If you are not interested in trying something new that may give you a way to do things faster and easier than you are currently doing, why are you using my new UI?
The tone gives me the impression this is meant to be bad news for Sharp, but there is no clue why in the summary.
Phew. So (per the summary) having to mortgage your factories to raise $2 billion in emergency funds when you're looking at a $3 billion+ loss isn't bad news.
Because the first thing I see is: Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).
Actually, it looks somewhat similar to the secure version of Solaris, running different processes in different VMs. I wonder if I have a crappy old machine lying around somewhere that I could test it on.
There is a Half Life: Source port, but it uses the original graphics and models. How often does a game developer go back and re-release an old game with brand-new graphics? Tomb Raider is the only one I can think of.
Use bee's wax instead of soap. Soap is hygroscopic and not all that chemically stable and will induce rust or other difficulties.
Rust requires oxygen, so is unlikely to be a major problem on the outside of a space station. There's oxygen up there, but the concentration is very low.
Bizarre. I keep seeing all this whining about pulseaudio, and two years ago it was justified.. but today it just works on every Linux machine I own, and works better than the older sound systems ever did.
I think the problem is - even though you use it, no-one else does.
I do. My company does. Most of our customers do. The only times I see a Windows desktop these days are when I boot into it to play Guild Wars 2 (which does run on Linux but I don't have enough disk space) or when my girlfriend is loading files onto her iPod with iTunes.
See, would it really be that bad to have a stable ABI?
Stable ABIs are for retards. Stable ABIs force you to support cruddy old shit forever because it was poorly designed to begin with and now you can never get rid of it. Stable ABIs are what made Windows a steaming pile of bugs and security holes. Stable ABIs are the reason why, when I was writing Windows drivers, I had to intentionally ADD bugs to my driver to match bugs in existing drivers without which some popular applications wouldn't run.
The Windows model is somewhat better, albeit has it's own problems. Most windows applications, even when they have shared libraries, distribute the shared libraries they use and keep them in their own directories.
How is having seventy-five copies of zlib, all with different security holes, scattered around your system better than having one copy provided by the OS?
Lunix is programmed either by geeks, or by companies who make their money on support (and easy to use software = no support income). Neither party cares about quality.
Uh, no. We do care about quality, that's why we don't want to be tied down by a stable ABI which requires us to intentionally maintain documented bugs in our libraries so that some crappy old software will still run.
Yes, I know keeping a stable ABI is hard. But here's the deal: as a maintainer, it's your job.
Stable ABIs aren't hard, they're just retarded. Stable ABIs are why Windows is a steaming pile of a million crappy APIs full of security holes and bugs which no-one can fix. 'Yes, I know foobar.dll has a bug where it ignores parameter X if you specify parameter Y as -1, but if we fix it, SuperWord 2000 breaks'.
There's absolutely zero excuses for why an app written three years ago shouldn't run fine today.
How about because the API you were using sucked and we're all better off without it?
I know which situation has caused me more heartache.
You mean, finding all seventy five copies of zlib.dll strewn through random directories on your system which have exploitable security holes so you can individually replace them all with a patched version?
I remember something similar in Everquest where one NPC was selling items vastly cheaper than they should. There was a rollback and I believe a handful of people were banned for seriously exploiting it.
Even worse, it is proportional to the speed cubed, so if one goes twice as fast, one needs eight times the power to deal with the wind resistance.
Which is why the SR-71 flew at 80,000+ feet and not 30,000-ish feet with the airliners. And why a 747 flies at 30,000-ish feet and not 10,000-ish feet with the DC-3s.
There was a planned bomber version too, but it never flew because it was a silly idea. The YF-12 did actually fly and did actually shoot down drone aircraft from Mach 3 at high altitude... but wasn't much more sensible.
So it's not going to happen but 90% of the auto industry are on board with it? Somebody's not telling me something...
1. Not agreeing would mean no more bailouts. 2. The people agreeing today probably don't expect to be in their jobs by 2025. By then it will be someone else's problems.
This is like expressing surprise if auto companies agreed to have all cars averaging 100,000 mpg by 2100. Sure, sounds good, not my problem.
I had a car in the 80s that exceeded the 2035 guidelines. A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful, and lasted 20 years before I got rid of it. I'd buy one today.. BUT NOBODY MAKES THEM ANY MORE.
Well, duh. That's because cars are bloated with 'safety' features that the government have demanded, or they're SUVs, which were created because people could no longer buy large cars due to prior fuel economy regulations.
But yes, obviously the solution is even more regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are not interested in trying something new that may give you a way to do things faster and easier than you are currently doing, why are you using my new UI?
Because you stopped supporting the old one.
The tone gives me the impression this is meant to be bad news for Sharp, but there is no clue why in the summary.
Phew. So (per the summary) having to mortgage your factories to raise $2 billion in emergency funds when you're looking at a $3 billion+ loss isn't bad news.
So bad and yet still miles better than any Linux based operating system or OS X.
That'll be why the world runs on Windows servers and no-one would think of putting any critical service on Linux.
