What the... they should be business majors then? TFA is about game design/related degrees. You are so scattered with your reply... Game design students should start their own business blah blah
What he said makes sense to me. If you want to make a specific game, start a company. Big games are expensive and no established company is going to let a person fresh out of school do anything important like design their next game. Therefore, if you have a very specific game in mind, your best bet on getting it made is to start a company.
If somebody says something you don't like, there are two ways to object to it. You can censor them, throw them in jail, threaten them, and that sort of thing. Or you can say they're wrong, and point out a more rational point of view. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, and China are some well known examples of countries that took the threaten/jail/censor route. I'll let you decide which is "better".
And don't get me wrong, if someone is saying "Hail Hitler", "Windows is Awesome" or any of that nonsense, I'll gladly tell them they're a moron. I just don't think they should have their viewpoint censored. If they actually start killing Jews, installing Windows, or committing acts of violence, that's when they need to be dealt with.
Come on guys...If there are sites like Hail Hitler or Long live Osama or any of the creepy fellows wont u like those to be blocked...
No, I don't want them to be blocked. They have as much right to say "Hail Hitler" as I have to say "Hail Linux." You can't censor somebody because you disagree with their opinion.
Or r u supporters of neo-nazis...
I'm a supporter of their right to free speech.
May be some assholes will try and glorify the WTC attack. Then what happens lets see *100rabh ducks*
Somebody already glorified the WTC attacks. There have been at least a couple movies...
So, I can conclude from this that your IT people work for free, then? And that you have a support agreement with Microsoft that doesn't cost anything? The cost might have been hidden, but it's not "free".
Companies are going to employ a number of IT people no matter what. And part of their job is to find, test, and apply patches for the software being used by the company. If they're doing that job correctly, 99.999% of the daylight savings "problem" would be handled almost unnoticed along with every other patch. Microsoft, Oracle, Linux, Mac OS, and most other software has had patches available for weeks, if not months, so it's not like this was some big surprise patch last Friday. If a company had to spend *extra* money on DST, they're doing something wrong.
If working for your company means I can't have a life, I don't want to work for them, ever.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Everything has a price, so let me put it this way: If working for your company means I can't have a life, they probably can't afford me.
I'm fine with occasional overtime to meet a deadline, or because of some extraneous circumstances. But if it happens all the time then management is incompetent.
I only work so that I can afford the things I want in the rest of my life. If I have to work so much that I can't enjoy any of it, then what's the point?
Am I the only person who doesn't want perks? I want three things from work: the ability to do my job, more pay, and less time there. If an employer wants to show their appreciation, they can increase my pay, let me work fewer hours, or both.
I expect an adequate computer, comfortable chair, comfortable desk, and a private cubicle/office. Those are things that help me focus on getting my job done. I don't consider them perks, I consider them mandatory for getting work done.
Besides that, I want to have as little to do with my employer as possible. I don't want a company car, I don't want a company shuttle, I don't want a company apartment, I don't want free food, I don't want free beverages. I want to work my 40-45 hours a week, then go home and forget about work completely.
I advocate a training program for those people: once each year they should practice archiving everything they might ever want to save to one CD. Just one typical data CD. Not a DVD. One single CD. Anything which doesn't make it to the CD is random number filled.
Why? Is there a downside to having a large collection of "stuff"?
ose and loose? seriously, you can engage concepts such as net neutrality but can't untangle the semantics of lose and loose in passing? I find it hard to believe that lose and loose is draining brain power...
Exactly. It would take almost no brain power at all. So there's really no excuse for the "editor" screwing it up.
That's a wonderful theory - right alongside "we'll all hold hands and sing kum-by-ya" in practicality. The folks at DownSizeDC.org seem to have failed to notice that it's 2007, not 1807. You can't run a country in the 21st century the same way you could a much smaller and less complex country 200 years ago today.
I'm sorry, but you didn't really back up your statement with any facts. It sounded like you're saying congress and the senate shouldn't have to do their job because it's too hard to read? Was reading easier 200 years ago?
