I can't compare Android to the iPhone (never used either) but I'd say Windows is the UI with warts and horrible usability where as KDE gives me freedom, flexibility, choice, and a great UI. I don't understand people saying only a geek would love Windows. I've converted my 60 year old Mother, who finds KDE far easier and more intuitive than Windows. I've converted my wife, family, and tons of friends who aren't computer savvy at all. When I do Linux installs for people, I always offer to reinstall Windows if they need to go back, and not a single person has ever taken me up on that.
I thought when the 3G came out there was a major software upgrade they were charging like $10 or $20 for if you had the old phone. I could be mistaken though.
I remember the rumors last year that HTC had a prototype for the G2 with a high resolution screen that was supposed to launch in January of 2009. When it didn't, HTC said the hardware was ready, but Google's software was holding it up, and we'd see a launch in April of 2009. My cell contract is up, and I really need to switch, but I'm holding out for a decent Android phone. When can I honestly expect to see one?
And given that HTC does make a phone with a high resolution screen, and all the rumors LAST YEAR were that both the new G-phone and iPhone would use higher resolution OLED screens, how come we're not seeing them?
I've talked to reps from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint and all have said they have zero idea when they might get Android phones. If I have to wait another six months or more, I might suck it up and go with the Blackberry Storm because I need to replace my damned phone.
EA officially disbanded Origin Systems as a company. His company doesn't exist anymore. However, he might be able to purchase the rights to make single-player Ultima games.
Jackie Chan is off making a Karate Kid remake right now. I'm not remotely kidding. Is that movie going to be better or really different? Will it add something the first couldn't?
Taking a computer game from 1980 and remaking it today is to completely reinvent it and do things that just weren't possible before.
I think it is largely forgotten how much RG pushed the technical boundaries. Ultima 1 had some weird elements like space flight. Would it be removed for technical reasons in a newer title, or would it be removed because it was wacky and took away from the original title?
From a story perspective, I'd like to see him revisit the original trilogy of kill-the-big-baddie and try to put a spin on it. He put that concept on its head, in Ultima IV-VI, but those games feature abstract concepts that are best handled in sequels to established properties when the fans have already bought in.
And the nice aspect of working with Bioware (and EA financing the affair) is that technical limitations should be minor.
I think the world of Ultima 1 has a lot left on the table. Those of us who know and love Ultima, basically only really know 1 of the 4 original continents. I'm really curious to examine a story that looks how magic affects a fantasy society. What kind of world is it when some people can afford resurrections? At what point is magic feared and outlawed? And what are the repercussions of a man like Mondain acquiring near infinite power?
Check out the Wikipedia page and tell me there isn't ripe potential for a good remake here:
As for limitations with DS/Lazarus, the Lazarus team was working within a toolset. They couldn't rewrite the engine for what they needed. RG working at Bioware would have programmers who could lift technical barriers.
I've gotten the games to work with Exult, Dosbox and the like, but most modern gamers wouldn't touch archaic games like that sadly. And while the plot/concepts of the second trilogy hold up really well, the first trilogy was very inconsistent. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing or planning back them.
Bioware has no qualms taking as long as they want to make a quality game, and won't release something unless they are happy with it (like Blizzard). Look at all the time they are taking with Dragon Age.
I think it would behoove him to hook up with a company with established, talent RPG writers and designers, who also have a great piece of technology in the Dragon Age engine.
Bioware also started a MMO studio in Austin and hired up the last remaining remnants of his Origin staffers in Austin. Even though EA owns Bioware, I think it is the most natural fit for him.
EA owns the Ultima license. Bioware needs to hire Richard Garriot tomorrow and remake Ultima. The first three Ultima games had plots going all over the place. Most of the games don't run on modern computers, and many gamers today never played a single-player Ultima. But thanks to Ultima Online, they recognize the name.
Use the Dragon Age engine that Bioware made, and remake the original Ultima trilogy. I know he doesn't want to work for EA, but working for EA under Bioware probably wouldn't be that bad. Please, make this happen.
