You are correct. However most EULAs have also got the weasel out clauses built into them.
Relative enforcibility is a different matter. It's pretty easy to say that this vacuum cleaner I bought, isn't fit for purposes, and make an assertion/demonstration as to why. It's a bit harder with a piece of software that 'works-ish'.
Which, lets face it, is pretty disgusting behaviour from someone selling you a product. I mean, imagine the uproar at someone who sold cars under that basis.
But hey, they all do it, so at least it's _expected_ that you'll end up with a pile of bug laden rubbish.
Agreed. If you're both serious about the product and the sale, then run an eval. It takes some effort replicating your production environment, to a level where you can put this product 'in parallel' to see how it copes, but it's worth it, for exactly the reasons outlined above.
Sadly all too often, bosses don't see the 'value' of a test environment. There's plenty of large companies out there, that do, and they don't do it just because they like to waste money - My current employer buys everything in 4s. One for dev, one for testing/acceptance, one for production and one for disaster recovery.
Seems a bit wasteful, but the first time your test environment gets blatted by a 'major issue' you will cry tears of joy that you didn't have your production environment running that.
Actually, I'm fairly sure 'Fit for purposes' is defined in various sources of consumer rights, in various legislatures.
Sadly, it seems that IT is mostly exempt.
Or maybe it's just that _my_ definition of 'fit for purpose' which goes something like 'isn't flakey, unreliable and does wierd things' is slighty different from theirs 'operates as advertised in at least 5% of possible usage scenarios for at least 5% of the time'
Sadly so. Almost any product out there has bugs. If you're lucky, the really sucky ones are already gone. But only if you're lucky. I have memories of a NAS upgrade, that resulted in 8 TB of 'possibly corrupt' data, over long enough interval that just restoring a 'known good' backup just wasn't an option.
I'm afraid it's normal that 'new toys' have problems. Your only way of really avoiding, or at least migating this is to stay one release behind the latest and greatest. You've got good odds that by the time the 'next release' is finished, most of the real killer gotchas will have been found.
In part, it's laziness in testing. In part, it's the simple fact that it's definitely non-trivial to exhaustively test something in teh kind of intensive environment you see in the 'real world'. Things like race conditions typically don't occur often enough to be noticed in testing, but will start to crop up often enough to be a real problem in the real world.
Acceptable? No, not really. Fairly commonplace? Hell yeah.
Don't trust any.0 release. Don't trust anything that's sold to you as the 'newest and feature laden'. Ask yourself if you _really_ need that totally new and cool (and therefore almost certainly not properly tested) feature, or if actually, a revision or two back would do what you need.
With the best will in the world, a test environment will never really compete with a couple of hundred thousand people using it, for finding 'problems'.
You will almost certainly find that the EULA also includes a get out clause for exactly this kind of behaviour.
Well, a ringworld can generate gravity by rotation (ok, it's not gravity, but you know what I mean).
Never really got how you were supposed to do that with a dyson sphere though. I mean, surely you'd have 'high' gravity at the equator, some further out, but as you started to hit the axis of rotation, you lose/reduce your gravitational effects and air pressure.
OK, so I appreciate it might be useful to have lowgrav, but I can't help but feel that you'd end up with most of your sphere (by volume) with not being especially habitable. Unlike a ringworld.
Been playing EVE 2 years myself. Would have to say I disagree (obviously).
EVE _isn't_ to everyone's tastes, this is true. But it truly does have some features that serve to differentiate it - whether you like that or not, is a different matter
It's a player driven game. This to me, is a big thing. There's wars raging across EVE at the moment, and it's players, going after other players, and the changes that are happening, are permanent. No one's going to reset the battlefield.
The very fact that resources are finite, and unfair is what appeals to me. I don't like the idea of everyone queuing for their fair share - I do that in supermarkets, I don't want to do that in games.
EVE is a real time strategy game. You generate resources, and use them to build your stuff. You actually lead, and get your corp to co-operate behind a singular strategy, and then you start to become a 'power' in the game. And then you go out, and take control of some real estate, and use it as a foothold to further boost your organisation.
I like that, but... well some day I can see the appeal of a no stress evening killing orcs.
Same skills that make him able to lead alliances, build titans, and generally be a solid bloke (and he is) are also the same things that would make him a good GM.
And since becoming a GM, I know for a fact he's been taking a step back from 'Alliance business'. Didn't realise why at the time of course, but...
'exposing' him so his main character is deleted is just... unbelievably crass.
I don't see the problem. Devs play the game, and experience it in the same way as the rest of the player base. OK, cheating incident = bad. *shrug* in a general sense though, so what? I don't think I've been in the same system as a dev. I don't know, but... well frankly I don't care.
Does it really seem so strange to you, that the GMs and Devs are being recruited from the enthusiastic and focussed EVE players? The same traits that make them able to be a 'power' in EVE, are the same traits that make them good choices for the job.
Then again, I suppose it's always easier to blame someone cheating than it is to accept they beat you fair and square.
BoB have been in EVE since day one. That's like, 3,4 years?
Over that time, they've been enthusiastic, eager and dedicated, and have a lot of high skilled and fantatical players
Lots of people are getting hung up on them being the 'big evil cheaters' but they're really not - one BPO, yeah, it's naughty, but IMO it's hardly the end of the world. I _know_ BoB have legitimately gained a LOT of very good blueprints. There is a reason most of the alliance PvPs in HACs for example.
They're not supermen, they're just enthusiastic and focussed.
Mining and hauling are baseline staples, but I find combat missions and ratting are much more to my taste. Which is what I ended up doing right early on when I was a newbie. Some steady cash from the pay, and the odd 'win' as you net a tasty module.
EVE's really a lot of fun, once you get out of crap corps, and you get out of empire.
Contrary to popular belief, 0.0 isn't all filled with hardcore elite griefers. The 'things' that let you get by are far more about attitude and use of brain, than they are about how many sps or isks you have.
Which is part of the appeal. I can also under stand though, that it's not to everyone's taste. I mean, in EVE, if you don't go looking for stuff to do, it won't find you. So you'll sit there, getting bored, waiting for 'things to happen'. And unless you piss someone off, it won't.
Actually, I'm pretty certain that a fairly large fraction of CCP employees are _not_ in BoB. The thing is, I think it's important to have them all involved. Because then they get to see first hand, what's relevant to the players. What's more likely to get fixed, realistically - someone bitching on the forums about lag, or first hand experience by a dev. Lets face it, it's way harder to get 1000 people together to 'test' on Singularity.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm pretty certain most of the forums out there that are run by a company have limited tolerance for people slagging off the company in question.
*shrug* to each their own. Personally I think the whole affair is being dragged about with all together more drama than's entirely necessary, but I'll admit I've only a peripheral interest.
I also think it is funny that BoB has NEVER been punished for metagaming (using pretexting to be able to post enemy message boards onto the official EVE forums and/or disrupting enemy TS/Vent channels during a war op, etc) yet Kugutsman (the whistleblower) gets banned for metagaming BoB's message board (obtaining and looking through a sql dump of their messages).
Sadly not, the meat of a carnivore is generally rather unpleasant in flavour. Not that that necessarily stops anyone, but it's no accident that if you go to any restaurant, your 'meat' is almost exclusively herbivores.
Any time you have content on the net, you'll get filth in their too.
Your suggestion is one of the first times I've seen something that might actually count as a possible solution. You'll get a _bit_ of abuse, but as long as the domain registry is reasonably pro-active about it, then... well, all well and good. I mean, it's not like most porn-mongers actually want kids looking at their stuff. For starters, they don't have credit cards...
The only real problem being that then you're in danger of a 'limited portal' that's got no real content on it at all, because to allow the 'good' stuff on the net would require a lot more overhead.
It is entirely possible to 'lock down' windows. It takes a bit longer, but... well hey, it's doable, using much the same methodology of a Unix lockdown. Remove/Uninstall/Disable everything, and re-add once piece at a time when you know there's a definite need for it.
Works fine on Windows too, with the plus point that you end up with a system that's vaguely stable.
And almost no one does it. Not because it's impossible, but because 'locked down' Windows is a total pain to use. Where 'locked down Unix' you might not notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Relative enforcibility is a different matter. It's pretty easy to say that this vacuum cleaner I bought, isn't fit for purposes, and make an assertion/demonstration as to why. It's a bit harder with a piece of software that 'works-ish'.
But hey, they all do it, so at least it's _expected_ that you'll end up with a pile of bug laden rubbish.
Sadly all too often, bosses don't see the 'value' of a test environment. There's plenty of large companies out there, that do, and they don't do it just because they like to waste money - My current employer buys everything in 4s. One for dev, one for testing/acceptance, one for production and one for disaster recovery.
Seems a bit wasteful, but the first time your test environment gets blatted by a 'major issue' you will cry tears of joy that you didn't have your production environment running that.
Sadly, it seems that IT is mostly exempt.
Or maybe it's just that _my_ definition of 'fit for purpose' which goes something like 'isn't flakey, unreliable and does wierd things' is slighty different from theirs 'operates as advertised in at least 5% of possible usage scenarios for at least 5% of the time'
I'm afraid it's normal that 'new toys' have problems. Your only way of really avoiding, or at least migating this is to stay one release behind the latest and greatest. You've got good odds that by the time the 'next release' is finished, most of the real killer gotchas will have been found.
In part, it's laziness in testing. In part, it's the simple fact that it's definitely non-trivial to exhaustively test something in teh kind of intensive environment you see in the 'real world'. Things like race conditions typically don't occur often enough to be noticed in testing, but will start to crop up often enough to be a real problem in the real world.
Acceptable? No, not really. Fairly commonplace? Hell yeah.
Don't trust any .0 release. Don't trust anything that's sold to you as the 'newest and feature laden'. Ask yourself if you _really_ need that totally new and cool (and therefore almost certainly not properly tested) feature, or if actually, a revision or two back would do what you need.
With the best will in the world, a test environment will never really compete with a couple of hundred thousand people using it, for finding 'problems'.
You will almost certainly find that the EULA also includes a get out clause for exactly this kind of behaviour.
Never really got how you were supposed to do that with a dyson sphere though. I mean, surely you'd have 'high' gravity at the equator, some further out, but as you started to hit the axis of rotation, you lose/reduce your gravitational effects and air pressure.
OK, so I appreciate it might be useful to have lowgrav, but I can't help but feel that you'd end up with most of your sphere (by volume) with not being especially habitable. Unlike a ringworld.
Or did I miss something?
EVE _isn't_ to everyone's tastes, this is true. But it truly does have some features that serve to differentiate it - whether you like that or not, is a different matter
It's a player driven game. This to me, is a big thing. There's wars raging across EVE at the moment, and it's players, going after other players, and the changes that are happening, are permanent. No one's going to reset the battlefield.
The very fact that resources are finite, and unfair is what appeals to me. I don't like the idea of everyone queuing for their fair share - I do that in supermarkets, I don't want to do that in games.
EVE is a real time strategy game. You generate resources, and use them to build your stuff. You actually lead, and get your corp to co-operate behind a singular strategy, and then you start to become a 'power' in the game. And then you go out, and take control of some real estate, and use it as a foothold to further boost your organisation.
I like that, but ... well some day I can see the appeal of a no stress evening killing orcs.
And since becoming a GM, I know for a fact he's been taking a step back from 'Alliance business'. Didn't realise why at the time of course, but ...
'exposing' him so his main character is deleted is just ... unbelievably crass.
Does it really seem so strange to you, that the GMs and Devs are being recruited from the enthusiastic and focussed EVE players? The same traits that make them able to be a 'power' in EVE, are the same traits that make them good choices for the job.
Then again, I suppose it's always easier to blame someone cheating than it is to accept they beat you fair and square.
Over that time, they've been enthusiastic, eager and dedicated, and have a lot of high skilled and fantatical players
Lots of people are getting hung up on them being the 'big evil cheaters' but they're really not - one BPO, yeah, it's naughty, but IMO it's hardly the end of the world. I _know_ BoB have legitimately gained a LOT of very good blueprints. There is a reason most of the alliance PvPs in HACs for example.
They're not supermen, they're just enthusiastic and focussed.
Mining and hauling are baseline staples, but I find combat missions and ratting are much more to my taste. Which is what I ended up doing right early on when I was a newbie. Some steady cash from the pay, and the odd 'win' as you net a tasty module.
EVE's really a lot of fun, once you get out of crap corps, and you get out of empire.
Contrary to popular belief, 0.0 isn't all filled with hardcore elite griefers. The 'things' that let you get by are far more about attitude and use of brain, than they are about how many sps or isks you have.
Which is part of the appeal. I can also under stand though, that it's not to everyone's taste. I mean, in EVE, if you don't go looking for stuff to do, it won't find you. So you'll sit there, getting bored, waiting for 'things to happen'. And unless you piss someone off, it won't.
Actually, I'm pretty certain that a fairly large fraction of CCP employees are _not_ in BoB. The thing is, I think it's important to have them all involved. Because then they get to see first hand, what's relevant to the players. What's more likely to get fixed, realistically - someone bitching on the forums about lag, or first hand experience by a dev. Lets face it, it's way harder to get 1000 people together to 'test' on Singularity.
*shrug* to each their own. Personally I think the whole affair is being dragged about with all together more drama than's entirely necessary, but I'll admit I've only a peripheral interest.
The fact that these are also devs is largely irrelevant.
Sadly not, the meat of a carnivore is generally rather unpleasant in flavour. Not that that necessarily stops anyone, but it's no accident that if you go to any restaurant, your 'meat' is almost exclusively herbivores.
Your suggestion is one of the first times I've seen something that might actually count as a possible solution. You'll get a _bit_ of abuse, but as long as the domain registry is reasonably pro-active about it, then ... well, all well and good. I mean, it's not like most porn-mongers actually want kids looking at their stuff. For starters, they don't have credit cards...
The only real problem being that then you're in danger of a 'limited portal' that's got no real content on it at all, because to allow the 'good' stuff on the net would require a lot more overhead.
Works fine on Windows too, with the plus point that you end up with a system that's vaguely stable.
And almost no one does it. Not because it's impossible, but because 'locked down' Windows is a total pain to use. Where 'locked down Unix' you might not notice.
You win this thread.
Didn't you hear? They made one. Called it 'The Internet'.
Who needs a washing machine when you can just add yeast and a bit of water to your laundry basket.
Black Mesa? Gordon, is that you?