Senators and congressmen get paid $165000 a year to read, debate and pass new laws. It's their fucking job. At the very least, they should know what the fuck they're voting for. If they don't want to do the job, they shouldn't run for office.
Google's motto is (was?) "Do No Evil". Which most people took to mean they would actively try not to behave like every other giant, rich, corporation.
So far, every time Google has done something questionable, like censoring Chinese search results, or evading taxes (legally or not), the Google fanboys of Slashdot have been quick to point out that Google isn't being evil, they're simply behaving like every other company. Google isn't out sacrificing virgins to Baal, but neither are any other companies. So, please, for the benefit of all the non-fanboys, what exactly does "Do No Evil" mean? What is "evil" for a corporation?
My impression is that "Do No Evil" was good PR. It doesn't really mean anything in "real life."
So you find a job, but keep looking for new jobs? Why?
About your question, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've been offered a lot of "6 month contract" positions. If you've been doing stuff like that, it would make sense that you've switched jobs every few months when the contract ends.
But if that's not the case, or if it is and you keep leaving early, then it probably looks bad. Hiring people is an expensive pain in the ass, and if an employer thinks it's very likely they'll have to replace you, they're less likely to hire you.
If it hasn't been a problem so far, your best bet is probably to keep finding jobs with huge pay increases until people stop making you offers. Just make sure you like the job you end up with and hope that it lasts for a long time.
Specifically my original comment was to response to someone who exclaimed something to the effect of 'Woe is me! I wouldn't even be able to write a simple text search algorithm with these new standards!' If that were the case. That individual would be incompetant if I could manage well enough.
You just don't get it. It's *not* a simple text search. Your solution is useless. When you do a search in Word or OpenOffice, does it tell you that it found the text on line 597 of the xml file? No, it doesn't because that would be stupid and irrelevant. It has to know that line 597 of the xml file is actually inside a list, inside a paragraph, on page 3 of the fully laid out and formatted document.
To know that, it has to understand the document format, all those "20 class definitions" and "million other things" you completely ignored while suggesting your "solution" a few posts up. If it doesn't take those things into account, it's not a solution. It's not even "almost" a solution. That's why the person you responded to was complaining, and why people are making a big deal out of the size of the specs. Implementing a spec that large is very difficult and a whole lot of work.
So sit on your high pedestal of superiority. But let me tell you if I can find a solution, I will sure as hell expect a professional to do as well or better.
Look, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal or make myself seem superior. I'm a computer programmer, not a rock star. But actual "professionals" are telling you the task is really difficult, and you're telling them that it isn't. That's usually a good indication that you're wrong.
For instance: a man wanders into a restaurant bleeding profusely from a wound. You might expect someone to exclaim "I'm no doctor but we should probably put a bandage on that wound and try to stop the bleeding!" I'm sure a surgeon could a better job even with the equipment at hand but it's a perfectly valid remark. I know it's nigh on impossible, but perhaps that is one pet peeve that could benefit from some reexamination.
That's a flawed analogy. They'd put a bandage on and then presumably call an ambulance or take the guy to the hospital precisely because they're not docotors. The doctors and surgeons at the hospital would be the ones deciding if the bandage was enough and fixing the problem if it wasn't.
The entire software industry has a hard time estimating schedules and complexity. But hey, maybe we're all wrong, and your cursory understanding is enough for you to know better.
But the text on that website is extremely unprofessional; it reads more like a rant than an open letter to Ballmer. Grammatical mistakes abound, as does use of slang. I'm all for the idea, but it has to be pursued in a manner such that there is some chance of Microsoft responding.
No kidding. The writing is so bad it actually hurts to read it. The grammar is horrible, it's filled with sentence fragments, it's poorly worded, it's hard to understand, and it's filled with flamebait. Does this guy really expect people to take him seriously?
Microsoft is full of shit about their IP being in Linux, but poorly written flamebait isn't the best way to call their bluff.
