I'm not talking about a payoff. What got Linux to the point that it was pre-VC interest? There was a good deal of time between 90 and 97, and a lot of work occurred. I'm not speaking about companies making a profit. I'm talking about the massive contribution of hobbyists.
Most paid OS developers, aside from the distros, are developing in certain areas that help their products. If SUN needs x functionality from their next big iron server to sell the hardware, and the easiest way of adding that functionality is to pay someone to hack GNU code, then that's what they'll do.
I was protesting the original post claiming that most OS hackers hope to get something in return for their efforts. Significant contributions of the big boys aside, I think the bulk of the reason for Linux' success lies with the little guys, who all work day-jobs.
I'm not a blind OpenSource devotee. For common home-officie tasks, I use Windows, because in all honesty there is no reason to type a paper or surf the web or play a game on Linux unless you're just interested in *doing it on Linux*
And I didn't get the implication of your last paragraph. They left the VC funded "foosball and pizza" companies with dollar signs in their eyes and got kicked in the ass? If you left a startup for the promise of an eventual payoff and got punished, wouldn't that be contrary to your argument?
It seems like every once in a while someone comes up with a latest-greatest new heatsink design. I've seen weird platinum peacock feathers and those wavy metal strips from a while back. They all look kind of goofy, and when really put to the test, don't do too much better. Short of pipes nd pumps, big hunks of copper attached to really fast traditional fans are still the best thing going, and I don't think that's for lack of effort at finding new things.
Because this is an improvement on the *fan* and not the whole heatsink, I give it a little more credence, but I won't be that interested until I actually see some Tom's numbers on it.
And I really won't be interested in it until the pricetag falls below $100 for a fan. For that money you could water-cool, or just soundproof your case.
yeah, but did you see the kid on the coaster? if he causes his offspring's death, then no genes are passed.
Re:Why pay for something that you alreadt\y own?
on
Mandrake Asks for Support
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You sir, are a retard.
I promise you that nearly every OS developer who puts in more than 10 hours a week also has a dayjob. They do it for the same reason people do any other hobby. Because they love it. They also happen to have jobs and families.
A few people have made OS their business, but most can't. Mandrake can live or die. I hope they live, but if not, no biggie. Their contributions won't vanish and the thousands of faithful afternoon coders can continue on.
Re:Get some priorities
on
Bang The Machine
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
if i were posting this on September 11th, i'd be worried about me, but anniversaries are meaningless aside from symbolism.
I *live* in New York City, and this evening I took a walk downtown, saw the Tribute in Light (it's amazing, you should try to see it before April) and had quiet personal reflection time.
Slashdot isn't very quiet or personal. I post about video games on Slashdot, and reserve other things for the serenity afforded by real life.
I'm not even talking about a Statement. It's not like there's no middle ground between Final Fantasy and Schindler's List.
There are good movies with great graphics. Jurrasic Park, The Abyss, T2, the Matrix, the original Trillogy, the first two Alien Movies, were all popcorn and candy affairs, but they had enjoyable plots and knockout special effects.
I'm glad Final Fantasy flopped. I wish every big budget special effects blockbuster with such a bad plot would do as poorly.
Had they spent 1/100th the effort they did on special effects on writing a decent script, the movie still would have been knock-out gorgeous, and it would also have been watchable.
Can'tt beat the original
on
Bang The Machine
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
And by original I mean Street Fighter II (the first one never really took off)
SF2 put fighting games on the map. It was a huge step toward the dominance of video games in youth culture. Whether or not this is a good thing, you can decide.
For like 3 years SF2 dominated the arcade and home console scene like nothing since PacMan. Only Halflife compares in recent times, though the PC market is much smaller than the console and arcade markets.
I don't want to think of how much money I put into that franchise during my middle school years. I was best with Ken personally, though I thought Blanka was the most fun to play. Some of the "sequels" were cool, Turbo, Special, and Super all added something. The later editions of the series, Alpha, III etc. never really did it for me.
And who remembers the huge debate over which was better, SF2 or Mortal Kombat. Where I was from the be-mulleted redneck teens were all into MK and everyone else was big on SF2. If you go back, I think it's fair to say that Street Fighter II had the better gameplay (at least compared to the first Kombat, MK2 was much better) though MK did a better job of getting itself in the news (for obvious reasons.)
Ah... memories.
3d fighters just don't do it for me, and now SNK is gone, and Capcom has been getting diminishing returns off of newer 2d fighters like capcom vs. marvel. I think we've finally reached the end of an era... oh well.
I think limited special effects forces better storytelling. When you can't show everything, you have to explain some things, which creates dialogue and more creative storytelling.
