I had instructions on mine. I believe that they were on a card, and there was a README.
> nearly 400MB got copied to my hard disk.
The game is about 150MB, the other 250MB are MPEG movies, which can run off of the cd.
>The install script has a flaky parser.
Nothing wrong with a double slash. Looks ugly, but it still works.
> None of the symbolic links placed all over my >filesystem worked
Known problem with v1.0, fixed in 1.1
>Start the game up, no sound. Seems this requires >OSS sound drivers to run.
Well, yeah. For sound you have to have sound drivers. However OSS compatible sound drivers work too, like ALSA.
>I can't play the game under KDE or Gnome.
I play with gnome, with the panel as a corner panel and collapsed. This is a actually a problem with KDE/GNOME, where they want to be in front of EVERYTHING.
Another option is to run it in a window, with a smaller resolution as your desktop.
> After many hours of gameplay, the game burps. > Segmentation fault.
Ahh. NOW we have a problem. This is known, and for me usually happened RIGHT after the 'Wonders' movies. I found that making the movie play in a window instead of full screen improved the stability.
This is a known problem and should be fixed (hopefully) in 1.1.
Don't forget..CTP is the FIRST shrinkwrapped game for Linux, and only the third by a well known commercial developer (next to Quake and Quake2). There are a lot of tools and utilities that Loki are developing on the fly to do their ports (like the MPEG movie player) and lots of pieces that they have to write to replace the DirectX calls.
Most of CTP's problems (I think) has to do with the bloated Windows code. What native UNIX app sucks up 70MB of RAM normally?
I think that CTP is a very good first effort by Loki (I'm holding off playing much more until 1.1, though:) and I am really looking forward to other titles.
> If I was running the RedHatshow I would not sue, > instead I would seek revenge with a bigger and > better trick.
Redhat isn't suing anyone. They just sent a 'cease and desist' letter. This is a long way from a lawsuit and they only want them to stop using their name and trademark, which could lead others to believe that this ad is actually for RedHat.
Perfectly reasonable, if you ask me.
Re:Nothing stellar in 1999? HuH?
on
LinuxExpo Report
·
· Score: 5
Huh? In 1999 we got:
-Linux 2.2 (this year) -New Major versions of every distro. -Loki Software and Civ: CTP -Mozilla will be mostly done by Fall, Gecko already kicks butt. -RealAudio G2 player (in beta) -VMWare -Commercial support/investment/reaffermation from several large companies, including Dell, IBM, Oracle, Compaq. -StarOffice 5.x (and released as no-cost software) -Gnome 1.0 (this year) -EGCS as the standard compiler -WINE is going like gangbusters. -Linux is being discussed by people in suits as an option, whereas it was dismissed almost out of hand last year. -Many more things I am forgetting plus lots more to come
And one note. Mozilla isn't a flop. The project has a really great CSS1 compliant engine (gecko), and it is on schedule. Plus several other companies besides AOL/Netscape have recently put programmers on it, and the number of 'outside' programmers is coming up.
Remember, they threw away a LOT of the code and rebuilt the thing from scratch. It may be taking them some time, but when it is finished, it will be a VERY nice and accurate platform for Web based applications, as well as being a complete web browser in itself.
I think that the big objection is that Microsoft will use this benchmark to distort and maim the truth: Linux is bare-bones, quick and stable, NT is (sorta) pretty and unstable as heck. Mark Twain had a good on on that:
"Get the facts first, and then you can distort them as you like"
Sure Linux needs to grow and improve in many areas, and it will. However, many of us believe that NT will never improve, just grow. And many of us are the ones who work with both each day.
Any anyone who believes that no company making crappy products can stay in business apparently hasn't bought anything from China latel, and doesn't watch television.
Re:Passing the savings on to the consumer
on
Practical Beowulf
·
· Score: 1
Also note that the boys from OPEC have a LOT to say about gas/oil prices....
