I wouldn't call it common knowledge, but I've known the q3tests did this for months. They've never hidden anything, and Carmack has seemed quite clear in other situations in explaining the purpose of the packets sent back to id. They're for identifying the cards so id knows how many users are using specific OpenGL library sets. If you don't want them to know, recompile Mesa to send them another string, or just don't play the game. It's not some dubious conspiracy to steal your secrets. I like it when the author of software cares enough about the product to make sure it will actually run for its users.
I'm not a big gamer, but the q3tests (and the recent demo tests) are very impressive. I'm also a fan of good software, and you can't write software if you don't care what your users want. If you write software that, for example, requires $15,000 worth of graphics hardware to operate, or comes without source code, or only runs on embedded ARM systems, your software is of little use people. If you ignore what your users need, they'll find someone else's software to use. If you're a proprietary software company, you might get all worked up about this, but if you just want better software as a computer user, you end up getting just as little.
Wow! You are the perfect programmer. Surely I can download and read some of this fault-free code! Joy of joys, tonight I have a new idol! URLs, please.
Nobody's asking you to pay for your web browser if you don't want to. So don't. Stick with Mozilla, which messes up your posts.
I have a choice of web browsers, as do you. I don't have to use Mozilla. An as an aside, Mozilla M11 seems to have fixed the form submission problem.
I'm not sure where your logic regarding quality of product comes from. Open source doesn't equal quality software. There is plenty of crummy software across the board. Plenty of good, too. If done right, either method works fine.
Thank you, my amazing mental midget, for arguing my point exactly. Quality software did not become quality software because greater than 'n' people have seen its source code. Great software comes from dedicated people. It happens that more high-quality software is available to more people when its source code is available, and it's hundreds of times more useful to those people in that form. Re-read my post; I shouldn't have to explain this to you again.
If you're trying to convince me that open source Mozilla is better than closed source Opera, you're just plain nuts. You've obviously never run Opera in any form, and its hard to believe you'd have the audacity to argue a point you know nil about in such an informed environment.
I have used Opera. In fact, I gave it a "trial" version a few years ago. It was fast under Windows NT 4.0--it was faster than Explorer and Navigator. It seemed to comply nicely with the W3 standards, although it didn't do tables correctly. It was also ugly and the interface left much to be desired. They also wanted me to pay them to read web pages. I don't use any version of Windows any longer, and Opera doesn't come in any format that I can make use of (it won't run on any operating system or architecture I use), so it's not an alternative. I'm not going to change operating systems to use a poor shot at a web browser. I've got my choice of poor web browsers on the operating system I already have.
Voodoo 1 (Canopus Pure3D) and q3test works fine, on a Pentium II 333 with a 2.2 kernel. With a T1, net games are very playable (they're playable with a modem, with the added latency), as long as you turn off the lighting effects (the Voodoo 1 can't keep up a framerate with them turned on).
For those who can't reach kurt.andover.net, check out the half-moon at this mirror. I do agree with the poster who noticed a naughty grin on the Microsoft booth guy to the left.
MacOS port? MacOS?! I'm talking PowerPC Linux, which I run on my PowerBook. I have a PowerPC running Linux. I have an Alpha running Linux, it's less than 2 feet from me. There is a Netscape binary available for Digital Unix, and Linux can run these binaries. However, I would have to license the Digital Unix shared libraries to do so, and that's ridiculous. I use Mozilla. I also have and use a Sun 4/110 running NetBSD 1.3, and the X server (and 19" screen) work just fine. I don't care how many OTHER people run those operating systems, I care about how I run those operating systems. Opera is a non-functional binary bit-sink to me. It just sits there being closed and useless.
One day, when you learn the difference between your Start button and a compiler, you'll realize why source code is valuable. It's pure functionality. That proprietary software performs a task better than free software is not a function of how many people have seen its source code. That Opera works great for you has nothing to do with how many eyes have seen its source code, it just means that someone wrote the code that made you giggle. I assert you can offer no proof that closed development cycles produce better software. In fact, I'll point you to that show otherwise. Have you ever used any of those packages?
And I posted this with Mozilla. And I didn't have to pay for my web browser. And I can run it anywhere I want to.
Opera is superior, eh? Where's the source code? How else should I run it on my PowerPC laptop? How about Alpha Linux? Sounds pretty non-functional to me.
If I'm not mistaken, the art of dermal reconstruction from lone skulls is very much, well, an art. The procedure is the application of new "skin" material to match established human norms. Forensics specialists get good at this by seeing more of the way flesh is normally distributed over a human face. The practice is possible because people have measured how deep the skin is for humans; no one has done this for alien beings from other planets. For this reason, I can't see how one could objectively reconstruct an unknown face and claim any sort of accuracy.
