I don't know, because then it would still imply that the whole experiment was following someone's intention. I think part of the creepiness is the idea that the whole thing is some AI running amok, continuing a project that is essentially long-dead, but the AI isn't quite aware enough to figure out that it was supposed to stop what it was doing.
It's kind of a long-running theme in science fiction dealing with artificial intelligence-- the idea that AI could be smart enough to take over running things (against the desire of people) and continue trying to fulfill its purpose, but not smart enough to understand that the purpose of its purpose is to benefit people (who have probably been killed by the time this sad realization sinks in).
Having the whole setup be orchestrated by the G-Man would have ruined it.
Geeze, you know, I'm not in favor of Windows. I'm not claiming that Windows is better than anything else or even good. I'm just saying that some people don't have a choice. And often, the reason they don't have a choice isn't even because Windows does anything particularly better than the other options, but instead because Microsoft has gone through a lot of trouble to ensure vendor lock-in.
So I don't know what you think you're responding to, but it isn't my post in my post.
I've heard this for years but I still haven't seen ANY hardware sample where Windows "just works".
It really depends on what you mean by "just works". The truth is that Windows does suffer from supporting a larger variety of hardware. Specifically, if you have a Windows XP computer that crashes on a regular basis, there's a very good chance that you either have some sort of malware installed or else have some really crappy drivers. Ignoring malware and crappy drivers, Windows XP is actually a pretty stable OS.
So when you talk about how things "just work", are you only speaking about stability? Because OSX makes it much easier to image machines and put that image on other (different) hardware, for example. OSX also doesn't go into "reduced functionality mode" when you install new hardware. OSX also keeps up to date with the most common hardware so that you don't have to hunt down drivers if you install new hardware. After using a Mac for a few years, I'd say that OSX does a lot of things more sensibly than Windows, and cuts out a lot of annoyances from day-to-day computer usage.
Also, as you mentioned, Linux does a number of things better than Windows these days. When I install Windows XP (or even Vista) on a machine, I usually have to spend an awful lot of time afterwards hunting down drivers. Then I have to install a bunch of different pieces of software, one at a time. I have to find the disks for that software and the serial numbers, and click "next" 50 times for each install. On the other hand, when I install Ubuntu on the same machine, it discovers all my hardware automatically and also automatically installs a bunch of common apps. I can then install additional apps very easily, and update all the software on my machine at the same time, using Synaptic. No user intervention is required during the install.
If you look at Apple's description [apple.com] of the time machine functionality, it's not possible for it to work the way they claim.
Could you please explain how you think Apple is claiming Time Machine works, and why you think it's not doing that? I ask because I'm not sure what you find objectionable about the page you linked to. In a simple answer to your question, you can use Time Machine to back up to either an external drive or a server. When space runs out, OSX will warn you, and you'll then be given the option of overwriting your old files. That's what Apple has said about running out of space. I would assume that you'd also have the option of adding additional storage (e.g. getting another external hard drive), and keeping your old backups.
It'll be a very sensible solution for 99% of users. (Yes, that statistic was pulled out of thin air. But it's very sensible.)
However, my OSS solution works much better for me than Apple's expensive, proprietary system would work for me.
Ok, that's great. Nobody is stopping you from using that solution, and Unison has been available on OSX for a while now. In fact, I don't see any reason to think you won't be able to use both Unison and Time Machine. So what's the problem?
The switch was entirely worth it if only for the addition of a modern memory susbsyetem to an Apple OS. No more preemptive multitasking and having to specify how much memory each application got.
Yeah, that and security-- including real multi-user stuff. There were always some users who got stuck on the OS9 crap. They'd get their knickers in a twist because there was some missing feature like the color "labels". And then there were the OS9 power-users who had figured out how to do all the insane old MacOS things-- I got a lot of complaints that they couldn't figure out how to turn off the virtual memory in OSX, and I just couldn't convince them that you didn't need to.
Yes, it's true that OSX took a couple years to work out the kinks. During that time, it was understandable why people would stick with OS9, even though it was way behind the times. But around the time of the 10.2 release, there was no excuse anymore.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "work together". They sort of do work together. They're constantly borrowing ideas from each other. Sometimes the Linux/Mac/Unix people are even using the same code. But do any of them want to hold up their own security improvements while they try to persuade everyone else to adopt the same security practices?