I'm not convinced that gas is a 'bargain', however. Non-renewable, not horribly clean. I would like to see more oil companies become 'energy' companies, and spend more on alternative fuel sources.
And what kind of batteries DO they use in lightsabers, anyway?
Several others have tried it before: Computer Associates with their SSO product , Network Associates with their security suite (although it is different, pay us every year for the same product)...
So far it's proven to be a non-winner for those companies....
The big problem is that once you do this, you are COMPLETELY locked into a single vendor. You can't get out, because they own part of you.
This is probably the WORST thing that could happen, technically. Lack of competition for GOOD products in large corporation could really stifle the computer industry...
"It felt like a car at the demolition derby: somehow it kept going while bits and pieces seemed to be falling off left and right"
Hee, hee! Probably the best description of SCO I've seen.
SCO is my 2nd (or third) least favorite operating system. But you do have to grant them one thing. It DOES keep going (Unlike a certain companies product that starts with an W).
I had the *ahem* pleasure of working on a SCO system that did not have an administrator for 2 years! No one had the root password, and the last person who did left 2 years prior. The dang think just kept running, and never managed to run out of hard drive space.
I am STILL trying to figure out WHY the Gartner Group is considered "expert" in the realm of security.
I am a network security admin/manager by profession, have been for almost 4 years now, and have NEVER heard anything from Gartner that wasn't:
a) So completely obvious that it wasn't even funny.
b) Marketing-speak
c) Guesswork; or
d) Completely wrong.
I especially (dis)liked the last quote:
"The good thing about the Sherlock Holmeses of the Internet is that they are showing us that the locks are not so good," says Gartner's Zboray. "And if Sherlock says so, then you better go out and get new locks."
Huh? It's not the 'Sherlock Holmses' of the FBI or Gartner group or Phar Lap that are examining the locks. The locks are already busted. Nor is it the 'script kiddies'. Its the hundreds of security people and programmers that continously watch their networks, test software, examine code, report to BugTraq and CERT, and get little or no credit for it. Many of them are true 'hackers'.
And we ALREADY knew that the 'locks' were weak in many areas. Puh-LEASE!
>there is no other 20Kb stereo compression out >there that even comes close to comparing to the >new MS codecs
I don't know what the MS codecs sound like, but Mpeg2 Layer 3 sounds quite nice at low bitrates (~24Kbps).
I really disagree with this...
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
Especially this part...
To consider the alternative, pick up any daily newspaper or turn on any TV news broadcast. Old media have for years screened out raucous, outspoken or obnoxious opinion on the grounds of balance and probity.
Two VERY wrong things here:
1) Currently the raucous, the outspoken and the obnoxious are EXACTLY what gets reported and preferental treatment in many cases. See Fred Phelps the rabid gay-basher, Jack Kevorkian the quasi-legal murderer (opinion), Newt Gingrich (nuf said), talk radio, snuff television, yet-another-"Real-life"-television-show, MTV, and on and on and on. If you believe what is reported as news, every important event in life is a murder, rape, other violent crime, politics, corruption, business event, advertisement, or animal lust. Not much mention of what 'normal' people do.
2) Most of the television may be toned down where every third word isn't a swear word and it gets a PG-13 rating, but in return we get lots and lots of mind-numbing, inane, ignorant, badly done television shows, IMHO.
Now yes, it is my right to change the channel. But imagine I have 200 channels (not unreal at this point), and only 10 of them ever have any useful/interesting/good programming (also not unreal). Do I HAVE to surf the rest of them to get to the 10 I like? Why can't I just have the 10, and dump the rest.
Is that censorship? I don't think so.
Filters are about what WE want to listen to/watch/pay attention to. There is no reason that we MUST be forced to get a soundbite of an already proven waste of info (No Fred Phelps Channel for me, thank you), just to get to the information that might be interesting. If so, then some of the interesting and useful info (to me) gets lost in the noise.
The only caveat here is "Who makes the filters". If you completely allow someone else to filter out your world, then you have the possibilites of abuse. But the people who allow other people to think for them will ALWAYS allow others to think for them, whether is it through filters, the 'legitimate' media, or peer pressure.
