The version I see is even worse than that. I am using Firefox 1.5 on RHEL 4. If someone didn't tell me the other one was George W Bush, I would have guessed it just to be some weird modern art of nobody specific.
This is not really anything BitTorrent specific, but good use of available tools. However, I hope you then checksum verified the completed file with an MD5 from Apple or somebody who has downloaded directly from them. While you probably weren't a target of an attack, you did download software from an unknown source. An attacker could download the SDK, insert malicious code, compute a new set of MD5 sums for the torrent file, upload to pirate bay or some tracker, and then seed the torrent expecting that nobody will attempt an external verification.
To say that Red Hat is only looking to the short term is ridiculous. Red Hat has put tons of work into integrating virtual machines, linux clustering, distributed file systems, large scale deployment, and even desktop experience into both Linux as a whole and into RHEL specifically. As a company responsible for making profits, they know that there is no money in the consumer space. If they tried to sell at the same price as Windows, they would be laughed at, but consumers don't want service contracts either. They understand where the money is. Fedora/RHEL is what runs on the OLPC and many workstation class computers. At my work, I have 3 different workstations, all with RHEL. So it is fine for use as a "desktop", but they just don't want to put the resources into marketing themselves as a "consumer desktop" operating system.
I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical owner). He has a long term vision and while part of his goal is too be profitable, he also has a social goal. I have looked around, but I have been unable to find any financial reports on Canonical. Please point me to some if you know where they are. If they are not turning a profit, and just bleeding money from a billionaire's coffers, then Shuttleworth's "long term vision" might be pretty short-sighted.
Wow, that has to be the worst car analogy I have ever read on Slasdot. Instead of comparing on specialization of hardware (minivan vs drag-racer might have been a winner), you went down some sort of bandwidth path. I don't even know what the "re-fuel", gas vs electric thing equates to.
How about a Dell Latitude 830.
You can get:
1920x1200
1680x1050
1280x800
I believe they still use the matte screens.
I personally like the matte screens, but must admit that the vibrant colors of the glossy screens are tempting.
The cost (in glare and reflection) of those vibrant colors is just too high, they made the screens matte for a reason.
I honestly don't know how they did it. There is an important difference between how Dune was written and how LotR was written. Frank Herbert was spinning a complex plot that required quite a bit of internal dialogue, narration, and back story to let the reader understand the characters and their motivations. LotR on the other hand is a much more straight forward black and white, good vs evil story. Much of the back story parts are almost completely superflous to the story and instead are used to immerse the reader into the world. These things include historical descriptions of places and societies and of course songs/poems. Much of this can be skipped while reading LotR, but makes for a less enjoyable read. The advantage Peter Jackson had is that, with enough good cinematography and special effects, the format of a movie is good enough to provide the immersive experience to the audience. LotR is what is good because of Tolkien's style, and Dune is good because of Herbert's style, but they are quite different especially in regards to their ability to be translated to a feature film.
The current Dune is a great film anyway. You didn't read the book, did you? Many people liked the Dune movie because it had great visuals, but they look past the fact that there are huge gaps in the story. If you read the book, it at least make sense to you, but if you didn't than the story really doesn't work. For example, in the movie, in no time at all and for no apparent reason Chani falls in love with Paul. There is no explanation, it just needed to happen, so it did.
Dune is one of those books that completely transcends the format of a 2-4 hour movie. A mini-series can work, but you can't quite portray the many "feint within a feint" aspects of Dune in such a short time.
Novell produces one of the most popular linux distros [novell.com] out there. Is it really surprising to anyone they contribute a lot of changes?