P.S. it did illustrate though how easy it would be to parse a document and search for text. HTML parseing does it automatically. The horror!
Searching for text in an XML file is trivial. You don't need the standard at all. grep or any text editor will be more than happy to find a string in text. The difficult part is searching for text in a meaningful way. How would you find "Hello World" in a heading? How would you find it in a footer? How about in a list nested in a paragraph on the second page? The only way to sensibly do that is to have software that understands the tags.
You're vastly underestimating the amount of work that would have to be done for the 700 page spec, much less the 6000 page spec.
As you pointed out, for a simple, one sentence document there are "about 20 class definitions", and "a million other things" that the software would need to understand. It's undoubtedly more complex for larger documents.
As a side note, the effect you noticed wasn't HTML parsing, it was/. stripping out everything betwen a less than and greater than sign.
I'm no programmer but it wouldn't take me a whole lot of time to write a basic parser.
Well, the basic parser isn't really an issue. I haven't investigated either standard in any detail, but assuming they're actual XML, or even reasonably close, there are a million libraries that can handle the parsing. Expat, Xerces, Arabica, the Qt XML parser, and the Java library XML parser come to mind.
The majority of the work is interpretting the tags and actually laying out the document in a standardized way. I can already load a Word *.doc file into OpenOffice and have it look relatively close to how it looks in Word. The reason it only looks "close" is that the Word.doc format isn't documented, so developers for competing products have to make some assumptions and ignore some stuff they can't figure out. Having a standard is supposed to rectify that.
Ideally, with a standardized format, a document would look identical in any word processor that supported all the features used by the document. That's the whole point.
Off-topic: I absolutely hate when people make statements like "I'm no programmer, but I could write that software in very little time." Contrary to popular belief, programming isn't trivial. Sure, you may be able to write the parser in very little time, but would other people want to maintain your code? Would people reading your code even be able to tell what you're doing? Would it have fewer bugs than code written by actual programmers? Would it be fast enough? Would you know what to do if it wasn't? Sorry, it's just a pet peeve.
Because Amazon was granted a patent for using a web browser and cookies the way web browsers and cookies were supposed to be used. It's like if I get a patent for "Using bleach to clean a surface," or "Using antacid tablets to get rid of heartburn." It's not just obvious, it's using existing technology in exactly the way it was intended to be used.
It's probably the best example of why the patent system in the US is fundamentally broken. That's the main reason for all the/. rage.
I don't know. I would also like to know how you can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a system based solely by its size.
I don't think he was evaluating the strenghs and weaknesses by their size. He plainly said both standards suck, regardless of their size. Given that, if forced to choose which one to implement, it makes more sense to suffer through a "mere" 700 pages instead of 6000.
Besides, how often is a human planning on parsing the files manually? If you ask me, the only purpose these open document file formats serve is to be opened by other word processors, which means as long as its standardized it could probably look like Chinese and it wouldn't phase me in the least.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why the standard should be as simple and small as possible. Not so much that requirements get left out or "blurred", but there shouldn't be a bunch of unnecessary complexity..
The most important reason is that the actual implementations will be done by several groups of developers, working on several unrelated products. The more complex or unclear the standard is, the more likely it becomes that different groups will interpret the standard differently. Since the point is to make an interoperable, standardized document format, it defeats the point if different products implement the standard differently.
Also, the size and complexity of the standard is likely to have a direct impact on the number of bugs in the implementations. Microsoft can't get backward compatibility with Word 95 right, yet it's in their standard. Other projects wouldn't have a chance.
Overall, I agree with the guy from Opera. Both standards are basically memory dumps with brackets. Using HTML+CSS for publishing doesn't make sense, though.
Oh come on...Windows doesn't require a reboot to play a DVD. Even in Windows 95 changing your logon password didn't require a reboot. I agree that some software updates to require a reboot, but that is due to a to the fact that there used to be no way to determine which processes are using a dynamically linked library, and this is fixed in Vista.
