It would be extremely interesting if someone had read it, particularly if it contained factual errors or obvious misinformation. It would also be interesting to know in what ways he has worked with or for Microsoft in the past.
I'm not surprised at the presence of such an obviously prejudicial statement on slashdot. But it's concerning when the prejudice starts in the introductory write-up... but then, maybe I'm reading into things.
It could've been written like so:
It would be extremely interesting if someone had read it, particularly if it contained balanced arguments or accurate comparisons between linux and windows. It would also be interesting to know in what ways he has has contributed to the (FL)OSS effort.
If you are not doing that kind of project, feel free to ignore them
I'm comparing oranges to oranges. They're comparing apples to apples. I have no interest in apples; that's my point, which I think you missed. Having a whole fruit basket of API's to work with is sweet, but too much sugar gives you diabetes and makes you fat. Sorry, got a bit carried away with my metaphor.
But just because you don't need these projects doesn't mean I don't need them (I do)
I'm not saying these projects aren't useful to anyone. I'm not saying you don't need them. I am saying that the presentation and integration of these enterprise extensions as a part of the standard language is not beneficial to Java's perceived suitability for everyday programming work.
those who stick around (ie. don't switch to.NET) will watch frameworks like Spring rise from its ashes to take its place
I lost track of the number of frameworks that came up promising "an easier way" to develop X or Y for Java. As much as I'd like to stick around to support something non-MS, which I know could be good if not better, I don't know as yet how long Spring will last.
I used to promote Java as "the tool" for development, but after 2 1/2 years of not being able to justify the use of my formerly favourite language in a single commercial project, I can only sigh. The biggest stumbling blocks have been the getting effective tools and the limiting the overhead and complexity of any potential implementation. The current Java SDK's are not intuitive. I loop hopefully to 1.5 and Eclipse for evolution in the right direction, but Java right now feels like a colossal waste of my paid time. It's partly because of things like this (line from the article):
Unlike EJB CMP CMR and like JDO, Hibernate can work inside of or outside of a J2EE container, which is a boon for those of us doing TDD and agile development.
Acronym hell. Java used to be pretty easy to understand. There was Swing, there was AWT, there was the language and the development environment was concise. Not all of it was good, but I knew where I stood. Right now I know that 4 of those 6 acronyms aren't relevant to my work as a programmer. And none of them relate to Java as a language. People talk about ATL, STL, MFC and whatnot, but C++ the language has endured as a language independent of its modules. Love it or hate it, it's a language that deserves respect for this endurance. Right now I can't say that for Java. Whatever happened to plain Java?
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but me "getting it" is what's the deciding factor in my choice of tools, since I have to get it to do my work. I get.NET; there's the language (C#,VB,C++,WinForms, all.NET) and there's the tool (Visual Studio, maybe Mono). I know for a fact I can write code using VS that can compile on linux with the minimum of modification. I also know which modules lock me to windows (VB.NET, Winforms) and which ones don't (maybe C# if Mono succeeds, Strict C++ saves the day for portability). I learnt this from documentation, research and testing by my own hand. I've researched Java, kept informed of it, but all I see now is a concoction of marketing hype and a bad case of constant scope creep. Another quote:
The starting point is an enterprise application for which you are implementing a transactional persistence layer.
Overkill! I'm sorry, my customers aren't going to spend the money buying our software when they need to install an entirely new infrastructure to support it. The margins aren't that high in my industry. Besides, why do I need yet another framework? What was wrong with the old one? If the old one was so bad it had to be replaced, why promote it in the first place? I don't care about an implementation of the newest development methodology. I care about development cost, infrastructure, what customers will put up with, and what I can support without costing me a fortune in time, effort and understanding.
This article showed me nothing that gives me any clue to how useful this is really going to be "in the field". I think I'll just go hibernate until Java springs into action...
The first thing I go for in any game, console or otherwise is the key bindings. It's standard on PC games, but some console games still don't have customizable buttons. The bare minimum is a decent set of predefined layouts like Halo.
My standard layout when using Keyboard+mouse is the numpad. I much prefer it over any combination of WASD since any mapped key is far more logically layed out. (trying hitting "2" from "W" blind quickly and see how many "3" 's show up). Lets take morrowind for example, which has 3 walking speeds:
Draw weapon = 7
Walk forward= 8
Draw Spell = 9
strafe left/right = 4,6
Walk backward = 2
Walk Toggle =./del
Sneak = mouse button 5 (far right on mine) + [walk forward]
... and an assortment of actions around the top/right for different actions.
I've got about 7-10 buttons in reach to perform actions with, all without moving my hand. Combine that without mouse action and it beats any controller layout you could ever have.