Richard Gariott was actually supposed to be the very first space tourist. I believe he paid first, but didn't go up until later. And it is a little known fact that his dad was an astronaut.
Actually I think it is extremely cool that he spent his fortune living out childhood dreams (building a castle with trap doors, jousting, going into space, etc).
I really liked dropping the sign on his head. The poison bread in Ultima IX was kind of weak sauce. Killing him in Ultima VII was especially rewarding because you learned a little secret about him in the process.
No, modifying software is not illegal. In fact, pretty much no part of your post is based on reality.
Software by itself can be used, copied, modified, etc. Specific licenses have particular restrictions which remove these freedoms. Most commercial software comes with a license that prohibits redistribution, modifications, etc.
It is illegal to violate that specific license, but without the license, it isn't illegal. The license makes it illegal.
Likewise, without the GPL, various restrictions don't exist.
People like to claim that without the GPL, various freedoms would not exist. This is a lie. The freedoms already exist. The GPL just has a different set of restrictions than most typical software licenses.
However, there are a variety of open-source licenses that still allow for the typical freedoms you come to expect with the GPL (free to use, free to distribute, free to modify) that don't have the various GPL restrictions. The various BSD licenses are good examples.
This concept that freedom does not exist until the GPL grants it is a dirty lie.
The GPL, like any other software license, is a series of restrictions. Those restrictions were created as layers of protection, to protect the ideals of the FSF, just as DRM and commercial licenses were intended to protect the interests of commercial software companies.
I am a fan of the GPLv2 overall, but I hate all this FUD I see spread around that the GPL is the only path to freedom, when it isn't even truly free itself.
Bannerman was saying Ubuntu wasn't free, because it included proprietary shit. He was using FREE as a synonym for complying with a set of restrictions as supplied by the GPL.
Restrictions and freedom are not the same thing. He insisted that removing choice and forbidding users from installing the software they want is the only definition of freedom. That is zealotry.
I have no qualms that Ubuntu doesn't include proprietary software out of the box. I have no qualms that Ubuntu makes it easy to install it. I think all of that is fine. What I have a problem with are zealots who want to steal my freedoms in the so-called name of freedom.
Their blind restrictions really aren't that much better than DRM methodologies that they claim to hate.
Note that I am pro-GPL and anti-DRM, but your statements simply aren't true.
The problems with DRM are two-fold. DRM is ineffective, and it often causes problems for legally paying customers. However, DRM is not designed to limit legal activity solely. It is primarily intended to prevent illegal copying.
The GPL restricts activities that are legal unless specifically restricted in the license. Nothing the GPL restricts is illegal by itself.
You say there is no similarity, but in reality, both restrict users to protect intellectual property. That is a similarity, which you did not refute, and the only similarity I hit upon.
Next time, please attempt to stay within the realm of factual reality when replying.
I don't get your point. Yes, DRM is bad. Ubuntu doesn't ship with it. It allows users the choice to install proprietary codecs if they decide to.
Enabling choice is freedom. Restricting people and telling them they can't do what they want to is just as bad as DRM and all these draconian zealots insisting we have to be 100% through a series of restrictions.
DRM is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (media) intellectual property.
The GPL is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (source code) intellectual property.
Stop saying that GPL equals freedom. The GPL is good, but it does not mean freedom.
Why would people go through the effort to change one way of running Windows apps to another way of running Windows apps if it didn't offer other benefits?
Ubuntu can not simply be a platform for launching Windows apps. It must be a viable platform in its own right.
That being said, I hope Shuttleworth uses his wealth, visiblity and sway right now to do more than just raise the visibility level of Linux.
Why not do more? Why not raise a stink about the state of Xorg? Releases always end up cutting features, and then arrive over a year late regardless, and it is largely built on 20-year old legacy code. Now that it is modular, wouldn't it be easier now to rewrite aspects of Xorg and redesign it for modern needs?
