i thought we wrote software for a type of hardware, not designed hardware for a type of software.
Well actually companies (including Intel) have tried to design chips geared towards software. Floating point chips, graphics processors, dsp's all are geared toward solving specific software problems more quickly.
On a more directly applicable note, some have even tried creating cpu's that target specific languages. Most know about Majic (Suns Java chip), but not many know that Intel worked on a chip (the 432) that was geared towards high level languages (array bounds checking, type checking, etc). AT&T also tried going this route (being the inventors of C and all). And if I remember correctly, National Semiconductors 32K line (32016 and 32032) were chips that had higher level procedural languages in mind in their design.
Well I would disagree with your assertion of the "staticness" of other forms of software. Word beating to the market by 15 years means your hosed, as companies have a huge investment in files and "training" (not necessarily formal).
I would also disagree with your assertion about "state of the art" gaming. While this may be true for your typical first person shooter, the "bar" in other genres is simply not that high. The frame rate in Everquest is not that big of an issue. When you read their formal announcment, they encourage "original ideas", this is in part due to the fact that it's very difficult to compete in some areas, esp first person shooters. So the solution is simple, don't code one. One of the first things this "group" is going to do is to figure out what their going to do. That usually means looking at the strengths of the members and coming up with something that meets those strengths. If Carmac decides to jump on board, then crazy fast graphics might be a doable thing. If not, then don't come up with a game that has crazy fast graphics.
You're right, the gaming industry is a cut throat twelve pack of jolt an hour place. I know, I'm not in it, but my sis in law works at THQ and I have several friends that either work or worked at Origin, so I get to hear all the horror stories. However, this project would not be "encumbered" by many of the things that creates issues for these large companies. Not to say that this is a shoo in, obviously not. This is definitely an uphill battle, but so what. 10 years ago if you told someone that you were going to write yet another unix like os and make it free, they'd have thought you bonkers and simply wasting your time (not that they wouldn't be correct;), but it happened, and due to fortunate timing and circumstances, that project has grown and floruished.
But anyway, you know, you're response was a bit off, because my statement that you were responding to wasen't meant to compare games to OS's in regards to OSS, it was meant to address the issue of working on a "skunkworks" software project "on your own time" while not getting paid. Most of us have done it (and still do), and I was just saying that in that regard it was no different. Maybe a project with slimmer hopes of success, but the mechanics of the "company" side are the same.
IBM isnt making a cent off of the efforts of the developers of linux.
This is false. If Linux were not pushing IBM hardware sales, they would not be taking the time to sell systems with it installed. People buy solutions from Big Blue, not just hardware. IBM sells solutions based on Linux because that is what SELLS. Linux sells systems. Someone who is spending 7 figures for a system from IBM is NOT thinking about downloading some distro to run on their fancy hardware.
with all the profits will go somewhere else
Err, FALSE. Read their release
2) 70% of sales revenue will go to the development company, to be
divided up as the team sees fit. The remainder of the money will go
to LGP to pay for marketing, and other publishing expenses.
The developers doesn't get paid.
The game will be sold for money.
This is no different than any group of individuals that decide to start a personal project. Have you ever come up with an idea with your friends and decided to start coding/designing. Was anyone paying you during this phase, NOPE. This is no different. It amazes me (though it shouldn't) the narrow minded mentality that is exhibted here.
So people are busily coding between their jobs and sleeping, on a project where they MIGHT make money (but probably not), you're going to get half-assed product
Unless you're working at RH, IBM, or any of the other Linux distro companies, how is this any different than those who generally work on OSS. How is the fact that you're working on software that MIGHT make money any different than what a large # of programmers do everyday as they work on their own personal projects that they hope will "make it big". Their project just formalizes what people are doing every day. You say "games are not developed in a week", they say just as much in their format announcement (which you DID read right?). It will take time and it will take commitment. Will it work? Who knows, if it were a "sure thing" then eveyone would jump on it and be doing it. That's the risk you take.
Anyone have any idea of how effective LGP is at this? Does "worldwide" mean "HTTP downloads from around the world" or do they really have a shrink-wrapped, on the shelf capability?