I agree. There's something to having the place utterly deserted. Like, you can even see into the little observation rooms and they're all empty. Even before you find out what happened to everyone (and who says it's true? GLaDOS lies!) you get the sense that this whole thing is being run by an unsupervised AI who is carrying out procedures her human creators have already abandoned. It makes all the puzzles and everything seem that much more pointless and strange.
It really is kind of amazing, right? Thinking back, there are no cut scenes, no real expository narration or even dialog. There are just a bunch of meaningless puzzles. Nothing ever tells you what is going on, but there are enough hints that you have a story by the end of it. Pretty much the entire story comes out of hints that GLaDOS doesn't mean to drop, and also crazy graffiti in areas you're not supposed to be able to get to. And yet there's still a pretty engaging story there.
Really impressive, if you ask me. There aren't even a lot of filmmakers or novelists who are willing to show that level of restraint in their story lines.
Yeah, I'm hoping someone (Valve or someone else) will at least release some more maps for Portal. Also, it'd be nice to bring some other mechanics into play-- I think early gameplay movies of portal showed the Portal gun also able to work like the gravity gun in HL2. That meant you could throw some things around, which might get interesting.
But as short as it was, it's a really great game. I had already played through a bunch of Narbacular Drop maps (which is what Portal was based on), and so the tricks weren't much of a surprise to me, but it was still well worth buying. The level design is really good, and the story and everything is terrific. You have the voice acting of GLaDOS and the things she tells you, the weirdness of the hidden/grungy unfinished areas, and the Half Life references sprinkled throughout. Very clever and creative.
Well, some people who "have a choice" don't have much of a choice, because Microsoft has engaged in so many anti-competitive practices that it's still impractical for some users with specific needs to use anything else.
Yeah, yeah, I know, supposedly they can just install Linux and everything will work great, no problem. That's all well and good, except it isn't the truth. Some people can use Linux with no problem. Some people can install and use Linux, but it will bring some pain as they work around learning a new system and dealing with hardware support and missing applications. And then some people just can't use Linux because something about the work they're doing requires Windows-only applications.
So why is the committee going after the medium (p2p) instead of the users leaking the secrets?
If you re-read the quote you just quoted, you'll see that they're largely (or at least partially) concerned with normal citizens having their information leaked inadvertently, and therefore exposing themselves to identity theft. The article says that, because of this, they are discussing some regulation of P2P software vendors to ensure that each vendor makes it clear what is being shared in their P2P application.
How is this even remotely related to any P2P protocol?
That's what I came in here to say. It's not about P2P protocols. If you share your home directory with P2P apps, yeah, it's a security problem-- but then again it's a security problem if you set up an FTP server and give access to your home directory without a password. It's not about the protocol.
However, the article seems to indicate that what they're talking about is not regulating the protocol, but regulating the software vendors who sell P2P applications. It seems they're concerned that the software vendors are not making it clear enough which files are being shared, and making it clear enough to stupid people that you don't want to share confidential information.
I'm still not sure regulation is a good idea, but if they're really concerned about making it clear consumers understand what the software is doing with their information, it's a valid concern.
I suppose I see your point, but that would only argue that innovation will come from the community rather than the large companies' contributions. Once the innovation exists, though, and is proven to be desirable, it will be in the best interests of the companies to stabilize it.
So to me this sounds like different contributers bringing different things to the table. There's a danger in killing off the Linux community, but there doesn't seem to be a danger in businesses contributing too. But then, who can kill the Linux community if it doesn't want to be killed?
this will be a proprietary "standard" that allows 3rd party components to be added to the cloud and become available to the "OS"
It's actually a great idea...
The part that isn't so great about it is the "proprietary" part. I guess it depends on the implementation and how open the "standard" is. But having worked in IT for several years now, I've become increasingly convinced that closed standards and proprietary systems just aren't acceptable. What inevitably happens is that this terrific idea and great set of standards will work great... so long as you set everything up exactly the way the vendor wants. That usually includes throwing a large amount of money into buying other loosely related products from the same vendor, buying interacting products from the vendor's partners, and paying a shit-ton of money to the vendor's "certified" consultants. And then you're locked in, and you have to deal with that vendor's quirks and problems, or else pay all that money again to start the whole process over with a competing vendor.
