A full DirectX Win32 wrapper?
on
Winex 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The day when it doesn't matter what kind of application you run under linux, all win32/directx apps are supported - is the day this will really take off. While I'm sure alot of these games will work under linux, the day when you can just install and play is when it'll make it to the big time.
Except most SMTP servers won't allow for finger queries since that's the easiest way to harvest a list of valid e-mails.
What should be done, is to verify the ESMTP ID which the SMTP server could use to check if it was sent from a valid user without revealing if the user or the ID was correct.
But why does harvesting valid emails matter anymore, when users/domains which spam will be forever blocked, and not just blocked by one person, but blocked by everybody ? Remember, if you have authenticated users, it's easy to set up a master list of "spam" users/domains. (Lets say it'd have to be triggered by 1000 unique people to avoid greifing). This means spammers would get to send one batch of spam per domain - thats pretty expensive after a while, if you think about it:)
Lets say you get an email from bob@yahoo.com.. and your mail server then contacts yahoo's mail server (looked up by the official DNS record) to make sure that bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the email. If he's not, trash it. If he is, keep it.
What does this do for spam? Allows you to block it! Since all email addresses would then be verifiable, and tracked to a specific domain/user, spam-abusers could either be silenced at the source (their ISP) or silenced at the destination (your spam filter killing that whole domain). Sure there's lots of domains out there to use, but a simple master-list of "spam domains/users" maintained online would quickly whittle the spam down. What do you guys think?
Still, the sheer number of idiots on AOL makes it a safe bet that if their IP is aol.com, you're talking to a waterhead. There's always exceptions.. but there are innocent men in prison too:)
Why not let them put them in? If some company makes an "RFID Neutralizer" that blasts them with 3000 watts like in a hair dryer type of configuration, buy your clothes, take them home, spray them, you're done. This thing should be easy and cheap.
"We need more integrated software". "Free software authors need to combine GNOME and KDE so that my desktop is nicer". "Blah blah blah me me me". You want that, buy a non-free program. Then you're paying the developers, and can tell them what to do.
Free software is about developers, not users.
So free software is better... as long as you're not a user ?:)
I happen to work professionally on a product that costs about $2M/yr in license fees, so I know exactly what you mean. I'm sure this discussion relates to desktop-oriented software, there's not alot of Enterprise-class free software floating around that I know of:)
WMP sucks hardcore. Use Zoomplayer. Yes it's windows, but oh my God, it rocks.
Re:And it seems like everyone has pet software..
on
Too Much Free Software
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Integrated packages are great if they actually work. Linux distributions are integrated packages of software that (generally?:) work. Open Office/Star Office are integrated packages. These are the types of software we need for linux.
I wouldn't mind office at all if my wife didn't lose her powerpoints once a month destroying a days work (dont ask) and the myriad of other annoyances (clippy!!) were gone. Integrated packages are a good thing when done by talented developers with an eye on functionality and not monopoly.:)
And thats usually the difference between commercial software and free software.. with commercial software, you have customers who may refuse to buy a product that they have to fiddle with extensively to get it to work, or which have major bugs that require workarounds. Free software authors (Bless them, this is not a slam) fix it when they have time or when they feel like it.. which can mean alot when you rely on the software to get your job done or to do tasks in personal life.
that they think is just the coolest EVER, because it does the one thing they do. What we need are some integrated packages with commercial quality, which are readily available and which are known to work. The "have to fiddle with it" factor really kills alot of potential linux users, because they either don't have the skills to fiddle, or don't have the patience.
The old saying of "Free software is only free if you put no value on your time" applies here.
Not exactly. I don't burn the rips after I watch them, I just keep them on the HDD. When other movies come and I want to watch those, I just delete the ones I've ripped. Thats about as pure a definition of "Time Shift" as I've ever heard.
But what about DVD Decrypting? What about DVD2AVI? Virtualdub ported to Linux? What about all the AC3 tools I use? Although these things are most likely ABLE to be done on Linux, most of the people I know doing HTPC stuff are running Windows. If thats where the experts are, you'll just be gnashing your teeth trying to figure it out by yourself on Linux.
