Sort of runs contrary to the point of a standard doesn't it? The purpose of standards is to put out an open method that everyone uses and interoperates with. If you have two, which is then the standard standard?
'If that chess engine works so well and fast, why isn't it used in Vista'
Because it is 16 bit and the code probably won't even run on Vista. There are probably additional features and such in the new one and according to the GP the old one apparently crashes. Then as someone else already pointed out, people are tired of having computer chess opponents that slaughter the average player on the easiest setting.
It isn't that things don't improve in general, it is just that programmers focus on the pace of development now and not efficiency. They use general purpose libraries, they add a couple CPU instructions with every function call and now programmers like to encapsulate every spec of code into a function. OO is even worse.
Instead of coding the desired functionality as efficiently as possible, programmers typically implement the desired functionality as rapidly as possible. They still try to squash bugs, they still aim for stability, they just skip the efficiency factor in most applications.
What difference do a couple extra instructions here and there make? A few extra branches in that general purpose library to discover what the correct code path in this application? Not much, until you realize that your computer is running numerous layers of code bloated in that manner. When everyone is doing things the same way now it adds up to billions of wasted cpu cycles, megs or even gigs of poorly utilized memory.
Nobody (including me) wants to go all the way back to the old way of doing things. The fact is that the new way is much easier, even a 12 year old can be a programmer thanks to bloated shared libraries. It is also much faster. People say don't re-invent the wheel. I say that we aren't talking about the wheel, we are talking about something more like the internal combustion engine and you re-invent it if you want any hope of ever having a better internal combustion engine.
Trust me, you only want to grow facial hair because you can't. It's itchy and women hate it because it is rough on their sensitive skin. And if you don't want the beard you have to scrape it off your face everyday. It actually hurts and is a major pain the rear. Adds at least 5 minutes to your routine before you can get out the door too.
'but I'm still surprised Chess Titans was beat out by a fifteen year old program made for a computer a thousand times slower. Go Microsoft!'
I'm not surprised at all. Being made for a computer a thousand times slower means that it was made to operate more efficiently. You throw more beef at it and it just runs faster. 10 years ago the most efficient stuff being coded now would have been considered extremely bloated.
'I'd argue that there is evidence in the form of trojan horses. A lot of the crap that people give Windows has to do with the old admin-by-default setup. This is definitely a problem, but it's only part of the whole puzzle. The rest of the puzzle is composed of the fact that Windows has a greater percentage of the unclued computer using population (due in no small part to its marketshare) who are likely to run anything they get in e-mail or over the web. Is this necessarily a flaw in Windows? No. Does it make Windows less secure? Not exactly, but it certainly changes the perception of Windows. We still constantly deal with 'infected Windows machines'--we just ignore the source of the infection, which nowadays tends to be a trojan.'
Nothing you have said has been overlooked. All of that is unfounded speculation. All you are really doing is restating the commonly repeated 'when linux gets the marketshare'. The speculation is interesting, you might even be right. But you don't real actions based upon a guess or hunch. You have to act on the actual data at hand.
Nobody knows what will happen when we get the marketshare and anyone who claims to have an idea is talking out their backside. All we have to go on are existing observations. Those observations show that where Linux dominates the market (server farms and pretty much anything internet, including webservers) there are many attacks and despite the massive difference in marketshare there are actually fewer (TOTAL not merely in proportion) successful compromises of Linux systems. The other observations are found when comparing Linux and Windows on the desktop in proportion to marketshare. There is no comparison. Number of flaws reported and fixed isn't a useful metric since good arguments can be made to support the ideas that more reported flaws means a more secure system and to assert that less flaws means a more secure system. Instead you look to 0-day exploits, viruses, and actual compromises. This isn't even close. Windows has between 30 and 40 times the marketshare but thousands of times the successful exploits.
'If Linux becomes mainstream, trojan writers will start targetting Linux.'
Trojan writers already target Linux. They haven't managed to gain a foothold. You can speculate as to why. The fact is that they don't. Will they if linux gains marketshare? Possibly. But that is a guess, it isn't even an educated guess because it isn't based on previous observation.
