Sabayon supports Compiz-Fusion out of the box on both ATI and NVidia cards. You get codecs, proprietary drivers, and everything. It just works.
The Live DVD is horribly slow, but the installed system is pretty nice. Just make sure to uninstall Beagle, which is a performance hog, and then you get a great desktop which includes Skype, Google Earth, Picasa, tons of 3D Games, Second Life, etc.
If you build or install a 64-bit version of Linux, literally your entire system can be 64-bit, but if you want Flash or Java support as a plugin to your browser, you entire system has to be multi-library now supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries. Let's say you already have the 64-bit GTK libraries in memory, but want to load Firefox, you also now have to load all the dependent libraries for that redundantly with their 32-bit counterparts. Firefox compiles just fine as a 64-bit app, and it is literally only Sun and Adobe that force people to deal with the multi-library situation. The weird thing is that Sun releases 64-bit versions of Linux, and claims to fully support 64-bit, but the browser plugin is only 32-bit.
It took Adobe ages for them to finally recognize the Linux crowd. If I recall, the only "stable" release of Flash for Linux is version 7, which won't work for Youtube and most sites that use Flash these days. They completely skipped 8, and ignored Linux users, and I believe one coder made it his personal mission to bug Adobe and offer to work on the Linux version. Flash 9 for Linux is a beta product, and doesn't get the attention or support of the Windows version. And neither Linux nor Windows users get 64-bit versions. Given how long Adobe was willing to ignore the Linux crowd, I'm pretty sure they are content to ignore the 64-bit market near indefinitely.
What benefit does it offer besides as 3D accelerated desktop (and I have a better version of that in Linux)?
Your analogy is completely flawed and shows you don't understand the difference. Putting a Fiero in a Lamborghini body, means it looks like the Lamborghini, but it can't perform as well. Given that XP outperforms Vista, XP is the Lamborghini in the Fiero body. Once you clean up the body, you get a win-win.
I have a budget system (broke parent putting my wife through school and trying to take care of my daughter) and I can only get about 30 FPS running Oblivion in XP. I had Vista installed for two days before I deleted it, because it was unbearably slow. I'd boot, and then try to load the Control Panel to try and change some options, and it would pagefile and stall for a solid 2 minutes, except I hadn't done anything yet, and I have 2 gigs of memory. You insist the only difference between XP and Vista is 104 to 102 FPS in some random game, when I'm talking about waiting a couple of minutes for a single dialog to open up.
If you look at Distrowatch, most of the new traffic to that site are Windows users. Vista is so horrid, it is driving people to ditch Windows all together. That's your supposed Lamborghini.
And again, you also ignore the fact that for the same price range, DX10 cards are considerably slower than their DX9 counterparts, so getting a Vista gaming rig means losing out on hardware as well. Sorry, but the facts don't support you at all in this matter.
I keep trying to get my wife into gaming, and she likes the occassional game (KOTOR) but it isn't her cup of tea. My daughter is only 2, and we're a ways off there.
I bought the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, N64 and Gamecube, so I'm not a Nintendo hater. I've seen them focus more and more on party games, quirks, and non-gamers. The often resell their old games over and over again, and people seem happy to buy them over and over again. Most are excited about the virtual console, but I see an inferior replacement to the emulators on my XBox or PC. If I bought the game twice already, I'm not paying Nintendo a third time.
Nintendo actually makes a profit on the hardware because they're pushing cheap hardware, and not even attempting to give me the best possible product for the price, while Sony and Microsoft are losing a ton on hardware costs. Nintendo didn't ship with DVD support, and charged $50 more than they initially said, so they somewhat lost me there as well.
Both the N64 and Gamecube mainly gathered dust in their lifetimes. I kept buying retreads of old games (alongside the rereleases of old games) and realized that Nintendo was offering very little in the way of "new". The Gamecube never had the Mario 64 sequel they promised for years, and I don't know how you skip an entire console generation of your primary franchise. Sunshine was alright, but not a proper Mario title.