He should be pushing for major upstream changes, such as his suggestions regarding notifications (which should jump on the back of KDE's new system tray specs).
Can anyone explain why a company with the manpower and wealth of Microsoft can't just ship XP with sane security defaults out of the box for everyone else?
Does Kirk shoot the giant squid with organic web shooters? And I bet they get Radioactive Man's origin story all wrong! And they cast Daniel Craig as both Good Hitler and Space Hitler! Don't they know he is blond!
No doubt I will burn some karma here, but I don't think that Ubuntu is any more user friendly that openSUSE or Mandriva or PCLinuxOS or Simply MEPIS, etc.
Ubuntu has pushed some nice things, but they aren't the only distro that features an easy install, a good package manager, and a nice desktop. And since I'm a KDE user, it is hard for me to praise Ubuntu's desktop. I loathe Gnome, and Ubuntu has been shipping really broken KDE 4 packages for the past year and a half. I hear good progress was made for Kubuntu 9.04, but KDE is definitely a second-class citizen in *buntu-land.
What I think Ubuntu has done better than anyone else is market. Shuttleworth is a good Linux evangelist, and he has made important deals with companies like Dell. There is something to be said for that.
I'm not saying Ubuntu does nothing. I'm saying Ubuntu gets almost all the credit for Linux development, when they do a very small portion of it.
As Nedposeur posited, it is to Canonical's benefit to have good products like OpenOffice they can tout. But they aren't pushing much upstream. Shuttleworth did say last year that they will invest more in the future in upstream development, so that might change. But to this point, Canonical gets more credit than they deserve.
And while I disagreed with the Novell/MS deal, it seems the community wants to hate on Novell, and not give them the credit they deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't compare Android to the iPhone (never used either) but I'd say Windows is the UI with warts and horrible usability where as KDE gives me freedom, flexibility, choice, and a great UI. I don't understand people saying only a geek would love Windows. I've converted my 60 year old Mother, who finds KDE far easier and more intuitive than Windows. I've converted my wife, family, and tons of friends who aren't computer savvy at all. When I do Linux installs for people, I always offer to reinstall Windows if they need to go back, and not a single person has ever taken me up on that.
I thought when the 3G came out there was a major software upgrade they were charging like $10 or $20 for if you had the old phone. I could be mistaken though.
I remember the rumors last year that HTC had a prototype for the G2 with a high resolution screen that was supposed to launch in January of 2009. When it didn't, HTC said the hardware was ready, but Google's software was holding it up, and we'd see a launch in April of 2009. My cell contract is up, and I really need to switch, but I'm holding out for a decent Android phone. When can I honestly expect to see one?
And given that HTC does make a phone with a high resolution screen, and all the rumors LAST YEAR were that both the new G-phone and iPhone would use higher resolution OLED screens, how come we're not seeing them?
http://www.htc.com/www/product/touchhd/overview.html
I've talked to reps from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint and all have said they have zero idea when they might get Android phones. If I have to wait another six months or more, I might suck it up and go with the Blackberry Storm because I need to replace my damned phone.
I think Apple will take a page out of Nintendo's book and reinvent casual, portable gaming. Imagine streamed games to your iPhone?
EA officially disbanded Origin Systems as a company. His company doesn't exist anymore. However, he might be able to purchase the rights to make single-player Ultima games.
VASTLY different story here.
Jackie Chan is off making a Karate Kid remake right now. I'm not remotely kidding. Is that movie going to be better or really different? Will it add something the first couldn't?
Taking a computer game from 1980 and remaking it today is to completely reinvent it and do things that just weren't possible before.
What about Daleks?
I think it is largely forgotten how much RG pushed the technical boundaries. Ultima 1 had some weird elements like space flight. Would it be removed for technical reasons in a newer title, or would it be removed because it was wacky and took away from the original title?
From a story perspective, I'd like to see him revisit the original trilogy of kill-the-big-baddie and try to put a spin on it. He put that concept on its head, in Ultima IV-VI, but those games feature abstract concepts that are best handled in sequels to established properties when the fans have already bought in.
