---For starters, this is a bit offtopic considering that this patent is a design patent and has absolutetly nothing to do with software.
The patent itself is moot, because art is covered under COPYRIGHT LAW.
---Secondly, and more importantly, whats so evil about software patents?
I never said that. What's evil is a government organization is OK'ing patents on damn near every aspect of computing. They dont care if it has prior art or not. If we had a decent system where all patents were checked for consistency and prior art, we wouldnt be in this situation.
---I happen to hold a software patent for an idea that I'm currently marketing. If it werent for the patent I would have _NO CHANCE_ at making any money on my idea. As a result, I would have had no reason to spend the thousands of hours researching it. **THE IDEA WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY**
You have to do that, as well as everybody else. Still the point is that the software patent sector is crumbling under its own weight, and rapidly.
---It is completely unique and highly fuctional. How is this any different than designing a new device? If it has function and is unique it has function and is unique.
A device has a purpose and is physical. Software is simply equasions... math. SHould I be able to "patent" calculus, or the pythagorean theorem, or hell.... even addition? If anything, software patents should be limited to very complex equasions with source included. In that guarantee, they will have royalties delivered to whomever uses that source. Also, a very limited patent time should also be given. Personally, no more than 5 Years.
---Why is the fact that its a patent on software make it evil?
It's the corruption already in the system. Not the patent itself.
ANd I still say we should boycott the idea of "Software Patents" in general.
Intellectual property, in limit, should be patentable. The original idea was to provide governmental protection for inventors given they FULLY PUBLISH the idea set forth in the patent if and only if that "object" is non-intuitive.
What's turned out is software patents patenting damn near everything in sight. Who cares if it's new or not. These days, making software is becoming a legal minefield, and the USPTO isnt helping (dump dump dump). Even the process of playing a DVD you own can violate 10's of patents. That's why MPlayer is off the US shore.
So, I'm not against intelluctal property, but am against software patents until the UPSTO starts heavily regulating those types. Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.
---I know the tough questions to ask in a "discussion", but this thread is not so much about the rights/wrongs of religion as it is about the tendency of C-hurch to want to control or censor others.
Too true. It happens on many faucets. You have Wal-Mart (Sam Walton?)selling stuff based on a morality clause, and what they buy and dont can break a business. Blockbuster severly edits 'choice' films for _proper_ consumption. The list goes on and on. That's on the wide scale. On the local scale, middle and high schoolers are raided by radical parents who the schools are teaching "choice" things, or the school isnt regulating certain behaviors (like playing card games/RPG's at lunch). I've actually had a substitute teacher come to my table and start preaching at us (me in particular) that Magic:The Gathering was going to "SEND US TO HELL!!" We all just shrugged her off and went on our way playing that game. What else could we do? We were high schoolers, she had position of power (as teacher).
---You being thumped for your hobbies (all of which I share) is a prime example. The witchhunts of recent times (D&D with Mazes&Monsters, the ignorance (I still can't cast spells with my M:TG cards),
What I thought was funny is when they said AD&D caused suicides. What they didnt do is to compare the suicide rate of RPG'ers to the US average. The difference was exponentially lower for AD&D players.
---and the tendency to hold back any knowledge that doesn't perfectly mesh with the T-ruth (evolution and Darwinism) nicely highlight my worry about religions getting access to a database of "sinners".
I still dont believe in true evolution. Too many holes (like, where's the link from the apes to humans?). Neither do I believe in what happens in Genesis. Great story though. I simply throw the thoery of hwo we all got here in choice 3: Not Enough Information.
I still ask myself, how did all of this stuff pop up here? I thought that matter/energy couldnt be created, and yet here it is. There's thoeries of 10D universes and other funny super-physics (hawking crap). Still, nothing to formly explain how all this material/energy popped up here.
---Remember, abortion doctors have been gunned down after their privacy was compromised...
I know. I have my own belifs about abortion (hate it) but you dont kill somebody just because they killed. That's just not justification. Seriously, I dont know what IS justification for even legitimate death penalty cases. The cost of the state murdering somebody costs 3X more than if they have life sentance. It's also hard to give somebody a reprieve if they're in the ground (they really didnt do it).
Still, my belifs are that all doctors should have MANDATORY state lookups for medical practices. Just as we look at hardware listings to compare prices and goods, I want to do the same with doctors. I also want no way a doctor can eliminate fraud, lawsuits, and settlements from his "rap sheet".
Remember, murder is ILLEGAL And yes, I disagree with the abortion-only doctor list. Reading the websites they were hosted on made it look like a hit-list. Guess what? They were.
And there is no privacy in the US anymore. Check out Lexis-Nexis if you dont believe me (and some of it scares the shit outta me).
And I've lost count of how many times I'm going to hell, the rules seem to change every week.:-)
"If you dont believ me, you go to hell!!!" "I'd rather go to YOUR HELL if I dont have to hear your yapping mouth anymore!" (I've actually said that response...);-)
SO you also have a problem with C-hurch goers (aka thumpers)?
Here's a hint on how to deal with them. Read the bible.. I didnt say BELIEVE it. That's what thumpers' only weapon is. And if taken out of context, the bible contradicts itself quite a bit.
After you best them in an argument of "religion", make a snide comment how I'm ATHEIST and I know more about the Bible than you do!!
Really pisses them off;-)
Btw, I'm Catholic, and I get thumped for playing AD&D, M:TG and various pc games (Unreal-like games, NWN, and others). So far, I'm going to hell 7 times;-) What about you?
WHoop-te-shit. They have nukes. What nation (that wants them) doesnt already have them? Prettty much all of them. Still, I'd not worry about Chinese nukes. They could just overrun any country they see fit. They ONLY have 1/4 of the WORLD's population.
>Lindows very well may be doing just that. They're targetting people who dont know >any better than to think Lindows means "Lite Windows", or some such.
And, remember they changed their names. Wasn't Lindows called "Redmond Linux" first?
>Their website is deliberately designed to look like MS's marketing material, and is >completely misleading as to what Lindows is, costs, and is capable of.
Yes, and no. It LOOKS like a windows copy, but if you go to the FAQ, they say it's a distro of Linux. It's pretty deep though for most non-techies to not notice.