In Halo, I have "Boxer" layout. Gotta love the thwack when you hit someone in the head... Beats a grenade any day for close combat. If you're far enough away where a grenade's useful you don't need to rush it. But that's IMO.
What I'm trying to say is: PC games usually have more options than console games , partly because the method of input allows for more variety. More variety is not necessarily a good thing, especially when reflex pressing is an issue. But the flexibility of key mapping means that if you're not happy with the default, change it. With controllers you can't make major changes. A button here a function there and that's it.
Having said that it, I like the simplicity of the Gamecube controller, since you can pick it up and play without too much fear of pressing the wrong button. setting up Halo requires a few quick trips in and out of a game for new people to feel happy with their setup.
The realists (and just about everyone but the most hardcore bleeding-hearts) will consider it good riddance
Based on your statements in this thread you don't seem to have any level of "bleeding heart", so I'd contest your authority to declare what such a person would consider. I also wonder about your definition of "realist". A realist, from my understanding would not have the amount of animosity inferrable from "good riddance". A realist would more likely be more tolerant to both the presence of these acts and the manner of their resolution. Personally, I'd say far too many cynics think they're being realistic. But then seeing the honest reality tends to make people cynical, so it's a bit of a vicious circle there...
When I say we'd do better off letting them kill one another, I say so because of compassion for my fellow humans, not out of a lack thereof.
What makes those involved in the violence any less a fellow human than your family and friends? Compassion shouldn't be limited to those you care about, since those relationships revolve around other human qualities. Proper compassion involves exactly those who you would otherwise ignore, detest or disassociate yourself with. A compassionate act requires involvement, when not acting is worse in an ethical and/or emotional sense. Not doing something is more easily described as apathetic than compassionate. As such, you're really being apathetic, while trying to convince yourself it's compassion.
Do we eat crow now? Or should we feed them to the crows? E3 has a longstanding history of showcasing current and future vaporware. I'm still not convinced. Hey who knows! Maybe we'll get a double-whammy and see Duke Nukem Forever running on a phantom console!
In my eyes you never had credibility in the first place (being AC and all), but then I'm replying so something you wrote must've made sense.
I can go down to my local supermarket and pick up a DVD-R AND a DVD+R in either single of 5-packs. Standard supermarket "people who buy this really have no clue about tech prices" markup applies, but still... I can get one until 12am if I really need to.
I have to agree with my parent though; There's no point buying more space at a lower cost per MB if you're not going to use it.
There are ways to maximize storage, though. Incremental backups on a single CD, until it fills up, for example. I don't personally like that approach since it puts too many eggs in one basket. It also increases the potential for faulty reads on other DVD readers. heck, I still have trouble getting my multi-session CD-R's to read on all of my CD-ROMS!
I wouldn't equate a firewall with "immunity" to virii or worms. I'd equate it more to living in a bubble or better yet, a jail cell. Things get smuggled into jails all the time and jails are designed to restrict the movement of people, not necessarily of related objects.
You could smuggle in letters or mobile phones through the assistance of either the restricted passing through, or the restrictor letting through.
But you can't smuggle in a virus if everyone's immune. Service packs and patches give immunity where there was susceptability before. Firewalls merely contain the susceptability and reduce the chance of contaminiation. But not to absolute zero.
Force push, if you have it, is an extremely effective defense against anything thrown at you in JK2. It's funny to see it blow up right at the thrower's feet too.
I laugh at myself when I make an assumption like "I found a bug in the AI" or "this makes my invincible" as it would be with the saber if I assumed it blocked _everything_ and it's then purposely countered by something as obvious as a grenade.. especially when there are other methods available. The game is then not reduced to "use uber-weapon to kill baddie" when faced with anything. I'm not saying they should punish you constantly, but rubbing it in the first time is definately entertainment in my book. Using the "Guess again" style is not necessarily an indicator of flawed design. Good games do it well. Bad games do it poorly.
By encrypting your data, you are bringing unnecessary suspicion upon yourself
Encryption inhibits surveillance by ANYONE. That the government falls under the category of anyone is secondary to most encryption desires and uses.
If someone was attempting avoidence/prevention of potential government investigation, then the act of encrypting wouldn't make it more or less likely. They make use of encryption because they have some information they don't want the government to know. It's not because they use encryption but due to any relevant knowledge they have, that a person should ellicit investigation by their government. And then knowledge pertaining only to those things that governments should worry about (murder, fraud, and other criminal acts).