All depends on how many compression artifacts you're willing to live with. I compress DVD's at around 1200megs/hr, so I think your HD is probably of pretty low quality. I think around 2200-2400megs/hr (5Mbit/sec) is where most people are doing high-quality mpeg-4 encodes. This is coming from a 12-13Mbit Mpeg2 file.
This does introduce some artifacts though, if you want zero re-compression artifacts you really need to stick with the 30% smaller number. Film-based HD does compress very well though due to it's inherent softness. To each his own on this, it's subjective.
Mpeg-4 is just a framework.. it's like saying "compress the video using these methods." It doesn't say how to actually implement those methods. Thats up to the individual codec.
You see the same thing with Mpeg-2, various implementations, those are mostly compatible though.
Nothing is wrong with microsoft trying, but as usual they aren't breaking new ground, only using alot of money and influence to try to take over a market which is already established. I don't mind this, as the end product is the same and I don't think there's any harm microsoft can do here.
I use an Athlon 1700XP with an ATI Radeon 8500 and my HDTV to watch my DIVX movies and DVD's. Usually I time-shift my netflix rentals into DIVX so that I can watch them later. Watching these on linux is passable, but the clincher for windows on this one is that most of the good encoding tools are windows-based. Sorry Linux!
Whoever modded this as informative is on crack. I make DIVX and X-vid encodes that are totally indistinguishable from the DVD with about 30% less bandwidth. They end up about 2.5-3gig for most movies, with the original AC3 sound. These aren't passed around on the net, they are for my personal use. The studios probably spend 99% of the time for a DVD creating the stupid menus and actually doing the telecine.
I can't think of a single codec thats resolution limited. DIVX, X-Vid, MPEG-2.. all are capable of any resolution you want to throw at them.
Digital movies have been around for a while, they are sent to the theaters on like 12 DVD's and played back on TI DLP projectors. You've probably unwittingly sat in one and couldn't tell the difference.:)
This is just a way for microsoft to champion their own codec.. this has been done for some time in DLP theaters across the country with MPEG-2 format movies. Star Wars Ep2, Lilo & Stitch, etc etc were shown in digital theaters. Now it's a Microsoft (!) digital theater. Great.
Slashdot Mirror
The day when it doesn't matter what kind of application you run under linux, all win32/directx apps are supported - is the day this will really take off. While I'm sure alot of these games will work under linux, the day when you can just install and play is when it'll make it to the big time.
Except most SMTP servers won't allow for finger queries since that's the easiest way to harvest a list of valid e-mails. What should be done, is to verify the ESMTP ID which the SMTP server could use to check if it was sent from a valid user without revealing if the user or the ID was correct. But why does harvesting valid emails matter anymore, when users/domains which spam will be forever blocked, and not just blocked by one person, but blocked by everybody ? Remember, if you have authenticated users, it's easy to set up a master list of "spam" users/domains. (Lets say it'd have to be triggered by 1000 unique people to avoid greifing). This means spammers would get to send one batch of spam per domain - thats pretty expensive after a while, if you think about it :)
Lets say you get an email from bob@yahoo.com .. and your mail server then contacts yahoo's mail server (looked up by the official DNS record) to make sure that bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the email. If he's not, trash it. If he is, keep it.
What does this do for spam? Allows you to block it! Since all email addresses would then be verifiable, and tracked to a specific domain/user, spam-abusers could either be silenced at the source (their ISP) or silenced at the destination (your spam filter killing that whole domain). Sure there's lots of domains out there to use, but a simple master-list of "spam domains/users" maintained online would quickly whittle the spam down. What do you guys think?
I guess if you have to troll AIM to get pussy, this is a benefit. I hereby bequeath my quota of AOL-skanks to you, my humble servant. :)
Still, the sheer number of idiots on AOL makes it a safe bet that if their IP is aol.com, you're talking to a waterhead. There's always exceptions.. but there are innocent men in prison too :)
I hate AOL and all their users, but damn, this sounds great! Best of luck, AOL!
Why not let them put them in? If some company makes an "RFID Neutralizer" that blasts them with 3000 watts like in a hair dryer type of configuration, buy your clothes, take them home, spray them, you're done. This thing should be easy and cheap.