The original movies might have sucked with CGI.
I'm not too impressed with CGI in general. It works great for cartoons and dark Jurrasic Park scenes, but for bright shots, everything CGI looks plastic. Somehow it bothers me a lot more than models on blue screen ever did.
you know, with that attitude, you might as well watch porn. i mean, nothing against porn, but i don't go around touting "Cummin Together" as great cenema, no matter how much I like the visuals.
No, Star Wars was a *bit* more serious than a pure kiddie flick. The mark of a live action kiddie movie is children starring in lead rolls (hmmm...) Dark Crystal and Labyrinth were (very good) kiddie fantasy movies; Star Wars was definitely juvinile but I think it is a mainstream fantasy, it occupies a higher place in the pop-culture conciousness than Ninja Turtles.
The new movies aren't bad because they're made for children (heck, I absolutely *loved* Monsters, Inc.) they're bad because they're *bad* children's movies.
The basic problem with the new Star Wars movies is that they are litterally incapable of failing. There will be lines of people simply because of the first two words in the title. Episode 3 could be Star Wars: the return of the 17th century parlor comedy, and half of Slashdot would be there.
If George Lucas has betrayed his original vision and is simply milking fans for cash, don't go along with it. At least wait for the rental. I promise you, your life will not be significantly altered if you refuse to pay $10 to be dissapointed for two hours.
I'll reply to this and reply to every other "but the second hand benefits!" posts.
That's not why we went to the moon. Noble speaches, triumph of human achievement, materials science aside, we went to the moon to beat the damn Ruskies there.
The (very great) side benefits are a wonderful justification after the fact, but if the Russians were sending people down into the Marianas Trench in the Atlantic Ocean, we would have gone there instead.
I'm *not* arguing against the space program. I'm just saying that comparing the mundane modern NASA against the "glorious NASA of the past" is unfair. Our motivations in the past were rather jingoistic, and similar pressures aren't in place now.
I personally think continued exploration, if perhaps not manned exploration, would be a wonderful thing for science. But science is never what convinced congress to send us up there in the first place. Manned exploration is just too dangerous and expensive, and until colonization is a possibility, then
And as for lunar mining etc. that will happen the instance it can be demonstrated to be practical, but the costs of sending a pound of equipment to the moon and getting a pound of whatever material back are so great that unless they've got fist-sized diamonds up there, it isn't happening soon.
In an ideal world, Dupont, Nike, Intel, etc. etc. would invest in NASA since the public-domain research from the space program *directly* contributes to their profit, but likewise, it isn't happening, and they'd probably claim intellectual property.
For the meantime though, it is far easier to get money budgeted for worthy causes by giving a direct cause (cure cancer!) than something vague (tidbits of earthly biproducts!)
I'm not saying I like this reality, it's just the reality.
If Chrono Trigger, FF2 and FF3 (oh sorry I meant FF4 and FF6) were to come out on the Gameboy advance, I would be forced to purchase one.
NASA's troubles
on
Hack in Space
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First off bravo to the NASA geeks. I always find it truly heartening when they pull these last minute hacks off. They don't really need to. I hadn't even heard about this one breaking, it wasn't that much of a PR problem. I think the only reason they really bothered is because, like any good geeks, this is their toy, and they love it too much not to try.
Second, to people bemoaning the absense of mars missions and moon bases. Why go? Can we learn so much more by sending people that it justifies the risk and cost of doing so? These are the questions being asked. And if you think this means our motives for going to space aren't pure, think about this: would we have gone to the moon had the Russians not been trying to beat us there?
I think the best way to get American astronauts on Mars today would be to convince Bin Ladin to start a space program.
I for one wonder if NASA has perhaps outlived its usefulness. Could it perhaps persist as a regulatory body, overseeing commercial space ventures, and allowing all-to-scarce public research money to go to other areas?
The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace.
Obviously the answer is more funding for public research, but then, does anyone really see that happening?
"What in the world does Flash have to do with all that?"
Your arguments in reference to computer science are valid. Computer languages have been roughly the same for over 20 years. (At least in regard to application of theory) but interactive graphic design is a far younger field.
It makes a great deal of sense to teach Flash in such classes, because the standards are not yet set, and in such early stages, the medium is strongly influenced by the tools. The look of modern graphic design has been heavily influenced by the Macromedia Flash software (even in television commercials you see very Flash-specific transitions and color changes)
With such a nascient field, the process and theory cannot be so cleanly separated.
In short, Flash is taught because there really isn't anything else for what it does.
