I've always been told that it refers to hardware compatability - namely the XT/AT standard and BIOS. Macs have no BIOS, they have EFI but support a BIOS emulation mode, which is why you can run Windows on them - That means they are compatible.
Phones, PDAs, specialist embedded devices that don't follow PC architecure are not IBM compatible without some form of emulation.
However, I do remember buying DOS games that required an "IBM compatible PC", and I'm sure that was meant as a euthamism for "Runs MS-DOS" but since MS-DOS was also in the list of requirements that didn't make much sense.
Either way, it's not any kind of solid standard to follow and was more a marketing term than anything, I think.
Much as it pains me to defend it, Outlook does this too - in fact, it can even pick up your logon name automatically (assuming you're on a domain machine).
What this really depends on though is the version of Exchange and it's configuration more than anything else. Specifically, you need to have autodiscover set up correctly. Also it's quite easy to have it working externally but for it to not work inside your LAN if you don't have a split DNS.
Re:Not groundbreaking at all, System Shock 2 clone
on
BioShock 2 Released
·
· Score: 1
(Spoilers, don't read end if you intend to play either game)
The playstyle is incredibly similair - there's even a direct correlation between game features:
Plasmids > Cybermodules Vending machines (hackable) > Replicators (hackable) Bonuses via research camera > Bonuses via chemical research Turrets, hackable > turrets, hackable
Even major plots twists were the same: Halfway point in both games: Major ally turns out to be the major villian.
I enjoyed Bioshock. It's blatantly a labour of love - I found the art direction fantastic and enjoyed it a great deal. But that it was a prettier, easier clone of System Shock 2 was obvious very early on.
For example one setting is defined as "useWord97LineBreakRules"
The standard defines implementing this thusly:
“To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.”
I'll leave describing why this makes fully implementing the "standard" as an excercise to the reader!
There is JS involved as well though. And (yes, anecdotal) the delay I get from clicking "Preview" to actually submitting since upgrading is substantially less - I'd say twice as fast on average.
Active Directory is in turn an implementation of LDAP - the schema (the data structure) is MS specific but the underlying protocols are not.
You're not wrong but come on, everyone's been cloning from everyone making little tweaks, changes, additions, snips - nearly every piece of software out there, be it FOSS, Microsoft, Apple - is deriviative at some level.
The question is - how derivitive does it have to be to be "wrong", and at which point do you start letting fly the patents?
Reading isn't enough. You have to be able to implement the standard, freely and without fear or threat. That's what being a standard means - it's not owned or controlled by a single entity.
MS got it's format ISO certified. This means that ISO is no longer the badge of trust when it comes to recognising standards, not that OOXML is a good "standard" format.
I'm not going to explain why OOXM is not fully implementable as that's been covered many times already - but it should be obvious that "Do X the same way closed and patented software Y did X" is not really the kind of description that belongs in an open standard.
To combat terrorism we will take away some of your rights for your own good:
Privacy (wire taps) Free speech (right to public protest, right to insult) Right to a trial (Gitmo)
But it's ok, you can still watch government approved TV so it's OK.
Car travel is dangerous - more so than terrorism. So we will take away some of you rights to help combat car accidents:
Keys Accelerator Pedal Gas Stations.
But it's ok, you still have the car so don't worry about it.
Combating a threat (even a greatly exaggerated one such as terrosism) is all well and good. It's the methods that are the problem and the proportiionality of the response. Seriously, if the GPs figures are correct then car accidents are 130 times more threatening then how come none of your car owning and driving rights have been taken away?
I don't wholly beleive the whole "Inalienable rights" spiel - rights and expectations are a human creation and they will always change as society does but you cannot expect me to believe that the response seen in the US, UK and other countries to this "evil terrorism" is in any way proportional.
At best it's popularist politics at work, and we suffer for their continued careers and at the other end of the scale it's a mopre sinister power grab. Neither is good.
Although I agree, it's a convenience thing. There's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain. Safer, certainly but a nice, non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice.
You're right. But why should that stop peopel from being outraged? Should we stop trying to fight against something just because it's gone on for a long time? How long is that then? 5 years? 10 years? 100?