'IIS6 however has a decent security record; at least according to Secunia with a grand total of 3 vulnerabilities'
That depends on how you define the security record. As has been stated more times than I can count the number of reported vulnerabilities has no relation to how secure the application is. Or, the relation is not clear. This is especially true when the numbers come from a commercial entity with a vested financial interest in admitting to few vulnerabilities and a proven track record of failing to disclose unpatched vulnerabilities.
In the wild I have seen both compromised. But IIS seems to be compromised far more often and consistently.
Under what set of conditions? I was under the impression that the discussion was about security and it is relatively easy to compromise a firewalled port compared to a closed port.
'outside of a directed, intentional effort to bypass through faulty software or firmware'
Why on earth would you exclude efforts to bypass security from security assessments? Either way, no I would not agree. NAT can be bypassed without using any exploits.
'only that the outcome is essentially the same.'
The outcome of what? Each protects against different types of attack, only closing (actually, its simply not opening) the port protects against every type of attack on that port and/or service. Let me give another analogy for a firewall.
Your assertion that windows is just as secure because it firewalls all the open ports is incorrect. A firewall is like a condom. The ports are like sperm. The random bar slut you are screwing is a connection with the same level of assurance as the ones you get from the network. Condoms (and firewalls) are easily and routinely compromised. The more sperm (open ports) in the condom, the greater the chance of getting the slut preggers (having an exploitable service available) when the condom (firewall) is compromised.
Even worse is that you are more likely to be able to exploit those ports because the services are more likely to be designed and/or implemented from the standpoint that connections are secure.
'Original post I responded to said basicaly "it doesn't matter why linux is safe. It could be intrinsically more secure, it could just be a smaller target. It comes to the same thing."
All I was trying to say was that it does matter why Linux is more secure.'
You are right 'why Linux is more secure' does matter for a long term decision. Doc Ruby is also right in that there is no evidence to support the small target argument and all observations to date do not support it. Therefore, in the practical sense, the argument is not sound and basing your decisions on unsound arguments will give you an unsound result.
You make decisions based upon the available observations not based upon a random possibility that runs counter to all existing evidence.
Also, for a short term decision it doesn't matter. If I am going to take a car for a trip this week, I want a red one because red ones are safer than blue. It doesn't matter in the short term what feature of red make them safer than blue, it could be airbags, tires, it doesn't matter because whatever that feature is, red has it and blue doesn't.
There is a greater fundamental flaw with your general argument that Doc failed to point out. You are assigning intrinsic qualities to abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are no more or less than the real component parts they represent. Red is a color, but Linux is nothing but an abstract idea. If Linux is composed of features and/or qualities that result in greater security than Linux IS intrinsically more secure. If you take those features away it is no longer intrinsically more secure.
'Yes, firewalling is not the same as closing ports, but it essentially gives you the same outcome'
Not even close. A port that is not open simply is not open. A port that is behind a firewall only carries the assurance level of the firewall. Most common software firewalls have widely distributed and readily available exploits that allow you to easily compromise the firewall.
A firewall is like body armor. It is a great enhancement for a skilled warrior (actually securing the box) but I wouldn't want to be the idiot who stands unarmed and untrained in front of a skilled warrior based on the assumption that he can't hurt me in my body armor.
NAT on the other hand is like a pair of leather boots. It might happen to deflect an attack to the feet but that is not what its designed to do, not something it does effectively and certainly you should never put on leather boots with the assumption that they will protect you from attackers.
NAT should be used only for sharing an IP address, it isn't a layer of security. A firewall should be used only to protect you where you where security is not possible and to catch anything that wasn't anticipated or was overlooked.
The idea that NAT and firewalls are security is another of those things spread by MCSE admins.
I agree that Microsoft Corp isn't going away anytime soon. It has too strong of a position and very little infrastructure. If Microsoft's sales were cut in half tomorrow the only change would probably be in their bottom line and they might drop some of their attempts to buy their way into other markets (ala XBox).
But you have to remember that Microsoft wasn't built on VC money, the startup was bankrolled by William Gates III's daddy. The people running Microsoft are more or less the original crew rather than Harvard grads that were moved in by a VC firm so that all the original investors would make a killing and sell out when the company went public.
These guys are extremely rich but almost all of their wealth is in the form of Microsoft stock. If the OS portion of Microsoft tanks the stock will as well.