I've sure as heck never seen a Linux-specific game on a shelf at Best Buy or some other place like that.
The question is not "can they produce off the shelf titles", the question is "do they WANT TO produce off the shelf titles". Creating OTS stuff takes more money than simply allowing downloads. The issue is whether or not you sell enough copies OTS to make up for the extra expenses involved in producing it.
But some companies like IBM do *pay* people to work on Linux.
Right, but a great part of the code that they sell was written by programmers who'll never see a penny for their efforts. Not that this is bad, since like I said, many/most of these programmers know this up front.
disappointed that people are being asked to work on a commercial project without a salary
In a way ANYONE who contributes to Linux is doing just that. When people like IBM et al selling product that in large part was written by individuals that will never be "paid" for their efforts, I don't see how this is any different. Is there anyone out there who contributes that thinks that their work won't eventually end up in a product that is sold (i.e. someone else will generate revenue from their efforts)?
Huh, UniSQL is a full blown object-relational database that has been around for years. It is nothing like MySql, completely different league. Don't know about UniUnix, is it just another Linux distro?
Billy boy didn't write the original DOS code, so it was not an issue of him "not being smart enough".
Those days it was done for performance.
No, the high performance calls skipped the bios. Back then the bios was mainly useful because many of the clones could be BIOS compatable with the PC thereby making getting a version of DOS to work properly on it was much easier. However, if you wanted performance, you'd call the Another function of BIOS was (and still is) to give the chance to configure some hardware CMOS parameters.
Not back then. There were no cmos parameters back in the DOS days. Heck, pc's didn't even have battery backed clocks until much later. Hard disks were an expensive luxury and you had to run utility apps straight from the controller's ROM to do things like low level formatting.
will the ISP be required to verify that the site does, in fact, have child porn?
Doubtful. There are plenty of other examples where one simply has to accuse to get someone to take action (isp's are already notorious for doing this, if you send your isp an email that claims that person Y is a spammer and fake some spam that allegidly came from them, they will most likely yank person Y's access, their too "busy" to go through any extensive checking). I assume that most isp's are more afraid of being nailed by this law vs having some pissed off website owner do anything. And yes, this could be abused.
Of course, why didn't I think of this before. They are simply more "in the know" than we are and are stating the specs for some NEW iBook. Here we were blasting them for getting the info "wrong" and all along they were simply smarter than us;)
I mentioned MSN communities in my original post. I am well aware of your point. As I said, the biggest problem is HOW the blocking occurs (via IP). And as I also said, the law isn't meant to "hurt" the kiddie porn guys, it's meant to give teeth to those who request that their particular ISP block those sites (which has the problems already mentioned).
So we basically agree on everything except the desired result. You think that they have a grander goal (eliminate kiddie porn), I think they have a simpler goal. You say that the grand goal is not achievable, I concur, which is why I don't think that is their goal.
For one it wouldn't be slower, the VIA C3 is best about 2/3 the performance of a celeron at the same clock rate. So given that Macs tend to perform better than comparable clock speeds, the Mac will typically outperform it. You also get a more stable OS, stable in the sense that you don't have to worry about compatability issues. You get a built-in cd, which for some people is a significant plus (though some don't need it as well). Also notice that there is no mention of battery life. Also, where do you take your Lindows machine if you're having problems? Apple has places everywhere to do repairs, etc. You get MacOSX with several built in apps (iPhoto, iMovie, etc) that are arguably better (usuabillity, integration, not necessarily more powerful) than anything you are going to get for free for Lindows as well.
Yeah, but it still beats an iBook by 50% (pricewise, anyways)
Nope, the chart is wrong, they were comparing to the PowerBook, NOT the iBook. The iBook only costs $999 in a comparable configuration (the lowest end).
They totally botched the iBook entry in their little comparison chart. They are comparing to the PowerBook not the iBook. You can get a 700mhz iBook for $999, much better comparison. Makes you wonder about their other choices.
