>Isn't that the situation with Linux distributions right now?
Sure there's lots of linux distros out there, and they seem to sometimes mix in and out of other, maybe more "true unix-y" flavors (freebsd, solaris, et al). But *nix is barely making its footprint in a commercial home market, whereas Windows is just making a very general, wide stretch of its "new" operating environment, when it's not really all that necessary. *nix users can always compile something from source if really necessary -for now-, be it a bitch, or use some form of a dedicated package manager. Sure, marketing and placement plays a role in this Vista forking, and we'll all eventually adapt and get over it, but it's not really needed to have this many versions. There's already not that much disctinction between Vista and XP, there -can't- be much telling the Vistas apart from the Longhorns.
As much as I love Google, I'm so tired of hearing about every little movement the company makes. They just happen to do good services, it's not like they NEED this constant media coverage when there's more important stuff to check in the headlines.
Hold on a sec, my "Google" google alerts just made their way into my inbox, time to check..
The thing I recall hearing somewhere though is that submitting your game to the ESRB (while taken seriously in the industry) is totally voluntary. You don't HAVE to get your game checked out- but with the inability for parents to take care of their children themselves, releasing your content without a rating is highly frowned upon, clean/entertaining game or not.
At that, the ESRB is also supposed to have a rigorous and strict rating process, with not just game footage, but actual access to a playable version of the game (IIRC). So you're right in saying it's not the ESRB's fault- it's completely the fault of R*, for not eradicating the "bad stuff" completely from the copies instead of disabling it.
I personally dread the upcoming debate on how hard a slap on the wrist R* gets for their effort to hide the content. Seeing as they're a rather large company, they will probably just get a good talking to..
I honestly wish you could do a "block sender" in newsgroups.
It's possible. Tool around in the message filters, it'll just not download that user's messages.
You say "martyrs for the cause" are man-eating tigers, but what if those who are fighting the cause are also those who are "tired of this shit and am not going to take it anymore"? You miss out that many people, no matter how extreme their views on bringing down things like corporate America and oppressive sects of the US government (read: ALL of the US gov't) are martyrs BECAUSE they're tired.
Sure, yours and others' opinions on what "the cause" is will differ from another individual's/group's, but you're not sounding very openminded with the fact that you're trying to part a rough social sea with rash generalizations that seem easier to swallow for you when they're not going hand in hand.
Conversations comparing two things in such a way aren't always the same each time, though. For instance, if I was trying to switch a person to firefox who was generally knowledgeable about computers - Of course I'd point out the capabilities of IE as well. Even if IMO I were to think IE didn't have any, it can at least be masked as acknowledging the street goes both ways, and the user could choose "intelligently".
But let's say the user has little or no comprehension of their system ("What's a firewall?"). This, more often than not, is the type that if they knew how to reinstall their OS on their own they'd be doing it every few weeks. They probably wouldn't particularly care much about whether or not it supported CSS properly, or if their website looked -exactly- the same in both browsers. More often than not, if you're even switching this kind of person to something else, you're the one installing it- there's little room for comparison questions.
It's the same for Linux. If you manage to switch the latter user to Linux, they probably don't know much more than how it -may- be better for them, whereas the more educated user can see both sides of the fence.
Interesting. I don't let my MSWind machine anywhere near the internet. And wouldn't consider doing so a safe practice.
Now I'll admit that the MSWind box I have is MSWind95, but I haven't heard such great things about the more recent versions. (After 95 they started putting on these draconian EULA's, so I jumped ship. I wasn't about to agree to the 2000 version EULA, and my understanding is that they've just gotten worse since then.)
Ha, my windows machine is still a 98'er, I'm familiar with the newer versions as much as I am the older ones (Which is pretty well), but I refuse to update this box'o mine to anything higher. Maybe 2000.
But I'm at least smart enough to keep away from IE and all that proprietary crap no matter what version I'm on.
My thoughts exactly. The only reason I'd need proprietary OS (ie. Windows) on my PC is to play games -- not having it saves a lot of my time:) Surely there are people who need software available only for Windows that is actually required to do their work, luckily I'm not one of them. Besides, I find Linux simply more comfortable to work on, though some things could obviously be improved, but that's a totally different topic.