And the nice aspect of working with Bioware (and EA financing the affair) is that technical limitations should be minor.
I think the world of Ultima 1 has a lot left on the table. Those of us who know and love Ultima, basically only really know 1 of the 4 original continents. I'm really curious to examine a story that looks how magic affects a fantasy society. What kind of world is it when some people can afford resurrections? At what point is magic feared and outlawed? And what are the repercussions of a man like Mondain acquiring near infinite power?
Check out the Wikipedia page and tell me there isn't ripe potential for a good remake here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_1
As for limitations with DS/Lazarus, the Lazarus team was working within a toolset. They couldn't rewrite the engine for what they needed. RG working at Bioware would have programmers who could lift technical barriers.
I've gotten the games to work with Exult, Dosbox and the like, but most modern gamers wouldn't touch archaic games like that sadly. And while the plot/concepts of the second trilogy hold up really well, the first trilogy was very inconsistent. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing or planning back them.
Bioware has no qualms taking as long as they want to make a quality game, and won't release something unless they are happy with it (like Blizzard). Look at all the time they are taking with Dragon Age.
I think it would behoove him to hook up with a company with established, talent RPG writers and designers, who also have a great piece of technology in the Dragon Age engine.
Bioware also started a MMO studio in Austin and hired up the last remaining remnants of his Origin staffers in Austin. Even though EA owns Bioware, I think it is the most natural fit for him.
EA owns the Ultima license. Bioware needs to hire Richard Garriot tomorrow and remake Ultima. The first three Ultima games had plots going all over the place. Most of the games don't run on modern computers, and many gamers today never played a single-player Ultima. But thanks to Ultima Online, they recognize the name.
Use the Dragon Age engine that Bioware made, and remake the original Ultima trilogy. I know he doesn't want to work for EA, but working for EA under Bioware probably wouldn't be that bad. Please, make this happen.
Richard Gariott was actually supposed to be the very first space tourist. I believe he paid first, but didn't go up until later. And it is a little known fact that his dad was an astronaut.
Actually I think it is extremely cool that he spent his fortune living out childhood dreams (building a castle with trap doors, jousting, going into space, etc).
I really liked dropping the sign on his head. The poison bread in Ultima IX was kind of weak sauce. Killing him in Ultima VII was especially rewarding because you learned a little secret about him in the process.
No, modifying software is not illegal. In fact, pretty much no part of your post is based on reality.
Software by itself can be used, copied, modified, etc. Specific licenses have particular restrictions which remove these freedoms. Most commercial software comes with a license that prohibits redistribution, modifications, etc.
It is illegal to violate that specific license, but without the license, it isn't illegal. The license makes it illegal.
Likewise, without the GPL, various restrictions don't exist.
People like to claim that without the GPL, various freedoms would not exist. This is a lie. The freedoms already exist. The GPL just has a different set of restrictions than most typical software licenses.
However, there are a variety of open-source licenses that still allow for the typical freedoms you come to expect with the GPL (free to use, free to distribute, free to modify) that don't have the various GPL restrictions. The various BSD licenses are good examples.
This concept that freedom does not exist until the GPL grants it is a dirty lie.
The GPL, like any other software license, is a series of restrictions. Those restrictions were created as layers of protection, to protect the ideals of the FSF, just as DRM and commercial licenses were intended to protect the interests of commercial software companies.
I am a fan of the GPLv2 overall, but I hate all this FUD I see spread around that the GPL is the only path to freedom, when it isn't even truly free itself.
Bannerman was saying Ubuntu wasn't free, because it included proprietary shit. He was using FREE as a synonym for complying with a set of restrictions as supplied by the GPL.
Restrictions and freedom are not the same thing. He insisted that removing choice and forbidding users from installing the software they want is the only definition of freedom. That is zealotry.
