I still fail to understand how Unix and Philosophy relate at all?
To a lesser degree I can understand why you might relate Linux and Philosophy together... even then I think you would be making a mistake. Now, open source... to a certain degree there is a philosophy aspect there, and even still I think its a bit of a stretch.
Well... this is kinda off topic... kinda not... so what the hell, im posting it!
Anyways, I see alot of people talking about the nostalga of the older game systems, and how the games themselves are what make a console great. If you truely believe that your going to love this!
Its a build it yourself ( sorta... its actually pre-assembled) 16 bit console, that comes complete with instructions on how to build your own. Plus it ships with a full SDK, and a port GNU tool set. This thing could be fun as hell to play with... plus, its only 99$. I may just have to pick one of these up.
On a side note... its design / distributed by Andre LeMoth (sp?)... basically the biggest author of game programming books. Ive always thought the guy was a bit of a loon... but his books are/were pretty good, at least for beginners.
In all honesty, the above conversation is getting far to twisted to really bother trying to continue in this format. You are either misunderstanding what I am trying to say, or I am failing in communicating my point. We of course, will each have our own opinion on which is the case. Regardless, I'll format my answer differently, perhaps it will add some clarity.
Your posts are very difficult to read. I would have expected more effective written communication skills from a manager.
I am not your manager, and this is not a professional forum, so I suppose in the end this doesnt matter. In a casual forum like this, I tend to write my responses in a conversational tone.
Please consider this last question. If MS could take over the Internet and sell/administer/regulate it, would you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
Obviously, I think this would be a bad thing. I think it would be a bad for thing for any one company, or even country to administrate the Internet. Im not arguing that. If what you are trying to insinuate is that Microsoft desires control of the net... well, no shit they do! Every major computing company would love to control the Internet.
It appears to me that that you don't see how advances MS makes more often than not threatens fair competition.
No, quite the contrary... I know perfectly well how Microsofts business practices can often threaten fair competition... hell, im one of the people here at work that had to negotiate our Enterprise agreement with them. After go through that process, trust me... your not exactly ready to go singing the praises about Microsoft!
That said... IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Im not talking about Microsofts anticompetitive behavours... or nasty business processes, or buggy software... none of that! Im talking about this article, and nothing more! In this article, I dont see what Microsoft has said that would solicite a negative response from the anti-microsoft camp. Im not asking why there is an anti-microsoft camp... and in this context, I really dont give a damn... Im trying to discuss this article itself, from a neutral perspective... and how, infact the comments made could be viewed as good in the open source commun ity!
Re:If it's too loud, you're too old!
on
Is Louder Better?
·
· Score: 1
Actually... I think Rush is a bad band to use as an example!
I figure the record execs had a conversation like... " Seeing as Rush fans are all what, in there 70's now... maybe we should crank up the volume, so they dont have to get out their hearing aids to enjoy the CD!"
:) Just kidding... never been much of a RUSH fan....... roll the bones...
Outside of the handheld ( PalmOS, PocketPC ) markets, or cell phones... many indy games are either crap... or sales pitches to publishers! Im not saying all... there are probrably dozens of exceptions, but on the whole this remains true. Its funny though, when you look at "past" indy games...
HomeWorld
Doom
FlashPoint
Really... by definition, an indy game is self financed, without a publisher in site. Its funny that that moment you have success in the indy market, you tend to get picked up by a publisher... then your no longer indy!;) Than again, there are a few companies that are going from commerical projects to more of an indy style. Once you see the amount that publishers take... you start to see the value in online distro's!
For anyone really interested in learning more, check out: Garage Games Misc resources, plus a licensable engine FlipCode Great gaming related site Gamedev.net Like flipcode, but less mature ( you'll see! ) Gamasutra The site for game developers! Must see CrystalSpace LGPL 3d Engine. Very impressive WildTangent Cheap game engine (web based), plus online publishing Auran Jet Affordable 3d engine, flexible licensing OpenGl The site for OpenGL info. Lots of useful links
From the above list, you should easily be able to find anything else your looking for!;) Enjoy the world of game development for zero cash!
I think calling linux a process is a huge mistake. Granted, its an argument of semantics, but that doesn't make it any less important.
In my mind... calling linux a process, models exactly what Open Source is. Open Source is a process... or more accurately, open source development is a process. Linux is one possible result. By calling the whole of Linux a process, muddles the lines between what open source is and what linux is. In essence, it derides any non-linux related open source process. Hope that made sense.
To me, open source development is a process.
Linux is a platform.
RedHat/Mandrake are an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
To show it in different non linux terms:
Closed source development is a process.
Windows CE is a platform
PocketPC 2002 is an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
In the end, calling Linux a process... well... it muddles an already confused concept! In my mind, I dont think the revolutionary concept is in any way linux, it is the way in which linux was conceived!
Quite true./. is very avidly anti-MS. However, let's get one thing straight here. It's a bad thing for anti-MS camps. All the pro-MS camps can go on with lives as far as I'm concerned. Trying to straddle the argument by wording your comment to both sides will not win any points.
