When the day o DDoS hit a while back, there were articles on this sort of DDoS attack. Essentially, this is NOT a DDoS. It's many very small, ineffective DOS attacks. In order to shut down a web site running on anything bigger than, say, a dialup connection, everyone who received the email would have to open it at the same time.
They promised to give up their rights, "if any", and they also claimed that they were the proprietors of "all rights". Well, under the GPL they essentially have no rights (or at least none of the sort that Mattel is interested in). Therefore they gave Mattel nothing, in good faith, and Mattel had better not fsckin' whine about it.
Haven't they heard? Open source helps your business, it doesn't hurt it. This is tantamount to releasing a press statement that says "Your attention please. We will now be shooting ourselves in the foot."
I've been using Wells Fargo bill pay for over 2 years (recommended to me by my mother, of all people). It's quick and easy, but the issues are: the funds have to be in your account earlier than usual, since the money gets deducted immediately on your payment date, even though the check won't arrive at the destination for up to a week. Also, I've had problems with companies screwing up because I didn't send in that little stub they send you to attach with your bill. (YMMV, since the bill pay services now available actually receive the paperwork for you, and may well send that stub with your payment.) Even that issue though is fast becoming only a memory; I haven't had a single creditor complain about receiving electronic payment or, as in the case of my former auto insurance carrier, continuously screw up the crediting of my payments. (Screw you Western United. Geico hasn't given me any such problems.) As far as security, make sure they strongly encrypt everything, and make sure they have a strong privacy statement.
I couldn't prove this easily, but I believe, from the evidence of the biological systems on earth, that it is a law of organic behavior that the more destructive a species is to its energy source, the harder a time it has reproducing. Make of that what you will.
I work in the C++ development arm of an ERP vendor, and quite a few of our top programmers in the 200-person department telecommute "full-time" (meaning they only come into the office for important meetings/general facetime maybe 3-4 times a year). There are at least 6 guys that are fulltime telecommuters. The rest of us telecommute about once a week on average. Don't expect to be given the chance to do it fulltime if you aren't a proven code guru. Experience matters here.
I suppose "purpose" of evolution was a malapropism, but nevertheless:
The Grey Goo problem is theoretically possible, but let's think about the real world. If we were foolish enough to unleash a killer nanovirus on earth, would it kill us all? Indeed, would any virus be capable of killing us all? I put to you that if it were possible, it would already have happened, but I'll give you a few reasons why it's so unlikely.
To set the stage (as it were), the Grey Goo problem (for those just joining us) goes something like this: we invent a nanoprobe capable of breaking down matter, producing something useful with it like energy or raw materials that we can later harvest, and using some of the energy to replicate itself. It starts out programmed to survive only in outer space, never approach the planet earth, never break down anything biological, etc. etc. However, because it replicates, and mutations are inevitable, it eventually loses those restrictions one by one and then hits the planet earth, converting us all into Grey Goo.
First let me say: IT COULD HAPPEN. But why hasn't it happened on earth? We are literally living in a airborne sea of bacteria, fungi, virii, etc. etc., all of which are self-replicating. Yet none of have wiped us all out. Now, to be sure, the human species evolved in that sea, so we only exist today because we were immune to that sea right from the start -- and we have not evolved immunity to the hypothetical Grey Goo. But if the grey goo scenario were possible, where are the bacteria that wiped out all other bacteria in their bioregion because of their superiority? Where are the spaceborne bacteria? Where are the viruses that kill every single member of a species?
Replicating lifeforms MUST NOT behave like grey goo, or they destroy themselves--or, more likely, they evolve so as not to destroy themselves. You can see examples of this in the evolution of the AIDS virus, which has many different strains. It behaves differently depending on the population where it lives; specifically, in populations that are careful about using condoms, it lays dormant for much longer and is less virulent, so as to increase its chances of infecting someone else. In populations (such as in Africa) where condoms are rare, it has no need for such niceties, and it kills relatively rapidly. A grey goo-type "organism" would have to follow the same rules. If it suddenly started destroying everything in sight, it wouldn't be able to replicate any more, and it would die.
Another reason: competition. With evolution you don't just get one strain of grey goo. You get lots of them. Some of them feed on the other species of grey goo. Some of them probably feed on humans, or earth-matter, and pose a threat to us. Some very few would destroy everything in sight, but at the cost of being able to replicate. Mass destruction is not a good survival strategy. (I liked the movie Pitch Black, but this is the reason such a scenario is impossible. What the hell would those things eat now??)
