What do they think? That the foreigners are easy to fool?
Judging from TFA, the title was misleading. They want to change the "huge American company" image, but with a "huge global company" - hence those whose perception has to be... umm... improved are outside the US. It's hard to see how showing off international programs would peg MS as a smaller company.
if you actually read the MSDN page on this subject you will find that non administrators will be prevented from installing unsigned drivers... so not unlike many OSS OS's... you just need to SU or runas up to a root/Administrators account and install you drivers and then revert back to your normal privileges.
Which part of
Note: Even users with administrator privileges cannot load unsigned kernel-mode code on x64-based systems. This applies for any software module that loads in kernel mode, including device drivers, filter drivers, and kernel services.
did you fail to understand? I'm guessing all of it.
That would be before they got the power. They promoted all sorts of social programs for feeding and taking care of the poor (that was depression era in Germany) - in fact, this was the starting point of all the 5th column movements in Europe at the time: social programs and youth organizations to handle them. Then the youth organizations would begin 'nationalist' indoctrination programs and later, as they started having more power and reach, witch-hunts would start. To remotely swing towards the article topic, this led to enough cases of University professors being killed or having to flee their countries due to speaking against such movements - not that I would think this particular case has any chance of ever getting to such a point. But power has funny ways to grow, and as people noted throughout history, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
In fact, fascism almost always has been virulently anti-Communist.
You're mixing your terms here. Communists != Socialists. Both extremes actually used social doctrines as an initial smokescreen to achieve power.
You need to brush up on your history lessons a bit.
PowerPC97x and Yonah have roughly equivalent IPC and dual core never quite scales by a factor of 2 over single core (there are other bottlenecks, like memory access to keep both cores fed to full-speed). If I were to pull numbers out of thin air, given that in the Athlon64 camp, where dual core scales quite well, you can get, say, 80% speed increase from single to dual (check benchmarks, they're all over the web), I would certainly not expect an iMac-x86 to be faster by more than that than a G5-based one at about the same clock. This is glossing over memory access speed (better for the G5), platform optimizations and specific details of applications. Namely, if you compare altivec-heavy code to sse2-heavy code, the gain might actually be less.
Anyway, 4x was clearly just a PR stunt - Apple needed to pull the thickest cloth available (or in this case invent one) over the eyes of people wondering about application support and the well-known "Apple first version" hiccups.
It makes me not want to come back to your site or your company. Ever!
What are you doing here then?/. happily directs your browser to call to at least google-analytics.com and falkarg.net every time you hit F5.
There are tools to get around this - ad-blocking, script-blocking and so on, as implemented in your favorite browser (or its extensions) The rule of the game is "give up or adapt" and the choice is yours.
The default policy post-SP2 is to only validate blank passwords on the local login screen. Try it anywhere else (such as the "Run As..." menu option) and you'll get a nice error message saying something along the lines of "logon failure: user account restriction."
Aww, come on, man — everyone knows there's no such thing as larger-that-35mm formats. That Hasselblad is a figment of your imagination and you know it. A nice figment, though - I'd like to imagine myself imagining one... well... you get the picture. Besides, something like a Linhof is a little too large to carry around in one's head;)
You can't increase sensor size past "full-frame" (a.k.a. 35mm size) for a simple commercial reason. You'll have to come up with an all-new line-up of lenses, which at best takes time. And I can guarantee you pros will not be happy about having to completely replace their old and known glass, now obsolete, with new and unproven one (not to mention quite a bit more expensive); of course, keeping the old glass for the backup camera brings about the joy of carrying around 2 sets of incompatible lenses, but I digress.
That's what I need... a toaster that needs fixing every few days, constantly pops up toast containing viruses and Spam, and keeps telling me how great it'll be when it starts working correctly, probably sometime in 2007.
Putting bread in and getting bread+spam out would be interesting. Viruses though...
"There has always been and there will always be a class of technical user that wants to do this level of modification to the operating system--and it's worth noting that, with the right amount of configuration, Windows CE can also run in much the same way on all sorts of small and old devices," Hilf said.
Sooo... we're comparing apples to apples, right...
