What the heck are you talking about land them in jail?
This is a way to let Microsoft release a signed boot loader that avoids piracy. The alternative is to let the enguineers release the hack (no mod chip remember) and legitimately enable others to use unsigned software on the box. Unfortnately this will also allow people to use pirated games, but then fair use rules override this concern, and the developers DID give Microsoft an alternative. Now all we have to do is wait to see if Microsoft choses the lesser of two evils or decides to go insane suppressing the publication of legitimate engineering information.
Don't buy into the Microsoft propaganda hogwash before they even start it. You'll only encourage them.
Yep, but let's remember that the project founders seemed to have an unhealthy inner cabal who were exclusively positioning themselves for commercial exploitation of the community's work. This is the fundamental problem with Gentoo organization it seems. This guy had an interest in embedded systems, worked his ass off of porting and cross compilation environments, and when he approached the founders about commercial exploitation, they shut him out and started making their own moves to exploit his work. There is a problem with any project if the founders are using it as vehicle for commercial exploitation to the exclusion of developers who perform the lion's share of the work. This becomes really repugnant when it happens after the developer proposes a course of action and the next day URLs are reserved that betray a hidden agenda and clearly show the project management are acting in bad faith.
Continue like this and the Gentoo inner core will end up with a 100% commercial interest in nothing.
You at least agree on the issue of what is relevant for a benchmark. We disagree on the issue of cost of a compiler. Despite what you say about company overheads, they are always reluctant to add to them. The facts speak for themselves and apps are not compiled with Intel's compiler most of the time.
I tend to agree this would have been more relevant. Despite the level playing field, what matters is the compiler and CPU combination that the apps use. I don't know what the outcome of such a test would have been.
Didn't stop Trinitrons selling like popcorn, even now. I'm looking at my screen and realize that yup, it's a Sony tube, the lines are there. It's brand spankin new they're still selling and my company's still buying them. First time I've noticed it.
No, what's relevant is what compiler most applications are compiled with by their developers, or most specifically the one your applications are developed with. This will be the one most relevant to you w.r.t. estimating the performance of a processor.
What compiler does Microsoft compile Windows and Office with with for example? Intel's or theirs? I really don't know the answer to this but I suspect it is Visual Studio. Most 3rd party applications are compiled with Microsoft's compiler, not Intel's. Why? Because Intel charges a significant sum for their compiler, no IDE you need Visual Studio for that, want VTune? That's more again, all to give the users of Intel CPUs the performance benefit from your application that Intel has claimed they can realize based on benchmarks using a compiler they want to charge you for.
Well, not necessarily, this really depends on how good a job the compiler does at this. Intel's compiler might do a good job at optimizing for SSE2 but few others do. I heard that Intel released some back end compiler work to help with this but it's not in the compilers most people use yet AFAIK.
Large type operations are supported, even on some 32 bit chips. I doubt the loads & stores would be any different, but you might see a marginal win there (I doubt it).
This seems reasonable of Apple now. There are many applications compiled on Windows that don't use Intel's optimizing compiler. Indeed that's the norm, since most Windows developers use Microsoft's compilers that ship with Visual Studio and other x86 environments like Linux are dominated by gcc development. You have to buy Intel's compiler separately and add it to your development environment in most circumstances and it ain't cheap despite the obvious benefit getting better x86 optimized apps released has for Intel. The biggest difference AFAIK is Intel's good work in optimizing for their SIMD style instructions like SSE2, where their compiler does a much better job at parallelizing multiple serial operations into a single SSE op. The difference this makes to some code when comparing Intel's compiler to Microsoft's compiler on the same CPU can be dramatic, even 2X or more on specific benchmarks.
All in all I think this was a fair test of these CPUs, it was a level playing field. OTOH we know Intel can do much better with their compiler, but only some developers use their compiler. It would be interesting to see just how much of a benefit Apple could squeeze out of non gcc compilers, probably not as much as Intel, perhaps not anything, it depends on the work they or IBM et.al. have done on their compilers. You just know if it was to Apples advantage they'd have compiled with their best compiler and dont teh comparrison with those numbers vs Intel's so this situation has been contrived to an extent.