Nintendo seems to offer the bare minimum to the consumer, and people are happy as pie. I just don't get it. The new Zelda looks great, but I can probably pick it for $20 soon for my Gamecube and dust it off. If you're best title for the current generation is a quick port of a game from the last generation, that isn't a selling point for me.
Except it is. Richard Garriot basically invented the MMO genre with Ultima Online, and has never been much of a company man. He ripped on EA, and has no reason to really lie about the industry. He's spoken on MMO's quite a bit over the years, and works for NCSoft. He helped oversee the launch of Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Auto Assault, etc. and has his new MMO title called Tabula Rasa, which has been in development for years, and years.
When you write an MMO, you're coding both a client, and a server. You're usually talking 3 full years of active development, where as many software titles get closer to a year. Big titles that get three years of development (like GTA or Oblivion) often have a budget of around 85 million dollars for production. Even if you are a runaway success like WoW (which most titles aren't) and let's say you hit 1 million subscribers, each paying $15 (or whatever the current going rate is) per month. Out of that 15, there is credit card processing, retail fees, or whatver. Then you pay for the physical cost of the servers, and again the investment is in the millions, and WoW had to keep adding and adding more servers. And then you pay the cost of the bandwidth. Let's say you are lucky enough to make a full $10 profit out of the $15 (unlikely) you're talking 9 months of subscriptions at the absolute best case scenario to cover the cost of development, or you charge for the retail box.
Most MMOs are lucky to get 100,000 or 200,000 subscribers, so they can't just magically wait several years to HOPEFULLY recoup the cost of initial development.
Yet, new content, patches, and upgrades are released for free constantly. You have to pay developers to make those. You have to pay for GMs, and tech support, and pay for a community for an MMO. Let's say the retail box pays for the cost of initial development, and the game goes on for years, so how do you pay for the ongoing costs?
If you're unhappy, then follow the advice I already gave you, and look into cheaper or free products. It is a free market, and the dollar will decide. I hate hearing people bitch about how they should be given everything for free. If you don't like paying for stuff, then look into free products and services, because they are out there. But if you want to play WoW for free, you're barking up the wrong tree. You seem to believe they are this magical cash show, and WoW is the best example of success, but perhaps you forget the DOZENS of MMO companies than folded and went bankrupt before their product ever launched, or shortly there after. Development of a major title is not cheap, and they can't give it away for free. It just isn't a viable business model for most. Guild Wars is about as close to an exception as you'll find. You don't have to subscribe, but they make it worth you while if you want to. However, you still have to buy a retail box, and you'll discover that Guild Wars isn't nearly as deep as other games.
Didn't they start a project similar to Google's Summer of Code, where they are paying out of pocket for open source projects? They also release SDKs and bits of internal code as open source. There is also http://www.spikesource.com/ which is Microsoft funded.
Microsoft helped write code for the Mozilla project to get Firefox running better under Vista, and helped write the new plugin for WMP content in Firefox.
The licenses let you look at, change and redistribute code. This will probably get me modded a troll, but the GPLv3 has as many restrictions as any open source license I've ever seen, so I'm not sure why you are bashing Microsoft for releasing under a license "that won't let you do anything". Microsoft isn't exactly Google or Linux, but they are in fact supporting open source, even on a small level.
Microsoft's new Permissive License is being compared to the BSD and Apache licenses, which are pretty damn permissive.
I don't think that Microsoft is doing any of this because in principle they believe in open source. Microsoft just likes to hedge their bets and be in every camp at once sometimes, not to mention with the EU lawsuits, they don't have any choice. However, they are still supporting open source.
The game has a heavy development cost, actually moreso than a standard game. When you buy the retail box, you are paying the developers for the initial cost of devlopment. The servers and bandwidth also cost money, and developers are expected to constantly squash bugs, and release new content to keep you playing, thus the subscription price.
If you don't like it, check out something like Guild Wars (more of a slimmed down title, but cheaper) or Planeshift, which is free last time I checked.