I have no qualms that Ubuntu doesn't include proprietary software out of the box. I have no qualms that Ubuntu makes it easy to install it. I think all of that is fine. What I have a problem with are zealots who want to steal my freedoms in the so-called name of freedom.
Their blind restrictions really aren't that much better than DRM methodologies that they claim to hate.
Note that I am pro-GPL and anti-DRM, but your statements simply aren't true.
The problems with DRM are two-fold. DRM is ineffective, and it often causes problems for legally paying customers. However, DRM is not designed to limit legal activity solely. It is primarily intended to prevent illegal copying.
The GPL restricts activities that are legal unless specifically restricted in the license. Nothing the GPL restricts is illegal by itself.
You say there is no similarity, but in reality, both restrict users to protect intellectual property. That is a similarity, which you did not refute, and the only similarity I hit upon.
Next time, please attempt to stay within the realm of factual reality when replying.
I don't get your point. Yes, DRM is bad. Ubuntu doesn't ship with it. It allows users the choice to install proprietary codecs if they decide to.
Enabling choice is freedom. Restricting people and telling them they can't do what they want to is just as bad as DRM and all these draconian zealots insisting we have to be 100% through a series of restrictions.
DRM is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (media) intellectual property.
The GPL is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (source code) intellectual property.
Stop saying that GPL equals freedom. The GPL is good, but it does not mean freedom.
Why would people go through the effort to change one way of running Windows apps to another way of running Windows apps if it didn't offer other benefits?
Ubuntu can not simply be a platform for launching Windows apps. It must be a viable platform in its own right.
That being said, I hope Shuttleworth uses his wealth, visiblity and sway right now to do more than just raise the visibility level of Linux.
Why not do more? Why not raise a stink about the state of Xorg? Releases always end up cutting features, and then arrive over a year late regardless, and it is largely built on 20-year old legacy code. Now that it is modular, wouldn't it be easier now to rewrite aspects of Xorg and redesign it for modern needs?
He should be pushing for major upstream changes, such as his suggestions regarding notifications (which should jump on the back of KDE's new system tray specs).
Can anyone explain why a company with the manpower and wealth of Microsoft can't just ship XP with sane security defaults out of the box for everyone else?
This is the 21st century, right?
I'm signed in, and I don't know how that got posted AC. Oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh12Q7cpeE
That is a must-see clip.
Does Kirk shoot the giant squid with organic web shooters? And I bet they get Radioactive Man's origin story all wrong! And they cast Daniel Craig as both Good Hitler and Space Hitler! Don't they know he is blond!
http://www.goats.com/archive/050315.html
(check out goats for the Space Hitler reference)
SanDisk is now salivating at the prospect of a 2TB memory card, or two or three, as a MUST HAVE accessory for your next DSLR.
No doubt I will burn some karma here, but I don't think that Ubuntu is any more user friendly that openSUSE or Mandriva or PCLinuxOS or Simply MEPIS, etc.
Ubuntu has pushed some nice things, but they aren't the only distro that features an easy install, a good package manager, and a nice desktop. And since I'm a KDE user, it is hard for me to praise Ubuntu's desktop. I loathe Gnome, and Ubuntu has been shipping really broken KDE 4 packages for the past year and a half. I hear good progress was made for Kubuntu 9.04, but KDE is definitely a second-class citizen in *buntu-land.
What I think Ubuntu has done better than anyone else is market. Shuttleworth is a good Linux evangelist, and he has made important deals with companies like Dell. There is something to be said for that.
I'm not saying Ubuntu does nothing. I'm saying Ubuntu gets almost all the credit for Linux development, when they do a very small portion of it.
As Nedposeur posited, it is to Canonical's benefit to have good products like OpenOffice they can tout. But they aren't pushing much upstream. Shuttleworth did say last year that they will invest more in the future in upstream development, so that might change. But to this point, Canonical gets more credit than they deserve.
And while I disagreed with the Novell/MS deal, it seems the community wants to hate on Novell, and not give them the credit they deserve.