Besides, for old hardware, where's Debian in their comparison? And what about some actual information, instead of generic 'about the same requirements' sweeping statements? Like how much of Win 2k3 Server do you have to disable to get it running as a simple fileserver on an old Pentium MMX? or at least whatever specs they tested, what software they installed... oh, nevermind, this was just a PR stunt, what was I expecting. IHBT
Pretty troll, go back under the bridge, it's cold outside this time of the year. And while you're at it, why don't you start leaving your house door open, after all, why should you bother with geekish technicalities like doorknobs and keys. May I also suggest some other exciting stuff, like a RFID credt card, a RFID passport and a big "I'm a tool" tatoo on your forehead? It's all for your convenience, ya know? Nevermind those lusers mumbling about 'security' or 'privacy', it must be paranoia from living too long in their moms' basements.
you sir, deserve whatever you get. but for the rest of us, we will continue without our craniums in our posteriors.
I must say, your cranium looks pretty interesting in that crystal case in your living, but apparently the turnip that replaced it between your ears is firmly stuck up your behind. No wonder you're so irritable.
And he finished off his missive with a plain statement saying that people should just use KDE.
Perhaps I'm reading the thing the wrong way, but he was arguing that often enough devs give (what he considers to be) bogus usability reasons for not having features. As I see it (the quote being 'Please, just tell people to use KDE.') as saying
Please stop the strawman arguments that that someone requesting a feature does not need it (duh!) and just tell him/her to use KDE and the feature will be there.
Besides, as someone pointed out later, Gnome is not an all-inclusive club, so it would make sense to direct people who won't fit in to a place more appropriate for them.
Of course, the whole statement reads as a hyperbola so taking it ad literam is a bit silly.
Beyond our vocal minority of geeks who love computers, no one actually cares.
You should be more careful with that statement. Perhaps your Mum does not care now, but are you certain of her reaction if you said 'you could have had this optinon here, but we decided it's of no use to you'? 'Do not care because do not know' is not always the same as 'would not care even if they knew'.
The evil is in making assumptions about others in a limited context and then stating them as true in a more general one without proof. Linus had a good line there - there's a specific group (majority or not) that does not need feature X; but the intersection of the groups that do not need X, Y, Z,... will drop to zero eventually. And if the choice of excluded features is poor, that drop to zero will happen sooner than one would like. Besides, you're forgetting that what looks like the rule today might not stay that way tomorrow (nobody cares about cluttered tabbed browsers like that oddball Opera, right?)
What we really have is a small but militant religious movement that is rejected by most people -- including Christians.
You might want to read a bit on the Wedge strategy if you don't realize yet what a small yet militant group of people (with a well-defined agenda) can theoretically achieve if the majority couldn't care less. Keep in mind that "repeat something loud enough and long enough and people will think it true" is statistically accurate.
A similar argument applies to alot of people who buy a DSLR without doing much research. I've seriously seen people spend nearly $5000 on a Canon 1D, because they have the money and they hear it's a great camera, then they'll buy an el-cheapo lens like the 55-200mm to go along with it. They could have obtained far superior photos for a fraction of the cost by getting a 20D (or even Rebel XT) with something like the 70-200mm. In computer terms, these guys are buying a $5000 server and throwing in a single Maxtor ATA drive.
Heh, you made my day with this example. Hell funny and completely on-topic. Run a low-quality input through a high-quality tool and it will only emphasize the problems with it. Just as a high-end body will record all the optical distortions of a cheap lens, a high-end (which, if this review is anything to go by, Aperture isn't quite) processing tool will show you all the JPEG artefacts from an A95 picture.
for those not getting the punch-line, the 55-200mm zoom is the low-level one targetted mostly at 3x0D users - Digital Rebel/XT (complements the 18-55mm one) while 70-200mm (f/4L or f/2.8L) is the Pro-range. Really, one would pair a 1D body (Canon's top body class, btw) with the ~$1700 one, but even the entry ~$600 f/4L is in a completely different league from the ~$200 55-200mm zoom, optics-wise.
Does RPM/DEB provide that seperation? Last time I checked (today), RPMs *must* be installed as root.
Then you haven't checked hard enough. You can create a user-level rpm database and use that to install as a user to a user-defined location. See the --prefix option; combine with --nodeps if you want to skip duplicating the system db.
As the preinstall and postinstall RPM scripts can do whatever they want, including rm -rf/.
Funny how this is still preceived after the recent faulty capacitor issue that showed Apple using the same 'quality components' as HP and Dell. There's no magic 'Apple Quality Components' box Steve would reach for to build every and all Macs Apple sells. They get mainstream hardware just like everybody else. And for those saying 'custom design' - Tier 1 PC vendors do exactly the same thing.