I happen to work professionally on a product that costs about $2M/yr in license fees, so I know exactly what you mean. I'm sure this discussion relates to desktop-oriented software, there's not alot of Enterprise-class free software floating around that I know of :)
WMP sucks hardcore. Use Zoomplayer. Yes it's windows, but oh my God, it rocks.
Integrated packages are great if they actually work. Linux distributions are integrated packages of software that (generally? :) work. Open Office/Star Office are integrated packages. These are the types of software we need for linux.
I wouldn't mind office at all if my wife didn't lose her powerpoints once a month destroying a days work (dont ask) and the myriad of other annoyances (clippy!!) were gone. Integrated packages are a good thing when done by talented developers with an eye on functionality and not monopoly. :)
And thats usually the difference between commercial software and free software.. with commercial software, you have customers who may refuse to buy a product that they have to fiddle with extensively to get it to work, or which have major bugs that require workarounds. Free software authors (Bless them, this is not a slam) fix it when they have time or when they feel like it.. which can mean alot when you rely on the software to get your job done or to do tasks in personal life.
that they think is just the coolest EVER, because it does the one thing they do. What we need are some integrated packages with commercial quality, which are readily available and which are known to work. The "have to fiddle with it" factor really kills alot of potential linux users, because they either don't have the skills to fiddle, or don't have the patience.
The old saying of "Free software is only free if you put no value on your time" applies here.
I'd imagine the US would start to be concerned with Ireland if they threatened us. Since they were killing Brits, it's not our issue.
Not exactly. I don't burn the rips after I watch them, I just keep them on the HDD. When other movies come and I want to watch those, I just delete the ones I've ripped. Thats about as pure a definition of "Time Shift" as I've ever heard.
Sweet, sounds like a fun project. I'll be interested to hear the results. Good luck! :)
But what about DVD Decrypting? What about DVD2AVI? Virtualdub ported to Linux? What about all the AC3 tools I use? Although these things are most likely ABLE to be done on Linux, most of the people I know doing HTPC stuff are running Windows. If thats where the experts are, you'll just be gnashing your teeth trying to figure it out by yourself on Linux.
All depends on how many compression artifacts you're willing to live with. I compress DVD's at around 1200megs/hr, so I think your HD is probably of pretty low quality. I think around 2200-2400megs/hr (5Mbit/sec) is where most people are doing high-quality mpeg-4 encodes. This is coming from a 12-13Mbit Mpeg2 file.
This does introduce some artifacts though, if you want zero re-compression artifacts you really need to stick with the 30% smaller number. Film-based HD does compress very well though due to it's inherent softness. To each his own on this, it's subjective.
Mpeg-4 is just a framework.. it's like saying "compress the video using these methods." It doesn't say how to actually implement those methods. Thats up to the individual codec.
You see the same thing with Mpeg-2, various implementations, those are mostly compatible though.
Nothing is wrong with microsoft trying, but as usual they aren't breaking new ground, only using alot of money and influence to try to take over a market which is already established. I don't mind this, as the end product is the same and I don't think there's any harm microsoft can do here.
I use an Athlon 1700XP with an ATI Radeon 8500 and my HDTV to watch my DIVX movies and DVD's. Usually I time-shift my netflix rentals into DIVX so that I can watch them later. Watching these on linux is passable, but the clincher for windows on this one is that most of the good encoding tools are windows-based. Sorry Linux!
Whoever modded this as informative is on crack. I make DIVX and X-vid encodes that are totally indistinguishable from the DVD with about 30% less bandwidth. They end up about 2.5-3gig for most movies, with the original AC3 sound. These aren't passed around on the net, they are for my personal use. The studios probably spend 99% of the time for a DVD creating the stupid menus and actually doing the telecine.
I can't think of a single codec thats resolution limited. DIVX, X-Vid, MPEG-2.. all are capable of any resolution you want to throw at them.
Digital movies have been around for a while, they are sent to the theaters on like 12 DVD's and played back on TI DLP projectors. You've probably unwittingly sat in one and couldn't tell the difference. :)
This is just a way for microsoft to champion their own codec.. this has been done for some time in DLP theaters across the country with MPEG-2 format movies. Star Wars Ep2, Lilo & Stitch, etc etc were shown in digital theaters. Now it's a Microsoft (!) digital theater. Great.