It is not surprising that the two are connected, nor is it neccessary, but it should be applauded when such a correlation appears. If we look at Ubuntu/Canonical for instance, by your standards, they should be pretty high on the list, right? In fact, they do not even appear on this list. Even Mandriva makes an appearance at 0.4%. Note that I do not know if Debian or Ubuntu developers fall into the Other or Unknown categories, but Debian exists as an organization and Canonical is a company, so I would expect them to be represented somehow, at least a footnote, if their contributions were of a sufficient size to make this list. I do not expect that every distro should employ kernel hackers. Ubuntu is more focused on user experience than kernel level features. So they do play a key role in the development of Linux as a complete operating system. My point here is that distributing a popular distro does not mean you develop a proportional share of the Linux kernel, or any linux software. Luckily, open source software enables and encourages such contributions back to the community. So don't say, "Well, given their size and profits, Novell should be doing that", instead say, "Kudos to Novell for giving back proportionaly to their success".
And so if you see a PC that is not denuded by things interfering with it by Microsoft and Intel, in many cases like an Intel crappy graphics chip, or a bloated Vista operating system, it's a fantastic gaming platform. And the shame is, if the low end of the PC market, the mass market PCs that everybody buys did not come with these crappy graphics chips on them and was not burdened with a fat OS, that the PC would be a larger contiguous gaming platform than all the next-generation consoles combined, probably would be clearly superior;
and then proves how great the PC gaming market is by mentioning the success of a game that does not need much in the way of graphics hardware,
the PC is the home of the most profitable game in history generating more revenue than the top 10 console games combined--that's World of Warcraft generating a 1.2 billion dollars a year in revenue, that's a pure PC game.
I am so tired of the PC gaming industry blaming its demise on Intel giving people cost effective graphics that do exactly what their users want. The whole reason for the demise of PC gaming is because the market split because consumers want different types of computing devices at prices they can afford. The PC has tons of possibilities, but all the industry seems to create are rehashes of the same old ideas; mostly FPS and RTS. Traditional PC gaming is not dead, but it is in a losing battle with the consoles because it is failing to innovate. The real PC gaming growth is in small games that are fun, addictive, and sometimes are the center of online communities. Hell, I had to kid a Yahoo Pool addiction a few years ago and I don't think I will ever see anything like that on a console.
Really. I could live with green.
More like, I could live without the blue. The only place LEDs that bright belong is in a flashlight. Blue LEDs seem to be the new "futuristic" look for all new gadgetry. I have a new 32 inch LCD TV that has nice subdued green and orange for status lights, but I have seen similar TVs that have bright blue LEDs for status that can be very distracting. Also, bright LEDs do not belong on a device like a laptop where the lights are in your face while using it.
Commercial support provided by [WWW] Canonical for a term of 18 months
Release available through ShipIt for everybody as well as downloading
Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix
Cutting edge KDE 4.0
Support provided by the Kubuntu community via [WWW] Ubuntu Forums, [WWW] Kubuntu Forums, IRC, and the [WWW] Kubuntu Users Mailing List.
Release available through CDs for groups who need it (ie. LoCo teams, conference teams, etc.) as well as downloading
As I understand it, there will be 2 versions Kubuntu 8.04 and Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix 8.04. The vanilla version has the standard support lifetime with updates and you can purchase support from Canonical, basically the way it has always been. The Remix version includes KDE 4 and is a bit less stable. Therefore, the Remix version does not offer official support and you need to go to the forums. I am not sure what the security or bug update procedure is, that is, whether or not packages found only in Remix will receive security and bug updates. So the "commercially" supported version is the same Kubuntu as usual, but Remix is for all of those people screaming about KDE 4.
So Intel is to blame for giving consumers what they want? That is, low power, low cost graphics processing that fully meets their needs. Shame on Intel for not forcing customers to stick with the old model. Intel did not "split the market", the market split on its own based on the needs of consumers. The gaming industry, and the software industry in general, needs to accept that the market is splitting into different computing classes, such as; "workstations", "high-end desktop", "low-end desktop", "desktop-replacement notebooks", "light notebooks", "subcompact notebooks", and "handhelds/phones". This is in stark constrast to the old model of everyone simply having a "desktop" computer. If you want to sell software, you have to understand your customer base and how development decisions can eliminate some demographics.