That's interesting, but the first two points aren't up for debate. Every other time I insert a DVD, the machine *will* reboot when I access the drive. No warning message, no BSOD, no "Do you want to save?" message boxes, just an instant reboot.
When I change the password I at least get to reboot at my leisure, assuming I don't want to check email or access the network drives. But I know for a fact that the last 18 times I've changed my password, I've had to reboot for the changes to propagate.
Since XP, Windows has booted significantly faster than any Linux machine I've seen.
That's not my experience, but even if it was, here's why I don't care:
Right now, one of my Linux machines has been up for 105 days, another for 40, and another for 12. If it took an hour to boot, I wouldn't mind too much because I simply don't have to (re)boot very often.
On the other hand, my machine at work runs Windows. It reboots every other time I put in a DVD. It needs a reboot every time I change my login password. It needs a reboot any time software updates get pushed to it. And every once in a while it needs a reboot "just because." I'm lucky to go a week without needing a reboot.
So even if each boot takes a little longer, I still spend less time booting on Linux.
If a higher demand for RAM results in lower prices (big IF), then I'm all for it.
So, could you explain exactly how you expect that to happen?
There's going to be more people trying to buy the same amount of RAM. That will make the price go up. Eventually the RAM companies will start making more RAM, and then the price will go back to normal.
At which point in the process do RAM prices fall below normal?
So you're saying that Dell should only be allowed to ship their servers with 100% Linux compatible parts? Presumably you're one of the people who also complained when they were a 100% Microsoft lock-in.
I didn't say that at all, and I think most people got my point. If they're selling a machine to be used with Linux, then logic would imply that those machines should actually work with Linux.
You said it yourself in the comment: "the OS most people want to use" (emphasis mine). I note you specifically didn't say all people. Which means there there are people out there who may not want their hardware requirements dictated by an OS they're not even going to install.
Slow down, and read what I said. The whole thing, with the parentheses. I explicitly pointed out that the people buying *these* machines, specifically the "No OS, Linux" machines, want the machines to run Linux. I wasn't refering to Dell machines in general. If Dell is selling the machine without an OS, specifically so that people can put Linux on it, then yes, I think Dell should make at least a little effort to make sure it comes with Linux compatible hardware. Otherwise, what's the point?
Never going to happen. Last I heard, there were several million people paying Blizzard quite a bit of money to play WoW. Blizzard isn't about to say "We know you want to keep paying us, but we're not going to let you." They will never, ever, do that.
It's pandemic in the entertainment industry, the disease of grinding every cent out of a product until you've created a culture of disgust and disdain. I guess the ultimate question that arises when cheats like Glider start showing up and lawsuits like this one is "how much is "enough"?".
It'll be enough when it costs more than they make in monthly fees. In all likelyhood, there will be a handful of people playing WoW in ten years. The WoW server will be running in VMWare, using left over bandwidth on a Diablo 5 server, but as long as that costs less than they're making, it'll happen.
Blizzard is a company. That's what companies do. They didn't spend a ton of money designing, programming, creating artwork, and buying a ton of servers because it'd be a cool thing to do. They did it hoping to make butt loads of cash. The entire point of WoW, Starcraft, Diablo and WarCraft 2 was to make a ton of money. Now that they're making tons of money on WoW, they're not going to stop until they've made all the money they can. That's just how businesses work.
Maybe because of hardware that isn't compatible with Linux?
I'm not seeing your point. Incompatible hardware is only a problem if you have an existing computer, and you want to run a different OS on it. If you're building the machine, as Dell is, it doesn't make any sense to purposely choose hardware that's incompatible with the OS most people (buying these machines) want to use.
It could be an honest mistake, but they're probably just being asshats.
Slashdot Mirror
What he said makes sense to me. If you want to make a specific game, start a company. Big games are expensive and no established company is going to let a person fresh out of school do anything important like design their next game. Therefore, if you have a very specific game in mind, your best bet on getting it made is to start a company.