And of course, the whole "standard" won't really be built to function optimally to solve the problem it's built to solve. It will have random bullshit built in to ensure that the standard can't be used by the vendor's competitors. They'll make sure the standard can't be used with anything other than "approved" hardware and software. The result of all that is that you can't use the product the way you want, and also that the product doesn't quite function properly because they're trying to keep you from doing what you want.
I guess I just question whether a proprietary standard should be considered a standard at all. I'm not against proprietary software, but I'm mighty tired of proprietary software developers refusing to use standards that allow their product to work with competing products. Maybe it's just me and I'm crazy or something, but free interoperability between systems always ends up being this huge hurdle to getting things done, and I'd hand over my money more readily if some proprietary software/hardware vendor would ease those problems instead of exacerbating them. Why don't these companies actually try making things easier for IT pros for a change, instead of just giving us some new complicated non-functional inconvenient POS to try to figure out?
The problem is that's not a business. Who, in their right mind, would devote thousands of development hours cobbling something together, then cast it into the wind where basement developers use "what they want, and [get] rid of what they don't?"
Ok, well even if we all agreed with you, that would be a reason why Microsoft wouldn't make their own version of Linux. However, my point was that *if* Microsoft were to make a version of Linux, the Linux community would have nothing to fear from that. If Microsoft good changes to the kernel, the Linux community could get the code for those changes and use it themselves, and there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stop it.
it's laughable to imagine that there's any kind of business potential in releasing things into the wild where they're instantly ripped apart as you've described.
Yeah, tell that to the companies who are profiting from OSS.
Yeah, as you quoted, "What if, for example, Microsoft decided to plop a new GUI atop the Linux kernel and enter the fray with its own version of Linux?"
Ok, let's examine this "what if?" If Microsoft decides to release its own version of Linux, then they have to release the source code of any changes to the kernel. Then, other developers can pick and choose between the Microsoft changes, using what they want and getting rid of what they don't. If Microsoft makes any good changes, they will benefit everyone.
will the spirit of freedom and idealism remain true or will the ever-present corporate bottom line eventually take over?
How much do we have to worry that something will "take Linux over"? No matter what corporations do, they'll always have to release the source code, which means people can always fork it. Wasn't that the point?
in part, that would be a measure of how valid the EU's judgement was.
Maybe, but even if no one buys them, that still leaves you with two possible interpretations. It may be that the EU was wrong to think that Microsoft should have to disclose their protocols because nobody wants them, or it may be that the EU was wrong to set the price as high as $14,000.
Personally, I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be compelled by the governments to open all formats, protocols, and APIs to everyone for free without patent restrictions. It may seem a bit drastic to some people, but that's what you get when you're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices. Besides, I'd actually be *more likely* to use Microsoft products if they were using open protocols and formats (or if they fully opened their own protocols and formats).
By holding Leopard back until they were sure it was ready, Apple has laid the groundwork for an even bigger opportunity.
Yeah, it's not clear to me what is "ideal timing" here. Apple didn't release immediately following the Vista release, and so therefore probably missed out on capitalizing on some of the anti-Vista buzz.
But a year later.... Vista still isn't really "fixed". For some of us, that's actually worse. Yeah, a new product comes out, and there are a few problems. A lot of people would probably be inclined to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt for a few months to work out the kinks. So now a year later, things still aren't quite right, and some people are probably just now coming to the conclusion that it isn't worth waiting for Microsoft to get their shit together. And right then, along comes Leopard.
Is it better timing or worse timing? I don't know.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable.
The real lesson from Vista is that a project rife with mismanagement will not be successful (duh). From the start, the project was too ambitious. They announced features and release plans before having any reason to believe that those features would work or be achievable before the release date. So they over-promised and under-delivered. And they under-delivered to the extent that, for many people, upgrading to Vista would cause more problems than it would solve. Even at "free", it's not worth the money for most users.
I agree. In fact, I generally don't want even a great fighting game put into an adventure game. If I'm playing an adventure game, it's specifically because I want a story-driven game that is paying attention to the story and figuring things out. If I'm getting into an adventure game, I don't want to get held up with something requiring button-mashing to twich reflexes.
