Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Martinus on April 26, 2006, 10:29:38 am
-
A friend just sent me this link, I'm more than a little bothered to say the least: Article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/04/microsoft_expands_antipiracy_p.html)
While the pilot is presently opt-in, as it expands later in the year, AU and WU customers may be required to participate. Users who have not validated their machines as genuine through WGA will not be able to download IE 7 and Windows Defender among other downloads and updates. However, they will not be denied critical security updates
-----
Will the Windows customer who uses auto-updates have the opportunity to decline this update and still install other updates?:
"The pilot is opt-in, so all participants are given a choice about whether or not they wish to participate. The opt-in is via a License Terms dialog, and users can chose to accept or decline. Only users who accept will receive the software. Once installed, participants will have the option to suppress notifications for some length of time. Users will not have the option of uninstalling WGA Notifications. Customers [already] running genuine Windows Advantage will be unaffected by WGA notifications. Users running non-genuine Windows will see the notifications at boot time, login time, and periodically to via a system tray bubble notification. Messages are displayed until the system is running genuine Windows. Users can choose to suppress the notifier. The notifier will remind such users that they are not running genuine Windows and direct them to the WGA failure page, where they can learn more about the benefits of genuine software and take advantage of the Microsoft genuine Windows offers designed to help victims of counterfeit software. All users are able to receive High Priority Security & reliability updates regardless of their validation status."
It's almost time to give up all rights to your computer or choose another OS that you can trust to not 'collect data' from your computer. Linux/BSD anyone?
-
I don't see the problem.
Just don't update. You don't need to anyway. Get yourself an SP2 copy and let it be. That's what I'm doing. Works awesome.
-
I have absolutely no intention of ever buying any MS product (possibly excepting exceptional games), that's for sure.
-
What's the big deal? They have all the right to check if you are running a legit copy of Windows or not. If you're running illegal copy, then too bad for you. It's not like you're going to get any pity points for not wanting or being able to afford a legit copy.
-
What's the big deal? They have all the right to check if you are running a legit copy of Windows or not. If you're running illegal copy, then too bad for you. It's not like you're going to get any pity points for not wanting or being able to afford a legit copy.
Rather simple; it's an application that cannot be removed, and which prevents you from downloading updates unless you afford it the privilege of scanning your hard drive for whatever information it requires.
-
So? Are you still disillusioned by the fact that you are actually enjoying your so called freedom in a free country? Heck, authorities have all the bloody control of our lives with or without MS and Windows.
-
i was hearing about this from a friend, aparrently said scan was saying that her legit copy of windows, wasn't. either way, just switch off auto updates, and leave it be with whatever service pack is issued, simply put. it'll *****, whine, and nag you, but will do basically jack.
-
So? Are you still disillusioned by the fact that you are actually enjoying your so called freedom in a free country? Heck, authorities have all the bloody control of our lives with or without MS and Windows.
Sorry, but eh? I simply don't like the concept of arbitrarily opening up my private files to anyone, be it individuals or companies. You wouldn't accept that level of of intrusion for any other form of personal information and/or possesions, why for information? If the RIAA knocked at the door and asked to rifle through your CDs to check none were CD-Rs, you'd tell them to **** off, and rightly so. This is no different in my mind.
-
So why give up more control?
I happen to run a genuine copy of XP at the moment (dispite my heartfelt thought that MS owe me an OS because my computer came bundled with ME :p ). I certainly don't want MS feeling that they can scan my PC any time they want. Especially considering the fact that if I did install one of the pirated versions of Windows which I can very easily get hold off I could crack it and avoid having it do anything of the sort.
I don't see the problem.
Just don't update. You don't need to anyway. Get yourself an SP2 copy and let it be. That's what I'm doing. Works awesome.