If somebody says something you don't like, there are two ways to object to it. You can censor them, throw them in jail, threaten them, and that sort of thing. Or you can say they're wrong, and point out a more rational point of view. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, and China are some well known examples of countries that took the threaten/jail/censor route. I'll let you decide which is "better".
And don't get me wrong, if someone is saying "Hail Hitler", "Windows is Awesome" or any of that nonsense, I'll gladly tell them they're a moron. I just don't think they should have their viewpoint censored. If they actually start killing Jews, installing Windows, or committing acts of violence, that's when they need to be dealt with.
No, I don't want them to be blocked. They have as much right to say "Hail Hitler" as I have to say "Hail Linux." You can't censor somebody because you disagree with their opinion.
I'm a supporter of their right to free speech.
Somebody already glorified the WTC attacks. There have been at least a couple movies...
Companies are going to employ a number of IT people no matter what. And part of their job is to find, test, and apply patches for the software being used by the company. If they're doing that job correctly, 99.999% of the daylight savings "problem" would be handled almost unnoticed along with every other patch. Microsoft, Oracle, Linux, Mac OS, and most other software has had patches available for weeks, if not months, so it's not like this was some big surprise patch last Friday. If a company had to spend *extra* money on DST, they're doing something wrong.
If working for your company means I can't have a life, I don't want to work for them, ever.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Everything has a price, so let me put it this way: If working for your company means I can't have a life, they probably can't afford me.
I'm fine with occasional overtime to meet a deadline, or because of some extraneous circumstances. But if it happens all the time then management is incompetent.
I only work so that I can afford the things I want in the rest of my life. If I have to work so much that I can't enjoy any of it, then what's the point?
Am I the only person who doesn't want perks? I want three things from work: the ability to do my job, more pay, and less time there. If an employer wants to show their appreciation, they can increase my pay, let me work fewer hours, or both.
I expect an adequate computer, comfortable chair, comfortable desk, and a private cubicle/office. Those are things that help me focus on getting my job done. I don't consider them perks, I consider them mandatory for getting work done.
Besides that, I want to have as little to do with my employer as possible. I don't want a company car, I don't want a company shuttle, I don't want a company apartment, I don't want free food, I don't want free beverages. I want to work my 40-45 hours a week, then go home and forget about work completely.
Why? Is there a downside to having a large collection of "stuff"?
Exactly. It would take almost no brain power at all. So there's really no excuse for the "editor" screwing it up.
I'm sorry, but you didn't really back up your statement with any facts. It sounded like you're saying congress and the senate shouldn't have to do their job because it's too hard to read? Was reading easier 200 years ago?
Senators and congressmen get paid $165000 a year to read, debate and pass new laws. It's their fucking job. At the very least, they should know what the fuck they're voting for. If they don't want to do the job, they shouldn't run for office.
Well, please enlighten us, what is "evil"?
Google's motto is (was?) "Do No Evil". Which most people took to mean they would actively try not to behave like every other giant, rich, corporation.
So far, every time Google has done something questionable, like censoring Chinese search results, or evading taxes (legally or not), the Google fanboys of Slashdot have been quick to point out that Google isn't being evil, they're simply behaving like every other company. Google isn't out sacrificing virgins to Baal, but neither are any other companies. So, please, for the benefit of all the non-fanboys, what exactly does "Do No Evil" mean? What is "evil" for a corporation?
My impression is that "Do No Evil" was good PR. It doesn't really mean anything in "real life."
So you find a job, but keep looking for new jobs? Why?
About your question, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've been offered a lot of "6 month contract" positions. If you've been doing stuff like that, it would make sense that you've switched jobs every few months when the contract ends.
But if that's not the case, or if it is and you keep leaving early, then it probably looks bad. Hiring people is an expensive pain in the ass, and if an employer thinks it's very likely they'll have to replace you, they're less likely to hire you.
