I don't have any problem with Corel selling an office suite under linux... as long as there are open source alternatives, of course. But it's their emphasis on the distribution which is a little worrying. If its distribution stays as simply a vehicle to allow novice users access to linux, fine... but who's to say they won't go after the server market in a couple of years time?... the last thing we need is to topple one giant ogre and replace it with another...
Well I personally think that this isn't much of a deal. Consider that the kernel is what technically makes up linux. The rest of the utilities are almost indespensible to using linux. What is bad about that? Does it really matter if say some companies officially give up. Hell Red Hat could quite easily be run in a community oriented way if they so choose. Debian is already doing just that.
Are you implying that Corel will violate the GPL in some way and get a proprietary changes to be made to GPL code? I seriously doubt this.
Corel seems to be under a rather interesting impression that they are the reason people are switching to Linux in the first place. I'm quite amused.
It should be interpreted as meaning that basically because of the possibility of high cost people might be desuaded from using linux or experimenting with it; and that is something that Corel will not do.
What in the world is wrong with charging for software? We are in a capitalist society. You see, we exchange money for goods and services. Designing software is a service in my opinion. I'm a computer science student at a major american university, and I hope to be able to pay for food and shelter after I graduate.
What many modern people object to today is that software is buggy and does not work as advertised. If we wish to think in terms of capitalism we are selling a service or a product but if it isn't quality then people have a right to compalain. If for example your car or your house had as many problems with it as many software releases do now I would think that you would be a little irritated. We are in a similar state that people were in the late 1800's when people were producing all sorts of goods and society was advancing but several things about those services/products were shoddy and monopolies were in place to support the development of those industries. Getting software up to the year 2000 will be an ongoing process probably well into 2050 or so.
There was a time when people wanted to be Josef Stalin. Although this may have been just to get a bigger food ration. Looking at history a litte I seriously doubt that anyone in the Soviet Bloc was ever even asked. And I doubt that anyone even got the chance to say what they liked even if asked because they would be classified as a "political extremist" and deported to Siberia to work in a coal mine.
Bill is just a zit on the face of time. An annoying zit, to be sure, but the crap his winged monkeys have churned out will not endure.
Well we have the person who created the ENIAC in books and we have people like Hitler in books and we even have crappy presidents like Nixon and Carter on history books. So when we look at the history of computing why not Bill Gates? I mean just because we put someone in a book dosn't mean we like or even support their beliefs we just are presenting information. Now if they decided to create something like Bill Gates created the ENIAC and that Bill Gates created the PC then I would think that it would be a little biased.
Isn't it just great how hedonistic beliefs ultimately prevail in american society? Bill Gates may be a brilliant businessman, but he is blind or chooses to be blind regarding many social and ethical issues. I guess this is what society worships.
Think of things this way. Suppose I never have a selfish thought for myself. I spend every waking hour trying to help others all of the time. Now I cannot help myself. However if I help myself and then decide to help others I can help more and more people and maybe have a real collective presence and impact. This is the theory behind most of what modern America thinks. Generally this is a good idea. I think it is a good idea because my life is short. I want to enjoy my life. I seriously doubt that they will be able to extend my lifetime in any significant way in the next 100 years in a quality way. Society worships these things because we have realized that eventually we will die and most likely that death will be slow and agonizing and I would say about 10-20 years before you die you go downhill rapidly but stay in a rut and loose your humanity.
I'd rather die than be Bill Gates.
Well that's your choice. I personally (if I were Bill Gates) would just sell the company and retire to my palatial home running w2k beta and enjoy the rest of my life. However I would make the place Linux compatable.
Considering he "invented" the idea of charging for software back in the homebrew computing club days, this makes perfect sense. It also shines alot of light in some dark places. This guy is one of society's role models. Whatever else we may think of him, he's popular. People want to be Bill Gates.
For one simple reason: the money. I could care less exactly who he is I just would like not to really have to work again in my life and devote my time to what I enjoy. I could easily live on the sum of roughly 5 million or so (a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates) and never have any other worries or problems (except health).
I wonder if they're aware of the price they must pay to be Bill Gates. Maybe we should create a movie: "Being Bill Gates"... ought to be an interesting surreal world. We'd start with the UNIX Ewoks and just go from there. Bill payed a steep price for his dollars.. I'm not sure it's the way I'd want to make my millions, if I made them at all. Just some food for thought...
I actually have thought about what I could do given a little invention called the time machine. Basically go into the past armed with something like the entire collection of technical knowledge and a set of dates cronicalling when said technology was developed. Then get a group of people together and have them do all the development first. Guess who invented the first PC? slashdot-terminal! Guess who created Unix? slashdot-terminal? Who invented this nifty Linux thing? slashdot-terminal! Who was president at least 5 times? slashdot-terminal! Who won every large scale bet on sports teams during this time? slashdot-terminal! Who is the janitor at the Slashdot-TerminalCorp's world headquarters compound? Bill Gates! That is if I let him live. Even better get all the technology that will be developed in the future and then go into the present and release everything under the GPL before MS and Intel can do anything about it. Now *that* would encourage innovation.
