This probably has more to do with market share and how willing Sun and HP or any other manufacturer is going to be willing to support other platforms.
I guess Mandrake could "meet them halfway" by working to develop support for these companies at least partially, but I guess HP and Sun figure that they support Red Hat so why bother with all the other builds?
It's too bad because it seems Red Hat's the Windows of Linux (?!), and this is primarily why I use it. I wouldn't mind another version, and I'm looking into Debian, any thoughts?
But I don't think support relates that much to this philosophy as it does to business, even for an open source company.
It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".
I do like that these companies are doing this, though, establishing guidelines ensuring quality and the open source spirit of the product. However, doesn't saying "I will keep the software free" (thus respecting the GPL) sound like stating "I will follow the law"? It's great that you want to keep it free (if you do), but isn't it your obligation, as a Linux build, under the GPL?
And then of course, in the end, I'd simply prefer a quality product and perhaps something that I'm familiar with. A company can have the best tech support ever, but I'm not going to buy tech support as much as I'm going to be buying a product. They can have the greatest philosophy and everything, but I'm going to download what works foremost.
No, more likely they are running a Windows server, and some kiddie is hitting them with a DDoS. Essentially, answering the question posed by the article with actions, huh?
I haven't read the book quite yet, but the whole "Jesus' child" thing is simply just some monstrously trendy philosophy, which has been done in a Gabriel Knight computer game. It seems that Dan Brown has all but stolen the premise from the game (which, I'm sure, had been lifted from certain other things). The game I thought was fun. Dan Brown and the fashionable furor over this book I find irritating.
Hah, you say the story ended 200 pages before the book did? Well, the film ended some 30 minutes before the movie did.
I quite frankly could have done without all that return to the Shire silliness. While such scenes are considered "necessary" to wrap up the story that you've spent three movies telling, I really think that they were unsuccessful.
Somehow, the destruction of the ring felt to me anticlimactic enough, and then the movie had to overwork it into some huge escape, and then into some big Fellowship reunion, and then into the return to the Shire. The movie had lost so much steam by the final minutes that it was practically deflated.
But my issue with all of the battle scenes is that isn't there a point when it does lose all of its impact and appeal?
For example, when Legolas was scaling the giant elephant (Oliphant?), I was at once thinking, "That is incredible" and "This is completely absurd". It's cool what they think up and how they implement it and everything, but I just don't buy into it because it's also completely phony and doesn't convince me at all. We've been seeing ridiculous stunts in cartoons for years and years now, and just because we've got a $192 million cartoon doesn't make it any different.
What does impress me, though, is when there are certain CG sequences or whatever that are completely convincing and completely easy to buy into. For me, CG has to be about improving the movie experience (thus having me buy the premise) over mindless rendering, personally.
But then I figure I'm also walking a slippery slope because if you see a guy get blown apart into a thousand pieces, you have to know that there are some special effects there.
But, just as an example in the RotK, I bought the dragons and even the trolls, but didn't as much buy many of the stunts.
(SPOILER?)
And then the scene at the end where Elijah is standing there looking back at the other Hobbits smiling his goodbyes, I was thoroughly irritated because it was the fakest smile I've ever seen, and it was painfully obvious to me he was mustering a fake smile, probably staring right at Peter Jackson. Maybe they could have used CG there.
As for uses, there's currently a test running at an intersection in McLean, Va., where sensors can automatically warn a motorist when another car is approaching, thus helping to avoid a collision.
"You are cleared. You are cleared. You are cleared. Traffic is moderate. Warning, car approaching intersection. You are cleared...."
Somehow, I don't think that'll be a station that many people would be listening to.
But I guess that's the trick with "beneficial" technology like radio warnings, seat belts, and flossing.
They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999
Or maybe it could be because approximately 100% of Canadian music sales belong to the likes of Celine Dion, Sarah McLachlan, and Shania Twain.
Well, Titanic's now 6 years old, Sarah McLachlan went to have a baby I think, and Shania Twain has a shelf life of about 2 months.
Though I don't intend to bash Canada at all (in case it was ambiguous) this is clearly a case of "hit 'em while they're down" or "strike while the iron's hot". The CRIA probably sees the juggernaut case that the RIAA is battling and figures, "Hey, we could make some cash, secure some rights, whatever, here." Essentially let the RIAA do all the work and argumentation and everything and piggyback the success (or avoid a costly failure).