This seems to me to be a technology of limited use. Even at high screen resolutions almost all text is rendered at 12 pt, at which size anti-aliasing is more or less worthless.
It makes title bars look pretty. It makes big text on web pages look pretty. But for 99% of the text you see, it doesn't do much.
I don't want to discount the effort. I mean, if this program is as good as the screenshots suggest, then excellent job. (I haven't been able to test it out myself yet)
I guess I'm just not used to the modern computing era when it really is possible to throw in everything and the kitchen sink. I've gotta keep reminding myself that if something takes up an extra meg of Ram/swap and thirty megs of drivespace, that really doesn't matter. All of my instincts are still roughly in the 486 era, and I still think "why?" at every feature.
I just think at this point, the opensource community needs to give up its right to accuse others of bloatware. Bloatware is the modern standard, and if we don't embrace it, we look feature-poor. But Linux in the form that nearly everyone sees it and uses it today is bloatware. Well designed bloatware, for the most part, but bloatware nontheless.
Seems to me that this new Flash will be replacing the ridiculous complexity of Flash+Java+DHTML based sites. Those are already too much for console browsers.
I hate to say it, but if the new Flash standard makes it a lot easier to create fast-downloading, visually impressive sites with cross-platform compatibility, then it will be quickly and widely adopted.
If 2% of users can't access the site, well, I think that's a price that most commercial web sites will be willing to pay.
I have to say this is one area of technology I'm a little bit uncomfortable with. But then again, my family doesn't have a history of any genetic diseases.
I think it's going to be a *long* time before we can screen for things like intelligence, the genetics behind such traits is too complex for the forseeable future. There is no geek gene.
As long as this stays within the realm of selecting against life-threatening genes, I don't see too much of a problem.
I'd also like to know why so much effort is spent on reproductive medicine for rich nations with near zero population growth and near zero infant mortality. couldn't our resources be better spent helping out the rest of the world control their populations, and improving the (shamefully poor) infant health services in those regions?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about a payoff. What got Linux to the point that it was pre-VC interest? There was a good deal of time between 90 and 97, and a lot of work occurred. I'm not speaking about companies making a profit. I'm talking about the massive contribution of hobbyists.
Most paid OS developers, aside from the distros, are developing in certain areas that help their products. If SUN needs x functionality from their next big iron server to sell the hardware, and the easiest way of adding that functionality is to pay someone to hack GNU code, then that's what they'll do.
I was protesting the original post claiming that most OS hackers hope to get something in return for their efforts. Significant contributions of the big boys aside, I think the bulk of the reason for Linux' success lies with the little guys, who all work day-jobs.
I'm not a blind OpenSource devotee. For common home-officie tasks, I use Windows, because in all honesty there is no reason to type a paper or surf the web or play a game on Linux unless you're just interested in *doing it on Linux*
And I didn't get the implication of your last paragraph. They left the VC funded "foosball and pizza" companies with dollar signs in their eyes and got kicked in the ass? If you left a startup for the promise of an eventual payoff and got punished, wouldn't that be contrary to your argument?
Ahhh well... goodnight
It seems like every once in a while someone comes up with a latest-greatest new heatsink design. I've seen weird platinum peacock feathers and those wavy metal strips from a while back. They all look kind of goofy, and when really put to the test, don't do too much better. Short of pipes nd pumps, big hunks of copper attached to really fast traditional fans are still the best thing going, and I don't think that's for lack of effort at finding new things.
Because this is an improvement on the *fan* and not the whole heatsink, I give it a little more credence, but I won't be that interested until I actually see some Tom's numbers on it.
And I really won't be interested in it until the pricetag falls below $100 for a fan. For that money you could water-cool, or just soundproof your case.
that's chaw to you, boy
yeah, but did you see the kid on the coaster? if he causes his offspring's death, then no genes are passed.
You sir, are a retard.
I promise you that nearly every OS developer who puts in more than 10 hours a week also has a dayjob. They do it for the same reason people do any other hobby. Because they love it. They also happen to have jobs and families.
A few people have made OS their business, but most can't. Mandrake can live or die. I hope they live, but if not, no biggie. Their contributions won't vanish and the thousands of faithful afternoon coders can continue on.
if i were posting this on September 11th, i'd be worried about me, but anniversaries are meaningless aside from symbolism.
I *live* in New York City, and this evening I took a walk downtown, saw the Tribute in Light (it's amazing, you should try to see it before April) and had quiet personal reflection time.
Slashdot isn't very quiet or personal. I post about video games on Slashdot, and reserve other things for the serenity afforded by real life.
You, sir, are a troll.
I'm not even talking about a Statement. It's not like there's no middle ground between Final Fantasy and Schindler's List.
