They are garbage for gamers. But laptop users know how to appreciate it, as they certainly generate less heat than discrete counterparts, and reduce cost fo the laptop (i.e. price). Not everyone plays high-end PC games and not everyone wants to spend their bucks for something they won't even fire up. Why not have a choice in hardware, especially for mobile PC's.
Other thing is that the guy wants more security features in processors. He means DRM by that, not security meant to protect the user from content, but vice versa. And that is what NGSCB and TPM's are all about.
Yes, it's viral to all code derived from the original GPL code (still doesn't prevent dual-licensing, if you are the author of it, though). But that's what author requests from people who modify the code (disallowing a license change). And it doesn't apply to non-derivative works where only the glue has to be (also) GPL, as long as you don't ship binaries.
So it is not automatically viral to anything except the derived code. With some less restrictive licenses someone might just release changed modified version as a GPL, and that exactly is the problem with those, they are too permissive (i.e. same code can be turned into proprietary as well). I don't see an issue with GPL here, it's not a do-what-you-want license, nor it was ever intended to be.
Well modern sound cards can play sounds sampled at 96 kHz. So at least the sound card should be able to create electric oscillations of ~40kHz freqency (I know, it doesn't mean that they don't low-pass everything). Now, speakers....that may be a problem. But at least we get less quantisation noise at higher sampling rates even if speakers don't support the whole range.
It's their choice to loose half of their customers, anyway. The price will be higher than a few broken windows.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
No, "deprecated" means that API has to stay there because of compatibility with old programs, but new programms should use new API's (like Cairo or Qt's Arthur, XRender etc.) which solve problems you outlined (antialiasing, printer-compatible rendering model, possibly even color calibration).
Simply, there is nothing we can do about old programs that use flawed API's except to wait until they are forgotten or ported to new API (or do that job ourselves).
Xcb - it was meant to fix various Xlib problems (e.g. some latency issues), not to change/replace X protocol. Both are actually helper libs intended to stuff in code commonly used for handling the protocol (so that it's reused instead of being rewritten in each client app).
Compositing *still* clashes with Xv and everything else. In fact devs have been working to fix that for a year or two. Video memory manager in kernel and new DRI drivers ported to it, new direct rendering interface etc. So you will finally have direct rendering working nice with compositing. Since overlays aren't possible to integrate with 3D engines, Xv will be emulated using texturing (currently this approach suffers from same problem as direct GL rendering).
Xinerama stuff with all above - I think it also needs new memory manager stuff to be solvable, plus it could benefit from multi-GPU support which is on the TODO list of xorg people (this basically needs VGA arbiter code, but some guys started working on it), then the randr 1.3 should integrate all of Xinerama's features. But even now, the existing randr 1.2 is good if you are satisfied with only one framebuffer.
The point here is that protocol isn't the problem. Extensions can solve problems with it and apps will start using them if old approach is deprecated. The implementation of X server is. Yes, it's still a huge mess. But that is actually possible to solve withouth abandoning and starting from scratch (and in the new project you still have to provide same compatibility layer, anyway).
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
"Start your own rewrite" is excellent response to a criticism like "X is old and boring, we need something sexy and new". Because there isn't a viable rewrite yet (if it was needed, I'm sure that X developers would already be working on it).
Re:My only suggestion for X
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Could be that EDID is not interpreted correctly (or that it's simply broken in that monitor). Consider submitting a bug report to xorg bugzilla. Btw. if you are using binary nvidia driver, it may also be a cause of such quirk. To check that, if you are able, try to plug the monitor to a Intel-GPU-based lapop running at least the same distro (or better, Fedora 8/Ubuntu 8.04 beta as they have the latest 7.3 Xorg).
Re:My only suggestion for X
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Historical problem with this is that there wasn't much informative support from hardware vendors to do output detection elsewhere than on Windows. (Apple is also different, they know what hardware OS runs on and have all support from manufacturers they need). So there wasn't much use for configuration system overhaul until recently.