Another reason: the laws of physics. In order for a spaceborne grey goo to attack us it would have to be carried through the atmosphere. That could happen accidentally, but a grey goo that landed on earth would be restricted to moving in two dimensions. Disease vectors apply-if it works slowly, and it's being carried around in peoples' clothes (for example), it could spread out, but as it did so, it would continue to evolve, and suddenly you've got competing species with competing goals. Species that ate quickly wouldn't be able to spread as far; species that ate slowly could be innoculated against (everything has a weakness; if these things involve electronics, maybe a nano-EMP blast would work). Species that didn't eat wouldn't be a threat.
Grey goo is a potential danger, but no more so than army-engineered virii or even virii in the wild, for all the reasons I've given above, and for one more: Doomsday scenarios never take into account the human mind and its proven ability to solve problems. We're ill-adapted to nearly every environment on earth, yet we are the dominant species for only one reason: our minds, our ability to ensure our own survival.
Read at least to the second paragraph - I'm going somewhere with this:
Evolution perfects you to survive in a particular niche. That's why humans behave the way we do - around the time of australopithecus it was more advantageous to see over the grass than to crawl around, so we started walking. It never became advantageous to crawl again. Then it became advantageous to use tools, so we learned how. Gradually, intelligence accreted, a particular kind of intelligence allowing us to survive in a world where other species of erect, somewhat intelligent simians (not to mention lions and tigers and bears, oh my) might try to kill us. We have a concept of "evil" only because the advantages of a structured society, which was a necessary and inevitable step in our evolution, are orthogonal to the advantages of killing your neighbor and taking his stuff. The nature of our intelligence, like the nature of our physical shape, has evolved to give us that concept.
That's why we fear machines - we fear that, like God, we will create them in our own images; only, unlike God, we won't be able to dictate their every move and thought. Indeed, this is why there are so many religious debates on these types of issues: because we don't feel we have the right to be gods. I feel that the truth is going to be quite different. Machines won't have to solve the same sorts of problems we will. They won't have kill tigers, they won't have to protect their families, they won't have to attempt to control more territory for their resources. Replicating, evolving machines, such as the type that Bill Joy thinks will devour us whole, will have to solve entirely different sets of problems for their survival, problems which--and this is very important--have little to no overlap over our own problems. They will need electrical power, and that's about it. If they evolve, it will be to find more and more efficient ways to collect sunlight. They won't have any interest in taking over the world because that is a mere reptilian biological imperative, planted into us by the ancient necessity of having territory in which to hunt safely.
They won't be aware of us really, unless we GIVE THEM the power of thought. Like aardvaarks or deer, they will only have to have as much thought as it takes to get the next meal. They don't have to be malevolent, or even sentient, to survive. And even if we do make them capable of reason (and it's almost inevitable that someone will), they will still use their reason to solve their own problems, not the problems that we think we have. Their own problems will mainly consist of the need to find a place to spread out a solar array so they can soak up all the juice they want, and maybe a little need for privacy. (Even that need is most likely a purely biological imperative though, most likely occasioned by the unsanitariness of living in close quarters with lots of humans.) Machines won't be evil, machines won't try to replace us, because they're not even in the same niche as us. It would be like orange trees competing with polar bears.
This is a pretty good article - it presents both sides, although it doesn't attempt to represent the damage to OUR community should DeCSS become illegal while it DOES talk about the potentially "devastating" effects on the MPAA. Oh, like the devastating effect on the RIAA of MP3. And the devastating effect on the MPAA when people figured out you could copy VHS tapes. And the devastating effect on Microsoft when pirates started distributing their OS. And the devastating effect on the tobacco industry when 15-year-olds steal smokes from vending machines and get addicted... and the devastating . . .
What they don't tell you is that there will be a pre-selected 60-second period during the day. Anyone who signs up during that magic minute will automatically become a beta tester. The rest of the slots will be filled up mostly with chimpanzees and Aibos.
The magic minute will be: 10:37 AM PST. Have fun/.ers!
Like McDonalds and Cracker Jacks, they can package extra stuff inside that big box. Like: a boxed copy of Q3A, a full-size monitor instead of that dinky LED display, maybe a VR handset instead of that silly 20th-century keyboard, who knows.
Why do companies get blasted here for finally releasing something as open source, even if it isn't under the GPL or to a wide distribution?