MS manager: well what about that new OS you guys have been working on?
Programmer: Oh well we can't do Windows 5k those open source guys beat us to it.
No, I think there are legitimate uses for anonymous posting. Someone needs to put an end to that particular poster, though. Are there any hit men (or hit women) reading this? Want to help out?
Well I just couldn't resist this little tidbit! In general you must provide the name and address of the individual. Failing that a good picture or anything that can allow for facial expression analysis to go on. Then I can procure a handmade high powered weapon with telescopic sight produced with a custom plastic die process. A single bullet to the head will usually do the trick fired from a concealed location in a secluded area.
However the best/most sadistic way is to use a deadly toxin. Most of the best fast acting toxins include potassium cyanide caplets or hyrodgen cyanide gas that is released in a confined space like an elevator or stairwell or even the vitim's car. If you wish to avoid detection however the best method by far is to use a little thing the KGB cooked up back in the 70s. A little case involving a Bulgarian dissident who displeased them met with a rather unpleaseant end when an unidentified agent "accidentally" stumbled into him on a city street. What then occured was a small fine needle jabbed into his leg cavity implanting a metal sphere containing a small ammount of a deadly nerve toxin. He incidentally died about 24 hours later. So yes it is possible. What is really troubling is that (at least for me). The text of the little SMARGLE posts are in fact particularly nasty when viewed in IE5 (I am in it right now). Has anyone else noticed this? Perhaps a little DoS attack directed at the httpd log acces files will obtain something.
I for one do not think that the internet will play a big role in the presidential campaign (at least not now). Consider that most of the people who vote are senior citizens. Also consider that most of the people who are 'in' with computers are usually young people. Now young people are often associated with a couple of character traits which can be easily demonostrated in any slashdot discussion forum on any issue that has a social context; namely this is being a mix of apathy and defeatism or liberterian thought.
All of these factors allow for the internet to play a role just not a very large one. I for one think both Bradly and McCain(sp) are total idiots. I watched a debate that was I believe from the major party debate on NH on PBS a couple of weeks ago. Someone like George W. Bush would make a better choice about freedom compared to some of those people who could have quite easily been the real life counterparts to Ned Flanders of Simpsons fame. The real thing to look out for is when one of those 'moral' people decide to get in the hot seat.
You can be sure that companies are going to be more interested in porting and writing games on Linux now. Over the next two years more and more Linux devices, many of them portable, will appear, and a large market for these devices will be for games, and especially network games!
That's real nice but why network games? I still would like to play games by myself most of the time and generally do not like interaction or being forced to use a network if I do not want to. I would rather have a killer desktop machine than a mediocre(sp) hand held device.
You could be playing you game around the house, in the garden etc, but loading the game data from inside the house, across a bluetooth link or wireless ethernet link - basically a remote disk drive. No more having to leave the computer behind when you are forced to go into the garden/shopping/etc!:-)
Unfortunately I think that there would be problems generally with this concept. The modern concept of games has generally been to take *full* advantage of fast processors and lots of ram and HD space. This will always limit the types of games that a hand held could run without getting really bogged down or getting damaged really fast.
Developers need to get aquainted with programming games for Linux as soon as possible. XFree86 4 will makes things even better for them
I just see really high end video card support not making things better for embedded systems programming for hand helds. Unless this next realease can fit on a floppy and run in 2 Mb of ram then it will not be a feasible option. Qnx is more like it for hand held devices.
Hmm, maybe Intel is learning. When AMD came along offering a comperable (if not better) product at cheaper pricing, Intel ignored it and hoped it would go away. -BIG MISTAKE-. Now that VIA is doing the same thing, maybe Intel is figuring out that they should do something. Of course, trying to ban it may not be the best way...
Intel like Microsoft dosn't really need to care about anything. Technically inclined people use all the either better stuff or cheaper stuff and the rest of the world uses what is easily avaible. I would use whatever is cheapest and works well. I have used 3 computers in my home environment over my computing time and all three were Intel machines. This was not because I especially like Intel but because they were cheap and avaible at the time (since I needed a replacement). As long as it runs linux I am a happy person.
Usually, this sort of tactic would tend to imply that Intel is somewhat... afraid(?) of the unknown. Just my opinion:)
In business there is a whole field called Risk Assesment that goes into exactly what kind of risks there are out there and how a company is to look at those threats. Companies have lawyers because if they don't sue someone else will. Generally a new slightly similar chip in the marketplace that might challenge them would almost ceternally be a risk. Assessing the risk to the best of their ability is what being a good salesman/businessman/CEO is all about. Generally until they determine what the total risk picutre is they will use the lawyers as a measure to prevent problems.