>IMHO, Lindows is a sleazy company. I've had enough of get-rich-quick startups and >scams, and could give a crap who their in court with. The enemy of my enemy is >not my friend. I hope the judge rules that Lindows is in fault, because they are >seeking to deliberately trick consumers into buying their product.
Damn straight. Even Lindows sounds phonetically like Windows. I hope they burn, unless they change their name. MS does have a bad rap, but let THEM have the bad rap. It's their name.
>And that, in my opinion, is what separates Great Hackers from the myriad of >wannabes. I'm definitely a wannabe.
No, sir. YOu are not a wannabe. Go check out usenet:alt.hacking.* and look for "Hotmail Hax0rz", "Warez", "Mail haxorz", "DOS", and other usual keywords associated to 'have-no-clue-but-must-impress-my-friends' wanabees. If you have a clue, you're already out of that category.
>I'm proficient at everything I do, but I'll never spend the (quite possibly small >number of) hours actually finding out why that string crashes xterm, and maybe >doing something useful with it. The rewards are definitely there,
The big key there is "why". That's what gives master hackers their edge. The thirst of knowledge hanging just above their head, waiting to be plucked. But how do you pluck it? Do you just rush to it, squishing it in your hands, licking the residue from your palm? No.. you cherish and understand it. But you don't give up. If that means asking for help from somebody more learned in that area... Anything to solve that problem.
>and I've tasted >their sweetness in flashes of inspiration, but I just don't have it.
But you've never tasted the sweetness of power sitting at a console with remote root, gotten accidently by noticing and exploiting a 'weird bug'?
>What is it? I don't know. I don't suspect that I ever will, in this particular >field. I think that I might just have it in another field (racing cars), but I >think it's likely that I'll be Just Proficient at that, too, much as I have >been at most everything for my whole life. And that's a pretty depressing >thought.
Oh, is it? Look at your skills as a stat with a library of different happenings. Who else here, let alone else in the world has your exact skill set and memories? Nobody.
And so what, you'll be 'just proficient' in computing. That's way above the average. Many people have a hard time of understanding "double click" or basic computer terms. Put together and exploit what you do know and become an expert in your field of knowledge. That'll get you respect, and access to more information.
This sounds really cool, but knowing the way quality has dropped on "consumer" drives, I'd put this in a 1+0. I'd deal with.9 TB for data protection, expessially on 1 year warranty drives.
I know this'll pull out the SCSI bigots, but the only reason SCSI is good these days is cause they're tested for longer times (disk media is better quality).
>Your own glowing testimonial is not exactly a balanced review of the real >product.
In terms of usefulness with Linux, it isn't priceless (cause MetroX has a price.. too much)
>But perhaps people like yourself, who are willing to give the X developers the >accolades they so richly deserve, are necessary to counterbalance the people who >only see the bad points of X.
Good and bad points are determined to what features people use. I have gripes to how X is used and such, only because I use it all the time.
>There are good and bad things that can be said about X-windows, but I don't think >anybody that is paying attention would have anything but praise for the people >who have worked so hard to make it as useable as it is.
I'eve used a bit of the network transparent setup on 100BT switched. It's wonderful, but all the tools I use on Linux have a command line function (or a Windows clone).
>On the other hand, I can honestly say that Xwindows is the only piece of >software that ever caused my monitor to literally catch on fire. Gave me a very >strong incentive to RTFM, I must say.
Heh, I'v eactually induced that on a known bad monitor. The tube could only reach the top 1/2 of the screen because of tube malfunction. Since I've got a scad of monitors (about 10), I took it and took horiz to 200 Hz on a 50-100 Hz monitor. Pfffft. Didnt catch fire, but the magic smoke was let out;-)
That's when I respected Linux in terms of hardware management.
>Well, I did that, with Q3 and the Quakeforge. I get better framerates in Linux >than WinXP. It's possible the 3dfx Banshee windows drivers just suck, but at >least for me it works better (and no annoying BSOD either).
That's one thing.. The GLIDE grivers absolutely rocked. I've been looking for a voodoo 2/3 card for one of my linux systems, but nobody I know wants to sell them. And I do see why.
> Now under WineX, well, everything's slow. But hey, I didn't expect much seeing >that my machine doesn't meet the minimum requirements.
Oh well. It's API emulation. I dont blame them for that.. I'm happy to have limited MS gui x86 binary support.
>Really? I'll admit that the mouse isn't quite as responsive under X, and I didn't >ever run Win98 on the same machine, but my P233 with 64MB and a lowly S3Virge >seemed to run just fine.
The mouse, for me is a biggie, along with moving objects. In terms of GUI's, I prefer Windowmaker or KDE (kde on beefy machines). When I'm in console, nothing seems slow at all. Programs seem snappy and all, but when I hit X, feels like I'm moving through a pool of water.
>It took a little while to load KDE but GNOME was quite >responsive (with TWM even). Of course, I didn't have much running, just squid, >dante, sshd and X. Mozilla was a bit slow, but you can't blame that on X... I was >running a fairly low resolution though, maybe that was the difference.
I usually run at 1024x768 at 16bpp. If I'm correct, it would lag a s3Virge a bit. But I would not expect to lag a ATI (4MB-pci) rage, or a 128 All in wonder (32mb-AGP), or a Matrox Millenium 2 (8MB-agp). The gui was faster on faster cards (of course), but that slowness was still there.
Ever since 2 years ago, I decided I'd switch over to Linux/Xfree and stick there (with windows gaming exception). I've learnt and dealt with it, but 3-d GL and response speed are 2 of the biggest problems, at least with me.
I have nothing against the transparency of XFree has with networks, but I'd like a simple way to "rmmod" out unneded chunks. I could do without the networking part of X, but another user needs network but doesnt want the 3-d section.
Re:Windows/OS X architecture is similar to X11
on
XFree86 4.3.0 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
>Well, so tell us: in what way are Windows or Macintosh OS X supposed to be more >efficient? Where are these great gains in efficiency in their architecture >supposed to come from? I mean, it can't be the use of IPC or system calls for >the application to communicate with a graphics server: Windows and Macintosh >have that as well.
