The second and most obvious thing is that because wine exists then less software will be made for linux in the meantime.... this is the biggest barrier to linux taking more market share.
Why? Who cares?
The average user wouldnt care if the app their running was compiled for linux natively, or is being emulated, so long as it works seamlessly.
A WINE that worked, was effortless to install, had a compatibility with XP in the high 90%'s (including the latest DirectX - big issue, games are probably the most cited reason home users stay on windows), would be a huge reason to run linux on the desktop.
Users could simply be told "look, here's this free product, that's more stable, more secure, AND runs all Windows applications to boot". People start using linux, MSFT responds by breaking compatibilities in their next OS, breaking compatibility with XP in the process, pissing people off, driving more to linux..
There are plenty of apps I use that only have Windows versions, and I frankly prefer to any OSS counterparts I've seen. DVD/CD burning software, some dev tools (yeah, I much prefer Visual Studio to anything in the OSS world I've seen)..
And as far as games go, I know there's a handful of linux titles, but by and large there's no comparison.
As I see it, at that point, hardware support would be the biggest (only?) thing holding linux back from the desktops of the world.
If calls are being passed directly to/from drivers like NTFS.SYS and the actual WinXP kernel, does using Wine require a licensed copy of XP?
AFAIK you can't freely redistribute the XP kernel and system drivers.
Will we see WINE shut down at MSFTs whim one day?
Re:"prepare-for-disappointment department"?
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 1
I always thought "Beavis and Butthead Do America" was a great movie.
Seems to me the key is simply to write a great plot around the characters, rather than trying to take a half hour script and stall for time.
The same formula worked in South Park. The theme of the show didn't change, the characters didnt change, but it actually had a chance to pull off a more detailed plot.
I was worried the BB movie would be two hours of them sitting on the couch watching videos, it easily could have been, and would have been entertaining enough to make some quick bucks at the box office. But I was surprised in a good way, that they actually made a movie.
The 32k x 32k represents addressable pixels. You could manipulate such a screen directly, or through a framebuffer built into the display block. No need to do it in RAM.
Though of course no Palm will have such a display.
It's simply got two 16 bit words to represent an X/Y coordinate. (15 bits + 1 for something else?) Nothing magical there.
8 bit would have left it at 256x256 max, anything between is silly given conventional device design.
Desktop CPUs were never designed with low power consumption in mind. You'd probably need to lug around a 10lb battery unit to have any sort of reasonable usage time in such a thing.
Besides, a dragonball cpu is probably cheaper than a ZIF socket these days.
The difference is that Americans are spread out all over that main "chunk" of land, where Australians are kinda crammed along the coastal regions, and it's not so populated out in the desert or the outback.
Same with Canada, most of the population lives along the US border, not too many people to worry about way up in the tundra.
Say hi to Yahoo Serious for me. Truly an Australian icon.
There's nothing wrong, this is pretty much how the system works these days.
You can't just submit a patent and expect the examiners to prove a negative. "Go out and prove I didn't invent X". Unless its obvious, in which case they throw it out.
So, basically, they just go ahead and grant the patent (or application), and let the courts handle it. TVi says they have a patent, MSFT says the patents are invalid (because of prior art, obviousness, they invented it first, etc), and they dance in court about it.
Now the burden of proof is on TVi, to prove that they invented it and the patent is valid.
The system is open to abuses, sure, and that's a hole that needs to be closed. TVi is essentially playing the lottery. They'll probably lose, but if they win, they'll win big.
Frankly I'd rather they waste their own money fighting over it than taxpayer resources trying to research every single claim that shows up. Especially with all the high tech fields these days. You'd need multiple PhDs in every single scientific discipline to even read some of the biotech claims these days.
Depends what you want it for. A platter based drive is more likely to die if you drop your palmtop/ipod/tablet/laptop.
For dedicated boxes like routers or app/file/web servers, that are 99% read only once configured, perhaps a solid state drive with much lower access times, and perhaps by then much higher throughput would be a better choice..