We who can think, prefer to turn down the white noise, when we can.
Apparently this guy was just dissapointed with his Rio, and compared all MP3 output to it. The article wasn't REALLY very anti-MP3, but here were some very bad assumptions/comparisons made in this article:
1) Saying that CD quality isn't good enough for a 'new' standard.
Er, CD's were VERY well designed for their day. Okay sure they cut a few kH's for space reasons (original spec was for 48khz recording), but CD's still sound quite good.
2) Comparing MP3 to mini-disks, and equating failure.
Minidisks were a commercial failure because record companies aren't going to manufacure CD's AND mini-disks. Also you make a consumer choose between CD's and mini-disks. I don't think there were any REALLY compelling reasons for going to mini-disks, so it lost out. Not that they were bad, but they couldn't replace CD's and it's infrastructure, and they have a fairly small market beside CD's.
MP3's only need a computer to be listened to. The appliance market is still too immature to tell if it will catch on.
3) "MP3" can't last as a standard.
Well, duh! Technology improves and goes on. However, anything stored as an MP3 can be easily converted to any new format. Also MP3 'appliances' can/should be made programmable and accept new formats as they arrive. As it stands now, however, MP3's have a wide acceptance and should probably last longer than the next few years.
4) MP3's aren't good for streaming.
That's what Mpeg2 Layer 3 is for. This is what Shoutcast/Icecast uses and IMHO, sounds far better than what realaudio does for the same bandwidths.
On a local area network, MP3 streams quite nicely.
Personally, I would hope for a more 'open' format for compressed music, but we take what we can get.
Linus and Co. weren't too thrilled about UDI. Mostly because hardware vendors would go back to making binary only drivers, and potential performance/stability issues.
"What do you mean you want programming specs? We got you a driver..", or "..driver acting really slow? Oh, we don't support UDI drivers on Linux". In some ways, it could be worse than nothing.
Personally, I think it would probably be good for the near term. But it would be bad precedent.
David Farber, while being very well respected in his field, is also on the board of directors of Democrats Online, which apparently no longer is actually online. I don't think that you could consider him as "unbiased".
Actually he didn't make the "Internet" a buzzword. His buzzword was "Information SuperHighway" which wasn't talking about the Internet at all. It was some mythical network that the government would build that never happened.
And, he used "Information SuperHighway" as a buzzword AFTER the Internet had started getting momentum. It doesn't mean that he did ONE thing to actually popularize it.
Just because I yell "Look at the parade" as it starts to go by, doesn't mean that I organized the parade, or brought lots of people in to watch.
Lots of other people were yelling, too. And most people came because their neighbor told them about it.
1) Slashdot has an extensive back end to handle user accounts and manage articles. Gore's site is pretty static. In other words, there's no actual code to open source, except HTML and JavaScript.
2) The "Internet" (not 'ARPAnet' late '60s early '70s) throughout most of the period that Gore may have even known about it, was always private, ran on AT&T phone lines (Later mostly MCI and Sprint), just paid for by the Universities (some using US government funds) and large companies associated with those universities. The US government, especially Congress, had very little to do with any changes that have come about to make the Internet "commercial".
It was the hard working people in the IETF and at various universities and companies around the world that used the Internet were the ones that made the Internet what it is. We find it useful because they made it useful for their research projects and communications. When companies started using the Internet for
All Congress has done is footed the bill for many of the US universities (many of which, BTW, were working on US defence projects), and not got in the way by imposing online taxes.
Please note that when Gore was a legislator, a commercial Internet was NEVER even thought of, since that would require people to have computers and networking, which was a rare item in the 80's.
I'm getting really tired of Al Gore taking credit for things he did not do. Let's vote the IETF members in Congress!
Did everyone notice the bit about the "GoreGear" merchandise?
Isn't "GoreGear" where people get the masks, knifed-gloves, and whatnot they wear in slasher flicks?
