Was it ever said that they *won't* release it? Or just that they haven't *yet*? I don't mean this wholly as a counterargument, more of I'd like your input on that so I can understand better.
What kind of idiot are you? This is the weirdest nonsequitur ever. I think you're up to one per sentence. Who said GPL violators must be protected? I sure didn't. Those who pollute GPL code? You mean like the mono project?
There is ground between invalidating compliance and not taking action. The world is not "they're free to kill off GPL/must be sued into oblivion". If it was, people wouldn't even code.
wtf is this garbage? Could you have posted more fud and crossposted it elsewhere?
Where have there been actual GPL violations enforced? This matters, because it means it's not a big enough deal for a developer to raise the "violation flag". Show me one. So yeah, it would sum up that your article isn't really accurate in that sense.
The writers are soapbox trolls, who have ties to microsoft but have hid them. And they write articles about how GPL violations are in force (which it is the owner's decision to enforce or not)? Say it ain't so!
It is literally Florian quotes Naughton as his source, yet Naughton is basically a FUD machine.
They're taking out something that's easily there. It's not asking them to add something that magically doesn't exist. And if you weren't obtuse, you'd realize that it's also a cost savings to blizzard. Hello? they still make money AND don't have to pay for the bandwidth. They also can then promote the game at events that don't have internet. Man, what an idea! Going without a connection in 2011 must be so passe to the blizzard trolls.
People are going to buy a game. Are you saying "tough shit you can't play it?" due to having a spotty connection? You just cut off approximately 50% of the market *AND* gave them a reason to pirate the game: so that they can play it at all.
Welcome to "why piracy exists 101". It's not "to get shit for free" it's to be able to use something they purchased in the way they intended.
calling a vocal majority a minority just shows people how out of touch with reality they are.
Being online will not prevent cheating, but it will ensure that you can't play diablo without an internet connection. Guess what? That's a fucking problem. Can't do lan parties like that either.
There is no return for this shit. The game could still be anti-cheat without being "online only". Piracy has nothing to do with "online only" your magic 90% piracy rate means that you're full of shit. If you can't profit and blame piracy, you're in a legacy business and don't know that we're in 2011. I take that back, there is a return - it's all to the CEO and VP - they treat people like shit and profit from it.
I do agree, and I see this to be a good thing. To use displayport for that is not a good idea. I'd rather use something not apple owned. Nothing about video chip/gpu load requires it to be (or not be) usb3.
this is stupid. There are explicitly reasons to not want to put the load on the video chips/gpu. Part of that is of course, things that don't involve graphics. Really are you that shortsighted? What the hell does a printer need a gpu for? Printers need a CPU to process the data, mostly.
they (Cooley) are also the ones who make the rating system in the first place. Thus, the issue, and why people are calling BS on cooley (and quite appropriately so).
nah, but it's a bit extreme of a sarcastic joke even for a troll username. I didn't fail to see it, but I'm not exactly going to go through their post history to see if they post continual troll-posts.
Why her? She's just explaining what is going on. Are you anti free speech or something? If anyone should be executed, it's certainly not someone who's actually helping put more focus on the unethical behavior of the ISP's.
Uh, copying is inventing, by definition. It's shameless copying and *improvements*, that's the more important part.
MS doesn't even improve.
Google isn't a saint. No company is. I never intended to imply that they are, but if you are believing FUD coming from oracle and MS aka "patent doom" you might want to re-evaluate what you believe.
IE "the browser link" was not tied in. IE "the browser", has, and still is, tied into explorer among other things. Good luck trying to remove all the DLL's specifically related to IE. It will cause other instabilities. Likewise the messenger is used for system messages.
I don't have anything official, but I am seeing people with pseudonyms. Take note that the "herman blume" 100% BS account has not been taken down, nor the fake zuckerbergs, nor anyone named after video games.
I've seen better trolling from redmond than you, faggot. Go back to your work with Florian - it's clear you're not at all different in "I don't want to acknowledge groklaw". We're on to you, and one day, you won't just lose your job in whatever MS affiliated shit you do.