Yes, yes, the laws are different and they cannot argue the same case, but there is likely enough overlap that the CRIA can benefit from the RIAA.
If you ask me, they're all being CRIA-babies (pardon the horrendous pun) and (as we've mentioned before) quite effectively demonstrating their ability not to adapt to their environment/technology. The RIAA's distribution network is a dinosaur, and they'll get pounded out just like Boeing if they keep defending their inadequacy rather than improving.
Yes, I hope that nobody actually takes these things seriously. In an economy that has not yet fully recovered (and despite G.W.'s claims, doesn't look immediately hopeful either), the last thing we need is this distraction.
The argument is that patents drive innovation because there is a motivation to innovate because of the exclusive profits that can be seen. And now we're getting a taste of the darker (and perhaps previously unrealized) side of patents: that they hurt business.
The last thing that we really need right now are businesses being too timid to jump into the market and invest in the economy because they haven't spent (or are unwilling to spend) the time and money to ensure that they are not remotely stepping on any toes. "Gosh, before I start, I better spend 2 months and $20,000 to make sure it's even legal." In our economy, this effort and investment isn't always that much worthwhile.
And on top of that, we additionally don't need the "innovators" (read: patent-holders) to stop innovating and instead spend all their time as patent-police (and padding the pockets of lawyers in the process... giving lawyers more money is not, to me, a substantial economic investment) rather than actually developing something of use to our economy, our people, whatever. It's a sad day for our software and technology sector when you see more legal stories about these companies than technology stories.
I hope that we get over lawsuit (suing McDonald's because you're fat?!?) and actually manage to progress as a society.
I agree, Windows programmers are developing more explicitly for the buyer (to sell the contract, and get the item on the desktop) than for a user. People are overburdening their software with features and flashy (if bloated and memory-consuming) UI gimmicks (I admit, I sometimes enjoy seeing what gimmicks I can create) that we lose sight of the purpose of the software in Windows.
The company I work at (a small financial software company) is fast doing this by incorporating all sundry features into our code that it becomes burdensome to run. But we do all of it so that no matter what the customer asks for, we can say we have it.
The silly thing is that the fault is not ours (the boss is just trying to make the deal, of course), but in the clients' poor specifications, in thinking of anything the might want that they don't realize that these features come at a cost. So they ask for everything under the sun, never use half of these demanded features and complain it runs slowly! (Poor coding is also partially at fault, but...)
And this is what I think is the big problem with Java. Coders (maybe not programmers) are clients just like this, also, where they want all these features and all these packages and all this functionality that we don't realize how it burdens programming and our systems. This is why I love and I hate Java. Of course, I never have to think of anything, in a sense, because Java has my bases covered. But then it kills me that I lose performance (which we all can tell) because Java has to have every base covered.
Face it, with Windows and Microsoft and the mass marketing of PCs to all sorts of people (not just computer people) has come the advent of BloatWare, the solution to people who have no idea what they're doing.
Well, I guess I might have to get rid of the scanner that let's me listen to the Communist Propaganda station.
But, seriously, doesn't it seem like it would create a major discrepancy for advertisers? Advertisers pay so that they can get seen (and, in some cases, regardless of the demographic). If an advertiser for some upscale product places an ad, and gets stuck because nobody listens to whatever station it caters to, how would the pricing work? Because, even if they don't get charged for the ad-time, they still have to pay some money to develop the ad and would presumably want some guanateed viewtime to at least diffuse the development costs? Not like billboard ads would be so expensive to develop.
Plus, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. On the road, much of the advertising is geared towards "impulse" purchases. Granted, there are the car ads and such, but the vast majority of the ads are of the "Wendy's Next Exit" or "Shell 2 MI" sort that you might want to show regardless (and sort of have a demographic-neutral appeal). I don't think radio station preference has much of an influence on fast food preference, or gas preference (I could be wrong). It makes sense to me to keep the specialized advertising for television and magazines (where it's somewhat more reliable to determine the audience, rather than driving, where the major convern is where am I going and where can I get gas/food).
And of course it gets complicated in congested areas where it's anybody's guess which ad they should display (I imagine the majority or the stations, but then how is that any different from how it presently is?).
I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet.
Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!
If we do that, it'll be the most pussy nuzzling up to carpet since Lillith Fair!