There are good movies with great graphics. Jurrasic Park, The Abyss, T2, the Matrix, the original Trillogy, the first two Alien Movies, were all popcorn and candy affairs, but they had enjoyable plots and knockout special effects.
I'm glad Final Fantasy flopped. I wish every big budget special effects blockbuster with such a bad plot would do as poorly.
Had they spent 1/100th the effort they did on special effects on writing a decent script, the movie still would have been knock-out gorgeous, and it would also have been watchable.
And by original I mean Street Fighter II (the first one never really took off)
SF2 put fighting games on the map. It was a huge step toward the dominance of video games in youth culture. Whether or not this is a good thing, you can decide.
For like 3 years SF2 dominated the arcade and home console scene like nothing since PacMan. Only Halflife compares in recent times, though the PC market is much smaller than the console and arcade markets.
I don't want to think of how much money I put into that franchise during my middle school years. I was best with Ken personally, though I thought Blanka was the most fun to play. Some of the "sequels" were cool, Turbo, Special, and Super all added something. The later editions of the series, Alpha, III etc. never really did it for me.
And who remembers the huge debate over which was better, SF2 or Mortal Kombat. Where I was from the be-mulleted redneck teens were all into MK and everyone else was big on SF2. If you go back, I think it's fair to say that Street Fighter II had the better gameplay (at least compared to the first Kombat, MK2 was much better) though MK did a better job of getting itself in the news (for obvious reasons.)
Ah... memories.
3d fighters just don't do it for me, and now SNK is gone, and Capcom has been getting diminishing returns off of newer 2d fighters like capcom vs. marvel. I think we've finally reached the end of an era... oh well.
I think limited special effects forces better storytelling. When you can't show everything, you have to explain some things, which creates dialogue and more creative storytelling.
The original movies might have sucked with CGI.
I'm not too impressed with CGI in general. It works great for cartoons and dark Jurrasic Park scenes, but for bright shots, everything CGI looks plastic. Somehow it bothers me a lot more than models on blue screen ever did.
you know, with that attitude, you might as well watch porn. i mean, nothing against porn, but i don't go around touting "Cummin Together" as great cenema, no matter how much I like the visuals.
No, Star Wars was a *bit* more serious than a pure kiddie flick. The mark of a live action kiddie movie is children starring in lead rolls (hmmm...) Dark Crystal and Labyrinth were (very good) kiddie fantasy movies; Star Wars was definitely juvinile but I think it is a mainstream fantasy, it occupies a higher place in the pop-culture conciousness than Ninja Turtles.
The new movies aren't bad because they're made for children (heck, I absolutely *loved* Monsters, Inc.) they're bad because they're *bad* children's movies.
The basic problem with the new Star Wars movies is that they are litterally incapable of failing. There will be lines of people simply because of the first two words in the title. Episode 3 could be Star Wars: the return of the 17th century parlor comedy, and half of Slashdot would be there.
If George Lucas has betrayed his original vision and is simply milking fans for cash, don't go along with it. At least wait for the rental. I promise you, your life will not be significantly altered if you refuse to pay $10 to be dissapointed for two hours.
I'll reply to this and reply to every other "but the second hand benefits!" posts.
That's not why we went to the moon. Noble speaches, triumph of human achievement, materials science aside, we went to the moon to beat the damn Ruskies there.
The (very great) side benefits are a wonderful justification after the fact, but if the Russians were sending people down into the Marianas Trench in the Atlantic Ocean, we would have gone there instead.
I'm *not* arguing against the space program. I'm just saying that comparing the mundane modern NASA against the "glorious NASA of the past" is unfair. Our motivations in the past were rather jingoistic, and similar pressures aren't in place now.
I personally think continued exploration, if perhaps not manned exploration, would be a wonderful thing for science. But science is never what convinced congress to send us up there in the first place. Manned exploration is just too dangerous and expensive, and until colonization is a possibility, then
And as for lunar mining etc. that will happen the instance it can be demonstrated to be practical, but the costs of sending a pound of equipment to the moon and getting a pound of whatever material back are so great that unless they've got fist-sized diamonds up there, it isn't happening soon.
In an ideal world, Dupont, Nike, Intel, etc. etc. would invest in NASA since the public-domain research from the space program *directly* contributes to their profit, but likewise, it isn't happening, and they'd probably claim intellectual property.
For the meantime though, it is far easier to get money budgeted for worthy causes by giving a direct cause (cure cancer!) than something vague (tidbits of earthly biproducts!)
I'm not saying I like this reality, it's just the reality.