If you think that waiting a year between service packs so that you can obtain patches to critical system vulnerabilities is a good idea I really don't know what I can say to you :p
-
It's not the pirates that need to worry, it's the people who actually paid for windows. Pirates are simply going to use a legit copy of windows to grab the updates, streamline them into a ripped copy and make numerous copies of that. WGA will most likely never see their machines.
People who actually paid for windows on the other hand have a piece of software snooping around on their hard-drives looking for anything that Microsoft deems illegal or that aids them.
-
Exactly. This announcement actually makes it more likely that I'll simply pirate XP Pro and install that when I do the reinstall I've been promising myself for the last month or so.
-
It's not the pirates that need to worry, it's the people who actually paid for windows. Pirates are simply going to use a legit copy of windows to grab the updates, streamline them into a ripped copy and make numerous copies of that. WGA will most likely never see their machines.
People who actually paid for windows on the other hand have a piece of software snooping around on their hard-drives looking for anything that Microsoft deems illegal or that aids them.
Well, find me a way to get sketbook pro 2, and artrage2 to run under linux on a tablet PC (which means it has to have tablet support) and I may just do it. :}
-
Why is this such a big deal? There are usually cracks available to get around these things. I think something like WindizUpdate may also work.
I'm running a genuine copy of XP (came with a laptop) that I've cracked anyway, as I didn't want it complaining whenever I changed hardware.
-
Where does it say that the program is snooping around your HDD :rolleyes:
-
Where does it say that the program is snooping around your HDD :rolleyes:
What do you think it would do to verify the legitimacy of the program? Go eeny-meeny-miny-mo?
-
Where does it say that the program is snooping around your HDD :rolleyes:
What do you think it would do to verify the legitimacy of the program?
Check specific files that M$ has every right to check the validity of that would have to be specified in the EULA. Do you grasp the difference between that and somthing just snooping around your HDD????????
To snoop is to pry into the private affairs of others. It is made very clear that it doesnt pry into any of your private data.
-
Check specific files that M$ has every right to check the validity of that would have to be specified in the EULA. Do you grasp the difference between that and somthing just snooping around your HDD????????
To snoop is to pry into the private affairs of others. It is made very clear that it doesnt pry into any of your private data.
It is also very clear that it has the potential to do so, most likely with full system access priveleges. Even if Microsoft themselve aren't inclined to abuse that, it is quite possible a third party will seek to - either someone exploiting the traditional Microsoft security holes, or perhaps the likes of the RIAA and MPAA suing MS to force them to provide a DRM functionality.
-
Check specific files that M$ has every right to check the validity of that would have to be specified in the EULA. Do you grasp the difference between that and somthing just snooping around your HDD????????
To snoop is to pry into the private affairs of others. It is made very clear that it doesnt pry into any of your private data.
It is also very clear that it has the potential to do so, most likely with full system access priveleges. Even if Microsoft themselve aren't inclined to abuse that, it is quite possible a third party will seek to - either someone exploiting the traditional Microsoft security holes, or perhaps the likes of the RIAA and MPAA suing MS to force them to provide a DRM functionality.
And I have the potential to gain control of your computer and snoop around your HDD right now just by you being connected to the internet, but that doesnt mean I am doing it................
-
Check specific files that M$ has every right to check the validity of that would have to be specified in the EULA. Do you grasp the difference between that and somthing just snooping around your HDD????????
To snoop is to pry into the private affairs of others. It is made very clear that it doesnt pry into any of your private data.
It is also very clear that it has the potential to do so, most likely with full system access priveleges. Even if Microsoft themselve aren't inclined to abuse that, it is quite possible a third party will seek to - either someone exploiting the traditional Microsoft security holes, or perhaps the likes of the RIAA and MPAA suing MS to force them to provide a DRM functionality.
And I have the potential to gain control of your computer and snoop around your HDD right now just by you being connected to the internet, but that doesnt mean I am doing it................
Here, Let me help you win this argument.
By not agreeing to this, aldo is acting like a nazi. Nazi nazi hitler.