I haven't much experience with OSX, but with Windows... KDE/Gnome/Windowmaker all feel klunky with dealing with any type of object (window, icon, pointer). Sometimes, it's like I'm hauling the pointer through tar (and even when I've turned up the mouse response speed: nothing helps).I've also had the chance to use Sun's Xwindowing system. It was a Sparc10 bought used. I used the windowing system on it, and for some reason, repsonse was noticibally better. And that was what.. a 120MHz sparc chip with onboard graphics? Windows has that non-klunky feel, as does the Amiga. I feel comfortable with either windowing system. Xfree seems to act against my movements (or if I was in a pool of water slowly moving from the sway).
And even with the (older and) newer Xfree86'es, I STILL have the "page tear effect" in many applications. Even in Mozilla. I'm sure I'm not the only one (and if I am, how do I fix that)?
>In reality, there is no fundamental difference in the client/server window >system architecture between OS X and Linux. For NT, there is a difference: >large chunks of the windowing code have moved into the kernel ad some point, >but you still need system calls to talk to it. Of course, there is nothing to >stop anybody from moving X11 into the kernel.
I didn't say there was an architechure difference. Like I said at the end, perhaps they ought to use a very heavy module-like system like the way Linux is done (compile basic graphics systems in, but modularize the network-only stuff). Perhaps even have loading on demand...
>Overall, the idea that network transparency is some sort of special feature >that one pays a high price for is nonsense: all major desktop operating systems >run in protected mode, and most GUI applications run in a different context >from the window system. X11 simply has been designed that way from the ground >up, while Windows and Macintosh have evolved there from "direct mode" graphics. >Network transparency in X11 is not so much an issue of IPC or how it does >graphics--it uses IPC like all desktop windowing systems--but in having >well-defined network transparent support for features like window management >and configuration information. It's lack of those features in Windows and OS X >that means that Windows and OS X are not network transparent.
>In practice, XFree86 is a damned efficient window system that, when it has >comparable drivers for the graphics cards, beats OS X handily in terms of >performance and memory usage, and usually even beats Windows.
I've used a decently wide selection of graphics cards, and they all have that "move through water" feeling. I do like the newer features included in 4.3. Dont get me wrong.. but there's something just 'not quite right'.
>>You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC.
>TightVNC gives you a "screen on another computer". It does not give you network >transparent windowing. If you are running a well-designed X11 desktop, you can >run applications on any machine, and they will behave as if run locally. You >can also move individual windows between machines and displays. Of course, >Gnome and KDE both break this behavior, but that's not X11's fault.
I know what the VNC suite of tools allow you to do and NOT to do. I also know that X wastes a bunch on bandwidth that Tight VNX saves. Try that "oh-so-nice-network-transparency" over a modem. I have, and it sucks compared to how snappy a 640x480 8bit black background screen transfers over EVEN regular VNC.
>>MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. XFree runs like shit. It >>feels klunky and laggy.
>That's a ludicrous claim. X11 worked reasonably well on 1988 hardware already. >X11 servers obviously can run like a charm on 1998 hardware, hardware that's >more than an order of magnitude faster.
I still stand by what I said. Go get a copy of WIn98, and a feature-equilavalent copy of Linux with X and managers. Now go get similar hardware (say 350MHz p2 with 4 MB matrox card), along with duplicating similar features for each. I bet, 9 times out of 10, Win98 will seem to run better than Linux/Xfree.
>And that's also what one finds in practice: Windows 98 requires much more >hardware (memory, CPU power) to run than Linux/XFree86. If you claim were >having a problem with Linux/XFree86, either you are making it up, or you had a >bad driver, or you misconfigured something.
No, Under the similar feature set of the 2, Win98 (and similar) will respond faster. You still have to deal with nasty crashes, programs directly reading ram it shouldnt, and other stability issues.
Still, why didnt you approach the 3-D issue? 3-d's dog slow, even on supported hardware (eg: nVidia). But to what you accuse me of, it's MY fault X runs slow....
Re:Let the flames begin ... and ignore them.
on
XFree86 4.3.0 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
---Since this is a story about X, all of the pre-programmed Slashbots are going to trot out and declare that X is broken, old, badly designed, missing features, whatever.
Usually when there's complaints from a wide amount of people, it's "the people" you trust. Not the few who complain about the complainers. If anything, it has too many features. I believe we insult/harass/jeer at MS for doing the similar thing to Windows/Office. Called something like creeping featurism....... BUT it's different when we're talking about XFree86 cause it's LINUX stuff.
---Meanwhile, the XFree86 team continues, release after release, to pound out great code that addresses all of the shortcomings people tend to cite.
Yeah, it IS getting faster...
---Faster direct rendering? Check. Anti-aliased text? Check. Multi-head? Check. Video extensions? Check.
I'll give you those.
---3-D? Check.
Yeah right. 3-D on linux/Xfree SUCK ASS. Want compairsons? Go play X game (with port to linux) on windows and then play it on Linux. You get shit for framerates, and dont tell me you're different.
---Do you see a pattern here? X is versatile. X is extensible. X is the industry standard -- all Unix GUI programs use it.
Yeah, and all good games are out for Windows. Windows games are the industry standard. (sound dumb? same way you sound with X)
---And as always, X's killer feature is its network transparency.
That's its ONLY major feature. My overall performance isnt worth "network transparency". And even at that, the X protocol wastes a load of bandwidth.
---No "desktop-within-a-desktop" nonsense like you have to do on other platforms. Today I had the windows of programs from no less than three different computers running on my desktop.
And you're 1 out of how many??? You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC. Uses a bunch of less bandwidth too.
---Transparently. Lots of X users do this every day, usually without even thinking about it.
Like I said, use TightVNC.
---Perhaps someday the tired old "X is obsolete and must be replaced" will finally cease. But today is probably not that day. Let the flames begin. I will ignore them and continue to praise the XFree86 developers for another job well done.
How about modularizing the obsolete crap (like the XT module in the linux kernel) or pulling the garbage out altogether? MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. Now take that nice dual cpu motherboard and slap linux on that with a well-supported XFree video card. XFree runs like shit. It feels klunky and laggy. And no, I'm not using KDE to use as a test. I'm using TWM. The smallest gui manager out there.
>>Intel's most important chipset in nearly a decade
>Of course, because this will be the first chipset to fail in the marketplace >because computers are already fast enough for businesses, and gamers already have >overkill. The first market failure is always an important landmark.