One could apply the tissue like for a human reconstruction, and then what we'd see is exactly what we imagine when we look at the pictures of the skulls. The head will be bulbous, also tapered (STR). Our brains do much of this work automatically.
I'm running 2.2.13 and have no problems. The guy is wrong; you don't use ipfwadm with kernel 2.2, you use ipchains, and it's included in netbase, and it works just fine. I don't currently use dhcpd, but I've set it up for testing between two Slink machines, and had no problems with it.
"Unix was written long before Digital"... maybe on your planet, but not on planet Earth. Unix was developed on Digital PDP-series mini-computers (started on a PDP-7, continued on a PDP-11/20). You can still buy them. Do a little research next time.
I'm not sure where people are getting their misinformation here. Debian Slink is "kernel 2.2 ready" (in market-speak). Just download the source and build it like you normally would. The module utilities, compilers, and binutils will handle a 2.2 kernel just fine. Yes, Slink is really old, and Debian should release much more often, but Slink works just fine with 2.2 kernels.
Users don't support Open Source because someone told them to. They support it because it just works better. How do you suggest I make a proprietary program like Opera work under NetBSD for my Sparc? How about Alpha Linux with XFree86? On my PowerBook running Debian? I can't without rewriting it; software without source sucks.
When was the last time you sat through a Linux boot and upon execution of "scandisk" were required to hit "Fix" fourty-one-thousand and three times because the UI designers decided it would be too hard to add a "Fix All" button? e2fsck -p, my friend.
The GPL cannot be evil. It just can't; it's a license. It's a sequence of words that, when declared terms for licensing, describe actions to be taken by the authors and users of software. The GPL cannot take control of anything.
The action you describe, that source code mixed with source code released under the GPL must also be licensed under the GPL, is a conscious action of the author and requires no magical anthropormorphization of some license text. The spread of GPL'd software and the use of same licensing is a result of the users of software liking what they have. A popular library, licensed under the GPL, will fall upon the filesystems of many happy users. Many happy developers will write new applications to use the popular library. Many more users will use many more applications. At no time does the license stand up and take a room hostage. The GPL's only victims are the hypocrites who won't recognize an author's right to license code as he wishes.
I'm sick of people whining along the same old lines of "I can't write non-Free software and use this GPL'ed code I found here! The GPL is evil!" This is the same crowd that defends proprietary software by the "he who wrote the code chooses the license" line, and it's the greatest hypocrisy I see on Slashdot these days. If there doesn't exist a gift of code to fit your need, you'll have to write it yourself. GPL'ed code is there for you to use, and if you want to use it under terms its author doesn't deem worthy, you'll have to go re-implement it. Take control as a new author.
You can't be for your right to license your code however you want, but be against the rights of others to choose the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call it common knowledge, but I've known the q3tests did this for months. They've never hidden anything, and Carmack has seemed quite clear in other situations in explaining the purpose of the packets sent back to id. They're for identifying the cards so id knows how many users are using specific OpenGL library sets. If you don't want them to know, recompile Mesa to send them another string, or just don't play the game. It's not some dubious conspiracy to steal your secrets. I like it when the author of software cares enough about the product to make sure it will actually run for its users.
I'm not a big gamer, but the q3tests (and the recent demo tests) are very impressive. I'm also a fan of good software, and you can't write software if you don't care what your users want. If you write software that, for example, requires $15,000 worth of graphics hardware to operate, or comes without source code, or only runs on embedded ARM systems, your software is of little use people. If you ignore what your users need, they'll find someone else's software to use. If you're a proprietary software company, you might get all worked up about this, but if you just want better software as a computer user, you end up getting just as little.
--
--
Personal firewalls? What's wrong with ipfwadm, ipchains, or ip filters? They're probably in your kernel already.
--
Wow! You are the perfect programmer. Surely I can download and read some of this fault-free code! Joy of joys, tonight I have a new idol! URLs, please.
--
--
Voodoo 1 (Canopus Pure3D) and q3test works fine, on a Pentium II 333 with a 2.2 kernel. With a T1, net games are very playable (they're playable with a modem, with the added latency), as long as you turn off the lighting effects (the Voodoo 1 can't keep up a framerate with them turned on).
--
Because now people can use 3D cards on real architectures (Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS, etc.), write games all day long, play existing ones, etc.
--
Oops, I guess I didn't check too closely. I meant to say the guy over by the Microsoft booth had a naughty little grin on his face.