Moving parts just suck for a whole lot of reasons that boil down to physics. I mean the mars rovers dont have terabytes of HDDs, they have a tiny little chunk of flash that can survive space.
Nothing to do with constitutional free speech, everything to do with libel.
Some of the reviews no doubt crossed the line. Some jerk gets a bad grade, accuses the prof of being a pedophile and a crack addict, and thats the end of that.
You can prove through cryptographic means, md5 sums, etc, that the odds a digital file has been tampered with are billions-to-one. Some cameras designed for LEOs have such stuff built in, you can prove that the file hasnt changed since the camera took it.
With analog, you end up with a dozen 'experts' with magnifying glasses who cant decide if its bigfoot or a guy in a gorilla outfit.
Besides, cases are built on actual physical evidence. That freak who kidnapped the little girl from the carwash will get the chair because of DNA and other evidence, not the surveillance footage.
I work in the field, I create and deploy records management systems for police.
There's always an auditable chain of custody with all eveidence, digitally the product i use accomplishes it with encryptions and checksums. If an officer takes a pic out to alter it (they have to crop/lighten/darken mugshots so they look consistent for use in a lineup), his actions are logged, and a copy of the original is always kept. Just like checking stuff in and out of any CVS.
There are some digicams out there specially designed for the task which create special checksums and hashes to prove, mathematically that the image on a disk is the same one the camera took.
This is all tied to the officer who took the picture and entered it into the system, and ultimately would be held accountable for it.
If needed, I could be called on to swear an affidavid that the file hadn't been altered since taken/entered.
Now, for the most part, the agencies I've dealt with only use digital imagine for mugshots, and a few take digital shots of traffic accidents. But more and more are expanding the use of technology. 911 calls, and police radio chatter, being encoded to mp3 and permanently attached to the case file, stills from dashboard cameras, crime scene photos.
Frankly, you can prove mathematically with some simple tech these days that not even a single pixel in a digital photograph had been altered. It'd much easier to fake an old-fashioned analog photograph.
Of course, sleazy lawyers will wow clueless jury members with how easy it is to change things in photoshop, which they'll understand. And those jury members will be asleep when the mathemetician demonstrates that there's only a 1 in 400 kajillion chance of altering time image without changing the checksums...
Some superflous new scenes added, like computer generated spaceships flying around. More computer generated aliens in the background.
In the first film, they took some cutting-room floor footage of Han talking to Jabba as he's preparing to take off in the Millenium Falcon. (I thought I read somewhere that Marlon Brando was actually playing Jabba in that scene). Anyways, they put in a computer generated Jabba walking alongside Han, and it looks pretty cheesy to me.
I hate overused computer animation. I think it looks out of place and fake, and the world of Star Wars was much more believable made out of foam rubber costumes and cheesy props.
The big one that gets all the geeks riled up is they changed the Cantina scene, so that Jabba's bounty hunter shoots at Han, and he kills him in 'self defense'. In the original, Han just shoots him under the table and gets up and leaves.
It effectively changes Han's character from an outlaw who cares only about himself, to some sort of good guy who found himself in trouble.
I haven't seen the special edition versions of the other two movies.
Slashdot Mirror
The second and most obvious thing is that because wine exists then less software will be made for linux in the meantime.... this is the biggest barrier to linux taking more market share.
Why? Who cares?
The average user wouldnt care if the app their running was compiled for linux natively, or is being emulated, so long as it works seamlessly.
A WINE that worked, was effortless to install, had a compatibility with XP in the high 90%'s (including the latest DirectX - big issue, games are probably the most cited reason home users stay on windows), would be a huge reason to run linux on the desktop.
Users could simply be told "look, here's this free product, that's more stable, more secure, AND runs all Windows applications to boot". People start using linux, MSFT responds by breaking compatibilities in their next OS, breaking compatibility with XP in the process, pissing people off, driving more to linux..