I think we will see a quasi open source windows and then when they are flailing in the water you will see the win32 GUI sit atop Linux. You will probably see a new DirectX API that maps to OpenGL and ALSA underneath.
It will partly work. In the end the renegades who just like to use the obscure will be on BSD and those who just want the best system will be on what will be a conglomeration of the open source projects we know and love and windows functions and applications that everyone is familiar with.
You must know different MBA's than I do. The ones I know are greedy bloodsuckers. They are cowards, they will pay for licensing in a heartbeat. But they will also read the article in Fortune and know that the evil empire is shaken. That is a big impact in the world of mindshare.
Microsoft is afraid, plain and simple. This an edorsement by the market leader that Linux is ready for the desktop. They were afraid to see Novell pushing it but when Dell went onboard and picked the most user friendly of distros to do it with; Microsoft became terrified.
Do you know why you never saw something like this from Microsoft before? They didn't think it was worth their time.
In any case, it is FUD; there might be a vulnerable project or two but there is basically a stalemate on this one. That is why they are pushing for licensing instead of filing a lawsuit.
This is a good thing. Most MBA's will see right through both the motivation and the push for licensing.
'Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.'
A desktop easy enough for your average user is a relatively new phenomenon. Loki proved there was no market 5 years ago, not that there is no market today. Linux users are no more or less likely to be willing to pay for content than anyone else. Personally I avoid commercial software like the plague but games are an exception and I have purchased several that I play on Linux. There are also no small number of users who dual boot just for games.
Linux adoption has grown by leaps and bounds since 2002. The problem with many of these companies that tested the Linux waters is that they tested them too soon.
'The market for Windows software is large enough, even with the pirates, to make it profitable to sell them software.'
True, except that you mis-phrased it. The market for windows software is large enough to be profitable BECAUSE of piracy, not in spite of it.
'but it's not worth selling TurboTax at $30'
You are probably right. The market is too small to be the sole support for many applications. However, if an application is properly written to begin with the amount of additional effort required to support Linux, or even Macs is relatively small. The market doesn't have to be large enough to offset the entire development cost, it only has to be large enough to pay for the additional development. Even if a software development company broke even on the additional platforms it would be beneficial to have a presence.
'Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.'
A desktop easy enough for your average user is a relatively new phenomenon. Loki proved there was no market 5 years ago, not that there is no market today. Linux users are no more or less likely to be willing to pay for content than anyone else. Personally I avoid commercial software like the plague but games are an exception and I have purchased several that I play on Linux. There are also no small number of users who dual boot just for games.
Linux adoption has grown by leaps and bounds since 2002. The problem with many of these companies that tested the Linux waters is that they tested them too soon.
'The market for Windows software is large enough, even with the pirates, to make it profitable to sell them software.'
True, except that you mis-phrased it. The market for windows software is large enough to be profitable BECAUSE of piracy, not in spite of it.
'Then I propose that the ban be placed until the time that the cost of the test is low enough'
If the cost of the test is low enough for employers to utilize it is low enough for parents. The only way it will become low enough for either is if this bill is stopped.
This along with just about every other 'ban' needs to be lifted.
Start with Ubuntu, then complete the wine implementation of the windows api. Drop their proprietary networking protocols and use Samba as base to port their functionality. Rebrand it all for MS. Beyond that, security problems are on the users.
Just when consumer awareness of DRM is starting to grow they will change the name. This puts us back to square one but doesn't change a thing for them.
The sad thing is that yes, people are that stupid and yes, this will work.
'm not sure where you got that idea. Advanced AI? Like a neuronal net? I've never heard anything like this when people talked about the game. The most advanced thing in the game seems to be the character editor, which figures out how the character moves and fights based on how you create it.'
The homepage where it talks about the creators evolving through the various stages.
'It's somewhat unfair the judge the game based on your own unfounded expectations:-)'
Maybe I've misunderstood but there is nothing revolutionary about the concept of a character evolving and changing in a game. There is nothing revolutionary about a character designer either. If that is all this game has then how is it new at all? Those concepts already exist in every MMORPG on the market.
'The NSA is not in any way like the secret police. More like government hackers.'
Says the official version. Nobody outside the NSA knows what the NSA encompases and I'd be willing to bet most people inside the NSA don't either. They no doubt have government hackers and codebreakers but I highly doubt that the NSA is limited to only communications monitoring. I don't even doubt that the hackers and codebreakers think they are the show.