So by encrypting the code on my laptop as a security precaution, you're saying I bring unnecessary suspicion upon myself? Noone but my company and its business competitors has an interest in the trade secrets I manage and create during the course of my business. Therefore I use encryption as a means of self-defense. I inhibit investigation by those not authorized by me or my company. The act of investigation could very well be illegal. I would not give my government blanket access to my trade secrets, when I have no control over what they do with them. They should have no interest in them. in fact, by wanting to enhance surveillance of those things which they declare to not have an interest in and would normally have no involvement in is suspicious in itself. Encryption is a tool and is about as dangerous as a screwdriver.
Can't he talk about anything other than people's comments on Microsoft Technologies? I swear he must be a zealot.
I got as much information about Novell and the linux desktop than I did on microsoft and mono. It's a short but interesting interview. I'd hoped it spanned more than a single page, but despite only consisting of a few questions the answers are relatively in depth.
I do not see contests like this as a true measure of "a good programmer"
well, you'd be right. It's a test of languages and speed. I don't think that the best programmers will win. This a speed test, pure and simple. And the ability to code quickly is a good skill when combined with the ability to write maintainable code and with initial comprehension of the problem.
I could probably code a problem given to me in C++, Java, VB, C#, LISP or *shivers* some basic scripting languages, but really there are two aspects to me doing the job properly and on time: initial comprehension of the problem and initial comprehension of the language I'd work in. If everyone is given the same problem, then it could be a test of progammer skill but probably wouldn't if there weren't any restrictions. Set limits on time (or maintenance or language) and then you get a reasonable measure of programmer proficiency in a specific area.
I think this contest is based on the assumptions that all languages are equal (but the ICFP 'secretly' thinks functional languages are better) AND that the fastest programmer in one language is roughly equal to the fastest programmer in another. Given those two assumptions, I'd be very interested to see who manages to get things done quicker and by how much.
Judging from the fact the info page in the indexing service applies to professional and server editions of windows and the fact there's an SDK for the indexing service, I'd say that it's not intended for your average everyday use. It seems to be a different to unix locate (if I glean correctly from the other posts), because it's an idling process, rather than a scheduled job.
I usually turn it off, since files I'm looking for are rarely indexed when I'm looking for them.
That's right. What assurances do we have it will work in my environment? MS provides (soundly or otherwise) a measure of assurance to users in driver testing and assurance to manufacturers in a single (but often flawed) API design. Where are these assurances in linux? How many printing API's are there for linux, complete or otherwise? Which organization tells manufacturers "We strongly recommend this API for this kind of work on linux"? Which organization with authority assures me the drivers can work so I don't have to?
The question "will it work" is not just a technical one. it's a simplicity one. I don't want to waste my time (because that's what I'd be doing) trying to understand the concept of CUPS printing web servers in order to print a test page. I just want to use the bloody thing and not have to care how it works in every intricate detail. Me-programmer wants to know that stuff. but Me-Consumer couldn't give a stuff.
We have all seen badly written drivers fail, and if it comes from some lousy cheapo hardware manufacturer somewhere in the middle of nowhere, you are equally fucked with Windows.
Yep. so with equally you're implying that there's no advantage either way. There's no excuse for poorly written drivers on any platform. they're a pain to deal with. There will always OEM's who don't care about useability. But without a proper procedure to judge them on, how do we determine who is doing it right?
We all know there are rightways to install a driver in windows. There's a finite number and Once you know it for one device you can apply this knowledge to other devices without a lot of hassle. There are of course an infinite number of wrong ones. How many right ways are there to install a driver on linux? There's more sites on linux installations than I can link to. Most of them are manufacturers for their own products, but I couldn't find a meta-document on driver installation methods like I found with the MS links. Who knows if one method is remotely the same as another on linux? Things aren't as easy to do right in linux as in windows.
For many people it has. I have some old scanners which still work for my needs. I can't get them to work with XP because no driver has ever been written for them (other than W95/98/NT4). They work perfectly with Linux.
That's commendable that it works with linux. Was there a driver for linux when it came out? I assume it's a 3rd party driver written by others. Why aren't there drivers for older equipment in the first place? Because rewriting the driver for an 'obsolete' product (in a manufacturer's opinion) is often not worth the investment. It's a business decision more than a technical one. It's the same business decision which determines whether writing a linux driver is worth the investment. What return does a manufcacturer have?
The problem is with hardware manufacturers and not necessarily Open Source developers or distro vendors.
It's a communal and rather circular problem. Poor drivers are a manufacturer's problem. A difficult (non-static) API is an Open Source problem. Manufacturers hate developing towards moving targets. Lack of assurance is a distribution problem. MS solved the assurance and the API side of it, leaving driver problems firmly in the hand of manufacturers. Who in Open Source will drive it forward, so I can look at the box on my peripheral of choice and say with assurance: "This will work out of the box".
