Seriously though, QNX being free is quite nifty. If you install RtP on your desktop, you find that QNX is quite fast, has most of the features of Linux, and looks *really* nice. The programming interface is also pretty nice, while its not OO, it is "orthagonal" whatever that means. The main reason I don't use it more often is because the filesystem sucks serious ass. We're talking 4-5MB/sec on a Maxtor disk that gets 27MB/sec average reads on XFS. While the GUI is incredibly fast (maybe faster than BeOS's, its kinda subjective) but the 1/4 speed filesystem really kills it if you're trying to untar something or browse big directories.
You stupid jackass monkies. NVIDIA is NOT in with Microsoft! All they're doing is making a chip for the XBox. Think of all the things they've done *against* MS. They basically told them to shove DirectX and make a totally changed version for 8.0. They are comitted to supporting MacOS X, which takes away business from MS (especially 3D artists would rather use MacOS, but can't because the current state of HW-accel). They are helping SGI by making Linux drivers for their cards, which again takes business away from Windows2K (SGI used to ship NT workstations, now the low-end is Linux/w NVIDIA). They were the first good consumer graphics card company to come up with a solid OpenGL ICD, which again took business away from MS and made it possible for so many OpenGL titles to be out there. Quit trumping up phony charges.
Linux gives you *no* options about which toolkit to run. You have to run whichever one your apps use. If you're app uses more than one, too bad, you have to run that one. Plus, more toolkits means more incompatible features. Printing, for example. If you run GNOME and KDE, you've got three printing layers, the one in X, the one in GNOME, and the one in KDE. All of that is totally wasted, redundant code. It saps performance and keeps apps from interoperating. Take, for example, the case of EVAS. From my POV, the Linux desktop has some good features. It has the nice, fast network model and multi-media API in KDE, it has the broad application-base (GIMP), corporate support, and visual quality (I like GNOME's art better, KDE is too cartoony) in GNOME, and it has nifty features like accelerated desktops with EVAS (enlightenment.) Unfortunately, no-one app can take advantage of all of these features, because they're not in the same GUI environment. That's just a waste of a lot of good code. Things would be so much nicer if they'd unify the toolkit APIs and work on inerchangable back-ends. The API could be something like GNOME's that could have lots of language wrappers, and if it were well designed, the developers couldn't complain too much about being forced to use it.
I think this is a very good idea. I don't buy much music now, because I like to dabble and don't listen to a particular song for more than a few weeks. For access to a huge library of music like Napster, I know dozens of people (including me) that would pay up to $10. That's a lot more than many people spend on CDs now, and in the end, something like this might allow the record business to make *more* money.
Nobody pays attention to adds via the internet anymore! The media these days is so advertising saturated that ads have very little value. Don't tell me that you haven't learned to mentall block all the web ads! Quick, without looking, what is being advertised at the top of this page? Also, advertising seems barely enough to support an ISP, much less support a music business.
Maybe it's time for a POSIX-like GUI standard, so we don't have to rely on anything non-compiled for our use interfaces? (I'm a BeOS freak. Sub 10ms response or get the hell offa my desktop!)
Umm, Quartz is only related to NeXT from an architecture standpoint. The code is based on a different imaging model (PDF, instead of postscript) and seems to be mostly new. If somebody were to keep the good ideas of X11, but rewrite the code without concern for compatibility, you would consider it something different, just as Linux is something different from UNIX release 6. All of this also ignores the fact that Aqua, which is required to make a comparison to Windows or Mac, is totally new.
Yes, this is exactly what led to the super-solid organized structures of Linux, GNOME, KDE, etc? There is a trade-off here. GNOME and KDE are fairly low quality, lots of features, little polish, and while Linux is very solid, that solidity was won from sheer coding force and skill, not purity of design. I'm inclined to think that if less people would "shut up and code" we'd not only have fewer useless toolkits for X11, but we'd get nice, extendible systems that we wouldn't have to keep hacking and re-hacking and wrapping and layering over as it evolved. What's going on with X11 is obscene. You've got some great projects, but because the X11 protocol seems to have been designed for '80s era hardware (oh, wait...) none of them are being put in core X. So you've got anti-aliasing support, but only for specific toolkits. You've got great desktop environments, but only some apps use them. You've got nice ideas like accelerated desktops with EVAS, but again, only for specific applications. In the case of X11, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
Oh, you mean kinda like BeOS's attributes in a slower, clunkier, less efficient manner?
Sorry, had to get the plug in there. Actually, I believe that XFS (which, BTW is as fast as all hell) already has attributes and ReiserFS is getting them soon, so we can soon get rid of clunky hacks like this.
