This is also the first step to bankrupcy, isolating your distribution network. If Gateway/Amiga had shipped good systems to begin with, this would have been avoided. Their shipping rebuilts as new was the problem (my system was one of those effected) so their paying for it is merely money they lost due to lack of foresight.
A personal review of the BSD's
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
I have been lucky (or unlucky enough as the case may be) to try out 6 of the BSD flavors on the internet and availible commercially. Here is what I've found:
BSD/OS: Commercial BSD varient. Quite stable, yet lacks a lot of the newer BSD's features. Secure-wise it's decent, yet nothing I'd brag about. Linux support is laughable I've found, slower than on a native Linux box.
BSD/Lite 4.4: The grand-daddy of the modern BSD's. Very stable, quite reliable. I am quite pleased with it's performance and flexibility. No Linux support at all, and it hasn't been updated since the mid-90's
NetBSD: If you want an OS to run on that strange mainframe your company has had since the 70's, this is it. Never tried the Linux support tho. Security, it's got holes, but not too many. Speed, don't look for it here.
OpenBSD: First thing I noticed about OBSD, it's SLOW! Not a performance hog. Next thing, it didn't suffer from any problems. Everything ran smoother than glass. Linux support was a breese to work in. Plus it's ports section makes things even smoother, it'll remote install any programs you need, including all dependencies. It is also the most secured OS I've ever found, no stack overflow, buffers, root theft problems at all.
FreeBSD: The fastest BSD out there. It's also fairly secure. Linux compatability is excellent. it also has the ports feature, which I still say kicks RPM in the pants.
A note about BSD's tho, I don't like their method for kernel creation, their sound support, etc. I would like something more akin to the Linux menu system brought to BSD. Plus a built-in OSS-lite or ALSA-like project would be nice. BSD'ers seem to accept paying for sound compatability, something I say should be built into the OS.
Since this article has spawned so many religious people on both sides, I'm going to bring up a valid point, a Christian game is not going to convert the "hethans" any more so than a paganistic game is going to be making Wiccans out of 8-year old overactive-thumb snot-nosed kids. It's not going to happen.
If you'd like to discuss the "history" of Christian thought, or more important a viewpoint on christian missionary movements in europe, check out "Halloween" by Silver Ravenwolf (I believe that's his name). I was browsing through it, and found his viewpoint a stark contrast to that taught in most textbooks, and far more thought out than other arguements for or against christianity. The key to his clarity is simply "no judgement, only the facts as presented by the author". And yes, this is in itself a contradiction.
But, looking at the game, I must say, "eh, it's ok, but can it match the Duke for sheer kick-assness!"
of course, an interesting module would be to have Mr. Nukem fighting off both sides of the conflict, kicking God and Lucifer's ass, and becoming the allmighty himself. (All too fitting, in his own mind)
Any VC firm that is not open to NDA's or at least an NDA-like agreement is often times one you'd like to avoid. Many VC firms (most I've delt with) are not taken back with being asked to sign an NDA, and usually have one made up for such a purpose that protects their ability to invest in a similar venture while protecting any/all of your ideas. They are out to make money, don't forget, and if they spook away the next (amazon, yahoo, microsoft) they don't make as much.
Before you do ANY of this, talk to the SBA if you are serious about starting your own business. They helped me in setting up my company, that's what they are there for.
http://www.sba.gov
Plus always look at the possibility of selling your idea, if you find that you lack the entrepeneurial spirit. Nothing wrong with being realistic and coming to the conclusion that those tax forms, the 90+ work weeks, and lack of a social life aren't for you (but since when has the lack of a social life stopped us nerds before?).
Considering that some of the development team are the same team from the IBM PowerPC 615 chip, which could do the same thing as this fabled/meta/ chip (except with a focus on PowerPC and x86 instructions), I am not suprised. As far as production, I would assume IBM as a likely producer of such a chip, due to their familiarity with the design team and their firm desire to substitute something for their Intel chips, as shown through their prior partnership with Cyrix, their "Blue Thunder" and the 615 chip.
A friend of mine works for the Treasury Department, aka the Secret Service, and his viewpoint of the NSA collaberates with this one, with the added feature of a bunch of think-tankers, working on such things as unusual photos, surveilence info, handwriting analysis, etc. They don't do anything other than act as a giant brain for the other organizations to use in order to help their own efforts. Of course this is from someone "on the inside" so my word is second hand and clearly biased. But we can imagine a bunch of MIB-like guys out for world domination, can't we?
