The AC is right, of course -- Orange Box is worth it, or if you don't want to spend that much, Portal is absolutely worth it. But if, for some reason, you don't realize that yet, it'll probably work by downloading the Left 4 Dead demo, say.
LOL ya it only needs every application to support it....!
Which has what to do with "tweaking", as in "editing config files when installing"?
And no, it doesn't need every application to support it. The more applications which do so, the better, but it works just fine if only one application supports them, and all others continue to use the filesystem.
the common user want to switch the computer on, check their hotmail account, check facebook, and then talk to their friends on live messenger... THATS IT....
Ubuntu provides this. You don't even need to tell them that Kubuntu exists, or that there are tons of ways to customize it.
In fact, it provides more than this, out of the box -- the common user may also want to use an office suite, which is included out of the box, rather than being a separate software package and more expensive than the OS.
But it absolutely is about choice. Obviously, if you're using Linux in the first place, you're capable of making a choice -- you didn't want Windows, you wanted Linux. There are plenty of defaults for where you don't want a choice -- but the good news is, if you find you don't like GNOME, you can try KDE.
And I would much rather have the same story for another 17 years, than one central authority making choices for me -- if I wanted that, I'd get a Mac.
The usual way to make it easier is to make it available via either the distro's own repository, or add-on repositories. In some cases, both are an option -- I can either get Wine from the Ubuntu repositories, or I can get it from WineHQ's own repository.
But the author's complaint is pretty much BS -- they're assuming that this is a problem for commercial vendors. Certainly, it's going to make it hard to implement things like DRM, but a shareware-like model has worked well -- make the thing available for distribution via the package manager, in a demo form, and then unlock it via some other mechanism.
And then there's the third option, of simply making a tarball. This doesn't even have to be installed, just unpacked and run. Sure, it could be made much easier, but it's pretty easy.
I get it -- we are incredibly bloated now, for where we are. We're also doing a lot more with our computers -- some of that bloat is actual features.
Also, as computer speeds get faster, it becomes more and more feasible to think less about efficiency, and more about stability and extensibility. I program largely in Ruby -- dog slow, in so many ways, but the code is much more elegant and maintainable than I could manage in most other languages.
And the latest driver updates, IE7, not sure if you even still get security updates (though they seemed broken last I tried), fast hibernate/resume (2k can hibernate, but XP is many times faster at it), fast user switching...
Yeah, the DRM sucks. For the ten minutes I have to spend on the phone with a robot. After that, it's pretty much invisible -- unless you're talking about the support for DRM in Windows Media Player and such, which I don't use at all (I use VLC).
I don't use any Windows as my primary OS, but XP is the best Widows right now. Which is kind of sad, when you think about it.
I have frequently suggested that Microsoft should, in fact, be changing more. Vista's problem isn't that it's a change -- most people who switch to a Mac never go back. No, Vista's problem is that it's not enough of a change.
Which means it has no target market. It's still Windows, with all of its flaws and then some, so it's not going to stop anyone from going Mac or Linux. It's also Vista and Aero, which means everything is new and different for everyone who got used to Windows.
What they should be doing -- which I think is the direction they've taken, anyway -- is creating a brand new OS, take only what works, chuck the rest, and especially do not be afraid to break backwards compatibility -- do that with an emulation layer, or with a VM.
In other words, do what Apple did with OS X and Classic.
I've done this, and it's actually quite amusing -- I'm basically saying "Screw you, Microsoft! I don't want Vista! Let this be a lesson to you! I'm going to give you money for XP instead."
For every Linux DVD image distributed by bittorrent, there is probably dozens of times that much data in blatantly bootlegged content being distributed.
And if BitTorrent went away, Linux DVDs would be much slower to download, and much more costly to host.
Why should Linux distributions have to suffer because of a completely unrelated activity? I suppose, if they moved to an HTTP-based protocol, we should just ban HTTP, or web hosting on residential connections? What's next -- NAT every connection, and start banning Skype, because it punches wholes through NAT?
I don't want to live in a country where whole protocols are condemned because they might be used for something of questionable legality. I kind of like actually having the Internet.
I just graduated to an income bracket where I'm more time poor than cash poor.