You could care less about Transmeta. All you care about is your damn casino. Anyway, your argument doesn't make any sense because Transmeta is an American company and the Intel/VIA dispute is between an American company and an foreign company. So how could this have anything to do with Transmeta?
Well I don't think gambling is entertaining either but that's beside the point. If you can program something sophisticated in a popular web site (be it irritating like with a porn or a casino site) that at least says that it works for a few people.
The point that he is trying to make (I think) is that Intel feels quite threatened by the fact the a small time chip manufacturer may be taking away customers in another country. Their chips are "just too close to ours" or something like that. What we really must look at first is what kind of threat do they actually pose? Are these chips in wide production so that they actually make it to the USA and are there compelte systems that include these processors. Personally if these processors can run linux and they are in cheap systems that would knock about a couple hundred dollars off the price of a similar Intel machine then I just might be there. I am really getting tired of my useless computer and am looking for a replacement./* Just try running Gimp with a 486. You too can experience the windows lock up type thing on linux */.
Theres really nothing to be said until after it has launched and we have more information. I certainly wouldn't mind being dazzled by a revolutionary processor if this truely is one.
Unfortunately until there is some (and I mean *any*) hardware support this is pretty useless. The OS has to support the processor.
Would you mind providing your full real name and street address? Warez are illegal, and people like you who would even incinuate committing piracy don't deserve to have a computer. Ha ha ha. Well sure Homer J. Simpson 1243 Evergreen Terrace Springfield, USA Really there is no way to actually legally go against someone just because they talk about something that you have no proof about. I think the word for this is circumstancial evidence.
Pessimism is bad for your lifespan; besides, if the OSS community can come up with something faster, great. If not, also great. I'll take a closed fast 3d subsystem over an slower open one.
I doubt that if I wasn't pessimistic about the state of those mushrooms that I saw in the forest a couple of years ago I might not be able to post today.
I have another question does this mean you must have a 3d graphics card to get it to work? I assumed that a great deal of this could be done in software.
Not only that, but you'll also notice nowhere is it stated that it will be free, either. I was excited until I realized this may be just another accelerated X server product ala MetroX, etc. Lovely...
You know I had this type of a problem with various companies screwing me over because they really don't care about me. Then I came to the inescapable conclusion that the only way I will ever get a really nice experience with any hardware product under linux is either one of two options.
1. Buy the machine pre-installed with linux thereby making at least partly sure that the hardware will allow the machine to boot up and get all of the hardware detected in a reasonable manner.
2. Get something that everyone and their mother has and hope that it works for me to.
I know you probably don't want to do that but hardware companies are trying their damndest to get everything nice and expensive so that everyone has to upgrade.
Qestion for all of you how long have you had your current machine unaltered from the time it was built or bought that you are currently using for desktop purposes (ie. not a dedicated server in a closet in a secret room)?
Does anyone else find it ironic that the company that makes the video with the absolute WORST 3d in linux is supposedly working on a fully compliant OpenGL subsystem?
A little question for you exactly how is it the worst thing? Could anyone give me some data besides quake3 benchmarks? I sure would like to get the straight dope about video cards before I waste a bunch of money on them.
Is there an ISA version of any decent card? Might be nice.
I find that hard to believe given their apparent apathy to the current linux market.
So does that mean that there isn't any decent preformance with that video card? Or do they not publish something really neato like various printer manufactureres.
In terms of helping out open source projects not in terms of getting the rich richer or of saying that Red Hat and the salvation army are the same in their mission or focus. If you are donating your time to an open source project that is used in red hat or donating time and effort to the salvation army are they bad.
Hmmm...what is the Salvation Army's ticker symbol?
Helping with an opensource prject dosn't directly help Red Hat as anyone can use it in any distribution. Emacs is included in Red Hat does that mean that RMS believes in Red Hat? No. The slavation army was brought up as a comparison about how people choose to spend their time in various community oriented affairs. Helping Red Hat by contributing to an open source project that they use is not a bad thing. I seriously doubt that your change will cause red hat to increase in profit a couple billion.
My personal experience with Be is that it is more polished, stable, and faster. Is there the huge amount of software for it? Nope.
I would think that there isn't But at least there's Doom. They even have Doom for QNX.
But there is more software for Windows than Linux too. Does that make Windows better? I think not.
Linux includes most of the really interesting main stuff in various distributions directly on the main CDs. Windows does not. You don't get say VC++ or Office 2000 on the CDs for windows 98 do you? It's about what you get initially.
RedHat, Caldera, etc. did not write Linux from scratch. Be has invested millions in R&D. RedHat and Caldera get you suckers to do their R&D. They develop minor pieces of Linux, but the lion's share has already been done for them. Can you be any more naive?