-
:confused:
-
Who gives a ****?
It's just being done for marketting purposes, so they can tell people that by combatting piracy and making sure the poor, defenceless MS coding teams get paid, they're driving down the cost to You! Their valued customer!
And the chances are, if you're using something that MS deems harmful, you'll be the kind of person who patches all that snopping bull**** into a tiny little box in a dark, cold, rat-infested corner of your hard-drive surrounded by electrified barbed wire, as soon as you finish the install anyways.
So, all it's really doing is helping hackers to backdoor noobs and tards. Which I'm all for.
-
And I have the potential to gain control of your computer and snoop around your HDD right now just by you being connected to the internet, but that doesnt mean I am doing it................
Tosh.
Me being connected to the internet does not entail me expressly allowing you or anyone else low level access to my hard disk; all transactions are made with my consent and limited to a set of application functions of which I have full control (in terms of their operation and access). Any other transactions beyond that explicit (through manual action) consent are illegal. What I am not doing is giving you root level 0 access because I need to do so in order to update faults in my OS software.
Crucially, even though internet connected apps I have may access the disk for various purposes, I do not have to allow them to do so in order to update fixes.
-
Well this is the way things are going - I'm sure most MS products will use something like this as time goes on, and then we'll hit the stage where we need to be connected on-line so that MS apps can periodically poll the Master server to verify themselves.
If it can't it'll shut itself down.
It'll also shut down if you don't pay your monthly Windows/Office/Bob subscription.
Valve (May some arbitrary being eat their souls) have already proven that people will happily sell their mothers and run intrusive crap like that if they get to play with the shinies.
I'm glad I bought Darwinia before it REQUIRED Steam...
I don't care anymore - I'll just use Win98 and Win2000 until hardware support is totally gone. By then, hopefully, ReactOS and WINE will be able to fill what gaps I have.
Hell, NWN and FS2 both run on Linux and that'll do ;)
-
That's just a fancy way of saying "Zone alarm will protect me!"a Don't tell me that you have every application, the Generic Host Process which just about every program uses to create a socket set for "Ask every time" or something, Unless you LIKE clicking on an authorization box 3-4 times while just trying to load up a webpage! That's just not possible, because you'd be browsing way too slow, and quite honestly is silly to do. There's no way you can sit there, post like you do, and STILL manage each and every single connection that is established through your firewall. Besides, if you actually DO have a firewall that monitors all outbound and inbound connections, you'd be able to see the process from the WGA trying to create the socket, even if it's through Generic Host Process. IF you know what port is used, and what thread was utilising GHP to create the socket, you could know if WGA is trying to report back to mothership or not. So then, you could BLOCK IT and NOT WORRY about it getting back.
Saying that M$ snoops around like the FBI is preposterous. What good would it do M$ to monitor millions and millions of computer systems JUST to see what's on thier hard drives? The only good it would do is to see if they're using legitimate software that they've created, and deserve to be paid for. If you don't think M$ deserves to be paid, you have the CHOICE to move over to Linux. Don't be a dick and keep using pirated M$ software just because you think you are enitled to a freebee just cause you dont like the company. Besides, this is a great way to keep BUSINESSES in line with licensing agreements. You wouldn't believe how spoiled some businesses were with Windows 98 and all, where you could get away with using one key for thousands of machines, and nobody would be the wiser, untill someone came in to audit you and actually look though the registry to find the same key on all machines. THEN you'd be in trouble. This way, it's easier to sort out the bad businesses from the good, and to make everyone play fair when it comes to business.
As for personal users, AutoPatcher is your friend. Hands-down, the best collection of every single MS-released security patch, along with other extra goodies like TweakUI. I'm sure that people can use Autopatcher, and still not have to opt-in for WGA. Since it looks like NOBODY read the last line of the quote, "Regardless of thier WGA Status, people can still obtain high priority updates for thier computers." Anyone can download these packages manually and install them manually direct from Microsoft's website. They're just monitoring the Auto-Update feature with WGA. If you use Autopatcher instead, which is a hefty download, you actually have a decent choice over what you want installed and not installed.