That is, incidentally, why I still use BitTorrent. There is not yet a DRM-free or even Linux-supporting service which will allow me to download high-def, reasonably uncompressed movies over the Internet.
I don't have the time to deal with Windows more than I have to. Nor do I have the time to take an extra trip to the video store. I suppose I could use Netflix, but that's going to be even more hassle for even less quality (DVD vs 1080p).
Now, if such a service existed, it would probably use BitTorrent anyway, so that solves nothing for the ISPs. But if such a service existed, and would provide a decent selection, I might pay for it. As it is, no one has even reached feature-parity with piracy, let alone surpassed it.
The difference is, of course, that if your flight is overbooked, the airline will actually spend more money -- on hotel space, a taxi to take you to the hotel, dinner, etc -- and then put you on another flight.
If your ISP has determined that they've got too much load, they can just cut you off -- this would be like the airline telling you to go home.
Potential investor/customer/partner/whatever: "But can it run any real applications? How about actual games?"
Never mind how visually unimpressive a floating cube would be.
I suppose displaying Aero might be better, as that's what this is targeted at. However, I think what they've accomplished here is damned impressive -- and I think it's better to impress the intelligent people and look stupid to the stupid people, than the other way around.
- It only covers HTTP.
- It requires considerable configuration.
- It requires either a separate server, or some configured amount of disk space
My approach has the advantage of:
- Works for anything needing disk caching.
- Shouldn't require too much tweaking.
- Uses spare disk space on your own machine.
I've also frequently found proxies to break things, so much so that when I've used them, I've had a Firefox extension installed to give me a one-button toggle for whether I was using a proxy or not.
As for a real, practical solution for these people, the same problems apply -- if they have a spare computer around, it may help, and I'll suggest it, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth the trouble. It also won't work transparently -- their router is provided by their ISP.
Not true -- the latest released Safari supports it, using QuickTime. I believe this isn't the first version to include it, either.
I don't think it's too early to start designing webpages for this, with a progressive fallback to Flash if HTML5 isn't available. I doubt YouTube will be the first to do this...
Recovery in this context clearly doesn't mean format & re-install.
No, recovery means restoring the system to a functional state, more or less the way it was before -- that is, without data loss.
Wiktionary will back me up on that one: "A return to normal health", or "A return to former status."
The end-user would also agree with me, I think -- the end result is a functioning computer with all their stuff. A reformat would work -- the only remaining question is whether it's the fastest method.
It's nice that you have your own definitions for words/phrases/concepts and are able to be oblivious to normal usage and context,
Find me a definitive dictionary. Until then, yes, rational exchange is difficult -- because it is your word against mine about a pointless argument.
Point is, even when malware makes traditional recovery impossible -- not a new thing, remember when malware used to erase your hard drive just because? -- the machine isn't completely dead, and the actually-important data is most often (but not always) intact.
Is MS going to rewrite their GUI layers on top of their 3d API a la Apple?
They did that in Vista. They did it so poorly that customers sued over being sold "Vista-capable" machines which weren't -- including Intel video cards that weren't enough.
Meanwhile, Ubuntu runs on Compiz, which does just fine on Intel -- and Apple has been so far ahead that someone took the audio from one of the original Vista presentations, and combined it with video from Tiger, thus showing that really everything "new" about Vista was just playing catch-up with Tiger, while Leopard was just around the corner.
More to the point: I believe it's now possible to run a Windows Server without a video card -- or, indeed, any GUI at all, depending on what apps you need.
Slashdot Mirror
Or download a demo.
The AC is right, of course -- Orange Box is worth it, or if you don't want to spend that much, Portal is absolutely worth it. But if, for some reason, you don't realize that yet, it'll probably work by downloading the Left 4 Dead demo, say.
LOL ya it only needs every application to support it....!
Which has what to do with "tweaking", as in "editing config files when installing"?
And no, it doesn't need every application to support it. The more applications which do so, the better, but it works just fine if only one application supports them, and all others continue to use the filesystem.
the common user want to switch the computer on, check their hotmail account, check facebook, and then talk to their friends on live messenger... THATS IT....
Ubuntu provides this. You don't even need to tell them that Kubuntu exists, or that there are tons of ways to customize it.
In fact, it provides more than this, out of the box -- the common user may also want to use an office suite, which is included out of the box, rather than being a separate software package and more expensive than the OS.