In that case, they could be using SSE2 quite a bit, which generally works better on the Intel chips
It depends - cache, number of registers, memory latency... for instance, typically there's no tight inner loop, but plenty of matrix operations - so for large matrices you're hitting main memory quite a lot and wisely used 16 SSE2 registers help hide the latency better than 8 (so P4+64bit extensions would work better too, in theory; although I seem to remember that Intel used to get a speed penalty from going 64bit on fp) Also, think branching issues, where a shorter pipeline helps. So on and so forth.
but they probably won't get much benefit from this unless they're hand-optimizing at least a few of their inner loops
Scientific computing is still mainly Fortran these days - so little to no hand-written SSE2 optimizations. Then it boils down to compilers, which for performance is either Intel or PathScale.
OTOH, if they're doing a lot of vector math, they'd probably get considerably better performance still by writing the code to execute on the GPU instead. The obvious shortcoming of that would be accuracy problems -- the GPU's floating point is engineered far more to maximize speed than accuracy.
Sorry, no game. Or at least until you can do double precision math on the GPU. 32bit floating point does not quite cut it. But yeah, a GPU that does 64bit fp math *and* has a fast link between local and main memory would be sweet:-)
Same here. I really do not understand staements like "This is no longer the company I founded 13 years ago." Of course it isn't. It is Novel.
This is SuSE's *founder* that you're talking about. Meaning he had a *vision* for his company which, from his quote, just isn't there anymore.
Sounds to me like corporate infighting and Mantel lost.
Of course it does - and that's probably what it is, too. The question is, however, *what did he lost to*? Now, if you look at the quote more closely, he's saying 'those smart guys from Ximian will pick up on kernel maintenance in no time' - which is of course untrue (at least the 'no time' part, although I suspect whoever will end up in his place will most likely *not* be coming from the desktop division) and to me it sounds like a veiled accusation that the Ximian guys pushed agendas in areas they had little clue about. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it does not sound that implausible in the light of recent evolutions at Novell that 'loud' was preferred to 'clueful'
Aside from standardizing on Gnome, do you really have any other gripes with what Novell has done with Linux?
Tou don't seem to realize the meaning of this. SUSE was *the* major backer of KDE - and now they're basically turning their back on it. When KDE was the default desktop, you could still get Gnome, but support was... shall I say, less than perfect. This will look the same, only with positions reversed; much like RedHat is supporting KDE. A pity, really.
Besides, look at the message they're sending: U-turns in product strategy are not exactly the most confidence-inspiring things one can do and these days Novell needs all the confidence it can get to move on. How many SUSE users, after getting confortable with KDE, will be happy to face the choice of either switching the desktop or staying with the second-rated option? Or are they counting on the new adopters outnumbering by far the unhappy existing user base?
And as an American, I'm gonna go ahead and say, Why should we?
... and fit right with the line the British Empire gave when asked about making the North-American colonies independent.
Here's a hint: if the issue is ripe, it will happen (and it will be ripe - if not EU today, China tomorrow) Simple thermodynamics of the market: distributing the control increases enthropy. When it happens (be it next month, or when the world sine USA moves to IPv6 or whenever) the transition will be somewhat painful. *Everyone* working together can ease the pain, while forcing fragmentation will guarantee a period of chaos before a new common ground is reached.
Only if "Christian ideas are unscientific" is true.
No. It's enough that some Christian ideas are unscientific, as you can't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and still follow the dogma. And this is exactly such an example. Faith and Logic can complement each other, but that does not make them mix well - take one idea on faith and all that follows has no basis as far as Logic is concerned.
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
No. There's no 'evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence' in that. Yet you might want to explore, provided you asked all the possible questions. This is evidence to something, but saying 'a creator' is wishful thinking.[*] Consider similarities and differences within and without the myths. I would not exactly call the various creation myths 'very similar' - and if you want to analyse similarities, you cannot discard differences. Heck, even christian countries have tales of God requiring assistance from the Devil to create the world - or from animals. That is without mention of, say, Greek creation myths - the whole contradictory lot of them. Nope, can't quite say there's evidence for one creator, let alone that it would be the same one everywhere.
Now, of course, you can take a different route to approach Creation myths with scientific inquiry - anthropology, psychology and so on. But biology? Or cosmology? bah! although, it is interesting how vehemently the clergy opposes scientific study from that angle, now that I think about it.