But finally we have most of it working with RANDR 1.2. Since X in this case provides a mechanism, not policy, it doesn't turn a display on automaticall when it's plugged. That decision is a job of separate UI "manager" apps, and I hope that KDE/Gnome/whoever will have that included soon. The mechanism is there, implemented since Xorg 7.3.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Good suggestions. Fortunately that's exactly what Xorg/DRI/DRM people are working on. Future graphic system on linux will have full drivers in kernel, rootless X, and all that with unified 2D+3D acceleration. They also want to get rid of a VT switch in the future and allow for multiple accelerated instances of X, but also non-X acelerated apps.
With Gallium a userspace acceleration will get a performance boost and cleaner architecture.
Re:Entitlement Complex in Open Source Software
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
So what's actually wrong with X(org)? I don't see why it needs replacement just because it's based on old codebase so people (having no idea how it actually works) tend to call it a dinosaur.
Actually many (Linux) graphic problems are being worked on and I don't see any fundamental one that would require a rewrite of X.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
You mean loosing 5 years (and a manpower needed elsewhere) on a rewrite, while in the meantime Xorg will be improved to the point that a rewrite is pointless? (we can't just drop X protocol compatibility or all existing applications will stop working).
Why is GPL "viral"BS? I find GPL a well balanced license. Why? Because it forces all contributors (which release a software product) to release also ALL source changes. And unlike v3, it doesn't ask for too much. That way it cannot happen that Microsoft takes the low hanging fruit (LLVM) and develops it as a proprietary fork in house and later promotes it to a major Windows compiler, or even attracts developers with their 'state-of-art tool'. So if a company like Microsoft can for free take a tool which took many man-years of best experts to develop, the license can't be really good. They aren't able do that with GPL-only software (at least not legally). For same reasons Linux is now way ahead of BSD systems even though they started earlier - because vast number of companies using Linux have no option other than to contribute. (Of course that's not the only reason and it's not fully correct in technical sense to call Linux 'way ahead' of BSD's as they have bright points).
Of course, if you were an employee of a company that needs to develop a proprietary compiler from scratch, you would like license used for LLVM very much.
Actually they want to be able to fork the compiler anytime they feel like. With gcc it's not possible, so some corporations are investing their time in LLVM. That could be useful if they'd like to implement some code that needs to stay secret, but of course the main branch will continue to use current (GPL-compatible) license and they'd loose many of future improvements for their fork in the long time. Apart from that, I don't see any reason to fork a compiler, except maybe if Microsoft wanted to use it as they avoid any open source licensed code, which they can't convert to proprietary, like plague.
So, governments seem to finally have a 'brilliant' idea on how to stop file sharing:) IMO, that practice is unfair because you can get disconnected even if not prooved guilty on court (i.e. the government will probably rely on MPAA/RIAA and such sources, which can of course be faked or just incorrect). OTOH, maybe it's better to just be disconnected than to pay a court penalty and be listed as a criminal just because of some worthless media that's available anywhere, anyway.
Good, albeit slower, solution is also to use anonymous services (like Tor) or proxies. I don't doubt that there will be commercial proxies offering data encryption, located in other countries for connecting to P2P networks, and private trackers will probably become very popular in the UK and France. So if you are careful enough, you might never even get a warning.
One big reason why US probably isn't behind this is: they aren't that stupid (even with Bush) to make this not look as a couple of unrelated accidents. As now, after 5 incidents, it's already quite unprobable that it is.
Well your movies, television (and some genres of music) is mostly crap. I can't digest almost anything coming outside of US lately, it's all been going down in quality, idea and performance in last two decades. Unfortunately that kind of media production also seems to be catching up in Europe, so you aren't alone.
While quality stuff seems to be unprofitable. Unfortunately, the 'fun' factor seems to be oveestimated these days, at expense of realism and a good story.
While regarding football, it's just the usual american pride: "We aren't best at it and we don't run that business, so we don't pay much attention to it".
Maybe this guy didn't try hard enough. For example Civ4 has a copy protection that is less likeky to run on anything but a Windows XP. So, he could probably get it to run by downloading the crack, on both Linux and Vista.