But it absolutely is about choice. Obviously, if you're using Linux in the first place, you're capable of making a choice -- you didn't want Windows, you wanted Linux. There are plenty of defaults for where you don't want a choice -- but the good news is, if you find you don't like GNOME, you can try KDE.
And I would much rather have the same story for another 17 years, than one central authority making choices for me -- if I wanted that, I'd get a Mac.
The usual way to make it easier is to make it available via either the distro's own repository, or add-on repositories. In some cases, both are an option -- I can either get Wine from the Ubuntu repositories, or I can get it from WineHQ's own repository.
But the author's complaint is pretty much BS -- they're assuming that this is a problem for commercial vendors. Certainly, it's going to make it hard to implement things like DRM, but a shareware-like model has worked well -- make the thing available for distribution via the package manager, in a demo form, and then unlock it via some other mechanism.
And then there's the third option, of simply making a tarball. This doesn't even have to be installed, just unpacked and run. Sure, it could be made much easier, but it's pretty easy.
I have to wait 5 minutes to get a usable Windows system.
You're doing it wrong. Both XP and Ubuntu boot in roughly 30 seconds.
And then my bandwidth gets nuked because the anti-virus (a plaster over a decade old design problem) needs updating.
That might be part of it. I don't use anti-virus. If I have problems, I can always just re-image the drive.
Can that 486 handle YouTube?
I get it -- we are incredibly bloated now, for where we are. We're also doing a lot more with our computers -- some of that bloat is actual features.
Also, as computer speeds get faster, it becomes more and more feasible to think less about efficiency, and more about stability and extensibility. I program largely in Ruby -- dog slow, in so many ways, but the code is much more elegant and maintainable than I could manage in most other languages.
And the latest driver updates, IE7, not sure if you even still get security updates (though they seemed broken last I tried), fast hibernate/resume (2k can hibernate, but XP is many times faster at it), fast user switching...
Yeah, the DRM sucks. For the ten minutes I have to spend on the phone with a robot. After that, it's pretty much invisible -- unless you're talking about the support for DRM in Windows Media Player and such, which I don't use at all (I use VLC).
I don't use any Windows as my primary OS, but XP is the best Widows right now. Which is kind of sad, when you think about it.
I have frequently suggested that Microsoft should, in fact, be changing more. Vista's problem isn't that it's a change -- most people who switch to a Mac never go back. No, Vista's problem is that it's not enough of a change.
Which means it has no target market. It's still Windows, with all of its flaws and then some, so it's not going to stop anyone from going Mac or Linux. It's also Vista and Aero, which means everything is new and different for everyone who got used to Windows.
What they should be doing -- which I think is the direction they've taken, anyway -- is creating a brand new OS, take only what works, chuck the rest, and especially do not be afraid to break backwards compatibility -- do that with an emulation layer, or with a VM.
In other words, do what Apple did with OS X and Classic.
I've done this, and it's actually quite amusing -- I'm basically saying "Screw you, Microsoft! I don't want Vista! Let this be a lesson to you! I'm going to give you money for XP instead."
For every Linux DVD image distributed by bittorrent, there is probably dozens of times that much data in blatantly bootlegged content being distributed.
And if BitTorrent went away, Linux DVDs would be much slower to download, and much more costly to host.
Why should Linux distributions have to suffer because of a completely unrelated activity? I suppose, if they moved to an HTTP-based protocol, we should just ban HTTP, or web hosting on residential connections? What's next -- NAT every connection, and start banning Skype, because it punches wholes through NAT?
I don't want to live in a country where whole protocols are condemned because they might be used for something of questionable legality. I kind of like actually having the Internet.
I just graduated to an income bracket where I'm more time poor than cash poor.
That is, incidentally, why I still use BitTorrent. There is not yet a DRM-free or even Linux-supporting service which will allow me to download high-def, reasonably uncompressed movies over the Internet.
I don't have the time to deal with Windows more than I have to. Nor do I have the time to take an extra trip to the video store. I suppose I could use Netflix, but that's going to be even more hassle for even less quality (DVD vs 1080p).