But my point is, you can't run all over the globe pulling sites off hosts in other countries. And if a kiddie porn company is really determined to stay in business, I'm sure there are plenty of foreign hosts in countries where such content is not illegal.
I understand that point, I just don't understand what it has to do with anything I said (or even the article for that matter).
But blinkering Penna. residents is somehow supposed to cure the problem?? Like they're not going to be able to use a proxy to get where they want to see anyway?? and like forbidding someone access to whatever "cures" the urge to access it??
No one is claiming that this is going to "cure" anything. Are you saying that no actions are worthy unless they "cure" a problem? Why make murder illegal if it isn't going to "cure" the murderers? But anyway, if you read my original post, you would see that I believe the point of the law is to force isp's to block the sites when requested, vs doing nothing, which they currently can do. And again, the real problem seems to be the mechanics of how to do it, not that it should be done.
So how do you plan to control the hosting of a site in, say, North Korea??
I said that the law DOESN'T seem address the hosting issue, only local isp's blocking of those sites. So this scenerio is a non issue with respect to the law. Now an isp based in North Korea that was doing business in Pen., they would have to block the kiddie porn site if asked.
We won't know until the state discloses the info, but this seems very much like an "enabling" law. Basically one that is not meant to be enacted proactively, instead it enables an action to occur. Basically, if I complain to an isp that www.whatever.com has kiddie porn, then they are compelled by the law to block access to it, vs throwing up their hands and saying "well just don't surf there". I would assume that unless the state is going to come out with a "banned sites" list that all isp's use, that this is the way the law will be enforced.
I don't know why people are asking questions about jurisdictions since this law does not seem to address the hosting of these sites, just peoples access to them. And it looks like the counter argument is focused on the fact that the law requires the blocking based on ip vs url, thereby possibly blocking many potentially unrelated sites (like someone complaining about msn communities and having them all blocked).
I don't think so. How do they benefit by coming out with a pda that does not support the two major pda os's out there (PalmOS, WinCE)? How could they hope to ever be something other than a niche player? How many other companies that don't currently have pda's are going to come out with a pda that currently has little market support. Will any existing pda manuf. hop on the IBM bandwagon (e.g. Compaq/HP, Sony, etc).
Nope, this looks like IBM pushing their PPC405 into the embedded market, any resemblence to a pda is purely incidental.
I'd say IBM has made quite a shift since its inception
Well that's assuming you don't count their long lived involvment in semiconductor development. You could say that they've been at both ends of the size spectrum for quite a while now. Notice that it is their semiconductor involvement that is pushing this decision (pushing their PPC405LP). They've also been making drives for a great long while now as well, the pocket drive is a natural evolution. So in many ways, things haven't changed at all:)
I don't think it's a matter of "moral superiority"
It is this statement that makes it an issue of "moral superiority":
without Hollywood's story-twisting and sensationalism spoiling it all
The poster made it a moral issue by his statement. It is the author that misses your point, that the transfer of a work from one medium to another often entails the modification of that work. Now without a doubt, some Hollywood productions are VERY loosly based on a work, but so what? Is it now wrong to be inspired (or to use as inspiration) someone elses work? I think peoples biggest complaint isn't so much Hollywood playing fast and loose with original source material, it's the quality of the work that gets produced (i.e. it's mostly crap). This is an entirely different issue.
You point about Google v Excite/AltaVista is fine, but Google had a huge advantage here in that they got into the game well after either one of those two did. They were coming into a market that already had many players and more importantly, already had losers. Segway was trying to create a new market, and as such didn't have the benefit of having others to model after. Microsoft was able to get xbox off the ground quickly because it is basically a pc. The only real custom part required was the stuff from nVidia, everything else was basically off the shelf.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your comment about Kamen being dumb about way over-estimating demand, I just didn't think that google was a good comparison. I'm sure there are successful manufacturers out there that did the slow and cautious thing and benefited from doing so that can be brought out as good counterpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
i thought we wrote software for a type of hardware, not designed hardware for a type of software.
Well actually companies (including Intel) have tried to design chips geared towards software. Floating point chips, graphics processors, dsp's all are geared toward solving specific software problems more quickly.