"Hi, I'm Jamie Lee Curtis. When I'm being chased by ax-wielding maniacs, I make sure that I am dressed to kill in my 'GoreGear'. Shirts, slacks, bandages, they have it all!"
JWZ had an extremely long, stormy history with Netscape and the browser, and has been reportedly unhappy for a long time as well. He is absolutly right about Mozilla STILL being primarily a Netscape product, with Netscape engineers doing a lot of the development.
However, maybe this could be a developer wake up call for more 'outside' people to start contributing more to the Mozilla project.
It's unfortunate that JWZ is throwing the baby (mozilla) out with the bathwater (AOL), and can't find it possible to donate some of his time to it's further development. That is what Open Source is all about, right?
I think the point is blowing our chances for respect and acceptance in the "mainstream" world. He's talking about making it acceptable to the PHB's and businesses of the world that WE can use OUR software to do OUR jobs and for our personal lives, instead of being forced to use cruddy, 'other' software because it is 'acceptable' by some measure.
If the door is slammed on open source by commercial entities, it will still exist, but there will be much less momentum and fewer people to work on it.
If nothing else, many open source projects such as Linux, Apache, and Mozilla get MUCH more testing than the average commercial app.
I'm not a programmer, but I know the ins and outs of how a computer system is supposed to run and I report bugs. Many of the people who use Linux and open source are like me, who do nothing but install, use, and test.
I would say for each programmer on Linux, there are at least a thousand non-programmer admin/user types who are VERY good at testing things and are testing things in a vast array of situtions. Compare this to what commerical software companies CAN do.
Just testing is boring, but each of us do only a small part of the whole...
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of issues. Here's some answers (I hope):
:) and I am really looking forward to other titles.
> There were no installation instructions.
I had instructions on mine. I believe that they were on a card, and there was a README.
> nearly 400MB got copied to my hard disk.
The game is about 150MB, the other 250MB are MPEG movies, which can run off of the cd.
>The install script has a flaky parser.
Nothing wrong with a double slash. Looks ugly, but it still works.
> None of the symbolic links placed all over my
>filesystem worked
Known problem with v1.0, fixed in 1.1
>Start the game up, no sound. Seems this requires
>OSS sound drivers to run.
Well, yeah. For sound you have to have sound drivers. However OSS compatible sound drivers work too, like ALSA.
>I can't play the game under KDE or Gnome.
I play with gnome, with the panel as a corner panel and collapsed. This is a actually a problem with KDE/GNOME, where they want to be in front of EVERYTHING.
Another option is to run it in a window, with a smaller resolution as your desktop.
> After many hours of gameplay, the game burps.
> Segmentation fault.
Ahh. NOW we have a problem. This is known, and for me usually happened RIGHT after the 'Wonders' movies. I found that making the movie play in a window instead of full screen improved the stability.
This is a known problem and should be fixed (hopefully) in 1.1.
Don't forget..CTP is the FIRST shrinkwrapped game for Linux, and only the third by a well known commercial developer (next to Quake and Quake2). There are a lot of tools and utilities that Loki are developing on the fly to do their ports (like the MPEG movie player) and lots of pieces that they have to write to replace the DirectX calls.
Most of CTP's problems (I think) has to do with the bloated Windows code. What native UNIX app sucks up 70MB of RAM normally?
I think that CTP is a very good first effort by Loki (I'm holding off playing much more until 1.1, though
Again, Redhat has not filed suit, but issued a 'cease and desist' letter to LinuxCare.
Very much within their rights and very mature.
> If I was running the RedHatshow I would not sue,
> instead I would seek revenge with a bigger and
> better trick.
Redhat isn't suing anyone. They just sent a 'cease and desist' letter. This is a long way from a lawsuit and they only want them to stop using their name and trademark, which could lead others to believe that this ad is actually for RedHat.
Perfectly reasonable, if you ask me.
Huh? In 1999 we got:
-Linux 2.2 (this year)
-New Major versions of every distro.