Win any points? Straddle my arguments? Im not following here? Im unbiased as much as one man can be. I use Microsoft products, I use linux products, I use what I need to do my job and get paid. I see downsides to both camps, and upsides as well. So, are you saying that in order to be posting on/. you need to be a pro-linux or pro-microsoft zealot?!?! That seems a bit daft to me!
Far fetched?. Why is it far fetched? Then what do you propose is the reason that MS is moving it's primary competitor into a lab? Do you play sports at all? Do you ever study your opponent?
You got me here... my wording was poor. What I was trying to say ( and obviously failed is ), in regards to the creation of this lab... You dont believe that microsoft doesnt already look at EVERY competing product and "borrow" the best aspects of each? Do you think for one second, they are going to, as a result of creating this lab, suddenly say... "damn... Linux is so much more stable/secure/etc... then Windows XP/2K3... we should copy that feature!". I meant to say it is far fetched that this is the purpose behind the lap, not that this is what Microsoft is or isnt doing.
I suppose you think MS invented the windowing environment? They must have, MS tried to trademark/copyright "Windows". Right? Who said people are annoyed for that reason? If that's the reason you believe people are upset about, then I suggest you think more long term. This is not about jelousy. It's about having a superior product under anyone's control. The operative word being one. Ever heard of the term power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the unix variants, some under corporate exclusive control and others under public contribution, but with all of them sharing and interoperating peices, distributes power. The fact that windows will be a better OS is great! I'm all for it! The fact that one corporation whose method of business has been to illegally and unethically shutout competition being the sole provider is not. Let me elucidate this point with an example. If you and another are the only ones selling cars, making improvements to your car to make it more attractive is fine. Slashing the other guys tires to make his less attractive is not. Now that he can't sell his car, you can charge whatever you want since nobody else is selling cars. You can even install a camera in it to watch the new owners.
I would love to know how you twisted what I said to form that response! No, I know damned straight that microsoft did not invent the windowing environment... So far as history claims, it was Xerox. Not that I dont imagine it was done far before that. By your response, im assuming once again you are taking my comments out of context. I am talking in context to the article that was posted! Specifically, im talking about how Microsoft forming a lab to study linux, is not in and of itself a bad thing! Im not saying that Microsoft is an innocent little choir boy... or has never practiced unethical business practices... they have... hell, I would be hard pressed to find a business there size, that hasnt! To veer a bit off topic... I think that Microsoft's actions have been absolutely innocent, when you compare it against so of what Larry Elison has tried to pull at Oracle! However... as far as interfaces go... once you find one that works, and works well... its pretty stupid not to adopt it! Kinda like Satelitte TV/TV Guide/Digital Cable... they all have minor variances, but from copying each other, they have basically come up with a very efficent standard UI. Why not borrow from your competitors... in the end, as a user... I would rather user something wel
No, they havent. They have gone to customers and warned them they could be in violation... nothing more. SCO is not in the business of licensing SCO itself, they license out the technology to other developers. It is people that use SCO technology in their derived products that require a license.
Think about it this way... when a big company ( say Ford) buys and rolls out Windows 2000 in the enterprise... do they license the use of Windows? Or do they license the use of the Windows technologies in order to create their own derived OS!? Beyond selling SCO, or Caldera Linux to these companies... or residual revenue from one of their licensees selling their product to Fortune 1500 companies... SCO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!
SCO's intentions in sending the letters to the Fortune 1500 wasnt to get money from each of these companies, but to cause FUD and damage to Linux distro's everywhere, in an attempt to make themselves as much of an attractive buy out target as possible. I think they figured a big company such as IBM, would rather just buy them to silence them... then to bother to fight. It was in everybodies best interest to stem amy damage that SCO's FUD might be causing the Linux industry.
was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software
Anyone notice how many "leading experts" there are these days?!?! That word has come to be so badly abused, I tend to ignore it. Once I hear "worlds... well... relatively mediocre expert" then I will stand up and take notice!!!;)
My only other complaint is from the very opening sentence... "...users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay...". Something about reading an article when the first line of it is incorrect doesnt bode well with me! SCO, HAS NOT yet got after any end customers... they have threatened that they could be in volilation, but have not gunned after anybody but distributors for money!
On the whole, not a nice way for one of the worlds leading experts (tm) to start, imho!:)
Actually, your agreeing with me, if you re-read what I said. I said open source software is a ready exception and different to open source content.
People in the Open Source Software realm, in all reality, need to have the ability to create software to properly use it. By default, almost everybody in the software development community should be able to identify what is, and what isnt crap. However, with general open content ( im not talking code or software... but text, art, music, etc... ) I dont have to be a journalist, to read an article. That said, by me not being a journalist or researcher, there is no guarantee I want to proove the validity of the work im reading.
The other thing I had mentioned is that the realm of software, has a hell of alot less in it, then in the realm of general content. Therefore, there is ( or will be ) a hell of alot less to sift through. I actually perdict that if open source keeps growing, it will get harder and harder to identify what the good stuff is. For example, if there were 3000 different email clients out there... how long would it take you to sift through them to find the 10 or so, that are truely useful? By contrast... how many documentries do you figure have been developed and released into the public domain, on say... the war in the gulf? I should imagine so many, that people dont bother browsing through them for long, and instead stick to traditional closed media outlets for there content.
