be examined. For her to categorically reject the notion while there is still much ambiguity on the subjct, I believe she was acting emotionally rather than logically.
You can limit outgoing connections with iptables, too. For instance, only allowing outbound traffic to IPs on an internal "safe" network, and for the ports on which you have applications being served. Assuming they're low port numbers, only root can bind those. If someone is able to break in through a non-privileged service, they won't be able to get a shell over a random high port, or over ICMP traffic.
I don't think that's what FA means...
Not this tripe again.
Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
I'll give you a hint. "apt-get" is just a tool. Likewise for "emerge". Better frontends can exist for them. As an example, Debian provides dselect and aptitude at the command line. More importantly, there's an entry in the GNOME 2 System Tools menu for the "Synaptic Package Manager". Sure enough, it's a nice, easily-understandible graphical interface for finding installing programs.
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues.
And likewise, your examples are ludicrous. When people say that software for Linux is generally easier to install than software for Windows, most people aren't referring to compiling from source. 99.999% of what anyone needs is provided as a package for the distribution, and is easily installed via whatever frontend you choose to use (remember Synaptic?).
The part I was contesting as a straw man was the fact that fiscal libertarians would be sitting on their duff waiting for competition to bring service to those areas. :-)
Not always, but it's usually the best acid test we have. If you can propose something better, by all means let us hear.
There you go: evidence that capitalism isn't meeting the needs of people, and the state is stepping in. Adam Smith and economic libertarians would have those people simply sitting around, waiting for the invisible hand to bring them their broadband. Nope, the city is intervening, the corporation is retaliating.. and the city should win.
Way to go with the straw man there. Most fiscal libertarians would say that it's simply not worth the cost of laying telecommunications cable to those areas. If the net gain of bringing telecom to the contested areas was high, people would be willing to pay BellSouth's prices, since the return on investment would be signficant. However, it is not. This indicates to me at least that there will be a net loss on this whole endeavor, and thus it is a waste of funds to do it.
Of course, Bellsouth could probably just win everything by stepping into the area and providing service (probably with an initial loss, but they'd recoup their costs)
Not to be rude or anything, but don't you think that if this was true that the evil, money-grubbing corporation would have already done it? You can't have it both ways.
Unfair competition they say? Yeah, how about their continual attempts throughout history to insure a monopoly position on what communications get to our homes.
I couldn't tell who you were talking: BellSouth, or the United States Federal Government. Both seem to fit the description.
Seeing as how so many big business supporters argue that government can't do things like this profitably, shouldn't the big business here be smiling, confident that they'll be able to make a profit because the government's pipeline will be too expensive? I wonder why they're not smiling.
Perhaps because no matter how inefficient or unprofitable government happens to be in these matters, it will never ever back out? After all, it can always increase taxes.
Oh, wait -- if that whole "the government can't do it efficiently" thing is just a smokescreen for preserving monopolies, that would explain it. Hmm.
Right. Because capitalists totally love monopolies even more than bacon. We think that it's totally in every consumer's interest for services to be provided by one inefficient overarching body. Oh wait, that's exactly what we're talking about here.
So next the Rational Tools or DB2?
Well, IBM has been hard at work on the Rational XDE, integrating it with Eclipse. Supposedly a Linux client is due to be out sometime at the beginning of the year. Whether or not it'll be open sourced is anyone's guess.
Best of luck to IBM in this clearly magnanimous move but they're simply giving away a potential competitive edge.
To the contrary, moves like this only serve to sharpen their competitive edge. This is not the magnanimous move you might think it is, but one that will both benefit open source and IBM quite greatly.
You see, IBM isn't really in software development any more. Besides Eclipse, WebSphere, and Lotus, they don't make too many more software products. Their entire business is service deployment. In other words, they let the geeks write the software, then they package it up nicely, integrate it, and sell it off to their customers along with a service agreement.
This is IBM trying to commoditize the software market, and it's an excellent strategy.
With the sixteenth amendment, they are most certainly constitutional. Don't get me wrong--I'm a Libertarian--but there's no sense in stretching the truth. The IRS is already bad enough that it doesn't warrant exaggeration.
Why would framebuffer options need to be in the installer prompt? Not trying to flame or anything; I just don't see a legitimate need for the option to exist. The installer works great at the resolution it's at; is there any reason to include this as an option?
Why does each and every distribution need to reinvent the installer and the package management tools and the portage system and the system layout?
Debian is "reinventing" the installer, because it needed to be. The Debian project needed an installer that could be run on any of the dozen or so architectures it supports. Not only that, but they did an excellent job of separating the installer from the frontend it uses. Now that the installer is near completion, it shouldn't be hard to create a GUI frontend to the install scripts.
Not to mention, your question can be answered with the same answer that is used to argue why we shouldn't all just use one operating system, one brand of processor, and one computer manufacturer.