--
For those who can't reach kurt.andover.net, check out the half-moon at this mirror. I do agree with the poster who noticed a naughty grin on the Microsoft booth guy to the left.
--
And Mozilla fucked up my POST content (way to prove a point). That link was to http://www.debian.org/, and the text was "2000 packages".
--
One day, when you learn the difference between your Start button and a compiler, you'll realize why source code is valuable. It's pure functionality. That proprietary software performs a task better than free software is not a function of how many people have seen its source code. That Opera works great for you has nothing to do with how many eyes have seen its source code, it just means that someone wrote the code that made you giggle. I assert you can offer no proof that closed development cycles produce better software. In fact, I'll point you to that show otherwise. Have you ever used any of those packages?
And I posted this with Mozilla. And I didn't have to pay for my web browser. And I can run it anywhere I want to.
--
Opera is superior, eh? Where's the source code? How else should I run it on my PowerPC laptop? How about Alpha Linux? Sounds pretty non-functional to me.
--
If I'm not mistaken, the art of dermal reconstruction from lone skulls is very much, well, an art. The procedure is the application of new "skin" material to match established human norms. Forensics specialists get good at this by seeing more of the way flesh is normally distributed over a human face. The practice is possible because people have measured how deep the skin is for humans; no one has done this for alien beings from other planets. For this reason, I can't see how one could objectively reconstruct an unknown face and claim any sort of accuracy.
One could apply the tissue like for a human reconstruction, and then what we'd see is exactly what we imagine when we look at the pictures of the skulls. The head will be bulbous, also tapered (STR). Our brains do much of this work automatically.
--
I'm running 2.2.13 and have no problems. The guy is wrong; you don't use ipfwadm with kernel 2.2, you use ipchains, and it's included in netbase, and it works just fine. I don't currently use dhcpd, but I've set it up for testing between two Slink machines, and had no problems with it.
--
"Unix was written long before Digital" ... maybe on your planet, but not on planet Earth. Unix was developed on Digital PDP-series mini-computers (started on a PDP-7, continued on a PDP-11/20). You can still buy them. Do a little research next time.
--
You lack a sense of humor.
--
I'm not sure where people are getting their misinformation here. Debian Slink is "kernel 2.2 ready" (in market-speak). Just download the source and build it like you normally would. The module utilities, compilers, and binutils will handle a 2.2 kernel just fine. Yes, Slink is really old, and Debian should release much more often, but Slink works just fine with 2.2 kernels.
--
Users don't support Open Source because someone told them to. They support it because it just works better. How do you suggest I make a proprietary program like Opera work under NetBSD for my Sparc? How about Alpha Linux with XFree86? On my PowerBook running Debian? I can't without rewriting it; software without source sucks.
--
sterwill@dogbert [~] notepad
notepad: Command not found.
sterwill@dogbert [~] minesweeper
minesweeper: Command not found.
Proof: Windows is better.
--
Hey, some people are like that. Turn out the lights on them, and they'll argue to your face that they're the only one in the room.
--
DG-UX is not Digital Unix. DG-UX is made by Data General.
--
Surely, since you're a proponent of open software, you could just throw a debugger on Opera, modify a little code, and recompile it to make it work?
--
When was the last time you sat through a Linux boot and upon execution of "scandisk" were required to hit "Fix" fourty-one-thousand and three times because the UI designers decided it would be too hard to add a "Fix All" button? e2fsck -p, my friend.
--
I name new boxes at work after musicians you might have heard of:
parsons
holdsworth
kraftwerk
zappa
etc.
I have a lame Sun (4/110) I named "sol", and a workstation named "lister".
--
The action you describe, that source code mixed with source code released under the GPL must also be licensed under the GPL, is a conscious action of the author and requires no magical anthropormorphization of some license text. The spread of GPL'd software and the use of same licensing is a result of the users of software liking what they have. A popular library, licensed under the GPL, will fall upon the filesystems of many happy users. Many happy developers will write new applications to use the popular library. Many more users will use many more applications. At no time does the license stand up and take a room hostage. The GPL's only victims are the hypocrites who won't recognize an author's right to license code as he wishes.
I'm sick of people whining along the same old lines of "I can't write non-Free software and use this GPL'ed code I found here! The GPL is evil!" This is the same crowd that defends proprietary software by the "he who wrote the code chooses the license" line, and it's the greatest hypocrisy I see on Slashdot these days. If there doesn't exist a gift of code to fit your need, you'll have to write it yourself. GPL'ed code is there for you to use, and if you want to use it under terms its author doesn't deem worthy, you'll have to go re-implement it. Take control as a new author.
You can't be for your right to license your code however you want, but be against the rights of others to choose the GPL.
--