Oh, and to those who are still just running base SP2 with no security updates, you really are behind the times. Just having SP2 will not keep the OS impervious to intrusions and other internal flaws that have been discovered. Jpeg vulnerability, anyone??
-
If you don't think M$ deserves to be paid, you have the CHOICE to move over to Linux. Don't be a dick and keep using pirated M$ software just because you think you are enitled to a freebee just cause you dont like the company.
See therein lies the problem, you don't get a choice.
If you want to play the newest games and run certain pieces of hardware you simply can't use anything other than windows. The other OS's aren't supported either by lack of drivers and partially as a result a lack of ports to the OS.
-
Service Pack 2 slows down games!!! Uninstall it and all the security updates and get a good virus scanner like AVG.
-
I find it ironic that you say SP2 slows down games and then go around advocating virus scanning software.
-
So you're saying hardware manufacturers are going to require the WGA to communicate when a driver is installed? THQ, Sierra, all of those companies are going to require to be "activated" through WGA before the game will be installed? Sounds like a farfetched scheme to me. It's easier for the publishers of games to provide thier OWN method of activation, such as Steam, or how Alcohol-software has it's own validation routine that doesn't go anywhere BUT back to the source, alcohol-soft. If you want to run windows, just pay for the damn thing, and be happy that you'll be able to use that software for at least four years. I purchased one copy of XP back in 2002, and I'm still using the same exact copy. Buy the OEM version, it's half of retail. Paying $150 for a copy of windows that is one hundred percent legitimate and has guaranteed support for future upgrades and patches is not a big deal! If you have multiple machines, buy a license pack, which will save quite a bit actually. If you're currently enrolled in a high school or university that participates in the Microsoft Developer Academic Alliance (MSDNAA) see about getting your own copy of Windows XP AND x64 for dirt CHEAP.
WGA and WPA do NOT snoop your hard drive and report back to MS whenever it wants to, and saying it has the potential to do so, well Steam has the potential to do that too. Hell, Windows ITSELF has the potential to report the contents of drives back to other sources. But do you see it happening? Any reports of Steam saying "Hey, RIAA, this guy has fourty thousand MP3's that do not have a DRM signature on them! Go Get Em!" I thought not...
If you're still paranoid about WGA and WPA, Install your updates manually!
Service Pack 2 slows down games!!! Uninstall it and all the security updates and get a good virus scanner like AVG.
LOL at AVG. AVG=****e. Grab eTrust for free. Don't believe me? Go to thier website, and insert /microsoft into the URL. And no, you dont have to be WGA'd to get the free year of AV protection.
Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games. There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year. Absolutely zero difference.
-
@ KappaWing: You sir, are what we call a moron. :wtf:
-
If you don't think M$ deserves to be paid, you have the CHOICE to move over to Linux. Don't be a dick and keep using pirated M$ software just because you think you are enitled to a freebee just cause you dont like the company.
See therein lies the problem, you don't get a choice.
If you want to play the newest games and run certain pieces of hardware you simply can't use anything other than windows. The other OS's aren't supported either by lack of drivers and partially as a result a lack of ports to the OS.
Boo hoo, I dont have a choice if I want to play a directx game made for Windows. :rolleyes: News flash, if you wanted to play an xbox 360 game you would have to buy an xbox 360, wouldnt you? Same concept.................
I like how you are saying you don't have a choice, when it all started by choice. If you want to play the newest game, you made the chioce to play the game that requires windows. M$ didnt force you to want to play that game, you made the chioce to on your own. If you want to run that certain piece of hardware that requires windows, you made the choice to run that hardware in the first place.
Tosh.