There are plenty of apps I use that only have Windows versions, and I frankly prefer to any OSS counterparts I've seen. DVD/CD burning software, some dev tools (yeah, I much prefer Visual Studio to anything in the OSS world I've seen)..
And as far as games go, I know there's a handful of linux titles, but by and large there's no comparison.
As I see it, at that point, hardware support would be the biggest (only?) thing holding linux back from the desktops of the world.
If calls are being passed directly to/from drivers like NTFS.SYS and the actual WinXP kernel, does using Wine require a licensed copy of XP?
AFAIK you can't freely redistribute the XP kernel and system drivers.
Will we see WINE shut down at MSFTs whim one day?
I always thought "Beavis and Butthead Do America" was a great movie.
Seems to me the key is simply to write a great plot around the characters, rather than trying to take a half hour script and stall for time.
The same formula worked in South Park. The theme of the show didn't change, the characters didnt change, but it actually had a chance to pull off a more detailed plot.
I was worried the BB movie would be two hours of them sitting on the couch watching videos, it easily could have been, and would have been entertaining enough to make some quick bucks at the box office. But I was surprised in a good way, that they actually made a movie.
The 32k x 32k represents addressable pixels. You could manipulate such a screen directly, or through a framebuffer built into the display block. No need to do it in RAM.
Though of course no Palm will have such a display.
It's simply got two 16 bit words to represent an X/Y coordinate. (15 bits + 1 for something else?) Nothing magical there.
8 bit would have left it at 256x256 max, anything between is silly given conventional device design.
Devices like that dont have framebuffers like a VGA card, the display *is* the framebuffer, you address and flip pixels directly on it.
Or, rather, they dont need one, but I'm sure many do to facilitate multimedia functions.
Desktop CPUs were never designed with low power consumption in mind. You'd probably need to lug around a 10lb battery unit to have any sort of reasonable usage time in such a thing.
Besides, a dragonball cpu is probably cheaper than a ZIF socket these days.
32000 x 32000 screen resolution on yer next palm job, huh?
DONT YOU BELIEVE IT!
Shove a duracell up your ass and call it a pantload monitor.
When's the last time you saw a C cell used in anything besides a dildo?
I'm serious.
Thats the only reason they exist.
Because it's printed, in a triangle pattern.
The difference is that Americans are spread out all over that main "chunk" of land, where Australians are kinda crammed along the coastal regions, and it's not so populated out in the desert or the outback.
Same with Canada, most of the population lives along the US border, not too many people to worry about way up in the tundra.
Say hi to Yahoo Serious for me. Truly an Australian icon.
As I can speak for Europe
Exactly when were you appointed official spokesperson for all of Europe?
Why does noone ever call on folks who use embedded OSS products to release the source, at least to people who buy the products?
Also not a downside for those who simply want a phone, and really dont care about the politics or philosophy of the firmware inside such phone.
There's nothing wrong, this is pretty much how the system works these days.
You can't just submit a patent and expect the examiners to prove a negative. "Go out and prove I didn't invent X". Unless its obvious, in which case they throw it out.
So, basically, they just go ahead and grant the patent (or application), and let the courts handle it. TVi says they have a patent, MSFT says the patents are invalid (because of prior art, obviousness, they invented it first, etc), and they dance in court about it.
Now the burden of proof is on TVi, to prove that they invented it and the patent is valid.
The system is open to abuses, sure, and that's a hole that needs to be closed. TVi is essentially playing the lottery. They'll probably lose, but if they win, they'll win big.
Frankly I'd rather they waste their own money fighting over it than taxpayer resources trying to research every single claim that shows up. Especially with all the high tech fields these days. You'd need multiple PhDs in every single scientific discipline to even read some of the biotech claims these days.
Depends what you want it for. A platter based drive is more likely to die if you drop your palmtop/ipod/tablet/laptop.