I understand your sentiment but encouraging apathy has never ended well for the public at large.
Agreed. And for the most part, copyright etc really seems a minor point in the greater scheme of things.
However.....
Where does copyright have an effect on our lives? Music, film, books - these are the things that greatly colour our view of the world and shape our societies. For the computer literate, the same goes for access to programs and code. By locking everything up in the hands of these increasingly amoral companies and syndicates we are allowing them to take control of some of our greatest influences - effectively, they have an overriding influence on the future shape of our society and lifestyles. And I don't think it will be used for the greater good.
A world where every morsel of creativity, be it text, sound, image or idea, is locked up, appraised, tracked and charged for is a poor world indeed.
Yes, yes, I'm dramatising and being melancholy but really, it's all so damn depressing....
Yes, that was my intention - sorry if it wasn't clear!
My concern is less that the code base will vanish or be hidden - to do so would be a violation of the license. More so that it is rendered useless due to reliance on patented and closed or otherwise encumbered components. Something GPLv3 is supposed to prevent but my knowledge of how this extends to LGPL licensed code is lacking.
Not that I'm personally concerned - I would never write c# code unless I'm specifically targeting windows machines. It's not worth the hassle worrying about Mono and patents in such cases. Otherwise I stick with native code and libraries I know I can use on multiple platforms.
LGPL is not "closed" - you still have to release the source code if you distribute software containing LGPL components. But what version of the LGPL are we taking about here? Since it's very easy to combine or cripple the LGPL'd parts so that they either rely on propritary or patent encumbered components in a way that can't be acheived with a full GPL product. Does the LGPL v3 protect against Tivoisation in the same manner intended by the GPL3? (Yes, I could go read the license but...it's long...and I'm tired..and others already have done so!).
By the way, I'm not commenting about the suitability or preference of a particular licence - I'd just like to know what the implications are in this case.
I've been with my WoW obessed girlfriend for over 10 years now (it was Sims and various Final Fantasy games before that). I wouldn't say she's addicted - she has no problems dropping her game time to do more important things etc. But she most definately plays more than I do, and despite my semi-quitting the game some time ago I get to enjoy the mindless grinds of alt-boosting, achievement spamming and quest helping.
Worst aspect has to be the "still playing at 2am in the morning" part - although with her sleep patterns if it wasn't WoW it would be something else anyway. So yeah, although it's great and geek-cool, it has it's downsides.
Of course, one positive aspect is she understands my need to spend silly amounts of money to upgrade or purchase new computing equipment!
ARGHHH! Every time, every every time - the same questions 5, 10, 15 times in the thread [breathes deep]...
Sorry, not aiming it at you personally but I'd love to see some actual debate relating to this story which isn't in the "Why force them to do this?" or "Why not Apple too?" vein...
It's back to the 'ol antitrust laws. Whichever company has the majority share in web browsers weilds a large influence over how websites function and can spread their own propritary or licensed features to further their own agenda and bank balance. Lock-in, on the web.
Microsoft is, under the laws involved, a monopoly (90% of computers). One of the aspects of these laws is that if you have a monopoly in one area, you cannot leverage that to gain a monopoly in another area.
Simply put, Forcing IE as a the default web browser for 90% of all computers worldwide gives them a potential monoply on the growth and direction of the web and it's underlying software and protocols (Sites that only work with ActiveX for example). Hence this decision to have *no* default browser until the customer chooses one for themselves.
Apple etc do not apply as they are not in a monopoly position and so only supplying one browser does not unduly skew or distort the growth of the internet.
I think you prove the grandparent's point. You obviously feel very strongly about this - and such an underlying bias can be seen as a conflict of interest. It's in your own interests to disprove/disbelieve in climate change since you view it as a waste of your money.
I'm not commenting on whether you are right to do so but I think the grandparent is correct - both sides of this argument (and let's face it, it's devolved into a messy, heated and far from objective argument instead of the logical debate it should have been) have some serious vested interests in being "right".
The sad thing is, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong - either climate change is a real threat and one that we have influence over or it's not. Wishing, whining and playing politics won't change the nature or reality. I hope your side turns out to be right, I really do.