I think going to 9 different distros hoping one would have the driver is ridiculous.
I know a lot more about linux than my mother and I think I know how and where to look for information. I'd have more difficulty figuring out the compatibility of hardware on linux than I would on windows. When I can't find a compatibility information for windows for some arcane webcam a friend owns, I fault the manufacturer for not supplying adequate information. But I would be able to say from their website that the webcam would work with what the manufacturer supplies with its product, because I've been able to before with many other products. All the relevant information I get is from a single, logical site. The MS site doesn't come into it, because the power of MS has pretty much ensured that manufacturers tell us whether and how they're compatible.
Check it's supported before you buy.
If the webcam was brand new, I would look at the box. If there's an XP logo I know it will work, without a doubt. No testing required. No searching required. Me not being the shopping type, I find the box info on the product page. I expect it there and it is in almost all cases.
Some manufacturers don't support their products well at all, then I'm down to OEM hunting or mailing them a complaint; again no MS involvement. Manufacturer's fault. I wouldn't expect my mother to know what OEM stands for, let alone know how to find it. I steer her away from habitually getting poorly supported products, because she's about 20,000km away from me. She's constantly on the lookout for a techie in her area to help her when she gets something unsupported... (but that's another story).
Lets take a look at a webcam driver for linux. First place I'd look: the manufacturer's site. beforehand I might sift through the CD that it came with in some vague hope. In most cases it will be no more than one drivers if anything. Often there won't be any support or information pages on compatibility (let alone useability). Where to now? I don't instinctively fault the manufacturer for not having it. Why? Because for I'm not really expecting a driver from them. Who's forcing them to? Why would they bother? I now must go to google and from there to the webcam linux module site(s) and a myriad of messageboards, newsgroups and howto pages. I don't expect an answer from anywhere that doesn't include "you'll need to recompile your kernel" by someone in jest or otherwise or something along the lines of "we haven't been able to test this yet, but it works with XYZ, so it should work with your device".
There's no single way of dealing with peripheral support on linux. There is on windows. MS made sure of that. Who's making sure that people can expect without chance that a driver exists for linux when they get something out of the box?
Wow, one piece of hardware isn't supported.. It's a shame, but shit happens..
It's not simply one piece. You've got blinders on if you don't see the bigger picture. A printer here, a sound card there are just the tip of the iceberg. Take any random less-prevalent USB device. Can you say by only checking the manufacturer's site if it will work on linux?
Yes all hardware supports Windows, but that's hardly an achievement by Windows, it just shows off the power of monopoly.
Power brings with it the ability to have an impact and achieve something. I wish linux had the power to achieve half the of the things MS has in the peripherals market.
I'm just wondering how many non-australians are going to bother to read the interview? Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I notice that slashdot has a tendency to ignore non-US oriented topics unless they impact the US directly.
Composers are the architects of systems, understanding the ebb and flow of musical intonation, repetition and variation across dozens of instruments. How many composers can play every instrument in an orchestra on par? How many would be able to recognize an instrument by its sound alone?
Conductors and orchestra members are the programmers, adjusting the notes and delivering the music in their intepretation of what they read. How many orchestras compose sheet music as their primary act/art? How many of those with experience in an orchestra might go on to compose?
Being a programmer and a piano player, I see many similarities between music and programming, in both the art and the "artists". Someone who has played an instrument for 12 years may not have progressed past the stage of memorizing sequences of notes, yet another who's studied for only 2 or 5, might be able to play anything heard but once, or create something that noone has heard before.
You can distinguish an amateur from a professional in the way they play and they way they code. But you might not be able to pick out the gifted composer or architect so easily. Code monkeys might work best in an 'orchestrated' environment (if you'll excuse the pun). But only the best can be successful conductors. Not everyone wants to take on the responsibility that accompanies the job, though.
it gets rid of camping because the MOBs come to you
... so you're saying camping will be eliminated by eliminating the need for people to move from their position and hunt zombies? if the zombies come to you, won't you want to camp in groups if killing zombies gets you anything?
Since it seems the definition of "metagaming" is as loose as a 4 year old's shoelaces, I thought I'd offer up a few examples from my gaming experience.
The earliest memory I have of somethin metagamish, is probably Playing the mini-games in System Shock. They were really a game in a game, since you had to have a physical game pad to upload the games to. And in the games themselves, which showed up in one of the left or right screens, you battled against SHODAN and she had all the insanely high scores... When I first found them, I was wondering whether it was pre-cogniscient or cogniscient SHODAN I was playing against. A nice diversion from the game.
