The best they can possibly say is "it works with all cards we tested it with." If they say, "it works with all Foobar" and I find a Foobar it doesn't work with, that's a lie. Now it's probably not a malicious lie, but that doesn't change the fact that they lied about which cards it worked with.
Most people don't "listen" to music. They use it as a soundtrack to their sad pathetic lives as they schlep their bodies to and from work, or put it on as background during dinner, or an ambient enhancement while reading or cruising the web, or as something to hide the sounds of bedsprings while they fuck their paramour du jour.
It's the SALES rate. So yes, when you BOUGHT a copy of Vista, (regardless of who sold it to you) it counts as a sale. I don't know why I'm even explaining this, because you already knew it-- you just wanted to brag that you wiped your Thinkpad to earn Slashdot cred points.
I bought a Hauppauge WinPVR 150 card after reading in several wikis/forums that the IVTV driver supported it just fine, and in fact Hauppauge was the *recommended* brand for setting up a MythTV box.
Needless-to-say, the IVTV driver didn't support it worth crap (I got a postage-sized image with no sound and no way to change drivers), and I couldn't use MythTV as my PVR, so I downloaded a Windows app which worked fine with the Hauppauge card and used that for a year. There's one concrete example of Linux losing marketshare because of lies about hardware support.
I've always had the inkling that sooner or later, Ethernet would replace almost every connector on a PC. It's faster than Firewire or USB2, it's able to work through hubs like USB (although it can't daisy-chain like Firewire), and it has a standardized connector and almost every computer made already has hardware support for at least one Ethernet "device."
What you'd need is some variant of DHCP to handle the addressing to the devices, and for integrated ethernet controllers supporting this variant of DHCP to get cheap enough to be worth putting in thumb drives and on iPods. As a bonus, peripherals connected this way would be usable over the network for "free." No more distinction of a network printer vs. a single user printer, they all use Ethernet.
Then when you install Redhat, start saying Redhat. Don't say "I'm installing Linux."
This is like complaining about the "hacker" vs "cracker" thing. Ubuntu is called Linux, and Redhat is called Linux, and Gentoo is called Linux in common usage... now someone comes along and says they want to make Linux better, how do you expect people to respond?
This thread is simply revealing to me how user-hostile the Linux community is. Between this and your long unjustified rant about how stupid people are to suggest writing userspace drivers, I've been more discouraged from ever using Linux than ever before.
The seperation between kernelspace and userland is NOT theoretical. This is slashdot and it would be like saying that the people who worked on your cars powertrain should fix the issues with the electrical subsystem. It then offcourse becomes obvious why this is idiotic, people who know engines don't need to know anything about electricity, yes both are "power" but at the same time totally different.
Wooosh! You missed the point utterly.
The grandparent didn't type "hey could someone please explain the difference between kernel and user driver and then berate me for being so ignorant of same? Thank you." That's not the question that was asked.
The point of the grandparent is that the user, the person you're trying to get to use Linux(1), doesn't give half a flying whit whether something is in the kernel or in the userspace. Not a tenth of a flying whit.
If these horde of bored but well-meaning kernel programmers want to make hardware support better, then they should work on *all* types of drivers, regardless of whether they belong in the kernel or not. No matter how many thosands of kernel programmers you have, if your HP Laserjet 2100(2) doesn't work, nobody's going to be happy.
Anticipated responses: (1) Yes, we all know that a lot of hard-core Linux users don't care whether people use Linux or not. If that's the case with you, just close your eyes and pretend you didn't read this post and don't bother replying because your point probably appears 3 dozen other times in this story alone.
(2) I have no clue if a Laserjet 2100 actually works in Linux or not. I just typed the first printer that came to mind. Don't bother posting a reply if it's about whether Laserjet 2100s work or not, please.
But with 32 bit Windows, you can typically use the same drivers from Win2K onwards at least until that crap called Vista. Whereas with Linux, there's a fair chance that a kernel update would break something.
Vista, 32-bit Vista at least, will run XP drivers. It just complains a lot when you try to install it. I'm currently using a Netgear WG111v2 wireless USB dongle on my 32-bit Vista computer with no problems. It would be nice if the in-built wireless card has a decent driver, so I didn't *have* to use the USB dongle, but that's neither here nor there.
"begging for change with their helmets?" It's called fund raising, you asshole. Fire fighters do that too, with their helmets... I suppose you make fun of them as well.