Me being connected to the internet does not entail me expressly allowing you or anyone else low level access to my hard disk; all transactions are made with my consent and limited to a set of application functions of which I have full control (in terms of their operation and access). Any other transactions beyond that explicit (through manual action) consent are illegal. What I am not doing is giving you root level 0 access because I need to do so in order to update faults in my OS software.
Crucially, even though internet connected apps I have may access the disk for various purposes, I do not have to allow them to do so in order to update fixes.
Someone likes to argue :rolleyes:
-
[q]Boo hoo, I dont have a choice if I want to play a directx game made for Windows. News flash, if you wanted to play an xbox 360 game you would have to buy an xbox 360, wouldnt you? Same concept.................[/q]
No, it isn't.
A Pc is a piece of generic hardware, though. It's not a Microsoft PC, it's not hardware you buy from MS. It's hardware you run Ms upon, and you are left with little choice due to MS monopolization of the market restricting the availability of key programs - not just games - on alternatives. Part of this can be put down to simple anti-trust style tactics by MS rather than there being any sort of technological superiority. If you don't want a 360 but want to play games, you can still buy a PS3 or Revolution. There's a market, competition for that application sector.
If you don't want Windows but want to play Pc games, you're mostly screwed. Ditto if you want to use Max, or if you want to edit documents (because MS Office doesn't support the OpenDocument standard, preventing interoperation with the likes of StarOffice which do). Not to mention when hardware is only supported by Windows because the manufacturer only provides drivers for that OS, or in the future when Ms looks (and is trying to) to embed parts of the windows kernel in the BIOS.
Monopolisation and anti-competitive strategies lock us into using Windows, not because it's good or because we want to, but because it is dominant.
-
[q]Boo hoo, I dont have a choice if I want to play a directx game made for Windows. News flash, if you wanted to play an xbox 360 game you would have to buy an xbox 360, wouldnt you? Same concept.................[/q]
No, it isn't.
A Pc is a piece of generic hardware, though. It's not a Microsoft PC, it's not hardware you buy from MS. It's hardware you run Ms upon, and you are left with little choice due to MS monopolization of the market restricting the availability of key programs - not just games - on alternatives. Part of this can be put down to simple anti-trust style tactics by MS rather than there being any sort of technological superiority. If you don't want a 360 but want to play games, you can still buy a PS3 or Revolution. There's a market, competition for that application sector.
If you don't want Windows but want to play Pc games, you're mostly screwed. Ditto if you want to use Max, or if you want to edit documents (because MS Office doesn't support the OpenDocument standard, preventing interoperation with the likes of StarOffice which do). Not to mention when hardware is only supported by Windows because the manufacturer only provides drivers for that OS, or in the future when Ms looks (and is trying to) to embed parts of the windows kernel in the BIOS.
Monopolisation and anti-competitive strategies lock us into using Windows, not because it's good or because we want to, but because it is dominant.
I will repeat myself for the people with selective reading.
If you want to play a xbox 360 game, you must buy and use an xbox 360 system.
If you want to play a windows game, you must buy and use Windows.
If you want to play a PSP game, you must buy a PSP.
If you want to play a NDS game, you must buy a NDS.
Every single one of those is the same exact concept, but I will take it one further.
Take your comment
If you don't want a 360 but want to play games, you can still buy a PS3 or Revolution.
Likewise, if you don't want to run wondows but you want to play games, you can still buy a PS3, PS2, PSP, NDS, Gamecube, xbox, xbox 360, etc. Again, you made the choice
to want that game made for windows. If windows is the only OS the game runs on then its the same concept as exclusive games on consoles. You would have to own that specific console, wouldnt you?
As for you ranting on about PC applications and not just games. Pretend you are a developer. You want to make money off the program you plan to code. If you want to make the most money possible; are you going to code it for the OS with a large market share or are you going to code it for the OS with a small market share?
-
Comparing an Xbox 360 and a PC is silly. Consoles all have wildly different hardware. PCs all have similar, compatible hardware.
