Ipod needs support for OGG! Yes, been said before. But ideally, people could write their own plugins for the ipod. I'd love to be able to play my SPC files (SNES music, tiny ass files) on an ipod, or even in itunes for that matter! All they'd have to do is make an open plugin system like Winamp/XMMS. I love apple, but supporting WMA is just dumb imho when there are better formats / ideas that need attention too.
I wonder why so many girls want the ipod mini as opposed to the regular ipod? To be perfectly honest, if I ever bought one I'd go for the 40 gig ipod because my music collection is similarly massive. To girls just not collect as much music or something? It baffles me as to why so many pink minis sold.
in a world with 256mb usb pendrives, i really fail to see the usefulness in a slower, larger, more power sucking drive with more than a 100 times less storage.
And virtually 100 times less the cost. Floppies are ideal for storing text documents and moving them from computer to computer quickly, especially when available network connections are less than adequate. USB storage is still vastly more expensive and many, many, many computers still don't have front usb ports, making usb storage not only more expensive but more of a hassle with regards to many public computers.
Give me a usb storage device with more space and less physical size than a floppy that costs less than a dollar. Then and only then will I declare floppies truly obsolete. Case in point, floppies still have niche uses both in the x86 and PPC world. USB floppy drives sell quite well for macs, just ask my old high school. They had hundreds of them. It's a lot easier to require a student to have a personal floppy disk for essays than to require them to have a pen drive.
I must say I'm enjoying this growing trend. As someone who owns a computer with Windows on it, another computer with Linux on it, and is soon buying an iBook, it's nice seeing that every day they get better and better at playing together.
Yeah yeah and the rest. "My OS is open source! Isn't that great!" grow up. If you think MS should open source the whole of windows you're crazy. Too late now, will never happen, and how would they make any capital out of a move like that.
If all this is true and the full source code to Win2k has been leaked, if I were MS I'd go ahead an open the source to WinXP and all prior. Continuing to develop using fully leaked insecure code is corporate suicide, so then I'd rebuild Longhorn from scratch so that not a single trace of the original code was in it. They could even go the Apple way and build a new OS off some open source kernel, though I doubt they'd swallow that much pride.
I recently installed KDE 3.2 in my Gentoo box and I have found that Konqueror was one of the greatest improvements done to KDE compared to 3.1.x. I really hate corporations and Apple is indeed a corporation. But as far as corporations go, I've always said that Apple is the corporation I hate the least.:)
I just tried to get it working emulated for an hour now in both 1964 and Project64 and recieved no success. I'm going to bring up this topic on emutalk.net and see if there the details can be weeded out.
I've found that most people running 1280x1024 or higher almost never maximize any window whether they use windows, linux, or osx. On the flip side, people running 1024x768 or lower almost always maximize their current window because screen space is at a premium on those low-end resolutions. I never believed in this phenomina until it started happening to me. Every day at work I'm stuck with 1024x768 and I maximize my windows on both my Linux and Windows work computers. But at home, I never maximize anything because I run 1280x1024.
That works great for binaries, but you can't exactly take a.tgz or a tar.gz, decompress it, pop it into the apps folder, and expect it to run (unless it's a scripting language which runs through an interpreter). We do need Mac-style "slap it in a directory and run it" for binaries, but not every software author gives us binaries so we should create a program like the MSI installers which compiles them then slaps the freshly cooked binaries into the happy little apps directory. Wouldn't it be nice to double click a.tgz or a tar.gz and have some program launch that automatically detects if its something that can be compiled into a binary and launches a happy pointy clicky install diolog that asks you where you want it to be put then compiles it?