I caved in a got an XBox (first one) not because of platform exclusives, but because all the multiplatform titles looked better on the XBox than they did on the PS2. Largely I believe that will be the case with the PS3. The 360 is scaring me away with their red-rings-of-death, and the Wii looks fun, and I may buy one, but everything I hear suggests that it really is catered more to multiplayer gaming. Since getting married and having a kid, I don't have people over to play video games anymore. I rarely have any time for single-player gaming. Any multiplayer gaming is going to be online, and the Playstation allows me to game online for free.
Many reviews keep stating that the PS3 may still be the best Blu-Ray player on the market, and entry-level Blu-Ray players start at $500. Many people don't care about Blu-Ray right this second, but after seeing a movie in true 1080p, I'm ready to buy a new TV and a PS3. For $500 I'm getting a good Blu-Ray player, with the gaming console/media server/web appliance thrown in for free.
Most gamers don't see it that way, and that's fine. But for me, it is actually quite a value.
Microsoft has never been quick to simply adopt another's standard or format without changing it. I never said they made a complete 180, however, Microsoft of 10 years ago wouldn't be giving away so many free products or supporting open source as much as they are today.
Honestly, this is such a win-win, I don't know who companies don't do it more. You're not going to get significant revenue still selling these old titles, yet companies go after people for sharing 20 year old abandonware titles for some crazy reason.
When EA gives a game like this away for free, they get good PR, and they possibly create a new audience to suddenly look at the sequels to these games if perhaps they might not have otherwise.
A video tag needs placement visually, where as an audio tag doesn't necessarily. You can embed an audio player, or you can just loop a sound in the background. And frankly two tags aren't all that complex, especially compared to the previous systems.
That memo is 9 years old. Microsoft is still evil, but a good deal many of their policies have changed, and I'd argue they are slightly less evil than they were before. Many of the things I never thought I'd see happen, are happening today. Dell will sell you and AMD processor-powered system with Linux preinstalled. Apple is official dual-booting Windows on an Intel x86 processor. Microsoft is selling Linux licenses, and is supporting open-source, even if on a small level.
Quite frankly, Microsoft had little choice once governments started to consider getting away from Office documents. If it became legislation, and every state school in the nation had to switch, Microsoft would be in a world of hurt. The document converter covers their bases. Even if OOXML fails, Microsoft can still sell their Office product, so long as it has a converter for ODF.
HTML 5 includes a basic video tag, where you simply tag a video file, and let the browser then handle the rest, such as figuring out the codec and player. No JS, Flash or clunky embedding code needed.
I've seen first-hand some of the incredible technology and training we had in the military, but neither China nor the US really wants a piece of each other. That is a conflict that only ends badly pretty much for everyone.
Nothing. Quite frankly China has tested the limits of both the US and UN for years, and neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations were willing or capable of doing anything. With problems in Iran, Syria, North Korea, oh and those two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US does not have the capability to swat a fly elsewhere, let alone threaten the military might of China.
China knows they can get away with such actions, so they will. If you don't believe me, look up recent actions regarding Taiwan, Tibet and East Timor, amongst other things. China also does nothing to combat the millions of dollars in lost US revenue from stolen IP, yet we give them favored trading partner status, making our trade deficit worse.
Yes, last I heard Microsoft said they would support a converter. However what seems odd is that the converter is on SourceForge as opposed to download.microsoft.com, or some other place. Doesn't Microsoft have their own SourceForge like open source portal? I heard there was practically nothing on it, and they couldn't really get it off the ground.
I think part of the problem is that OpenOffice keeps referring to itself as OpenOfficeOrg, or OOO. If Microsoft's new standard were called OpenOfficeOrg XML, I think Sun would have a trademark case against Microsoft.
