Again I don't see Guild Wars in the charts. While I don't expect them to track every single MMOG, Guild Wars should make it past the 120,000+ threshold, and definitely be in the 120,00-700,000 range. I think that deserves some special attention despite the fact it's free-2-play.
I have several now including a 286, 386DX/33, and a couple of 485DX/66's. I like the keyboard magnet idea... will have to suggest this to by sister inlaw with 2 pre-school kids.
I wonder if gamers will be allowed to opt-out of targeted advertising. I don't object to having ads in the game since this does make the game more realistic. I do object to making the acceptance of targeted marketing a condition to play the game (e.g., placing such a condition in the EULA).
Cheers,
Matthew
Despite Bruce's statements about SCO asserting that they "own" the code, an earlier analysis of the IBM contract suggested that what SCO are actually claiming is that any code developed by IBM as part of a UNIX-derived system must not be revealed to third parties without SCO's permission. IBM can use it in any way they see fit in any product they want to develop, but can't reveal the source or describe the methods. If I understand properly, such developments acquire the status of trade secrets which IBM agreed to protect, but has not.
Ok, but my reading of what Perens said is that any code base which contains Unix-derived code becomes the property of SCO. By alegedly including derived-code in Linux, IBM tainted the entire Linux code base which SCO claims is now their property.
It's a completely outrageous claim, but there you have it.
about the SCO case. Not because SCO's denial of service attack on commons sense was wearing me down, and not really because I thought IBM might drop the ball. Basically, my faith in the US legal system had sprung a leak and I truly feared the Chewbacca defense could actually work. Hey, stranger things have happened.
But after reading the Perens analysis (ya I know, against the rules to read the article) I can't possibly believe SCO has a case based on code infringement.
Now, it seems SCO's case will be an attack on software engineering itself. Any original code added to SCO's Unix code becomes the property of SCO? I am not a computer scientist (IANACS), but is it me or does this statement violate the entire known history of software development and licencing, including SCO's own corporate behavior?
Assuming the deal is legit, I doubt MS will limit titles to XBox. Way more people own PCs. Although restricting a game to a certain platform will limit its appeal and hurt sales, I can see MS restricting titles to PC and XBox. This makes a good business strategy as MS can gradually wean PC gamers onto the XBox without alienating them at the start.
Slashdot Mirror
Again I don't see Guild Wars in the charts. While I don't expect them to track every single MMOG, Guild Wars should make it past the 120,000+ threshold, and definitely be in the 120,00-700,000 range. I think that deserves some special attention despite the fact it's free-2-play.
This is off topic, but where did you get the adapter? I'm thinking about getting one too.
Thanks!
I switched last week.
Both WinXP firewall and Zonealarm Pro were crashing Firefox (which did run fine in Win98 btw).
Since I feel naked surfing without some kind of firewall, I switched to Opera.
Runs slick'er 'an snot.
Of course I ended up paying for what, a week later, is now free... d'oh.
Don't watch TV.
You can always rent the DVD commercial free.
Anyone know how WP stacks up to AbiWord?
I have several now including a 286, 386DX/33, and a couple of 485DX/66's. I like the keyboard magnet idea... will have to suggest this to by sister inlaw with 2 pre-school kids.
I wonder if gamers will be allowed to opt-out of targeted advertising. I don't object to having ads in the game since this does make the game more realistic. I do object to making the acceptance of targeted marketing a condition to play the game (e.g., placing such a condition in the EULA). Cheers, Matthew
Despite Bruce's statements about SCO asserting that they "own" the code, an earlier analysis of the IBM contract suggested that what SCO are actually claiming is that any code developed by IBM as part of a UNIX-derived system must not be revealed to third parties without SCO's permission. IBM can use it in any way they see fit in any product they want to develop, but can't reveal the source or describe the methods. If I understand properly, such developments acquire the status of trade secrets which IBM agreed to protect, but has not.
Ok, but my reading of what Perens said is that any code base which contains Unix-derived code becomes the property of SCO. By alegedly including derived-code in Linux, IBM tainted the entire Linux code base which SCO claims is now their property.
It's a completely outrageous claim, but there you have it.
about the SCO case. Not because SCO's denial of service attack on commons sense was wearing me down, and not really because I thought IBM might drop the ball. Basically, my faith in the US legal system had sprung a leak and I truly feared the Chewbacca defense could actually work. Hey, stranger things have happened.
But after reading the Perens analysis (ya I know, against the rules to read the article) I can't possibly believe SCO has a case based on code infringement.
Now, it seems SCO's case will be an attack on software engineering itself. Any original code added to SCO's Unix code becomes the property of SCO? I am not a computer scientist (IANACS), but is it me or does this statement violate the entire known history of software development and licencing, including SCO's own corporate behavior?
I think Linus is right, they are smoking crack.
Assuming the deal is legit, I doubt MS will limit titles to XBox. Way more people own PCs. Although restricting a game to a certain platform will limit its appeal and hurt sales, I can see MS restricting titles to PC and XBox. This makes a good business strategy as MS can gradually wean PC gamers onto the XBox without alienating them at the start.