[*] my 2c worth of opinion is that it points to a human need to believe in something greater than the human stature - fate, destiny, gods, whatever name you have for it. Something like the fear that the Universe (even in the very tiny piece that we see) is too big for one human to shoulder alone without going quite mad. And this has no answer to the question of whether these images conjured to banish fears are more than just images or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait, it's just for OUTSIDE the US.
... umm ... improved are outside the US. It's hard to see how showing off international programs would peg MS as a smaller company.
What do they think? That the foreigners are easy to fool?
Judging from TFA, the title was misleading. They want to change the "huge American company" image, but with a "huge global company" - hence those whose perception has to be
Which part of
did you fail to understand? I'm guessing all of it.
When did the Nazis become socialists?
That would be before they got the power. They promoted all sorts of social programs for feeding and taking care of the poor (that was depression era in Germany) - in fact, this was the starting point of all the 5th column movements in Europe at the time: social programs and youth organizations to handle them. Then the youth organizations would begin 'nationalist' indoctrination programs and later, as they started having more power and reach, witch-hunts would start. To remotely swing towards the article topic, this led to enough cases of University professors being killed or having to flee their countries due to speaking against such movements - not that I would think this particular case has any chance of ever getting to such a point. But power has funny ways to grow, and as people noted throughout history, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
In fact, fascism almost always has been virulently anti-Communist.
You're mixing your terms here. Communists != Socialists. Both extremes actually used social doctrines as an initial smokescreen to achieve power.
You need to brush up on your history lessons a bit.
PowerPC97x and Yonah have roughly equivalent IPC and dual core never quite scales by a factor of 2 over single core (there are other bottlenecks, like memory access to keep both cores fed to full-speed). If I were to pull numbers out of thin air, given that in the Athlon64 camp, where dual core scales quite well, you can get, say, 80% speed increase from single to dual (check benchmarks, they're all over the web), I would certainly not expect an iMac-x86 to be faster by more than that than a G5-based one at about the same clock. This is glossing over memory access speed (better for the G5), platform optimizations and specific details of applications. Namely, if you compare altivec-heavy code to sse2-heavy code, the gain might actually be less.
Anyway, 4x was clearly just a PR stunt - Apple needed to pull the thickest cloth available (or in this case invent one) over the eyes of people wondering about application support and the well-known "Apple first version" hiccups.
It makes me not want to come back to your site or your company. Ever!
/. happily directs your browser to call to at least google-analytics.com and falkarg.net every time you hit F5.
What are you doing here then?
There are tools to get around this - ad-blocking, script-blocking and so on, as implemented in your favorite browser (or its extensions) The rule of the game is "give up or adapt" and the choice is yours.
The default policy post-SP2 is to only validate blank passwords on the local login screen. Try it anywhere else (such as the "Run As..." menu option) and you'll get a nice error message saying something along the lines of "logon failure: user account restriction."
Aww, come on, man — everyone knows there's no such thing as larger-that-35mm formats. That Hasselblad is a figment of your imagination and you know it. A nice figment, though - I'd like to imagine myself imagining one ... well ... you get the picture. Besides, something like a Linhof is a little too large to carry around in one's head ;)
You can't increase sensor size past "full-frame" (a.k.a. 35mm size) for a simple commercial reason. You'll have to come up with an all-new line-up of lenses, which at best takes time. And I can guarantee you pros will not be happy about having to completely replace their old and known glass, now obsolete, with new and unproven one (not to mention quite a bit more expensive); of course, keeping the old glass for the backup camera brings about the joy of carrying around 2 sets of incompatible lenses, but I digress.
That's what I need... a toaster that needs fixing every few days, constantly pops up toast containing viruses and Spam, and keeps telling me how great it'll be when it starts working correctly, probably sometime in 2007.
...
Putting bread in and getting bread+spam out would be interesting. Viruses though
Sooo
Besides, for old hardware, where's Debian in their comparison? And what about some actual information, instead of generic 'about the same requirements' sweeping statements? Like how much of Win 2k3 Server do you have to disable to get it running as a simple fileserver on an old Pentium MMX? or at least whatever specs they tested, what software they installed
Pretty troll, go back under the bridge, it's cold outside this time of the year. And while you're at it, why don't you start leaving your house door open, after all, why should you bother with geekish technicalities like doorknobs and keys. May I also suggest some other exciting stuff, like a RFID credt card, a RFID passport and a big "I'm a tool" tatoo on your forehead? It's all for your convenience, ya know? Nevermind those lusers mumbling about 'security' or 'privacy', it must be paranoia from living too long in their moms' basements.
you sir, deserve whatever you get. but for the rest of us, we will continue without our craniums in our posteriors.