-Loki Software and Civ: CTP
-Mozilla will be mostly done by Fall, Gecko
already kicks butt.
-RealAudio G2 player (in beta)
-VMWare
-Commercial support/investment/reaffermation from
several large companies, including Dell, IBM,
Oracle, Compaq.
-StarOffice 5.x (and released as no-cost software)
-Gnome 1.0 (this year)
-EGCS as the standard compiler
-WINE is going like gangbusters.
-Linux is being discussed by people in suits as an
option, whereas it was dismissed almost out of
hand last year.
-Many more things I am forgetting plus lots more
to come
And one note. Mozilla isn't a flop. The project has a really great CSS1 compliant engine (gecko), and it is on schedule. Plus several other companies besides AOL/Netscape have recently put programmers on it, and the number of 'outside' programmers is coming up.
Remember, they threw away a LOT of the code and rebuilt the thing from scratch. It may be taking them some time, but when it is finished, it will be a VERY nice and accurate platform for Web based applications, as well as being a complete web browser in itself.
Life is still good in the land of Linux.
I think that the big objection is that Microsoft will use this benchmark to distort and maim the truth: Linux is bare-bones, quick and stable, NT is (sorta) pretty and unstable as heck. Mark Twain had a good on on that:
"Get the facts first, and then you can distort them as you like"
Sure Linux needs to grow and improve in many areas, and it will. However, many of us believe that NT will never improve, just grow. And many of us are the ones who work with both each day.
Any anyone who believes that no company making crappy products can stay in business apparently hasn't bought anything from China latel, and doesn't watch television.
Also note that the boys from OPEC have a LOT to say about gas/oil prices....
I'm not convinced that gas is a 'bargain', however. Non-renewable, not horribly clean. I would like to see more oil companies become 'energy' companies, and spend more on alternative fuel sources.
And what kind of batteries DO they use in lightsabers, anyway?
Several others have tried it before: Computer Associates with their SSO product , Network Associates with their security suite (although it is different, pay us every year for the same product)...
So far it's proven to be a non-winner for those companies....
The big problem is that once you do this, you are COMPLETELY locked into a single vendor. You can't get out, because they own part of you.
This is probably the WORST thing that could happen, technically. Lack of competition for GOOD products in large corporation could really stifle the computer industry...
No. The kernel and most of the system is pure System V, with Xenix extensions. Shudder...
"It felt like a car at the demolition derby: somehow it kept going while bits and pieces seemed to be falling off left and right"
Hee, hee! Probably the best description of SCO I've seen.
SCO is my 2nd (or third) least favorite operating system. But you do have to grant them one thing. It DOES keep going (Unlike a certain companies product that starts with an W).
I had the *ahem* pleasure of working on a SCO system that did not have an administrator for 2 years! No one had the root password, and the last person who did left 2 years prior. The dang think just kept running, and never managed to run out of hard drive space.
Sucky design, but it ran....
I am STILL trying to figure out WHY the Gartner Group is considered "expert" in the realm of security.
I am a network security admin/manager by profession, have been for almost 4 years now, and have NEVER heard anything from Gartner that wasn't:
a) So completely obvious that it wasn't even funny.
b) Marketing-speak
c) Guesswork; or
d) Completely wrong.
I especially (dis)liked the last quote:
"The good thing about the Sherlock Holmeses of the Internet is that they are showing us that the locks are not so good," says Gartner's Zboray. "And if Sherlock says so, then you better go out and get new locks."
Huh? It's not the 'Sherlock Holmses' of the FBI or Gartner group or Phar Lap that are examining the locks. The locks are already busted. Nor is it the 'script kiddies'. Its the hundreds of security people and programmers that continously watch their networks, test software, examine code, report to BugTraq and CERT, and get little or no credit for it. Many of them are true 'hackers'.
And we ALREADY knew that the 'locks' were weak in many areas. Puh-LEASE!