A more recent example is something that was mentioned in another post: Character response to player (in-)activity. I've noticed in a couple of games. Prince of Persia has a really good one, which doesn't break the atmosphere or the premise of the story.. "shall I go on?"
There's commander keen, of course (which I know is older than system shock....) who read a book and fell asleep and did stuff, if you left him in the middle of a level. Sonic, I think did it too. It's most common in scrollers, since the premise is frequently simple enough that you can get away with breaking the game world conventions like that.
More and more game NPC's comment on their own world, often reflecting on the absurdity or irrationality of game constructs. I recall a morrowind NPC worrying about the fact noone goes to sleep at night. That's interesting considering there was a sleep cycle in Daggerfall.
More and more games have this habit, as the worlds they create become more complex, yet with obvious limitations. It's a measure of the sophistication of gamers and developers, that limitations are not only accepted, but deliberatly pointed out.
My problem is not with the explanation, but its accompanying insult. Yes, we're constantly illuminated to the fact slashdot's US-centric and the majority of readers are based in the US, but I don't see why others (in the minority or otherwise) need to be mocked for inquiring about something which occurs in the US outside of their daily stream of information.
Netflix is US-only as is iTunes for the most part, but business practices have a habit of being copied and adapted to other markets. I'm quite interested to see how the digital delivery pans out, despite the fact I won't have the opportunity to try it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not expecting 'fair and balanced', but then this being an advocacy site, that must mean I can advocate it, right?
You should see the note on my info page... I wrote it when I first joined.
I'm not surprised at the presence of such an obviously prejudicial statement on slashdot. But it's concerning when the prejudice starts in the introductory write-up... but then, maybe I'm reading into things.
It could've been written like so:
It would be extremely interesting if someone had read it, particularly if it contained balanced arguments or accurate comparisons between linux and windows. It would also be interesting to know in what ways he has has contributed to the (FL)OSS effort.
I'm comparing oranges to oranges. They're comparing apples to apples. I have no interest in apples; that's my point, which I think you missed. Having a whole fruit basket of API's to work with is sweet, but too much sugar gives you diabetes and makes you fat.
Sorry, got a bit carried away with my metaphor.
But just because you don't need these projects doesn't mean I don't need them (I do)
I'm not saying these projects aren't useful to anyone. I'm not saying you don't need them. I am saying that the presentation and integration of these enterprise extensions as a part of the standard language is not beneficial to Java's perceived suitability for everyday programming work.
I lost track of the number of frameworks that came up promising "an easier way" to develop X or Y for Java. As much as I'd like to stick around to support something non-MS, which I know could be good if not better, I don't know as yet how long Spring will last.
Unlike EJB CMP CMR and like JDO, Hibernate can work inside of or outside of a J2EE container, which is a boon for those of us doing TDD and agile development.
Acronym hell. Java used to be pretty easy to understand. There was Swing, there was AWT, there was the language and the development environment was concise. Not all of it was good, but I knew where I stood. Right now I know that 4 of those 6 acronyms aren't relevant to my work as a programmer. And none of them relate to Java as a language. People talk about ATL, STL, MFC and whatnot, but C++ the language has endured as a language independent of its modules. Love it or hate it, it's a language that deserves respect for this endurance. Right now I can't say that for Java. Whatever happened to plain Java?
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but me "getting it" is what's the deciding factor in my choice of tools, since I have to get it to do my work. I get .NET; there's the language (C#,VB,C++,WinForms, all .NET) and there's the tool (Visual Studio, maybe Mono). I know for a fact I can write code using VS that can compile on linux with the minimum of modification. I also know which modules lock me to windows (VB.NET, Winforms) and which ones don't (maybe C# if Mono succeeds, Strict C++ saves the day for portability). I learnt this from documentation, research and testing by my own hand. I've researched Java, kept informed of it, but all I see now is a concoction of marketing hype and a bad case of constant scope creep. Another quote:
The starting point is an enterprise application for which you are implementing a transactional persistence layer.
Overkill! I'm sorry, my customers aren't going to spend the money buying our software when they need to install an entirely new infrastructure to support it. The margins aren't that high in my industry. Besides, why do I need yet another framework? What was wrong with the old one? If the old one was so bad it had to be replaced, why promote it in the first place? I don't care about an implementation of the newest development methodology. I care about development cost, infrastructure, what customers will put up with, and what I can support without costing me a fortune in time, effort and understanding.
This article showed me nothing that gives me any clue to how useful this is really going to be "in the field". I think I'll just go hibernate until Java springs into action...