Also it seems that he has some serious (graphical?) driver issues on Vista, as the system shouldn't normally freeze just when running an incompatible game.
Last, the Blackthorne comparison is actually comparison of Dosbox (as the emulated game should run identically), but he didn't say which version (later Dosbox releases should work on Vista).
They were making money from ads (and site visitor clicks), not from selling copyirghted material. RIAA will loose this one it seems, guys are lawyers and have a lot of Swedes behind their back, willing to help.
Being an assembly wizard allowed people to produce "miracle" results in DOS era, but for modern, large scale projects it's counter productive to apply same programming practices. Such 'coders' tend to resort to too many last-bit optimizations, sacrifying code quality of the project, so there is danger that the whole codebase will end up as a huge unreadable pile of mess. Modern programmers need to be as systematic as possible, and use tools (like profilers, leak checkers - and even sandboxed environments, like Java) to make their software better structured (this ultimately leads to less bugs and faster development). Being a genius is not enough today.
It must be said however; people with demoscene experience are, when they find their way out of teenage visual effects crazyness, often top class programmers (just check for example what ex-Triton guys, known mostly for FastTracker 2 and some demos, are doing recently).
It's very much irrelevant whether it's voluntary or not. It's still possible that someone voluntarily takes drugs on a frequent basis ( most drug addicts are, in fact, moderate with what they consume, and hold control over it), regardless of how he would manage without them. We can't know if he's a true addict until he tries to stop. So by your meaning, addiction comes very late in the process and only in a few individuals that loose completely control.
That "unvoluntary" presentation is mostly useful to scare parents and kids in anti-drug campaigns.
After taking the vaccine the body could easily develop allergic reaction after intake of a massive amount drug, so that alone might kill a person (especially if it's overdose).
It's not really "ridiculously complicated" to change couple of integer values in a registry. It takes as much time as to find a certain button somewhere in the Word options. Yes, it's a bit inconvenient as there is no policy tool (for lazy admins:)), but they can write.reg file to do the job.
Slashdot Mirror
They are garbage for gamers. But laptop users know how to appreciate it, as they certainly generate less heat than discrete counterparts, and reduce cost fo the laptop (i.e. price). Not everyone plays high-end PC games and not everyone wants to spend their bucks for something they won't even fire up. Why not have a choice in hardware, especially for mobile PC's.
Other thing is that the guy wants more security features in processors. He means DRM by that, not security meant to protect the user from content, but vice versa. And that is what NGSCB and TPM's are all about.
If that kind of statement is drawn from a detailed review of the documentation,
than his "bias" will reflect quality of OOXML format very well.
If something is garbage, it should be said loud and clear.
Yes, it's viral to all code derived from the original GPL code (still doesn't prevent dual-licensing, if you are the author of it, though). But that's what author requests from people who modify the code (disallowing a license change).
And it doesn't apply to non-derivative works where only the glue has to be (also) GPL, as long as you don't ship binaries.
So it is not automatically viral to anything except the derived code. With some less restrictive licenses someone might just release changed modified version as a GPL, and that exactly is the problem with those, they are too permissive (i.e. same code can be turned into proprietary as well). I don't see an issue with GPL here, it's not a do-what-you-want license, nor it was ever intended to be.
Well modern sound cards can play sounds sampled at 96 kHz. So at least the sound card should be able to create electric oscillations of ~40kHz freqency (I know, it doesn't mean that they don't low-pass everything). Now, speakers....that may be a problem. But at least we get less quantisation noise at higher sampling rates even if speakers don't support the whole range.
It's their choice to loose half of their customers, anyway. The price will be higher than a few broken windows.
No, "deprecated" means that API has to stay there because of compatibility with old programs, but new programms should use new API's (like Cairo or Qt's Arthur, XRender etc.) which solve problems you outlined (antialiasing, printer-compatible rendering model, possibly even color calibration).
Simply, there is nothing we can do about old programs that use flawed API's except to wait until they are forgotten or ported to new API (or do that job ourselves).
Xcb - it was meant to fix various Xlib problems (e.g. some latency issues), not to change/replace X protocol. Both are actually helper libs intended to stuff in code commonly used for handling the protocol (so that it's reused instead of being rewritten in each client app).