With Intel charging what they do for their compiler developers can be reluctant to pay extra for it, I expect almost everyone (on Windows) would use it if it were free. I know I would, but I can get by without it. I don't really have much sympathy for Intel here, they make billions of chipe, make significant performance claims based on their own compiler, yet charge for it to the point where many developers simply stick with Microsoft's compiler that they've already spend a fair bit on. Now Intel is upset that Apple used gcc, well more people might use Intel's compiler if it were easier to aquire, and clearly it would benefit Intel. If they want to run there business where everything is a profit center and they don't have to be smart enough to evaluate obvious but intangible benefits that's their business, but this is part of the price you pay for charging an arm and a leg for your compiler when you should be in the hardware business and giving your compiler away to help your customer gain the benefit of faster code from the applications they purchase. In the meantime specbench numbers for Intel are simply bogus for many applications.
Running in 32 bit vs 64 bit is not a performance issue, it is more to do with addressable space. If anything 64 bit mode would be slower if it has to go use 64 bit pointers etc, of course it doesn't do that anyway because that would require a recompile etc. what actually happens is even with a 64 bit OS 32 bit code is still run in 32 bit mode, and you'd see no performance difference. Just like SGI systems, where 32 bit executables have been running alongside 64 bit executable for years, and even then 64 bit executables are relatively rare for most users.
Can you try any harder to slashdot his site? I mean it's one thing to post a link to the relevant part of his site but a couple of links, one to the large scans of the original agreement we allready know about and don't need to see, why?
Jesse should get back in touch with his contacts in the press and try to revive the story. The mainstream ran the story about taking his life savings, they'll run another about the continued harassment.
Freedom can be taken away based on immoral, anti-social or illegal behavior. We just define what behaviour we find unacceptable, outlaw it and we are perfectly capable of selectively removing freedom. Not all behaviors are equal and some are downright detrimental to the common good. Let's not hogtie ourselves because we are unable to exercise any kind of rational discernment.
The freecraft project included the warcraft theme. Like I said they ditched the name and the warcraft derived content they'd have no issue with Blizzard. Sure come up with some variation on the theme that would do, but a blatant rip-off ain't going to give them a leg to stand on.
It's about whether Blizzard has rights to the Warcraft franchise they created. These people were trying to copy it, they copied everything, units, theme, layout, buildings, tech tree, the LOT, and made no secret of their attempt to copy Blizzard's game. Blizzard do innovate, despite the nonsense opined by you and others, Warcraft 3 is very different from it's predecessors. It is a very different game.
Your disagreement does not make my post troll. This project WAS an attempt to copy a game, they've stated this explicitly. Don't get revisionist now they've been asked to stop.
MOST freeware projects produce nothing of any value, especially those in the games genre. There are many exceptions, but everyone and their dog tries to write a game and most produce some real rubbish, or nothing at all. I don't donate to people who are experienced game developers, I do *purchase* their products and I have *donated* to some projects where I liked the *software produced*, but I'm just not into throwing money away. If I'm paying for something I'd rather everyone paid their fair share, there's a way to do this, it's called buying a commercial product.
We're frogetting one thing here, freecraft has been going for years, and it's still crap. Sorry, it just is, it looks worse than an unfinished early 1980s game. Moreover it is a straight attempt to copy someone else's game. You're NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. Don't you get it? You can't copy games, you have to write one based on your own ideas & content. Nobody can do this and a commercial developer would never have copied Blizzards game so blatantly because they know they'd have been sued.
Instead of flaming Blizzard you should be saying "Oh yea, we/they shouldn't have done that, what a waste of time, next time we'll write our OWN GAME". By all means write an RTS, any RTS, just DON'T copy one.
Look, they didn't just call themselves freecraft, they explicitly tried to copy warcraft while making a generic engine. This was an undisguised goal, they SAID this was their objective and have for years. When are people going to learn you just can't legally copy someone else's game wholesale like this, it doesn't matter how much of a fan you are.
As for only corporate interests being able to fight Blizzard off, corporate interests would NEVER have done this. Sure they may have similar games and concepts, but they have very different names, and they have very different content and even a few original ideas of their own.