We have a fundemental disagreement here, that's all. I feel that one CAN own speech, and that coming up with an idea entitles one to control how others use that idea, if it is derived from your own.
No, I don't mean the VESA driver, I meant the screen modes. The VESA standard makes a list of common resolutions and refresh rates and most VESA-compatible hardware supports those modes. XFree, instead of detecting the modes itself, simply relies on these VESA standard modes. Thus, if you're preferred mode isn't part of the (extremely limited) set of standard modes, you have to write your own modlines (or steal the automatically generated ones from your BeOS installation;)
Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying the CD-ROM must only be installed on one computer and may not be copied. It's there conglomeration of software, and they're free to do with it what they please. You can, however, copy the GPL software that was on the CD, since the GPL overrides the copyright on the whole CD. Either way, a correction was issued in the third issue stating taht the license was a mistake and that they were not trying to propriotize GPL software. People like you make so many things so much worse. You go out looking for trouble, and perceive every little discrepancy as trouble. Its like those people who assume that every time they get bad service it has something to do with their race/religion/gender/hair-color/marital-status/etc . People! Sometimes its just a mistake!
I think that was a minunderstanding on the box. The EULA was for the MaxLinux-owned contents of the CD, the box art, etc, not the actual software ON the CD.
2)Magazines depend on adverts, and are commercial. This is in direct contradiction to the aims and virtues of the open source way. Magazines will always have suspect editorial policies, because they are not independant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To defend MaximumPC, it is probably the most independant magazine you'll find. I remember when they published an interview with the Intel guys about the i740, then put in an advertisement from Real3D about their i740 card, then declared then took Intel to task about their hyping of the card and declared it fourth place in a graphics card roundup. They consistantly tell the truth about products, and they have the "speed and quality is king" attitude that I like so much. In the end, some commerical entities just aren't corrupted, whether or not they subscribe to the "evil" idea of capitalism.
rush to exploit it, lengthen it, retroactively apply it, and otherwise destroy its nemesis, the freedom of
speech? It's not good. Not even a little.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, but some speech is mine, and some speech is yours, and I get to decide how you use my speech. If I want $5 per copy that you make of it, then that's fine and the copyright allows me to enforce that.
Okay, so you have a 4.7% royalty. I never said otherwise. By "burden of studios advertising/distribution/etc" I mean the studios do the advertising and such is done by the recording studios which take their cut out of the profits. (I did not, know, however, that recording studio-costs are out-of-pocket, not based on actual sales.) My point is that that is the state of affairs the market has created for itself. You could argue that the recording industry needs to be pushed to increase their royalty rates (maybe through competing labels that offer better actual rates) but making music free and paying just the artist doesn't do anything to help the situation. If music is made free (that wasn't intended to be free to begin with), somebody gets cheated; the record label, or the artist.
I don't get the ball example. In the case that we have two equal red-balls it really *doesn't* matter which is whose. However, music is not like that. In the distribution of music, one person gives, and the other recieves. One works, and the other enjoys the fruits of the work. Take a comparison with the car industry. Say a car costs the consumer $500. Of that $500, $50 is profit for the manufacturer. So cars sell for $500, and $450 of that goes to making the copies. In the case where the cost of making a copy goes down to $0, then the car's cost should drop down to $50, the previous profit. Think about this very carefully. In a $500 car, the $450 covers the work to build a copy. The other $50 goes for the one-time costs of development, the idea, he design, the name-brand, and profit for the makers. Even if the copy costs nothing, these costs should still be paid. So the only thing that direct-internet music should do is get rid of part of the price-tag that reflects the cost to manufacture and distribute the CDs. The other part of the cost, including profit to the record label if the artist chooses to affiliate themselves with one, should be paid as normal.
Maybe I'm too old-fashioned to understand the whole real-new-economy business, but as I see it, if I do something, I am entitled to direct fee from everyone who uses it. Moreover, I'm entitled to ask for whatever I want in return for the use of a copy of my work. If the artist wants to set up a direct-to-consumer website where he/she sells (or gives away) her songs, then good for them. If they want to ally themselves with a huge record industry whose only purpose is to make a profit (nothing wrong with that!) then god for them too.
Slashdot Mirror
Solaris 8 is not free. Free is $3 on cheapbytes. Solaris 8 is $75 for a "Media Kit"
What, you guys actually pay for it?
Seriously though, QNX being free is quite nifty. If you install RtP on your desktop, you find that QNX is quite fast, has most of the features of Linux, and looks *really* nice. The programming interface is also pretty nice, while its not OO, it is "orthagonal" whatever that means. The main reason I don't use it more often is because the filesystem sucks serious ass. We're talking 4-5MB/sec on a Maxtor disk that gets 27MB/sec average reads on XFS. While the GUI is incredibly fast (maybe faster than BeOS's, its kinda subjective) but the 1/4 speed filesystem really kills it if you're trying to untar something or browse big directories.
