Furthermore, it's just a stupid idea anyways. Considering how many PCs out there are "Family PCs" or "Company PCs", which can have many possible users. You have a PSN for the machine, but you have no sure way of knowing which USER is on it at a given time.
The other side of the coin is users who use multiple machines (ie, one at home, one at work). Now, thanks to the "added security of the P3 PSN", it's entirely concievable that you can only access a PSN-enabled site from one of those locations...and heaven help you if you sell your computer.
So, you've bought a not-so-new P3 box...and within months, you start receiving email/snail mail from Necrophiles R Us and the Transylvanian Home Renovation Network, all because the person you bought the machine (and it's PSN) from was a sick freak and your data got mashed together in the wash.
I'm not against the PSN because it's a violation of my privacy, I'm against it because advertising it as a Web-tool is a REALLY DUMB IDEA!!!
I'd be interested. I have a FreeBSD 3.1 box, and a Linux 2.2 box sitting here. For the most part, they peacefully co-exist. (Except for the occasional, "Where the f**k does that config file live in BSD?!?"
I will say that I've noticed a marked improvement in speed going from Linux 2.0 to 2.2, as well as from going from FreeBSD 3.0 to 3.1. (Which is to be expected...3.0 was pretty shaky in places.)
That's a very weak argument. Windows itself is many times bigger than Linux, it supports a lot more applications, is installed on tons more systems, and has many more users so this kind of a comparison is idiotic.
As is yours. Size is a relevant comparison between software, but not in the way you use it. It is a proven fact that as the lines of code increase, the time/costs involved in coding/debuging/testing/bugs increase exponentially.
Secondly, while it may or may not be true that Windows supports more applications, (Keep in mind that Linux has access to a decent chunk of the UNIX software out there) that is ultimately a function of it's market deployment. As the deployment grows, support (both commercial and non-commercial) grows. It's a fairly simple relationship. And Linux's market deployment is CERTAINLY growing.
Furthermore, compared to Windows, which is descended from the Windows of yore (3.x, 2.x, 1.x) and MS-DOS, Linux is still a young OS. As Linus stated during his LinuxWorld keynote, it's been around for 9 years. ONLY 9 years!
There's nothing to say that 10 years down the road, when Linux reaches version 4.0 (0r 5.0/2000), people won't be 'Linus-bashing' and jumping ship to FooBarOS.
But, in the intirm, Linux has become a commercialy viable server OS, and is making inroads to the desktop market. Perhaps it will fail. You takes your chances. But contrast that to Windows, which is ultimately a desktop OS, desperately attempting to make inroads in the network server market.
Of course Windows is 'easier to use' for most people. It was built from the ground up for 'user friendliness'. (user candy) But what does that say about Linux/UNIX in general, which was built from the ground up to Serve?
That's exactly what happened to a friend and I...we borrowed a RedHat disk and turfed his partition table...But, being the geeks we are, we pushed on and installed the beast anyway...That's what backups are for. =)
That's the difference between the average consumer and geeks. We're willing to beat on something until it works. If it doesn't work out of the box, the average consumer wants their money back. Hell, making things work is half the fun of Linux and most of the fun of programming.
It's not a question of what they will do WITH it, it's what WON'T they do without it. Remember the days of, "This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer"? How about going to a site and receiving, "This site cannot be accessed without an Intel Pentium 3 CPU-ID." That would ruin the day for those of us who run non-Intel based machines.
Or, as has been mentioned before, software locked to a single CPUID. That would make life quite difficult. What happens with an SMP box? What happens when I upgrade my CPU?
The question I pose to you is what benefit may be derived from utilizing a CPUID? Please feel free to email me if you wish to discuss this at greater length.
Ok Thomas. Pop quiz. I buy 4 P3 boxes with CPUIDs. I have 6 people at my house (including myself) who may be using any one of these boxes at any given time. That is not counting friends who may come over to use a PC.
Or, in a more normal case, 1 household PC, 4.3 average ppl/household. At least 2 are adults and may or may not have credit cards/do online shopping.
How can the CPUID be used to make eCommerce more secure in a world where you cannot track an individual user by their CPU?
Thank you. Thank you for having the courage to stand up to the mob, without the veil of Anonymity. You have my respect.
I agree with you that most users do not wish to tinker with their software. They DO want an integrated solution that "just works". But can you HONESTLY tell me that Windows 9x "just works"? Yes, it's markedly easier to configure. A well-trained monkey could do it. But it fails misserably in the area of stability and reliability.