Make your own engine, make your own name come up with your own scenarios/world/content. They didn't do at least two of these.
There's no need to kill freecraft. Simply ditch the current content and change the name, then come up with your own units etc, and no this doesn't just mean Blizzard's units with your bitmap. All this falling on your own sword is overly dramatic, it ain't Blizzards fault that you decided to copy their game.
No, this is not about writing code for company A and stealing it for use at company B, that IS UNACCEPTABLE, dude, it's theft because eh original company OWNS THAT CODE. NEWSFLASH, you're not allowed to take proprietary code with you when you leave a company. SCO is still wrong but your terrible analogy is the worst defense of IBM & Linux imaginable. This is about company B developing their own interesting code and then not being able to use THEIR OWN CODE in another of their systems because they wrote it to work with code from company A, despite the fact that company A has already released their original code. This is just one of several ludicrous claims SCO is trying to make.
Re:Dude you're going to jail
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
1) He's not violating the NDA.
2) SCO can't send anyone to jail, that would be kidnapping and false imprisonment.
The annoying thing about that Livermore plant is they're always putting new fans up (of varying design) and there are always scores of them sitting doing nothing (not turning). Now I'd have expected that it would make sense once you make the investment to keep the props turning, but apparently not. I think there's more than meets the eye to the economics of running these facilities. Most of the generators seem bust or at least are rarely running. There is continual installation of generation equipment and apparently it still doesn't make sense to keep the generation capacity you already have running in preference to more cost effective systems elsewhere. There's something very wrong with this picture.
Now someone wants to build a load of them off a famously picturesque part of the East coast, I'm all for dumping this in the back yard of the most vocal proponents of the junk science eco garbage the media foists on us all but, is the state obliged to buy his electricity even if he can't make it economically? Is he just doing this to watch the folks in this notoriously elitist area squirm as they yell NIMBY? Deliberate or not it makes great sport.
Slashdot Mirror
What the heck are you talking about land them in jail?
This is a way to let Microsoft release a signed boot loader that avoids piracy. The alternative is to let the enguineers release the hack (no mod chip remember) and legitimately enable others to use unsigned software on the box. Unfortnately this will also allow people to use pirated games, but then fair use rules override this concern, and the developers DID give Microsoft an alternative. Now all we have to do is wait to see if Microsoft choses the lesser of two evils or decides to go insane suppressing the publication of legitimate engineering information.
Don't buy into the Microsoft propaganda hogwash before they even start it. You'll only encourage them.
Yep, but let's remember that the project founders seemed to have an unhealthy inner cabal who were exclusively positioning themselves for commercial exploitation of the community's work. This is the fundamental problem with Gentoo organization it seems. This guy had an interest in embedded systems, worked his ass off of porting and cross compilation environments, and when he approached the founders about commercial exploitation, they shut him out and started making their own moves to exploit his work. There is a problem with any project if the founders are using it as vehicle for commercial exploitation to the exclusion of developers who perform the lion's share of the work. This becomes really repugnant when it happens after the developer proposes a course of action and the next day URLs are reserved that betray a hidden agenda and clearly show the project management are acting in bad faith.
Continue like this and the Gentoo inner core will end up with a 100% commercial interest in nothing.
You at least agree on the issue of what is relevant for a benchmark. We disagree on the issue of cost of a compiler. Despite what you say about company overheads, they are always reluctant to add to them. The facts speak for themselves and apps are not compiled with Intel's compiler most of the time.
I tend to agree this would have been more relevant. Despite the level playing field, what matters is the compiler and CPU combination that the apps use. I don't know what the outcome of such a test would have been.
That's an ebook, not the new display.
Didn't stop Trinitrons selling like popcorn, even now. I'm looking at my screen and realize that yup, it's a Sony tube, the lines are there. It's brand spankin new they're still selling and my company's still buying them. First time I've noticed it.
No, what's relevant is what compiler most applications are compiled with by their developers, or most specifically the one your applications are developed with. This will be the one most relevant to you w.r.t. estimating the performance of a processor.
