There's no chance in hell that the licensing terms will be pro open source and we all know it.
Hmm, it seems nobody has read the press release in its entirety.
"However, open source developers, whether commercial or noncommercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols or for the noncommercial distribution of these implementations, according to a Microsoft patent pledge for open source developers, issued pursuant to the interoperability principles."
> "Oh great, here come all the rabid Firefox advocates out > of the woodwork to bash anything non-Firefox. Firefox, > Firefox, Firefox!"
Agreed -- thought the same thing. I'd add something more spicy: I think these screaming FF fans are the Firefox developers themselves (feeling endangered by new non-MS competition).
I'm not sure but was the headline to suggest that "No, Firefox doesn't suck, and it's still THE ONLY decent alternative to IE, because Opera CHEATS! -- They exchange traffic with Google!!!"
If so, then let me quote from the article: "Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View. "
> There just isn't enough new in Longhorn/Vista to justify the buy. Where's the return on investment here?
Two words: Better kernel.
Better kernel = less bugs, greater performance, and above all, stability. Hopefully security too (yes, managed code is better than the Win32 API in Win2k).
Yeah, and your post will not be modded up, while his was. Maybe he knew it, but used the word "recently" to attract mods (the "hey there's something new I discovered, mod me up" attitude.)
Gee, have the Slashdot editors lost their minds and good taste? Why is this article on the front page? Who tf cares what he did to hot linkers? This happens everyday. Gee.
Well, it depends on what you need it for. If you are an average Joe user, then I doubt you'll have troubles. BUT, if you are a software corporation that plans on using their code in its commercial products, then, yes, you'd better ask your lawyers.;-)
By "True License" I mean "TrueCrypt License". And one more thing, Debian Free Software Guidelines were used as the basis in creating the OSI (opensource.org) definition of open source. All projects on sf.net are required to comply with that definition.
Huh? Free Software doesn't mean there are no conditions. Their license merely states conditions under which you may distribute modifications. Each Free Software license does that.
> If you believe you require 10000fps then that's fine.
I don't require 10000 fps. I'll be happy with just 24 fps + motion blur.;-)
However, the 10000 fps will be inevitable in future. Who would artificially limit it? The higher the fps, the more realistic the game graphics will be.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope you are a game developer so that it was at least a bit useful to you.
Yes, that's correct. We don't need to be able to fully perceive the image. It's impossible. The point is that this "afterimage" also creates the desired motion blur efect.
> But you don't need 10000fps. You only need 60-100fps, which we already have:)
I *do* need 10000 fps! So that we finally have natural motion blur.:-)
I hope nobody will artificially limit fps in future.
By the way, it's also important to note that motion blur would allow the games to run only at 24 fps. It would look like a real movie, it wouldnt be "jerky" at all, and it would remove the necessity to overheat the GPU with higher and higher frame rates. Perfect!
> Now. Looking at that image, point at where the object is in reality. Because the object is still > moving it is no longer inside where the object appears. The hitbox will be leading the actual > appearance of the object.
Yes, I knew what you meant -- no need to re-iterate.
However, that's how things work in real life. If you need to shoot a fast moving object, you don't know where it is, because it is blurry. That may suck, but it's very real.
> Now, if you believe that won't be a problem and gamers won't care, then you really really don't > know gamers. You should see the CS:Source players complain about the hit registration in > that game.
How about this: In 50 years, games will be rendered at 10000 frames per second, which will create natural motion blur (brain & eyes). Everything will be real and if anybody complains, well let him go 50 years back, so that he can "cheat the real world principles"...:-)
Ok, it's quite simple. As regards collison detection, the engines will function as they do now. However, gfx will be rendered at 24 f/sec and motion blurred.
This means that you will not be detecting collisions from graphics, but from 3d virtual model, that has no frame rate (it is just there, always).
I'd like to stress that this model is *exactly* equalt to how thing work in *real* world. Today, 3d first person shooters use non-sensical rendering speed 50-100 frames per second without motion blur. This is only fooling people. If they used 1000000000 frames per second rendering speed, than our brain and eyes would start creating motion blur automatically!!!!
So todays game gfx is not realistic, unless they use motion blur.
The NSA doesn't release its finding about new attacks against encryption algos. They use the info to crack and keep secure. Promote AES as a standard, and have a decades worth of research about useful attacks against AES that no-one knows about but the NSA.
You're so wrong. When NSA discovered a flaw in SHA-0, they did not announce what flaw it was (to protect those who used it after they recommended it) and then released a new strengthened version, called SHA-1 (and yes, they recommended everyone to migrate to SHA-1 from the insecure SHA-0).
Stop being paranoid, and get the facts before making a fool of yourself.
> And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "universal processing units suck".
> Pixel shaders are pretty damn fast these days, > and they're putting a lot more of them into GPUs.
It's basic computer science question. Universal processors suck because all universal processors (such as Intel Pentium) are slower than specialized hardware. For example specialized MPEG-2 compression circuits will always outperform by orders of magnitude classic universal CPUs. Etc.
> Sorry, you don't need specialized hardware for motion blur.
Yes, but they have no specialized hardware for motion blur. Universal processing units suck -- they are universal and therefore slow. We need specialized hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, it seems nobody has read the press release in its entirety.
"However, open source developers, whether commercial or noncommercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols or for the noncommercial distribution of these implementations, according to a Microsoft patent pledge for open source developers, issued pursuant to the interoperability principles."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/apr08/04-08ProtocolPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases
Windows Commander is now called TotalCommander. Guess why.
> "Oh great, here come all the rabid Firefox advocates out
> of the woodwork to bash anything non-Firefox. Firefox,
> Firefox, Firefox!"