People are not suckers for doing work for a project that they enjoy. That's saying that you are a sucker for doing work for the salvation army or helping that old lady across the street. I don't think that what Red Hat and Caldera do is trivial at all. Instead I think that they are more of the sort that allow for things to work properly. Who helps make sure that you have a reasonably up to date system and not have to repartition it? Distributions usually do. Try upgrading in a easy when configuration files change places or a new library needs to be updated. Without distros you would be out of luck for the most part.
I understand how OSS works. Selling support for most pieces of software is useless. How else are people supposed to make money from their software genius? According to you, it must be free. You and the rest of the GNU cult keep preaching it, but you insist that people will pay if the product is good.
Open source can be seen as an ideal like perfection is to being your best every day. Open source is similar to good proprietary software. We all have goals in life. Government tries to achieve a democracy but fails and we have a republic form of government but does that mean we should not try? I know people usually pay if the product is good but if it's too much then its a bit of a problem. Look at the efforts that can be seen with linux and games. Loki ports games to linux and people pay for them.
Tell me one thing. If I want to get something without paying for your "software genius" I can get something called warez and just get around that little restriction or haven't your forgotten.
Not all OSS software is better. BE is a better OS than Linux, has a ton more features, and is more stable. There is not yet an equivakent for VMWare. FreeMware is years behind, so once again you are wrong there.
Are you referring to the kernel or the entire Red Hat or Caldera CD set? I sincerely doubt that Be shipps with all the software that either of these two do or even a fraction of what Debian comes with.
Could someone with some factual data tell me *exactly* what shipps with Be and some scientific and factual information that can demonostrate that Be is better? I would like to see that.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Expecting to make a living from writing software is not akin to extortion. No one is required to give you the fruits of their labor.
Ahh that's where your wrong. I have personal experience that will disprove you on that one. I have had to take classes where they used some form of proprietary software that was employed in the class where it was not necessarily needed. This required money but could have been replaced with another application that was totally free but had a different syntax or implimentation of the same idea. These products usually cost $100-$400+. Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Spoken like a college student who does not work in the real world yet. Just wait, college boy, one day you might want to make a living from your work, and some punk like you will come along and insist on you giving your work away.
I don't think that if you write a spcialized piece of software of work for anyone that people from the opensource community will just have a magical crystal ball and find out you are making commercial software then come to your house with baseball bats and reduce your skull to splinters. Not everyone is a 'college boy' in the sence of the word.
Once a GPL program has entered a market, like Linux has in the OS market, commercial revenue margins come under assault. The hugh margins that some may view as extortion cannot be maintained. Of course can one say that the "innovation" in windows has kept up with its cost. I don't think so. I think the majority of software companies are in for a shock as in the coming years the margins that they have enjoyed will be greatly reduced.
Although it is possible to have an open source application compete with a commercial one I think that saying that open source will prevent people from making money off software and having a comfortable margin would be stretching it a little. If I hire several thousand software developers and several thousand beta testers for analysis of the software to do all sorts of error checking I will be able to produce a very good application. Now if I impliment features that rely on obscure methods to accomplish various tasks then I can sell said software. Now with windows and other products where (usually) open source is not as prevelent as with other places the commercial option is often the best one. Running open source programs on top of windows is like putting a leotards on a group of fat 50+ male bowlers who work as tow truck operators and then having them stumble drunkenly around and call it ballet. Now you have all the things you need: people in costumes, "dancing", even music but does that give you a quality experience?
Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free
Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market (at least for x86 hardware). Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the browser software area as soon as everyone realized that there was no money to be made there.
I really think that this is not an issue. Think of it this way. Suppose we develop hardware capable of running AI on some level. A company (ever MS) decides to crate a series of AI extensions that are optional to the operating system but that come with it do allow for true AI and other activities such as multiple foreign language interpretation and real time analysis of facial expressions. Now with all these advances what if they charge the people about $100 do get it? Will this change anything and make everyone not buy it? No. This would only 'destroy' anyone's chances of making money from the OS if someone made that killer OS. Yes and I will be the first one to admit that linux is not that OS even though I use it every day.
Say what? I told you to stop! But no, I didn't mean it. Please, explain exactly what you mean by that. I am terribly curious. And what exactly is your chaso theory?
simple transposition of the letters 's' and 'o' "chaos theory" is ther term you are after.
I'd quibble with point (2). Physics is only difficult, because it tends to not be "common sense". But, in reality, that's a problem with "common sense", not physics.