Hope that makes sense... hey, at least it wasnt a flame!:)
The article was an interesting read, but I think it missed out on a massively important point.
The one thing that open content lacks ( and also, ironically one of its strengths ) is quality control. Anybody can realistically publish anything or everything they want, of their own creation into the public domain. This is an area that for the most part is lacking in an open content system. There is no editor per-say; there is no proof reader, or anybody that actually audits the validity of the content.
Of Course, the ability to publish your works into the public demand, effectively for free, is a great advantage. As is the ability to publish that which you wish to say without censorship, and in some cases, without ulterior motive.
At the same time, thats the problem... with out quality control, the consistancy of the published work or the validity of fact within such work cannot be gauranteed. In the end, of times, one will spend longer sifting through the garbage in order to find a gem... that in the end, it would perhaps have been simplier and some case's cheaper ( time is money... all that) to just go with atypical close content? At least then, your normally gauranteed a baseline of quality.
Dont take that the wrong way... im not saying that open content is lesser in quality then closed content... I imagine that just isnt the case. But, there is a reason we hire people to sift through good and bad products to decide what should be published. Allowing any tom, dick or harry to publish whatever works they wish is a wonderful thing, but for every item published... the ability to find the creme of the crop, becomes harder and harder.
Then there is open content along the lines of news/information. From a closed content provider, their is often a certain legal liability or onus on the publisher to verify the validity of said content. Under an open content system, there is no such thing. For the most part, I read a story in the newspaper... im pretty much sure its mostly based on fact... lawsuits result from less. ( That said, I have no trust of closed media either. ) On the same accord... on the net... I can read stories from basically anyone in the world... now, knowing if I can trust it, if it was real, or just some bogus hoax... that I cant do.
Thats the difference in a sense between open source software, and open source content. The world of software is by its nature a much smaller subset... their are certain skills you need to possess to both create content ( code/software ), and to use that content. Dont get me wrong, there are loads of crap open source projects out there... but due to the realivly small size of the community, coupled with its technical savvy... the truly good projects tend to rise to the top. However, in the world of open content... ANYBODY can play... there is no baseline skill required to say... write an article ( I didnt say a good one...;) ). Additionally, to consume any open content, really doesnt require that much skill either... A whole area of checks and balances that exist in the code development world, just doesnt exist here. Coupled with the fact, that you really dont require any particular skill to publish (bad) content, and their is nobody out there to stop you from doing so... very very very quickly start drowning all the good stuff out with the bad.
Im not against the idea... im just suggesting that as open content becomes more successful, its success itself, will result in more open content being released... quality going down... and difficulty in finding such good content rising. One need just look at the difference between the web now, and say... in 1996... You cant argue that it isnt much more cluttered with crap then its ever been.
I know SlashDot is an avidly anti Microsoft crowd, and that I suppose I can understand... but, I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps.
Really, lets go with the far fetched theory that Microsoft is moving Unix to an in-house lab to identify its strengths and weakness's and to act accordingly? This is bad how? I was under the impression that the majority of people wished Windows was a better product... them looking at the weak points of Windows as compared to Linux, and in so far fetched world, copying the better parts of Linux, sounds like exactly what you've wanted all along?
Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux, well even yourselves have to realise how hypocritical that is! KDE, Konquer, Kdevelop etc... are all cloned or at the minimum, heavily inspired by their windows based counterparts.
Would it really be such a bad thing, if ( and MS has been doing this more and more ) Microsoft improved Windows, and made it more Linux like? Isnt that exactly what half of you have been asking for???
As far as calling this a FUD tactic, I think you are jumping the gun ALOT here... As of this point, Microsoft has said nothing negative about linux, or their intentions. In fact, if you read between the lines of this argument... they are giving a silent nod to linux and its legitmacy in the marketplace.
So, beyond some knee jerk primal desire to bash Microsoft, I CANT THINK OF A SINGLE REASON THIS ARGUMENT PROVIDES FOR DOING SO!!!
Dont get me wrong... Microsoft does all kinds of nasty crap... but this time... well... if anything theve complimented Linux. Playing devils advocate as to what their intentions are, is a bit stupid. Besides... we know what their intentions are... they want Linux pushed into a dark little corner and forgotten... Just as BeOS would have wanted to see with Windows... like MacOS would love to see with Windows aswell, or that Palm OS would love to see with Symbion... its business... seeing peoples intentions really isnt hard. Its called trying to win. You win by selling the most... simple stuff really.
Um... I would have to say, there are a great many more reasons why the war on drugs was lost. Perhaps the greatest of which, is the level of corruption that exists within the political system. Secondly, because the drug lords themselves are outside US jurisdiction... However... with the way the United States seems to completely disregard the rights of foreign nations these days, if they want to fight another war on drugs, you bet your ass it would be a hell of alot more successful.
Too bad about Fahrenheit
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 2
I notice the same thing happens everytime news is released about OpenGL or DirectX. Basically, it becomes a bash fest where one camp supports one API, and the other camp supports the other API. I've used both, and both have there merits ( well... Since Direct3D 7, they have... before that, D3D basically stunk). Now is a good time to bemoan what could have been.