I agree. I'll play a game, or check -some- of my mail on windows, I have no real problem with it. But if I want to play around with the little bit of Python that I know, or do more than just "Screwing around", then I'll go to Linux for that. It's not the easiest to get working sometimes, but learning it isn't half as bad as hearing about and fixing -other- people's screwed windows boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Of all times to wish I had mod points. I lol'd, big time.
Isn't XP like.. POSIX compliant by a bare minimum? Or some such nonsense?
>Isn't that the situation with Linux distributions right now?
Sure there's lots of linux distros out there, and they seem to sometimes mix in and out of other, maybe more "true unix-y" flavors (freebsd, solaris, et al). But *nix is barely making its footprint in a commercial home market, whereas Windows is just making a very general, wide stretch of its "new" operating environment, when it's not really all that necessary. *nix users can always compile something from source if really necessary -for now-, be it a bitch, or use some form of a dedicated package manager. Sure, marketing and placement plays a role in this Vista forking, and we'll all eventually adapt and get over it, but it's not really needed to have this many versions. There's already not that much disctinction between Vista and XP, there -can't- be much telling the Vistas apart from the Longhorns.
You've got it all wrong. Mr Fusion, anyone?
1.21 GIGAWATTS!
>I was really bummed when it went out of business...
When it went out of business?The site seems to still be up!
Where's the ..Beff?
Wait a second.. that doesn't sound right..
As much as I love Google, I'm so tired of hearing about every little movement the company makes. They just happen to do good services, it's not like they NEED this constant media coverage when there's more important stuff to check in the headlines.
Hold on a sec, my "Google" google alerts just made their way into my inbox, time to check..
The thing I recall hearing somewhere though is that submitting your game to the ESRB (while taken seriously in the industry) is totally voluntary. You don't HAVE to get your game checked out- but with the inability for parents to take care of their children themselves, releasing your content without a rating is highly frowned upon, clean/entertaining game or not.
At that, the ESRB is also supposed to have a rigorous and strict rating process, with not just game footage, but actual access to a playable version of the game (IIRC). So you're right in saying it's not the ESRB's fault- it's completely the fault of R*, for not eradicating the "bad stuff" completely from the copies instead of disabling it.
I personally dread the upcoming debate on how hard a slap on the wrist R* gets for their effort to hide the content. Seeing as they're a rather large company, they will probably just get a good talking to..
I honestly wish you could do a "block sender" in newsgroups. It's possible. Tool around in the message filters, it'll just not download that user's messages.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/boxen.html
I left "they're" out due to space constraints, and simply because I seem to find "their" used as every phonetic form of the word. I didn't forget!
Somebody call the UAC!
> And is surprises you that Windows is buggy as hell and their products are always delayed?
It just goes to show they have no sense of priority. Why is that not obvious to everyone by now?
You say "martyrs for the cause" are man-eating tigers, but what if those who are fighting the cause are also those who are "tired of this shit and am not going to take it anymore"? You miss out that many people, no matter how extreme their views on bringing down things like corporate America and oppressive sects of the US government (read: ALL of the US gov't) are martyrs BECAUSE they're tired.
Sure, yours and others' opinions on what "the cause" is will differ from another individual's/group's, but you're not sounding very openminded with the fact that you're trying to part a rough social sea with rash generalizations that seem easier to swallow for you when they're not going hand in hand.
WHOA, CAUGHT ME A MARLIN'!
X11 sounds cooler than X12, that's why they haven't moved on yet.
>what about machines that lack dvd-roms?
That's what you use 3.9 or the "mini" version for. RTFA?
They're not even halfway.
Conversations comparing two things in such a way aren't always the same each time, though. For instance, if I was trying to switch a person to firefox who was generally knowledgeable about computers - Of course I'd point out the capabilities of IE as well. Even if IMO I were to think IE didn't have any, it can at least be masked as acknowledging the street goes both ways, and the user could choose "intelligently".
But let's say the user has little or no comprehension of their system ("What's a firewall?"). This, more often than not, is the type that if they knew how to reinstall their OS on their own they'd be doing it every few weeks. They probably wouldn't particularly care much about whether or not it supported CSS properly, or if their website looked -exactly- the same in both browsers. More often than not, if you're even switching this kind of person to something else, you're the one installing it- there's little room for comparison questions.
It's the same for Linux. If you manage to switch the latter user to Linux, they probably don't know much more than how it -may- be better for them, whereas the more educated user can see both sides of the fence.
You're right they want to keep their bugs secret, that way they can charge people $300 every few years for a whole box full of them.