If anything, I'd like to see an addon vector processor for high speed math. G4 motherboards have them under an Altivec core instruction set. I would also want the ability to directly program (in chip asm) to do misc functions.
Personally, they can take this waffle-chip and shove it. If anything, I'd want an architechure where EVERYTHING's on a very high speed, very high bandwidth quad-plane bus with basic controllable logic. You put drive cards on it,gfx cards, sound cards, network cards, memory on it, cpu's on it.. anything. It would be the backbone of the system where anything would go. You could build a simple scan/bootstrap code to find what devices do what. It could be a simple hex line of simple "whatis information". To those who say this isnt possible, I believe the Altair 8800 used this similar architechure. You want a "beowulf"system, add 1 drive controller, and rest cpu controllers. BAM! You now have insta-BeoBox. You could also add DIFFERENT CPU architechures with this system, given they coincide to your bus setup (including the altivec and x86like one I want).
I didn't read "anything" as you so well put it. I read what you posted and responded to it. Perhaps you ought to get better vocabulary.
---I NEVER wrote windows ANYWHERE. I wrote PC, as in "Personal Computer".
It's not what you just "wrote" but what you also imply with overtones. You implied Windows and possibly Mac.
---Comparing 500 personal computers to a bunch of X Servers is stupid.
Really?
---Being unable to tell the difference between "Personal Computer" and "Windows" is just moronic.
Can you?
---Nearly everything I wrote requires a Personal Computer.
A lot of what you said can be done with a terminal. Perhaps not a dedicated terminal, but tunneling ssh X calls so that you're running a terminal to the server, and running client stuff. Then again, I fail to see why you need a PC to run IM stuff.
---Almost nothing I wrote about requires Windows. Get your head out of your ass.
You dont buy COTS software for Solaris, HP-UX or any other 'non-standard' system. You buy COTS for Windows (and rarely mac). Perhaps you ought to see what you're writing before posting ramblings like that. People might take you seriously. And there's no reason to cuss either, fucktard*.
---Seriously though - while I might agree with not boycotting Amazon, please explain what you mean by boycotting software patents without boycotting the companies that employ them.
What I mean is that the USPTO OK's patents that are blatant pieces of garbage, or are heavily used before patent owner company throws a fit. For one, I mention the DVD/MPEG2 patents. So what, there's innovation there, but is that 'fair' that the mpeg 2 encoding is such encumbered, or that CSS locks the buyers out of their rightful material? Fraunhofer recently threw a fit that Red Hat had an MP3 coded in XMMS and other players. EXCUSE ME?! How long did they leave that patent out in the pasture? Then when others (read OGG) try and come up with a non-MP3 type algorithym, they claim that you encoded using principials we USED AND OWN.
What I'm reffering to is BLANTANTLY go against these patents. If you dont do much programming, offer static binaries of XINE that have EVERYTHING YOU NEED. The same goes with MPlayer and every other player/ripper. Also, make tools that work with MPlayer and allow you to use MEncoder to convert using some pretty GUI tool for the newbies to Linux. Make violating the software patents easy to do.
What's nice is if you could get the firmware of the XBox and PS2 and disseminate them with MD5 sums. The best thing is to sabotage software patent efforts.
---I don't understand. They're comparing a bunch of X Servers versus a bunch of Dell PC's?
That's what it seems. Yeah, I know. The compairison sucks.
---What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What? Lopster and XMMS arent good enough for him?
---What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
There's already good sync software for Linux. Just un-endorsed. Hell, They might actually make a "legit" tool if stuff like this happens.
---What about the guy who's using Messenger?
There's buttloads of tools for IM on Linux.
---What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
In limited cases, WIndows is the only answer for now. But as sysad, you could put heavy pressure on a company who does such.
---What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
Get him a Mac. Most unix dudes could get one working.
---What about the guy who wants to run mid-priced shrink wrapped applications like Mathematica or MATLAB or IDL (all probably less than $10,000 for a single user license, but could get expensive for a big machine).
---What about the guy who runs small simulations -- the kind of thing a reasonable desktop could do in an evening or a weekend? People who run computer centers often complain about 40 hours of computer time on the big boxes.
Help his department build a small cluster for job crunching. COuld even be a "beowulf" cluster if his apps support it. Then he could 'job' out time to other departments. That'll avoid cpu munchers on the main system.
---In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
How about the flexibility of "use the tool that works for the job"? Trust me, you really dont NEED windows anymore.Look at all 3 links at your Math program question.
I dont know if anybody heard (and/. wont post any good articles on PBS) but Mr. Rogers on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood has died today of stomach cancer. Talk about someone who's influencial. I've watched PBS since the beginning, and when I was a kid, that was one of my favorite shows (age 4-7).
---But the whole problem is the history of MS patches, I fell perfectly comfortable patching a test *nix computer and going to prod within a few hours. With windows I will have to start at the dev level because 7/10 time it will break something else and the developers need to fix it, then to test and god willing to prod the next day.
2: Make evry program simpele minded so the next stupid program can take over..
Chances are if something actually does break, you can easily regress because you know that programs dont squash each others' feet. You just back up the new configs, replace the old configs, and replace the old program. All in all, it isnt that hard at all.
In the MS world, things bumble over each other, configs are kept in a hard to control place (registry), and regressing certain server software is darn near impossible, without backups. Things are almost guaranteed to break in patches cause they usually add stuff in patches. Then the new+old stuff breaks. MS software is made easy for a limited set of users. Any user who "doesnt want it that way" has to hunt on Microsoft.com or call them up (heh). And chances are, there's bugs to prevent "that way".
Slashdot Mirror
---For starters, this is a bit offtopic considering that this patent is a design patent and has absolutetly nothing to do with software.
The patent itself is moot, because art is covered under COPYRIGHT LAW.
---Secondly, and more importantly, whats so evil about software patents?
I never said that. What's evil is a government organization is OK'ing patents on damn near every aspect of computing. They dont care if it has prior art or not. If we had a decent system where all patents were checked for consistency and prior art, we wouldnt be in this situation.
---I happen to hold a software patent for an idea that I'm currently marketing. If it werent for the patent I would have _NO CHANCE_ at making any money on my idea. As a result, I would have had no reason to spend the thousands of hours researching it. **THE IDEA WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY**
You have to do that, as well as everybody else. Still the point is that the software patent sector is crumbling under its own weight, and rapidly.