This kind of system could work if there was a packaging-nuetral distro. As it stands Gentoo is portage-only, Debian is apt-only, Redhat is rpm-only (though you can use apt now I hear). A truly packaging-nuetral distro would include support for everything from source/makefiles to ebuilds to rpms to debs to striaght binaries. EVERYTHING. And it would have a pretty GUI for it like Windows add/remove. And it would have an installer just as good as Fedora's. There are plenty of package managers attempting this but we need a distro to standardize it and make it user frieindly. End user doesn't care if he's installing with an ebuild or an rpm so long as it doesn't take much effort.
There are numerous episodes across all the Star Trek series which deal with "dark matter nebulas" (as recent as Enterprise) and even "dark matter life forms" (as recent as Voyager).
It's called power outages due to crappy weather for which we get a lot of in Kansas. Not to mention the fact that since I'm a college student, my computers get shuttled around a lot between my house and my parents' house. >2 months of uptime is extremely difficult with such a lifestyle.
Init scripts concern my very little because I almost never reboot. For the record, I use Gentoo and they seem to work fine, but my Gentoo box is nearing a month of uptime. I only rebooted it because I recompiled the kernel. Maybe I should reboot now just to watch the init scripts for fun...
I agree. The last thing I need is some moron who uses these things crashing their car into me. Story from the Darwin Awards:
A 27-year-old French woman lost control of her car on a highway near Marseilles and crashed into a tree, seriously injuring her passenger and killing herself. As a commonplace road accident, this would not have qualified for a Darwin nomination were it not for the fact that the driver's attention had been distracted by her Tamagotchi key ring, which had started urgently beeping for food as she drove along. In an attempt to press the correct buttons to save the Tamagotchi's life, the woman lost her own.
You're missing the point. A better designed operating system does not ultimitely determine how many viruses are written for it. Popularity does. Better OS design has an effect, but not as big an effect as popularity. If OSX were 90% of the desktop market, I'm absolutely certain there would be more viruses available for it than any other operating system. Sure it wouldn't be as bad as the current real world Windows majority (in theory). But always remember, majority OS always translates to most-attacked.
If you actually read my post you'd find that I didn't say "only reason" in regards to viruses, I said "primary reason" because it was listed first and obviously means the most to him. And yes, we all know how much more secure OSX is over Windows. More secure does not translate to invulnerable. Any OS that has 90% of the desktop market, whether it be Windows, OSX, or Linux, is going to get more viruses than the rest. And since virus vulnerability is on the top of his list (because it's first!), I ask again, I wonder how his opinion of the current operating systems would change in that hypothetical scenario?
Your solution is to only support the minority because minority operating systems don't get viruses? Let's pretend Macintosh became 90% of the desktop market and Windows became 10%, just like that. Now all the people who write viruses have switched platforms. Now Macs DO have the virus/worm issues that Windows currently has in the real world, which is the first and I'm assuming the primary reason you stated for not supporting Windows users when it comes to tech support. I wonder how much your opinion of the respective operating systems would change in this hypothetical situation.
If you really can't spell make you could just keep pestering your distributor to provide you with.rpm packages. But you'd do as well to just download the source tarballs and compile them yourself, taking notes as you go along. Distributors will take your requests much more seriously if you can show you've tried something. In my experience, source.tar.gz files are the way to install software; more reliable and more configurable. You could even -- shock, horror -- create your own binary package from the source you downloaded and compiled!
Am I the only one here that is struck by the elitist attitude of this (the final) paragraph? It's as if to say, if you don't compile all your software from source manually, you're not worthy of open source. It's the distributor's job to create easy-to-install packages for the end-user, which is what I thought was the point you were trying to make, but I guess not. It's attitudes like these that are making it so hard for Linux to compete with Mac and Windows as a desktop OS.
Though the system itself is flawed. People who write software for Mac and Windows (in most cases) are both author and distributor. If I wrote a major piece of client software for Linux, I would never release it until I had an apt-get binary package, an ebuild, and an RPM all made up as well. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Linux users are split between Debian (and other distros which use apt), Redhat (and other distros that use rpm), and Gentoo. So this release essentially means nothing to any of the people using those distros until their package manager accomodates them.