Must have taken a whole ten minutes to replace CGA sprites with VGA. Comparing it to building a 2012-era 3D environment is just silly.
NoScript breaks half the sites on the web.
No, it doesn't. But thanks for playing.
Just run it in a VM.
You seem to have missed the comments further down about it not running in a VM.
Because the first thing I see is:
Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic).
Real men use wget. Or telnet.
Actually, it looks somewhat similar to the secure version of Solaris, running different processes in different VMs. I wonder if I have a crappy old machine lying around somewhere that I could test it on.
what about OpenBSD?
Or Solaris?
There is a Half Life: Source port, but it uses the original graphics and models. How often does a game developer go back and re-release an old game with brand-new graphics? Tomb Raider is the only one I can think of.
Mod parent up. After the first play through I always just quit when I hit the tedious Xen crap.
Use bee's wax instead of soap. Soap is hygroscopic and not all that chemically stable and will induce rust or other difficulties.
Rust requires oxygen, so is unlikely to be a major problem on the outside of a space station. There's oxygen up there, but the concentration is very low.
Bizarre. I keep seeing all this whining about pulseaudio, and two years ago it was justified.. but today it just works on every Linux machine I own, and works better than the older sound systems ever did.
Because it's a shitty knock off of a shitty knock off of Java.
I disagree. C# seems to have fixed some of the worst problems of Java.
But I still wouldn't use it unless I wanted to be tied to Windows, because Microsoft could kill Mono any time they feel like it.
I think the problem is - even though you use it, no-one else does.
I do. My company does. Most of our customers do. The only times I see a Windows desktop these days are when I boot into it to play Guild Wars 2 (which does run on Linux but I don't have enough disk space) or when my girlfriend is loading files onto her iPod with iTunes.
See, would it really be that bad to have a stable ABI?
Stable ABIs are for retards. Stable ABIs force you to support cruddy old shit forever because it was poorly designed to begin with and now you can never get rid of it. Stable ABIs are what made Windows a steaming pile of bugs and security holes. Stable ABIs are the reason why, when I was writing Windows drivers, I had to intentionally ADD bugs to my driver to match bugs in existing drivers without which some popular applications wouldn't run.
The Windows model is somewhat better, albeit has it's own problems. Most windows applications, even when they have shared libraries, distribute the shared libraries they use and keep them in their own directories.
How is having seventy-five copies of zlib, all with different security holes, scattered around your system better than having one copy provided by the OS?
Lunix is programmed either by geeks, or by companies who make their money on support (and easy to use software = no support income). Neither party cares about quality.
Uh, no. We do care about quality, that's why we don't want to be tied down by a stable ABI which requires us to intentionally maintain documented bugs in our libraries so that some crappy old software will still run.
Yes, I know keeping a stable ABI is hard. But here's the deal: as a maintainer, it's your job.
Stable ABIs aren't hard, they're just retarded. Stable ABIs are why Windows is a steaming pile of a million crappy APIs full of security holes and bugs which no-one can fix. 'Yes, I know foobar.dll has a bug where it ignores parameter X if you specify parameter Y as -1, but if we fix it, SuperWord 2000 breaks'.
There's absolutely zero excuses for why an app written three years ago shouldn't run fine today.
How about because the API you were using sucked and we're all better off without it?
Hard drive space is cheap.
My time isn't.
I know which situation has caused me more heartache.
You mean, finding all seventy five copies of zlib.dll strewn through random directories on your system which have exploitable security holes so you can individually replace them all with a patched version?
But Microsoft have thrown away billions on the Xbox, whereas most game developers actually want to make money.
I remember something similar in Everquest where one NPC was selling items vastly cheaper than they should. There was a rollback and I believe a handful of people were banned for seriously exploiting it.
Even worse, it is proportional to the speed cubed, so if one goes twice as fast, one needs eight times the power to deal with the wind resistance.
Which is why the SR-71 flew at 80,000+ feet and not 30,000-ish feet with the airliners. And why a 747 flies at 30,000-ish feet and not 10,000-ish feet with the DC-3s.
There was a planned bomber version too, but it never flew because it was a silly idea. The YF-12 did actually fly and did actually shoot down drone aircraft from Mach 3 at high altitude... but wasn't much more sensible.
So it's not going to happen but 90% of the auto industry are on board with it? Somebody's not telling me something ...
1. Not agreeing would mean no more bailouts.
2. The people agreeing today probably don't expect to be in their jobs by 2025. By then it will be someone else's problems.
This is like expressing surprise if auto companies agreed to have all cars averaging 100,000 mpg by 2100. Sure, sounds good, not my problem.
I had a car in the 80s that exceeded the 2035 guidelines. A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful, and lasted 20 years before I got rid of it.
I'd buy one today.. BUT NOBODY MAKES THEM ANY MORE.
Well, duh. That's because cars are bloated with 'safety' features that the government have demanded, or they're SUVs, which were created because people could no longer buy large cars due to prior fuel economy regulations.
But yes, obviously the solution is even more regulation.