Anyone remember Fahrenheit? The collabrative effort between SGI and Microsoft to redesign both API's, into a new, leaner more capable common api? Fahrenheit was to provide, a low level API, plus a scene graph api, plus a large model set api aswell. No more bitching... no more choose this, or choose that... no more being tied to one platform ( if you chose to use DX that is ).
Too bad... perhaps it would have all finally had a taste of world peace. RIP Fahrenheit, Ill miss what you could have been!
Ok... now back to the Direct3D vs OpenGL bashfest!
The DMCA for one, the EULA most likely as another. Granted, the EULA is not directly a law and often arent legally (completely) enforcable, but you are definatly in violation of the EULA creating homebrew software. I suppose I should have said "creating" as oppossed to "running", although I believe both are equally applicable.
From DMCA
'' 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
''(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
MEASURES.--(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
H. R. 2281--5
under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this chapter.
''(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service,
device, component, or part thereof, that--
''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose
of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
or
H. R. 2281--6
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture,
import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any
technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,
that--
''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose
of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure
that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under
this title in a work or a portion thereof;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological
measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright
owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
protection afforded by a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this
title in a work or a portion thereof.
Perhaps the most damning part of all that is:
"...has only limited commercially significant purpose or use, other than to circumvent protection..."
Therefore, you could argue that a mod chip has secondary use's, but the primary commercially significant purpose *is* to circumvent protection.
Hey, not saying I agree with the law, I dont. Sadly though, it is still the law.
Ok... that is a bizarre, extremist, stupid idea, that would never work!:)
You really have to look at it from a realistic point of view. You have to look at the most predominate or intended use of an item before you can regulate it. However, for a product that is primarily intended for an illegal use, I do believe that it should be illegal to sell it.
Hows this for an example? An automated lockpick ( they exist ), the randomly goes through tumblers until your lock is open. What is the primary purpose of such a device? Lock picking made simpler and quicker, pure an simple. Is there a legal value for such an item... you betcha... hey, I may have lost my keys... or locked them in my car, etc... But the primary use would be to break the law. So, what then would you prefer... we make it easy for thieves to break into your house? Or we make access to the item controlled or illegal? Keep in mind, this is just an example.
Now, at the same time, look at mod chips. First off, at least in the US... running homebrew software on an XBox, technically *is* illegal... im not sure however about foreign software. No matter what, curcumventing the copyprotection is also illegal ( not that I agree with the laws here , or anything of that aspect... just stating a fact ).
As to why they go after the sellers, as opposed to the users... its quite simple. You choke the points of supply, you starve the market. Put it this way... what is easier and has the most impact, from a law enforcement aspect... Getting and arresting a major drug dealer... or arresting individually the hundreds or thousands of people he supplies? Its simply a matter of necessity to go after the suppliers!
In the long run, this article really just points out a few things...
1) This guy has waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much time on his hands!
2) The guy was looking for a crusade to fight in the first place. If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch.
3) The checks and balances Microsoft has in place to make the process difficult, indeed do work. Somehow I doubt MS cares too much about paying out 200$ in this case, do you?;)
In the end, I see this having absolutely ZERO bearing on the slashdot crowd. Somehow, I doubt anybody here is incapable of buying a system without a copy of Windows. That doesnt even mention that vast percentage that actually dual boot. Nor that majority, that probrably pirate it in the first place... not that im condoning or condeming either action.
As to "the real world" I cant see this case having any effect on there lives either. In the end, its just way too much work for way to little money. This story in the end, so similar to the reason someone, may, say... build a house out of toothpic's. Because they can! No other reason.
In the end, really... its a non-story.
Did you read a different post then me? Never once did he defend Microsofts actions, or even make a comment to that effect. The main point of his comment was, when Bois was targeting Microsoft he was the second coming of Jebus. Now that he is in attacking Linux companies (potentially anyways) he is the great Satan.
Just look now at all the posts already in here about how many cases Bios has lost. Did you seem him being critic'd that way when he was going after MS?
The poster makes a very valid point.
I've seen alot of people joke or laugh about VB style GUI creation, and I can't help but think thats wrong. Actually if you look closely at winForms (.NET GUI), its actually fairly well architected. If ximian gets mono working on linux (and im pretty sure they will) its a really impressive piece of tech.
Keep in mind, it becomes not only multitarget, but language neutral, so any language that hits the CLR can make use of the WinForms UI... no need to write custom bindings, etc...
As of now, in terms of targets, I believe that winForms can run on all windows flavors, WinCE, SmartPhone2002 and the web (ASP target). If mono suceeds, you can add Linux to that target list, plus shortly after probrably Mac and Solaris... once its supported on linux, it should be a no brainer to port to any other platform.
Granted, its not the be all end all user interface... but... the fact its code driven, unlike that black box magic crap VB (7) used! I think in time you will find WinForms becoming more and more popular. Another interesting point, is the newest VisualStudio.NET allows C++ to use WinForms as VB and C# do!
Also, I think you will see that MFC is as good as dead. If you look at the most recent update, and the number of advancements and changes they made to MFC... well, theres something like 5! Im guessing MS just wants MFC to roll into a corner somewhere and die. Not such a bad idea in my opinion!!! Ive always hated MFC
Slashdot Mirror
I still fail to understand how Unix and Philosophy relate at all?