Uhm okay, I don't know who the fuck thinks it's funny to plaigiarize my writing, but I am the original author of this essay. I wrote it on January 8th of this year, the original text can be found here.
Hmm. I don't know whether or not to say "mod parent down!" After all, it got a freakin' +5. In a way, now I almost wish I thought of copy/pasting my rant to Slashdot first. A pity. Could have done wonders for my karma;)
They're "not doing their job" because there are better ways to handle these kinds of things than banning players. As the second reply to the grandparent pointed out, people are teamed randomly. Well, hello Blizzard! Isn't it obvious that randomized teams is going to cause some people want to throw their game? It's a matter of common sense. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's inevitable. If I were them, I'd be going out of my way to find a solution that didn't involve banning players, which only serves to make them lose customers.
Seems to me it would be a better idea to mark people's accounts down in some way for throwing their game. I don't know how battle.net works specifically, but if you get points or whatnot for winning, you should have your points wiped if you are caught griefing. Penalty is okay. Banning is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Ipod needs support for OGG! Yes, been said before. But ideally, people could write their own plugins for the ipod. I'd love to be able to play my SPC files (SNES music, tiny ass files) on an ipod, or even in itunes for that matter! All they'd have to do is make an open plugin system like Winamp/XMMS. I love apple, but supporting WMA is just dumb imho when there are better formats / ideas that need attention too.
"To" should be "Do", yeah yeah use the frigging preview button, stupid lack of an "edit post" feature.
Score -1, pointless ranting.
I wonder why so many girls want the ipod mini as opposed to the regular ipod? To be perfectly honest, if I ever bought one I'd go for the 40 gig ipod because my music collection is similarly massive. To girls just not collect as much music or something? It baffles me as to why so many pink minis sold.
Give me a usb storage device with more space and less physical size than a floppy that costs less than a dollar. Then and only then will I declare floppies truly obsolete. Case in point, floppies still have niche uses both in the x86 and PPC world. USB floppy drives sell quite well for macs, just ask my old high school. They had hundreds of them. It's a lot easier to require a student to have a personal floppy disk for essays than to require them to have a pen drive.
In other news, Slashdot is renamed to Dashslot...
I must say I'm enjoying this growing trend. As someone who owns a computer with Windows on it, another computer with Linux on it, and is soon buying an iBook, it's nice seeing that every day they get better and better at playing together.
I recently installed KDE 3.2 in my Gentoo box and I have found that Konqueror was one of the greatest improvements done to KDE compared to 3.1.x. I really hate corporations and Apple is indeed a corporation. But as far as corporations go, I've always said that Apple is the corporation I hate the least. :)
I just tried to get it working emulated for an hour now in both 1964 and Project64 and recieved no success. I'm going to bring up this topic on emutalk.net and see if there the details can be weeded out.
I've found that most people running 1280x1024 or higher almost never maximize any window whether they use windows, linux, or osx. On the flip side, people running 1024x768 or lower almost always maximize their current window because screen space is at a premium on those low-end resolutions. I never believed in this phenomina until it started happening to me. Every day at work I'm stuck with 1024x768 and I maximize my windows on both my Linux and Windows work computers. But at home, I never maximize anything because I run 1280x1024.
That works great for binaries, but you can't exactly take a .tgz or a tar.gz, decompress it, pop it into the apps folder, and expect it to run (unless it's a scripting language which runs through an interpreter). We do need Mac-style "slap it in a directory and run it" for binaries, but not every software author gives us binaries so we should create a program like the MSI installers which compiles them then slaps the freshly cooked binaries into the happy little apps directory. Wouldn't it be nice to double click a .tgz or a tar.gz and have some program launch that automatically detects if its something that can be compiled into a binary and launches a happy pointy clicky install diolog that asks you where you want it to be put then compiles it?