>there is no other 20Kb stereo compression out >there that even comes close to comparing to the >new MS codecs
I don't know what the MS codecs sound like, but Mpeg2 Layer 3 sounds quite nice at low bitrates (~24Kbps).
Especially this part...
To consider the alternative, pick up any daily newspaper or turn on any TV news broadcast. Old media have for years screened out raucous, outspoken or obnoxious opinion on the grounds of balance and probity.
Two VERY wrong things here:
1) Currently the raucous, the outspoken and the obnoxious are EXACTLY what gets reported and preferental treatment in many cases. See Fred Phelps the rabid gay-basher, Jack Kevorkian the quasi-legal murderer (opinion), Newt Gingrich (nuf said), talk radio, snuff television, yet-another-"Real-life"-television-show, MTV, and on and on and on. If you believe what is reported as news, every important event in life is a murder, rape, other violent crime, politics, corruption, business event, advertisement, or animal lust. Not much mention of what 'normal' people do.
2) Most of the television may be toned down where every third word isn't a swear word and it gets a PG-13 rating, but in return we get lots and lots of mind-numbing, inane, ignorant, badly done television shows, IMHO.
Now yes, it is my right to change the channel. But imagine I have 200 channels (not unreal at this point), and only 10 of them ever have any useful/interesting/good programming (also not unreal). Do I HAVE to surf the rest of them to get to the 10 I like? Why can't I just have the 10, and dump the rest.
Is that censorship? I don't think so.
Filters are about what WE want to listen to/watch/pay attention to. There is no reason that we MUST be forced to get a soundbite of an already proven waste of info (No Fred Phelps Channel for me, thank you), just to get to the information that might be interesting. If so, then some of the interesting and useful info (to me) gets lost in the noise.
The only caveat here is "Who makes the filters". If you completely allow someone else to filter out your world, then you have the possibilites of abuse. But the people who allow other people to think for them will ALWAYS allow others to think for them, whether is it through filters, the 'legitimate' media, or peer pressure.
We who can think, prefer to turn down the white noise, when we can.
Apparently this guy was just dissapointed with his Rio, and compared all MP3 output to it. The article wasn't REALLY very anti-MP3, but here were some very bad assumptions/comparisons made in this article:
1) Saying that CD quality isn't good enough for a 'new' standard.
Er, CD's were VERY well designed for their day. Okay sure they cut a few kH's for space reasons (original spec was for 48khz recording), but CD's still sound quite good.
2) Comparing MP3 to mini-disks, and equating failure.
Minidisks were a commercial failure because record companies aren't going to manufacure CD's AND mini-disks. Also you make a consumer choose between CD's and mini-disks. I don't think there were any REALLY compelling reasons for going to mini-disks, so it lost out. Not that they were bad, but they couldn't replace CD's and it's infrastructure, and they have a fairly small market beside CD's.
MP3's only need a computer to be listened to. The appliance market is still too immature to tell if it will catch on.
3) "MP3" can't last as a standard.
Well, duh! Technology improves and goes on. However, anything stored as an MP3 can be easily converted to any new format. Also MP3 'appliances' can/should be made programmable and accept new formats as they arrive. As it stands now, however, MP3's have a wide acceptance and should probably last longer than the next few years.
4) MP3's aren't good for streaming.
That's what Mpeg2 Layer 3 is for. This is what Shoutcast/Icecast uses and IMHO, sounds far better than what realaudio does for the same bandwidths.
On a local area network, MP3 streams quite nicely.
Personally, I would hope for a more 'open' format for compressed music, but we take what we can get.
jf
Linus and Co. weren't too thrilled about UDI. Mostly because hardware vendors would go back to making binary only drivers, and potential performance/stability issues.
"What do you mean you want programming specs? We got you a driver..", or "..driver acting really slow? Oh, we don't support UDI drivers on Linux". In some ways, it could be worse than nothing.
Personally, I think it would probably be good for the near term. But it would be bad precedent.