Yeah, I think the whole thing is that Peter is definitely way into MJ, but to me it always seemed like it was spun differently than the whole Clark/Lois thing. Anyway, for those who followed the New Old-school Spider-Man cartoon (but not New New-school garbage that was Spider-Man Unlimited or Unleashed or whatever) might remember that Harry Osborne became the Hobgoblin, who was much more of an arch-nemesis than the Green Goblin ever was (and a brutal cat, to boot). Man, the old cartoon was cheesy with internal narrative and sketchy black-line animation, but it was also classic. Anybody remember? But the Peter Harry thing should be interesting, when they choose to develop it.
You're right, it was the villains that made Spider-Man, also. Superman was always too kitschy and the villains reflected this (and I couldn't even really recall any major arch-villains? I only remember the villains-of-the-hour). I loved Batman and, yes, even the way less dramatic but more stylish Batman Beyond, but the original Batman (animated) Series was rife with interesting villains. The only thing is it had many more villains-of-the-hour than Spider-Man, so SM had more continuity.
But since I've revealed myself as a cartoon nerd, I'll stop there.
No, I'll go on: Some of my favorite villains: Scarecrow (freaked the hell out of me), DrOc.
Yes, and don't forget all the "Sponsored Links" and such that google stores. And all of your personal information and queries that google sells to interested corporations and government agencies.
Microsoft has just recently acquired a dozen of the most prominent online porn websites, as well as a company that develops miniature cameras for spying on bosses and sneaking looks at the cleavage of attractive women.
In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer--its object model, performance, rendering power, protocol support, and channel-download technology--without enforcing the strict security model and user interface of the browser.
Yes, it's something like developing a medicine that promises "all the nausea and hair loss of kemotherapy" without any of the restrictions of the "cancer tratment".
Slashdot Mirror
This probably has more to do with market share and how willing Sun and HP or any other manufacturer is going to be willing to support other platforms.
I guess Mandrake could "meet them halfway" by working to develop support for these companies at least partially, but I guess HP and Sun figure that they support Red Hat so why bother with all the other builds?
It's too bad because it seems Red Hat's the Windows of Linux (?!), and this is primarily why I use it. I wouldn't mind another version, and I'm looking into Debian, any thoughts?
But I don't think support relates that much to this philosophy as it does to business, even for an open source company.
It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".
I do like that these companies are doing this, though, establishing guidelines ensuring quality and the open source spirit of the product. However, doesn't saying "I will keep the software free" (thus respecting the GPL) sound like stating "I will follow the law"? It's great that you want to keep it free (if you do), but isn't it your obligation, as a Linux build, under the GPL?
And then of course, in the end, I'd simply prefer a quality product and perhaps something that I'm familiar with. A company can have the best tech support ever, but I'm not going to buy tech support as much as I'm going to be buying a product. They can have the greatest philosophy and everything, but I'm going to download what works foremost.
Just my opinion.
Hey, the security that they had implemented worked, I thought, exceedingly well:
Password: ilikebigbutts12
Oh damn, I just gave out my password, didn't I?
No, more likely they are running a Windows server, and some kiddie is hitting them with a DDoS. Essentially, answering the question posed by the article with actions, huh?
I haven't read the book quite yet, but the whole "Jesus' child" thing is simply just some monstrously trendy philosophy, which has been done in a Gabriel Knight computer game. It seems that Dan Brown has all but stolen the premise from the game (which, I'm sure, had been lifted from certain other things). The game I thought was fun. Dan Brown and the fashionable furor over this book I find irritating.
Microsoft Looks at Integrating Operating Systems and Internet Browsers
The Department of Justice "will investigate"
We must immediately ban Hollywood films and other such media which are "gateway media" to other, more dangerous and damaging media such as books!
Anybody with me?
Hah, you say the story ended 200 pages before the book did? Well, the film ended some 30 minutes before the movie did.
I quite frankly could have done without all that return to the Shire silliness. While such scenes are considered "necessary" to wrap up the story that you've spent three movies telling, I really think that they were unsuccessful.
Somehow, the destruction of the ring felt to me anticlimactic enough, and then the movie had to overwork it into some huge escape, and then into some big Fellowship reunion, and then into the return to the Shire. The movie had lost so much steam by the final minutes that it was practically deflated.
But my issue with all of the battle scenes is that isn't there a point when it does lose all of its impact and appeal?