The thing is, reverse engineering an existing game and duplicating whatever scripts or behaviours are needed on the server side to allow the commercial client to connect is far less work than doing it from scratch.
To put it another way, for most OSS projects, you are your own master. You write the code when you feel you have the time and (unless you have some sort of mutually agreed deadline) there's no particular pressure to fix a bug other than the pressure you put upon yourself. For an MMO, there are players, live, playing on your server all the time. There's constant pressure - technical improvements and bugs to squash, desire for new content, need administration and various disputes to solve. MMOs are 24-7 and likewise so are the demands from your player base.
When you create a server for an existing MMO, you only have to match what already exists. No one will be hounding you to add new content - the original developers will be doing that. You also have the momentum of an existing game with an existing fan base and it's own momentum and quite often a world that's been fleshed out with history, lore and so on. Create your own and you have to do that from scratch, you have to let people know you exist and you have to create both server *and* client.
Projects like Planescape show that it can be done but ultimately it's the harder path. MMO players tend to have a reputation for whining too, so I doubt it's the most thankful development hobby you could have!
(I have no first hand experience either way but this seems a likely explanation to my mind)
It's like an echo in here....Chrome has ad blockers. It has extensions. And if you're concerned about data mining and letting google track your searches etc there's Chromium and Iron, which are the 100% open source based versions (no Google branding and extras).
Oh my - I feel somewhat childish and churlish saying this but... Consider yourself owned, Mr AC!
I personally still prefer Firefox when using windows. It's not as snappy as it used to be, particularly alongside Chrome amd Safari (my preferred browser overall) but it's fast enough and I've grown used to it. I make particular use of a lot of develpoment addons as well, which shores up my preference. Anecdotal opinion in my case though!
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure about that?
I've always been told that it refers to hardware compatability - namely the XT/AT standard and BIOS. Macs have no BIOS, they have EFI but support a BIOS emulation mode, which is why you can run Windows on them - That means they are compatible.
Phones, PDAs, specialist embedded devices that don't follow PC architecure are not IBM compatible without some form of emulation.
However, I do remember buying DOS games that required an "IBM compatible PC", and I'm sure that was meant as a euthamism for "Runs MS-DOS" but since MS-DOS was also in the list of requirements that didn't make much sense.
Either way, it's not any kind of solid standard to follow and was more a marketing term than anything, I think.
Much as it pains me to defend it, Outlook does this too - in fact, it can even pick up your logon name automatically (assuming you're on a domain machine).
What this really depends on though is the version of Exchange and it's configuration more than anything else. Specifically, you need to have autodiscover set up correctly. Also it's quite easy to have it working externally but for it to not work inside your LAN if you don't have a split DNS.
(Spoilers, don't read end if you intend to play either game)
The playstyle is incredibly similair - there's even a direct correlation between game features:
Plasmids > Cybermodules
Vending machines (hackable) > Replicators (hackable)
Bonuses via research camera > Bonuses via chemical research
Turrets, hackable > turrets, hackable
Even major plots twists were the same:
Halfway point in both games: Major ally turns out to be the major villian.
I enjoyed Bioshock. It's blatantly a labour of love - I found the art direction fantastic and enjoyed it a great deal. But that it was a prettier, easier clone of System Shock 2 was obvious very early on.
That's not what I read - they're _adding_ a single-window mode. You don't have to use it.
Check out http://noooxml.wdfiles.com/local--files/arguments/TheCaseAgainstOOXML.pdf for an interesting breakdown of the problems with MS OOXML.
For example one setting is defined as "useWord97LineBreakRules"
The standard defines implementing this thusly:
“To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that
application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into
narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior,
they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.”
I'll leave describing why this makes fully implementing the "standard" as an excercise to the reader!
There is JS involved as well though. And (yes, anecdotal) the delay I get from clicking "Preview" to actually submitting since upgrading is substantially less - I'd say twice as fast on average.
Active Directory is in turn an implementation of LDAP - the schema (the data structure) is MS specific but the underlying protocols are not.
You're not wrong but come on, everyone's been cloning from everyone making little tweaks, changes, additions, snips - nearly every piece of software out there, be it FOSS, Microsoft, Apple - is deriviative at some level.