You just proved my point. They created the "hardcore gamer" audience and are now complaining that not all computers are made up to these specs. To insist that every computer have top-o-the-line graphics, as suggested in the article, is ridiculous. Most people will never need that kind of power and therefore should not have to pay for it and the extra electricity it consumes(especially when it comes to notebooks) with the heat that follows. Also, the claim that you must have amazing graphics for good reviews is not true in general. The problem is that games try to offer graphics as a new feature and when they do not deliver, only have unoriginal bland gameplay to fall back on. A game like "World of Warcraft" does not need to push the limits of graphics because people enjoy it mostly for its gameplay.
So, if game studios want to cater to the "hardcore gamer" market, they should not complain when they realize that most computers can't handle their games.
Blaming Intel and integrated graphics for the decline of PC gaming is a cop out. These game companies have been operating under the principle that a game with better graphics is a better game. Instead of creating new an innovative was to game on a PC, they enhance the graphics of an old game and call it a new game. Don't blame Intel if your game does not work on their GPU platform and you are using the latest, cutting edge, extensions and expecting the latest amounts of video ram. The fact that some of these companies are listing specific graphics cards as system requirements should indicate that there is a problem. At that point you are limiting your audience on your own. If you want a big audience, you should target machines with integrated graphics and then find ways to scale up when there is more power instead of targeting the latest and greatest and then complaining that you can't scale back to make it work. By promoting the idea that better graphics equals better game, they entered into a stupid race and they can only blame themselves.
This and WiFi have completely different uses. The types of network devices I was talking about are Bluetooth and ZigBee. If it consumes ~2W, then it probably can't be used, practically or efficiently, in these types of devices. So who is going to use this?
His chip uses only a tiny one-millimetre-wide antenna and less than two watts of power
Typically, these types of networks measure power consumption in mW, not W.
You can get the full DVD by ripping it to an iso file and mounting the file as a virtual device. You can do this in Windows with either commercial software or a free, unsupported, utility from Microsoft that hides in the deepest corners of the Microsoft download site. I don't know about OS X, but in Linux/Unix it is a pretty trivial task.
The linux release of Picasa is how Google got into the Wine game in the first place. Picasa for Linux is simply the Windows version packaged with a custom build of Wine.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this lamp powered by the user? The user has to do the work to move the weights into the correct position. The system can't get out any more energy than was used to set the system up. So I expend an amount of energy E, therefore the power system can only generate a proportional amount of energy xE where (0 = x = 1). This is not my specialty, so any physicists out there have any useful comments?
Come on guys, is.p2p the best you could come up with? It should have a name indicative of its BitTorrent roots without infringing on Bram's precious trademark. Call the file.swarm or the protocol BitSwarm or BitStorm. That ought to irk Bram a bit. Bram had a great idea and a great start. We should be thankful for that, but he is not the kind of charismatic guy that can lead a community of users and developers. So take his great idea, form a community, and let him join if he has another good idea to contribute.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn, call me when it hits 6^(6^6).
The version I see is even worse than that. I am using Firefox 1.5 on RHEL 4. If someone didn't tell me the other one was George W Bush, I would have guessed it just to be some weird modern art of nobody specific.
This is not really anything BitTorrent specific, but good use of available tools. However, I hope you then checksum verified the completed file with an MD5 from Apple or somebody who has downloaded directly from them. While you probably weren't a target of an attack, you did download software from an unknown source. An attacker could download the SDK, insert malicious code, compute a new set of MD5 sums for the torrent file, upload to pirate bay or some tracker, and then seed the torrent expecting that nobody will attempt an external verification.
Wow, that has to be the worst car analogy I have ever read on Slasdot. Instead of comparing on specialization of hardware (minivan vs drag-racer might have been a winner), you went down some sort of bandwidth path. I don't even know what the "re-fuel", gas vs electric thing equates to.