Agreed. Of course, despite these huge G4 #'s, I'm still wary of the chip. People keep toting G4, Pentium, etc, and ignore other CPU's that exist, and are just as powerful if not more so. I say diversity is the key to creativity, which is why I want to see more SPARC and MIPS systems out there. Alpha is solid, PowerPC is as well, but what about the CPU's that introduced the RISC revolution to the world? SPARC's going semi-open source soon, and MIPS technology licencees are pushing performance at lower Mhz to limits you wouldn't imagine. (Try the QED RM5271 or RM7000, or even ebtter, the SGI R12,000 sometime if you don't believe this) There's a large market out these, I wanna see more availible. Heck, the G4's Altivec isn't even a new idea, Sony's EE (a MIPS CPU BTW) has a nearly identical concept, a 128-bit media instruction set, and they combined it with two 64-bit CPU cores, 2 64-bit FPU's and an additional vector processor. And all for a price tag that's under $100 a chip. Let's get some more variety guys! Let's get RISC!
Ok, not to found quite insane, but: I was a die-hard PC fan, just bought myself a brand-new Compaq Presario 600, 486-DX2 CPU. I was rocken w/ 256 colors. I thought nothing could toast me. Then I saw my first Amiga. It was nothing too spectacular, an Amiga 3000. Commodore had been bankrupt and gone for 5 months at this point, but this little 25Mhz box was ripping my 66Mhz box a new posterior. I felt jipped. What did I do? I kept on using my Compaq, upset that it wasn't the coolest or the smartest thing since sliced bread. After that, I bought myself another PC, Pentium 166. Thought "Aha, I can beat that Amiga now" so I went to my friends house again. Nope, couldn't do it. Guess what I did then... I bought myself an Amiga! Amiga 1200 w/ PPC/060 card. I've had problems with workbench, but otherwise, the machine is fine. I had never worked on such a logical machine before. When I'd heard that Gateway had bought the Amiga, I groaned. I knew that Gateway couldn't bring out a decent product. So far, all indications say that I am right. Something about the Amiga is different than any other computer. It's not the OS, it's not the hardware. It's the fact that everything works together. No PC or Mac in the world can do the same feat, nor will they ever. They're designed by committe, not by inspiration. The "new Amiga" is no inspired design, not from the likes of gateway. It is yet another "ok folks, what can we hack together to make money with?" One day, the Amiga's concepts will live again, in some new machine w/o an Amiga logo on it. Probably won't even be backwards compatable. Actually, I'll guarantee that it's not. But, the ideology will be the same. Integrate, cooperate and distribute. My 2-bits
Slashdot Mirror
This is also the first step to bankrupcy, isolating your distribution network. If Gateway/Amiga had shipped good systems to begin with, this would have been avoided. Their shipping rebuilts as new was the problem (my system was one of those effected) so their paying for it is merely money they lost due to lack of foresight.
I have been lucky (or unlucky enough as the case may be) to try out 6 of the BSD flavors on the internet and availible commercially. Here is what I've found:
BSD/OS: Commercial BSD varient. Quite stable, yet lacks a lot of the newer BSD's features. Secure-wise it's decent, yet nothing I'd brag about. Linux support is laughable I've found, slower than on a native Linux box.
BSD/Lite 4.4: The grand-daddy of the modern BSD's. Very stable, quite reliable. I am quite pleased with it's performance and flexibility. No Linux support at all, and it hasn't been updated since the mid-90's
NetBSD: If you want an OS to run on that strange mainframe your company has had since the 70's, this is it. Never tried the Linux support tho. Security, it's got holes, but not too many. Speed, don't look for it here.
OpenBSD: First thing I noticed about OBSD, it's SLOW! Not a performance hog. Next thing, it didn't suffer from any problems. Everything ran smoother than glass. Linux support was a breese to work in. Plus it's ports section makes things even smoother, it'll remote install any programs you need, including all dependencies. It is also the most secured OS I've ever found, no stack overflow, buffers, root theft problems at all.
FreeBSD: The fastest BSD out there. It's also fairly secure. Linux compatability is excellent. it also has the ports feature, which I still say kicks RPM in the pants.
A note about BSD's tho, I don't like their method for kernel creation, their sound support, etc. I would like something more akin to the Linux menu system brought to BSD. Plus a built-in OSS-lite or ALSA-like project would be nice. BSD'ers seem to accept paying for sound compatability, something I say should be built into the OS.
My 3 cents worth
Since this article has spawned so many religious people on both sides, I'm going to bring up a valid point, a Christian game is not going to convert the "hethans" any more so than a paganistic game is going to be making Wiccans out of 8-year old overactive-thumb snot-nosed kids. It's not going to happen.
If you'd like to discuss the "history" of Christian thought, or more important a viewpoint on christian missionary movements in europe, check out "Halloween" by Silver Ravenwolf (I believe that's his name). I was browsing through it, and found his viewpoint a stark contrast to that taught in most textbooks, and far more thought out than other arguements for or against christianity. The key to his clarity is simply "no judgement, only the facts as presented by the author".