To a lesser degree I can understand why you might relate Linux and Philosophy together... even then I think you would be making a mistake. Now, open source... to a certain degree there is a philosophy aspect there, and even still I think its a bit of a stretch.
Design principles... sure... Philosophy... um... no.
Then again, a few years back... it was the Zen of Whatever... maybe Zen was used up, and the publishing world needs a new catch phrase.
Well... this is kinda off topic... kinda not... so what the hell, im posting it!
Anyways, I see alot of people talking about the nostalga of the older game systems, and how the games themselves are what make a console great. If you truely believe that your going to love this!
alt="X game station">XGameStation
Its a build it yourself ( sorta... its actually pre-assembled) 16 bit console, that comes complete with instructions on how to build your own. Plus it ships with a full SDK, and a port GNU tool set. This thing could be fun as hell to play with... plus, its only 99$. I may just have to pick one of these up.
On a side note... its design / distributed by Andre LeMoth (sp?)... basically the biggest author of game programming books. Ive always thought the guy was a bit of a loon... but his books are/were pretty good, at least for beginners.
Enjoy.
In all honesty, the above conversation is getting far to twisted to really bother trying to continue in this format. You are either misunderstanding what I am trying to say, or I am failing in communicating my point. We of course, will each have our own opinion on which is the case. Regardless, I'll format my answer differently, perhaps it will add some clarity.
Your posts are very difficult to read. I would have expected more effective written communication skills from a manager.
I am not your manager, and this is not a professional forum, so I suppose in the end this doesnt matter. In a casual forum like this, I tend to write my responses in a conversational tone.
Please consider this last question. If MS could take over the Internet and sell/administer/regulate it, would you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
Obviously, I think this would be a bad thing. I think it would be a bad for thing for any one company, or even country to administrate the Internet. Im not arguing that. If what you are trying to insinuate is that Microsoft desires control of the net... well, no shit they do! Every major computing company would love to control the Internet.
It appears to me that that you don't see how advances MS makes more often than not threatens fair competition. No, quite the contrary... I know perfectly well how Microsofts business practices can often threaten fair competition... hell, im one of the people here at work that had to negotiate our Enterprise agreement with them. After go through that process, trust me... your not exactly ready to go singing the praises about Microsoft!
That said... IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Im not talking about Microsofts anticompetitive behavours... or nasty business processes, or buggy software... none of that! Im talking about this article, and nothing more! In this article, I dont see what Microsoft has said that would solicite a negative response from the anti-microsoft camp. Im not asking why there is an anti-microsoft camp... and in this context, I really dont give a damn... Im trying to discuss this article itself, from a neutral perspective... and how, infact the comments made could be viewed as good in the open source commun ity!
Actually... I think Rush is a bad band to use as an example!
:) Just kidding... never been much of a RUSH fan....... roll the bones...
I figure the record execs had a conversation like... " Seeing as Rush fans are all what, in there 70's now... maybe we should crank up the volume, so they dont have to get out their hearing aids to enjoy the CD!"
The Irony of Indy Games
;) Than again, there are a few companies that are going from commerical projects to more of an indy style. Once you see the amount that publishers take... you start to see the value in online distro's!
;) Enjoy the world of game development for zero cash!
Outside of the handheld ( PalmOS, PocketPC ) markets, or cell phones... many indy games are either crap... or sales pitches to publishers! Im not saying all... there are probrably dozens of exceptions, but on the whole this remains true. Its funny though, when you look at "past" indy games...
HomeWorld
Doom
FlashPoint
Really... by definition, an indy game is self financed, without a publisher in site. Its funny that that moment you have success in the indy market, you tend to get picked up by a publisher... then your no longer indy!
For anyone really interested in learning more, check out:
Garage Games Misc resources, plus a licensable engine
FlipCode Great gaming related site
Gamedev.net Like flipcode, but less mature ( you'll see! )
Gamasutra The site for game developers! Must see
CrystalSpace LGPL 3d Engine. Very impressive
WildTangent Cheap game engine (web based), plus online publishing
Auran Jet Affordable 3d engine, flexible licensing
OpenGl The site for OpenGL info. Lots of useful links
From the above list, you should easily be able to find anything else your looking for!
I think calling linux a process is a huge mistake. Granted, its an argument of semantics, but that doesn't make it any less important.
In my mind... calling linux a process, models exactly what Open Source is. Open Source is a process... or more accurately, open source development is a process. Linux is one possible result. By calling the whole of Linux a process, muddles the lines between what open source is and what linux is. In essence, it derides any non-linux related open source process. Hope that made sense.
To me, open source development is a process.
Linux is a platform.
RedHat/Mandrake are an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
To show it in different non linux terms:
Closed source development is a process.
Windows CE is a platform
PocketPC 2002 is an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
In the end, calling Linux a process... well... it muddles an already confused concept! In my mind, I dont think the revolutionary concept is in any way linux, it is the way in which linux was conceived!
Quite true. /. is very avidly anti-MS. However, let's get one thing straight here. It's a bad thing for anti-MS camps. All the pro-MS camps can go on with lives as far as I'm concerned. Trying to straddle the argument by wording your comment to both sides will not win any points.
