At least, if this will do the bulk of the DirectX -> OpenGL heavy lifting, the remainder can probably be worked around enough to get a functional game. Then the implementor can work on the coverted stuff more or less at leisure.
After all, a vulnerability in their email client seems to have let the code out of the bag:
Our speculation is that these were done via a buffer overflow in Outlook's preview pane. This recorder is apparently a customized version of RemoteAnywhere created to infect Valve (at least it hasn't been seen anywhere else, and isn't detected by normal virus scanning tools).
...unless Valve're hoping someone will pipe up and say "that's not right! they were hacked through their Exchange server... uh... <*WHAM*>"
Since the source is out there, you could concievably roll your own Linux version. I imagine that questions will be asked in parliament when you submit your first patch, though. (-:
From: Leon Brooks Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication To: Tom Schatz Subject: What a waste! Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: CAGW Media, Peter Quinn, ESR, RMS
I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article:
People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive.
Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts.
I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen.
The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait.
Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software".
It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software./
If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you?
Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares.
Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do.
Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair?
Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market"?
most studies conclude that acquisition costs represent only 5 to 10 percent of total cost of ownership. Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on.
Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to.
You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose.
If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as
Nowhere does Massachusetts say "Linux". They say "Open Source". That covers a heck of a lot more ground than Linux. Presently, it may even cover OpenServer and UnixWare. (-: Covering, IMESHO, is the best possible thing to do with them short of outright destruction. As operating systems, they out-suck my Barracuda pool cleaner.:-)
Have some... pus with your cookies? If you down a glass of cow's milk, you will. It may be white, but researchers say that every cupful contains somatic cells, i.e., pus.
...but sagged back about 1/3 of that by the end of the day. Looks like the seals on their stock pump are starting to leak - even Joe Clueless Investor is starting to notice that TSG's claims are literally incredible. I think it helped when some negative news finally hit the protected newswires that stock firms publish, and Joe Clueless is starting to ask "can that really be true?" and look at external news sources for a change. Give the next group about a day to figure out the consequences, and expect the stock to sag heavily late on Friday despite being propped up artificially by Gates-boarded companies.
Try here, here, here and here, and next time don't be so dang' lazy.
Yes, I know there are also articles claiming that sapiens and neandertalis didn't interbreed, people seem to need them every few years to reassure themselves that all of those hybrid skeletons are just phantasms. The last page above references several articles which address this very issue.
...and lots of evidence of interbreeding has already been, heh, dug up. Neandertals also have larger brains than us on average, so which way did the development arrow point? (-:
...maybe 20 to 50,000 worldwide, and the development costs would not be huge - pop one of the suckers open and see for yourself. What I can't imagine them doing is upholding a warranty on sawn-off devices.
The idea of shutting everything down for security reasons is abhorrent, but OTOH do we really need violent games? What good do they do us? What benefit do we get from them? In short, what are they for? Can that good or benefit be obtained by other means? Surely it can, if it's at all healthy.
There are very real concerns that these games train and accustom people to savagery, and to treating the targets of their fear, surprise and rage as inanimate, a bunch of pixels to smash and not a person like themselves to treasure. While it's not going to be so for everyone, that training can translate to destructive real-world action and I don't think we need to be identified with even the rumour of such things. Can you think of a reason why we should?
...a fork() for getting your toast out with if it ever gets stuck.
<badaboom>
Seriously, there would also be "spinoff" toaster manufacturers who make really pretty and easy to use toasters (Mandrake), and even portable toasters that don't need to be bolted to the counter (Knoppix) - which, thanks to the power of apt-get, can be bolted to the counter and drowned in 8,000 (yes, really!) accessories if you so desire.
They've been pretty quiet (waiting for the gristly crunching noise when IBM put their legal foot down, I suppose), but what they have said has been universally in favour of Linux, and more importantly they're shipping lots and lots and lots of Linux server boxes.
The hypocrisy of threads like this, where people fall in line to champion the justness of copyright and the Great God GPL, following hot on the heels of numerous anti-RIAA threads where many of those same people claimed copyright was being abused, information wants to be free and so on, is incredible.
<speech length=warandpeace>
Until the recent advent of the Internet, there was no practical way to get your music distributed other than through the RIAA and their ilk. This follows software... outside FidoNet, there was no way of getting your software into users' hands other than the traditional (expensive, cumbersome, backroom-deal-riddled) retail channels, and no easy way of remotely collaborating in real time; and then with academic and later public networks, a different way of doing software arose, people from Alaska to Zambia collaborate on software and get enough direct benefits from the collaboration tha they have no need to charge for the software, and this revolution is currently mowing down the entrenched software providers.
