Both Windows and Linux are certainly not 100% free from patent violations, but to a customer there's still a big difference. If Windows is found to violate a patent, Microsoft gets sued. The customer can remain completely oblivious to who's suing who. If Linux is found to violate a patent, the customer gets sued. I know there's insurance out there, but who wants to have to buy insurance so that they don't get sued for using the software they legally bought? For that matter, how many people outside the Linux community even know that they should buy patent insurance if they're using linux at a large company? It's already happened with the SCO case, and it's likely to happen again.
Well, first of all, Halo for the PC completely misses out on the culteral phenomena that was Halo for the Xbox. People loved Halo because all you needed were a few TVs and a few Xboxes and you could have 16 players all going at it at once in the same room. That's roughly $1,600 worth of equipment, or the cost of a single PC capable of playing a modern 3D shooter. Just among myself and my roommate, we have enough to get 4v4 Halo games going. You can probably imagine how much easier it is to spontaneously get 6 other people over after work for some 4v4 Halo games that it would be to convince 6 people to haul their PCs over to play some PC fps (assuming we had room for 8 PCs in our apartment).
As for the graphics, play it on an xbox, they're great. For whatever reason, the PC version looks like ass. The bump mapped textures on the xbox are quite good.
As for the level size, are you sure you played it through? The outdoor levels are huge. Take, for example, the second stage right after the Autumn crashes into Halo. They pretty much have to give you vehicles for that stage because walking would take too long. There is a multiplayer map that's just shoeboxes and teleporters. There's also the CTF maps where are huge (blood gulch, and the one who's name I forget because I don't play it because it's too big for 4v4).
Well, GTK+ is object oriented and written in C, so any program that uses GTK+ can probably be consired object oriented. I don't know how you write a GUI app as a purely procedural application, and while I'm sure it's possible, frankly I don't want to know. OO really fits well for writing GUIs.
In fact, if I remember correctly, they mostly are the same. NVidia uses pretty much the same code on linux and windows. It's just the interfaces that change.
Good fantasy novels and good sci-fi novels are actually very similar. They both take society, change part of it, explore the world that they've created, and in doing so illuminating aspects of human nature. The only real difference is the exact way they go about doing it. Sci-fi usually starts with our society as the basis and extrapolates into the future. Fantasy starts from scratch.
It's unfortunate that much of the fantasy genre tends to be a rehash of the lord of the rings, or "fondly remembered mediaeval feudal society" as you call it. If a novel looks to a future where much of human technology has been lost because of nuclear war and we've reverted to a feudal system of government, is that fantasy or sci-fi? What about Dune? For all intents and purposes, the society there is a completely new one, and a feudal one no less, yet the book is heralded as a classic of sci-fi (and rightly so). It's hard to tell, because at the core, what makes good sci-fi makes good fantasy.
The current attacks cannot take a given file and modify it so that the hash does not change. All they can do is generate two files who have the same hash. Neither the two files nor the hash are known at the beginning of the attack, so it's really not a danger for verifying programs (yet). We'll see if this attack leads to other attacks where a file could be generated to match a specific hash.
I certainly don't disagree with you, but take a look at the original post. This discussion started off with talking about methods to verify that you'd succesfully copied your data from one partition to another. This is an application where security and the (supposed) presence of algorithms to generate collisions is completely irrelevant. The original poster just wants to make sure that the backup of his data isn't corrupted before he nukes it and reformats the partition with reiser4.
Thanks for the link. I actually wasn't aware of that particular attack. I'm still not sure that it means that's it's possible to generate a message with a given hash though.
The attack presented talkes about generating two messages, M and M' such that M and M' have the same md5 hash. This is a potential problem, but it's still a step away from being able to generate a message that matches a particular hash.
Sure MD5 has been proving to have collisions, but that really isn't news. All hash algorithms have collisions simply because of the nature of what they do.
Suppose you've got a 1K file. There are 2^1K possible values that file can assume. If you map those 2^1K values to the 2^160 values a SHA1 hash can assume, you have an average of 2^944 1K files that collide on any give SHA1 hash.
What differentiates hash algorithms is their ability to prevent people from generate a text that matches a given hash. It is currently not possible to do this for either MD5 or SHA1. It has been speculated that MD5 is nearing the end of it's life in this regard though. I don't follow the field closely enough to weigh in on the matter, but I can tell you that the only thing that finding an actual md5 collision will do is demonstrate what was rather easily proved in the previous paragraph.
As far as verifying files is concerned, the cryptographic strength of the hash algorithm is irrelevant. Unless you suspect someone will be tampering with your results, use whatever algorithm you can find a useful tool for, be it md5, sha1, or even crc32.
I think you'll find this is true of quite a lot of people. The benefit of an open protocol for most people isn't that they can write their own client, it's that they will have numerous clients to chose from and they can take their pick. With a closed system like AIM or Yahoo, you still have the unofficial clients, but you have to worry about the networks purposely breaking them every once in a while.
I mean, face it, the official AIM client is a complete and utter piece of shit (only surpassed in crappyness by the official ICQ client, which is why ICQ lost my business). I can't comment on the Yahoo client, as I've never used it, but let's just say I don't expect much. If you're still running an official client, I feel sorry for you. Unless you like adds.