If it hasn't been a problem so far, your best bet is probably to keep finding jobs with huge pay increases until people stop making you offers. Just make sure you like the job you end up with and hope that it lasts for a long time.
You just don't get it. It's *not* a simple text search. Your solution is useless. When you do a search in Word or OpenOffice, does it tell you that it found the text on line 597 of the xml file? No, it doesn't because that would be stupid and irrelevant. It has to know that line 597 of the xml file is actually inside a list, inside a paragraph, on page 3 of the fully laid out and formatted document.
To know that, it has to understand the document format, all those "20 class definitions" and "million other things" you completely ignored while suggesting your "solution" a few posts up. If it doesn't take those things into account, it's not a solution. It's not even "almost" a solution. That's why the person you responded to was complaining, and why people are making a big deal out of the size of the specs. Implementing a spec that large is very difficult and a whole lot of work.
Look, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal or make myself seem superior. I'm a computer programmer, not a rock star. But actual "professionals" are telling you the task is really difficult, and you're telling them that it isn't. That's usually a good indication that you're wrong.
That's a flawed analogy. They'd put a bandage on and then presumably call an ambulance or take the guy to the hospital precisely because they're not docotors. The doctors and surgeons at the hospital would be the ones deciding if the bandage was enough and fixing the problem if it wasn't.
The entire software industry has a hard time estimating schedules and complexity. But hey, maybe we're all wrong, and your cursory understanding is enough for you to know better.
No kidding. The writing is so bad it actually hurts to read it. The grammar is horrible, it's filled with sentence fragments, it's poorly worded, it's hard to understand, and it's filled with flamebait. Does this guy really expect people to take him seriously?
Microsoft is full of shit about their IP being in Linux, but poorly written flamebait isn't the best way to call their bluff.
Searching for text in an XML file is trivial. You don't need the standard at all. grep or any text editor will be more than happy to find a string in text. The difficult part is searching for text in a meaningful way. How would you find "Hello World" in a heading? How would you find it in a footer? How about in a list nested in a paragraph on the second page? The only way to sensibly do that is to have software that understands the tags.
You're vastly underestimating the amount of work that would have to be done for the 700 page spec, much less the 6000 page spec.
As you pointed out, for a simple, one sentence document there are "about 20 class definitions", and "a million other things" that the software would need to understand. It's undoubtedly more complex for larger documents.
As a side note, the effect you noticed wasn't HTML parsing, it was /. stripping out everything betwen a less than and greater than sign.
Well, the basic parser isn't really an issue. I haven't investigated either standard in any detail, but assuming they're actual XML, or even reasonably close, there are a million libraries that can handle the parsing. Expat, Xerces, Arabica, the Qt XML parser, and the Java library XML parser come to mind.
The majority of the work is interpretting the tags and actually laying out the document in a standardized way. I can already load a Word *.doc file into OpenOffice and have it look relatively close to how it looks in Word. The reason it only looks "close" is that the Word .doc format isn't documented, so developers for competing products have to make some assumptions and ignore some stuff they can't figure out. Having a standard is supposed to rectify that.
Ideally, with a standardized format, a document would look identical in any word processor that supported all the features used by the document. That's the whole point.
Off-topic: I absolutely hate when people make statements like "I'm no programmer, but I could write that software in very little time." Contrary to popular belief, programming isn't trivial. Sure, you may be able to write the parser in very little time, but would other people want to maintain your code? Would people reading your code even be able to tell what you're doing? Would it have fewer bugs than code written by actual programmers? Would it be fast enough? Would you know what to do if it wasn't? Sorry, it's just a pet peeve.
Because Amazon was granted a patent for using a web browser and cookies the way web browsers and cookies were supposed to be used. It's like if I get a patent for "Using bleach to clean a surface," or "Using antacid tablets to get rid of heartburn." It's not just obvious, it's using existing technology in exactly the way it was intended to be used.
It's probably the best example of why the patent system in the US is fundamentally broken. That's the main reason for all the /. rage.
