As far as what it sounds like, the restriction is only enforced client-side, so maybe using Pidgin or other clients will bypass this block. Anyone that uses MSN that can verify this?
Of course, I wouldn't put much trust in a Microsoft-run IM service in the first place...
Apparently hosting a Minecraft server for friends is "drawing the short straw"? The thing is easier to set up than a ****ing HTTP server, how are these people supposed to be enticing admins when they insult the intelligence of said admins?
Yes; I didn't mean to imply that DRM-free games are the norm on Steam, but they do happen, rarely. And for what it's worth, I've experienced all of those Steam woes myself except for losing games or my account. Steam is quite frustrating and annoying when it doesn't stay out of your way.
Hell, even when I want to play a game on Windows, I usually avoid it. Windows Updates, Steam updates, Firefox updates... everything seems to want to hammer my disk and CPU time as soon as I boot Windows. Just makes me avoid running it, and it's a bit self-defeating in that end; the longest I've gone between booting Windows is probably two months, and then it took around two hours before anything settled down and was usable again.
Steam games don't necessarily have DRM -- not even the kind that Steam itself provides. See for example DOSBox games on it, Witcher 2, VVVVVV, and a few others that allow you to copy the game files and play without Steam, without the need to crack them.
What the linux and bsd community needs is a desktop environment for everyone. We don't want one targeted at idiots or power users. We need something to appeal to the masses, but still has power. Microsoft used to have a fairly decent one.. Apple did too. It can be done. It doesn't mean it has to look like current environments. Let's face it, if you believe the hype pads are taking over and only people that have to get real work done need a full computer. So for linux desktops and laptops, we need a desktop environment to get real work done.
that's what GNOME 2 was. You can still even get that kind of desktop in GNOME 3 by switching it to Fallback mode (the various extensions of GNOME Shell to make it look like the default configuration of GNOME 2 go half-way; they seem to forget that GNOME 2 was customizable).
DOSEMU is still maintained, though it doesn't get a whole lot of development these days; not a huge deal with it to fix yet. As other replies explained, DOSBox is usually better for games (especially for sound support), but DOSBox has a strict development policy of being only for games, and there's plenty of DOS applications DOSBox does not run and likely will not run in the near future. DOSEMU packages FreeDOS with it and is nearly 100% compatible with all DOS software.
One thing I particularly like about DOSEMU over DOSBox is the filesystem handling. Everything in DOSEMU is mounted as a network share inside of DOS, even the C: drive; this allows you to change around files and whatnot on the native Linux filesystem and have the changes immediately appear in DOS (can't do that with DOSBox). Additionally, DOSEMU has long filename suppport, which is a huge godsend; DOSBox only supports 8+3 names (with its own muddling of non-DOS-compatible names behind the scenes... DOS games don't need long filename support so DOSBox is likely to never support LFNs).
All that being said, I highly recommend avoiding the release version and go straight to the subversion trunk. There are many quite serious bugs in 1.4.0, but I'm not aware of any that exist in the trunk; the developer is rather quick to look into and fix problems when they're reported.
I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since around 2000. Mainly due to lack of any interesting games from them, though their DRM shenanigans are certainly a good reason to avoid them too.
Not hiring you, apparently. In seriousness, it is a very good question. I've done similar things not just for sites that don't make any money, but for sites that just sink more money than they ever have hope to make. Ubisoft is just showing a prime example of their incompetence here.
oh and since it's probably oblig: Guess who this move affects the least? the pirates.
Past failures aside, what is it that you consider a "major" version anyway? Mozilla is now rolling out updates on a regular basis, all of which consist of some rather significant changes to the browser albeit most of them are never user-visible. These updates are rather tiny and smaller than what historic 2-years-between-releases updates have been, but are you seriously expecting 2 years of work every 6 weeks?
Would you rather have every release to be prefixed with a useless "4." at the beginning of it? When would they upgrade it to 5.x? After a year, after 4.9, what? All the other options just put an arbitrary useless number at the beginning of it, much like how every Linux 2.6.x was major; even in the current Linux 3.x series, every release is major, the "3." is still a rather useless number, though possibly to be incremented to 4.x in about 10 years (4th decade of development). I just don't understand what you really are expecting other than peace-of-mind in old and faulty expectations of versioning systems.