---It is completely unique and highly fuctional. How is this any different than designing a new device? If it has function and is unique it has function and is unique.
A device has a purpose and is physical. Software is simply equasions... math. SHould I be able to "patent" calculus, or the pythagorean theorem, or hell.... even addition? If anything, software patents should be limited to very complex equasions with source included. In that guarantee, they will have royalties delivered to whomever uses that source. Also, a very limited patent time should also be given. Personally, no more than 5 Years.
---Why is the fact that its a patent on software make it evil?
It's the corruption already in the system. Not the patent itself.
ANd I still say we should boycott the idea of "Software Patents" in general.
Intellectual property, in limit, should be patentable. The original idea was to provide governmental protection for inventors given they FULLY PUBLISH the idea set forth in the patent if and only if that "object" is non-intuitive.
What's turned out is software patents patenting damn near everything in sight. Who cares if it's new or not. These days, making software is becoming a legal minefield, and the USPTO isnt helping (dump dump dump). Even the process of playing a DVD you own can violate 10's of patents. That's why MPlayer is off the US shore.
So, I'm not against intelluctal property, but am against software patents until the UPSTO starts heavily regulating those types. Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.
Is I'm looking at a Slashdot ad of Xerox.
fp
---I know the tough questions to ask in a "discussion", but this thread is not so much about the rights/wrongs of religion as it is about the tendency of C-hurch to want to control or censor others.
:-)
;-)
Too true. It happens on many faucets. You have Wal-Mart (Sam Walton?)selling stuff based on a morality clause, and what they buy and dont can break a business. Blockbuster severly edits 'choice' films for _proper_ consumption. The list goes on and on. That's on the wide scale. On the local scale, middle and high schoolers are raided by radical parents who the schools are teaching "choice" things, or the school isnt regulating certain behaviors (like playing card games/RPG's at lunch). I've actually had a substitute teacher come to my table and start preaching at us (me in particular) that Magic:The Gathering was going to "SEND US TO HELL!!" We all just shrugged her off and went on our way playing that game. What else could we do? We were high schoolers, she had position of power (as teacher).
---You being thumped for your hobbies (all of which I share) is a prime example. The witchhunts of recent times (D&D with Mazes&Monsters, the ignorance (I still can't cast spells with my M:TG cards),
What I thought was funny is when they said AD&D caused suicides. What they didnt do is to compare the suicide rate of RPG'ers to the US average. The difference was exponentially lower for AD&D players.
---and the tendency to hold back any knowledge that doesn't perfectly mesh with the T-ruth (evolution and Darwinism) nicely highlight my worry about religions getting access to a database of "sinners".
I still dont believe in true evolution. Too many holes (like, where's the link from the apes to humans?). Neither do I believe in what happens in Genesis. Great story though. I simply throw the thoery of hwo we all got here in choice 3: Not Enough Information.
I still ask myself, how did all of this stuff pop up here? I thought that matter/energy couldnt be created, and yet here it is. There's thoeries of 10D universes and other funny super-physics (hawking crap). Still, nothing to formly explain how all this material/energy popped up here.
---Remember, abortion doctors have been gunned down after their privacy was compromised...
I know. I have my own belifs about abortion (hate it) but you dont kill somebody just because they killed. That's just not justification. Seriously, I dont know what IS justification for even legitimate death penalty cases. The cost of the state murdering somebody costs 3X more than if they have life sentance. It's also hard to give somebody a reprieve if they're in the ground (they really didnt do it).
Still, my belifs are that all doctors should have MANDATORY state lookups for medical practices. Just as we look at hardware listings to compare prices and goods, I want to do the same with doctors. I also want no way a doctor can eliminate fraud, lawsuits, and settlements from his "rap sheet".
Remember, murder is ILLEGAL And yes, I disagree with the abortion-only doctor list. Reading the websites they were hosted on made it look like a hit-list. Guess what? They were.
And there is no privacy in the US anymore. Check out Lexis-Nexis if you dont believe me (and some of it scares the shit outta me).
And I've lost count of how many times I'm going to hell, the rules seem to change every week.
"If you dont believ me, you go to hell!!!"
"I'd rather go to YOUR HELL if I dont have to hear your yapping mouth anymore!"
(I've actually said that response...)
SO you also have a problem with C-hurch goers (aka thumpers)?
;-)
;-) What about you?
Here's a hint on how to deal with them. Read the bible.. I didnt say BELIEVE it. That's what thumpers' only weapon is. And if taken out of context, the bible contradicts itself quite a bit.
After you best them in an argument of "religion", make a snide comment how I'm ATHEIST and I know more about the Bible than you do!!
Really pisses them off
Btw, I'm Catholic, and I get thumped for playing AD&D, M:TG and various pc games (Unreal-like games, NWN, and others). So far, I'm going to hell 7 times
-- Hi! I'm a shareware signature. If you use me send $5. Send $10 for the manual.
:
The crack for that shareware signatue is
l33t name: tHe sLaShDoT crEw
serial numbaz: 3C5H1-J00RX-412AZ-B4URN-F5CKA
WHoop-te-shit. They have nukes. What nation (that wants them) doesnt already have them? Prettty much all of them. Still, I'd not worry about Chinese nukes. They could just overrun any country they see fit. They ONLY have 1/4 of the WORLD's population.
>No. Redmond Linux is now Lycoris.
;-)
Sorry. Brainfart. I actually forgot about Lycoris(h) Linux
Other than that, I still stand by the other things I said. (even if I am
wrong.. oops)
>Lindows very well may be doing just that. They're targetting people who dont know
>any better than to think Lindows means "Lite Windows", or some such.
And, remember they changed their names. Wasn't Lindows called "Redmond Linux"
first?
>Their website is deliberately designed to look like MS's marketing material, and is
>completely misleading as to what Lindows is, costs, and is capable of.
Yes, and no. It LOOKS like a windows copy, but if you go to the FAQ, they say it's
a distro of Linux. It's pretty deep though for most non-techies to not notice.
>IMHO, Lindows is a sleazy company. I've had enough of get-rich-quick startups and
>scams, and could give a crap who their in court with. The enemy of my enemy is
>not my friend. I hope the judge rules that Lindows is in fault, because they are
>seeking to deliberately trick consumers into buying their product.