It's a lot easier to develop cross-platform games for PCs. There are software libraries like SDL and OpenGL which facilitate it.
-
I will repeat myself for the people with selective reading.
If you want to play a xbox 360 game, you must buy and use an xbox 360 system.
If you want to play a windows game, you must buy and use Windows.
If you want to play a PSP game, you must buy a PSP.
If you want to play a NDS game, you must buy a NDS.
Every single one of those is the same exact concept, but I will take it one further.
Take your comment
If you don't want a 360 but want to play games, you can still buy a PS3 or Revolution.
Likewise, if you don't want to run wondows but you want to play games, you can still buy a PS3, PS2, PSP, NDS, Gamecube, xbox, xbox 360, etc. Again, you made the choice
to want that game made for windows. If windows is the only OS the game runs on then its the same concept as exclusive games on consoles. You would have to own that specific console, wouldnt you?
As for you ranting on about PC applications and not just games. Pretend you are a developer. You want to make money off the program you plan to code. If you want to make the most money possible; are you going to code it for the OS with a large market share or are you going to code it for the OS with a small market share?
You missed the point. If I want to play a game on my Pc, I have virtually no choice beyond windows.
I never said once it was bad, or wrong, that developers make applications for Windows only because it's financially viable. If you read my post, you'd see it was bemoaning the monopoly Microsoft have gained for their Os, a monopoly based more on marketing and anti-competitive practices than any sort of technological supremacy.
For all your schmancy bold text, you completely missed the point I tried very hard to state; it's not about individual, specific or exclusive titles but the application sector, the choice, the competition that drives innovation & investment into actual quality. If one platform is inferior but with massive market share, and that recieves 99% instances of an application type, I'm forced into that inferior platform to use an application of that type.
Now can you try to conceive what I'm calling for here? It's called consumer choice. Alternatives. Market pressures hurting shoddy practices and shoddy products.
-
just wanted to say i don't think there's anything wrong with the windows validation tool.
-
I think this whole argument is rethorical, mostly.
Priority 1 for M$ is to make as many $ as possible. As long as the methods to achieve that are lawful and (considered) feasible, they will be used.
No big surprise, it was just a question of time.
Though, in my opinion they are shooting themeselves in the foot with this one (with heavy artillery).
-
One of the biggest issues with this is that it does open up a gaping security hole. One decently written virus, and blammo.
-
You missed the point. If I want to play a game on my Pc, I have virtually no choice beyond windows.
I never said once it was bad, or wrong, that developers make applications for Windows only because it's financially viable. If you read my post, you'd see it was bemoaning the monopoly Microsoft have gained for their Os, a monopoly based more on marketing and anti-competitive practices than any sort of technological supremacy.
For all your schmancy bold text, you completely missed the point I tried very hard to state; it's not about individual, specific or exclusive titles but the application sector, the choice, the competition that drives innovation & investment into actual quality. If one platform is inferior but with massive market share, and that recieves 99% instances of an application type, I'm forced into that inferior platform to use an application of that type.
Now can you try to conceive what I'm calling for here? It's called consumer choice. Alternatives. Market pressures hurting shoddy practices and shoddy products.
Given his tone he sounds like he doesn't really consider your point of value. It probably isn't worth trying to point out.
Anyhow, to reinforce your point; everyone knows about Microsoft's ongoing battles with international lawmakers the world over for anti-competitive behaviour. FSSCP proves that you can take an existing game and quite effectively port it to another OS if there are no intentional obsticales placed in your way. DirectX is an intentional obstacle created by Microsoft in order to corner the market and make it exceptionally hard for other OS'es to compete, Microsoft could have quite easily joined the open library groups of OpenGL and OpenAL but intentionally decided to create their own, propietary media rendering libraries. Games written using open libraries (Unreal Tournament for instance) are already OS-free and make more money because of this fact.