What compiler does Microsoft compile Windows and Office with with for example? Intel's or theirs? I really don't know the answer to this but I suspect it is Visual Studio. Most 3rd party applications are compiled with Microsoft's compiler, not Intel's. Why? Because Intel charges a significant sum for their compiler, no IDE you need Visual Studio for that, want VTune? That's more again, all to give the users of Intel CPUs the performance benefit from your application that Intel has claimed they can realize based on benchmarks using a compiler they want to charge you for.
Well, not necessarily, this really depends on how good a job the compiler does at this. Intel's compiler might do a good job at optimizing for SSE2 but few others do. I heard that Intel released some back end compiler work to help with this but it's not in the compilers most people use yet AFAIK.
Large type operations are supported, even on some 32 bit chips. I doubt the loads & stores would be any different, but you might see a marginal win there (I doubt it).
This seems reasonable of Apple now. There are many applications compiled on Windows that don't use Intel's optimizing compiler. Indeed that's the norm, since most Windows developers use Microsoft's compilers that ship with Visual Studio and other x86 environments like Linux are dominated by gcc development. You have to buy Intel's compiler separately and add it to your development environment in most circumstances and it ain't cheap despite the obvious benefit getting better x86 optimized apps released has for Intel. The biggest difference AFAIK is Intel's good work in optimizing for their SIMD style instructions like SSE2, where their compiler does a much better job at parallelizing multiple serial operations into a single SSE op. The difference this makes to some code when comparing Intel's compiler to Microsoft's compiler on the same CPU can be dramatic, even 2X or more on specific benchmarks.
All in all I think this was a fair test of these CPUs, it was a level playing field. OTOH we know Intel can do much better with their compiler, but only some developers use their compiler. It would be interesting to see just how much of a benefit Apple could squeeze out of non gcc compilers, probably not as much as Intel, perhaps not anything, it depends on the work they or IBM et.al. have done on their compilers. You just know if it was to Apples advantage they'd have compiled with their best compiler and dont teh comparrison with those numbers vs Intel's so this situation has been contrived to an extent.
With Intel charging what they do for their compiler developers can be reluctant to pay extra for it, I expect almost everyone (on Windows) would use it if it were free. I know I would, but I can get by without it. I don't really have much sympathy for Intel here, they make billions of chipe, make significant performance claims based on their own compiler, yet charge for it to the point where many developers simply stick with Microsoft's compiler that they've already spend a fair bit on. Now Intel is upset that Apple used gcc, well more people might use Intel's compiler if it were easier to aquire, and clearly it would benefit Intel. If they want to run there business where everything is a profit center and they don't have to be smart enough to evaluate obvious but intangible benefits that's their business, but this is part of the price you pay for charging an arm and a leg for your compiler when you should be in the hardware business and giving your compiler away to help your customer gain the benefit of faster code from the applications they purchase. In the meantime specbench numbers for Intel are simply bogus for many applications.
Running in 32 bit vs 64 bit is not a performance issue, it is more to do with addressable space. If anything 64 bit mode would be slower if it has to go use 64 bit pointers etc, of course it doesn't do that anyway because that would require a recompile etc. what actually happens is even with a 64 bit OS 32 bit code is still run in 32 bit mode, and you'd see no performance difference. Just like SGI systems, where 32 bit executables have been running alongside 64 bit executable for years, and even then 64 bit executables are relatively rare for most users.
Can you try any harder to slashdot his site? I mean it's one thing to post a link to the relevant part of his site but a couple of links, one to the large scans of the original agreement we allready know about and don't need to see, why?
Jesse should get back in touch with his contacts in the press and try to revive the story. The mainstream ran the story about taking his life savings, they'll run another about the continued harassment.
Freedom can be taken away based on immoral, anti-social or illegal behavior. We just define what behaviour we find unacceptable, outlaw it and we are perfectly capable of selectively removing freedom. Not all behaviors are equal and some are downright detrimental to the common good. Let's not hogtie ourselves because we are unable to exercise any kind of rational discernment.
The freecraft project included the warcraft theme. Like I said they ditched the name and the warcraft derived content they'd have no issue with Blizzard. Sure come up with some variation on the theme that would do, but a blatant rip-off ain't going to give them a leg to stand on.