Damn straight. Even Lindows sounds phonetically like Windows. I hope they burn,
unless they change their name. MS does have a bad rap, but let THEM have the bad
rap. It's their name.
Be the SECOND remote root hole for OpenBSD users?
>And that, in my opinion, is what separates Great Hackers from the myriad of
>wannabes. I'm definitely a wannabe.
No, sir. YOu are not a wannabe. Go check out usenet:alt.hacking.* and look for
"Hotmail Hax0rz", "Warez", "Mail haxorz", "DOS", and other usual keywords
associated to 'have-no-clue-but-must-impress-my-friends' wanabees. If you have a
clue, you're already out of that category.
>I'm proficient at everything I do, but I'll never spend the (quite possibly small
>number of) hours actually finding out why that string crashes xterm, and maybe
>doing something useful with it. The rewards are definitely there,
The big key there is "why". That's what gives master hackers their edge. The
thirst of knowledge hanging just above their head, waiting to be plucked. But
how do you pluck it? Do you just rush to it, squishing it in your hands, licking
the residue from your palm? No.. you cherish and understand it. But you don't
give up. If that means asking for help from somebody more learned in that
area... Anything to solve that problem.
>and I've tasted
>their sweetness in flashes of inspiration, but I just don't have it.
But you've never tasted the sweetness of power sitting at a console with remote
root, gotten accidently by noticing and exploiting a 'weird bug'?
>What is it? I don't know. I don't suspect that I ever will, in this particular
>field. I think that I might just have it in another field (racing cars), but I
>think it's likely that I'll be Just Proficient at that, too, much as I have
>been at most everything for my whole life. And that's a pretty depressing
>thought.
Oh, is it? Look at your skills as a stat with a library of different happenings.
Who else here, let alone else in the world has your exact skill set and
memories? Nobody.
And so what, you'll be 'just proficient' in computing. That's way above the
average. Many people have a hard time of understanding "double click" or basic
computer terms. Put together and exploit what you do know and become an expert
in your field of knowledge. That'll get you respect, and access to more
information.
This sounds really cool, but knowing the way quality has dropped on "consumer" drives, I'd put this in a 1+0. I'd deal with .9 TB for data protection, expessially on 1 year warranty drives.
I know this'll pull out the SCSI bigots, but the only reason SCSI is good these days is cause they're tested for longer times (disk media is better quality).
(seen as quote on bottom of slashdot page as of 2.32 am....)
OS/2 Must Die!
>Your own glowing testimonial is not exactly a balanced review of the real
;-)
>product.
In terms of usefulness with Linux, it isn't priceless (cause MetroX has a
price.. too much)
>But perhaps people like yourself, who are willing to give the X developers the
>accolades they so richly deserve, are necessary to counterbalance the people who
>only see the bad points of X.
Good and bad points are determined to what features people use. I have gripes to
how X is used and such, only because I use it all the time.
>There are good and bad things that can be said about X-windows, but I don't think
>anybody that is paying attention would have anything but praise for the people
>who have worked so hard to make it as useable as it is.
I'eve used a bit of the network transparent setup on 100BT switched. It's
wonderful, but all the tools I use on Linux have a command line function (or a
Windows clone).
>On the other hand, I can honestly say that Xwindows is the only piece of
>software that ever caused my monitor to literally catch on fire. Gave me a very
>strong incentive to RTFM, I must say.
Heh, I'v eactually induced that on a known bad monitor. The tube could only
reach the top 1/2 of the screen because of tube malfunction. Since I've got a
scad of monitors (about 10), I took it and took horiz to 200 Hz on a 50-100 Hz
monitor. Pfffft. Didnt catch fire, but the magic smoke was let out
That's when I respected Linux in terms of hardware management.
>Well, I did that, with Q3 and the Quakeforge. I get better framerates in Linux
>than WinXP. It's possible the 3dfx Banshee windows drivers just suck, but at
>least for me it works better (and no annoying BSOD either).
That's one thing.. The GLIDE grivers absolutely rocked. I've been looking for a
voodoo 2/3 card for one of my linux systems, but nobody I know wants to sell them.
And I do see why.
> Now under WineX, well, everything's slow. But hey, I didn't expect much seeing
>that my machine doesn't meet the minimum requirements.
Oh well. It's API emulation. I dont blame them for that.. I'm happy to have
limited MS gui x86 binary support.
>Really? I'll admit that the mouse isn't quite as responsive under X, and I didn't
>ever run Win98 on the same machine, but my P233 with 64MB and a lowly S3Virge
>seemed to run just fine.
The mouse, for me is a biggie, along with moving objects. In terms of GUI's, I
prefer Windowmaker or KDE (kde on beefy machines). When I'm in console, nothing
seems slow at all. Programs seem snappy and all, but when I hit X, feels like
I'm moving through a pool of water.
>It took a little while to load KDE but GNOME was quite
>responsive (with TWM even). Of course, I didn't have much running, just squid,
>dante, sshd and X. Mozilla was a bit slow, but you can't blame that on X... I was
>running a fairly low resolution though, maybe that was the difference.
I usually run at 1024x768 at 16bpp. If I'm correct, it would lag a s3Virge a
bit. But I would not expect to lag a ATI (4MB-pci) rage, or a 128 All in wonder
(32mb-AGP), or a Matrox Millenium 2 (8MB-agp). The gui was faster on faster
cards (of course), but that slowness was still there.
Ever since 2 years ago, I decided I'd switch over to Linux/Xfree and stick there
(with windows gaming exception). I've learnt and dealt with it, but 3-d GL and
response speed are 2 of the biggest problems, at least with me.
I have nothing against the transparency of XFree has with networks, but I'd like
a simple way to "rmmod" out unneded chunks. I could do without the networking
part of X, but another user needs network but doesnt want the 3-d section.
>>My overall performance isnt worth "network transparency".
>Well, so tell us: in what way are Windows or Macintosh OS X supposed to be more
>efficient? Where are these great gains in efficiency in their architecture
>supposed to come from? I mean, it can't be the use of IPC or system calls for
>the application to communicate with a graphics server: Windows and Macintosh
>have that as well.
I haven't much experience with OSX, but with Windows... KDE/Gnome/Windowmaker
all feel klunky with dealing with any type of object (window, icon, pointer).