And yes, this is in itself a contradiction.
But, looking at the game, I must say, "eh, it's ok, but can it match the Duke for sheer kick-assness!"
of course, an interesting module would be to have Mr. Nukem fighting off both sides of the conflict, kicking God and Lucifer's ass, and becoming the allmighty himself. (All too fitting, in his own mind)
Any VC firm that is not open to NDA's or at least an NDA-like agreement is often times one you'd like to avoid.
Many VC firms (most I've delt with) are not taken back with being asked to sign an NDA, and usually have one made up for such a purpose that protects their ability to invest in a similar venture while protecting any/all of your ideas. They are out to make money, don't forget, and if they spook away the next (amazon, yahoo, microsoft) they don't make as much.
Before you do ANY of this, talk to the SBA if you are serious about starting your own business.
They helped me in setting up my company, that's what they are there for.
http://www.sba.gov
Plus always look at the possibility of selling your idea, if you find that you lack the entrepeneurial spirit. Nothing wrong with being realistic and coming to the conclusion that those tax forms, the 90+ work weeks, and lack of a social life aren't for you (but since when has the lack of a social life stopped us nerds before?).
Considering that some of the development team are the same team from the IBM PowerPC 615 chip, which could do the same thing as this fabled /meta/ chip (except with a focus on PowerPC and x86 instructions), I am not suprised.
As far as production, I would assume IBM as a likely producer of such a chip, due to their familiarity with the design team and their firm desire to substitute something for their Intel chips, as shown through their prior partnership with Cyrix, their "Blue Thunder" and the 615 chip.
My Amiga does the same thing, with it's Miami dialing software.
A friend of mine works for the Treasury Department, aka the Secret Service, and his viewpoint of the NSA collaberates with this one, with the added feature of a bunch of think-tankers, working on such things as unusual photos, surveilence info, handwriting analysis, etc. They don't do anything other than act as a giant brain for the other organizations to use in order to help their own efforts.
Of course this is from someone "on the inside" so my word is second hand and clearly biased.
But we can imagine a bunch of MIB-like guys out for world domination, can't we?
Agreed. Of course, despite these huge G4 #'s, I'm still wary of the chip. People keep toting G4, Pentium, etc, and ignore other CPU's that exist, and are just as powerful if not more so.
I say diversity is the key to creativity, which is why I want to see more SPARC and MIPS systems out there. Alpha is solid, PowerPC is as well, but what about the CPU's that introduced the RISC revolution to the world? SPARC's going semi-open source soon, and MIPS technology licencees are pushing performance at lower Mhz to limits you wouldn't imagine. (Try the QED RM5271 or RM7000, or even ebtter, the SGI R12,000 sometime if you don't believe this) There's a large market out these, I wanna see more availible.
Heck, the G4's Altivec isn't even a new idea, Sony's EE (a MIPS CPU BTW) has a nearly identical concept, a 128-bit media instruction set, and they combined it with two 64-bit CPU cores, 2 64-bit FPU's and an additional vector processor. And all for a price tag that's under $100 a chip.
Let's get some more variety guys!
Let's get RISC!
Ok, not to found quite insane, but:
I was a die-hard PC fan, just bought myself a brand-new Compaq Presario 600, 486-DX2 CPU. I was rocken w/ 256 colors. I thought nothing could toast me.
Then I saw my first Amiga.
It was nothing too spectacular, an Amiga 3000. Commodore had been bankrupt and gone for 5 months at this point, but this little 25Mhz box was ripping my 66Mhz box a new posterior. I felt jipped.
What did I do?
I kept on using my Compaq, upset that it wasn't the coolest or the smartest thing since sliced bread.
After that, I bought myself another PC, Pentium 166. Thought "Aha, I can beat that Amiga now" so I went to my friends house again. Nope, couldn't do it.
Guess what I did then... I bought myself an Amiga! Amiga 1200 w/ PPC/060 card. I've had problems with workbench, but otherwise, the machine is fine. I had never worked on such a logical machine before.
When I'd heard that Gateway had bought the Amiga, I groaned. I knew that Gateway couldn't bring out a decent product. So far, all indications say that I am right.
Something about the Amiga is different than any other computer. It's not the OS, it's not the hardware. It's the fact that everything works together. No PC or Mac in the world can do the same feat, nor will they ever. They're designed by committe, not by inspiration. The "new Amiga" is no inspired design, not from the likes of gateway. It is yet another "ok folks, what can we hack together to make money with?"
One day, the Amiga's concepts will live again, in some new machine w/o an Amiga logo on it. Probably won't even be backwards compatable. Actually, I'll guarantee that it's not. But, the ideology will be the same. Integrate, cooperate and distribute.
My 2-bits