The math requirements of physics also have something to do with it. Generally math is also not easy for the average person and so therefore it can be inferred that physics is not easy because of it's reliance on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any problem with Corel selling an office suite under linux ... as long as there are open source alternatives, of course. But it's their emphasis on the distribution which is a little worrying. If its distribution stays as simply a ... but who's to say they won't go after the server market in a couple of years time? ... the last thing we need is to topple one giant ogre and replace it with another ...
vehicle to allow novice users access to linux, fine
Well I personally think that this isn't much of a deal. Consider that the kernel is what technically makes up linux. The rest of the utilities are almost indespensible to using linux. What is bad about that? Does it really matter if say some companies officially give up. Hell Red Hat could quite easily be run in a community oriented way if they so choose. Debian is already doing just that.
Are you implying that Corel will violate the GPL in some way and get a proprietary changes to be made to GPL code? I seriously doubt this.
Corel seems to be under a rather interesting impression that they are the reason people are switching to Linux in the first place. I'm quite amused.
It should be interpreted as meaning that basically because of the possibility of high cost people might be desuaded from using linux or experimenting with it; and that is something that Corel will not do.
What in the world is wrong with charging for software? We are in a capitalist society. You see, we exchange money for goods and services. Designing software is a service in my opinion. I'm a computer science student at a major
american university, and I hope to be able to pay for food and shelter after I graduate.
What many modern people object to today is that software is buggy and does not work as advertised. If we wish to think in terms of capitalism we are selling a service or a product but if it isn't quality then people have a right to compalain. If for example your car or your house had as many problems with it as many software releases do now I would think that you would be a little irritated. We are in a similar state that people were in the late 1800's when people were producing all sorts of goods and society was advancing but several things about those services/products were shoddy and monopolies were in place to support the development of those industries. Getting software up to the year 2000 will be an ongoing process probably well into 2050 or so.
There was a time when people wanted to be Josef Stalin. Although this may have been just to get a bigger food ration.
Looking at history a litte I seriously doubt that anyone in the Soviet Bloc was ever even asked. And I doubt that anyone even got the chance to say what they liked even if asked because they would be classified as a "political extremist" and deported to Siberia to work in a coal mine.
Bill is just a zit on the face of time. An annoying zit, to be sure, but the crap his winged monkeys have churned out will not endure.
Well we have the person who created the ENIAC in books and we have people like Hitler in books and we even have crappy presidents like Nixon and Carter on history books. So when we look at the history of computing why not Bill Gates? I mean just because we put someone in a book dosn't mean we like or even support their beliefs we just are presenting information. Now if they decided to create something like Bill Gates created the ENIAC and that Bill Gates created the PC then I would think that it would be a little biased.
Isn't it just great how hedonistic beliefs ultimately prevail in american society? Bill Gates may be a brilliant businessman, but he is blind or chooses to be blind regarding many social and ethical issues. I guess this is what society
worships.
Think of things this way. Suppose I never have a selfish thought for myself. I spend every waking hour trying to help others all of the time. Now I cannot help myself. However if I help myself and then decide to help others I can help more and more people and maybe have a real collective presence and impact. This is the theory behind most of what modern America thinks. Generally this is a good idea. I think it is a good idea because my life is short. I want to enjoy my life. I seriously doubt that they will be able to extend my lifetime in any significant way in the next 100 years in a quality way. Society worships these things because we have realized that eventually we will die and most likely that death will be slow and agonizing and I would say about 10-20 years before you die you go downhill rapidly but stay in a rut and loose your humanity.
I'd rather die than be Bill Gates.
Well that's your choice. I personally (if I were Bill Gates) would just sell the company and retire to my palatial home running w2k beta and enjoy the rest of my life. However I would make the place Linux compatable.
Considering he "invented" the idea of charging for software back in the homebrew computing club days, this makes perfect sense. It also shines alot of light in some dark places. This guy is one of society's role models. Whatever else
we may think of him, he's popular. People want to be Bill Gates.
For one simple reason: the money. I could care less exactly who he is I just would like not to really have to work again in my life and devote my time to what I enjoy. I could easily live on the sum of roughly 5 million or so (a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates) and never have any other worries or problems (except health).
I wonder if they're aware of the price they must pay to be Bill Gates. Maybe we should create a movie: "Being Bill Gates"... ought to be an interesting surreal world. We'd start with the UNIX Ewoks and just go from there. Bill
payed a steep price for his dollars.. I'm not sure it's the way I'd want to make my millions, if I made them at all. Just some food for thought...
I actually have thought about what I could do given a little invention called the time machine. Basically go into the past armed with something like the entire collection of technical knowledge and a set of dates cronicalling when said technology was developed. Then get a group of people together and have them do all the development first. Guess who invented the first PC? slashdot-terminal! Guess who created Unix? slashdot-terminal? Who invented this nifty Linux thing? slashdot-terminal! Who was president at least 5 times? slashdot-terminal! Who won every large scale bet on sports teams during this time? slashdot-terminal! Who is the janitor at the Slashdot-TerminalCorp's world headquarters compound? Bill Gates! That is if I let him live.