Then again, had you read anything, you'd have acknowledged that I wasn't just trying to cite wikipedia. Google's frightened of nothing, but you're sure strong on fud.
might want to go look up the anon's post or try to remove the actual DLL's linked to IE.
As a hint, what will happen? Your entire OS will crash. Removing the IE icon is not removing IE. I don't love google, and I do have my facts straight. You should, however, try getting your head out of your ass.
Meanwhile, for how long have you been a worshipper of MS? Are you going to tell me they're the leader in business, highly ethical, etc? Cite bill gates where his money towards "cancer research" funds patents in africa? Not everyone is a blind to the world as you.
this just shows a lack of understanding. While google said they'd ensure the "real name" thing is followed, guess what? They've quietly dropped it altogether. I know plenty of people on g+ with pseudonyms, bullshit names, etc.
maybe he'll get sanctions. It'd be nice to see some government prosecutors getting this when appropriate, such as when they tried to snuff out whistleblowers in court.
Whoa, fud spreader and microsoft lover. Google didn't jump in right away to defend their OEM's - there's about a million reasons for that, and guess what? Now they are starting to jump in, and be a lot more vocal about it too.
Is this a joke? I do read up on this continually, and have a 6970 at home and an E350 netbook. Not commenting on my work. It's not a "6xxx" GPU, it's equivalent to the lowest end of the 6 series gpu. The highest end version is 1/10th that of the flagship graphics card and has only better performance than the lowest end of the flagship design from the last iteration. Also, that hasn't changed *since* at least the last two iterations (we're talking 4x series). I don't know what planet you're on but FLOPS do matter substantially for server compute environments (clusters). Parallelism is far more important than "we have less than a tflop extra per *chip* - not "per core". Having the latest graphics card on a PCIE is easily 10x faster this year. Intel's strides have been an improvement but are still generally shit. AMD has done a whole lot more. AMD will never allow themselves to cannibalize other markets via making integrated graphics anywhere even remotely near the current performance of discreet cards, for a lot of reasons. Dont' let yourself be mislead with consumer performance vs enterprise/research utility. They aren't even close to the same. Consumer performance also "looks good", but the reality is that the graphics core on the AMD is still easily 2-3x as fast as intel.
This stuff has always improved in performance, but that doesnt' mean it's caught up with the times. The purpose is low power, not performance.
integrated GPU's don't really come anywhere near the flops of a discreet card (I don't get why people call it discreet instead of discrete, I always assumed that was the proper spelling for the term, anyway). Yes, it's better than the processor by itself, but no it is not substantial. GPU clusters already exist, remember the one from china? One single GPU can perform about 20x as much as a single xeon's GPU pretty easily. I understand what's needed for science research and understand supercomputer clusters as well. There's not only performance increases, but cost savings in doing so. The math is not there as far as economy of scale with igpus. You do pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less though. There's also a complete and utter lack of cuda/equivalents for research environments involving integrated gpu's.
Also, you can drop in new GPU's since they essentially rely on PCIE - as long as you have a server board designed for PCIE support. Good luck long-term trying to make that work with processors.
putting an integrated graphics chip onto a server cpu is a joke. Even if you put 32 integrated graphics cards onto a single 8 core server cpu, the flops will be shit in comparison to any discreet graphics card which costs orders of magnitude less.
GPU clusters and GPU's embedded into processors are not the same. Desktops might have iGPU's but server processors don't. Servers that do GPU clusters use discreet graphics cards, commonly. Why do people associate the two? Do people not really understand that on an 8 processor chip if you have a single integrated GPU (let alone 1 per core) its performance is still going to be shit in comparison to even a cheap discreet graphics card?
Slashdot Mirror
Was it ever said that they *won't* release it? Or just that they haven't *yet*? I don't mean this wholly as a counterargument, more of I'd like your input on that so I can understand better.
What kind of idiot are you? This is the weirdest nonsequitur ever. I think you're up to one per sentence. Who said GPL violators must be protected? I sure didn't. Those who pollute GPL code? You mean like the mono project?