Logic dictates that there has to be a first time that a company releases something as open source. I had to make the same comment when Glide was opened up. The idea is that the momentum will build and eventually they'll release everything (in a perfect world). Don't blast them for not following the practices of Redhat, RMS et al.... blast them because their software is buggy, bloated and ill-conceived.
I'm not going to claim that downloading MP3's makes you a HD Thoreau. But saying that someone is wrong just because she is a criminal forgets a long American history of disobedience to the law being used to improve the law. (My apologies if you're not American, but the analogy still stands.) From the American Revolution to the Civil Rights movement to the Vietnam war (end of the draft) and beyond, we have become criminals in the name of justice.
I don't think JK is claiming so much that these kids are ignorant of the law (and why just kids? plenty of adults do this too) as that they find it irrelevant. IP is a very sticky issue, but I think the bottom line is always the way to tell whether something is acceptable in our Western culture. Does it hurt the bottom line? Clearly not, the MPAA and RIAA are making more money than ever, and if it's too early to claim that MP3 and DVD-copying are HELPING them, it certainly can't be argued that they are HURTING them.
I don't see a clear solution here, but the laws must change. There is a critical period in which Expression (as defined by the poster above) is most valuable to the creator. Regardless of the copying that's going on, any form of intellectual Expression ramps up in value very quickly, then peters out almost as quickly. Not all forms of expression have the same curve--for example, books may take years to peter out once they get on top, while feature films can blow themselves out in a weekend--but the curve can be examined. New laws should take into account the particular curve of the industry and make allowances for copying once most of the value to the creator has dissipated. Given the current state of affairs and the recent unveiling of the RIAA's profit numbers for 1999, it would be difficult to argue that such laws would result in ANY loss of value to the industries, but it would definitely help the consumer. As it stands now, they are simply antagonizing the consumer by telling her that her computer can't be used as a radio, that her software is actually still owned by Microsoft even though she has the CD in her hands, that she can't watch DVD's in Linux because it's not an industry-approved (read: sufficiently profitable) OS.
These industries should not forget that the consumer body has more dollars and more heads to fight with than the corporations themselves do, and they can fight by not paying. Or the industries can try to get along, stop antagonizing us, and receive our dollars with a clear conscience. And here's the real bottom line: We will disobey until they comply with our demands.
Hammer the "Free Software" angle, hard. Schools respect free - they have no money to educate the students, after all, so they'll be overjoyed to hear they don't have to pay MicroTax. (A course on computer building might help this situation too, free labor to put together cheap, good computers.) Work together with teachers to get it installed on a computer (preferably two, to get some networking going, unless you already have a TCP/IP network there). Teach them what you know.
Understand what the Free actually means though. You don't get any benefits from free if you buy packaged systems (even from VA - their hardware seems to cost just as much if not more than MicroTaxed boxen). Most likely, though, your school will maybe have an old box to try it out on. That's fine...Linux shines on old hardware.
TRUSTe seems to have as a mission making sure that companies adhere to their own public policies, whatever they are. That's fine and well, but what we need is a company that provides you with an information policy and forces you to adhere to it. A standard for information dissemination is what's needed to stem the epidemic of information sharing.
I'm 24. By the time I'm in my 70's-80's, sure there might be genetically enhanced people. I don't even really care though, because I anticipate that by that time we'll either be wiped out by Bill Joy's nanocaust prediction, or we'll all be superior beings thanks to the wonders of nano. We are on the verge of being able to produce, and then mass-produce, technology which can alter every cell in our body and make us younger, stronger, leaner, hell maybe even happier (nano-Xanax?). What chance does genetic enhancement have against directed nano-enhancement?
That's what really bugged me. It wasn't the pseudo-science (duh...slashdot readers know more better science than Hollywood producers, duh...). It was that fact that they gave away the ending in the trailer. No wait, all movies do that these days... THEY GAVE AWAY THE ENDING IN THE FREAKING TAGLINE.
We've been looking for the origin of life on Earth. We've been looking on the wrong planet.
GEE, YOU THINK THEY MIGHT FIND THE ORIGIN OF EARTH'S LIFE ON MARS??
Frankly I don't know why this article contains the words "spoilers inside". Spoilers implies a secret to be spoiled.
suggest he knows what can and can't be done with Linux on the desktop.
My phole point is... do you think I don't?? I don't need someone else to tell me whether Linux is ready for the desktop or not. I'm quite capable of using it and declaring it "ready" or "not ready" myself, as if that was in any way meaningful.