Every now and then, some game melds different game styles together successfully. For an old-school example, Hero's Quest (aka Quest for Glory) was a decent blend of adventure and RPG. Part of the reason it worked was because the RPG elements weren't too hard and didn't lead to too much grinding. Improving your stats was basically automatic and played into the story. You just couldn't do certain things unless you had a certain amount of skill, but if those tasks were mandatory, you usually had enough skill by the time you needed to perform that task anyway.
Yeah, I've been using it to play Half Life 2 (and Episode 1, Episode 2, Portal, and a couple other games). I didn't think I'd like it since I'm generally against DRM, but the whole thing never really gave me any problems. In fact, it's easier to deal with than some other kinds of copy-protection (I'd rather deal with Steam's online check than a CD check), and the online distribution is very convenient.
You can also get one or both of the "The Longest Journey" games onSteam. I know, some people don't like Steam too much because of the DRM, but some find it convenient.
I think the point is that these are the new "standard" web fonts in Windows Vista. So if you're running Vista and there's no CSS indicating which font to use, it will use one of these instead of Times New Roman. If you just specify a serif font, but not which serif font, you'll get one of these new fonts. Same with sans-serif or fixed-width. I may be wrong about that, though, since I don't use Vista.
Anyway, I think these new fonts look pretty good. The main problem I have with them is that they don't seem readily accessible for platforms other than Windows. However, if they existed on all platforms, I would probably use these for design rather than the old standard web fonts.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "based on". I agree that there isn't much connection between OSX and Windows. The connection between OSX and Linux also isn't direct, but it's much closer.
Linux was designed to be similar to Unix, while OSX was developed from a form of Unix. And, in fact, OSX *is* a form of Unix. The main things that set it apart from FreeBSD/NetBSD is that it uses a different kernel and runs a different GUI (with different APIs). Because of this similarity, OSX, Linux, and the BSDs have a lot in common, running a lot of the same tools and shells. Many applications that run on one system will run on another with minimal changes.
So while OSX is not the same as NeXT, I'd call it a direct descendant. In turn, NeXT and OSX are like half-brothers of NetBSD and FreeBSD, while Linux is sort of an adopted brother. The genetic code is different, but they grew up together and have a lot in common. Windows is more like their next-door neighbor who sometimes tags along.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, because then it would still imply that the whole experiment was following someone's intention. I think part of the creepiness is the idea that the whole thing is some AI running amok, continuing a project that is essentially long-dead, but the AI isn't quite aware enough to figure out that it was supposed to stop what it was doing.
It's kind of a long-running theme in science fiction dealing with artificial intelligence-- the idea that AI could be smart enough to take over running things (against the desire of people) and continue trying to fulfill its purpose, but not smart enough to understand that the purpose of its purpose is to benefit people (who have probably been killed by the time this sad realization sinks in).
Having the whole setup be orchestrated by the G-Man would have ruined it.
Geeze, you know, I'm not in favor of Windows. I'm not claiming that Windows is better than anything else or even good. I'm just saying that some people don't have a choice. And often, the reason they don't have a choice isn't even because Windows does anything particularly better than the other options, but instead because Microsoft has gone through a lot of trouble to ensure vendor lock-in.
So I don't know what you think you're responding to, but it isn't my post in my post.
I've heard this for years but I still haven't seen ANY hardware sample where Windows "just works".
It really depends on what you mean by "just works". The truth is that Windows does suffer from supporting a larger variety of hardware. Specifically, if you have a Windows XP computer that crashes on a regular basis, there's a very good chance that you either have some sort of malware installed or else have some really crappy drivers. Ignoring malware and crappy drivers, Windows XP is actually a pretty stable OS.
So when you talk about how things "just work", are you only speaking about stability? Because OSX makes it much easier to image machines and put that image on other (different) hardware, for example. OSX also doesn't go into "reduced functionality mode" when you install new hardware. OSX also keeps up to date with the most common hardware so that you don't have to hunt down drivers if you install new hardware. After using a Mac for a few years, I'd say that OSX does a lot of things more sensibly than Windows, and cuts out a lot of annoyances from day-to-day computer usage.
Also, as you mentioned, Linux does a number of things better than Windows these days. When I install Windows XP (or even Vista) on a machine, I usually have to spend an awful lot of time afterwards hunting down drivers. Then I have to install a bunch of different pieces of software, one at a time. I have to find the disks for that software and the serial numbers, and click "next" 50 times for each install. On the other hand, when I install Ubuntu on the same machine, it discovers all my hardware automatically and also automatically installs a bunch of common apps. I can then install additional apps very easily, and update all the software on my machine at the same time, using Synaptic. No user intervention is required during the install.