My standard layout when using Keyboard+mouse is the numpad. I much prefer it over any combination of WASD since any mapped key is far more logically layed out. (trying hitting "2" from "W" blind quickly and see how many "3" 's show up). Lets take morrowind for example, which has 3 walking speeds:
- Draw weapon = 7
- Walk forward= 8
- Draw Spell = 9
- strafe left/right = 4,6
- Walk backward = 2
- Walk Toggle =
./del
- Sneak = mouse button 5 (far right on mine) + [walk forward]
- ... and an assortment of actions around the top/right for different actions.
I've got about 7-10 buttons in reach to perform actions with, all without moving my hand. Combine that without mouse action and it beats any controller layout you could ever have.In Halo, I have "Boxer" layout. Gotta love the thwack when you hit someone in the head... Beats a grenade any day for close combat. If you're far enough away where a grenade's useful you don't need to rush it. But that's IMO.
What I'm trying to say is: PC games usually have more options than console games , partly because the method of input allows for more variety. More variety is not necessarily a good thing, especially when reflex pressing is an issue. But the flexibility of key mapping means that if you're not happy with the default, change it. With controllers you can't make major changes. A button here a function there and that's it.
Having said that it, I like the simplicity of the Gamecube controller, since you can pick it up and play without too much fear of pressing the wrong button. setting up Halo requires a few quick trips in and out of a game for new people to feel happy with their setup.
The realists (and just about everyone but the most hardcore bleeding-hearts) will consider it good riddance
Based on your statements in this thread you don't seem to have any level of "bleeding heart", so I'd contest your authority to declare what such a person would consider. I also wonder about your definition of "realist". A realist, from my understanding would not have the amount of animosity inferrable from "good riddance". A realist would more likely be more tolerant to both the presence of these acts and the manner of their resolution. Personally, I'd say far too many cynics think they're being realistic. But then seeing the honest reality tends to make people cynical, so it's a bit of a vicious circle there...
When I say we'd do better off letting them kill one another, I say so because of compassion for my fellow humans, not out of a lack thereof.
What makes those involved in the violence any less a fellow human than your family and friends? Compassion shouldn't be limited to those you care about, since those relationships revolve around other human qualities. Proper compassion involves exactly those who you would otherwise ignore, detest or disassociate yourself with. A compassionate act requires involvement, when not acting is worse in an ethical and/or emotional sense. Not doing something is more easily described as apathetic than compassionate. As such, you're really being apathetic, while trying to convince yourself it's compassion.
-----
DON'T PANIC
-----
on the cover. So much more comforting...
I must admit though, wikipedia definately gives the guide a run for its money!
I can go down to my local supermarket and pick up a DVD-R AND a DVD+R in either single of 5-packs. Standard supermarket "people who buy this really have no clue about tech prices" markup applies, but still... I can get one until 12am if I really need to.
I have to agree with my parent though; There's no point buying more space at a lower cost per MB if you're not going to use it.
There are ways to maximize storage, though. Incremental backups on a single CD, until it fills up, for example. I don't personally like that approach since it puts too many eggs in one basket. It also increases the potential for faulty reads on other DVD readers. heck, I still have trouble getting my multi-session CD-R's to read on all of my CD-ROMS!
You could smuggle in letters or mobile phones through the assistance of either the restricted passing through, or the restrictor letting through.
But you can't smuggle in a virus if everyone's immune. Service packs and patches give immunity where there was susceptability before. Firewalls merely contain the susceptability and reduce the chance of contaminiation. But not to absolute zero.
I laugh at myself when I make an assumption like "I found a bug in the AI" or "this makes my invincible" as it would be with the saber if I assumed it blocked _everything_ and it's then purposely countered by something as obvious as a grenade.. especially when there are other methods available. The game is then not reduced to "use uber-weapon to kill baddie" when faced with anything. I'm not saying they should punish you constantly, but rubbing it in the first time is definately entertainment in my book. Using the "Guess again" style is not necessarily an indicator of flawed design. Good games do it well. Bad games do it poorly.
Encryption inhibits surveillance by ANYONE. That the government falls under the category of anyone is secondary to most encryption desires and uses.
If someone was attempting avoidence/prevention of potential government investigation, then the act of encrypting wouldn't make it more or less likely. They make use of encryption because they have some information they don't want the government to know. It's not because they use encryption but due to any relevant knowledge they have, that a person should ellicit investigation by their government. And then knowledge pertaining only to those things that governments should worry about (murder, fraud, and other criminal acts).
So by encrypting the code on my laptop as a security precaution, you're saying I bring unnecessary suspicion upon myself? Noone but my company and its business competitors has an interest in the trade secrets I manage and create during the course of my business. Therefore I use encryption as a means of self-defense. I inhibit investigation by those not authorized by me or my company. The act of investigation could very well be illegal. I would not give my government blanket access to my trade secrets, when I have no control over what they do with them. They should have no interest in them. in fact, by wanting to enhance surveillance of those things which they declare to not have an interest in and would normally have no involvement in is suspicious in itself. Encryption is a tool and is about as dangerous as a screwdriver.