One of the driving forces behind the software revolution is and was the excessive greed of software manufacturers. One of the driving forces behind "music piracy" ("Harrrr! Yer music or yer life!") is the excessive greed of the RIAA-style cartels. As Microsoft worked hard to force all providers to work through their operating system, so RIAA & co work to force all musicians to work through their distribution channels. There are a lot of parallels. Microsoft tries to own your software, the RIAA tries to own your music.
From this, you can see that GPL and anti-RIAA are indeed on the same sides of their respective revolutions (if not exactly parallel: it should be the Creative Commmons licence and the GPL teaming up), so you would expect the same people to be standing up for each.
Make no mistake, by the way, the GPL is totally anathema to Microsoft's modus operandi. Becaus they can't control it, it has no part in Microsoft's corporate life. They're as happy as anyone else to have free product to layer any of their "real" offerings (SFU) on, but bitch like fury when the exact same licence sweeps in and undermines their monopoly cash-cows. It was far more clever of Scott than most people understand to have
bought StarDivision and unleashed StarOffice (and so OpenOffice.org) on the unsuspecting world. Up until that point, the only real GPLed threat to a Microsoft cash cow was Linux, and one of the big things hampering it was a really extensive and complete office suite. For half a billion dollars, Scott bought a lot of pain for his main competitor, and a lot of goodwill for Sun (which they seem to be squandering these days, but you can't win them all).
Now for the difference. With software, you can offer the item percieved as a product for free, and then make money on peripheral factors like support. The money to be made from anciliary music products (T-shirts and other merchandise, concerts) generally isn't there, and nobody's dreamed up a musical equivalent for "support". Musicians still need to be able to make money by making music, and finally people seem to have begun stepping up to that particular plate. iTunes and MusicMatch are just a scratch on the surface. As independent musicians start to realise that, hey, they can get up to half of the retail price of their tracks, and yes, it is possible - even realistic - for MusicMatch to sell two million copies of their track if it's really good, these outlets will take off.
The next step will be when more open methods of creating music hit the mainstream. There's now no particular reason why Joeline (in Chicago, USA) can't lay down a bass track written by Olaf (in Helsinki, Finland) for Enrico (in Ivirgarzama, Cochabamba, Bolivia) and Anastasiya (in her NSTU dorm at N
She'll never be satisfied by a simple 8-key twitch. I want to see keys all over the place, and the glitch where you had to get a new keyboard 'coz the old one was all ground up and got... well, soggy.
...a miniature optical scrollwheel mouse for AUD$23 retail inc (10%) GST from Big W stores, but the wholesale price of just the USB interface chip is AUD$25+GST.
The manufacturers could sell a lot more of those mice if they made the interface chip Flash-programmable and padded and pre-scored the circuit board so you could snap off the mousey bits and use the rest as a generic USB interface.
Slashdot Mirror
At least, if this will do the bulk of the DirectX -> OpenGL heavy lifting, the remainder can probably be worked around enough to get a functional game. Then the implementor can work on the coverted stuff more or less at leisure.
...unless Valve're hoping someone will pipe up and say "that's not right! they were hacked through their Exchange server... uh... <*WHAM*>"
Since the source is out there, you could concievably roll your own Linux version. I imagine that questions will be asked in parliament when you submit your first patch, though. (-:
From: Leon Brooks
Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication
To: Tom Schatz
Subject: What a waste!
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: CAGW Media, Peter Quinn, ESR, RMS
I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article:
Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts.
I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen.
The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait.
Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software".
If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you?
Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares.
Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do.
Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair?
Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market"?
Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on.
Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to.
You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose.
If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as
The cow is nothing but a machine which makes grass fit for us people to eat? Really? (-:
...where [Removing]SoftwareChoice get off speaking for the whole software industry?
Nowhere does Massachusetts say "Linux". They say "Open Source". That covers a heck of a lot more ground than Linux. Presently, it may even cover OpenServer and UnixWare. (-: Covering, IMESHO, is the best possible thing to do with them short of outright destruction. As operating systems, they out-suck my Barracuda pool cleaner. :-)
Like, pardon me while I go and vomit?
Not sure what to make of that at all, it does seem too definite to be coincidence, doesn't it?
...but sagged back about 1/3 of that by the end of the day. Looks like the seals on their stock pump are starting to leak - even Joe Clueless Investor is starting to notice that TSG's claims are literally incredible. I think it helped when some negative news finally hit the protected newswires that stock firms publish, and Joe Clueless is starting to ask "can that really be true?" and look at external news sources for a change. Give the next group about a day to figure out the consequences, and expect the stock to sag heavily late on Friday despite being propped up artificially by Gates-boarded companies.