I'm going to quote myself from another forum; it's slightly old so the version numbers don't match what is current, but the idea is still the same. I'll also have you note that nowhere was there a guarentee that 3.5.x or 3.6.x releases were bug-fix-only releases; there were some rather significant feature changes and additions in both lines' "minor" versions.
Meanwhile I have Chromium 15 installed, which sounds just as bad. The rapid release schedule is desirable for progress of web technologies. Keeping traditional versioning schemes doesn't really work with that. Otherwise it'll be 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, etc... until what? 4.32? By then 4.32 might seem like a big enough step from 4.0 to have warranted several "major" version bumps, even though the change will seem minor compared to 4.31, and that minor compared to 4.30, and so on. (Emacs predates the browsers... it skipped from version 1.12 to version 13 when the authors realized they may never leave 1.x otherwise, essentally that first number became meaningless)
To both Google and Mozilla's credit, they have seriously downplayed the prevalance of the version number. What matters now is that users are up to date, and by most common installation modes, that happens fairly automatic for both of them. How many people can really tell that they're on Firefox 8 without having to open Help>About, or that they're on Chrome/Chromium 15 without opening its about dialog? Probably not many.
tl;dr: the old versioning system doesn't work. To top it off, Mozilla doesn't actively advertise version numbers either. Much of the hate seems to be generated by Slashdot feeling compelled to note that Firefox got an update.
Wine tends to work very well, for non-gaming applications. It's constantly getting better on the gaming front, too, but that class of application tends to really put pressure on the parts of the API not so well understood or known.
I'm not currently aware of any concrete plans to remove fallback mode, I've heard several different things from keeping it where it is, hiding the checkbox in system settings (so you'd have to use gsettings to toggle it), or removing it entirely. I don't know what, if any, the official plans concerning it are. At the moment, at least, I can use fallback mode in GNOME 3.
Also I must say, I am aware of MATE, a fork of GNOME 2.32, but it makes me feel unconfortable for chewing off perhaps too much of the desktop environment. Old libraries, old applications, etc; GNOME 3 has plenty of bug fixes, improvements, new features, etc. A full-out fork of GNOME 3 itself is what I'd ask for, one in particular that focuses on the old GNOME 2-style interface... it's merely GNOME Shell I don't like (not that I didn't give it a shot, I used it for two months; the only thing I miss about it is dynamic workspaces).
I have to agree; I've been using GNOME 3 in "Fallback" mode for months now -- it is mostly like the good old GNOME 2 desktop; having to hold down Alt and right-clicking the panels to customize is awkward, but it's not a common enough action to be truly annoying.
As much as I appreciate making the GNOME Shell more usable, I wish there was focus on a GNOME 3 fork that emphasizes the GNOME Panel (fallback/classic, whatever you want to call it) and Nautilus desktop metaphors. I personally feel that the later days of GNOME 2.x produced the most functional and best desktop ever conceived; GNOME 3 can provide the same thing in fallback mode, which is needlessly hidden away unfortunately.
I would be dismayed if Skyrim really took more than a couple hundred megabytes to compile, given that you're only compiling the engine, which is likely small and even a piece of shit computer from 10 years ago could probably compile it in under 30 minutes. The game's assets (music, graphics, whatever) have no bearing on this.
You mean when Android will sandbox applications and have users explicitly allow permissions that could break out of that sandbox? Like how it is already?
I like to own movies I buy, rather than being covered by a "cheap" subscription service. I can happily plug in any DVD I own, be it a movie or even TV shows, and not have to pay for cable or Netflix per month.
Re:Just as long as I can open wooden doors again!
on
Minecraft Is Finished
·
· Score: 1
For a real challenge, use the seed "Mojang AB" on Hardcore mode;)
Slashdot Mirror
BrowserQuest 2: The Search for More Money
As far as what it sounds like, the restriction is only enforced client-side, so maybe using Pidgin or other clients will bypass this block. Anyone that uses MSN that can verify this?
Of course, I wouldn't put much trust in a Microsoft-run IM service in the first place...