I got as much information about Novell and the linux desktop than I did on microsoft and mono. It's a short but interesting interview. I'd hoped it spanned more than a single page, but despite only consisting of a few questions the answers are relatively in depth.
well, you'd be right. It's a test of languages and speed. I don't think that the best programmers will win. This a speed test, pure and simple. And the ability to code quickly is a good skill when combined with the ability to write maintainable code and with initial comprehension of the problem.
I could probably code a problem given to me in C++, Java, VB, C#, LISP or *shivers* some basic scripting languages, but really there are two aspects to me doing the job properly and on time: initial comprehension of the problem and initial comprehension of the language I'd work in. If everyone is given the same problem, then it could be a test of progammer skill but probably wouldn't if there weren't any restrictions. Set limits on time (or maintenance or language) and then you get a reasonable measure of programmer proficiency in a specific area.
I think this contest is based on the assumptions that all languages are equal (but the ICFP 'secretly' thinks functional languages are better) AND that the fastest programmer in one language is roughly equal to the fastest programmer in another. Given those two assumptions, I'd be very interested to see who manages to get things done quicker and by how much.
irony, maybe?
I usually turn it off, since files I'm looking for are rarely indexed when I'm looking for them.
That's right. What assurances do we have it will work in my environment? MS provides (soundly or otherwise) a measure of assurance to users in driver testing and assurance to manufacturers in a single (but often flawed) API design. Where are these assurances in linux?
How many printing API's are there for linux, complete or otherwise? Which organization tells manufacturers "We strongly recommend this API for this kind of work on linux"? Which organization with authority assures me the drivers can work so I don't have to?
The question "will it work" is not just a technical one. it's a simplicity one. I don't want to waste my time (because that's what I'd be doing) trying to understand the concept of CUPS printing web servers in order to print a test page. I just want to use the bloody thing and not have to care how it works in every intricate detail. Me-programmer wants to know that stuff. but Me-Consumer couldn't give a stuff.
We have all seen badly written drivers fail, and if it comes from some lousy cheapo hardware manufacturer somewhere in the middle of nowhere, you are equally fucked with Windows.
Yep. so with equally you're implying that there's no advantage either way. There's no excuse for poorly written drivers on any platform. they're a pain to deal with. There will always OEM's who don't care about useability. But without a proper procedure to judge them on, how do we determine who is doing it right?
We all know there are right ways to install a driver in windows. There's a finite number and Once you know it for one device you can apply this knowledge to other devices without a lot of hassle. There are of course an infinite number of wrong ones.
How many right ways are there to install a driver on linux? There's more sites on linux installations than I can link to. Most of them are manufacturers for their own products, but I couldn't find a meta-document on driver installation methods like I found with the MS links. Who knows if one method is remotely the same as another on linux? Things aren't as easy to do right in linux as in windows.
For many people it has. I have some old scanners which still work for my needs. I can't get them to work with XP because no driver has ever been written for them (other than W95/98/NT4). They work perfectly with Linux.
That's commendable that it works with linux. Was there a driver for linux when it came out? I assume it's a 3rd party driver written by others. Why aren't there drivers for older equipment in the first place? Because rewriting the driver for an 'obsolete' product (in a manufacturer's opinion) is often not worth the investment. It's a business decision more than a technical one. It's the same business decision which determines whether writing a linux driver is worth the investment. What return does a manufcacturer have?
The problem is with hardware manufacturers and not necessarily Open Source developers or distro vendors.
It's a communal and rather circular problem. Poor drivers are a manufacturer's problem. A difficult (non-static) API is an Open Source problem. Manufacturers hate developing towards moving targets. Lack of assurance is a distribution problem. MS solved the assurance and the API side of it, leaving driver problems firmly in the hand of manufacturers. Who in Open Source will drive it forward, so I can look at the box on my peripheral of choice and say with assurance: "This will work out of the box".
I know a lot more about linux than my mother and I think I know how and where to look for information. I'd have more difficulty figuring out the compatibility of hardware on linux than I would on windows. When I can't find a compatibility information for windows for some arcane webcam a friend owns, I fault the manufacturer for not supplying adequate information. But I would be able to say from their website that the webcam would work with what the manufacturer supplies with its product, because I've been able to before with many other products. All the relevant information I get is from a single, logical site. The MS site doesn't come into it, because the power of MS has pretty much ensured that manufacturers tell us whether and how they're compatible.