On a more directly applicable note, some have even tried creating cpu's that target specific languages. Most know about Majic (Suns Java chip), but not many know that Intel worked on a chip (the 432) that was geared towards high level languages (array bounds checking, type checking, etc). AT&T also tried going this route (being the inventors of C and all). And if I remember correctly, National Semiconductors 32K line (32016 and 32032) were chips that had higher level procedural languages in mind in their design.
Well I would disagree with your assertion of the "staticness" of other forms of software. Word beating to the market by 15 years means your hosed, as companies have a huge investment in files and "training" (not necessarily formal).
;), but it happened, and due to fortunate timing and circumstances, that project has grown and floruished.
I would also disagree with your assertion about "state of the art" gaming. While this may be true for your typical first person shooter, the "bar" in other genres is simply not that high. The frame rate in Everquest is not that big of an issue. When you read their formal announcment, they encourage "original ideas", this is in part due to the fact that it's very difficult to compete in some areas, esp first person shooters. So the solution is simple, don't code one. One of the first things this "group" is going to do is to figure out what their going to do. That usually means looking at the strengths of the members and coming up with something that meets those strengths. If Carmac decides to jump on board, then crazy fast graphics might be a doable thing. If not, then don't come up with a game that has crazy fast graphics.
You're right, the gaming industry is a cut throat twelve pack of jolt an hour place. I know, I'm not in it, but my sis in law works at THQ and I have several friends that either work or worked at Origin, so I get to hear all the horror stories. However, this project would not be "encumbered" by many of the things that creates issues for these large companies. Not to say that this is a shoo in, obviously not. This is definitely an uphill battle, but so what. 10 years ago if you told someone that you were going to write yet another unix like os and make it free, they'd have thought you bonkers and simply wasting your time (not that they wouldn't be correct
But anyway, you know, you're response was a bit off, because my statement that you were responding to wasen't meant to compare games to OS's in regards to OSS, it was meant to address the issue of working on a "skunkworks" software project "on your own time" while not getting paid. Most of us have done it (and still do), and I was just saying that in that regard it was no different. Maybe a project with slimmer hopes of success, but the mechanics of the "company" side are the same.
IBM isnt making a cent off of the efforts of the developers of linux.
This is false. If Linux were not pushing IBM hardware sales, they would not be taking the time to sell systems with it installed. People buy solutions from Big Blue, not just hardware. IBM sells solutions based on Linux because that is what SELLS. Linux sells systems. Someone who is spending 7 figures for a system from IBM is NOT thinking about downloading some distro to run on their fancy hardware.
with all the profits will go somewhere else
Err, FALSE. Read their release
2) 70% of sales revenue will go to the development company, to be divided up as the team sees fit. The remainder of the money will go to LGP to pay for marketing, and other publishing expenses.
You DID read it didn't you?
The developers doesn't get paid. The game will be sold for money.
This is no different than any group of individuals that decide to start a personal project. Have you ever come up with an idea with your friends and decided to start coding/designing. Was anyone paying you during this phase, NOPE. This is no different. It amazes me (though it shouldn't) the narrow minded mentality that is exhibted here.
So people are busily coding between their jobs and sleeping, on a project where they MIGHT make money (but probably not), you're going to get half-assed product
Unless you're working at RH, IBM, or any of the other Linux distro companies, how is this any different than those who generally work on OSS. How is the fact that you're working on software that MIGHT make money any different than what a large # of programmers do everyday as they work on their own personal projects that they hope will "make it big". Their project just formalizes what people are doing every day. You say "games are not developed in a week", they say just as much in their format announcement (which you DID read right?). It will take time and it will take commitment. Will it work? Who knows, if it were a "sure thing" then eveyone would jump on it and be doing it. That's the risk you take.
Anyone have any idea of how effective LGP is at this? Does "worldwide" mean "HTTP downloads from around the world" or do they really have a shrink-wrapped, on the shelf capability? I've sure as heck never seen a Linux-specific game on a shelf at Best Buy or some other place like that.