The question is - how derivitive does it have to be to be "wrong", and at which point do you start letting fly the patents?
Reading isn't enough. You have to be able to implement the standard, freely and without fear or threat. That's what being a standard means - it's not owned or controlled by a single entity.
MS got it's format ISO certified. This means that ISO is no longer the badge of trust when it comes to recognising standards, not that OOXML is a good "standard" format.
I'm not going to explain why OOXM is not fully implementable as that's been covered many times already - but it should be obvious that "Do X the same way closed and patented software Y did X" is not really the kind of description that belongs in an open standard.
Let's turn it arround.
To combat terrorism we will take away some of your rights for your own good:
Privacy (wire taps)
Free speech (right to public protest, right to insult)
Right to a trial (Gitmo)
But it's ok, you can still watch government approved TV so it's OK.
Car travel is dangerous - more so than terrorism. So we will take away some of you rights to help combat car accidents:
Keys
Accelerator Pedal
Gas Stations.
But it's ok, you still have the car so don't worry about it.
Combating a threat (even a greatly exaggerated one such as terrosism) is all well and good. It's the methods that are the problem and the proportiionality of the response. Seriously, if the GPs figures are correct then car accidents are 130 times more threatening then how come none of your car owning and driving rights have been taken away?
I don't wholly beleive the whole "Inalienable rights" spiel - rights and expectations are a human creation and they will always change as society does but you cannot expect me to believe that the response seen in the US, UK and other countries to this "evil terrorism" is in any way proportional.
At best it's popularist politics at work, and we suffer for their continued careers and at the other end of the scale it's a mopre sinister power grab. Neither is good.
Although I agree, it's a convenience thing. There's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain. Safer, certainly but a nice, non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice.
You're right. But why should that stop peopel from being outraged? Should we stop trying to fight against something just because it's gone on for a long time? How long is that then? 5 years? 10 years? 100?
I understand your sentiment but encouraging apathy has never ended well for the public at large.
'Cept that's still no good since if you check the advisory MS issued for this explot it's still present in IE7 and IE8 on Vista and Win7.
Agreed. And for the most part, copyright etc really seems a minor point in the greater scheme of things.
However.....
Where does copyright have an effect on our lives? Music, film, books - these are the things that greatly colour our view of the world and shape our societies. For the computer literate, the same goes for access to programs and code. By locking everything up in the hands of these increasingly amoral companies and syndicates we are allowing them to take control of some of our greatest influences - effectively, they have an overriding influence on the future shape of our society and lifestyles. And I don't think it will be used for the greater good.
A world where every morsel of creativity, be it text, sound, image or idea, is locked up, appraised, tracked and charged for is a poor world indeed.
Yes, yes, I'm dramatising and being melancholy but really, it's all so damn depressing....
*squints* Where be those sarcasm tags, arrr !?
Meh, mistakes again - I mean "target the CLR", not "write c# code" (as other languages can be used).
Yes, that was my intention - sorry if it wasn't clear!
My concern is less that the code base will vanish or be hidden - to do so would be a violation of the license. More so that it is rendered useless due to reliance on patented and closed or otherwise encumbered components. Something GPLv3 is supposed to prevent but my knowledge of how this extends to LGPL licensed code is lacking.
Not that I'm personally concerned - I would never write c# code unless I'm specifically targeting windows machines. It's not worth the hassle worrying about Mono and patents in such cases. Otherwise I stick with native code and libraries I know I can use on multiple platforms.
Actually, this.
LGPL is not "closed" - you still have to release the source code if you distribute software containing LGPL components. But what version of the LGPL are we taking about here? Since it's very easy to combine or cripple the LGPL'd parts so that they either rely on propritary or patent encumbered components in a way that can't be acheived with a full GPL product. Does the LGPL v3 protect against Tivoisation in the same manner intended by the GPL3? (Yes, I could go read the license but...it's long...and I'm tired..and others already have done so!).
By the way, I'm not commenting about the suitability or preference of a particular licence - I'd just like to know what the implications are in this case.