There is ground between invalidating compliance and not taking action. The world is not "they're free to kill off GPL/must be sued into oblivion". If it was, people wouldn't even code.
wtf is this garbage? Could you have posted more fud and crossposted it elsewhere?
Where have there been actual GPL violations enforced? This matters, because it means it's not a big enough deal for a developer to raise the "violation flag". Show me one. So yeah, it would sum up that your article isn't really accurate in that sense.
I wouldn't call completely invalidating compliance anything other than a "nuclear response", either.
Why didn't anyone link to the http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110815131443415 (Groklaw Debunk) .
The writers are soapbox trolls, who have ties to microsoft but have hid them. And they write articles about how GPL violations are in force (which it is the owner's decision to enforce or not)? Say it ain't so!
It is literally Florian quotes Naughton as his source, yet Naughton is basically a FUD machine.
They're taking out something that's easily there. It's not asking them to add something that magically doesn't exist. And if you weren't obtuse, you'd realize that it's also a cost savings to blizzard. Hello? they still make money AND don't have to pay for the bandwidth. They also can then promote the game at events that don't have internet. Man, what an idea! Going without a connection in 2011 must be so passe to the blizzard trolls.
People are going to buy a game. Are you saying "tough shit you can't play it?" due to having a spotty connection? You just cut off approximately 50% of the market *AND* gave them a reason to pirate the game: so that they can play it at all.
Welcome to "why piracy exists 101". It's not "to get shit for free" it's to be able to use something they purchased in the way they intended.
calling a vocal majority a minority just shows people how out of touch with reality they are.
Being online will not prevent cheating, but it will ensure that you can't play diablo without an internet connection. Guess what? That's a fucking problem. Can't do lan parties like that either.
There is no return for this shit. The game could still be anti-cheat without being "online only". Piracy has nothing to do with "online only" your magic 90% piracy rate means that you're full of shit. If you can't profit and blame piracy, you're in a legacy business and don't know that we're in 2011. I take that back, there is a return - it's all to the CEO and VP - they treat people like shit and profit from it.
yeah, I know. Not much better, but at least it works on a wider array of stuff and doesnt' require DRM to function.
I do agree, and I see this to be a good thing. To use displayport for that is not a good idea. I'd rather use something not apple owned. Nothing about video chip/gpu load requires it to be (or not be) usb3.
this is stupid. There are explicitly reasons to not want to put the load on the video chips/gpu. Part of that is of course, things that don't involve graphics. Really are you that shortsighted? What the hell does a printer need a gpu for? Printers need a CPU to process the data, mostly.
they (Cooley) are also the ones who make the rating system in the first place. Thus, the issue, and why people are calling BS on cooley (and quite appropriately so).
nah, but it's a bit extreme of a sarcastic joke even for a troll username. I didn't fail to see it, but I'm not exactly going to go through their post history to see if they post continual troll-posts.
Why her? She's just explaining what is going on. Are you anti free speech or something? If anyone should be executed, it's certainly not someone who's actually helping put more focus on the unethical behavior of the ISP's.
Uh, copying is inventing, by definition. It's shameless copying and *improvements*, that's the more important part.
MS doesn't even improve.
Google isn't a saint. No company is. I never intended to imply that they are, but if you are believing FUD coming from oracle and MS aka "patent doom" you might want to re-evaluate what you believe.
IE "the browser link" was not tied in. IE "the browser", has, and still is, tied into explorer among other things. Good luck trying to remove all the DLL's specifically related to IE. It will cause other instabilities. Likewise the messenger is used for system messages.
I don't have anything official, but I am seeing people with pseudonyms. Take note that the "herman blume" 100% BS account has not been taken down, nor the fake zuckerbergs, nor anyone named after video games.
I've seen better trolling from redmond than you, faggot. Go back to your work with Florian - it's clear you're not at all different in "I don't want to acknowledge groklaw". We're on to you, and one day, you won't just lose your job in whatever MS affiliated shit you do.
Then again, had you read anything, you'd have acknowledged that I wasn't just trying to cite wikipedia. Google's frightened of nothing, but you're sure strong on fud.
might want to go look up the anon's post or try to remove the actual DLL's linked to IE.