Even better get all the technology that will be developed in the future and then go into the present and release everything under the GPL before MS and Intel can do anything about it. Now *that* would encourage innovation.
MS manager: well what about that new OS you guys have been working on?
Programmer: Oh well we can't do Windows 5k those open source guys beat us to it.
No, I think there are legitimate uses for anonymous posting. Someone needs to put an end to that particular poster, though. Are there any hit men (or hit women) reading this? Want to help out?
Well I just couldn't resist this little tidbit!
In general you must provide the name and address of the individual. Failing that a good picture or anything that can allow for facial expression analysis to go on. Then I can procure a handmade high powered weapon with telescopic sight produced with a custom plastic die process. A single bullet to the head will usually do the trick fired from a concealed location in a secluded area.
However the best/most sadistic way is to use a deadly toxin. Most of the best fast acting toxins include potassium cyanide caplets or hyrodgen cyanide gas that is released in a confined space like an elevator or stairwell or even the vitim's car. If you wish to avoid detection however the best method by far is to use a little thing the KGB cooked up back in the 70s. A little case involving a Bulgarian dissident who displeased them met with a rather unpleaseant end when an unidentified agent "accidentally" stumbled into him on a city street. What then occured was a small fine needle jabbed into his leg cavity implanting a metal sphere containing a small ammount of a deadly nerve toxin. He incidentally died about 24 hours later. So yes it is possible. What is really troubling is that (at least for me). The text of the little SMARGLE posts are in fact particularly nasty when viewed in IE5 (I am in it right now). Has anyone else noticed this? Perhaps a little DoS attack directed at the httpd log acces files will obtain something.
I for one do not think that the internet will play a big role in the presidential campaign (at least not now). Consider that most of the people who vote are senior citizens. Also consider that most of the people who are 'in' with computers are usually young people. Now young people are often associated with a couple of character traits which can be easily demonostrated in any slashdot discussion forum on any issue that has a social context; namely this is being a mix of apathy and defeatism or liberterian thought.
All of these factors allow for the internet to play a role just not a very large one. I for one think both Bradly and McCain(sp) are total idiots. I watched a debate that was I believe from the major party debate on NH on PBS a couple of weeks ago. Someone like George W. Bush would make a better choice about freedom compared to some of those people who could have quite easily been the real life counterparts to Ned Flanders of Simpsons fame. The real thing to look out for is when one of those 'moral' people decide to get in the hot seat.
You can be sure that companies are going to be more interested in porting and writing games on Linux now. Over the next two years more and more Linux devices, many of them portable, will appear, and a large market for these
:-)
devices will be for games, and especially network games!
That's real nice but why network games? I still would like to play games by myself most of the time and generally do not like interaction or being forced to use a network if I do not want to. I would rather have a killer desktop machine than a mediocre(sp) hand held device.
You could be playing you game around the house, in the garden etc, but loading the game data from inside the house, across a bluetooth link or wireless ethernet link - basically a remote disk drive. No more having to leave the
computer behind when you are forced to go into the garden/shopping/etc!
Unfortunately I think that there would be problems generally with this concept. The modern concept of games has generally been to take *full* advantage of fast processors and lots of ram and HD space. This will always limit the types of games that a hand held could run without getting really bogged down or getting damaged really fast.
Developers need to get aquainted with programming games for Linux as soon as possible. XFree86 4 will makes things even better for them
I just see really high end video card support not making things better for embedded systems programming for hand helds. Unless this next realease can fit on a floppy and run in 2 Mb of ram then it will not be a feasible option. Qnx is more like it for hand held devices.
Hmm, maybe Intel is learning. When AMD came along offering a comperable (if not better) product at cheaper pricing, Intel ignored it and hoped it would go away. -BIG MISTAKE-. Now that VIA is doing the same thing, maybe
Intel is figuring out that they should do something. Of course, trying to ban it may not be the best way...
Intel like Microsoft dosn't really need to care about anything. Technically inclined people use all the either better stuff or cheaper stuff and the rest of the world uses what is easily avaible. I would use whatever is cheapest and works well. I have used 3 computers in my home environment over my computing time and all three were Intel machines. This was not because I especially like Intel but because they were cheap and avaible at the time (since I needed a replacement). As long as it runs linux I am a happy person.
Usually, this sort of tactic would tend to imply that Intel is somewhat... afraid(?) of the unknown. Just my opinion :)
In business there is a whole field called Risk Assesment that goes into exactly what kind of risks there are out there and how a company is to look at those threats. Companies have lawyers because if they don't sue someone else will. Generally a new slightly similar chip in the marketplace that might challenge them would almost ceternally be a risk. Assessing the risk to the best of their ability is what being a good salesman/businessman/CEO is all about. Generally until they determine what the total risk picutre is they will use the lawyers as a measure to prevent problems.