I'm not attempting to establish a system of morality here, merely stating the way things are. Watchdog groups are going after certain websites and groups in particular. If you really dig-deep into the LJ scandals of late you'll find some interesting contraversies that I didn't get into because I feel they were a bit off-topic. However the watchdog groups that submitted TOS violations for a bunch of pedophilia-related communities included a bunch of slash-fic sites that focused on gay porn. They had nothing to do with pedophilia, but it was a hidden agenda thrown in because apparently all gays have a thing for little boys. LJ has also had recent contraversies over banning pictures of breast-feeding, even if a nipple isn't shown, because apparently breastfeeding is inherently evil. That is where I saw the barbie-doll-masturbation thing pop-up. You could have that as a user-pic, and it wasn't offensive so long as it wasn't your default pic. However a default pic that featured breastfeeding was against the TOS.
There is also a current controversy because the TOS clearly state that no community may encourage self-harm, but the largest pro-anorexia community on the internet is hosted on LJ. They openly encourage women to not eat and in their own words "starve themselves" even if they haven't eaten in days and are experiencing medical symptoms of malnutrition. They encourage self-loathing and insecurity, and the moderator for the community already committed suicide. In response, they are all calling for even more starving to honor her. Several young girls on the community have also discussed suicide, and instead of encouraging these women to seek professional help, LJ for som strange reason is standing behind this community.
I'm playing devil's advocate in that I would have similar policies on pedophilia because I would be bound by law. However in principle they are deleting people's journals because they wrote a fic about two Harry Potter students getting it on, while LJ defends a pro-anorexia community. Their priorities are a little off. Either they try to avoid censorship as much as possible, or they establish firm rules on what they won't allow and enforce them uniformly.
Those terms would be state and federal laws, and last time I checked on-line businesses that operated out of the US needed to follow those laws. If you're upset, I wouldn't take your gripes to LJ but rather US lawmakers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sabayon supports Compiz-Fusion out of the box on both ATI and NVidia cards. You get codecs, proprietary drivers, and everything. It just works.
The Live DVD is horribly slow, but the installed system is pretty nice. Just make sure to uninstall Beagle, which is a performance hog, and then you get a great desktop which includes Skype, Google Earth, Picasa, tons of 3D Games, Second Life, etc.
www.sabayonlinux.org
If you build or install a 64-bit version of Linux, literally your entire system can be 64-bit, but if you want Flash or Java support as a plugin to your browser, you entire system has to be multi-library now supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries. Let's say you already have the 64-bit GTK libraries in memory, but want to load Firefox, you also now have to load all the dependent libraries for that redundantly with their 32-bit counterparts. Firefox compiles just fine as a 64-bit app, and it is literally only Sun and Adobe that force people to deal with the multi-library situation. The weird thing is that Sun releases 64-bit versions of Linux, and claims to fully support 64-bit, but the browser plugin is only 32-bit.
It took Adobe ages for them to finally recognize the Linux crowd. If I recall, the only "stable" release of Flash for Linux is version 7, which won't work for Youtube and most sites that use Flash these days. They completely skipped 8, and ignored Linux users, and I believe one coder made it his personal mission to bug Adobe and offer to work on the Linux version. Flash 9 for Linux is a beta product, and doesn't get the attention or support of the Windows version. And neither Linux nor Windows users get 64-bit versions. Given how long Adobe was willing to ignore the Linux crowd, I'm pretty sure they are content to ignore the 64-bit market near indefinitely.
You're insisting that Vista is a Lamborghini.
What benefit does it offer besides as 3D accelerated desktop (and I have a better version of that in Linux)?
Your analogy is completely flawed and shows you don't understand the difference. Putting a Fiero in a Lamborghini body, means it looks like the Lamborghini, but it can't perform as well. Given that XP outperforms Vista, XP is the Lamborghini in the Fiero body. Once you clean up the body, you get a win-win.
I have a budget system (broke parent putting my wife through school and trying to take care of my daughter) and I can only get about 30 FPS running Oblivion in XP. I had Vista installed for two days before I deleted it, because it was unbearably slow. I'd boot, and then try to load the Control Panel to try and change some options, and it would pagefile and stall for a solid 2 minutes, except I hadn't done anything yet, and I have 2 gigs of memory. You insist the only difference between XP and Vista is 104 to 102 FPS in some random game, when I'm talking about waiting a couple of minutes for a single dialog to open up.