As a hint, what will happen? Your entire OS will crash. Removing the IE icon is not removing IE. I don't love google, and I do have my facts straight. You should, however, try getting your head out of your ass.
Meanwhile, for how long have you been a worshipper of MS? Are you going to tell me they're the leader in business, highly ethical, etc? Cite bill gates where his money towards "cancer research" funds patents in africa? Not everyone is a blind to the world as you.
this just shows a lack of understanding. While google said they'd ensure the "real name" thing is followed, guess what? They've quietly dropped it altogether. I know plenty of people on g+ with pseudonyms, bullshit names, etc.
maybe he'll get sanctions. It'd be nice to see some government prosecutors getting this when appropriate, such as when they tried to snuff out whistleblowers in court.
Whoa, fud spreader and microsoft lover. Google didn't jump in right away to defend their OEM's - there's about a million reasons for that, and guess what? Now they are starting to jump in, and be a lot more vocal about it too.
Meanwhile, your post about removing IE is 100% and total bull shit. It was not until Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust, in that same lawsuit where the documents show that they deliberately tied it in to the core of the OS, that they decided to make a version of the OS where it could be removed. IN EUROPE, which was then later removed as an option from europe. The rest of us were told to get bent. To this day, you still cannot 100% remove the browser as there are still dependencies in the OS itself.
The overall argument about browser tying is fact, not invalid. the IE situation is not even close to the first time they have done things to prevent interoperability. and MS has a history of being anti-linux..
Is this a joke? I do read up on this continually, and have a 6970 at home and an E350 netbook. Not commenting on my work. It's not a "6xxx" GPU, it's equivalent to the lowest end of the 6 series gpu. The highest end version is 1/10th that of the flagship graphics card and has only better performance than the lowest end of the flagship design from the last iteration. Also, that hasn't changed *since* at least the last two iterations (we're talking 4x series). I don't know what planet you're on but FLOPS do matter substantially for server compute environments (clusters). Parallelism is far more important than "we have less than a tflop extra per *chip* - not "per core".
Having the latest graphics card on a PCIE is easily 10x faster this year. Intel's strides have been an improvement but are still generally shit. AMD has done a whole lot more. AMD will never allow themselves to cannibalize other markets via making integrated graphics anywhere even remotely near the current performance of discreet cards, for a lot of reasons. Dont' let yourself be mislead with consumer performance vs enterprise/research utility. They aren't even close to the same. Consumer performance also "looks good", but the reality is that the graphics core on the AMD is still easily 2-3x as fast as intel.
This stuff has always improved in performance, but that doesnt' mean it's caught up with the times. The purpose is low power, not performance.
integrated GPU's don't really come anywhere near the flops of a discreet card (I don't get why people call it discreet instead of discrete, I always assumed that was the proper spelling for the term, anyway). Yes, it's better than the processor by itself, but no it is not substantial. GPU clusters already exist, remember the one from china? One single GPU can perform about 20x as much as a single xeon's GPU pretty easily. I understand what's needed for science research and understand supercomputer clusters as well. There's not only performance increases, but cost savings in doing so. The math is not there as far as economy of scale with igpus. You do pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less though. There's also a complete and utter lack of cuda/equivalents for research environments involving integrated gpu's.
Also, you can drop in new GPU's since they essentially rely on PCIE - as long as you have a server board designed for PCIE support. Good luck long-term trying to make that work with processors.
putting an integrated graphics chip onto a server cpu is a joke. Even if you put 32 integrated graphics cards onto a single 8 core server cpu, the flops will be shit in comparison to any discreet graphics card which costs orders of magnitude less.
GPU clusters and GPU's embedded into processors are not the same. Desktops might have iGPU's but server processors don't. Servers that do GPU clusters use discreet graphics cards, commonly. Why do people associate the two? Do people not really understand that on an 8 processor chip if you have a single integrated GPU (let alone 1 per core) its performance is still going to be shit in comparison to even a cheap discreet graphics card?