I must say, your cranium looks pretty interesting in that crystal case in your living, but apparently the turnip that replaced it between your ears is firmly stuck up your behind. No wonder you're so irritable.
Bill's biggest threat is Chuck Norris.
Nah, that was long time ago. Nowadays it's Uma Thurman.
Perhaps I'm reading the thing the wrong way, but he was arguing that often enough devs give (what he considers to be) bogus usability reasons for not having features. As I see it (the quote being 'Please, just tell people to use KDE.') as saying
Besides, as someone pointed out later, Gnome is not an all-inclusive club, so it would make sense to direct people who won't fit in to a place more appropriate for them.
Of course, the whole statement reads as a hyperbola so taking it ad literam is a bit silly.
Beyond our vocal minority of geeks who love computers, no one actually cares.
... will drop to zero eventually. And if the choice of excluded features is poor, that drop to zero will happen sooner than one would like. Besides, you're forgetting that what looks like the rule today might not stay that way tomorrow (nobody cares about cluttered tabbed browsers like that oddball Opera, right?)
You should be more careful with that statement. Perhaps your Mum does not care now, but are you certain of her reaction if you said 'you could have had this optinon here, but we decided it's of no use to you'? 'Do not care because do not know' is not always the same as 'would not care even if they knew'.
The evil is in making assumptions about others in a limited context and then stating them as true in a more general one without proof. Linus had a good line there - there's a specific group (majority or not) that does not need feature X; but the intersection of the groups that do not need X, Y, Z,
Will be valuable beachfront holiday developments in a few hundred millenia or so.
That is, if it survives being a front-row seat to a few volcanos before that.
What we really have is a small but militant religious movement that is rejected by most people -- including Christians.
You might want to read a bit on the Wedge strategy if you don't realize yet what a small yet militant group of people (with a well-defined agenda) can theoretically achieve if the majority couldn't care less. Keep in mind that "repeat something loud enough and long enough and people will think it true" is statistically accurate.
A similar argument applies to alot of people who buy a DSLR without doing much research. I've seriously seen people spend nearly $5000 on a Canon 1D, because they have the money and they hear it's a great camera, then they'll buy an el-cheapo lens like the 55-200mm to go along with it. They could have obtained far superior photos for a fraction of the cost by getting a 20D (or even Rebel XT) with something like the 70-200mm. In computer terms, these guys are buying a $5000 server and throwing in a single Maxtor ATA drive.
Heh, you made my day with this example. Hell funny and completely on-topic. Run a low-quality input through a high-quality tool and it will only emphasize the problems with it. Just as a high-end body will record all the optical distortions of a cheap lens, a high-end (which, if this review is anything to go by, Aperture isn't quite) processing tool will show you all the JPEG artefacts from an A95 picture.
for those not getting the punch-line, the 55-200mm zoom is the low-level one targetted mostly at 3x0D users - Digital Rebel/XT (complements the 18-55mm one) while 70-200mm (f/4L or f/2.8L) is the Pro-range. Really, one would pair a 1D body (Canon's top body class, btw) with the ~$1700 one, but even the entry ~$600 f/4L is in a completely different league from the ~$200 55-200mm zoom, optics-wise.
Does RPM/DEB provide that seperation? Last time I checked (today), RPMs *must* be installed as root.
/.
Then you haven't checked hard enough. You can create a user-level rpm database and use that to install as a user to a user-defined location. See the --prefix option; combine with --nodeps if you want to skip duplicating the system db.
As the preinstall and postinstall RPM scripts can do whatever they want, including rm -rf
See the --noscripts option.
Quality components
Funny how this is still preceived after the recent faulty capacitor issue that showed Apple using the same 'quality components' as HP and Dell. There's no magic 'Apple Quality Components' box Steve would reach for to build every and all Macs Apple sells. They get mainstream hardware just like everybody else. And for those saying 'custom design' - Tier 1 PC vendors do exactly the same thing.
In that case, they could be using SSE2 quite a bit, which generally works better on the Intel chips
... for instance, typically there's no tight inner loop, but plenty of matrix operations - so for large matrices you're hitting main memory quite a lot and wisely used 16 SSE2 registers help hide the latency better than 8 (so P4+64bit extensions would work better too, in theory; although I seem to remember that Intel used to get a speed penalty from going 64bit on fp) Also, think branching issues, where a shorter pipeline helps. So on and so forth.