The question is not "can they produce off the shelf titles", the question is "do they WANT TO produce off the shelf titles". Creating OTS stuff takes more money than simply allowing downloads. The issue is whether or not you sell enough copies OTS to make up for the extra expenses involved in producing it.
But some companies like IBM do *pay* people to work on Linux.
Right, but a great part of the code that they sell was written by programmers who'll never see a penny for their efforts. Not that this is bad, since like I said, many/most of these programmers know this up front.
disappointed that people are being asked to work on a commercial project without a salary
In a way ANYONE who contributes to Linux is doing just that. When people like IBM et al selling product that in large part was written by individuals that will never be "paid" for their efforts, I don't see how this is any different. Is there anyone out there who contributes that thinks that their work won't eventually end up in a product that is sold (i.e. someone else will generate revenue from their efforts)?
Huh, UniSQL is a full blown object-relational database that has been around for years. It is nothing like MySql, completely different league. Don't know about UniUnix, is it just another Linux distro?
(Bill Gates was not so smart to write one)
Billy boy didn't write the original DOS code, so it was not an issue of him "not being smart enough".
Those days it was done for performance.
No, the high performance calls skipped the bios. Back then the bios was mainly useful because many of the clones could be BIOS compatable with the PC thereby making getting a version of DOS to work properly on it was much easier. However, if you wanted performance, you'd call the
Another function of BIOS was (and still is) to give the chance to configure some hardware CMOS parameters.
Not back then. There were no cmos parameters back in the DOS days. Heck, pc's didn't even have battery backed clocks until much later. Hard disks were an expensive luxury and you had to run utility apps straight from the controller's ROM to do things like low level formatting.
will the ISP be required to verify that the site does, in fact, have child porn?
Doubtful. There are plenty of other examples where one simply has to accuse to get someone to take action (isp's are already notorious for doing this, if you send your isp an email that claims that person Y is a spammer and fake some spam that allegidly came from them, they will most likely yank person Y's access, their too "busy" to go through any extensive checking). I assume that most isp's are more afraid of being nailed by this law vs having some pissed off website owner do anything. And yes, this could be abused.
Of course, why didn't I think of this before. They are simply more "in the know" than we are and are stating the specs for some NEW iBook. Here we were blasting them for getting the info "wrong" and all along they were simply smarter than us ;)
I mentioned MSN communities in my original post. I am well aware of your point. As I said, the biggest problem is HOW the blocking occurs (via IP). And as I also said, the law isn't meant to "hurt" the kiddie porn guys, it's meant to give teeth to those who request that their particular ISP block those sites (which has the problems already mentioned).
So we basically agree on everything except the desired result. You think that they have a grander goal (eliminate kiddie porn), I think they have a simpler goal. You say that the grand goal is not achievable, I concur, which is why I don't think that is their goal.
For one it wouldn't be slower, the VIA C3 is best about 2/3 the performance of a celeron at the same clock rate. So given that Macs tend to perform better than comparable clock speeds, the Mac will typically outperform it. You also get a more stable OS, stable in the sense that you don't have to worry about compatability issues. You get a built-in cd, which for some people is a significant plus (though some don't need it as well). Also notice that there is no mention of battery life. Also, where do you take your Lindows machine if you're having problems? Apple has places everywhere to do repairs, etc. You get MacOSX with several built in apps (iPhoto, iMovie, etc) that are arguably better (usuabillity, integration, not necessarily more powerful) than anything you are going to get for free for Lindows as well.
Yeah, but it still beats an iBook by 50% (pricewise, anyways)
Nope, the chart is wrong, they were comparing to the PowerBook, NOT the iBook. The iBook only costs $999 in a comparable configuration (the lowest end).
They totally botched the iBook entry in their little comparison chart. They are comparing to the PowerBook not the iBook. You can get a 700mhz iBook for $999, much better comparison. Makes you wonder about their other choices.
But my point is, you can't run all over the globe pulling sites off hosts in other countries. And if a kiddie porn company is really determined to stay in business, I'm sure there are plenty of foreign hosts in countries where such content is not illegal.