It's about whether Blizzard has rights to the Warcraft franchise they created. These people were trying to copy it, they copied everything, units, theme, layout, buildings, tech tree, the LOT, and made no secret of their attempt to copy Blizzard's game. Blizzard do innovate, despite the nonsense opined by you and others, Warcraft 3 is very different from it's predecessors. It is a very different game.
Your disagreement does not make my post troll. This project WAS an attempt to copy a game, they've stated this explicitly. Don't get revisionist now they've been asked to stop.
How is it moral to copy someone's work instead of doing your own?
You can't rip off other peoples games. Tough luck, Blizzard is not in the wrong here.
MOST freeware projects produce nothing of any value, especially those in the games genre. There are many exceptions, but everyone and their dog tries to write a game and most produce some real rubbish, or nothing at all. I don't donate to people who are experienced game developers, I do *purchase* their products and I have *donated* to some projects where I liked the *software produced*, but I'm just not into throwing money away. If I'm paying for something I'd rather everyone paid their fair share, there's a way to do this, it's called buying a commercial product.
We're frogetting one thing here, freecraft has been going for years, and it's still crap. Sorry, it just is, it looks worse than an unfinished early 1980s game. Moreover it is a straight attempt to copy someone else's game. You're NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. Don't you get it? You can't copy games, you have to write one based on your own ideas & content. Nobody can do this and a commercial developer would never have copied Blizzards game so blatantly because they know they'd have been sued.
Instead of flaming Blizzard you should be saying "Oh yea, we/they shouldn't have done that, what a waste of time, next time we'll write our OWN GAME". By all means write an RTS, any RTS, just DON'T copy one.
Look, they didn't just call themselves freecraft, they explicitly tried to copy warcraft while making a generic engine. This was an undisguised goal, they SAID this was their objective and have for years. When are people going to learn you just can't legally copy someone else's game wholesale like this, it doesn't matter how much of a fan you are.
As for only corporate interests being able to fight Blizzard off, corporate interests would NEVER have done this. Sure they may have similar games and concepts, but they have very different names, and they have very different content and even a few original ideas of their own.
Make your own engine, make your own name come up with your own scenarios/world/content. They didn't do at least two of these.
There's no need to kill freecraft. Simply ditch the current content and change the name, then come up with your own units etc, and no this doesn't just mean Blizzard's units with your bitmap. All this falling on your own sword is overly dramatic, it ain't Blizzards fault that you decided to copy their game.
No, this is not about writing code for company A and stealing it for use at company B, that IS UNACCEPTABLE, dude, it's theft because eh original company OWNS THAT CODE. NEWSFLASH, you're not allowed to take proprietary code with you when you leave a company. SCO is still wrong but your terrible analogy is the worst defense of IBM & Linux imaginable. This is about company B developing their own interesting code and then not being able to use THEIR OWN CODE in another of their systems because they wrote it to work with code from company A, despite the fact that company A has already released their original code. This is just one of several ludicrous claims SCO is trying to make.
1) He's not violating the NDA.
2) SCO can't send anyone to jail, that would be kidnapping and false imprisonment.
IANAL either, but no, there is no issue.
Brilliant, the only really funny 'funny' post I've read in a while. There's probably a /. funny guage in there somewhere.
LOL, excellent, wasted around here, but excellent.
The annoying thing about that Livermore plant is they're always putting new fans up (of varying design) and there are always scores of them sitting doing nothing (not turning). Now I'd have expected that it would make sense once you make the investment to keep the props turning, but apparently not. I think there's more than meets the eye to the economics of running these facilities. Most of the generators seem bust or at least are rarely running. There is continual installation of generation equipment and apparently it still doesn't make sense to keep the generation capacity you already have running in preference to more cost effective systems elsewhere. There's something very wrong with this picture.
Now someone wants to build a load of them off a famously picturesque part of the East coast, I'm all for dumping this in the back yard of the most vocal proponents of the junk science eco garbage the media foists on us all but, is the state obliged to buy his electricity even if he can't make it economically? Is he just doing this to watch the folks in this notoriously elitist area squirm as they yell NIMBY? Deliberate or not it makes great sport.