I've been with my WoW obessed girlfriend for over 10 years now (it was Sims and various Final Fantasy games before that). I wouldn't say she's addicted - she has no problems dropping her game time to do more important things etc. But she most definately plays more than I do, and despite my semi-quitting the game some time ago I get to enjoy the mindless grinds of alt-boosting, achievement spamming and quest helping.
Worst aspect has to be the "still playing at 2am in the morning" part - although with her sleep patterns if it wasn't WoW it would be something else anyway. So yeah, although it's great and geek-cool, it has it's downsides.
Of course, one positive aspect is she understands my need to spend silly amounts of money to upgrade or purchase new computing equipment!
*cough* Request to Mods - I don't see anything remotely trollish in the parent post.
General Motors have a 90% share in car sales worldwide? I'm shocked and awed!
ARGHHH! Every time, every every time - the same questions 5, 10, 15 times in the thread [breathes deep]...
Sorry, not aiming it at you personally but I'd love to see some actual debate relating to this story which isn't in the "Why force them to do this?" or "Why not Apple too?" vein...
It's back to the 'ol antitrust laws. Whichever company has the majority share in web browsers weilds a large influence over how websites function and can spread their own propritary or licensed features to further their own agenda and bank balance. Lock-in, on the web.
Microsoft is, under the laws involved, a monopoly (90% of computers). One of the aspects of these laws is that if you have a monopoly in one area, you cannot leverage that to gain a monopoly in another area.
Simply put, Forcing IE as a the default web browser for 90% of all computers worldwide gives them a potential monoply on the growth and direction of the web and it's underlying software and protocols (Sites that only work with ActiveX for example). Hence this decision to have *no* default browser until the customer chooses one for themselves.
Apple etc do not apply as they are not in a monopoly position and so only supplying one browser does not unduly skew or distort the growth of the internet.
[Goes and lies down...]
I think you prove the grandparent's point. You obviously feel very strongly about this - and such an underlying bias can be seen as a conflict of interest. It's in your own interests to disprove/disbelieve in climate change since you view it as a waste of your money.
I'm not commenting on whether you are right to do so but I think the grandparent is correct - both sides of this argument (and let's face it, it's devolved into a messy, heated and far from objective argument instead of the logical debate it should have been) have some serious vested interests in being "right".
The sad thing is, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong - either climate change is a real threat and one that we have influence over or it's not. Wishing, whining and playing politics won't change the nature or reality. I hope your side turns out to be right, I really do.
Time and Effort and Expectations.
The thing is, reverse engineering an existing game and duplicating whatever scripts or behaviours are needed on the server side to allow the commercial client to connect is far less work than doing it from scratch.
To put it another way, for most OSS projects, you are your own master. You write the code when you feel you have the time and (unless you have some sort of mutually agreed deadline) there's no particular pressure to fix a bug other than the pressure you put upon yourself. For an MMO, there are players, live, playing on your server all the time. There's constant pressure - technical improvements and bugs to squash, desire for new content, need administration and various disputes to solve. MMOs are 24-7 and likewise so are the demands from your player base.
When you create a server for an existing MMO, you only have to match what already exists. No one will be hounding you to add new content - the original developers will be doing that. You also have the momentum of an existing game with an existing fan base and it's own momentum and quite often a world that's been fleshed out with history, lore and so on. Create your own and you have to do that from scratch, you have to let people know you exist and you have to create both server *and* client.
Projects like Planescape show that it can be done but ultimately it's the harder path. MMO players tend to have a reputation for whining too, so I doubt it's the most thankful development hobby you could have!
(I have no first hand experience either way but this seems a likely explanation to my mind)
It's like an echo in here....Chrome has ad blockers. It has extensions. And if you're concerned about data mining and letting google track your searches etc there's Chromium and Iron, which are the 100% open source based versions (no Google branding and extras).
Oh my - I feel somewhat childish and churlish saying this but... Consider yourself owned, Mr AC!
I personally still prefer Firefox when using windows. It's not as snappy as it used to be, particularly alongside Chrome amd Safari (my preferred browser overall) but it's fast enough and I've grown used to it. I make particular use of a lot of develpoment addons as well, which shores up my preference. Anecdotal opinion in my case though!