How about a Dell Latitude 830. You can get: 1920x1200 1680x1050 1280x800 I believe they still use the matte screens. I personally like the matte screens, but must admit that the vibrant colors of the glossy screens are tempting. The cost (in glare and reflection) of those vibrant colors is just too high, they made the screens matte for a reason.
It is not surprising that the two are connected, nor is it neccessary, but it should be applauded when such a correlation appears. If we look at Ubuntu/Canonical for instance, by your standards, they should be pretty high on the list, right? In fact, they do not even appear on this list. Even Mandriva makes an appearance at 0.4%. Note that I do not know if Debian or Ubuntu developers fall into the Other or Unknown categories, but Debian exists as an organization and Canonical is a company, so I would expect them to be represented somehow, at least a footnote, if their contributions were of a sufficient size to make this list. I do not expect that every distro should employ kernel hackers. Ubuntu is more focused on user experience than kernel level features. So they do play a key role in the development of Linux as a complete operating system. My point here is that distributing a popular distro does not mean you develop a proportional share of the Linux kernel, or any linux software. Luckily, open source software enables and encourages such contributions back to the community. So don't say, "Well, given their size and profits, Novell should be doing that", instead say, "Kudos to Novell for giving back proportionaly to their success".
And so if you see a PC that is not denuded by things interfering with it by Microsoft and Intel, in many cases like an Intel crappy graphics chip, or a bloated Vista operating system, it's a fantastic gaming platform. And the shame is, if the low end of the PC market, the mass market PCs that everybody buys did not come with these crappy graphics chips on them and was not burdened with a fat OS, that the PC would be a larger contiguous gaming platform than all the next-generation consoles combined, probably would be clearly superior;
and then proves how great the PC gaming market is by mentioning the success of a game that does not need much in the way of graphics hardware,
the PC is the home of the most profitable game in history generating more revenue than the top 10 console games combined--that's World of Warcraft generating a 1.2 billion dollars a year in revenue, that's a pure PC game.
I am so tired of the PC gaming industry blaming its demise on Intel giving people cost effective graphics that do exactly what their users want. The whole reason for the demise of PC gaming is because the market split because consumers want different types of computing devices at prices they can afford. The PC has tons of possibilities, but all the industry seems to create are rehashes of the same old ideas; mostly FPS and RTS. Traditional PC gaming is not dead, but it is in a losing battle with the consoles because it is failing to innovate. The real PC gaming growth is in small games that are fun, addictive, and sometimes are the center of online communities. Hell, I had to kid a Yahoo Pool addiction a few years ago and I don't think I will ever see anything like that on a console.
More like, I could live without the blue. The only place LEDs that bright belong is in a flashlight. Blue LEDs seem to be the new "futuristic" look for all new gadgetry. I have a new 32 inch LCD TV that has nice subdued green and orange for status lights, but I have seen similar TVs that have bright blue LEDs for status that can be very distracting. Also, bright LEDs do not belong on a device like a laptop where the lights are in your face while using it.
Rock solid KDE 3
Commercial support provided by [WWW] Canonical for a term of 18 months
Release available through ShipIt for everybody as well as downloading
Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix
Cutting edge KDE 4.0
Support provided by the Kubuntu community via [WWW] Ubuntu Forums, [WWW] Kubuntu Forums, IRC, and the [WWW] Kubuntu Users Mailing List.
Release available through CDs for groups who need it (ie. LoCo teams, conference teams, etc.) as well as downloading
As I understand it, there will be 2 versions Kubuntu 8.04 and Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix 8.04. The vanilla version has the standard support lifetime with updates and you can purchase support from Canonical, basically the way it has always been. The Remix version includes KDE 4 and is a bit less stable. Therefore, the Remix version does not offer official support and you need to go to the forums. I am not sure what the security or bug update procedure is, that is, whether or not packages found only in Remix will receive security and bug updates. So the "commercially" supported version is the same Kubuntu as usual, but Remix is for all of those people screaming about KDE 4.