Check it's supported before you buy.
If the webcam was brand new, I would look at the box. If there's an XP logo I know it will work, without a doubt. No testing required. No searching required. Me not being the shopping type, I find the box info on the product page. I expect it there and it is in almost all cases.
Some manufacturers don't support their products well at all, then I'm down to OEM hunting or mailing them a complaint; again no MS involvement. Manufacturer's fault. I wouldn't expect my mother to know what OEM stands for, let alone know how to find it. I steer her away from habitually getting poorly supported products, because she's about 20,000km away from me. She's constantly on the lookout for a techie in her area to help her when she gets something unsupported... (but that's another story).
Lets take a look at a webcam driver for linux. First place I'd look: the manufacturer's site. beforehand I might sift through the CD that it came with in some vague hope. In most cases it will be no more than one drivers if anything. Often there won't be any support or information pages on compatibility (let alone useability). Where to now? I don't instinctively fault the manufacturer for not having it. Why? Because for I'm not really expecting a driver from them. Who's forcing them to? Why would they bother?
I now must go to google and from there to the webcam linux module site(s) and a myriad of messageboards, newsgroups and howto pages. I don't expect an answer from anywhere that doesn't include "you'll need to recompile your kernel" by someone in jest or otherwise or something along the lines of "we haven't been able to test this yet, but it works with XYZ, so it should work with your device".
There's no single way of dealing with peripheral support on linux. There is on windows. MS made sure of that. Who's making sure that people can expect without chance that a driver exists for linux when they get something out of the box?
Wow, one piece of hardware isn't supported.. It's a shame, but shit happens..
It's not simply one piece. You've got blinders on if you don't see the bigger picture. A printer here, a sound card there are just the tip of the iceberg. Take any random less-prevalent USB device. Can you say by only checking the manufacturer's site if it will work on linux?
Yes all hardware supports Windows, but that's hardly an achievement by Windows, it just shows off the power of monopoly.
Power brings with it the ability to have an impact and achieve something. I wish linux had the power to achieve half the of the things MS has in the peripherals market.
I'm just wondering how many non-australians are going to bother to read the interview? Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I notice that slashdot has a tendency to ignore non-US oriented topics unless they impact the US directly.
Conductors and orchestra members are the programmers, adjusting the notes and delivering the music in their intepretation of what they read. How many orchestras compose sheet music as their primary act/art? How many of those with experience in an orchestra might go on to compose?
Being a programmer and a piano player, I see many similarities between music and programming, in both the art and the "artists". Someone who has played an instrument for 12 years may not have progressed past the stage of memorizing sequences of notes, yet another who's studied for only 2 or 5, might be able to play anything heard but once, or create something that noone has heard before.
You can distinguish an amateur from a professional in the way they play and they way they code. But you might not be able to pick out the gifted composer or architect so easily. Code monkeys might work best in an 'orchestrated' environment (if you'll excuse the pun). But only the best can be successful conductors. Not everyone wants to take on the responsibility that accompanies the job, though.
I can imagine the scenario already:
"Why are you sifting through the A/C filter?"
"I sneezed while I was doing my mini-jigsaw.."
The earliest memory I have of somethin metagamish, is probably Playing the mini-games in System Shock. They were really a game in a game, since you had to have a physical game pad to upload the games to. And in the games themselves, which showed up in one of the left or right screens, you battled against SHODAN and she had all the insanely high scores... When I first found them, I was wondering whether it was pre-cogniscient or cogniscient SHODAN I was playing against. A nice diversion from the game.
A more recent example is something that was mentioned in another post: Character response to player (in-)activity. I've noticed in a couple of games. Prince of Persia has a really good one, which doesn't break the atmosphere or the premise of the story.. "shall I go on?"
There's commander keen, of course (which I know is older than system shock....) who read a book and fell asleep and did stuff, if you left him in the middle of a level. Sonic, I think did it too. It's most common in scrollers, since the premise is frequently simple enough that you can get away with breaking the game world conventions like that.
More and more game NPC's comment on their own world, often reflecting on the absurdity or irrationality of game constructs. I recall a morrowind NPC worrying about the fact noone goes to sleep at night. That's interesting considering there was a sleep cycle in Daggerfall.
More and more games have this habit, as the worlds they create become more complex, yet with obvious limitations. It's a measure of the sophistication of gamers and developers, that limitations are not only accepted, but deliberatly pointed out.
Netflix is US-only as is iTunes for the most part, but business practices have a habit of being copied and adapted to other markets. I'm quite interested to see how the digital delivery pans out, despite the fact I won't have the opportunity to try it out.