/. you need to be a pro-linux or pro-microsoft zealot?!?! That seems a bit daft to me!
Win any points? Straddle my arguments? Im not following here? Im unbiased as much as one man can be. I use Microsoft products, I use linux products, I use what I need to do my job and get paid. I see downsides to both camps, and upsides as well. So, are you saying that in order to be posting on
Far fetched?. Why is it far fetched? Then what do you propose is the reason that MS is moving it's primary competitor into a lab? Do you play sports at all? Do you ever study your opponent?
You got me here... my wording was poor. What I was trying to say ( and obviously failed is ), in regards to the creation of this lab... You dont believe that microsoft doesnt already look at EVERY competing product and "borrow" the best aspects of each? Do you think for one second, they are going to, as a result of creating this lab, suddenly say... "damn... Linux is so much more stable/secure/etc... then Windows XP/2K3... we should copy that feature!". I meant to say it is far fetched that this is the purpose behind the lap, not that this is what Microsoft is or isnt doing.
I suppose you think MS invented the windowing environment? They must have, MS tried to trademark/copyright "Windows". Right? Who said people are annoyed for that reason? If that's the reason you believe people are upset about, then I suggest you think more long term. This is not about jelousy. It's about having a superior product under anyone's control. The operative word being one. Ever heard of the term power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? All the unix variants, some under corporate exclusive control and others under public contribution, but with all of them sharing and interoperating peices, distributes power. The fact that windows will be a better OS is great! I'm all for it! The fact that one corporation whose method of business has been to illegally and unethically shutout competition being the sole provider is not. Let me elucidate this point with an example. If you and another are the only ones selling cars, making improvements to your car to make it more attractive is fine. Slashing the other guys tires to make his less attractive is not. Now that he can't sell his car, you can charge whatever you want since nobody else is selling cars. You can even install a camera in it to watch the new owners.
I would love to know how you twisted what I said to form that response! No, I know damned straight that microsoft did not invent the windowing environment... So far as history claims, it was Xerox. Not that I dont imagine it was done far before that. By your response, im assuming once again you are taking my comments out of context. I am talking in context to the article that was posted! Specifically, im talking about how Microsoft forming a lab to study linux, is not in and of itself a bad thing! Im not saying that Microsoft is an innocent little choir boy... or has never practiced unethical business practices... they have... hell, I would be hard pressed to find a business there size, that hasnt! To veer a bit off topic... I think that Microsoft's actions have been absolutely innocent, when you compare it against so of what Larry Elison has tried to pull at Oracle! However... as far as interfaces go... once you find one that works, and works well... its pretty stupid not to adopt it! Kinda like Satelitte TV/TV Guide/Digital Cable... they all have minor variances, but from copying each other, they have basically come up with a very efficent standard UI. Why not borrow from your competitors... in the end, as a user... I would rather user something wel
No, they havent. They have gone to customers and warned them they could be in violation... nothing more. SCO is not in the business of licensing SCO itself, they license out the technology to other developers. It is people that use SCO technology in their derived products that require a license.
Think about it this way... when a big company ( say Ford) buys and rolls out Windows 2000 in the enterprise... do they license the use of Windows? Or do they license the use of the Windows technologies in order to create their own derived OS!? Beyond selling SCO, or Caldera Linux to these companies... or residual revenue from one of their licensees selling their product to Fortune 1500 companies... SCO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!
SCO's intentions in sending the letters to the Fortune 1500 wasnt to get money from each of these companies, but to cause FUD and damage to Linux distro's everywhere, in an attempt to make themselves as much of an attractive buy out target as possible. I think they figured a big company such as IBM, would rather just buy them to silence them... then to bother to fight. It was in everybodies best interest to stem amy damage that SCO's FUD might be causing the Linux industry.
was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software
;)
...users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay...". Something about reading an article when the first line of it is incorrect doesnt bode well with me! SCO, HAS NOT yet got after any end customers... they have threatened that they could be in volilation, but have not gunned after anybody but distributors for money!
:)
Anyone notice how many "leading experts" there are these days?!?! That word has come to be so badly abused, I tend to ignore it. Once I hear "worlds... well... relatively mediocre expert" then I will stand up and take notice!!!
My only other complaint is from the very opening sentence... "
On the whole, not a nice way for one of the worlds leading experts (tm) to start, imho!
Actually, your agreeing with me, if you re-read what I said. I said open source software is a ready exception and different to open source content.
:)
People in the Open Source Software realm, in all reality, need to have the ability to create software to properly use it. By default, almost everybody in the software development community should be able to identify what is, and what isnt crap. However, with general open content ( im not talking code or software... but text, art, music, etc... ) I dont have to be a journalist, to read an article. That said, by me not being a journalist or researcher, there is no guarantee I want to proove the validity of the work im reading.
The other thing I had mentioned is that the realm of software, has a hell of alot less in it, then in the realm of general content. Therefore, there is ( or will be ) a hell of alot less to sift through. I actually perdict that if open source keeps growing, it will get harder and harder to identify what the good stuff is. For example, if there were 3000 different email clients out there... how long would it take you to sift through them to find the 10 or so, that are truely useful? By contrast... how many documentries do you figure have been developed and released into the public domain, on say... the war in the gulf? I should imagine so many, that people dont bother browsing through them for long, and instead stick to traditional closed media outlets for there content.