You could care less about Transmeta. All you care about is your damn casino. Anyway, your argument doesn't make any sense because Transmeta is an American company and the Intel/VIA dispute is between an American company
/* Just try running Gimp with a 486. You too can experience the windows lock up type thing on linux */.
and an foreign company. So how could this have anything to do with Transmeta?
Well I don't think gambling is entertaining either but that's beside the point. If you can program something sophisticated in a popular web site (be it irritating like with a porn or a casino site) that at least says that it works for a few people.
The point that he is trying to make (I think) is that Intel feels quite threatened by the fact the a small time chip manufacturer may be taking away customers in another country. Their chips are "just too close to ours" or something like that. What we really must look at first is what kind of threat do they actually pose? Are these chips in wide production so that they actually make it to the USA and are there compelte systems that include these processors. Personally if these processors can run linux and they are in cheap systems that would knock about a couple hundred dollars off the price of a similar Intel machine then I just might be there. I am really getting tired of my useless computer and am looking for a replacement.
Theres really nothing to be said until after it has launched and we have more information. I certainly wouldn't mind being dazzled by a revolutionary processor if this truely is one.
Unfortunately until there is some (and I mean *any*) hardware support this is pretty useless. The OS has to support the processor.
I will probably miss out on this is there a way to get a transcript or a video tape?
Would you mind providing your full real name and street address? Warez are illegal, and people like you who would even incinuate committing piracy don't deserve to have a computer. Ha ha ha. Well sure Homer J. Simpson 1243 Evergreen Terrace Springfield, USA Really there is no way to actually legally go against someone just because they talk about something that you have no proof about. I think the word for this is circumstancial evidence.
Pessimism is bad for your lifespan; besides, if the OSS community can come up with something faster, great. If not, also great. I'll take a closed fast 3d subsystem over an slower open one.
I doubt that if I wasn't pessimistic about the state of those mushrooms that I saw in the forest a couple of years ago I might not be able to post today.
I have another question does this mean you must have a 3d graphics card to get it to work? I assumed that a great deal of this could be done in software.
Not only that, but you'll also notice nowhere is it stated that it will be free, either. I was excited until I realized this may be just another accelerated X server product ala MetroX, etc. Lovely...
You know I had this type of a problem with various companies screwing me over because they really don't care about me. Then I came to the inescapable conclusion that the only way I will ever get a really nice experience with any hardware product under linux is either one of two options.
1. Buy the machine pre-installed with linux thereby making at least partly sure that the hardware will allow the machine to boot up and get all of the hardware detected in a reasonable manner.
2. Get something that everyone and their mother has and hope that it works for me to.
I know you probably don't want to do that but hardware companies are trying their damndest to get everything nice and expensive so that everyone has to upgrade.
Qestion for all of you how long have you had your current machine unaltered from the time it was built or bought that you are currently using for desktop purposes (ie. not a dedicated server in a closet in a secret room)?
Does anyone else find it ironic that the company that makes the video with the absolute WORST 3d in linux is supposedly working on a fully compliant OpenGL subsystem?
A little question for you exactly how is it the worst thing? Could anyone give me some data besides quake3 benchmarks? I sure would like to get the straight dope about video cards before I waste a bunch of money on them.
Is there an ISA version of any decent card? Might be nice.
I find that hard to believe given their apparent apathy to the current linux market.
So does that mean that there isn't any decent preformance with that video card? Or do they not publish something really neato like various printer manufactureres.
comparing RedHat and the Salvation Army.
In terms of helping out open source projects not in terms of getting the rich richer or of saying that Red Hat and the salvation army are the same in their mission or focus. If you are donating your time to an open source project that is used in red hat or donating time and effort to the salvation army are they bad.
Hmmm...what is the Salvation Army's ticker symbol?
Helping with an opensource prject dosn't directly help Red Hat as anyone can use it in any distribution. Emacs is included in Red Hat does that mean that RMS believes in Red Hat? No. The slavation army was brought up as a comparison about how people choose to spend their time in various community oriented affairs. Helping Red Hat by contributing to an open source project that they use is not a bad thing. I seriously doubt that your change will cause red hat to increase in profit a couple billion.
My personal experience with Be is that it is more polished, stable, and faster. Is there the huge amount of software for it? Nope.
I would think that there isn't But at least there's Doom. They even have Doom for QNX.
But there is more software for Windows than Linux too. Does that make Windows better? I think not.
Linux includes most of the really interesting main stuff in various distributions directly on the main CDs. Windows does not. You don't get say VC++ or Office 2000 on the CDs for windows 98 do you? It's about what you get initially.