Dot? from animaniacs? she rocked! i'd play an RPG with the Warner brothers & sister.
If Chrono Trigger, FF2 and FF3 (oh sorry I meant FF4 and FF6) were to come out on the Gameboy advance, I would be forced to purchase one.
First off bravo to the NASA geeks. I always find it truly heartening when they pull these last minute hacks off. They don't really need to. I hadn't even heard about this one breaking, it wasn't that much of a PR problem. I think the only reason they really bothered is because, like any good geeks, this is their toy, and they love it too much not to try.
Second, to people bemoaning the absense of mars missions and moon bases. Why go? Can we learn so much more by sending people that it justifies the risk and cost of doing so? These are the questions being asked. And if you think this means our motives for going to space aren't pure, think about this: would we have gone to the moon had the Russians not been trying to beat us there?
I think the best way to get American astronauts on Mars today would be to convince Bin Ladin to start a space program.
I for one wonder if NASA has perhaps outlived its usefulness. Could it perhaps persist as a regulatory body, overseeing commercial space ventures, and allowing all-to-scarce public research money to go to other areas?
The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace.
Obviously the answer is more funding for public research, but then, does anyone really see that happening?
Score: 0 Flamebait
yes... you could say that.
"What in the world does Flash have to do with all that?"
Your arguments in reference to computer science are valid. Computer languages have been roughly the same for over 20 years. (At least in regard to application of theory) but interactive graphic design is a far younger field.
It makes a great deal of sense to teach Flash in such classes, because the standards are not yet set, and in such early stages, the medium is strongly influenced by the tools. The look of modern graphic design has been heavily influenced by the Macromedia Flash software (even in television commercials you see very Flash-specific transitions and color changes)
With such a nascient field, the process and theory cannot be so cleanly separated.
In short, Flash is taught because there really isn't anything else for what it does.
This really isn't meant to be a flame.
This seems to me to be a technology of limited use. Even at high screen resolutions almost all text is rendered at 12 pt, at which size anti-aliasing is more or less worthless.
It makes title bars look pretty. It makes big text on web pages look pretty. But for 99% of the text you see, it doesn't do much.
I don't want to discount the effort. I mean, if this program is as good as the screenshots suggest, then excellent job. (I haven't been able to test it out myself yet)
I guess I'm just not used to the modern computing era when it really is possible to throw in everything and the kitchen sink. I've gotta keep reminding myself that if something takes up an extra meg of Ram/swap and thirty megs of drivespace, that really doesn't matter. All of my instincts are still roughly in the 486 era, and I still think "why?" at every feature.
I just think at this point, the opensource community needs to give up its right to accuse others of bloatware. Bloatware is the modern standard, and if we don't embrace it, we look feature-poor. But Linux in the form that nearly everyone sees it and uses it today is bloatware. Well designed bloatware, for the most part, but bloatware nontheless.
-1 needless flame:
he was just speculating. translucent PCB *would* be pretty cool.
(I'd shell out an extra $10 or $20 for a translucent mobo.
He wasn't getting into a debate about the engineering of it.
I mean, come on, a levitating car would be cool.
ahhh, but you haven't seen the room i keep my invisible computer case in...
one giant copper sphere
that or a '57 Ford
Seems to me that this new Flash will be replacing the ridiculous complexity of Flash+Java+DHTML based sites. Those are already too much for console browsers.
I hate to say it, but if the new Flash standard makes it a lot easier to create fast-downloading, visually impressive sites with cross-platform compatibility, then it will be quickly and widely adopted.
If 2% of users can't access the site, well, I think that's a price that most commercial web sites will be willing to pay.
How about "Winners Don't Take Soft Money" on the Congressional Mortal Kombat machine?
A number of people have posted that this reminds them about Maxis' computer games (Simlife was the best, btw, they need to make a sequel)
Maxis actually *did* a Sim for the government. SimHealth was developed for the government, and later issued as a (very unsucessful) public game.
There was also a Wired article about the military using Doom and Quake for VR training a long while back.
I have to say this is one area of technology I'm a little bit uncomfortable with. But then again, my family doesn't have a history of any genetic diseases.
I think it's going to be a *long* time before we can screen for things like intelligence, the genetics behind such traits is too complex for the forseeable future. There is no geek gene.
As long as this stays within the realm of selecting against life-threatening genes, I don't see too much of a problem.
I'd also like to know why so much effort is spent on reproductive medicine for rich nations with near zero population growth and near zero infant mortality. couldn't our resources be better spent helping out the rest of the world control their populations, and improving the (shamefully poor) infant health services in those regions?
I know it comes down to money, but still...