So are these things included in "just working"?
If you look at Apple's description [apple.com] of the time machine functionality, it's not possible for it to work the way they claim.
Could you please explain how you think Apple is claiming Time Machine works, and why you think it's not doing that? I ask because I'm not sure what you find objectionable about the page you linked to. In a simple answer to your question, you can use Time Machine to back up to either an external drive or a server. When space runs out, OSX will warn you, and you'll then be given the option of overwriting your old files. That's what Apple has said about running out of space. I would assume that you'd also have the option of adding additional storage (e.g. getting another external hard drive), and keeping your old backups.
It'll be a very sensible solution for 99% of users. (Yes, that statistic was pulled out of thin air. But it's very sensible.)
However, my OSS solution works much better for me than Apple's expensive, proprietary system would work for me.
Ok, that's great. Nobody is stopping you from using that solution, and Unison has been available on OSX for a while now. In fact, I don't see any reason to think you won't be able to use both Unison and Time Machine. So what's the problem?
The switch was entirely worth it if only for the addition of a modern memory susbsyetem to an Apple OS. No more preemptive multitasking and having to specify how much memory each application got.
Yeah, that and security-- including real multi-user stuff. There were always some users who got stuck on the OS9 crap. They'd get their knickers in a twist because there was some missing feature like the color "labels". And then there were the OS9 power-users who had figured out how to do all the insane old MacOS things-- I got a lot of complaints that they couldn't figure out how to turn off the virtual memory in OSX, and I just couldn't convince them that you didn't need to.
Yes, it's true that OSX took a couple years to work out the kinks. During that time, it was understandable why people would stick with OS9, even though it was way behind the times. But around the time of the 10.2 release, there was no excuse anymore.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "work together". They sort of do work together. They're constantly borrowing ideas from each other. Sometimes the Linux/Mac/Unix people are even using the same code. But do any of them want to hold up their own security improvements while they try to persuade everyone else to adopt the same security practices?
I agree. There's something to having the place utterly deserted. Like, you can even see into the little observation rooms and they're all empty. Even before you find out what happened to everyone (and who says it's true? GLaDOS lies!) you get the sense that this whole thing is being run by an unsupervised AI who is carrying out procedures her human creators have already abandoned. It makes all the puzzles and everything seem that much more pointless and strange.
Having human enemies would have ruined that.
It really is kind of amazing, right? Thinking back, there are no cut scenes, no real expository narration or even dialog. There are just a bunch of meaningless puzzles. Nothing ever tells you what is going on, but there are enough hints that you have a story by the end of it. Pretty much the entire story comes out of hints that GLaDOS doesn't mean to drop, and also crazy graffiti in areas you're not supposed to be able to get to. And yet there's still a pretty engaging story there.
Really impressive, if you ask me. There aren't even a lot of filmmakers or novelists who are willing to show that level of restraint in their story lines.
Yeah, I'm hoping someone (Valve or someone else) will at least release some more maps for Portal. Also, it'd be nice to bring some other mechanics into play-- I think early gameplay movies of portal showed the Portal gun also able to work like the gravity gun in HL2. That meant you could throw some things around, which might get interesting.
But as short as it was, it's a really great game. I had already played through a bunch of Narbacular Drop maps (which is what Portal was based on), and so the tricks weren't much of a surprise to me, but it was still well worth buying. The level design is really good, and the story and everything is terrific. You have the voice acting of GLaDOS and the things she tells you, the weirdness of the hidden/grungy unfinished areas, and the Half Life references sprinkled throughout. Very clever and creative.
Well, some people who "have a choice" don't have much of a choice, because Microsoft has engaged in so many anti-competitive practices that it's still impractical for some users with specific needs to use anything else.
Yeah, yeah, I know, supposedly they can just install Linux and everything will work great, no problem. That's all well and good, except it isn't the truth. Some people can use Linux with no problem. Some people can install and use Linux, but it will bring some pain as they work around learning a new system and dealing with hardware support and missing applications. And then some people just can't use Linux because something about the work they're doing requires Windows-only applications.