Whoa. Thanks for the cutting edge news. I never knew it was free, thanks for telling me /.!
He said as he dusted off the CD that's been sitting on his desk the last five months.
Actually, BeOS is used non-commercially for the most part. That's the problem.
You stupid jackass monkies. NVIDIA is NOT in with Microsoft! All they're doing is making a chip for the XBox. Think of all the things they've done *against* MS. They basically told them to shove DirectX and make a totally changed version for 8.0. They are comitted to supporting MacOS X, which takes away business from MS (especially 3D artists would rather use MacOS, but can't because the current state of HW-accel). They are helping SGI by making Linux drivers for their cards, which again takes business away from Windows2K (SGI used to ship NT workstations, now the low-end is Linux /w NVIDIA). They were the first good consumer graphics card company to come up with a solid OpenGL ICD, which again took business away from MS and made it possible for so many OpenGL titles to be out there. Quit trumping up phony charges.
Funny stuff. I recently tried to upgrade the glibc 2.2.2 test release to 2.2.2 and it broke ls of all things!
Linux gives you *no* options about which toolkit to run. You have to run whichever one your apps use. If you're app uses more than one, too bad, you have to run that one. Plus, more toolkits means more incompatible features. Printing, for example. If you run GNOME and KDE, you've got three printing layers, the one in X, the one in GNOME, and the one in KDE. All of that is totally wasted, redundant code. It saps performance and keeps apps from interoperating. Take, for example, the case of EVAS. From my POV, the Linux desktop has some good features. It has the nice, fast network model and multi-media API in KDE, it has the broad application-base (GIMP), corporate support, and visual quality (I like GNOME's art better, KDE is too cartoony) in GNOME, and it has nifty features like accelerated desktops with EVAS (enlightenment.) Unfortunately, no-one app can take advantage of all of these features, because they're not in the same GUI environment. That's just a waste of a lot of good code. Things would be so much nicer if they'd unify the toolkit APIs and work on inerchangable back-ends. The API could be something like GNOME's that could have lots of language wrappers, and if it were well designed, the developers couldn't complain too much about being forced to use it.
And I thought CORBA was as far into the bonnies as you could get...
;)
PS> Now you know what Bonobo 2.0 will be based on. Slow, bloated, overkill? Perfect for GNOME
(No, I'm not a KDE bigot, both are fat walruses)
PS2> Since when has XML become the solution to all of computing's ailments?
I think this is a very good idea. I don't buy much music now, because I like to dabble and don't listen to a particular song for more than a few weeks. For access to a huge library of music like Napster, I know dozens of people (including me) that would pay up to $10. That's a lot more than many people spend on CDs now, and in the end, something like this might allow the record business to make *more* money.
Nobody pays attention to adds via the internet anymore! The media these days is so advertising saturated that ads have very little value. Don't tell me that you haven't learned to mentall block all the web ads! Quick, without looking, what is being advertised at the top of this page? Also, advertising seems barely enough to support an ISP, much less support a music business.
OSS Quartz/Aqua. That would be seriously cool. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Maybe it's time for a POSIX-like GUI standard, so we don't have to rely on anything non-compiled for our use interfaces? (I'm a BeOS freak. Sub 10ms response or get the hell offa my desktop!)
Umm, Quartz is only related to NeXT from an architecture standpoint. The code is based on a different imaging model (PDF, instead of postscript) and seems to be mostly new. If somebody were to keep the good ideas of X11, but rewrite the code without concern for compatibility, you would consider it something different, just as Linux is something different from UNIX release 6. All of this also ignores the fact that Aqua, which is required to make a comparison to Windows or Mac, is totally new.
Yes, this is exactly what led to the super-solid organized structures of Linux, GNOME, KDE, etc? There is a trade-off here. GNOME and KDE are fairly low quality, lots of features, little polish, and while Linux is very solid, that solidity was won from sheer coding force and skill, not purity of design. I'm inclined to think that if less people would "shut up and code" we'd not only have fewer useless toolkits for X11, but we'd get nice, extendible systems that we wouldn't have to keep hacking and re-hacking and wrapping and layering over as it evolved. What's going on with X11 is obscene. You've got some great projects, but because the X11 protocol seems to have been designed for '80s era hardware (oh, wait...) none of them are being put in core X. So you've got anti-aliasing support, but only for specific toolkits. You've got great desktop environments, but only some apps use them. You've got nice ideas like accelerated desktops with EVAS, but again, only for specific applications. In the case of X11, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
Have you taken a look at QNX's Photon? Small, light, anti-aliased, full-featured, and more network transparent than X. In a few words, it has it all.