Phew, for a minute there I thought Linux wasn't going to be running on the desktop any time soon because some suit said it wasn't ready for the desktop. Now I know it is going to be on the desktop soon because the same suit said it was.
Thank god I have other people to think for me.
Hits alt-tab to switch back to his Applix office app.
Linux as a gaming platform suffers from several areas, most notably performance on some games (I haven't tried Q3A yet but UT is definitely slower), hardware support, and installers. You guys make the installers, but the Linux community pretty much handles everything else, so my question to you is:
What can we fix to make Linux a gaming platform? More specifically, what hardware drivers, APIs and libraries need to be improved to make Linux a better gaming platform than that other OS? As a coder, a gamer and a Linux afficionado I'm interested in this question, because once I know what needs to be fixed, I can roll up my sleeves and get to work. Unlike with that other OS.
Well, Microsoft surely depends on a lot of third-party resources as well. They may have the clout to exact blood and properly-worded contracts from their vendors (heck, my employer might too) but their development process could still be hurt.
On the other hand, you may be right. I never said it hurts ALL software companies:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck building a dual-1GHz PIII machine when you can't even buy ONE of the things. What's the hardware equivalent of "vaporware"?
When the day o DDoS hit a while back, there were articles on this sort of DDoS attack. Essentially, this is NOT a DDoS. It's many very small, ineffective DOS attacks. In order to shut down a web site running on anything bigger than, say, a dialup connection, everyone who received the email would have to open it at the same time.
I guess now we know why they settled. :-P
Haven't they heard? Open source helps your business, it doesn't hurt it. This is tantamount to releasing a press statement that says "Your attention please. We will now be shooting ourselves in the foot."
I've been using Wells Fargo bill pay for over 2 years (recommended to me by my mother, of all people). It's quick and easy, but the issues are: the funds have to be in your account earlier than usual, since the money gets deducted immediately on your payment date, even though the check won't arrive at the destination for up to a week. Also, I've had problems with companies screwing up because I didn't send in that little stub they send you to attach with your bill. (YMMV, since the bill pay services now available actually receive the paperwork for you, and may well send that stub with your payment.) Even that issue though is fast becoming only a memory; I haven't had a single creditor complain about receiving electronic payment or, as in the case of my former auto insurance carrier, continuously screw up the crediting of my payments. (Screw you Western United. Geico hasn't given me any such problems.) As far as security, make sure they strongly encrypt everything, and make sure they have a strong privacy statement.
I couldn't prove this easily, but I believe, from the evidence of the biological systems on earth, that it is a law of organic behavior that the more destructive a species is to its energy source, the harder a time it has reproducing. Make of that what you will.
I work in the C++ development arm of an ERP vendor, and quite a few of our top programmers in the 200-person department telecommute "full-time" (meaning they only come into the office for important meetings/general facetime maybe 3-4 times a year). There are at least 6 guys that are fulltime telecommuters. The rest of us telecommute about once a week on average. Don't expect to be given the chance to do it fulltime if you aren't a proven code guru. Experience matters here.
The Grey Goo problem is theoretically possible, but let's think about the real world. If we were foolish enough to unleash a killer nanovirus on earth, would it kill us all? Indeed, would any virus be capable of killing us all? I put to you that if it were possible, it would already have happened, but I'll give you a few reasons why it's so unlikely.
To set the stage (as it were), the Grey Goo problem (for those just joining us) goes something like this: we invent a nanoprobe capable of breaking down matter, producing something useful with it like energy or raw materials that we can later harvest, and using some of the energy to replicate itself. It starts out programmed to survive only in outer space, never approach the planet earth, never break down anything biological, etc. etc. However, because it replicates, and mutations are inevitable, it eventually loses those restrictions one by one and then hits the planet earth, converting us all into Grey Goo.
First let me say: IT COULD HAPPEN. But why hasn't it happened on earth? We are literally living in a airborne sea of bacteria, fungi, virii, etc. etc., all of which are self-replicating. Yet none of have wiped us all out. Now, to be sure, the human species evolved in that sea, so we only exist today because we were immune to that sea right from the start -- and we have not evolved immunity to the hypothetical Grey Goo. But if the grey goo scenario were possible, where are the bacteria that wiped out all other bacteria in their bioregion because of their superiority? Where are the spaceborne bacteria? Where are the viruses that kill every single member of a species?