If you look at Distrowatch, most of the new traffic to that site are Windows users. Vista is so horrid, it is driving people to ditch Windows all together. That's your supposed Lamborghini.
And again, you also ignore the fact that for the same price range, DX10 cards are considerably slower than their DX9 counterparts, so getting a Vista gaming rig means losing out on hardware as well. Sorry, but the facts don't support you at all in this matter.
Enjoy your Lamborghini.
All I know is that I just pre-ordered GTA42: Vatican City. Now that game has to be hard-core!
UO has been going for a decade and still rolling. $15 a month over 10 years = $1,800. So they should have just shipped the retail box for $1,850?
I keep trying to get my wife into gaming, and she likes the occassional game (KOTOR) but it isn't her cup of tea. My daughter is only 2, and we're a ways off there.
I bought the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, N64 and Gamecube, so I'm not a Nintendo hater. I've seen them focus more and more on party games, quirks, and non-gamers. The often resell their old games over and over again, and people seem happy to buy them over and over again. Most are excited about the virtual console, but I see an inferior replacement to the emulators on my XBox or PC. If I bought the game twice already, I'm not paying Nintendo a third time.
Nintendo actually makes a profit on the hardware because they're pushing cheap hardware, and not even attempting to give me the best possible product for the price, while Sony and Microsoft are losing a ton on hardware costs. Nintendo didn't ship with DVD support, and charged $50 more than they initially said, so they somewhat lost me there as well.
Both the N64 and Gamecube mainly gathered dust in their lifetimes. I kept buying retreads of old games (alongside the rereleases of old games) and realized that Nintendo was offering very little in the way of "new". The Gamecube never had the Mario 64 sequel they promised for years, and I don't know how you skip an entire console generation of your primary franchise. Sunshine was alright, but not a proper Mario title.
Nintendo seems to offer the bare minimum to the consumer, and people are happy as pie. I just don't get it. The new Zelda looks great, but I can probably pick it for $20 soon for my Gamecube and dust it off. If you're best title for the current generation is a quick port of a game from the last generation, that isn't a selling point for me.
Except it is. Richard Garriot basically invented the MMO genre with Ultima Online, and has never been much of a company man. He ripped on EA, and has no reason to really lie about the industry. He's spoken on MMO's quite a bit over the years, and works for NCSoft. He helped oversee the launch of Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Auto Assault, etc. and has his new MMO title called Tabula Rasa, which has been in development for years, and years.
When you write an MMO, you're coding both a client, and a server. You're usually talking 3 full years of active development, where as many software titles get closer to a year. Big titles that get three years of development (like GTA or Oblivion) often have a budget of around 85 million dollars for production. Even if you are a runaway success like WoW (which most titles aren't) and let's say you hit 1 million subscribers, each paying $15 (or whatever the current going rate is) per month. Out of that 15, there is credit card processing, retail fees, or whatver. Then you pay for the physical cost of the servers, and again the investment is in the millions, and WoW had to keep adding and adding more servers. And then you pay the cost of the bandwidth. Let's say you are lucky enough to make a full $10 profit out of the $15 (unlikely) you're talking 9 months of subscriptions at the absolute best case scenario to cover the cost of development, or you charge for the retail box.
Most MMOs are lucky to get 100,000 or 200,000 subscribers, so they can't just magically wait several years to HOPEFULLY recoup the cost of initial development.
Yet, new content, patches, and upgrades are released for free constantly. You have to pay developers to make those. You have to pay for GMs, and tech support, and pay for a community for an MMO. Let's say the retail box pays for the cost of initial development, and the game goes on for years, so how do you pay for the ongoing costs?