I can't believe there was more than one idiot who made a comment like this or more than one idiot who modded it up. 1990, with an average lifespan at about 80 years that means anyone under the age of 63 when East Germany fell is probably still alive.
Twenties also includes more than just the age '20'.
Let me revise:
Researcher 1: We've put together the first document! Researcher 2: Hmm, it's about some kid named Hans, age 12. Researcher 1: Wow, Hans slit the throat of a border guard who raped his mother. Researcher 2: That would send anyone to the Gulag! Researcher 1: Yes it says here they attached electrified probes to his anus for hours! Researcher 2: That would make anyone pucker up! Researcher 1: Ha ha ha! Researcher 2: Ha ha ha!
Hans would be 29 today, maybe Hans would prefer to keep that part of his past to himself.
1990, that was 17 years ago. People live an average of what, something like 80 years now? Anyone who was younger than 63 years old when East Germany fell is probably alive today. Based on those numbers I don't think I am prepared to yield the point that we are just talking about a bunch of dead people. We aren't just talking about 3 year olds either.
Hell, even if we were ignoring context and just looking at that one statement, twenties includes people all the way up to 29 and life doesn't begin at adulthood. The 90's wasn't the fifties, kids were already doing adult things then that they might not want in files. Especially things done in a desperate situation with machine guns pointed at their mothers.
The comment basically said. 'According to who? An East German? Like East Germans aren't biased. You are naive for not believing propoganda spread by outsiders with an agenda over your intimate partner who would only benefit from the sympathy generated by a negative view of East Germany.'
I really don't see where completely correct fits into the picture. How about rude and naive. Anyone who actually gives credibility to government propoganda (especially US propoganda) over real accounts has more than a couple layers of wool over their eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of runs contrary to the point of a standard doesn't it? The purpose of standards is to put out an open method that everyone uses and interoperates with. If you have two, which is then the standard standard?
'If that chess engine works so well and fast, why isn't it used in Vista'
Because it is 16 bit and the code probably won't even run on Vista. There are probably additional features and such in the new one and according to the GP the old one apparently crashes. Then as someone else already pointed out, people are tired of having computer chess opponents that slaughter the average player on the easiest setting.
It isn't that things don't improve in general, it is just that programmers focus on the pace of development now and not efficiency. They use general purpose libraries, they add a couple CPU instructions with every function call and now programmers like to encapsulate every spec of code into a function. OO is even worse.
Instead of coding the desired functionality as efficiently as possible, programmers typically implement the desired functionality as rapidly as possible. They still try to squash bugs, they still aim for stability, they just skip the efficiency factor in most applications.
What difference do a couple extra instructions here and there make? A few extra branches in that general purpose library to discover what the correct code path in this application? Not much, until you realize that your computer is running numerous layers of code bloated in that manner. When everyone is doing things the same way now it adds up to billions of wasted cpu cycles, megs or even gigs of poorly utilized memory.
Nobody (including me) wants to go all the way back to the old way of doing things. The fact is that the new way is much easier, even a 12 year old can be a programmer thanks to bloated shared libraries. It is also much faster. People say don't re-invent the wheel. I say that we aren't talking about the wheel, we are talking about something more like the internal combustion engine and you re-invent it if you want any hope of ever having a better internal combustion engine.
Trust me, you only want to grow facial hair because you can't. It's itchy and women hate it because it is rough on their sensitive skin. And if you don't want the beard you have to scrape it off your face everyday. It actually hurts and is a major pain the rear. Adds at least 5 minutes to your routine before you can get out the door too.
I think the Slashdotter was referring to a girl who is a friend, not a girlfriend. Anyone who is getting their back waxed can't be straight.
'but I'm still surprised Chess Titans was beat out by a fifteen year old program made for a computer a thousand times slower. Go Microsoft!'
I'm not surprised at all. Being made for a computer a thousand times slower means that it was made to operate more efficiently. You throw more beef at it and it just runs faster. 10 years ago the most efficient stuff being coded now would have been considered extremely bloated.
At the rate Microsoft is going they won't have that 64bit only OS out for a decade. I doubt this will speed up anything.