I suppose this would be the modern equivalent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
Apparently hosting a Minecraft server for friends is "drawing the short straw"? The thing is easier to set up than a ****ing HTTP server, how are these people supposed to be enticing admins when they insult the intelligence of said admins?
It is something Douglas Adams came up with.
Yes; I didn't mean to imply that DRM-free games are the norm on Steam, but they do happen, rarely. And for what it's worth, I've experienced all of those Steam woes myself except for losing games or my account. Steam is quite frustrating and annoying when it doesn't stay out of your way.
Hell, even when I want to play a game on Windows, I usually avoid it. Windows Updates, Steam updates, Firefox updates... everything seems to want to hammer my disk and CPU time as soon as I boot Windows. Just makes me avoid running it, and it's a bit self-defeating in that end; the longest I've gone between booting Windows is probably two months, and then it took around two hours before anything settled down and was usable again.
Oooh I wish I had mod points. Made me laugh a bit too loud at work! :)
Steam games don't necessarily have DRM -- not even the kind that Steam itself provides. See for example DOSBox games on it, Witcher 2, VVVVVV, and a few others that allow you to copy the game files and play without Steam, without the need to crack them.
I'm guessing it was going to say the Java platform, but they encountered a NullPointerException
What the linux and bsd community needs is a desktop environment for everyone. We don't want one targeted at idiots or power users. We need something to appeal to the masses, but still has power. Microsoft used to have a fairly decent one.. Apple did too. It can be done. It doesn't mean it has to look like current environments. Let's face it, if you believe the hype pads are taking over and only people that have to get real work done need a full computer. So for linux desktops and laptops, we need a desktop environment to get real work done.
that's what GNOME 2 was. You can still even get that kind of desktop in GNOME 3 by switching it to Fallback mode (the various extensions of GNOME Shell to make it look like the default configuration of GNOME 2 go half-way; they seem to forget that GNOME 2 was customizable).
DOSEMU is still maintained, though it doesn't get a whole lot of development these days; not a huge deal with it to fix yet. As other replies explained, DOSBox is usually better for games (especially for sound support), but DOSBox has a strict development policy of being only for games, and there's plenty of DOS applications DOSBox does not run and likely will not run in the near future. DOSEMU packages FreeDOS with it and is nearly 100% compatible with all DOS software.
One thing I particularly like about DOSEMU over DOSBox is the filesystem handling. Everything in DOSEMU is mounted as a network share inside of DOS, even the C: drive; this allows you to change around files and whatnot on the native Linux filesystem and have the changes immediately appear in DOS (can't do that with DOSBox). Additionally, DOSEMU has long filename suppport, which is a huge godsend; DOSBox only supports 8+3 names (with its own muddling of non-DOS-compatible names behind the scenes... DOS games don't need long filename support so DOSBox is likely to never support LFNs).
All that being said, I highly recommend avoiding the release version and go straight to the subversion trunk. There are many quite serious bugs in 1.4.0, but I'm not aware of any that exist in the trunk; the developer is rather quick to look into and fix problems when they're reported.
I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since around 2000. Mainly due to lack of any interesting games from them, though their DRM shenanigans are certainly a good reason to avoid them too.
Not hiring you, apparently. In seriousness, it is a very good question. I've done similar things not just for sites that don't make any money, but for sites that just sink more money than they ever have hope to make. Ubisoft is just showing a prime example of their incompetence here.
oh and since it's probably oblig: Guess who this move affects the least? the pirates.
It's not always so clear. When you see "resume" typed out, for example, don't you ever stop and have to think if it means resume or résumé?
Two quite different words, even pronounced differently, that can be muddled by dropping the accents in text.
Past failures aside, what is it that you consider a "major" version anyway? Mozilla is now rolling out updates on a regular basis, all of which consist of some rather significant changes to the browser albeit most of them are never user-visible. These updates are rather tiny and smaller than what historic 2-years-between-releases updates have been, but are you seriously expecting 2 years of work every 6 weeks?