This kind of system could work if there was a packaging-nuetral distro. As it stands Gentoo is portage-only, Debian is apt-only, Redhat is rpm-only (though you can use apt now I hear). A truly packaging-nuetral distro would include support for everything from source/makefiles to ebuilds to rpms to debs to striaght binaries. EVERYTHING. And it would have a pretty GUI for it like Windows add/remove. And it would have an installer just as good as Fedora's. There are plenty of package managers attempting this but we need a distro to standardize it and make it user frieindly. End user doesn't care if he's installing with an ebuild or an rpm so long as it doesn't take much effort.
There are numerous episodes across all the Star Trek series which deal with "dark matter nebulas" (as recent as Enterprise) and even "dark matter life forms" (as recent as Voyager).
It's called power outages due to crappy weather for which we get a lot of in Kansas. Not to mention the fact that since I'm a college student, my computers get shuttled around a lot between my house and my parents' house. >2 months of uptime is extremely difficult with such a lifestyle.
Init scripts concern my very little because I almost never reboot. For the record, I use Gentoo and they seem to work fine, but my Gentoo box is nearing a month of uptime. I only rebooted it because I recompiled the kernel. Maybe I should reboot now just to watch the init scripts for fun...
You're missing the point. A better designed operating system does not ultimitely determine how many viruses are written for it. Popularity does. Better OS design has an effect, but not as big an effect as popularity. If OSX were 90% of the desktop market, I'm absolutely certain there would be more viruses available for it than any other operating system. Sure it wouldn't be as bad as the current real world Windows majority (in theory). But always remember, majority OS always translates to most-attacked.
If you actually read my post you'd find that I didn't say "only reason" in regards to viruses, I said "primary reason" because it was listed first and obviously means the most to him. And yes, we all know how much more secure OSX is over Windows. More secure does not translate to invulnerable. Any OS that has 90% of the desktop market, whether it be Windows, OSX, or Linux, is going to get more viruses than the rest. And since virus vulnerability is on the top of his list (because it's first!), I ask again, I wonder how his opinion of the current operating systems would change in that hypothetical scenario?
Your solution is to only support the minority because minority operating systems don't get viruses? Let's pretend Macintosh became 90% of the desktop market and Windows became 10%, just like that. Now all the people who write viruses have switched platforms. Now Macs DO have the virus/worm issues that Windows currently has in the real world, which is the first and I'm assuming the primary reason you stated for not supporting Windows users when it comes to tech support. I wonder how much your opinion of the respective operating systems would change in this hypothetical situation.
Though the system itself is flawed. People who write software for Mac and Windows (in most cases) are both author and distributor. If I wrote a major piece of client software for Linux, I would never release it until I had an apt-get binary package, an ebuild, and an RPM all made up as well. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Linux users are split between Debian (and other distros which use apt), Redhat (and other distros that use rpm), and Gentoo. So this release essentially means nothing to any of the people using those distros until their package manager accomodates them.
Uhm okay, I don't know who the fuck thinks it's funny to plaigiarize my writing, but I am the original author of this essay. I wrote it on January 8th of this year, the original text can be found here.
;)
Hmm. I don't know whether or not to say "mod parent down!" After all, it got a freakin' +5. In a way, now I almost wish I thought of copy/pasting my rant to Slashdot first. A pity. Could have done wonders for my karma
They're "not doing their job" because there are better ways to handle these kinds of things than banning players. As the second reply to the grandparent pointed out, people are teamed randomly. Well, hello Blizzard! Isn't it obvious that randomized teams is going to cause some people want to throw their game? It's a matter of common sense. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's inevitable. If I were them, I'd be going out of my way to find a solution that didn't involve banning players, which only serves to make them lose customers.
Seems to me it would be a better idea to mark people's accounts down in some way for throwing their game. I don't know how battle.net works specifically, but if you get points or whatnot for winning, you should have your points wiped if you are caught griefing. Penalty is okay. Banning is not.