'I'd argue that there is evidence in the form of trojan horses. A lot of the crap that people give Windows has to do with the old admin-by-default setup. This is definitely a problem, but it's only part of the whole puzzle. The rest of the puzzle is composed of the fact that Windows has a greater percentage of the unclued computer using population (due in no small part to its marketshare) who are likely to run anything they get in e-mail or over the web. Is this necessarily a flaw in Windows? No. Does it make Windows less secure? Not exactly, but it certainly changes the perception of Windows. We still constantly deal with 'infected Windows machines'--we just ignore the source of the infection, which nowadays tends to be a trojan.'
Nothing you have said has been overlooked. All of that is unfounded speculation. All you are really doing is restating the commonly repeated 'when linux gets the marketshare'. The speculation is interesting, you might even be right. But you don't real actions based upon a guess or hunch. You have to act on the actual data at hand.
Nobody knows what will happen when we get the marketshare and anyone who claims to have an idea is talking out their backside. All we have to go on are existing observations. Those observations show that where Linux dominates the market (server farms and pretty much anything internet, including webservers) there are many attacks and despite the massive difference in marketshare there are actually fewer (TOTAL not merely in proportion) successful compromises of Linux systems. The other observations are found when comparing Linux and Windows on the desktop in proportion to marketshare. There is no comparison. Number of flaws reported and fixed isn't a useful metric since good arguments can be made to support the ideas that more reported flaws means a more secure system and to assert that less flaws means a more secure system. Instead you look to 0-day exploits, viruses, and actual compromises. This isn't even close. Windows has between 30 and 40 times the marketshare but thousands of times the successful exploits.
'If Linux becomes mainstream, trojan writers will start targetting Linux.'
Trojan writers already target Linux. They haven't managed to gain a foothold. You can speculate as to why. The fact is that they don't. Will they if linux gains marketshare? Possibly. But that is a guess, it isn't even an educated guess because it isn't based on previous observation.
'IIS6 however has a decent security record; at least according to Secunia with a grand total of 3 vulnerabilities'
That depends on how you define the security record. As has been stated more times than I can count the number of reported vulnerabilities has no relation to how secure the application is. Or, the relation is not clear. This is especially true when the numbers come from a commercial entity with a vested financial interest in admitting to few vulnerabilities and a proven track record of failing to disclose unpatched vulnerabilities.
In the wild I have seen both compromised. But IIS seems to be compromised far more often and consistently.
'only that the outcome is essentially the same'
Under what set of conditions? I was under the impression that the discussion was about security and it is relatively easy to compromise a firewalled port compared to a closed port.
'outside of a directed, intentional effort to bypass through faulty software or firmware'
Why on earth would you exclude efforts to bypass security from security assessments? Either way, no I would not agree. NAT can be bypassed without using any exploits.
'only that the outcome is essentially the same.'
The outcome of what? Each protects against different types of attack, only closing (actually, its simply not opening) the port protects against every type of attack on that port and/or service. Let me give another analogy for a firewall.
Your assertion that windows is just as secure because it firewalls all the open ports is incorrect. A firewall is like a condom. The ports are like sperm. The random bar slut you are screwing is a connection with the same level of assurance as the ones you get from the network. Condoms (and firewalls) are easily and routinely compromised. The more sperm (open ports) in the condom, the greater the chance of getting the slut preggers (having an exploitable service available) when the condom (firewall) is compromised.
Even worse is that you are more likely to be able to exploit those ports because the services are more likely to be designed and/or implemented from the standpoint that connections are secure.
'Original post I responded to said basicaly "it doesn't matter why linux is safe. It could be intrinsically more secure, it could just be a smaller target. It comes to the same thing."
All I was trying to say was that it does matter why Linux is more secure.'
You are right 'why Linux is more secure' does matter for a long term decision. Doc Ruby is also right in that there is no evidence to support the small target argument and all observations to date do not support it. Therefore, in the practical sense, the argument is not sound and basing your decisions on unsound arguments will give you an unsound result.
You make decisions based upon the available observations not based upon a random possibility that runs counter to all existing evidence.
Also, for a short term decision it doesn't matter. If I am going to take a car for a trip this week, I want a red one because red ones are safer than blue. It doesn't matter in the short term what feature of red make them safer than blue, it could be airbags, tires, it doesn't matter because whatever that feature is, red has it and blue doesn't.