I don't think he was evaluating the strenghs and weaknesses by their size. He plainly said both standards suck, regardless of their size. Given that, if forced to choose which one to implement, it makes more sense to suffer through a "mere" 700 pages instead of 6000.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why the standard should be as simple and small as possible. Not so much that requirements get left out or "blurred", but there shouldn't be a bunch of unnecessary complexity..
The most important reason is that the actual implementations will be done by several groups of developers, working on several unrelated products. The more complex or unclear the standard is, the more likely it becomes that different groups will interpret the standard differently. Since the point is to make an interoperable, standardized document format, it defeats the point if different products implement the standard differently.
Also, the size and complexity of the standard is likely to have a direct impact on the number of bugs in the implementations. Microsoft can't get backward compatibility with Word 95 right, yet it's in their standard. Other projects wouldn't have a chance.
Overall, I agree with the guy from Opera. Both standards are basically memory dumps with brackets. Using HTML+CSS for publishing doesn't make sense, though.
That's interesting, but the first two points aren't up for debate. Every other time I insert a DVD, the machine *will* reboot when I access the drive. No warning message, no BSOD, no "Do you want to save?" message boxes, just an instant reboot.
When I change the password I at least get to reboot at my leisure, assuming I don't want to check email or access the network drives. But I know for a fact that the last 18 times I've changed my password, I've had to reboot for the changes to propagate.
That's not my experience, but even if it was, here's why I don't care:
Right now, one of my Linux machines has been up for 105 days, another for 40, and another for 12. If it took an hour to boot, I wouldn't mind too much because I simply don't have to (re)boot very often.
On the other hand, my machine at work runs Windows. It reboots every other time I put in a DVD. It needs a reboot every time I change my login password. It needs a reboot any time software updates get pushed to it. And every once in a while it needs a reboot "just because." I'm lucky to go a week without needing a reboot.
So even if each boot takes a little longer, I still spend less time booting on Linux.
So, could you explain exactly how you expect that to happen?
There's going to be more people trying to buy the same amount of RAM. That will make the price go up. Eventually the RAM companies will start making more RAM, and then the price will go back to normal.
At which point in the process do RAM prices fall below normal?
I didn't say that at all, and I think most people got my point. If they're selling a machine to be used with Linux, then logic would imply that those machines should actually work with Linux.
Slow down, and read what I said. The whole thing, with the parentheses. I explicitly pointed out that the people buying *these* machines, specifically the "No OS, Linux" machines, want the machines to run Linux. I wasn't refering to Dell machines in general. If Dell is selling the machine without an OS, specifically so that people can put Linux on it, then yes, I think Dell should make at least a little effort to make sure it comes with Linux compatible hardware. Otherwise, what's the point?
Never going to happen. Last I heard, there were several million people paying Blizzard quite a bit of money to play WoW. Blizzard isn't about to say "We know you want to keep paying us, but we're not going to let you." They will never, ever, do that.
It'll be enough when it costs more than they make in monthly fees. In all likelyhood, there will be a handful of people playing WoW in ten years. The WoW server will be running in VMWare, using left over bandwidth on a Diablo 5 server, but as long as that costs less than they're making, it'll happen.
Blizzard is a company. That's what companies do. They didn't spend a ton of money designing, programming, creating artwork, and buying a ton of servers because it'd be a cool thing to do. They did it hoping to make butt loads of cash. The entire point of WoW, Starcraft, Diablo and WarCraft 2 was to make a ton of money. Now that they're making tons of money on WoW, they're not going to stop until they've made all the money they can. That's just how businesses work.
I'm not seeing your point. Incompatible hardware is only a problem if you have an existing computer, and you want to run a different OS on it. If you're building the machine, as Dell is, it doesn't make any sense to purposely choose hardware that's incompatible with the OS most people (buying these machines) want to use.
It could be an honest mistake, but they're probably just being asshats.
Sigh. That's the most misinformed post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Demand, by itself, says absolutely nothing about the price of something.