:-)
It depends - cache, number of registers, memory latency
but they probably won't get much benefit from this unless they're hand-optimizing at least a few of their inner loops
Scientific computing is still mainly Fortran these days - so little to no hand-written SSE2 optimizations. Then it boils down to compilers, which for performance is either Intel or PathScale.
OTOH, if they're doing a lot of vector math, they'd probably get considerably better performance still by writing the code to execute on the GPU instead. The obvious shortcoming of that would be accuracy problems -- the GPU's floating point is engineered far more to maximize speed than accuracy.
Sorry, no game. Or at least until you can do double precision math on the GPU. 32bit floating point does not quite cut it. But yeah, a GPU that does 64bit fp math *and* has a fast link between local and main memory would be sweet
by BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) on Thursday November 10, @06:46PM (#14003294)
looks like you need to add a couple of leap minutes to that
Same here. I really do not understand staements like "This is no longer the company I founded 13 years ago." Of course it isn't. It is Novel.
This is SuSE's *founder* that you're talking about. Meaning he had a *vision* for his company which, from his quote, just isn't there anymore.
Sounds to me like corporate infighting and Mantel lost.
Of course it does - and that's probably what it is, too. The question is, however, *what did he lost to*? Now, if you look at the quote more closely, he's saying 'those smart guys from Ximian will pick up on kernel maintenance in no time' - which is of course untrue (at least the 'no time' part, although I suspect whoever will end up in his place will most likely *not* be coming from the desktop division) and to me it sounds like a veiled accusation that the Ximian guys pushed agendas in areas they had little clue about. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it does not sound that implausible in the light of recent evolutions at Novell that 'loud' was preferred to 'clueful'
Aside from standardizing on Gnome, do you really have any other gripes with what Novell has done with Linux?
... shall I say, less than perfect. This will look the same, only with positions reversed; much like RedHat is supporting KDE. A pity, really.
Tou don't seem to realize the meaning of this. SUSE was *the* major backer of KDE - and now they're basically turning their back on it. When KDE was the default desktop, you could still get Gnome, but support was
Besides, look at the message they're sending: U-turns in product strategy are not exactly the most confidence-inspiring things one can do and these days Novell needs all the confidence it can get to move on. How many SUSE users, after getting confortable with KDE, will be happy to face the choice of either switching the desktop or staying with the second-rated option? Or are they counting on the new adopters outnumbering by far the unhappy existing user base?
I wonder if they're re-writing YaST to use Mono.
Here's a hint: if the issue is ripe, it will happen (and it will be ripe - if not EU today, China tomorrow) Simple thermodynamics of the market: distributing the control increases enthropy. When it happens (be it next month, or when the world sine USA moves to IPv6 or whenever) the transition will be somewhat painful. *Everyone* working together can ease the pain, while forcing fragmentation will guarantee a period of chaos before a new common ground is reached.
Only if "Christian ideas are unscientific" is true.
No. It's enough that some Christian ideas are unscientific, as you can't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and still follow the dogma. And this is exactly such an example. Faith and Logic can complement each other, but that does not make them mix well - take one idea on faith and all that follows has no basis as far as Logic is concerned.
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
No. There's no 'evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence' in that. Yet you might want to explore, provided you asked all the possible questions. This is evidence to something, but saying 'a creator' is wishful thinking.[*] Consider similarities and differences within and without the myths. I would not exactly call the various creation myths 'very similar' - and if you want to analyse similarities, you cannot discard differences. Heck, even christian countries have tales of God requiring assistance from the Devil to create the world - or from animals. That is without mention of, say, Greek creation myths - the whole contradictory lot of them. Nope, can't quite say there's evidence for one creator, let alone that it would be the same one everywhere.
Now, of course, you can take a different route to approach Creation myths with scientific inquiry - anthropology, psychology and so on. But biology? Or cosmology? bah! although, it is interesting how vehemently the clergy opposes scientific study from that angle, now that I think about it.
[*] my 2c worth of opinion is that it points to a human need to believe in something greater than the human stature - fate, destiny, gods, whatever name you have for it. Something like the fear that the Universe (even in the very tiny piece that we see) is too big for one human to shoulder alone without going quite mad. And this has no answer to the question of whether these images conjured to banish fears are more than just images or not.