Compositing *still* clashes with Xv and everything else. In fact devs have been working to fix that for a year or two. Video memory manager in kernel and new DRI drivers ported to it, new direct rendering interface etc. So you will finally have direct rendering working nice with compositing. Since overlays aren't possible to integrate with 3D engines, Xv will be emulated using texturing (currently this approach suffers from same problem as direct GL rendering).
Xinerama stuff with all above - I think it also needs new memory manager stuff to be solvable, plus it could benefit from multi-GPU support which is on the TODO list of xorg people (this basically needs VGA arbiter code, but some guys started working on it), then the randr 1.3 should integrate all of Xinerama's features. But even now, the existing randr 1.2 is good if you are satisfied with only one framebuffer.
The point here is that protocol isn't the problem. Extensions can solve problems with it and apps will start using them if old approach is deprecated. The implementation of X server is. Yes, it's still a huge mess. But that is actually possible to solve withouth abandoning and starting from scratch (and in the new project you still have to provide same compatibility layer, anyway).
"Start your own rewrite" is excellent response to a criticism like "X is old and boring, we need something sexy and new".
Because there isn't a viable rewrite yet (if it was needed, I'm sure that X developers would already be working on it).
Could be that EDID is not interpreted correctly (or that it's simply broken in that monitor). Consider submitting a bug report to xorg bugzilla. Btw. if you are using binary nvidia driver, it may also be a cause of such quirk. To check that, if you are able, try to plug the monitor to a Intel-GPU-based lapop running at least the same distro (or better, Fedora 8/Ubuntu 8.04 beta as they have the latest 7.3 Xorg).
Historical problem with this is that there wasn't much informative support from hardware vendors to do output detection elsewhere than on Windows. (Apple is also different, they know what hardware OS runs on and have all support from manufacturers they need). So there wasn't much use for configuration system overhaul until recently.
But finally we have most of it working with RANDR 1.2. Since X in this case provides a mechanism, not policy, it doesn't turn a display on automaticall when it's plugged. That decision is a job of separate UI "manager" apps, and I hope that KDE/Gnome/whoever will have that included soon. The mechanism is there, implemented since Xorg 7.3.
Good suggestions. Fortunately that's exactly what Xorg/DRI/DRM people are working on. Future graphic system on linux will have full drivers in kernel, rootless X, and all that with unified 2D+3D acceleration. They also want to get rid of a VT switch in the future and allow for multiple accelerated instances of X, but also non-X acelerated apps.
With Gallium a userspace acceleration will get a performance boost and cleaner architecture.
So what's actually wrong with X(org)? I don't see why it needs replacement just because it's based on old codebase so people (having no idea how it actually works) tend to call it a dinosaur.
Actually many (Linux) graphic problems are being worked on and I don't see any fundamental one that would require a rewrite of X.
You mean loosing 5 years (and a manpower needed elsewhere) on a rewrite, while in the meantime Xorg will be improved to the point that a rewrite is pointless? (we can't just drop X protocol compatibility or all existing applications will stop working).
Why is GPL "viral"BS? I find GPL a well balanced license. Why? Because it forces all contributors (which release a software product) to release also ALL source changes. And unlike v3, it doesn't ask for too much. That way it cannot happen that Microsoft takes the low hanging fruit (LLVM) and develops it as a proprietary fork in house and later promotes it to a major Windows compiler, or even attracts developers with their 'state-of-art tool'. So if a company like Microsoft can for free take a tool which took many man-years of best experts to develop, the license can't be really good. They aren't able do that with GPL-only software (at least not legally). For same reasons Linux is now way ahead of BSD systems even though they started earlier - because vast number of companies using Linux have no option other than to contribute. (Of course that's not the only reason and it's not fully correct in technical sense to call Linux 'way ahead' of BSD's as they have bright points).
Of course, if you were an employee of a company that needs to develop a proprietary compiler from scratch, you would like license used for LLVM very much.