David Farber, while being very well respected in his field, is also on the board of directors of Democrats Online, which apparently no longer is actually online. I don't think that you could consider him as "unbiased".
Actually he didn't make the "Internet" a buzzword. His buzzword was "Information SuperHighway" which wasn't talking about the Internet at all. It was some mythical network that the government would build that never happened.
And, he used "Information SuperHighway" as a buzzword AFTER the Internet had started getting momentum. It doesn't mean that he did ONE thing to actually popularize it.
Just because I yell "Look at the parade" as it starts to go by, doesn't mean that I organized the parade, or brought lots of people in to watch.
Lots of other people were yelling, too. And most people came because their neighbor told them about it.
Er, couple of things.
1) Slashdot has an extensive back end to handle user accounts and manage articles. Gore's site is pretty static. In other words, there's no actual code to open source, except HTML and JavaScript.
2) The "Internet" (not 'ARPAnet' late '60s early '70s) throughout most of the period that Gore may have even known about it, was always private, ran on AT&T phone lines (Later mostly MCI and Sprint), just paid for by the Universities (some using US government funds) and large companies associated with those universities. The US government, especially Congress, had very little to do with any changes that have come about to make the Internet "commercial".
It was the hard working people in the IETF and at various universities and companies around the world that used the Internet were the ones that made the Internet what it is. We find it useful because they made it useful for their research projects and communications. When companies started using the Internet for
All Congress has done is footed the bill for many of the US universities (many of which, BTW, were working on US defence projects), and not got in the way by imposing online taxes.
Please note that when Gore was a legislator, a commercial Internet was NEVER even thought of, since that would require people to have computers and networking, which was a rare item in the 80's.
I'm getting really tired of Al Gore taking credit for things he did not do. Let's vote the IETF members in Congress!
Did everyone notice the bit about the "GoreGear" merchandise?
Isn't "GoreGear" where people get the masks, knifed-gloves, and whatnot they wear in slasher flicks?
"Hi, I'm Jamie Lee Curtis. When I'm being chased by ax-wielding maniacs, I make sure that I am dressed to kill in my 'GoreGear'. Shirts, slacks, bandages, they have it all!"
I like Option 5, with the stylized red penguin. Real snazzy..
Mozilla is definately a baby, granted a rather slow moving, awkward one at the moment.
;)
And there are always POTENTIAL babies, you just have to work at them...
JWZ had an extremely long, stormy history with Netscape and the browser, and has been reportedly unhappy for a long time as well. He is absolutly right about Mozilla STILL being primarily a Netscape product, with Netscape engineers doing a lot of the development.
However, maybe this could be a developer wake up call for more 'outside' people to start contributing more to the Mozilla project.
It's unfortunate that JWZ is throwing the baby (mozilla) out with the bathwater (AOL), and can't find it possible to donate some of his time to it's further development. That is what Open Source is all about, right?
jf
> A Beowulf of palm pilots running linux?
:)
Actually, you could do this via IR and the micro-Linux stuff. Been one of my dreams for a while..
I think the point is blowing our chances for respect and acceptance in the "mainstream" world. He's talking about making it acceptable to the PHB's and businesses of the world that WE can use OUR software to do OUR jobs and for our personal lives, instead of being forced to use cruddy, 'other' software because it is 'acceptable' by some measure.
If the door is slammed on open source by commercial entities, it will still exist, but there will be much less momentum and fewer people to work on it.
I think that is where we can really blow it.
Oh heck. All I said was that I respect him for having principles.
Sheesh
If nothing else, many open source projects such as Linux, Apache, and Mozilla get MUCH more testing than the average commercial app.
I'm not a programmer, but I know the ins and outs of how a computer system is supposed to run and I report bugs. Many of the people who use Linux and open source are like me, who do nothing but install, use, and test.
I would say for each programmer on Linux, there are at least a thousand non-programmer admin/user types who are VERY good at testing things and are testing things in a vast array of situtions. Compare this to what commerical software companies CAN do.
Just testing is boring, but each of us do only a small part of the whole...