Replicating lifeforms MUST NOT behave like grey goo, or they destroy themselves--or, more likely, they evolve so as not to destroy themselves. You can see examples of this in the evolution of the AIDS virus, which has many different strains. It behaves differently depending on the population where it lives; specifically, in populations that are careful about using condoms, it lays dormant for much longer and is less virulent, so as to increase its chances of infecting someone else. In populations (such as in Africa) where condoms are rare, it has no need for such niceties, and it kills relatively rapidly. A grey goo-type "organism" would have to follow the same rules. If it suddenly started destroying everything in sight, it wouldn't be able to replicate any more, and it would die.
Another reason: competition. With evolution you don't just get one strain of grey goo. You get lots of them. Some of them feed on the other species of grey goo. Some of them probably feed on humans, or earth-matter, and pose a threat to us. Some very few would destroy everything in sight, but at the cost of being able to replicate. Mass destruction is not a good survival strategy. (I liked the movie Pitch Black, but this is the reason such a scenario is impossible. What the hell would those things eat now??)
Another reason: the laws of physics. In order for a spaceborne grey goo to attack us it would have to be carried through the atmosphere. That could happen accidentally, but a grey goo that landed on earth would be restricted to moving in two dimensions. Disease vectors apply-if it works slowly, and it's being carried around in peoples' clothes (for example), it could spread out, but as it did so, it would continue to evolve, and suddenly you've got competing species with competing goals. Species that ate quickly wouldn't be able to spread as far; species that ate slowly could be innoculated against (everything has a weakness; if these things involve electronics, maybe a nano-EMP blast would work). Species that didn't eat wouldn't be a threat.
Grey goo is a potential danger, but no more so than army-engineered virii or even virii in the wild, for all the reasons I've given above, and for one more: Doomsday scenarios never take into account the human mind and its proven ability to solve problems. We're ill-adapted to nearly every environment on earth, yet we are the dominant species for only one reason: our minds, our ability to ensure our own survival.
Thank you. That is all.
Ah yes. Because you'll be quite safe in Zimbabwe, high-tech mecca that it is. Oops, is that a cracker-controlled ICBM coming in?
Evolution perfects you to survive in a particular niche. That's why humans behave the way we do - around the time of australopithecus it was more advantageous to see over the grass than to crawl around, so we started walking. It never became advantageous to crawl again. Then it became advantageous to use tools, so we learned how. Gradually, intelligence accreted, a particular kind of intelligence allowing us to survive in a world where other species of erect, somewhat intelligent simians (not to mention lions and tigers and bears, oh my) might try to kill us. We have a concept of "evil" only because the advantages of a structured society, which was a necessary and inevitable step in our evolution, are orthogonal to the advantages of killing your neighbor and taking his stuff. The nature of our intelligence, like the nature of our physical shape, has evolved to give us that concept.
That's why we fear machines - we fear that, like God, we will create them in our own images; only, unlike God, we won't be able to dictate their every move and thought. Indeed, this is why there are so many religious debates on these types of issues: because we don't feel we have the right to be gods. I feel that the truth is going to be quite different. Machines won't have to solve the same sorts of problems we will. They won't have kill tigers, they won't have to protect their families, they won't have to attempt to control more territory for their resources. Replicating, evolving machines, such as the type that Bill Joy thinks will devour us whole, will have to solve entirely different sets of problems for their survival, problems which--and this is very important--have little to no overlap over our own problems. They will need electrical power, and that's about it. If they evolve, it will be to find more and more efficient ways to collect sunlight. They won't have any interest in taking over the world because that is a mere reptilian biological imperative, planted into us by the ancient necessity of having territory in which to hunt safely.
They won't be aware of us really, unless we GIVE THEM the power of thought. Like aardvaarks or deer, they will only have to have as much thought as it takes to get the next meal. They don't have to be malevolent, or even sentient, to survive. And even if we do make them capable of reason (and it's almost inevitable that someone will), they will still use their reason to solve their own problems, not the problems that we think we have. Their own problems will mainly consist of the need to find a place to spread out a solar array so they can soak up all the juice they want, and maybe a little need for privacy. (Even that need is most likely a purely biological imperative though, most likely occasioned by the unsanitariness of living in close quarters with lots of humans.) Machines won't be evil, machines won't try to replace us, because they're not even in the same niche as us. It would be like orange trees competing with polar bears.
This is a pretty good article - it presents both sides, although it doesn't attempt to represent the damage to OUR community should DeCSS become illegal while it DOES talk about the potentially "devastating" effects on the MPAA. Oh, like the devastating effect on the RIAA of MP3. And the devastating effect on the MPAA when people figured out you could copy VHS tapes. And the devastating effect on Microsoft when pirates started distributing their OS. And the devastating effect on the tobacco industry when 15-year-olds steal smokes from vending machines and get addicted... and the devastating . . .
The magic minute will be: 10:37 AM PST. Have fun /.ers!
Think of it as Happy Meals for Nerds.
Logic dictates that there has to be a first time that a company releases something as open source. I had to make the same comment when Glide was opened up. The idea is that the momentum will build and eventually they'll release everything (in a perfect world). Don't blast them for not following the practices of Redhat, RMS et al.... blast them because their software is buggy, bloated and ill-conceived.
I don't think JK is claiming so much that these kids are ignorant of the law (and why just kids? plenty of adults do this too) as that they find it irrelevant. IP is a very sticky issue, but I think the bottom line is always the way to tell whether something is acceptable in our Western culture. Does it hurt the bottom line? Clearly not, the MPAA and RIAA are making more money than ever, and if it's too early to claim that MP3 and DVD-copying are HELPING them, it certainly can't be argued that they are HURTING them.
I don't see a clear solution here, but the laws must change. There is a critical period in which Expression (as defined by the poster above) is most valuable to the creator. Regardless of the copying that's going on, any form of intellectual Expression ramps up in value very quickly, then peters out almost as quickly. Not all forms of expression have the same curve--for example, books may take years to peter out once they get on top, while feature films can blow themselves out in a weekend--but the curve can be examined. New laws should take into account the particular curve of the industry and make allowances for copying once most of the value to the creator has dissipated. Given the current state of affairs and the recent unveiling of the RIAA's profit numbers for 1999, it would be difficult to argue that such laws would result in ANY loss of value to the industries, but it would definitely help the consumer. As it stands now, they are simply antagonizing the consumer by telling her that her computer can't be used as a radio, that her software is actually still owned by Microsoft even though she has the CD in her hands, that she can't watch DVD's in Linux because it's not an industry-approved (read: sufficiently profitable) OS.
These industries should not forget that the consumer body has more dollars and more heads to fight with than the corporations themselves do, and they can fight by not paying. Or the industries can try to get along, stop antagonizing us, and receive our dollars with a clear conscience. And here's the real bottom line: We will disobey until they comply with our demands.
Understand what the Free actually means though. You don't get any benefits from free if you buy packaged systems (even from VA - their hardware seems to cost just as much if not more than MicroTaxed boxen). Most likely, though, your school will maybe have an old box to try it out on. That's fine...Linux shines on old hardware.
TRUSTe seems to have as a mission making sure that companies adhere to their own public policies, whatever they are. That's fine and well, but what we need is a company that provides you with an information policy and forces you to adhere to it. A standard for information dissemination is what's needed to stem the epidemic of information sharing.
You have 48 hours to comply.
I'm 24. By the time I'm in my 70's-80's, sure there might be genetically enhanced people. I don't even really care though, because I anticipate that by that time we'll either be wiped out by Bill Joy's nanocaust prediction, or we'll all be superior beings thanks to the wonders of nano. We are on the verge of being able to produce, and then mass-produce, technology which can alter every cell in our body and make us younger, stronger, leaner, hell maybe even happier (nano-Xanax?). What chance does genetic enhancement have against directed nano-enhancement?
We've been looking for the origin of life on Earth. We've been looking on the wrong planet.
GEE, YOU THINK THEY MIGHT FIND THE ORIGIN OF EARTH'S LIFE ON MARS??
Frankly I don't know why this article contains the words "spoilers inside". Spoilers implies a secret to be spoiled.
My phole point is... do you think I don't?? I don't need someone else to tell me whether Linux is ready for the desktop or not. I'm quite capable of using it and declaring it "ready" or "not ready" myself, as if that was in any way meaningful.
Thank god I have other people to think for me.
Hits alt-tab to switch back to his Applix office app.
What can we fix to make Linux a gaming platform? More specifically, what hardware drivers, APIs and libraries need to be improved to make Linux a better gaming platform than that other OS? As a coder, a gamer and a Linux afficionado I'm interested in this question, because once I know what needs to be fixed, I can roll up my sleeves and get to work. Unlike with that other OS.
On the other hand, you may be right. I never said it hurts ALL software companies:-)