For dedicated boxes like routers or app/file/web servers, that are 99% read only once configured, perhaps a solid state drive with much lower access times, and perhaps by then much higher throughput would be a better choice..
Moving parts just suck for a whole lot of reasons that boil down to physics. I mean the mars rovers dont have terabytes of HDDs, they have a tiny little chunk of flash that can survive space.
Nothing to do with constitutional free speech, everything to do with libel.
Some of the reviews no doubt crossed the line. Some jerk gets a bad grade, accuses the prof of being a pedophile and a crack addict, and thats the end of that.
Because the camera can supply it, hashed against a unique id incorporated into the camera.
You can prove through cryptographic means, md5 sums, etc, that the odds a digital file has been tampered with are billions-to-one. Some cameras designed for LEOs have such stuff built in, you can prove that the file hasnt changed since the camera took it.
With analog, you end up with a dozen 'experts' with magnifying glasses who cant decide if its bigfoot or a guy in a gorilla outfit.
Besides, cases are built on actual physical evidence. That freak who kidnapped the little girl from the carwash will get the chair because of DNA and other evidence, not the surveillance footage.
I work in the field, I create and deploy records management systems for police.
There's always an auditable chain of custody with all eveidence, digitally the product i use accomplishes it with encryptions and checksums. If an officer takes a pic out to alter it (they have to crop/lighten/darken mugshots so they look consistent for use in a lineup), his actions are logged, and a copy of the original is always kept. Just like checking stuff in and out of any CVS.
There are some digicams out there specially designed for the task which create special checksums and hashes to prove, mathematically that the image on a disk is the same one the camera took.
This is all tied to the officer who took the picture and entered it into the system, and ultimately would be held accountable for it.
If needed, I could be called on to swear an affidavid that the file hadn't been altered since taken/entered.
Now, for the most part, the agencies I've dealt with only use digital imagine for mugshots, and a few take digital shots of traffic accidents. But more and more are expanding the use of technology. 911 calls, and police radio chatter, being encoded to mp3 and permanently attached to the case file, stills from dashboard cameras, crime scene photos.
Frankly, you can prove mathematically with some simple tech these days that not even a single pixel in a digital photograph had been altered. It'd much easier to fake an old-fashioned analog photograph.
Of course, sleazy lawyers will wow clueless jury members with how easy it is to change things in photoshop, which they'll understand. And those jury members will be asleep when the mathemetician demonstrates that there's only a 1 in 400 kajillion chance of altering time image without changing the checksums...
Need, sure. Hell, worldwide we only needed 0.
The world worked just fine for thousands of years without 'em.
To encourage employees to think he had big "THINK" signs put all over the company
Dont forget, you're here forever!
Where a human being answers the phone.
Nothing pisses me off more than being kept on hold by a series of robots. Especially when it's long distance.
Setting it up to reward foul-mouthed assholes with live support just pisses me off more.
I know they considered Brando for the part, or he read for it, or Jabba was modelled after the Godfather, or some shit..
AFAIK, it'll cost more to maintain it (essentially rebuilding the thing in orbit) than it would to launch a new one.
Some superflous new scenes added, like computer generated spaceships flying around. More computer generated aliens in the background.
In the first film, they took some cutting-room floor footage of Han talking to Jabba as he's preparing to take off in the Millenium Falcon. (I thought I read somewhere that Marlon Brando was actually playing Jabba in that scene). Anyways, they put in a computer generated Jabba walking alongside Han, and it looks pretty cheesy to me.
I hate overused computer animation. I think it looks out of place and fake, and the world of Star Wars was much more believable made out of foam rubber costumes and cheesy props.
The big one that gets all the geeks riled up is they changed the Cantina scene, so that Jabba's bounty hunter shoots at Han, and he kills him in 'self defense'. In the original, Han just shoots him under the table and gets up and leaves.
It effectively changes Han's character from an outlaw who cares only about himself, to some sort of good guy who found himself in trouble.
I haven't seen the special edition versions of the other two movies.