So why is the committee going after the medium (p2p) instead of the users leaking the secrets?
If you re-read the quote you just quoted, you'll see that they're largely (or at least partially) concerned with normal citizens having their information leaked inadvertently, and therefore exposing themselves to identity theft. The article says that, because of this, they are discussing some regulation of P2P software vendors to ensure that each vendor makes it clear what is being shared in their P2P application.
How is this even remotely related to any P2P protocol?
That's what I came in here to say. It's not about P2P protocols. If you share your home directory with P2P apps, yeah, it's a security problem-- but then again it's a security problem if you set up an FTP server and give access to your home directory without a password. It's not about the protocol.
However, the article seems to indicate that what they're talking about is not regulating the protocol, but regulating the software vendors who sell P2P applications. It seems they're concerned that the software vendors are not making it clear enough which files are being shared, and making it clear enough to stupid people that you don't want to share confidential information.
I'm still not sure regulation is a good idea, but if they're really concerned about making it clear consumers understand what the software is doing with their information, it's a valid concern.
I suppose I see your point, but that would only argue that innovation will come from the community rather than the large companies' contributions. Once the innovation exists, though, and is proven to be desirable, it will be in the best interests of the companies to stabilize it.
So to me this sounds like different contributers bringing different things to the table. There's a danger in killing off the Linux community, but there doesn't seem to be a danger in businesses contributing too. But then, who can kill the Linux community if it doesn't want to be killed?
The part that isn't so great about it is the "proprietary" part. I guess it depends on the implementation and how open the "standard" is. But having worked in IT for several years now, I've become increasingly convinced that closed standards and proprietary systems just aren't acceptable. What inevitably happens is that this terrific idea and great set of standards will work great... so long as you set everything up exactly the way the vendor wants. That usually includes throwing a large amount of money into buying other loosely related products from the same vendor, buying interacting products from the vendor's partners, and paying a shit-ton of money to the vendor's "certified" consultants. And then you're locked in, and you have to deal with that vendor's quirks and problems, or else pay all that money again to start the whole process over with a competing vendor.
And of course, the whole "standard" won't really be built to function optimally to solve the problem it's built to solve. It will have random bullshit built in to ensure that the standard can't be used by the vendor's competitors. They'll make sure the standard can't be used with anything other than "approved" hardware and software. The result of all that is that you can't use the product the way you want, and also that the product doesn't quite function properly because they're trying to keep you from doing what you want.
I guess I just question whether a proprietary standard should be considered a standard at all. I'm not against proprietary software, but I'm mighty tired of proprietary software developers refusing to use standards that allow their product to work with competing products. Maybe it's just me and I'm crazy or something, but free interoperability between systems always ends up being this huge hurdle to getting things done, and I'd hand over my money more readily if some proprietary software/hardware vendor would ease those problems instead of exacerbating them. Why don't these companies actually try making things easier for IT pros for a change, instead of just giving us some new complicated non-functional inconvenient POS to try to figure out?
(Sorry for the rant. I've had a bad month.)
The problem is that's not a business. Who, in their right mind, would devote thousands of development hours cobbling something together, then cast it into the wind where basement developers use "what they want, and [get] rid of what they don't?"
Ok, well even if we all agreed with you, that would be a reason why Microsoft wouldn't make their own version of Linux. However, my point was that *if* Microsoft were to make a version of Linux, the Linux community would have nothing to fear from that. If Microsoft good changes to the kernel, the Linux community could get the code for those changes and use it themselves, and there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stop it.
it's laughable to imagine that there's any kind of business potential in releasing things into the wild where they're instantly ripped apart as you've described.
Yeah, tell that to the companies who are profiting from OSS.
Yeah, as you quoted, "What if, for example, Microsoft decided to plop a new GUI atop the Linux kernel and enter the fray with its own version of Linux?"
Ok, let's examine this "what if?" If Microsoft decides to release its own version of Linux, then they have to release the source code of any changes to the kernel. Then, other developers can pick and choose between the Microsoft changes, using what they want and getting rid of what they don't. If Microsoft makes any good changes, they will benefit everyone.
What's the big problem?
will the spirit of freedom and idealism remain true or will the ever-present corporate bottom line eventually take over?