Actually they want to be able to fork the compiler anytime they feel like. With gcc it's not possible, so some corporations are investing their time in LLVM. That could be useful if they'd like to implement some code that needs to stay secret, but of course the main branch will continue to use current (GPL-compatible) license and they'd loose many of future improvements for their fork in the long time. Apart from that, I don't see any reason to fork a compiler, except maybe if Microsoft wanted to use it as they avoid any open source licensed code, which they can't convert to proprietary, like plague.
Don't share, just download :)
:) IMO, that practice is unfair because you can get disconnected even if not prooved guilty on court (i.e. the government will probably rely on MPAA/RIAA and such sources, which can of course be faked or just incorrect). OTOH, maybe it's better to just be disconnected than to pay a court penalty and be listed as a criminal just because of some worthless media that's available anywhere, anyway.
So, governments seem to finally have a 'brilliant' idea on how to stop file sharing
Good, albeit slower, solution is also to use anonymous services (like Tor) or proxies. I don't doubt that there will be commercial proxies offering data encryption, located in other countries for connecting to P2P networks, and private trackers will probably become very popular in the UK and France. So if you are careful enough, you might never even get a warning.
Christian "morals" of course.
One big reason why US probably isn't behind this is: they aren't that stupid (even with Bush) to make this not look as a couple of unrelated accidents. As now, after 5 incidents, it's already quite unprobable that it is.
Or maybe it just reminds too much of Linux. (i.e. now MS imitates the Linux upgrade model)
Well your movies, television (and some genres of music) is mostly crap. I can't digest almost anything coming outside of US lately, it's all been going down in quality, idea and performance in last two decades. Unfortunately that kind of media production also seems to be catching up in Europe, so you aren't alone.
While quality stuff seems to be unprofitable. Unfortunately, the 'fun' factor seems to be oveestimated these days, at expense of realism and a good story.
While regarding football, it's just the usual american pride: "We aren't best at it and we don't run that business, so we don't pay much attention to it".
Maybe this guy didn't try hard enough. For example Civ4 has a copy protection that is less likeky to run on anything but a Windows XP. So, he could probably get it to run by downloading the crack, on both Linux and Vista.
Also it seems that he has some serious (graphical?) driver issues on Vista, as the system shouldn't normally freeze just when running an incompatible game.
Last, the Blackthorne comparison is actually comparison of Dosbox (as the emulated game should run identically), but he didn't say which version (later Dosbox releases should work on Vista).
They were making money from ads (and site visitor clicks), not from selling copyirghted material. RIAA will loose this one it seems, guys are lawyers and have a lot of Swedes behind their back, willing to help.
Being an assembly wizard allowed people to produce "miracle" results in DOS era, but for modern, large scale projects it's counter productive to apply same programming practices. Such 'coders' tend to resort to too many last-bit optimizations, sacrifying code quality of the project, so there is danger that the whole codebase will end up as a huge unreadable pile of mess. Modern programmers need to be as systematic as possible, and use tools (like profilers, leak checkers - and even sandboxed environments, like Java) to make their software better structured (this ultimately leads to less bugs and faster development). Being a genius is not enough today.
It must be said however; people with demoscene experience are, when they find their way out of teenage visual effects crazyness, often top class programmers (just check for example what ex-Triton guys, known mostly for FastTracker 2 and some demos, are doing recently).
It's very much irrelevant whether it's voluntary or not. It's still possible that someone voluntarily takes drugs on a frequent basis ( most drug addicts are, in fact, moderate with what they consume, and hold control over it), regardless of how he would manage without them. We can't know if he's a true addict until he tries to stop. So by your meaning, addiction comes very late in the process and only in a few individuals that loose completely control.
That "unvoluntary" presentation is mostly useful to scare parents and kids in anti-drug campaigns.
After taking the vaccine the body could easily develop allergic reaction after intake of a massive amount drug, so that alone might kill a person (especially if it's overdose).
It's not really "ridiculously complicated" to change couple of integer values in a registry. It takes as much time as to find a certain button somewhere in the Word options. Yes, it's a bit inconvenient as there is no policy tool (for lazy admins:)), but they can write .reg file to do the job.