Huh? If you're going to make a joke, at least have it make sense...
Oh, you mean kinda like BeOS's attributes in a slower, clunkier, less efficient manner?
Sorry, had to get the plug in there. Actually, I believe that XFS (which, BTW is as fast as all hell) already has attributes and ReiserFS is getting them soon, so we can soon get rid of clunky hacks like this.
We have a fundemental disagreement here, that's all. I feel that one CAN own speech, and that coming up with an idea entitles one to control how others use that idea, if it is derived from your own.
No, I don't mean the VESA driver, I meant the screen modes. The VESA standard makes a list of common resolutions and refresh rates and most VESA-compatible hardware supports those modes. XFree, instead of detecting the modes itself, simply relies on these VESA standard modes. Thus, if you're preferred mode isn't part of the (extremely limited) set of standard modes, you have to write your own modlines (or steal the automatically generated ones from your BeOS installation ;)
Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying the CD-ROM must only be installed on one computer and may not be copied. It's there conglomeration of software, and they're free to do with it what they please. You can, however, copy the GPL software that was on the CD, since the GPL overrides the copyright on the whole CD. Either way, a correction was issued in the third issue stating taht the license was a mistake and that they were not trying to propriotize GPL software. People like you make so many things so much worse. You go out looking for trouble, and perceive every little discrepancy as trouble. Its like those people who assume that every time they get bad service it has something to do with their race/religion/gender/hair-color/marital-status/etc . People! Sometimes its just a mistake!
I think that was a minunderstanding on the box. The EULA was for the MaxLinux-owned contents of the CD, the box art, etc, not the actual software ON the CD.
2)Magazines depend on adverts, and are commercial. This is in direct contradiction to the aims and virtues of the open source way. Magazines will always have suspect editorial policies, because they are not independant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To defend MaximumPC, it is probably the most independant magazine you'll find. I remember when they published an interview with the Intel guys about the i740, then put in an advertisement from Real3D about their i740 card, then declared then took Intel to task about their hyping of the card and declared it fourth place in a graphics card roundup. They consistantly tell the truth about products, and they have the "speed and quality is king" attitude that I like so much. In the end, some commerical entities just aren't corrupted, whether or not they subscribe to the "evil" idea of capitalism.
rush to exploit it, lengthen it, retroactively apply it, and otherwise destroy its nemesis, the freedom of
speech? It's not good. Not even a little.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, but some speech is mine, and some speech is yours, and I get to decide how you use my speech. If I want $5 per copy that you make of it, then that's fine and the copyright allows me to enforce that.
Okay, so you have a 4.7% royalty. I never said otherwise. By "burden of studios advertising/distribution/etc" I mean the studios do the advertising and such is done by the recording studios which take their cut out of the profits. (I did not, know, however, that recording studio-costs are out-of-pocket, not based on actual sales.) My point is that that is the state of affairs the market has created for itself. You could argue that the recording industry needs to be pushed to increase their royalty rates (maybe through competing labels that offer better actual rates) but making music free and paying just the artist doesn't do anything to help the situation. If music is made free (that wasn't intended to be free to begin with), somebody gets cheated; the record label, or the artist.
I don't get the ball example. In the case that we have two equal red-balls it really *doesn't* matter which is whose. However, music is not like that. In the distribution of music, one person gives, and the other recieves. One works, and the other enjoys the fruits of the work. Take a comparison with the car industry. Say a car costs the consumer $500. Of that $500, $50 is profit for the manufacturer. So cars sell for $500, and $450 of that goes to making the copies. In the case where the cost of making a copy goes down to $0, then the car's cost should drop down to $50, the previous profit. Think about this very carefully. In a $500 car, the $450 covers the work to build a copy. The other $50 goes for the one-time costs of development, the idea, he design, the name-brand, and profit for the makers. Even if the copy costs nothing, these costs should still be paid. So the only thing that direct-internet music should do is get rid of part of the price-tag that reflects the cost to manufacture and distribute the CDs. The other part of the cost, including profit to the record label if the artist chooses to affiliate themselves with one, should be paid as normal.
Maybe I'm too old-fashioned to understand the whole real-new-economy business, but as I see it, if I do something, I am entitled to direct fee from everyone who uses it. Moreover, I'm entitled to ask for whatever I want in return for the use of a copy of my work. If the artist wants to set up a direct-to-consumer website where he/she sells (or gives away) her songs, then good for them. If they want to ally themselves with a huge record industry whose only purpose is to make a profit (nothing wrong with that!) then god for them too.