RedHat, Caldera, etc. did not write Linux from scratch. Be has invested millions in R&D. RedHat and Caldera get you suckers to do their R&D. They develop minor pieces of
Linux, but the lion's share has already been done for them. Can you be any more naive?
People are not suckers for doing work for a project that they enjoy. That's saying that you are a sucker for doing work for the salvation army or helping that old lady across the street. I don't think that what Red Hat and Caldera do is trivial at all. Instead I think that they are more of the sort that allow for things to work properly. Who helps make sure that you have a reasonably up to date system and not have to repartition it? Distributions usually do. Try upgrading in a easy when configuration files change places or a new library needs to be updated. Without distros you would be out of luck for the most part.
I understand how OSS works. Selling support for most pieces of software is useless. How else are people supposed to make money from their software genius? According to you, it
must be free. You and the rest of the GNU cult keep preaching it, but you insist that people will pay if the product is good.
Open source can be seen as an ideal like perfection is to being your best every day. Open source is similar to good proprietary software. We all have goals in life. Government tries to achieve a democracy but fails and we have a republic form of government but does that mean we should not try? I know people usually pay if the product is good but if it's too much then its a bit of a problem. Look at the efforts that can be seen with linux and games. Loki ports games to linux and people pay for them.
Tell me one thing. If I want to get something without paying for your "software genius" I can get something called warez and just get around that little restriction or haven't your forgotten.
Not all OSS software is better. BE is a better OS than Linux, has a ton more features, and is more stable. There is not yet an equivakent for VMWare. FreeMware is years behind,
so once again you are wrong there.
Are you referring to the kernel or the entire Red Hat or Caldera CD set? I sincerely doubt that Be shipps with all the software that either of these two do or even a fraction of what Debian comes with.
Could someone with some factual data tell me *exactly* what shipps with Be and some scientific and factual information that can demonostrate that Be is better? I would like to see that.
Expecting to make a living from writing software is not akin to extortion. No one is required to give you the fruits of their labor.
Ahh that's where your wrong. I have personal experience that will disprove you on that one. I have had to take classes where they used some form of proprietary software that was employed in the class where it was not necessarily needed. This required money but could have been replaced with another application that was totally free but had a different syntax or implimentation of the same idea. These products usually cost $100-$400+. Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Spoken like a college student who does not work in the real world yet. Just wait, college boy, one day you might want to make a living from your work, and some punk like you
will come along and insist on you giving your work away.
I don't think that if you write a spcialized piece of software of work for anyone that people from the opensource community will just have a magical crystal ball and find out you are making commercial software then come to your house with baseball bats and reduce your skull to splinters. Not everyone is a 'college boy' in the sence of the word.
Once a GPL program has entered a market, like Linux has in the OS market, commercial revenue margins come under assault. The hugh margins that some may view as extortion
cannot be maintained. Of course can one say that the "innovation" in windows has kept up with its cost. I don't think so. I think the majority of software companies are in for a
shock as in the coming years the margins that they have enjoyed will be greatly reduced.
Although it is possible to have an open source application compete with a commercial one I think that saying that open source will prevent people from making money off software and having a comfortable margin would be stretching it a little. If I hire several thousand software developers and several thousand beta testers for analysis of the software to do all sorts of error checking I will be able to produce a very good application. Now if I impliment features that rely on obscure methods to accomplish various tasks then I can sell said software. Now with windows and other products where (usually) open source is not as prevelent as with other places the commercial option is often the best one. Running open source programs on top of windows is like putting a leotards on a group of fat 50+ male bowlers who work as tow truck operators and then having them stumble drunkenly around and call it ballet. Now you have all the things you need: people in costumes, "dancing", even music but does that give you a quality experience?
Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free
Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market (at least for x86 hardware). Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the
browser software area as soon as everyone realized that there was no money to be made there.
I really think that this is not an issue. Think of it this way. Suppose we develop hardware capable of running AI on some level. A company (ever MS) decides to crate a series of AI extensions that are optional to the operating system but that come with it do allow for true AI and other activities such as multiple foreign language interpretation and real time analysis of facial expressions. Now with all these advances what if they charge the people about $100 do get it? Will this change anything and make everyone not buy it? No. This would only 'destroy' anyone's chances of making money from the OS if someone made that killer OS. Yes and I will be the first one to admit that linux is not that OS even though I use it every day.
Say what? I told you to stop! But no, I didn't mean it. Please, explain exactly what you mean by that. I am terribly curious. And what exactly is your chaso theory?
simple transposition of the letters 's' and 'o' "chaos theory" is ther term you are after.
I'd quibble with point (2). Physics is only difficult, because it tends to not be "common sense". But, in reality, that's a problem with "common sense", not physics.
The math requirements of physics also have something to do with it. Generally math is also not easy for the average person and so therefore it can be inferred that physics is not easy because of it's reliance on it.