I told the one that walked up to my car door: "It's kinda funny, I never see nerds out on the street, begging for change..."
Yeah, god forbid you see a "nerd" collecting money for charities to help children who received severe burns in fires.
Holy crap, are you seriously that much of a jerk? Did you literally say that in front of him?
Oh shut up. You're making us all look bad, especially by being modded up.
Yeah, you had a bad experience in the AV club in high school, get over it. Go to your local park and find an ad-hoc football game, talk to the guys, then tell me they're all arrogant anti-intellectuals. Hell, some of the smartest people I know, in the most cutting-edge tech companies, have basketball and soccer teams organized.
To = "send the email to this person" CC = Carbon Copy = "send the email to this person as well" (with an old-fashioned memo, you'd actually make a carbon copy of it to do this) BCC = Blind Carbon Copy = "send the email to this person, but don't reveal their address to the To or CC list"
To and CC are functionally identical, they're just an artificial distinction between who directly receives the email and who indirectly receives it. For instance, "send a copy of that task to me, but CC my boss so he knows I won't be in the office friday." In that case, you wouldn't put both me and my boss in the To field, because my boss doesn't need to attend the friday meeting, he just needs to know about it.
The only possible way of explaining this off a technology error is if they happened to be using Outlook, and the BCC field was hidden by default and they couldn't figure out how to turn it on. But that's pretty pathetic, anybody sending email to a distribution list should know this, right?
Except, like this entire discussion is about, resolution independence doesn't work yet! Sure I'll be happy to turn it on when there's an operating system that can do it correctly, but right now the best you can do in Windows is changing the default font size, which most apps do not correctly handle, and which definitely isn't the same thing as resolution independence.
This would run against the Unix design phillosophy which counsels something along the lines of "small specialized tools, which do one thing well and can be connected together for more complex tasks".
The one thing I want to do well is connect to my home computer from work with encryption. If it's hard to set up, hard enough that I give up on it and use a competing solution, it's not being done "well", is it?
There's nothing wrong with the Unix philosophy except that it's machine-centric and not user-centric. The machine-centric "one thing" is "take a string, encrypt it, then return the encrypted string." The user-centric "one thing" is "I want to check my bittorrent download progress at home from work, with encryption so nobody can snoop what I'm doing." Big difference.
I disagree that VNC is hard to setup over SSH because I do it all the time
What does the second part of that sentence have to do with the first? A lot of things I do all the time are hard; doing them often doesn't make them less hard. (It does make you more practiced at it, perhaps, but the difficulty of the task doesn't change.)
I also disagree that VNC must include everything and a kitchen sink, Microsoft-style, to be useful.
Obviously it's useful now. Duh. But it's not AS useful as solutions it's competing against, that's my complaint.
Microsoft way is the way of complicated, out-of-control, unmanagable balls of spaghetti code made up from a miriad of unrelated pieces of code with vastly different design phillosophies which results in an illusion of security.
For example, no one really knows if the MS RDP server process is secure at all. We have no way of verifying it, but it is also obvious that adding each additional layer of code to it increases its complexity and risk of fatal errors.
Nice anti-Microsoft rant, what the hell does it have anything to do with what we're talking about? Microsoft's Remote Desktop might be "unrelated pieces of code with vast-- etc etc" but it sure works well, and that's all I care about.
And I hate to break this to you, but I don't have any way of verifying whether *any* encryption or complex program is secure or not. I simply don't have the brain for it, or the education for it, so from my point of view, the choice is between "trusting the smart people at Microsoft who have millions of dollars riding on being correct" or "trusting some PhD who has a lot of free time and likes Stallman."
Unless VNC is made to carefuly use an encryption system which is wholly separate from it and maintained by expert security professionals (via for example loadable SSL libraries) then they should NOT do it otherwise.
Could you explain to me how "VNC should have integrated encryption" and "VNC should use SSL libraries" are mutually-exclusive, please?
You can already buy a "high-DPI" screen. What else do you call those 15" laptops with 1680x1050 resolution? I don't know how good your vision is, but I can't read text (at default sizes) on those.
I think the huge shortcoming is that SSH isn't integrated into VNC in the first place, which would take care of the concern you point out. I've tried "tunneling" VNC over SSH, and it's hard as hell to set up. In the end I just gave up and used Microsoft's protocol which not only does the encryption by default, but also "locks" the remotely-used desktop for additional security.
IMO, VNC is badly in need of an update. It should have encryption integrated and turned-on by default, and it should do more (or anything at all) to prevent screen peepers to see what you're doing.
2) - Been done long before the xbox was a twinkle in shareholders eyes. Back to the Atari age.
Link?
4) - My Gamecube and Dreamcast both did 480p, big deal. Dreamcast did it before the xbox.
How about reading what I typed?
5) - Dreamcast came with standard modem, upgradable to network. Gamecube supported networking, and Atari supported more networking features in their Jaguar than any company since. Shortwave Radio, modem, and direct serial connections. Only thing I see noteworthy is the xbox building the network adaptor into it.
How about reading what I typed?
The only thing being done differently with this generation of consoles is Nintendo's Wiimote, and everyones' built in storage. Everything else has been done over and over again since the begining of consoles.
If the Wiimote (a different control scheme) is enough to be declared (in Will Wright's opinion at least) that it's in a new console generation, then so is a built-in harddrive.
If you're going to go by features, the first next-gen console was the original Xbox.
1) Large local storage built-in to the console 2) Online gameplay with matching service 3) Downloadable games 4) HD support (at resolutions higher than 480p; I know 480p is a HD resolution, but it's not what people mean when they say "HD.") 5) Built-in ethernet which can be used for the aforementioned online features, and also for setting up local LAN play
Notice how every single console that's come out since the Xbox has integrated all of these features. But no console before the Xbox had them.
The Microsoft philosophy is that you'd use Remote Desktop/Terminal Services to log in to do any administration task you need. I don't see it as inferior to SSH, just a different way of doing things. (And it's definitely a hell of a lot faster than the Unix equivalent SSH+VNC.)
Slashdot Mirror
How it is not a lie?
The best they can possibly say is "it works with all cards we tested it with." If they say, "it works with all Foobar" and I find a Foobar it doesn't work with, that's a lie. Now it's probably not a malicious lie, but that doesn't change the fact that they lied about which cards it worked with.
But will it cut my lawn?
Take a look at the picture:
http://www.robotworldnews.com/100194b.jpg
It's almost a twin of this lawn mower:
http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/226px-ReelMower.png
So yes, I believe it will in fact cut your lawn.
Most people don't "listen" to music. They use it as a soundtrack to their sad pathetic lives as they schlep their bodies to and from work, or put it on as background during dinner, or an ambient enhancement while reading or cruising the web, or as something to hide the sounds of bedsprings while they fuck their paramour du jour.
You must be really popular at parties.
It's the SALES rate. So yes, when you BOUGHT a copy of Vista, (regardless of who sold it to you) it counts as a sale. I don't know why I'm even explaining this, because you already knew it-- you just wanted to brag that you wiped your Thinkpad to earn Slashdot cred points.
I don't know a single person who has said, "Wow, Vista has really made my computer so much better."
"Wow, Vista has really made my computer so much better."
Even if nothing had changed from XP, but Vista had added in Previous Versions/Shadow Copy, then that's enough to make that statement about Vista.
I didn't even know about Dreamscene.
I have Ultimate because it's the only Windows version that has both Media Center (which is pretty damned good) and Previous Versions/Shadow Copy.
Amen.
I bought a Hauppauge WinPVR 150 card after reading in several wikis/forums that the IVTV driver supported it just fine, and in fact Hauppauge was the *recommended* brand for setting up a MythTV box.
Needless-to-say, the IVTV driver didn't support it worth crap (I got a postage-sized image with no sound and no way to change drivers), and I couldn't use MythTV as my PVR, so I downloaded a Windows app which worked fine with the Hauppauge card and used that for a year. There's one concrete example of Linux losing marketshare because of lies about hardware support.
I've always had the inkling that sooner or later, Ethernet would replace almost every connector on a PC. It's faster than Firewire or USB2, it's able to work through hubs like USB (although it can't daisy-chain like Firewire), and it has a standardized connector and almost every computer made already has hardware support for at least one Ethernet "device."
What you'd need is some variant of DHCP to handle the addressing to the devices, and for integrated ethernet controllers supporting this variant of DHCP to get cheap enough to be worth putting in thumb drives and on iPods. As a bonus, peripherals connected this way would be usable over the network for "free." No more distinction of a network printer vs. a single user printer, they all use Ethernet.
File this one under: "Perfect Demonstration of Parent's Point"
Then when you install Redhat, start saying Redhat. Don't say "I'm installing Linux."
This is like complaining about the "hacker" vs "cracker" thing. Ubuntu is called Linux, and Redhat is called Linux, and Gentoo is called Linux in common usage... now someone comes along and says they want to make Linux better, how do you expect people to respond?
This thread is simply revealing to me how user-hostile the Linux community is. Between this and your long unjustified rant about how stupid people are to suggest writing userspace drivers, I've been more discouraged from ever using Linux than ever before.
The seperation between kernelspace and userland is NOT theoretical. This is slashdot and it would be like saying that the people who worked on your cars powertrain should fix the issues with the electrical subsystem. It then offcourse becomes obvious why this is idiotic, people who know engines don't need to know anything about electricity, yes both are "power" but at the same time totally different.
Wooosh! You missed the point utterly.
The grandparent didn't type "hey could someone please explain the difference between kernel and user driver and then berate me for being so ignorant of same? Thank you." That's not the question that was asked.
The point of the grandparent is that the user, the person you're trying to get to use Linux(1), doesn't give half a flying whit whether something is in the kernel or in the userspace. Not a tenth of a flying whit.
If these horde of bored but well-meaning kernel programmers want to make hardware support better, then they should work on *all* types of drivers, regardless of whether they belong in the kernel or not. No matter how many thosands of kernel programmers you have, if your HP Laserjet 2100(2) doesn't work, nobody's going to be happy.
Anticipated responses:
(1) Yes, we all know that a lot of hard-core Linux users don't care whether people use Linux or not. If that's the case with you, just close your eyes and pretend you didn't read this post and don't bother replying because your point probably appears 3 dozen other times in this story alone.
(2) I have no clue if a Laserjet 2100 actually works in Linux or not. I just typed the first printer that came to mind. Don't bother posting a reply if it's about whether Laserjet 2100s work or not, please.
But with 32 bit Windows, you can typically use the same drivers from Win2K onwards at least until that crap called Vista. Whereas with Linux, there's a fair chance that a kernel update would break something.
Vista, 32-bit Vista at least, will run XP drivers. It just complains a lot when you try to install it. I'm currently using a Netgear WG111v2 wireless USB dongle on my 32-bit Vista computer with no problems. It would be nice if the in-built wireless card has a decent driver, so I didn't *have* to use the USB dongle, but that's neither here nor there.
"begging for change with their helmets?" It's called fund raising, you asshole. Fire fighters do that too, with their helmets... I suppose you make fun of them as well.
I told the one that walked up to my car door: "It's kinda funny, I never see nerds out on the street, begging for change..."
Yeah, god forbid you see a "nerd" collecting money for charities to help children who received severe burns in fires.
Holy crap, are you seriously that much of a jerk? Did you literally say that in front of him?
Oh shut up. You're making us all look bad, especially by being modded up.
Yeah, you had a bad experience in the AV club in high school, get over it. Go to your local park and find an ad-hoc football game, talk to the guys, then tell me they're all arrogant anti-intellectuals. Hell, some of the smartest people I know, in the most cutting-edge tech companies, have basketball and soccer teams organized.
Stereotypes are bad, mmmkay?
To = "send the email to this person"
CC = Carbon Copy = "send the email to this person as well" (with an old-fashioned memo, you'd actually make a carbon copy of it to do this)
BCC = Blind Carbon Copy = "send the email to this person, but don't reveal their address to the To or CC list"
To and CC are functionally identical, they're just an artificial distinction between who directly receives the email and who indirectly receives it. For instance, "send a copy of that task to me, but CC my boss so he knows I won't be in the office friday." In that case, you wouldn't put both me and my boss in the To field, because my boss doesn't need to attend the friday meeting, he just needs to know about it.
The only possible way of explaining this off a technology error is if they happened to be using Outlook, and the BCC field was hidden by default and they couldn't figure out how to turn it on. But that's pretty pathetic, anybody sending email to a distribution list should know this, right?
Except, like this entire discussion is about, resolution independence doesn't work yet! Sure I'll be happy to turn it on when there's an operating system that can do it correctly, but right now the best you can do in Windows is changing the default font size, which most apps do not correctly handle, and which definitely isn't the same thing as resolution independence.
Woot, I'm a funny troll!
This would run against the Unix design phillosophy which counsels something along the lines of "small specialized tools, which do one thing well and can be connected together for more complex tasks".
The one thing I want to do well is connect to my home computer from work with encryption. If it's hard to set up, hard enough that I give up on it and use a competing solution, it's not being done "well", is it?
There's nothing wrong with the Unix philosophy except that it's machine-centric and not user-centric. The machine-centric "one thing" is "take a string, encrypt it, then return the encrypted string." The user-centric "one thing" is "I want to check my bittorrent download progress at home from work, with encryption so nobody can snoop what I'm doing." Big difference.
I disagree that VNC is hard to setup over SSH because I do it all the time
What does the second part of that sentence have to do with the first? A lot of things I do all the time are hard; doing them often doesn't make them less hard. (It does make you more practiced at it, perhaps, but the difficulty of the task doesn't change.)
I also disagree that VNC must include everything and a kitchen sink, Microsoft-style, to be useful.
Obviously it's useful now. Duh. But it's not AS useful as solutions it's competing against, that's my complaint.
Microsoft way is the way of complicated, out-of-control, unmanagable balls of spaghetti code made up from a miriad of unrelated pieces of code with vastly different design phillosophies which results in an illusion of security.
For example, no one really knows if the MS RDP server process is secure at all. We have no way of verifying it, but it is also obvious that adding each additional layer of code to it increases its complexity and risk of fatal errors.
Nice anti-Microsoft rant, what the hell does it have anything to do with what we're talking about? Microsoft's Remote Desktop might be "unrelated pieces of code with vast-- etc etc" but it sure works well, and that's all I care about.
And I hate to break this to you, but I don't have any way of verifying whether *any* encryption or complex program is secure or not. I simply don't have the brain for it, or the education for it, so from my point of view, the choice is between "trusting the smart people at Microsoft who have millions of dollars riding on being correct" or "trusting some PhD who has a lot of free time and likes Stallman."
Unless VNC is made to carefuly use an encryption system which is wholly separate from it and maintained by expert security professionals (via for example loadable SSL libraries) then they should NOT do it otherwise.
Could you explain to me how "VNC should have integrated encryption" and "VNC should use SSL libraries" are mutually-exclusive, please?
You can already buy a "high-DPI" screen. What else do you call those 15" laptops with 1680x1050 resolution? I don't know how good your vision is, but I can't read text (at default sizes) on those.
I think the huge shortcoming is that SSH isn't integrated into VNC in the first place, which would take care of the concern you point out. I've tried "tunneling" VNC over SSH, and it's hard as hell to set up. In the end I just gave up and used Microsoft's protocol which not only does the encryption by default, but also "locks" the remotely-used desktop for additional security.
IMO, VNC is badly in need of an update. It should have encryption integrated and turned-on by default, and it should do more (or anything at all) to prevent screen peepers to see what you're doing.
2) - Been done long before the xbox was a twinkle in shareholders eyes. Back to the Atari age.
Link?
4) - My Gamecube and Dreamcast both did 480p, big deal. Dreamcast did it before the xbox.
How about reading what I typed?
5) - Dreamcast came with standard modem, upgradable to network. Gamecube supported networking, and Atari supported more networking features in their Jaguar than any company since. Shortwave Radio, modem, and direct serial connections. Only thing I see noteworthy is the xbox building the network adaptor into it.
How about reading what I typed?
The only thing being done differently with this generation of consoles is Nintendo's Wiimote, and everyones' built in storage. Everything else has been done over and over again since the begining of consoles.
If the Wiimote (a different control scheme) is enough to be declared (in Will Wright's opinion at least) that it's in a new console generation, then so is a built-in harddrive.
She wouldn't touch the other consoles with a ten foot pole, but she loves the Wii games.
It's easier to use the 360 if you switch to a smaller pole... try 6" or maybe a foot at most.
If you're going to go by features, the first next-gen console was the original Xbox.
1) Large local storage built-in to the console
2) Online gameplay with matching service
3) Downloadable games
4) HD support (at resolutions higher than 480p; I know 480p is a HD resolution, but it's not what people mean when they say "HD.")
5) Built-in ethernet which can be used for the aforementioned online features, and also for setting up local LAN play
Notice how every single console that's come out since the Xbox has integrated all of these features. But no console before the Xbox had them.
The Microsoft philosophy is that you'd use Remote Desktop/Terminal Services to log in to do any administration task you need. I don't see it as inferior to SSH, just a different way of doing things. (And it's definitely a hell of a lot faster than the Unix equivalent SSH+VNC.)
b) does not even play the games it rates to conclusion,
Thompson might be a crackpot, but this is really a valid criticism of the ESRB, if it's true. Can anybody speak to this point?