If you're unhappy, then follow the advice I already gave you, and look into cheaper or free products. It is a free market, and the dollar will decide. I hate hearing people bitch about how they should be given everything for free. If you don't like paying for stuff, then look into free products and services, because they are out there. But if you want to play WoW for free, you're barking up the wrong tree. You seem to believe they are this magical cash show, and WoW is the best example of success, but perhaps you forget the DOZENS of MMO companies than folded and went bankrupt before their product ever launched, or shortly there after. Development of a major title is not cheap, and they can't give it away for free. It just isn't a viable business model for most. Guild Wars is about as close to an exception as you'll find. You don't have to subscribe, but they make it worth you while if you want to. However, you still have to buy a retail box, and you'll discover that Guild Wars isn't nearly as deep as other games.
Didn't they start a project similar to Google's Summer of Code, where they are paying out of pocket for open source projects? They also release SDKs and bits of internal code as open source. There is also http://www.spikesource.com/ which is Microsoft funded.
Microsoft helped write code for the Mozilla project to get Firefox running better under Vista, and helped write the new plugin for WMP content in Firefox.
The licenses let you look at, change and redistribute code. This will probably get me modded a troll, but the GPLv3 has as many restrictions as any open source license I've ever seen, so I'm not sure why you are bashing Microsoft for releasing under a license "that won't let you do anything". Microsoft isn't exactly Google or Linux, but they are in fact supporting open source, even on a small level.
Microsoft's new Permissive License is being compared to the BSD and Apache licenses, which are pretty damn permissive.
I don't think that Microsoft is doing any of this because in principle they believe in open source. Microsoft just likes to hedge their bets and be in every camp at once sometimes, not to mention with the EU lawsuits, they don't have any choice. However, they are still supporting open source.
The game has a heavy development cost, actually moreso than a standard game. When you buy the retail box, you are paying the developers for the initial cost of devlopment. The servers and bandwidth also cost money, and developers are expected to constantly squash bugs, and release new content to keep you playing, thus the subscription price.
If you don't like it, check out something like Guild Wars (more of a slimmed down title, but cheaper) or Planeshift, which is free last time I checked.
I caved in a got an XBox (first one) not because of platform exclusives, but because all the multiplatform titles looked better on the XBox than they did on the PS2. Largely I believe that will be the case with the PS3. The 360 is scaring me away with their red-rings-of-death, and the Wii looks fun, and I may buy one, but everything I hear suggests that it really is catered more to multiplayer gaming. Since getting married and having a kid, I don't have people over to play video games anymore. I rarely have any time for single-player gaming. Any multiplayer gaming is going to be online, and the Playstation allows me to game online for free.
Many reviews keep stating that the PS3 may still be the best Blu-Ray player on the market, and entry-level Blu-Ray players start at $500. Many people don't care about Blu-Ray right this second, but after seeing a movie in true 1080p, I'm ready to buy a new TV and a PS3. For $500 I'm getting a good Blu-Ray player, with the gaming console/media server/web appliance thrown in for free.
Most gamers don't see it that way, and that's fine. But for me, it is actually quite a value.
That's why there is texting. OMGWTFBBQ!
Microsoft has never been quick to simply adopt another's standard or format without changing it. I never said they made a complete 180, however, Microsoft of 10 years ago wouldn't be giving away so many free products or supporting open source as much as they are today.
Honestly, this is such a win-win, I don't know who companies don't do it more. You're not going to get significant revenue still selling these old titles, yet companies go after people for sharing 20 year old abandonware titles for some crazy reason.
When EA gives a game like this away for free, they get good PR, and they possibly create a new audience to suddenly look at the sequels to these games if perhaps they might not have otherwise.
A video tag needs placement visually, where as an audio tag doesn't necessarily. You can embed an audio player, or you can just loop a sound in the background. And frankly two tags aren't all that complex, especially compared to the previous systems.