So Intel is to blame for giving consumers what they want? That is, low power, low cost graphics processing that fully meets their needs. Shame on Intel for not forcing customers to stick with the old model. Intel did not "split the market", the market split on its own based on the needs of consumers. The gaming industry, and the software industry in general, needs to accept that the market is splitting into different computing classes, such as; "workstations", "high-end desktop", "low-end desktop", "desktop-replacement notebooks", "light notebooks", "subcompact notebooks", and "handhelds/phones". This is in stark constrast to the old model of everyone simply having a "desktop" computer. If you want to sell software, you have to understand your customer base and how development decisions can eliminate some demographics.
You just proved my point. They created the "hardcore gamer" audience and are now complaining that not all computers are made up to these specs. To insist that every computer have top-o-the-line graphics, as suggested in the article, is ridiculous. Most people will never need that kind of power and therefore should not have to pay for it and the extra electricity it consumes(especially when it comes to notebooks) with the heat that follows. Also, the claim that you must have amazing graphics for good reviews is not true in general. The problem is that games try to offer graphics as a new feature and when they do not deliver, only have unoriginal bland gameplay to fall back on. A game like "World of Warcraft" does not need to push the limits of graphics because people enjoy it mostly for its gameplay. So, if game studios want to cater to the "hardcore gamer" market, they should not complain when they realize that most computers can't handle their games.
Blaming Intel and integrated graphics for the decline of PC gaming is a cop out. These game companies have been operating under the principle that a game with better graphics is a better game. Instead of creating new an innovative was to game on a PC, they enhance the graphics of an old game and call it a new game. Don't blame Intel if your game does not work on their GPU platform and you are using the latest, cutting edge, extensions and expecting the latest amounts of video ram. The fact that some of these companies are listing specific graphics cards as system requirements should indicate that there is a problem. At that point you are limiting your audience on your own. If you want a big audience, you should target machines with integrated graphics and then find ways to scale up when there is more power instead of targeting the latest and greatest and then complaining that you can't scale back to make it work. By promoting the idea that better graphics equals better game, they entered into a stupid race and they can only blame themselves.
This and WiFi have completely different uses. The types of network devices I was talking about are Bluetooth and ZigBee. If it consumes ~2W, then it probably can't be used, practically or efficiently, in these types of devices. So who is going to use this?
Typically, these types of networks measure power consumption in mW, not W.
You can get the full DVD by ripping it to an iso file and mounting the file as a virtual device. You can do this in Windows with either commercial software or a free, unsupported, utility from Microsoft that hides in the deepest corners of the Microsoft download site. I don't know about OS X, but in Linux/Unix it is a pretty trivial task.
The linux release of Picasa is how Google got into the Wine game in the first place. Picasa for Linux is simply the Windows version packaged with a custom build of Wine.
Sorry, should have used preview button. That is xE where (0 less than or equalto x less than or equal to 1).
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this lamp powered by the user? The user has to do the work to move the weights into the correct position. The system can't get out any more energy than was used to set the system up. So I expend an amount of energy E, therefore the power system can only generate a proportional amount of energy xE where (0 = x = 1). This is not my specialty, so any physicists out there have any useful comments?
Some people might disagree with your statement.
I think frogpad (http://www.frogpad.com) should be on this list. It is weird, but interesting.
Here is the simple version.
iSCSI is for implementing a "direct attached storage device" using an IP network (Internet/internet/intranet) as the backbone.
FCoE does not involve IP and is simply a lower cost, possibly better (time will tell), way of replacing optical fabric in data centers.
Come on guys, is .p2p the best you could come up with? It should have a name indicative of its BitTorrent roots without infringing on Bram's precious trademark. Call the file .swarm or the protocol BitSwarm or BitStorm. That ought to irk Bram a bit. Bram had a great idea and a great start. We should be thankful for that, but he is not the kind of charismatic guy that can lead a community of users and developers. So take his great idea, form a community, and let him join if he has another good idea to contribute.