Agreed -- thought the same thing. I'd add something more spicy: I think these screaming FF fans are the Firefox developers themselves (feeling endangered by new non-MS competition).
I'm not sure but was the headline to suggest that "No, Firefox doesn't suck, and it's still THE ONLY decent alternative to IE, because Opera CHEATS! -- They exchange traffic with Google!!!"
If so, then let me quote from the article:
"Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View. "
> See how many pages mirrordot has mirrored. Then check networkmirror. 'nuff said
These sites are scrapers not mirrors. Just see how many google ads are attached to the stolen content...
> There just isn't enough new in Longhorn/Vista to justify the buy. Where's the return on investment here?
Two words: Better kernel.
Better kernel = less bugs, greater performance, and above all, stability. Hopefully security too (yes, managed code is better than the Win32 API in Win2k).
Yeah, and your post will not be modded up, while his was. Maybe he knew it, but used the word "recently" to attract mods (the "hey there's something new I discovered, mod me up" attitude.)
Gee, have the Slashdot editors lost their minds and good taste? Why is this article on the front page? Who tf cares what he did to hot linkers? This happens everyday. Gee.
This article is an excellent comparison between the features of Apple Tiger and Windows Vista Beta 1
Since when are a Beta 1 and a Final releases comparable?
> This in itself makes it a tricky choice.
;-)
Well, it depends on what you need it for. If you are an average Joe user, then I doubt you'll have troubles. BUT, if you are a software corporation that plans on using their code in its commercial products, then, yes, you'd better ask your lawyers.
By "True License" I mean "TrueCrypt License". And one more thing, Debian Free Software Guidelines were used as the basis in creating the OSI (opensource.org) definition of open source. All projects on sf.net are required to comply with that definition.
Ok, name at least one item of the Debian Free Software Guidelines which the True License does not comply with.
In case you haven't noticed: TrueCrypt is hosted on sourceforge.net, which allows only true open source projects.
They currently work on a Linux version, which should be out soon. Now it's Windows-only.
Huh? Free Software doesn't mean there are no conditions. Their license merely states conditions under which you may distribute modifications. Each Free Software license does that.
> If you believe you require 10000fps then that's fine.
;-)
I don't require 10000 fps. I'll be happy with just 24 fps + motion blur.
However, the 10000 fps will be inevitable in future. Who would artificially limit it? The higher the fps, the more realistic the game graphics will be.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope you are a game developer so that it was at least a bit useful to you.
Yes, that's correct. We don't need to be able to fully perceive the image. It's impossible. The point is that this "afterimage" also creates the desired motion blur efect.
> But you don't need 10000fps. You only need 60-100fps, which we already have :)
:-)
I *do* need 10000 fps! So that we finally have natural motion blur.
I hope nobody will artificially limit fps in future.
By the way, it's also important to note that motion blur would allow the games to run only at 24 fps. It would look like a real movie, it wouldnt be "jerky" at all, and it would remove the necessity to overheat the GPU with higher and higher frame rates. Perfect!
> Now. Looking at that image, point at where the object is in reality. Because the object is still
:-)
> moving it is no longer inside where the object appears. The hitbox will be leading the actual
> appearance of the object.
Yes, I knew what you meant -- no need to re-iterate.
However, that's how things work in real life. If you need to shoot a fast moving object, you don't know where it is, because it is blurry. That may suck, but it's very real.
> Now, if you believe that won't be a problem and gamers won't care, then you really really don't
> know gamers. You should see the CS:Source players complain about the hit registration in
> that game.
How about this: In 50 years, games will be rendered at 10000 frames per second, which will create natural motion blur (brain & eyes). Everything will be real and if anybody complains, well let him go 50 years back, so that he can "cheat the real world principles"...
Ok, it's quite simple. As regards collison detection, the engines will function as they do now. However, gfx will be rendered at 24 f/sec and motion blurred.
This means that you will not be detecting collisions from graphics, but from 3d virtual model, that has no frame rate (it is just there, always).
I'd like to stress that this model is *exactly* equalt to how thing work in *real* world. Today, 3d first person shooters use non-sensical rendering speed 50-100 frames per second without motion blur. This is only fooling people. If they used 1000000000 frames per second rendering speed, than our brain and eyes would start creating motion blur automatically!!!!
So todays game gfx is not realistic, unless they use motion blur.
The NSA doesn't release its finding about new attacks against encryption algos. They use the info to crack and keep secure. Promote AES as a standard, and have a decades worth of research about useful attacks against AES that no-one knows about but the NSA.
You're so wrong. When NSA discovered a flaw in SHA-0, they did not announce what flaw it was (to protect those who used it after they recommended it) and then released a new strengthened version, called SHA-1 (and yes, they recommended everyone to migrate to SHA-1 from the insecure SHA-0). Stop being paranoid, and get the facts before making a fool of yourself.
Grow up. You're just another paranoid moron.
Sigh. Why not replace *specialized* GPU's in gfx cards with Intel Penitum processors? Universal processors are so cool and powerful, right? Gee.
No. There IS a way to solve that problem. I can elaborate -- let me know if you REALLY want me to (at the moment I'm rather busy).
> And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "universal processing units suck".
> Pixel shaders are pretty damn fast these days,
> and they're putting a lot more of them into GPUs.
It's basic computer science question. Universal processors suck because all universal processors (such as Intel Pentium) are slower than specialized hardware. For example specialized MPEG-2 compression circuits will always outperform by orders of magnitude classic universal CPUs. Etc.
> Sorry, you don't need specialized hardware for motion blur.
Maybe you don't. I do.
Yes, but they have no specialized hardware for motion blur. Universal processing units suck -- they are universal and therefore slow. We need specialized hardware.