That memo is 9 years old. Microsoft is still evil, but a good deal many of their policies have changed, and I'd argue they are slightly less evil than they were before. Many of the things I never thought I'd see happen, are happening today. Dell will sell you and AMD processor-powered system with Linux preinstalled. Apple is official dual-booting Windows on an Intel x86 processor. Microsoft is selling Linux licenses, and is supporting open-source, even if on a small level.
Quite frankly, Microsoft had little choice once governments started to consider getting away from Office documents. If it became legislation, and every state school in the nation had to switch, Microsoft would be in a world of hurt. The document converter covers their bases. Even if OOXML fails, Microsoft can still sell their Office product, so long as it has a converter for ODF.
I don't think he was serious in that he believed his statement, but it could be that his intent was to troll and illicit flames.
Without an emoticon I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or trolling.
I'm going to assume you're kidding.
HTML 5 includes a basic video tag, where you simply tag a video file, and let the browser then handle the rest, such as figuring out the codec and player. No JS, Flash or clunky embedding code needed.
I've seen first-hand some of the incredible technology and training we had in the military, but neither China nor the US really wants a piece of each other. That is a conflict that only ends badly pretty much for everyone.
What is the US going to do?
Nothing. Quite frankly China has tested the limits of both the US and UN for years, and neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations were willing or capable of doing anything. With problems in Iran, Syria, North Korea, oh and those two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US does not have the capability to swat a fly elsewhere, let alone threaten the military might of China.
China knows they can get away with such actions, so they will. If you don't believe me, look up recent actions regarding Taiwan, Tibet and East Timor, amongst other things. China also does nothing to combat the millions of dollars in lost US revenue from stolen IP, yet we give them favored trading partner status, making our trade deficit worse.
Yes, last I heard Microsoft said they would support a converter. However what seems odd is that the converter is on SourceForge as opposed to download.microsoft.com, or some other place. Doesn't Microsoft have their own SourceForge like open source portal? I heard there was practically nothing on it, and they couldn't really get it off the ground.
I think part of the problem is that OpenOffice keeps referring to itself as OpenOfficeOrg, or OOO. If Microsoft's new standard were called OpenOfficeOrg XML, I think Sun would have a trademark case against Microsoft.
I'm not attempting to establish a system of morality here, merely stating the way things are. Watchdog groups are going after certain websites and groups in particular. If you really dig-deep into the LJ scandals of late you'll find some interesting contraversies that I didn't get into because I feel they were a bit off-topic. However the watchdog groups that submitted TOS violations for a bunch of pedophilia-related communities included a bunch of slash-fic sites that focused on gay porn. They had nothing to do with pedophilia, but it was a hidden agenda thrown in because apparently all gays have a thing for little boys. LJ has also had recent contraversies over banning pictures of breast-feeding, even if a nipple isn't shown, because apparently breastfeeding is inherently evil. That is where I saw the barbie-doll-masturbation thing pop-up. You could have that as a user-pic, and it wasn't offensive so long as it wasn't your default pic. However a default pic that featured breastfeeding was against the TOS.
There is also a current controversy because the TOS clearly state that no community may encourage self-harm, but the largest pro-anorexia community on the internet is hosted on LJ. They openly encourage women to not eat and in their own words "starve themselves" even if they haven't eaten in days and are experiencing medical symptoms of malnutrition. They encourage self-loathing and insecurity, and the moderator for the community already committed suicide. In response, they are all calling for even more starving to honor her. Several young girls on the community have also discussed suicide, and instead of encouraging these women to seek professional help, LJ for som strange reason is standing behind this community.
I'm playing devil's advocate in that I would have similar policies on pedophilia because I would be bound by law. However in principle they are deleting people's journals because they wrote a fic about two Harry Potter students getting it on, while LJ defends a pro-anorexia community. Their priorities are a little off. Either they try to avoid censorship as much as possible, or they establish firm rules on what they won't allow and enforce them uniformly.
Those terms would be state and federal laws, and last time I checked on-line businesses that operated out of the US needed to follow those laws. If you're upset, I wouldn't take your gripes to LJ but rather US lawmakers.