Sometimes, it's like I'm hauling the pointer through tar (and even when I've
turned up the mouse response speed: nothing helps).I've also had the chance to
use Sun's Xwindowing system. It was a Sparc10 bought used. I used the windowing
system on it, and for some reason, repsonse was noticibally better. And that was
what.. a 120MHz sparc chip with onboard graphics? Windows has that non-klunky
feel, as does the Amiga. I feel comfortable with either windowing system. Xfree
seems to act against my movements (or if I was in a pool of water slowly moving
from the sway).
And even with the (older and) newer Xfree86'es, I STILL have the "page tear
effect" in many applications. Even in Mozilla. I'm sure I'm not the only one
(and if I am, how do I fix that)?
>In reality, there is no fundamental difference in the client/server window
>system architecture between OS X and Linux. For NT, there is a difference:
>large chunks of the windowing code have moved into the kernel ad some point,
>but you still need system calls to talk to it. Of course, there is nothing to
>stop anybody from moving X11 into the kernel.
I didn't say there was an architechure difference. Like I said at the end,
perhaps they ought to use a very heavy module-like system like the way Linux is
done (compile basic graphics systems in, but modularize the network-only stuff).
Perhaps even have loading on demand...
>Overall, the idea that network transparency is some sort of special feature
>that one pays a high price for is nonsense: all major desktop operating systems
>run in protected mode, and most GUI applications run in a different context
>from the window system. X11 simply has been designed that way from the ground
>up, while Windows and Macintosh have evolved there from "direct mode" graphics.
>Network transparency in X11 is not so much an issue of IPC or how it does
>graphics--it uses IPC like all desktop windowing systems--but in having
>well-defined network transparent support for features like window management
>and configuration information. It's lack of those features in Windows and OS X
>that means that Windows and OS X are not network transparent.
>In practice, XFree86 is a damned efficient window system that, when it has
>comparable drivers for the graphics cards, beats OS X handily in terms of
>performance and memory usage, and usually even beats Windows.
I've used a decently wide selection of graphics cards, and they all have that
"move through water" feeling. I do like the newer features included in 4.3. Dont
get me wrong.. but there's something just 'not quite right'.
>>You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC.
>TightVNC gives you a "screen on another computer". It does not give you network
>transparent windowing. If you are running a well-designed X11 desktop, you can
>run applications on any machine, and they will behave as if run locally. You
>can also move individual windows between machines and displays. Of course,
>Gnome and KDE both break this behavior, but that's not X11's fault.
I know what the VNC suite of tools allow you to do and NOT to do. I also know
that X wastes a bunch on bandwidth that Tight VNX saves. Try that
"oh-so-nice-network-transparency" over a modem. I have, and it sucks compared to
how snappy a 640x480 8bit black background screen transfers over EVEN regular
VNC.
>>MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. XFree runs like shit. It
>>feels klunky and laggy.
>That's a ludicrous claim. X11 worked reasonably well on 1988 hardware already.
>X11 servers obviously can run like a charm on 1998 hardware, hardware that's
>more than an order of magnitude faster.
I still stand by what I said. Go get a copy of WIn98, and a
feature-equilavalent copy of Linux with X and managers. Now go get similar
hardware (say 350MHz p2 with 4 MB matrox card), along with duplicating similar
features for each. I bet, 9 times out of 10, Win98 will seem to run better than
Linux/Xfree.
>And that's also what one finds in practice: Windows 98 requires much more
>hardware (memory, CPU power) to run than Linux/XFree86. If you claim were
>having a problem with Linux/XFree86, either you are making it up, or you had a
>bad driver, or you misconfigured something.
No, Under the similar feature set of the 2, Win98 (and similar) will respond
faster. You still have to deal with nasty crashes, programs directly reading ram
it shouldnt, and other stability issues.
Still, why didnt you approach the 3-D issue? 3-d's dog slow, even on supported
hardware (eg: nVidia). But to what you accuse me of, it's MY fault X runs
slow....
---Since this is a story about X, all of the pre-programmed Slashbots are going to trot out and declare that X is broken, old, badly designed, missing features, whatever.
Usually when there's complaints from a wide amount of people, it's "the people" you trust. Not the few who complain about the complainers. If anything, it has too many features. I believe we insult/harass/jeer at MS for doing the similar thing to Windows/Office. Called something like creeping featurism....... BUT it's different when we're talking about XFree86 cause it's LINUX stuff.
---Meanwhile, the XFree86 team continues, release after release, to pound out great code that addresses all of the shortcomings people tend to cite.
Yeah, it IS getting faster...
---Faster direct rendering? Check. Anti-aliased text? Check. Multi-head? Check. Video extensions? Check.
I'll give you those.
---3-D? Check.
Yeah right. 3-D on linux/Xfree SUCK ASS. Want compairsons? Go play X game (with port to linux) on windows and then play it on Linux. You get shit for framerates, and dont tell me you're different.
---Do you see a pattern here? X is versatile. X is extensible. X is the industry standard -- all Unix GUI programs use it.
Yeah, and all good games are out for Windows. Windows games are the industry standard. (sound dumb? same way you sound with X)
---And as always, X's killer feature is its network transparency.
That's its ONLY major feature. My overall performance isnt worth "network transparency". And even at that, the X protocol wastes a load of bandwidth.
---No "desktop-within-a-desktop" nonsense like you have to do on other platforms. Today I had the windows of programs from no less than three different computers running on my desktop.
And you're 1 out of how many??? You need screen on another computer, use TightVNC. Uses a bunch of less bandwidth too.
---Transparently. Lots of X users do this every day, usually without even thinking about it.
Like I said, use TightVNC.
---Perhaps someday the tired old "X is obsolete and must be replaced" will finally cease. But today is probably not that day. Let the flames begin. I will ignore them and continue to praise the XFree86 developers for another job well done.
How about modularizing the obsolete crap (like the XT module in the linux kernel) or pulling the garbage out altogether? MSWindows 98 is snappy, even on quite old hardware. Now take that nice dual cpu motherboard and slap linux on that with a well-supported XFree video card. XFree runs like shit. It feels klunky and laggy. And no, I'm not using KDE to use as a test. I'm using TWM. The smallest gui manager out there.