-
To be honest, this latest WGA 'update' by MS doesn't bother me in the least. I rarely use Windows these days, and my main rig has an XP Pro Corporate install on the secondary disk which is pretty much immune to WGA anyway. I paid for the Home Upgrade version (£90), which sucked. This doesn't entitle me to a free upgrade to something usable, but like hell do I care. MS aren't going to prosecute individual users anyway; the minute rewards wouldn't cover the admin costs or justify the loss of face.
They're smarter than the RIAA in that respect.
-
Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games. There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year. Absolutely zero difference.
Except that Swat 4 for example, after copying all that data to my hard drive, fails to "register the product" in SP2 and proceeds to delete the hundreds of megabytes it just copied. The readme tells me to uninstall SP2.
IMO SP2 is not worth downloading at all. You get the updates without it too, all you miss is the firewall (get zonealarm instead) and the security updates for ie (use firefox), although I'm sure you can download those separately as well.
-
You missed the point. If I want to play a game on my Pc, I have virtually no choice beyond windows.
I never said once it was bad, or wrong, that developers make applications for Windows only because it's financially viable. If you read my post, you'd see it was bemoaning the monopoly Microsoft have gained for their Os, a monopoly based more on marketing and anti-competitive practices than any sort of technological supremacy.
For all your schmancy bold text, you completely missed the point I tried very hard to state; it's not about individual, specific or exclusive titles but the application sector, the choice, the competition that drives innovation & investment into actual quality. If one platform is inferior but with massive market share, and that recieves 99% instances of an application type, I'm forced into that inferior platform to use an application of that type.
Now can you try to conceive what I'm calling for here? It's called consumer choice. Alternatives. Market pressures hurting shoddy practices and shoddy products.
Given his tone he sounds like he doesn't really consider your point of value. It probably isn't worth trying to point out.
Anyhow, to reinforce your point; everyone knows about Microsoft's ongoing battles with international lawmakers the world over for anti-competitive behaviour. FSSCP proves that you can take an existing game and quite effectively port it to another OS if there are no intentional obsticales placed in your way. DirectX is an intentional obstacle created by Microsoft in order to corner the market and make it exceptionally hard for other OS'es to compete, Microsoft could have quite easily joined the open library groups of OpenGL and OpenAL but intentionally decided to create their own, propietary media rendering libraries. Games written using open libraries (Unreal Tournament for instance) are already OS-free and make more money because of this fact.
Come on now, there are a whole load of problems that the apparent panacea of "use open libraries!!!!1one11one" does not solve. First off, you have to provide customer support for one or more additional operating systems, providing training, etc. Two, you're developing two (similar) codebases. Three, any optimizations you might make by using DirectX might not be easily replicated by using OpenGL. Four, open libraries may not provide the same efficiency or feature sets as their proprietary counterparts. Five, there's no equivalent copy protection for some operating systems. Six, you instantly square your support problems by having varying software configurations as well as hardware ones to deal with. Look at Oblivion for example - even if you have mainstream hardware (Creative sound card, nVidia GPU) there's no guarantee it will run out of the box very well, if at all.
Even assuming all these things don't pose a problem, consider the cost of all the extra development time that goes into an average game to make it cross-OS-compatible versus the return for it. Are there that many people who don't have a Windows box available that they can use if they really want to play the game?
-
I totally get what you're saying, what I'm trying to argue is not that there's enough numbers of linux gamers to make it worthwhile, it's that Microsoft has so cornered the market that there never was much chance of being enough Mac OS/BSD/nix gamers to make those platforms viable on their own.
I'd have to say that the UT engine proves that not only are open libraries capable of competing against Microsoft's directX, they're chosen in preference a lot of the time. OpenGL seems to be a staple of FPS'es which are amoungst the most graphically demanding games available.