For example, when Legolas was scaling the giant elephant (Oliphant?), I was at once thinking, "That is incredible" and "This is completely absurd". It's cool what they think up and how they implement it and everything, but I just don't buy into it because it's also completely phony and doesn't convince me at all. We've been seeing ridiculous stunts in cartoons for years and years now, and just because we've got a $192 million cartoon doesn't make it any different.
What does impress me, though, is when there are certain CG sequences or whatever that are completely convincing and completely easy to buy into. For me, CG has to be about improving the movie experience (thus having me buy the premise) over mindless rendering, personally.
But then I figure I'm also walking a slippery slope because if you see a guy get blown apart into a thousand pieces, you have to know that there are some special effects there.
But, just as an example in the RotK, I bought the dragons and even the trolls, but didn't as much buy many of the stunts.
(SPOILER?) And then the scene at the end where Elijah is standing there looking back at the other Hobbits smiling his goodbyes, I was thoroughly irritated because it was the fakest smile I've ever seen, and it was painfully obvious to me he was mustering a fake smile, probably staring right at Peter Jackson. Maybe they could have used CG there.
As for uses, there's currently a test running at an intersection in McLean, Va., where sensors can automatically warn a motorist when another car is approaching, thus helping to avoid a collision.
... ."
"You are cleared. You are cleared. You are cleared. Traffic is moderate. Warning, car approaching intersection. You are cleared
Somehow, I don't think that'll be a station that many people would be listening to.
But I guess that's the trick with "beneficial" technology like radio warnings, seat belts, and flossing.
They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999
Or maybe it could be because approximately 100% of Canadian music sales belong to the likes of Celine Dion, Sarah McLachlan, and Shania Twain.
Well, Titanic's now 6 years old, Sarah McLachlan went to have a baby I think, and Shania Twain has a shelf life of about 2 months.
Though I don't intend to bash Canada at all (in case it was ambiguous) this is clearly a case of "hit 'em while they're down" or "strike while the iron's hot". The CRIA probably sees the juggernaut case that the RIAA is battling and figures, "Hey, we could make some cash, secure some rights, whatever, here." Essentially let the RIAA do all the work and argumentation and everything and piggyback the success (or avoid a costly failure).
Yes, yes, the laws are different and they cannot argue the same case, but there is likely enough overlap that the CRIA can benefit from the RIAA.
If you ask me, they're all being CRIA-babies (pardon the horrendous pun) and (as we've mentioned before) quite effectively demonstrating their ability not to adapt to their environment/technology. The RIAA's distribution network is a dinosaur, and they'll get pounded out just like Boeing if they keep defending their inadequacy rather than improving.
You forgot the "????" and the "PROFIT!", of course!
Yes, I hope that nobody actually takes these things seriously. In an economy that has not yet fully recovered (and despite G.W.'s claims, doesn't look immediately hopeful either), the last thing we need is this distraction.
... giving lawyers more money is not, to me, a substantial economic investment) rather than actually developing something of use to our economy, our people, whatever. It's a sad day for our software and technology sector when you see more legal stories about these companies than technology stories.
The argument is that patents drive innovation because there is a motivation to innovate because of the exclusive profits that can be seen. And now we're getting a taste of the darker (and perhaps previously unrealized) side of patents: that they hurt business.
The last thing that we really need right now are businesses being too timid to jump into the market and invest in the economy because they haven't spent (or are unwilling to spend) the time and money to ensure that they are not remotely stepping on any toes. "Gosh, before I start, I better spend 2 months and $20,000 to make sure it's even legal." In our economy, this effort and investment isn't always that much worthwhile.
And on top of that, we additionally don't need the "innovators" (read: patent-holders) to stop innovating and instead spend all their time as patent-police (and padding the pockets of lawyers in the process
I hope that we get over lawsuit (suing McDonald's because you're fat?!?) and actually manage to progress as a society.
Tech should do tech, not law.
I agree, Windows programmers are developing more explicitly for the buyer (to sell the contract, and get the item on the desktop) than for a user. People are overburdening their software with features and flashy (if bloated and memory-consuming) UI gimmicks (I admit, I sometimes enjoy seeing what gimmicks I can create) that we lose sight of the purpose of the software in Windows.
...)
The company I work at (a small financial software company) is fast doing this by incorporating all sundry features into our code that it becomes burdensome to run. But we do all of it so that no matter what the customer asks for, we can say we have it.