Hope that makes sense... hey, at least it wasnt a flame!
The article was an interesting read, but I think it missed out on a massively important point.
... all that) to just go with atypical close content? At least then, your normally gauranteed a baseline of quality.
;) ). Additionally, to consume any open content, really doesnt require that much skill either... A whole area of checks and balances that exist in the code development world, just doesnt exist here. Coupled with the fact, that you really dont require any particular skill to publish (bad) content, and their is nobody out there to stop you from doing so... very very very quickly start drowning all the good stuff out with the bad.
The one thing that open content lacks ( and also, ironically one of its strengths ) is quality control. Anybody can realistically publish anything or everything they want, of their own creation into the public domain. This is an area that for the most part is lacking in an open content system. There is no editor per-say; there is no proof reader, or anybody that actually audits the validity of the content.
Of Course, the ability to publish your works into the public demand, effectively for free, is a great advantage. As is the ability to publish that which you wish to say without censorship, and in some cases, without ulterior motive.
At the same time, thats the problem... with out quality control, the consistancy of the published work or the validity of fact within such work cannot be gauranteed. In the end, of times, one will spend longer sifting through the garbage in order to find a gem... that in the end, it would perhaps have been simplier and some case's cheaper ( time is money
Dont take that the wrong way... im not saying that open content is lesser in quality then closed content... I imagine that just isnt the case. But, there is a reason we hire people to sift through good and bad products to decide what should be published. Allowing any tom, dick or harry to publish whatever works they wish is a wonderful thing, but for every item published... the ability to find the creme of the crop, becomes harder and harder.
Then there is open content along the lines of news/information. From a closed content provider, their is often a certain legal liability or onus on the publisher to verify the validity of said content. Under an open content system, there is no such thing. For the most part, I read a story in the newspaper... im pretty much sure its mostly based on fact... lawsuits result from less. ( That said, I have no trust of closed media either. ) On the same accord... on the net... I can read stories from basically anyone in the world... now, knowing if I can trust it, if it was real, or just some bogus hoax... that I cant do.
Thats the difference in a sense between open source software, and open source content. The world of software is by its nature a much smaller subset... their are certain skills you need to possess to both create content ( code/software ), and to use that content. Dont get me wrong, there are loads of crap open source projects out there... but due to the realivly small size of the community, coupled with its technical savvy... the truly good projects tend to rise to the top. However, in the world of open content... ANYBODY can play... there is no baseline skill required to say... write an article ( I didnt say a good one...
Im not against the idea... im just suggesting that as open content becomes more successful, its success itself, will result in more open content being released... quality going down... and difficulty in finding such good content rising. One need just look at the difference between the web now, and say... in 1996... You cant argue that it isnt much more cluttered with crap then its ever been.
How is this a bad thing?
I know SlashDot is an avidly anti Microsoft crowd, and that I suppose I can understand... but, I can't really understand how this story could be seen as a bad thing by either the pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft camps.
Really, lets go with the far fetched theory that Microsoft is moving Unix to an in-house lab to identify its strengths and weakness's and to act accordingly? This is bad how? I was under the impression that the majority of people wished Windows was a better product... them looking at the weak points of Windows as compared to Linux, and in so far fetched world, copying the better parts of Linux, sounds like exactly what you've wanted all along?
Now... people that would get annoyed by Microsoft lifting ideas from Linux, well even yourselves have to realise how hypocritical that is! KDE, Konquer, Kdevelop etc... are all cloned or at the minimum, heavily inspired by their windows based counterparts.
Would it really be such a bad thing, if ( and MS has been doing this more and more ) Microsoft improved Windows, and made it more Linux like? Isnt that exactly what half of you have been asking for???
As far as calling this a FUD tactic, I think you are jumping the gun ALOT here... As of this point, Microsoft has said nothing negative about linux, or their intentions. In fact, if you read between the lines of this argument... they are giving a silent nod to linux and its legitmacy in the marketplace.
So, beyond some knee jerk primal desire to bash Microsoft, I CANT THINK OF A SINGLE REASON THIS ARGUMENT PROVIDES FOR DOING SO!!!
Dont get me wrong... Microsoft does all kinds of nasty crap... but this time... well... if anything theve complimented Linux. Playing devils advocate as to what their intentions are, is a bit stupid. Besides... we know what their intentions are... they want Linux pushed into a dark little corner and forgotten... Just as BeOS would have wanted to see with Windows... like MacOS would love to see with Windows aswell, or that Palm OS would love to see with Symbion... its business... seeing peoples intentions really isnt hard. Its called trying to win. You win by selling the most... simple stuff really.
Um... I would have to say, there are a great many more reasons why the war on drugs was lost. Perhaps the greatest of which, is the level of corruption that exists within the political system. Secondly, because the drug lords themselves are outside US jurisdiction... However... with the way the United States seems to completely disregard the rights of foreign nations these days, if they want to fight another war on drugs, you bet your ass it would be a hell of alot more successful.