The reason people will switch is because they're already running Gaim or Trillian and adding another network is just as simple as adding some contact info into a configuration dialog. Eventually people will run out reasons to use the closed networks.
Ah, yet another answer providing a l33t solution that requires 3 times the effort but don't result in anything nearly as useful. This must be slashdot...
Seriously, who the fsck would want to ssh to their mail servers and grep the spool when they could just type in a search term and instantly access the email within the context of its thread?
Just to clarify, in the third paragraph I meant to say "If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that/. is mostly read by people that don't use their products." Funny how one word completely changes the meaning of a sentence:).
As another poster pointed out, this probably isn't true. A better way to put it is that slashdot is read mostly by people who actively seek out alternatives to their products.
True. Perhaps I overstated the number of linux supporters that read slashdot. There's certainly a number of people here that use the best tool for the job. Personally, I use windows 90% of the time, by choice. It's a good OS and it has its uses. So does linux.
That said, slashdot certainly has it's roots in the linux community, and I would say that a majority of slashdot readers atleast have a favorable opinion of linux. And good luck convincing anyone that the editorial staff doesn't have a very heavy linux bias. You certainly seem to have a pro-linux stance:).
But my point was there's no purpose preaching to the choir. Microsoft needs to target the people that would normally choose linux to run their servers. Personally, I wouldn't let Windows anywhere near one of my servers. If Microsoft can convince me to try out X version of Y product, maybe I'll like it and they'll get some new sales from me.
Or, perhaps Microsoft said to themselves, "They're publishing negative articles about our products, let's put some adds up to negate the effect." In that case, it would be in LW's best interest to continue being negative about Microsoft products, lest Microsoft no longer have a need to place adds there.
Or, here's another theory I think is even more plausible:
Microsoft certainly doesn't post to/. because of all the nice things slashdotters have to say about them. If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that/. is mostly read by people that use their product. Thus, by placing adds on/. they can target potential switchers. I would imagine the same is true of LW.
Overall, I don't think LW has any reason to be pro-microsoft, even with the adds.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why the 800MHz bus pentiums use dual channel DDR. Two 400MHz channels sync up with an 800MHz channel pretty well.
I knew. The guy who wrote the article knew. I really hope you knew.
And it would take you how long to read through the entire Mozilla code to verify that you had a legitmate version?
Don't just mod the parent up, update the article with that second blurb. Not everyone reads comments on slashdot.
Both Windows and Linux are certainly not 100% free from patent violations, but to a customer there's still a big difference. If Windows is found to violate a patent, Microsoft gets sued. The customer can remain completely oblivious to who's suing who. If Linux is found to violate a patent, the customer gets sued. I know there's insurance out there, but who wants to have to buy insurance so that they don't get sued for using the software they legally bought? For that matter, how many people outside the Linux community even know that they should buy patent insurance if they're using linux at a large company? It's already happened with the SCO case, and it's likely to happen again.
Where to start...
Well, first of all, Halo for the PC completely misses out on the culteral phenomena that was Halo for the Xbox. People loved Halo because all you needed were a few TVs and a few Xboxes and you could have 16 players all going at it at once in the same room. That's roughly $1,600 worth of equipment, or the cost of a single PC capable of playing a modern 3D shooter. Just among myself and my roommate, we have enough to get 4v4 Halo games going. You can probably imagine how much easier it is to spontaneously get 6 other people over after work for some 4v4 Halo games that it would be to convince 6 people to haul their PCs over to play some PC fps (assuming we had room for 8 PCs in our apartment).
As for the graphics, play it on an xbox, they're great. For whatever reason, the PC version looks like ass. The bump mapped textures on the xbox are quite good.
As for the level size, are you sure you played it through? The outdoor levels are huge. Take, for example, the second stage right after the Autumn crashes into Halo. They pretty much have to give you vehicles for that stage because walking would take too long. There is a multiplayer map that's just shoeboxes and teleporters. There's also the CTF maps where are huge (blood gulch, and the one who's name I forget because I don't play it because it's too big for 4v4).
Well, GTK+ is object oriented and written in C, so any program that uses GTK+ can probably be consired object oriented. I don't know how you write a GUI app as a purely procedural application, and while I'm sure it's possible, frankly I don't want to know. OO really fits well for writing GUIs.
gn0!
In fact, if I remember correctly, they mostly are the same. NVidia uses pretty much the same code on linux and windows. It's just the interfaces that change.
All it takes is:
Good fantasy novels and good sci-fi novels are actually very similar. They both take society, change part of it, explore the world that they've created, and in doing so illuminating aspects of human nature. The only real difference is the exact way they go about doing it. Sci-fi usually starts with our society as the basis and extrapolates into the future. Fantasy starts from scratch.
It's unfortunate that much of the fantasy genre tends to be a rehash of the lord of the rings, or "fondly remembered mediaeval feudal society" as you call it. If a novel looks to a future where much of human technology has been lost because of nuclear war and we've reverted to a feudal system of government, is that fantasy or sci-fi? What about Dune? For all intents and purposes, the society there is a completely new one, and a feudal one no less, yet the book is heralded as a classic of sci-fi (and rightly so). It's hard to tell, because at the core, what makes good sci-fi makes good fantasy.