It's not a rare occurence to see Win95 eat it's own registry...on the average user's machine, (ie, a user who doesn't back up their registry) there's not much you can do. Re-install. When you have 64 Meg of RAM and can't use IE, Visual InterDev and Netscape at the same time because you're out of memory. Or when Word97 crashes for the umpteenth time, can you really honestly say that it "just works"?
And don't get me started on 98.
I haven't addressed NT because most users don't use NT. However, NT is it's own kettle of fish. As for your experience, I can sympathize. I used to be an NT supporter. Compared to 95, it was a godsend. I'd heard of Linux but wasn't really interested.
(-- Begin Tangent --)
But, a quick change of jobs later, and I was working with UNIX (HP-UX in specific) for 8+ hours a day. I got spoiled. Windows became more and more restrictive. The more time I spent in UNIX, the more I began to feel like I was fighting my computer to perform what SHOULD be simple tasks. Finally, I broke down and installed FreeBSD. It was...different. Enjoyable, even.
Since then, the Daemon has migrated to it's own box and I now dual-boot between 95 and RedHat 5.2. NT is nary to be seen! Why? Because I only boot back to Windows to run 2 apps. (Word97 and Paint Shop Pro) I have found that I no longer have any need for NT. I can do twice as much on half the hardware.
(-- End of Tangent --)
But, it's different strokes for different folks. NT is easy to set up. Linux takes time. I can have an NT box built and configured "the way I like it" in under a day. It took me weeks to get everything tweeked just right under Linux. (Some might say I'm STILL tweaking...but I'm loving it.)
Ultimately, I agree with you. We don't need 'One OS to rule them all', be it NT, Linux, Mac, Solaris, etc...The fun comes from diversity. I think we tend to forget that sometimes.
That being said, I sincerely hope that you haven't given up on Linux. It's a decent OS if you give it a chance. And it's getting better every day.
Ahem. Many of us here are programmers by trade. Being a programmer, one tends to appreciate efficiency. Obviously, the use of '!=' is more efficient than equivalent english phrases such as, "is not" or "does not equal". Since such conventions are generally understood, it makes perfect sense to utilize them in inter-geek communication.
Now, I'd strenously recommend you seek some form of anger-management counselling. If something as small as != gets you that riled up, you've got some serious issues to deal with.
Oh gawds yes. I was GIVEN Outpost for free, and STILL felt ripped off.
And LOM...Well, that was just insanity. I still remember the first time I finished the game. (After they released the 1.2 patch...anything below was frankly unplayable) The main bad guy just sat there like a lump because he'd given his super-neato-weapon away part way through the game!
Great AI code there.
But, at least they made amends by putting assigning enough developers to FIX it.
Wha? Warcraft II, Diablo and Starcraft all have multiplayer built in...And except for Diablo, you can run multiple players off one CD.
Want to use TCP/IP? Sorry, only through expensive battle.net!
Uh...last time I checked, battle.net was free. (unless they've changed it in the last couple months.)
Require that damn CD to be in the drive all the time.
I can't speak for Diablo or Starcraft, but I almost NEVER played WarII with the CD in the drive. (Orcs are so much more fun when stomping to Megadeath)
Slashdot Mirror
Yet everyone forgets how Win98 crashed on Billy-boy. It seems MS-MindWipe98 is working.
But that would require actual effort and thought on the part of Internic. And when have they ever demonstrated that?
parting = Sorrow.sweet("such");
Point taken. ;)
It seems to be broken. Where's an ac1 when you need it?
Furthermore, it's just a stupid idea anyways. Considering how many PCs out there are "Family PCs" or "Company PCs", which can have many possible users. You have a PSN for the machine, but you have no sure way of knowing which USER is on it at a given time.
The other side of the coin is users who use multiple machines (ie, one at home, one at work). Now, thanks to the "added security of the P3 PSN", it's entirely concievable that you can only access a PSN-enabled site from one of those locations...and heaven help you if you sell your computer.
So, you've bought a not-so-new P3 box...and within months, you start receiving email/snail mail from Necrophiles R Us and the Transylvanian Home Renovation Network, all because the person you bought the machine (and it's PSN) from was a sick freak and your data got mashed together in the wash.
I'm not against the PSN because it's a violation of my privacy, I'm against it because advertising it as a Web-tool is a REALLY DUMB IDEA!!!