Would you rather have every release to be prefixed with a useless "4." at the beginning of it? When would they upgrade it to 5.x? After a year, after 4.9, what? All the other options just put an arbitrary useless number at the beginning of it, much like how every Linux 2.6.x was major; even in the current Linux 3.x series, every release is major, the "3." is still a rather useless number, though possibly to be incremented to 4.x in about 10 years (4th decade of development). I just don't understand what you really are expecting other than peace-of-mind in old and faulty expectations of versioning systems.
I'm going to quote myself from another forum; it's slightly old so the version numbers don't match what is current, but the idea is still the same. I'll also have you note that nowhere was there a guarentee that 3.5.x or 3.6.x releases were bug-fix-only releases; there were some rather significant feature changes and additions in both lines' "minor" versions.
Meanwhile I have Chromium 15 installed, which sounds just as bad. The rapid release schedule is desirable for progress of web technologies. Keeping traditional versioning schemes doesn't really work with that. Otherwise it'll be 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, etc... until what? 4.32? By then 4.32 might seem like a big enough step from 4.0 to have warranted several "major" version bumps, even though the change will seem minor compared to 4.31, and that minor compared to 4.30, and so on. (Emacs predates the browsers... it skipped from version 1.12 to version 13 when the authors realized they may never leave 1.x otherwise, essentally that first number became meaningless)
To both Google and Mozilla's credit, they have seriously downplayed the prevalance of the version number. What matters now is that users are up to date, and by most common installation modes, that happens fairly automatic for both of them. How many people can really tell that they're on Firefox 8 without having to open Help>About, or that they're on Chrome/Chromium 15 without opening its about dialog? Probably not many.
tl;dr: the old versioning system doesn't work. To top it off, Mozilla doesn't actively advertise version numbers either. Much of the hate seems to be generated by Slashdot feeling compelled to note that Firefox got an update.
Wine tends to work very well, for non-gaming applications. It's constantly getting better on the gaming front, too, but that class of application tends to really put pressure on the parts of the API not so well understood or known.
For all the years I've herad people joke about Tux Racer, I've yet to play it... maybe one of these days.
brb. minecraft is sucking up my slashdot time.
I'm not currently aware of any concrete plans to remove fallback mode, I've heard several different things from keeping it where it is, hiding the checkbox in system settings (so you'd have to use gsettings to toggle it), or removing it entirely. I don't know what, if any, the official plans concerning it are. At the moment, at least, I can use fallback mode in GNOME 3.
Also I must say, I am aware of MATE, a fork of GNOME 2.32, but it makes me feel unconfortable for chewing off perhaps too much of the desktop environment. Old libraries, old applications, etc; GNOME 3 has plenty of bug fixes, improvements, new features, etc. A full-out fork of GNOME 3 itself is what I'd ask for, one in particular that focuses on the old GNOME 2-style interface... it's merely GNOME Shell I don't like (not that I didn't give it a shot, I used it for two months; the only thing I miss about it is dynamic workspaces).
I have to agree; I've been using GNOME 3 in "Fallback" mode for months now -- it is mostly like the good old GNOME 2 desktop; having to hold down Alt and right-clicking the panels to customize is awkward, but it's not a common enough action to be truly annoying.
As much as I appreciate making the GNOME Shell more usable, I wish there was focus on a GNOME 3 fork that emphasizes the GNOME Panel (fallback/classic, whatever you want to call it) and Nautilus desktop metaphors. I personally feel that the later days of GNOME 2.x produced the most functional and best desktop ever conceived; GNOME 3 can provide the same thing in fallback mode, which is needlessly hidden away unfortunately.
Computing in these days are more fun than mucking about config.sys just to get a program to work. But maybe that's just me.
I would be dismayed if Skyrim really took more than a couple hundred megabytes to compile, given that you're only compiling the engine, which is likely small and even a piece of shit computer from 10 years ago could probably compile it in under 30 minutes. The game's assets (music, graphics, whatever) have no bearing on this.
You mean when Android will sandbox applications and have users explicitly allow permissions that could break out of that sandbox? Like how it is already?
I like to own movies I buy, rather than being covered by a "cheap" subscription service. I can happily plug in any DVD I own, be it a movie or even TV shows, and not have to pay for cable or Netflix per month.
For a real challenge, use the seed "Mojang AB" on Hardcore mode ;)