The silly thing is that the fault is not ours (the boss is just trying to make the deal, of course), but in the clients' poor specifications, in thinking of anything the might want that they don't realize that these features come at a cost. So they ask for everything under the sun, never use half of these demanded features and complain it runs slowly! (Poor coding is also partially at fault, but
And this is what I think is the big problem with Java. Coders (maybe not programmers) are clients just like this, also, where they want all these features and all these packages and all this functionality that we don't realize how it burdens programming and our systems. This is why I love and I hate Java. Of course, I never have to think of anything, in a sense, because Java has my bases covered. But then it kills me that I lose performance (which we all can tell) because Java has to have every base covered.
Face it, with Windows and Microsoft and the mass marketing of PCs to all sorts of people (not just computer people) has come the advent of BloatWare, the solution to people who have no idea what they're doing.
Windows is for pussies, but "UNIX" is for men who don't have dicks.
Well, I guess I might have to get rid of the scanner that let's me listen to the Communist Propaganda station.
But, seriously, doesn't it seem like it would create a major discrepancy for advertisers? Advertisers pay so that they can get seen (and, in some cases, regardless of the demographic). If an advertiser for some upscale product places an ad, and gets stuck because nobody listens to whatever station it caters to, how would the pricing work? Because, even if they don't get charged for the ad-time, they still have to pay some money to develop the ad and would presumably want some guanateed viewtime to at least diffuse the development costs? Not like billboard ads would be so expensive to develop.
Plus, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. On the road, much of the advertising is geared towards "impulse" purchases. Granted, there are the car ads and such, but the vast majority of the ads are of the "Wendy's Next Exit" or "Shell 2 MI" sort that you might want to show regardless (and sort of have a demographic-neutral appeal). I don't think radio station preference has much of an influence on fast food preference, or gas preference (I could be wrong). It makes sense to me to keep the specialized advertising for television and magazines (where it's somewhat more reliable to determine the audience, rather than driving, where the major convern is where am I going and where can I get gas/food).
And of course it gets complicated in congested areas where it's anybody's guess which ad they should display (I imagine the majority or the stations, but then how is that any different from how it presently is?).
Hey, did that "Gigli" movie ever come out? I'd say that would definitely win.
I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet.
Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!
If we do that, it'll be the most pussy nuzzling up to carpet since Lillith Fair!
And at the very end, discovers Mary Jane's middle name to be "Rosebud"?
Yeah, I think the whole thing is that Peter is definitely way into MJ, but to me it always seemed like it was spun differently than the whole Clark/Lois thing. Anyway, for those who followed the New Old-school Spider-Man cartoon (but not New New-school garbage that was Spider-Man Unlimited or Unleashed or whatever) might remember that Harry Osborne became the Hobgoblin, who was much more of an arch-nemesis than the Green Goblin ever was (and a brutal cat, to boot). Man, the old cartoon was cheesy with internal narrative and sketchy black-line animation, but it was also classic. Anybody remember? But the Peter Harry thing should be interesting, when they choose to develop it.
You're right, it was the villains that made Spider-Man, also. Superman was always too kitschy and the villains reflected this (and I couldn't even really recall any major arch-villains? I only remember the villains-of-the-hour). I loved Batman and, yes, even the way less dramatic but more stylish Batman Beyond, but the original Batman (animated) Series was rife with interesting villains. The only thing is it had many more villains-of-the-hour than Spider-Man, so SM had more continuity.
But since I've revealed myself as a cartoon nerd, I'll stop there.
No, I'll go on: Some of my favorite villains: Scarecrow (freaked the hell out of me), DrOc.
Anonymous ... hmmm ... has a huge database ... and apparently contracted its operations with Microsoft ... hmmm ... Who could that be?
Judging from the username, sql*kitten, it's a chick. In a geek forum like /. chicks get modded up faster than any other post, except maybe Linus'.
Yes, and don't forget all the "Sponsored Links" and such that google stores. And all of your personal information and queries that google sells to interested corporations and government agencies.
Microsoft has just recently acquired a dozen of the most prominent online porn websites, as well as a company that develops miniature cameras for spying on bosses and sneaking looks at the cleavage of attractive women.
In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer--its object model, performance, rendering power, protocol support, and channel-download technology--without enforcing the strict security model and user interface of the browser.
Yes, it's something like developing a medicine that promises "all the nausea and hair loss of kemotherapy" without any of the restrictions of the "cancer tratment".