How much do we have to worry that something will "take Linux over"? No matter what corporations do, they'll always have to release the source code, which means people can always fork it. Wasn't that the point?
in part, that would be a measure of how valid the EU's judgement was.
Maybe, but even if no one buys them, that still leaves you with two possible interpretations. It may be that the EU was wrong to think that Microsoft should have to disclose their protocols because nobody wants them, or it may be that the EU was wrong to set the price as high as $14,000.
Personally, I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be compelled by the governments to open all formats, protocols, and APIs to everyone for free without patent restrictions. It may seem a bit drastic to some people, but that's what you get when you're a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices. Besides, I'd actually be *more likely* to use Microsoft products if they were using open protocols and formats (or if they fully opened their own protocols and formats).
By holding Leopard back until they were sure it was ready, Apple has laid the groundwork for an even bigger opportunity.
Yeah, it's not clear to me what is "ideal timing" here. Apple didn't release immediately following the Vista release, and so therefore probably missed out on capitalizing on some of the anti-Vista buzz.
But a year later.... Vista still isn't really "fixed". For some of us, that's actually worse. Yeah, a new product comes out, and there are a few problems. A lot of people would probably be inclined to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt for a few months to work out the kinks. So now a year later, things still aren't quite right, and some people are probably just now coming to the conclusion that it isn't worth waiting for Microsoft to get their shit together. And right then, along comes Leopard.
Is it better timing or worse timing? I don't know.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable.
The real lesson from Vista is that a project rife with mismanagement will not be successful (duh). From the start, the project was too ambitious. They announced features and release plans before having any reason to believe that those features would work or be achievable before the release date. So they over-promised and under-delivered. And they under-delivered to the extent that, for many people, upgrading to Vista would cause more problems than it would solve. Even at "free", it's not worth the money for most users.
I agree. In fact, I generally don't want even a great fighting game put into an adventure game. If I'm playing an adventure game, it's specifically because I want a story-driven game that is paying attention to the story and figuring things out. If I'm getting into an adventure game, I don't want to get held up with something requiring button-mashing to twich reflexes.
Every now and then, some game melds different game styles together successfully. For an old-school example, Hero's Quest (aka Quest for Glory) was a decent blend of adventure and RPG. Part of the reason it worked was because the RPG elements weren't too hard and didn't lead to too much grinding. Improving your stats was basically automatic and played into the story. You just couldn't do certain things unless you had a certain amount of skill, but if those tasks were mandatory, you usually had enough skill by the time you needed to perform that task anyway.
Yeah, I've been using it to play Half Life 2 (and Episode 1, Episode 2, Portal, and a couple other games). I didn't think I'd like it since I'm generally against DRM, but the whole thing never really gave me any problems. In fact, it's easier to deal with than some other kinds of copy-protection (I'd rather deal with Steam's online check than a CD check), and the online distribution is very convenient.
You can also get one or both of the "The Longest Journey" games onSteam. I know, some people don't like Steam too much because of the DRM, but some find it convenient.
I think the point is that these are the new "standard" web fonts in Windows Vista. So if you're running Vista and there's no CSS indicating which font to use, it will use one of these instead of Times New Roman. If you just specify a serif font, but not which serif font, you'll get one of these new fonts. Same with sans-serif or fixed-width. I may be wrong about that, though, since I don't use Vista.
Anyway, I think these new fonts look pretty good. The main problem I have with them is that they don't seem readily accessible for platforms other than Windows. However, if they existed on all platforms, I would probably use these for design rather than the old standard web fonts.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "based on". I agree that there isn't much connection between OSX and Windows. The connection between OSX and Linux also isn't direct, but it's much closer.
Linux was designed to be similar to Unix, while OSX was developed from a form of Unix. And, in fact, OSX *is* a form of Unix. The main things that set it apart from FreeBSD/NetBSD is that it uses a different kernel and runs a different GUI (with different APIs). Because of this similarity, OSX, Linux, and the BSDs have a lot in common, running a lot of the same tools and shells. Many applications that run on one system will run on another with minimal changes.
So while OSX is not the same as NeXT, I'd call it a direct descendant. In turn, NeXT and OSX are like half-brothers of NetBSD and FreeBSD, while Linux is sort of an adopted brother. The genetic code is different, but they grew up together and have a lot in common. Windows is more like their next-door neighbor who sometimes tags along.