Yes, I know there are also articles claiming that sapiens and neandertalis didn't interbreed, people seem to need them every few years to reassure themselves that all of those hybrid skeletons are just phantasms. The last page above references several articles which address this very issue.
...and lots of evidence of interbreeding has already been, heh, dug up. Neandertals also have larger brains than us on average, so which way did the development arrow point? (-:
...maybe 20 to 50,000 worldwide, and the development costs would not be huge - pop one of the suckers open and see for yourself. What I can't imagine them doing is upholding a warranty on sawn-off devices.
There are very real concerns that these games train and accustom people to savagery, and to treating the targets of their fear, surprise and rage as inanimate, a bunch of pixels to smash and not a person like themselves to treasure. While it's not going to be so for everyone, that training can translate to destructive real-world action and I don't think we need to be identified with even the rumour of such things. Can you think of a reason why we should?
...but grab the source first!
<badaboom>
Seriously, there would also be "spinoff" toaster manufacturers who make really pretty and easy to use toasters (Mandrake), and even portable toasters that don't need to be bolted to the counter (Knoppix) - which, thanks to the power of apt-get, can be bolted to the counter and drowned in 8,000 (yes, really!) accessories if you so desire.
If there was any chance of SCOX surviving the lawsuit, I'd be interested in taking WebFace and extending it as much as I could.
They've been pretty quiet (waiting for the gristly crunching noise when IBM put their legal foot down, I suppose), but what they have said has been universally in favour of Linux, and more importantly they're shipping lots and lots and lots of Linux server boxes.
...and the old-guard hp indemnifying. Either way it's cuckoo-plus-ultra - kind of in tune with the rest of the circus.
It's "back-breaking". But Onno's ESL, so I'll forgive him that slip... but what about you? (-:
<speech length=warandpeace>
Until the recent advent of the Internet, there was no practical way to get your music distributed other than through the RIAA and their ilk. This follows software... outside FidoNet, there was no way of getting your software into users' hands other than the traditional (expensive, cumbersome, backroom-deal-riddled) retail channels, and no easy way of remotely collaborating in real time; and then with academic and later public networks, a different way of doing software arose, people from Alaska to Zambia collaborate on software and get enough direct benefits from the collaboration tha they have no need to charge for the software, and this revolution is currently mowing down the entrenched software providers.
One of the driving forces behind the software revolution is and was the excessive greed of software manufacturers. One of the driving forces behind "music piracy" ("Harrrr! Yer music or yer life!") is the excessive greed of the RIAA-style cartels. As Microsoft worked hard to force all providers to work through their operating system, so RIAA & co work to force all musicians to work through their distribution channels. There are a lot of parallels. Microsoft tries to own your software, the RIAA tries to own your music.
From this, you can see that GPL and anti-RIAA are indeed on the same sides of their respective revolutions (if not exactly parallel: it should be the Creative Commmons licence and the GPL teaming up), so you would expect the same people to be standing up for each.
Now for the difference. With software, you can offer the item percieved as a product for free, and then make money on peripheral factors like support. The money to be made from anciliary music products (T-shirts and other merchandise, concerts) generally isn't there, and nobody's dreamed up a musical equivalent for "support". Musicians still need to be able to make money by making music, and finally people seem to have begun stepping up to that particular plate. iTunes and MusicMatch are just a scratch on the surface. As independent musicians start to realise that, hey, they can get up to half of the retail price of their tracks, and yes, it is possible - even realistic - for MusicMatch to sell two million copies of their track if it's really good, these outlets will take off.
The next step will be when more open methods of creating music hit the mainstream. There's now no particular reason why Joeline (in Chicago, USA) can't lay down a bass track written by Olaf (in Helsinki, Finland) for Enrico (in Ivirgarzama, Cochabamba, Bolivia) and Anastasiya (in her NSTU dorm at N
She'll never be satisfied by a simple 8-key twitch. I want to see keys all over the place, and the glitch where you had to get a new keyboard 'coz the old one was all ground up and got... well, soggy.
The manufacturers could sell a lot more of those mice if they made the interface chip Flash-programmable and padded and pre-scored the circuit board so you could snap off the mousey bits and use the rest as a generic USB interface.
This caused comment within days of the event. (-: It seems that this guy got the message too late. :-)
See www.billparish.com for details. (-: