I guess I'm being a bit pedantic, but the Beatles showed a bit of label stoogery when they got their first break by signing with EMI. George Martin, who headed the Parlophone label at EMI, told the Beatles that they had to ditch their original drummer, Pete Best, because Martin thought he wasn't good enough. Without much of a fight, they ditched Best and pulled Ringo Starr -- another drummer affiliated with the studio -- out of a tour with his band "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes" to join the Beatles in the recording studio.
On the other hand, there were rumors that the other three members of the Beatles were growing increasingly irritated with Best, due to his popularity with the female groupies and his non conformance with their ideas (wouldn't get the same hair style, tended to skip band practice, etc). So maybe the label stoogery was a convenient catalyst.
Wait.. so we get 30 days to back up our important files, download the latest ubuntu release, and subscribe to cedega? Sweet -- that's more than enough time. A little going away gift from Gates to me -- Thanks Micro$oft!
"The only real trouble area for me is being able to effectively use dual monitors (the laptop LCD + an external VGA). It's easy to set up dual monitors, but not so easy (not so possible?) to have your desktop be aware of when you disconnect the external VGA monitor (to, say, go to the coffee house) and know not to pop up new windows on the screen that's not there anymore. This is an area that Windows does a lot better in, and as far as I know this is an issue with running Linux on most laptops."
Actually, that's a Windows problem as well. I use a T43 at work running XP Pro, and I have a 19" LCD (connected via the VGA port) that I use for dual monitor support. Most of the time when I take my laptop off of the docking station, my laptop still creates windows on the (now non-existent) VGA screen. I use the old ALT+SPACEBAR combo to get the keyboard move function and I'll scroll the window back to my laptop screen.
So, don't count this one against linux. Windows sucks at it too.
You're comparing apples and oranges, my man. Firefox defaulting to Google is much different than IE7 defaulting to MSN. IE comes installed by default on Windows, and is set to your default browser unless you change it. So when someone installs Windows and uses the default browser's search box, they are taken to MS's search page. Let's recap:
Microsoft OS
Microsoft's default browser is a Microsoft product
Microsoft's default search points to a Microsft page used in Microsoft's default browser
FF and Opera are different because you have to manually download the programs to use them. You are not provided them by default. I do agree, however, that Firefox should also provide the MSN search as an option by default, just to be fair. But IE7's default setting is pushing it when it points you to MS's search page.
On the other hand, who are we kidding. Even if someone who had the authority to do something about it saw this as wrong, they wouldn't do anything about it. What happened to MS when they lost the suit in the 90's? That's right.. the same thing that's happening in the EU.. nothing.
Come again? You're stoked, new ways to design cartoonish GUIs, etc, then you're not stoked? Sadly, this reads a lot like every "positive" review of Vista I've ever encountered.
90% of the world? That's quite a number to throw out with absolutely no basis behind it. If anything, I'd say that when evaluating the similar working class all over the world, a 60 hour work week in a game development company is well above the rest of the world in terms of labor and work load. Especially when you consider it in a broader context; taking in to account such factors as salary, benefits, time off, etc.
The majority of the rest of the world spends more time in education, works fewer hours every week, is treated better by their employers, and retires earlier. Note that I said "the majority", and not "all" nor "90%".
No, you're missing the point. The entire ordeal is so ridiculous that only a ridiculous solution will work. If some legislative body comes in (game makers, government, ngo, whatever) and dictates WoW policy, you're pretty much guaranteed that the losing faction will be up in arms about it forever. However, if you put the decision making process in to the hands of the players, vis-a-vis their gaming abilities, then it sets the stage for an all out, winner-takes-all scenario that will not be concluded with people saying "I had no say in this whatesoever, no fair, etc".
It's a stupid fight over a computer game. Sorry if you thought my comment somehow reflected my personal views on social decision making.
yawn.
I just sent this to the author of the article (slakje@osnews.com):
I'm sure you're probably getting a ton of these emails, so I'll keep this (relatively) short:
It's incredibly naive of you to say that because *nix users have full access to their user space, they are no more secure than on a windows box. Consider, for a second, how malicious software propagates itself on a user's system: The most popular methods include memory resident programs, overwriting system files and libraries, and the unwanted installation of software invisible to the user.
On a standard windows box, those methods are trivial because the user runs in "root" space. On a standard *nix system, however, the user has no admin privileges whatsoever. So a malicious piece of software has much, much fewer options and means-of-entry in to the system to do its dirty work. Now, is a *nix box bulletproof? Certainly not. No one ever said it was. But by default, it's much harder to do real damage. The removal of the users coveted pictures, documents, etc has to be prompted by some piece of code. If it's much harder to implement that code on to the users machine, then yes, that machine is more secure. You're missing the bigger picture.
Not to mention "security by obscurity", which simply points to the fact that windows users make up 80%-90% of the market, so the authors of the malware tend to target windows machines because they're a more target-rich environment.
My point is, to simply say something like "acutally, no, unix is no more secure than windows" and not go in to any real, tangible detail borders on FUDD, and is exactly the type of press that potential coverts soak in.
It's interesting to observe how real-life issues are so closely replicated in virtual forms. Let's take advantage of the virtual nature of the conflict (but only after we get over the fact that we're arguing over the social environment of make-believe computer characters).
Let's have all of the pro-same sex marriage players on one side, and all of the hetero-only advocates on the other side. An all out war. Whoever wins gets to decide the policy on marriage rights for all of WoW.
I bet we'd all be surprised to see who comes out of the woodwork to cast a spell or two.
pd
I knew it was just a matter of time before the forums became slashdotted. For those of you who are locked out:
Basically, Zed (the author of Xchat) decided to stop release free Windows binaries of Xchat. He is still releasing the linux binaries and, of course, the source, for free. Zed will continue to produce binaries for windows, but now it's shareware. Use it for 30 days, then pay a one time $20 fee, or stop using it (I'm sure it's complete with Regiser today! spam).
The major arguments:
Xchat claims to abide by the GPL. If Zed is going to continue to use that license, then he needs to keep the windows binaries free because he can't possibly contact all of the contributing authors and get their permission to charge a fee for their GPL contributions.
If he wants to charge money for the windows binaries, then he needs to drop the GPL licensing because his shareware violates the GPL on multiple counts (not being able to conveniently contact the contributing GPL authors doesn't immunize him from having to do so before he can charge money).
Zed initially indicated that he was now charging for windows binaries because of all of the work involved when compiling for windows. He said it took too long, was frustrating, and he wouldn't do it anymore for free. I started a thread that suggested he slow down the windows binary release cycle, to half pace. Release windows binaries every other major release, and you have half the work. It seems his real reason for going shareware is money, not time spent (although they are related, of course).
imo tbh you can't be GPL compliant, use and compile 3rd party GPL code, and charge people money for it without the expressed consent of the contributing authors.
Too bad, too. I'll spin "another one bites the dust" for Zed and Xchat as a viable alternative to mIRC in windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I'm being a bit pedantic, but the Beatles showed a bit of label stoogery when they got their first break by signing with EMI. George Martin, who headed the Parlophone label at EMI, told the Beatles that they had to ditch their original drummer, Pete Best, because Martin thought he wasn't good enough. Without much of a fight, they ditched Best and pulled Ringo Starr -- another drummer affiliated with the studio -- out of a tour with his band "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes" to join the Beatles in the recording studio.
On the other hand, there were rumors that the other three members of the Beatles were growing increasingly irritated with Best, due to his popularity with the female groupies and his non conformance with their ideas (wouldn't get the same hair style, tended to skip band practice, etc). So maybe the label stoogery was a convenient catalyst.
Yes, but can they run linux?
Wait.. so we get 30 days to back up our important files, download the latest ubuntu release, and subscribe to cedega? Sweet -- that's more than enough time. A little going away gift from Gates to me -- Thanks Micro$oft!
From Merriam-Webster:
2: set in a bent position
So based on that definition, it would be correct to say 'knocking someone akimbo' if you mean to imply that someone was knocked in to a bent position.
I have no idea if that's what really happens in the game, but if we're going to split hairs, I thought I'd toss in my $0.02 of karma burn.
"The only real trouble area for me is being able to effectively use dual monitors (the laptop LCD + an external VGA). It's easy to set up dual monitors, but not so easy (not so possible?) to have your desktop be aware of when you disconnect the external VGA monitor (to, say, go to the coffee house) and know not to pop up new windows on the screen that's not there anymore. This is an area that Windows does a lot better in, and as far as I know this is an issue with running Linux on most laptops."
Actually, that's a Windows problem as well. I use a T43 at work running XP Pro, and I have a 19" LCD (connected via the VGA port) that I use for dual monitor support. Most of the time when I take my laptop off of the docking station, my laptop still creates windows on the (now non-existent) VGA screen. I use the old ALT+SPACEBAR combo to get the keyboard move function and I'll scroll the window back to my laptop screen.
So, don't count this one against linux. Windows sucks at it too.
FF and Opera are different because you have to manually download the programs to use them. You are not provided them by default. I do agree, however, that Firefox should also provide the MSN search as an option by default, just to be fair. But IE7's default setting is pushing it when it points you to MS's search page.
On the other hand, who are we kidding. Even if someone who had the authority to do something about it saw this as wrong, they wouldn't do anything about it. What happened to MS when they lost the suit in the 90's? That's right.. the same thing that's happening in the EU.. nothing.
Ok let me see if I got this straight. You said:
... [some shit about new GUI design]
"I am still very excited about Windows Vista
I am not hoping for much out of Vista".
Come again? You're stoked, new ways to design cartoonish GUIs, etc, then you're not stoked? Sadly, this reads a lot like every "positive" review of Vista I've ever encountered.
90% of the world? That's quite a number to throw out with absolutely no basis behind it. If anything, I'd say that when evaluating the similar working class all over the world, a 60 hour work week in a game development company is well above the rest of the world in terms of labor and work load. Especially when you consider it in a broader context; taking in to account such factors as salary, benefits, time off, etc.
The majority of the rest of the world spends more time in education, works fewer hours every week, is treated better by their employers, and retires earlier. Note that I said "the majority", and not "all" nor "90%".
No, you're missing the point. The entire ordeal is so ridiculous that only a ridiculous solution will work. If some legislative body comes in (game makers, government, ngo, whatever) and dictates WoW policy, you're pretty much guaranteed that the losing faction will be up in arms about it forever. However, if you put the decision making process in to the hands of the players, vis-a-vis their gaming abilities, then it sets the stage for an all out, winner-takes-all scenario that will not be concluded with people saying "I had no say in this whatesoever, no fair, etc". It's a stupid fight over a computer game. Sorry if you thought my comment somehow reflected my personal views on social decision making. yawn.
I just sent this to the author of the article (slakje@osnews.com):
I'm sure you're probably getting a ton of these emails, so I'll keep this (relatively) short:
It's incredibly naive of you to say that because *nix users have full access to their user space, they are no more secure than on a windows box. Consider, for a second, how malicious software propagates itself on a user's system: The most popular methods include memory resident programs, overwriting system files and libraries, and the unwanted installation of software invisible to the user.
On a standard windows box, those methods are trivial because the user runs in "root" space. On a standard *nix system, however, the user has no admin privileges whatsoever. So a malicious piece of software has much, much fewer options and means-of-entry in to the system to do its dirty work. Now, is a *nix box bulletproof? Certainly not. No one ever said it was. But by default, it's much harder to do real damage. The removal of the users coveted pictures, documents, etc has to be prompted by some piece of code. If it's much harder to implement that code on to the users machine, then yes, that machine is more secure. You're missing the bigger picture.
Not to mention "security by obscurity", which simply points to the fact that windows users make up 80%-90% of the market, so the authors of the malware tend to target windows machines because they're a more target-rich environment.
My point is, to simply say something like "acutally, no, unix is no more secure than windows" and not go in to any real, tangible detail borders on FUDD, and is exactly the type of press that potential coverts soak in.
Thanks for nothing,
Tim
It's interesting to observe how real-life issues are so closely replicated in virtual forms. Let's take advantage of the virtual nature of the conflict (but only after we get over the fact that we're arguing over the social environment of make-believe computer characters). Let's have all of the pro-same sex marriage players on one side, and all of the hetero-only advocates on the other side. An all out war. Whoever wins gets to decide the policy on marriage rights for all of WoW. I bet we'd all be surprised to see who comes out of the woodwork to cast a spell or two. pd
I knew it was just a matter of time before the forums became slashdotted. For those of you who are locked out:
Basically, Zed (the author of Xchat) decided to stop release free Windows binaries of Xchat. He is still releasing the linux binaries and, of course, the source, for free. Zed will continue to produce binaries for windows, but now it's shareware. Use it for 30 days, then pay a one time $20 fee, or stop using it (I'm sure it's complete with Regiser today! spam).
The major arguments:
Xchat claims to abide by the GPL. If Zed is going to continue to use that license, then he needs to keep the windows binaries free because he can't possibly contact all of the contributing authors and get their permission to charge a fee for their GPL contributions.
If he wants to charge money for the windows binaries, then he needs to drop the GPL licensing because his shareware violates the GPL on multiple counts (not being able to conveniently contact the contributing GPL authors doesn't immunize him from having to do so before he can charge money).
Zed initially indicated that he was now charging for windows binaries because of all of the work involved when compiling for windows. He said it took too long, was frustrating, and he wouldn't do it anymore for free. I started a thread that suggested he slow down the windows binary release cycle, to half pace. Release windows binaries every other major release, and you have half the work. It seems his real reason for going shareware is money, not time spent (although they are related, of course).
imo tbh you can't be GPL compliant, use and compile 3rd party GPL code, and charge people money for it without the expressed consent of the contributing authors.
Too bad, too. I'll spin "another one bites the dust" for Zed and Xchat as a viable alternative to mIRC in windows.