I understand that point, I just don't understand what it has to do with anything I said (or even the article for that matter).
But blinkering Penna. residents is somehow supposed to cure the problem?? Like they're not going to be able to use a proxy to get where they want to see anyway?? and like forbidding someone access to whatever "cures" the urge to access it??
No one is claiming that this is going to "cure" anything. Are you saying that no actions are worthy unless they "cure" a problem? Why make murder illegal if it isn't going to "cure" the murderers? But anyway, if you read my original post, you would see that I believe the point of the law is to force isp's to block the sites when requested, vs doing nothing, which they currently can do. And again, the real problem seems to be the mechanics of how to do it, not that it should be done.
So how do you plan to control the hosting of a site in, say, North Korea??
I said that the law DOESN'T seem address the hosting issue, only local isp's blocking of those sites. So this scenerio is a non issue with respect to the law. Now an isp based in North Korea that was doing business in Pen., they would have to block the kiddie porn site if asked.
We won't know until the state discloses the info, but this seems very much like an "enabling" law. Basically one that is not meant to be enacted proactively, instead it enables an action to occur. Basically, if I complain to an isp that www.whatever.com has kiddie porn, then they are compelled by the law to block access to it, vs throwing up their hands and saying "well just don't surf there". I would assume that unless the state is going to come out with a "banned sites" list that all isp's use, that this is the way the law will be enforced.
I don't know why people are asking questions about jurisdictions since this law does not seem to address the hosting of these sites, just peoples access to them. And it looks like the counter argument is focused on the fact that the law requires the blocking based on ip vs url, thereby possibly blocking many potentially unrelated sites (like someone complaining about msn communities and having them all blocked).
I don't think so. How do they benefit by coming out with a pda that does not support the two major pda os's out there (PalmOS, WinCE)? How could they hope to ever be something other than a niche player? How many other companies that don't currently have pda's are going to come out with a pda that currently has little market support. Will any existing pda manuf. hop on the IBM bandwagon (e.g. Compaq/HP, Sony, etc).
Nope, this looks like IBM pushing their PPC405 into the embedded market, any resemblence to a pda is purely incidental.
And we know what happened that last time ibm released a pc reference platform.
;)
Do you mean PREP/CHRP. Oh, or were you referring to PS/2
I'd say IBM has made quite a shift since its inception
:)
Well that's assuming you don't count their long lived involvment in semiconductor development. You could say that they've been at both ends of the size spectrum for quite a while now. Notice that it is their semiconductor involvement that is pushing this decision (pushing their PPC405LP). They've also been making drives for a great long while now as well, the pocket drive is a natural evolution. So in many ways, things haven't changed at all
I don't think it's a matter of "moral superiority"
It is this statement that makes it an issue of "moral superiority":
without Hollywood's story-twisting and sensationalism spoiling it all
The poster made it a moral issue by his statement. It is the author that misses your point, that the transfer of a work from one medium to another often entails the modification of that work. Now without a doubt, some Hollywood productions are VERY loosly based on a work, but so what? Is it now wrong to be inspired (or to use as inspiration) someone elses work? I think peoples biggest complaint isn't so much Hollywood playing fast and loose with original source material, it's the quality of the work that gets produced (i.e. it's mostly crap). This is an entirely different issue.
You point about Google v Excite/AltaVista is fine, but Google had a huge advantage here in that they got into the game well after either one of those two did. They were coming into a market that already had many players and more importantly, already had losers. Segway was trying to create a new market, and as such didn't have the benefit of having others to model after. Microsoft was able to get xbox off the ground quickly because it is basically a pc. The only real custom part required was the stuff from nVidia, everything else was basically off the shelf.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your comment about Kamen being dumb about way over-estimating demand, I just didn't think that google was a good comparison. I'm sure there are successful manufacturers out there that did the slow and cautious thing and benefited from doing so that can be brought out as good counterpoints.
OOC, were they release versions or beta's? I didn't think that M$ every officially shipped any major app for OS/2 (other than compilers).