Now, if such a service existed, it would probably use BitTorrent anyway, so that solves nothing for the ISPs. But if such a service existed, and would provide a decent selection, I might pay for it. As it is, no one has even reached feature-parity with piracy, let alone surpassed it.
See also: Airlines.
The difference is, of course, that if your flight is overbooked, the airline will actually spend more money -- on hotel space, a taxi to take you to the hotel, dinner, etc -- and then put you on another flight.
If your ISP has determined that they've got too much load, they can just cut you off -- this would be like the airline telling you to go home.
Being punched or kicked is unlikely to leave you unscarred emotionally, either.
Assisted suicide is, however, illegal.
I'm not sure if handing a gun to a suicidal person qualifies, but it seems to be about the same as what Dr. Kevorkian did for his patients.
I'm not saying all FPSes are bad. I love Halo, and I love Half-Life.
Nor would I suggest all JRPGs have good plots.
But your examples prove my point -- how many games are there like Halo?
90% of everything is crap...
If that was indeed the script, either the script was poorly written, or the drone was not very good at relating it.
How hard would it have been to ask "What version of XP?" Or even "Which service pack and build number?"
Of course, it wasn't XP, and it wasn't Windows, but there you go.
At least it's a change from the usual, which is either a great plot with little gameplay (Final Fantasy), or the same old FPS action with no plot.
Potential investor/customer/partner/whatever: "But can it run any real applications? How about actual games?"
Never mind how visually unimpressive a floating cube would be.
I suppose displaying Aero might be better, as that's what this is targeted at. However, I think what they've accomplished here is damned impressive -- and I think it's better to impress the intelligent people and look stupid to the stupid people, than the other way around.
A squid proxy would be great, except:
- It only covers HTTP.
- It requires considerable configuration.
- It requires either a separate server, or some configured amount of disk space
My approach has the advantage of:
- Works for anything needing disk caching.
- Shouldn't require too much tweaking.
- Uses spare disk space on your own machine.
I've also frequently found proxies to break things, so much so that when I've used them, I've had a Firefox extension installed to give me a one-button toggle for whether I was using a proxy or not.
As for a real, practical solution for these people, the same problems apply -- if they have a spare computer around, it may help, and I'll suggest it, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth the trouble. It also won't work transparently -- their router is provided by their ISP.
Then what would you use for such a demonstration of the completeness of your software engine?
only in beta or alpha products.
Not true -- the latest released Safari supports it, using QuickTime. I believe this isn't the first version to include it, either.
I don't think it's too early to start designing webpages for this, with a progressive fallback to Flash if HTML5 isn't available. I doubt YouTube will be the first to do this...
Recovery in this context clearly doesn't mean format & re-install.
No, recovery means restoring the system to a functional state, more or less the way it was before -- that is, without data loss.
Wiktionary will back me up on that one: "A return to normal health", or "A return to former status."
The end-user would also agree with me, I think -- the end result is a functioning computer with all their stuff. A reformat would work -- the only remaining question is whether it's the fastest method.
It's nice that you have your own definitions for words/phrases/concepts and are able to be oblivious to normal usage and context,
Find me a definitive dictionary. Until then, yes, rational exchange is difficult -- because it is your word against mine about a pointless argument.
Point is, even when malware makes traditional recovery impossible -- not a new thing, remember when malware used to erase your hard drive just because? -- the machine isn't completely dead, and the actually-important data is most often (but not always) intact.
To prove that their implementation is complete, and doesn't completely suck, even if it mostly sucks.
And, if you think about it, this could be good for Larabee, which is supposed to be just a bunch of x86 CPUs on a card.
Is MS going to rewrite their GUI layers on top of their 3d API a la Apple?
They did that in Vista. They did it so poorly that customers sued over being sold "Vista-capable" machines which weren't -- including Intel video cards that weren't enough.
Meanwhile, Ubuntu runs on Compiz, which does just fine on Intel -- and Apple has been so far ahead that someone took the audio from one of the original Vista presentations, and combined it with video from Tiger, thus showing that really everything "new" about Vista was just playing catch-up with Tiger, while Leopard was just around the corner.
More to the point: I believe it's now possible to run a Windows Server without a video card -- or, indeed, any GUI at all, depending on what apps you need.
Actually, from what I remember, that was a beta. And it's not in Ubuntu yet. So I'm still waiting.