I notice the same thing happens everytime news is released about OpenGL or DirectX. Basically, it becomes a bash fest where one camp supports one API, and the other camp supports the other API. I've used both, and both have there merits ( well... Since Direct3D 7, they have... before that, D3D basically stunk). Now is a good time to bemoan what could have been.
Anyone remember Fahrenheit? The collabrative effort between SGI and Microsoft to redesign both API's, into a new, leaner more capable common api? Fahrenheit was to provide, a low level API, plus a scene graph api, plus a large model set api aswell. No more bitching... no more choose this, or choose that... no more being tied to one platform ( if you chose to use DX that is ).
Too bad... perhaps it would have all finally had a taste of world peace. RIP Fahrenheit, Ill miss what you could have been!
Ok... now back to the Direct3D vs OpenGL bashfest!
The DMCA for one, the EULA most likely as another. Granted, the EULA is not directly a law and often arent legally (completely) enforcable, but you are definatly in violation of the EULA creating homebrew software. I suppose I should have said "creating" as oppossed to "running", although I believe both are equally applicable.
From DMCA
'' 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems ''(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.--(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected H. R. 2281--5 under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
''(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- ''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; ''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or H. R. 2281--6 ''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- ''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; ''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or ''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
Perhaps the most damning part of all that is:
"...has only limited commercially significant purpose or use, other than to circumvent protection..."
Therefore, you could argue that a mod chip has secondary use's, but the primary commercially significant purpose *is* to circumvent protection.
Hey, not saying I agree with the law, I dont. Sadly though, it is still the law.
Ok... that is a bizarre, extremist, stupid idea, that would never work! :)
You really have to look at it from a realistic point of view. You have to look at the most predominate or intended use of an item before you can regulate it. However, for a product that is primarily intended for an illegal use, I do believe that it should be illegal to sell it.
Hows this for an example? An automated lockpick ( they exist ), the randomly goes through tumblers until your lock is open. What is the primary purpose of such a device? Lock picking made simpler and quicker, pure an simple. Is there a legal value for such an item... you betcha... hey, I may have lost my keys... or locked them in my car, etc... But the primary use would be to break the law. So, what then would you prefer... we make it easy for thieves to break into your house? Or we make access to the item controlled or illegal? Keep in mind, this is just an example.
Now, at the same time, look at mod chips. First off, at least in the US... running homebrew software on an XBox, technically *is* illegal... im not sure however about foreign software. No matter what, curcumventing the copyprotection is also illegal ( not that I agree with the laws here , or anything of that aspect... just stating a fact ).
As to why they go after the sellers, as opposed to the users... its quite simple. You choke the points of supply, you starve the market. Put it this way... what is easier and has the most impact, from a law enforcement aspect... Getting and arresting a major drug dealer... or arresting individually the hundreds or thousands of people he supplies? Its simply a matter of necessity to go after the suppliers!
In the long run, this article really just points out a few things... 1) This guy has waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much time on his hands! 2) The guy was looking for a crusade to fight in the first place. If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch. 3) The checks and balances Microsoft has in place to make the process difficult, indeed do work. Somehow I doubt MS cares too much about paying out 200$ in this case, do you? ;)
In the end, I see this having absolutely ZERO bearing on the slashdot crowd. Somehow, I doubt anybody here is incapable of buying a system without a copy of Windows. That doesnt even mention that vast percentage that actually dual boot. Nor that majority, that probrably pirate it in the first place... not that im condoning or condeming either action.
As to "the real world" I cant see this case having any effect on there lives either. In the end, its just way too much work for way to little money. This story in the end, so similar to the reason someone, may, say... build a house out of toothpic's. Because they can! No other reason.
In the end, really... its a non-story.
Did you read a different post then me? Never once did he defend Microsofts actions, or even make a comment to that effect. The main point of his comment was, when Bois was targeting Microsoft he was the second coming of Jebus. Now that he is in attacking Linux companies (potentially anyways) he is the great Satan. Just look now at all the posts already in here about how many cases Bios has lost. Did you seem him being critic'd that way when he was going after MS? The poster makes a very valid point.
I've seen alot of people joke or laugh about VB style GUI creation, and I can't help but think thats wrong. Actually if you look closely at winForms (.NET GUI), its actually fairly well architected. If ximian gets mono working on linux (and im pretty sure they will) its a really impressive piece of tech. Keep in mind, it becomes not only multitarget, but language neutral, so any language that hits the CLR can make use of the WinForms UI... no need to write custom bindings, etc... As of now, in terms of targets, I believe that winForms can run on all windows flavors, WinCE, SmartPhone2002 and the web (ASP target). If mono suceeds, you can add Linux to that target list, plus shortly after probrably Mac and Solaris... once its supported on linux, it should be a no brainer to port to any other platform. Granted, its not the be all end all user interface... but... the fact its code driven, unlike that black box magic crap VB (7) used! I think in time you will find WinForms becoming more and more popular. Another interesting point, is the newest VisualStudio.NET allows C++ to use WinForms as VB and C# do! Also, I think you will see that MFC is as good as dead. If you look at the most recent update, and the number of advancements and changes they made to MFC... well, theres something like 5! Im guessing MS just wants MFC to roll into a corner somewhere and die. Not such a bad idea in my opinion!!! Ive always hated MFC