I'd be interested. I have a FreeBSD 3.1 box, and a Linux 2.2 box sitting here. For the most part, they peacefully co-exist. (Except for the occasional, "Where the f**k does that config file live in BSD?!?"
I will say that I've noticed a marked improvement in speed going from Linux 2.0 to 2.2, as well as from going from FreeBSD 3.0 to 3.1. (Which is to be expected...3.0 was pretty shaky in places.)
You Bastards!
That's a very weak argument. Windows itself is many times bigger than Linux, it supports a lot more applications, is installed on tons more systems, and has many more users so this kind of a comparison is idiotic.
As is yours. Size is a relevant comparison between software, but not in the way you use it. It is a proven fact that as the lines of code increase, the time/costs involved in coding/debuging/testing/bugs increase exponentially.
Secondly, while it may or may not be true that Windows supports more applications, (Keep in mind that Linux has access to a decent chunk of the UNIX software out there) that is ultimately a function of it's market deployment. As the deployment grows, support (both commercial and non-commercial) grows. It's a fairly simple relationship. And Linux's market deployment is CERTAINLY growing.
Furthermore, compared to Windows, which is descended from the Windows of yore (3.x, 2.x, 1.x)
and MS-DOS, Linux is still a young OS. As Linus stated during his LinuxWorld keynote, it's been around for 9 years. ONLY 9 years!
There's nothing to say that 10 years down the road, when Linux reaches version 4.0 (0r 5.0/2000), people won't be 'Linus-bashing' and jumping ship to FooBarOS.
But, in the intirm, Linux has become a commercialy viable server OS, and is making inroads to the desktop market. Perhaps it will fail. You takes your chances. But contrast that to Windows, which is ultimately a desktop OS, desperately attempting to make inroads in the network server market.
Of course Windows is 'easier to use' for most people. It was built from the ground up for 'user friendliness'. (user candy) But what does that say about Linux/UNIX in general, which was built from the ground up to Serve?
But, just think of the fun it will be to shatter all the frozen Microsoft employees come winter! ;)
Woo Hoo!
If I've told you once, I've told you a BILLION times, never, ever exagerate! ;)
That's exactly what happened to a friend and I...we borrowed a RedHat disk and turfed his partition table...But, being the geeks we are, we pushed on and installed the beast anyway...That's what backups are for. =)
That's the difference between the average consumer and geeks. We're willing to beat on something until it works. If it doesn't work out of the box, the average consumer wants their money back. Hell, making things work is half the fun of Linux and most of the fun of programming.
It's not a question of what they will do WITH it, it's what WON'T they do without it. Remember the days of, "This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer"? How about going to a site and receiving, "This site cannot be accessed without an Intel Pentium 3 CPU-ID." That would ruin the day for those of us who run non-Intel based machines.
Or, as has been mentioned before, software locked to a single CPUID. That would make life quite difficult. What happens with an SMP box? What happens when I upgrade my CPU?
The question I pose to you is what benefit may be derived from utilizing a CPUID? Please feel free to email me if you wish to discuss this at greater length.
Ok Thomas. Pop quiz. I buy 4 P3 boxes with CPUIDs. I have 6 people at my house (including myself) who may be using any one of these boxes at any given time. That is not counting friends who may come over to use a PC.
Or, in a more normal case, 1 household PC, 4.3 average ppl/household. At least 2 are adults and may or may not have credit cards/do online shopping.
How can the CPUID be used to make eCommerce more secure in a world where you cannot track an individual user by their CPU?
(Doing the happy dance)
Yipee! Time to start shorting Microsoft stock. Ok...maybe not, but it's a happy thought. =)
Well, I guess when you have an OS that actually does something you begin to realize the advantages of a bigger monitor much sooner.
Speaking as a man with a 21" monitor, AMEN!!
(I know a lot of people that think running more than one program will crash the machine)
Considering the "stability" of Windows, can you blame them? Hell, sometimes it's a challenge just getting ONE program to run!
Thank you. Thank you for having the courage to stand up to the mob, without the veil of Anonymity. You have my respect.
I agree with you that most users do not wish to tinker with their software. They DO want an integrated solution that "just works". But can you HONESTLY tell me that Windows 9x "just works"? Yes, it's markedly easier to configure. A well-trained monkey could do it. But it fails misserably in the area of stability and reliability.