>>Intel's most important chipset in nearly a decade
>Of course, because this will be the first chipset to fail in the marketplace
>because computers are already fast enough for businesses, and gamers already have
>overkill. The first market failure is always an important landmark.
If anything, I'd like to see an addon vector processor for high speed math. G4
motherboards have them under an Altivec core instruction set. I would also want
the ability to directly program (in chip asm) to do misc functions.
Personally, they can take this waffle-chip and shove it. If anything, I'd want
an architechure where EVERYTHING's on a very high speed, very high bandwidth
quad-plane bus with basic controllable logic. You put drive cards on it,gfx
cards, sound cards, network cards, memory on it, cpu's on it.. anything. It
would be the backbone of the system where anything would go. You could build a
simple scan/bootstrap code to find what devices do what. It could be a simple
hex line of simple "whatis information". To those who say this isnt possible, I
believe the Altair 8800 used this similar architechure. You want a
"beowulf"system, add 1 drive controller, and rest cpu controllers. BAM! You now
have insta-BeoBox. You could also add DIFFERENT CPU architechures with this
system, given they coincide to your bus setup (including the altivec and x86like
one I want).
Mother Earth raped again. Guess who?
:george carlin
thug: She was ASKIN' for it!
---Perhaps you should *READ* anything I wrote.
I didn't read "anything" as you so well put it. I read what you posted and responded to it. Perhaps you ought to get better vocabulary.
---I NEVER wrote windows ANYWHERE. I wrote PC, as in "Personal Computer".
It's not what you just "wrote" but what you also imply with overtones. You implied Windows and possibly Mac.
---Comparing 500 personal computers to a bunch of X Servers is stupid.
Really?
---Being unable to tell the difference between "Personal Computer" and "Windows" is just moronic.
Can you?
---Nearly everything I wrote requires a Personal Computer.
A lot of what you said can be done with a terminal. Perhaps not a dedicated terminal, but tunneling ssh X calls so that you're running a terminal to the server, and running client stuff. Then again, I fail to see why you need a PC to run IM stuff.
---Almost nothing I wrote about requires Windows. Get your head out of your ass.
You dont buy COTS software for Solaris, HP-UX or any other 'non-standard' system. You buy COTS for Windows (and rarely mac). Perhaps you ought to see what you're writing before posting ramblings like that. People might take you seriously. And there's no reason to cuss either, fucktard*.
|
|
|
*Real mature-looking, ain't it?
---Seriously though - while I might agree with not boycotting Amazon, please explain what you mean by boycotting software patents without boycotting the companies that employ them.
What I mean is that the USPTO OK's patents that are blatant pieces of garbage, or are heavily used before patent owner company throws a fit. For one, I mention the DVD/MPEG2 patents. So what, there's innovation there, but is that 'fair' that the mpeg 2 encoding is such encumbered, or that CSS locks the buyers out of their rightful material? Fraunhofer recently threw a fit that Red Hat had an MP3 coded in XMMS and other players. EXCUSE ME?! How long did they leave that patent out in the pasture? Then when others (read OGG) try and come up with a non-MP3 type algorithym, they claim that you encoded using principials we USED AND OWN.
What I'm reffering to is BLANTANTLY go against these patents. If you dont do much programming, offer static binaries of XINE that have EVERYTHING YOU NEED. The same goes with MPlayer and every other player/ripper. Also, make tools that work with MPlayer and allow you to use MEncoder to convert using some pretty GUI tool for the newbies to Linux. Make violating the software patents easy to do.
What's nice is if you could get the firmware of the XBox and PS2 and disseminate them with MD5 sums. The best thing is to sabotage software patent efforts.
---I don't understand. They're comparing a bunch of X Servers versus a bunch of Dell PC's?
That's what it seems. Yeah, I know. The compairison sucks.
---What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What? Lopster and XMMS arent good enough for him?
---What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
There's already good sync software for Linux. Just un-endorsed. Hell, They might actually make a "legit" tool if stuff like this happens.
---What about the guy who's using Messenger?
There's buttloads of tools for IM on Linux.
---What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
In limited cases, WIndows is the only answer for now. But as sysad, you could put heavy pressure on a company who does such.
---What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
Get him a Mac. Most unix dudes could get one working.
---What about the guy who wants to run mid-priced shrink wrapped applications like Mathematica or MATLAB or IDL (all probably less than $10,000 for a single user license, but could get expensive for a big machine).
OK... Your point ?
---What about the guy who runs small simulations -- the kind of thing a reasonable desktop could do in an evening or a weekend? People who run computer centers often complain about 40 hours of computer time on the big boxes.
Help his department build a small cluster for job crunching. COuld even be a "beowulf" cluster if his apps support it. Then he could 'job' out time to other departments. That'll avoid cpu munchers on the main system.
---In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
How about the flexibility of "use the tool that works for the job"? Trust me, you really dont NEED windows anymore.Look at all 3 links at your Math program question.
I dont know if anybody heard (and /. wont post any good articles on PBS) but Mr. Rogers on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood has died today of stomach cancer. Talk about someone who's influencial. I've watched PBS since the beginning, and when I was a kid, that was one of my favorite shows (age 4-7).
We'll miss ya'.. Google news link
Even better is if you channel all your encrypted data and add fake html tags to it. If some device goes and picks it apart, they wont have a clue.
---But the whole problem is the history of MS patches, I fell perfectly comfortable patching a test *nix computer and going to prod within a few hours. With windows I will have to start at the dev level because 7/10 time it will break something else and the developers need to fix it, then to test and god willing to prod the next day.
Well, that all comes down to the basic tenants of unix.
1: Use text files. Easier to manipulate and edit.
2: Make evry program simpele minded so the next stupid program can take over..
Chances are if something actually does break, you can easily regress because you know that programs dont squash each others' feet. You just back up the new configs, replace the old configs, and replace the old program. All in all, it isnt that hard at all.
In the MS world, things bumble over each other, configs are kept in a hard to control place (registry), and regressing certain server software is darn near impossible, without backups. Things are almost guaranteed to break in patches cause they usually add stuff in patches. Then the new+old stuff breaks. MS software is made easy for a limited set of users. Any user who "doesnt want it that way" has to hunt on Microsoft.com or call them up (heh). And chances are, there's bugs to prevent "that way".