There is a greater fundamental flaw with your general argument that Doc failed to point out. You are assigning intrinsic qualities to abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are no more or less than the real component parts they represent. Red is a color, but Linux is nothing but an abstract idea. If Linux is composed of features and/or qualities that result in greater security than Linux IS intrinsically more secure. If you take those features away it is no longer intrinsically more secure.
'Yes, firewalling is not the same as closing ports, but it essentially gives you the same outcome'
Not even close. A port that is not open simply is not open. A port that is behind a firewall only carries the assurance level of the firewall. Most common software firewalls have widely distributed and readily available exploits that allow you to easily compromise the firewall.
A firewall is like body armor. It is a great enhancement for a skilled warrior (actually securing the box) but I wouldn't want to be the idiot who stands unarmed and untrained in front of a skilled warrior based on the assumption that he can't hurt me in my body armor.
NAT on the other hand is like a pair of leather boots. It might happen to deflect an attack to the feet but that is not what its designed to do, not something it does effectively and certainly you should never put on leather boots with the assumption that they will protect you from attackers.
NAT should be used only for sharing an IP address, it isn't a layer of security. A firewall should be used only to protect you where you where security is not possible and to catch anything that wasn't anticipated or was overlooked.
The idea that NAT and firewalls are security is another of those things spread by MCSE admins.
I agree that Microsoft Corp isn't going away anytime soon. It has too strong of a position and very little infrastructure. If Microsoft's sales were cut in half tomorrow the only change would probably be in their bottom line and they might drop some of their attempts to buy their way into other markets (ala XBox).
But you have to remember that Microsoft wasn't built on VC money, the startup was bankrolled by William Gates III's daddy. The people running Microsoft are more or less the original crew rather than Harvard grads that were moved in by a VC firm so that all the original investors would make a killing and sell out when the company went public.
These guys are extremely rich but almost all of their wealth is in the form of Microsoft stock. If the OS portion of Microsoft tanks the stock will as well.
I think we will see a quasi open source windows and then when they are flailing in the water you will see the win32 GUI sit atop Linux. You will probably see a new DirectX API that maps to OpenGL and ALSA underneath.
It will partly work. In the end the renegades who just like to use the obscure will be on BSD and those who just want the best system will be on what will be a conglomeration of the open source projects we know and love and windows functions and applications that everyone is familiar with.
You must know different MBA's than I do. The ones I know are greedy bloodsuckers. They are cowards, they will pay for licensing in a heartbeat. But they will also read the article in Fortune and know that the evil empire is shaken. That is a big impact in the world of mindshare.
Microsoft is afraid, plain and simple. This an edorsement by the market leader that Linux is ready for the desktop. They were afraid to see Novell pushing it but when Dell went onboard and picked the most user friendly of distros to do it with; Microsoft became terrified.
Do you know why you never saw something like this from Microsoft before? They didn't think it was worth their time.
In any case, it is FUD; there might be a vulnerable project or two but there is basically a stalemate on this one. That is why they are pushing for licensing instead of filing a lawsuit.
This is a good thing. Most MBA's will see right through both the motivation and the push for licensing.
'Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.'
A desktop easy enough for your average user is a relatively new phenomenon. Loki proved there was no market 5 years ago, not that there is no market today. Linux users are no more or less likely to be willing to pay for content than anyone else. Personally I avoid commercial software like the plague but games are an exception and I have purchased several that I play on Linux. There are also no small number of users who dual boot just for games.
Linux adoption has grown by leaps and bounds since 2002. The problem with many of these companies that tested the Linux waters is that they tested them too soon.
'The market for Windows software is large enough, even with the pirates, to make it profitable to sell them software.'
True, except that you mis-phrased it. The market for windows software is large enough to be profitable BECAUSE of piracy, not in spite of it.
'but it's not worth selling TurboTax at $30'
You are probably right. The market is too small to be the sole support for many applications. However, if an application is properly written to begin with the amount of additional effort required to support Linux, or even Macs is relatively small. The market doesn't have to be large enough to offset the entire development cost, it only has to be large enough to pay for the additional development. Even if a software development company broke even on the additional platforms it would be beneficial to have a presence.
'Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.'
A desktop easy enough for your average user is a relatively new phenomenon. Loki proved there was no market 5 years ago, not that there is no market today. Linux users are no more or less likely to be willing to pay for content than anyone else. Personally I avoid commercial software like the plague but games are an exception and I have purchased several that I play on Linux. There are also no small number of users who dual boot just for games.
Linux adoption has grown by leaps and bounds since 2002. The problem with many of these companies that tested the Linux waters is that they tested them too soon.
'The market for Windows software is large enough, even with the pirates, to make it profitable to sell them software.'
True, except that you mis-phrased it. The market for windows software is large enough to be profitable BECAUSE of piracy, not in spite of it.
'Then I propose that the ban be placed until the time that the cost of the test is low enough'
If the cost of the test is low enough for employers to utilize it is low enough for parents. The only way it will become low enough for either is if this bill is stopped.
This along with just about every other 'ban' needs to be lifted.
Start with Ubuntu, then complete the wine implementation of the windows api. Drop their proprietary networking protocols and use Samba as base to port their functionality. Rebrand it all for MS. Beyond that, security problems are on the users.
Just when consumer awareness of DRM is starting to grow they will change the name. This puts us back to square one but doesn't change a thing for them.
The sad thing is that yes, people are that stupid and yes, this will work.
'm not sure where you got that idea. Advanced AI? Like a neuronal net? I've never heard anything like this when people talked about the game. The most advanced thing in the game seems to be the character editor, which figures out how the character moves and fights based on how you create it.'
:-)'
The homepage where it talks about the creators evolving through the various stages.
'It's somewhat unfair the judge the game based on your own unfounded expectations
Maybe I've misunderstood but there is nothing revolutionary about the concept of a character evolving and changing in a game. There is nothing revolutionary about a character designer either. If that is all this game has then how is it new at all? Those concepts already exist in every MMORPG on the market.
'The NSA is not in any way like the secret police. More like government hackers.'
Says the official version. Nobody outside the NSA knows what the NSA encompases and I'd be willing to bet most people inside the NSA don't either. They no doubt have government hackers and codebreakers but I highly doubt that the NSA is limited to only communications monitoring. I don't even doubt that the hackers and codebreakers think they are the show.
I can't believe there was more than one idiot who made a comment like this or more than one idiot who modded it up. 1990, with an average lifespan at about 80 years that means anyone under the age of 63 when East Germany fell is probably still alive.
Twenties also includes more than just the age '20'.
Let me revise:
Researcher 1: We've put together the first document!
Researcher 2: Hmm, it's about some kid named Hans, age 12.
Researcher 1: Wow, Hans slit the throat of a border guard who raped his mother.
Researcher 2: That would send anyone to the Gulag!
Researcher 1: Yes it says here they attached electrified probes to his anus for hours!
Researcher 2: That would make anyone pucker up!
Researcher 1: Ha ha ha!
Researcher 2: Ha ha ha!
Hans would be 29 today, maybe Hans would prefer to keep that part of his past to himself.
1990, that was 17 years ago. People live an average of what, something like 80 years now? Anyone who was younger than 63 years old when East Germany fell is probably alive today. Based on those numbers I don't think I am prepared to yield the point that we are just talking about a bunch of dead people. We aren't just talking about 3 year olds either.
Hell, even if we were ignoring context and just looking at that one statement, twenties includes people all the way up to 29 and life doesn't begin at adulthood. The 90's wasn't the fifties, kids were already doing adult things then that they might not want in files. Especially things done in a desperate situation with machine guns pointed at their mothers.
The comment basically said. 'According to who? An East German? Like East Germans aren't biased. You are naive for not believing propoganda spread by outsiders with an agenda over your intimate partner who would only benefit from the sympathy generated by a negative view of East Germany.'
I really don't see where completely correct fits into the picture. How about rude and naive. Anyone who actually gives credibility to government propoganda (especially US propoganda) over real accounts has more than a couple layers of wool over their eyes.
Whats so revolutionary about that? It wouldn't have the sweet 3d graphics but I could make a game that works on that concept in a couple weeks.
I thought the whole point was that the game uses advanced AI to simulate evolution. This sounds more like a digital Barbie dress up game.