Well, I'm willing to bet your roaming charges will be a heck of a lot more than two cents :).
A clarification:
The current attacks cannot take a given file and modify it so that the hash does not change. All they can do is generate two files who have the same hash. Neither the two files nor the hash are known at the beginning of the attack, so it's really not a danger for verifying programs (yet). We'll see if this attack leads to other attacks where a file could be generated to match a specific hash.
I certainly don't disagree with you, but take a look at the original post. This discussion started off with talking about methods to verify that you'd succesfully copied your data from one partition to another. This is an application where security and the (supposed) presence of algorithms to generate collisions is completely irrelevant. The original poster just wants to make sure that the backup of his data isn't corrupted before he nukes it and reformats the partition with reiser4.
Thanks for the link. I actually wasn't aware of that particular attack. I'm still not sure that it means that's it's possible to generate a message with a given hash though. The attack presented talkes about generating two messages, M and M' such that M and M' have the same md5 hash. This is a potential problem, but it's still a step away from being able to generate a message that matches a particular hash.
Er, 2^864 (that's what I get for trying to do math in my head)
Sure MD5 has been proving to have collisions, but that really isn't news. All hash algorithms have collisions simply because of the nature of what they do.
Suppose you've got a 1K file. There are 2^1K possible values that file can assume. If you map those 2^1K values to the 2^160 values a SHA1 hash can assume, you have an average of 2^944 1K files that collide on any give SHA1 hash.
What differentiates hash algorithms is their ability to prevent people from generate a text that matches a given hash. It is currently not possible to do this for either MD5 or SHA1. It has been speculated that MD5 is nearing the end of it's life in this regard though. I don't follow the field closely enough to weigh in on the matter, but I can tell you that the only thing that finding an actual md5 collision will do is demonstrate what was rather easily proved in the previous paragraph.
As far as verifying files is concerned, the cryptographic strength of the hash algorithm is irrelevant. Unless you suspect someone will be tampering with your results, use whatever algorithm you can find a useful tool for, be it md5, sha1, or even crc32.
I run an IM client that someone else wrote: gaim.
I think you'll find this is true of quite a lot of people. The benefit of an open protocol for most people isn't that they can write their own client, it's that they will have numerous clients to chose from and they can take their pick. With a closed system like AIM or Yahoo, you still have the unofficial clients, but you have to worry about the networks purposely breaking them every once in a while.
I mean, face it, the official AIM client is a complete and utter piece of shit (only surpassed in crappyness by the official ICQ client, which is why ICQ lost my business). I can't comment on the Yahoo client, as I've never used it, but let's just say I don't expect much. If you're still running an official client, I feel sorry for you. Unless you like adds.
The reason people will switch is because they're already running Gaim or Trillian and adding another network is just as simple as adding some contact info into a configuration dialog. Eventually people will run out reasons to use the closed networks.
It's because all the "trendy" people discovered cell phones first. We're jealous and we're damn well not going to let them realize it.
Ah, yet another answer providing a l33t solution that requires 3 times the effort but don't result in anything nearly as useful. This must be slashdot...
Seriously, who the fsck would want to ssh to their mail servers and grep the spool when they could just type in a search term and instantly access the email within the context of its thread?
(Yeah, I know this was probably a troll)
Just to clarify, in the third paragraph I meant to say "If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that /. is mostly read by people that don't use their products." Funny how one word completely changes the meaning of a sentence :).
As another poster pointed out, this probably isn't true. A better way to put it is that slashdot is read mostly by people who actively seek out alternatives to their products.
True. Perhaps I overstated the number of linux supporters that read slashdot. There's certainly a number of people here that use the best tool for the job. Personally, I use windows 90% of the time, by choice. It's a good OS and it has its uses. So does linux.
:).
That said, slashdot certainly has it's roots in the linux community, and I would say that a majority of slashdot readers atleast have a favorable opinion of linux. And good luck convincing anyone that the editorial staff doesn't have a very heavy linux bias. You certainly seem to have a pro-linux stance
But my point was there's no purpose preaching to the choir. Microsoft needs to target the people that would normally choose linux to run their servers. Personally, I wouldn't let Windows anywhere near one of my servers. If Microsoft can convince me to try out X version of Y product, maybe I'll like it and they'll get some new sales from me.
Or, perhaps Microsoft said to themselves, "They're publishing negative articles about our products, let's put some adds up to negate the effect." In that case, it would be in LW's best interest to continue being negative about Microsoft products, lest Microsoft no longer have a need to place adds there.
/. because of all the nice things slashdotters have to say about them. If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that /. is mostly read by people that use their product. Thus, by placing adds on /. they can target potential switchers. I would imagine the same is true of LW.
Or, here's another theory I think is even more plausible:
Microsoft certainly doesn't post to
Overall, I don't think LW has any reason to be pro-microsoft, even with the adds.
Prime the US! Upset Somebody!
Java also has the same problem. Almost makes you think they do it on purpose.