It's not a rare occurence to see Win95 eat it's own registry...on the average user's machine, (ie, a user who doesn't back up their registry) there's not much you can do. Re-install. When you have 64 Meg of RAM and can't use IE, Visual InterDev and Netscape at the same time because you're out of memory. Or when Word97 crashes for the umpteenth time, can you really honestly say that it "just works"?
And don't get me started on 98.
I haven't addressed NT because most users don't use NT. However, NT is it's own kettle of fish.
As for your experience, I can sympathize. I used to be an NT supporter. Compared to 95, it was a godsend. I'd heard of Linux but wasn't really interested.
(-- Begin Tangent --)
But, a quick change of jobs later, and I was working with UNIX (HP-UX in specific) for 8+ hours a day. I got spoiled. Windows became more and more restrictive. The more time I spent in UNIX, the more I began to feel like I was fighting my computer to perform what SHOULD be simple tasks. Finally, I broke down and installed FreeBSD. It was...different. Enjoyable, even.
Since then, the Daemon has migrated to it's own box and I now dual-boot between 95 and RedHat 5.2. NT is nary to be seen! Why? Because I only boot back to Windows to run 2 apps. (Word97 and Paint Shop Pro) I have found that I no longer have any need for NT. I can do twice as much on half the hardware.
(-- End of Tangent --)
But, it's different strokes for different folks. NT is easy to set up. Linux takes time. I can have an NT box built and configured "the way I like it" in under a day. It took me weeks to get everything tweeked just right under Linux. (Some might say I'm STILL tweaking...but I'm loving it.)
Ultimately, I agree with you. We don't need 'One OS to rule them all', be it NT, Linux, Mac, Solaris, etc...The fun comes from diversity. I think we tend to forget that sometimes.
That being said, I sincerely hope that you haven't given up on Linux. It's a decent OS if you give it a chance. And it's getting better every day.
Ahem. Many of us here are programmers by trade. Being a programmer, one tends to appreciate efficiency. Obviously, the use of '!=' is more efficient than equivalent english phrases such as, "is not" or "does not equal". Since such conventions are generally understood, it makes perfect sense to utilize them in inter-geek communication.
Now, I'd strenously recommend you seek some form of anger-management counselling. If something as small as != gets you that riled up, you've got some serious issues to deal with.
Have a nice day.
Oops. Candy bar. Pluto(TM)'s taken too. (Disney character)...Saturn(TM) and Mercury(TM) are out. Damn cars. Jupiter, anyone?
No matter how you slice it, Nasa is screwed.
Oh gawds yes. I was GIVEN Outpost for free, and STILL felt ripped off.
And LOM...Well, that was just insanity. I still remember the first time I finished the game. (After they released the 1.2 patch...anything below was frankly unplayable) The main bad guy just sat there like a lump because he'd given his super-neato-weapon away part way through the game!
Great AI code there.
But, at least they made amends by putting assigning enough developers to FIX it.
Not to mention that even WITH the final patch, it's still rife with bugs.
?!??!
Want to play multiplayer? Buy more CD's!
Wha? Warcraft II, Diablo and Starcraft all have multiplayer built in...And except for Diablo, you can run multiple players off one CD.
Want to use TCP/IP? Sorry, only through expensive battle.net!
Uh...last time I checked, battle.net was free. (unless they've changed it in the last couple months.)
Require that damn CD to be in the drive all the time.
I can't speak for Diablo or Starcraft, but I almost NEVER played WarII with the CD in the drive. (Orcs are so much more fun when stomping to Megadeath)
Microsoft seems to be it's own worst enemy.
Next thing you know, they'll be arguing that they don't have a monopoly because NT is competing with 9x!
Quite frankly, this doesn't do much to build confidence in "Windows 2000"...Or, should I say, "Windows 2003"? (Maybe it will be out by then...)
WTF?!?
Well, a 300a + generic mb + atx case = same $ of k6-2 400
Keeping in mind that the below prices are in Canadian Pesos,
CeleryStick 300A = $139
Generic MB = $175
ATX Case = $89
=======================
Total: $403
K6-2 400 = $287
Last time I checked, $403 != $287. That's about a $100 difference...which you could turn around and invest in another 32Meg of RAM...
Not to mention that the difference in FPU speed isn't a HUGE concern if you spend more time coding than Quake-ing. =)
What Grove giveth, Gates taketh away.
Or, as one of my profs once said, "To assume makes an ass of u and me."