-
My dad called me from work yesterday
"Listen, Microsoft is about to release a patch that's going to make things very annoying. Turn Automatic Update off on all the computers"
I thought it was hilarious. All the computers in our house already have it turned off by default, but I guess their evil plans spread too fast for their own good, like the pungent smell of crap on a hot day.
-
It's always so funny the way the $ sign comes up so many times in any MS conversation.
-
Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games. There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year. Absolutely zero difference.
Except that Swat 4 for example, after copying all that data to my hard drive, fails to "register the product" in SP2 and proceeds to delete the hundreds of megabytes it just copied. The readme tells me to uninstall SP2.
IMO SP2 is not worth downloading at all. You get the updates without it too, all you miss is the firewall (get zonealarm instead) and the security updates for ie (use firefox), although I'm sure you can download those separately as well.
Really, to fix that, all I think you have to do is update the Microsoft Installer package. I've heard of install routines not installing and blaming it on SP2, but it's bogus. A lot of Installer-related problems can be fixed by updating the MSI package from Microsoft.
SP2 is worth it if you want your TCP stack hardened. Many people who need to use network scanning tools and other tools used in penetration testing will find that the stack in SP2 is bothersome. If you just play games though, SP2 has no effect whatsoever when applied correctly. The best way to apply SP2 is to either use an install disc with SP2 on it, or slipstream the pack with your Gold CD. If you've applied patch after patch, and installed pieces of software, then applied SP2, all you're doing is kicking yourself in the ass. Now, if you're using ethereal or some other scanner to test for holes in your network, SP2 is a little more difficult to work with, but it still WORKS if you have patience and know what you're doing. SP2 also helps protect your core system files from intrusion and/or modification. There's a patch that can be applied (but never really works) to get around the 10-connection limit for WindowsXP SP2, which modifies some of the TCP stack files. Upon modification, Windows will report back that the file had been modified, and will replace it with a known-good copy of the file. This is an added layer of protection that SP2 provides the average, non-tech savvy user. That, and people who haven't been educated in how the networking subsytem actually WORKS in XP. Having a firewall is not the best solution here. Having a firewall is just one more layer of protection, but having all of the underlying updates and protection installed is that much safer. All it takes is one program or one remote user, sneaking in through a service that just uses Generic Host Process to access a system and wreak all sorts of havoc.
I'm just speaking from a network technician's standpoint, I'd rather use the fixes from my software vendors than just plug the holes up with a firewall.
-
Two, you're developing two (similar) codebases. Three, any optimizations you might make by using DirectX might not be easily replicated by using OpenGL.
The whole point of OpenGL or SDL is that it's cross platform. That means you only need one codebase. See Id Software for example.
Four, open libraries may not provide the same efficiency or feature sets as their proprietary counterparts.
This isn't really true of OpenGL. See Id Software, they're doing fine.
Five, there's no equivalent copy protection for some operating systems.
Eh? Since when is copy protection built into an OS?
Even assuming all these things don't pose a problem, consider the cost of all the extra development time that goes into an average game to make it cross-OS-compatible versus the return for it.
You're completely missing the point of a cross-platform library.
-
On the SP2 issue, you need it in order for the MS dual core hotfix to install. That's the only reason I will be switching to it in a few days.
-
you know what id like to see microsoft do? id like to see them start using a hardware license key. it would be in the form of an internal usb dongle that is placed on a usb port header on the mobo. perhaps using a passthrough thing so that you dont have to give up use of the header. in order to install and run windows this dongle must be attached to the computer. without in windows no workie. you are however free to reinstall windows, upgrade your mobo, move the licence to a new computer, download updates, all the comforts of owning a legal operating system.
some would say this is a bad idea, but id rather run with a dongle than have ms snoop my drive, waste processor cycles on license check, have to put in license codes, or call them to tell em i replaced a mobo, or have to activate. the freedom would be greater for us, and they can avoid loosing money on piracy. so long as we bought the os, we could use it as freely as we wish, so long as it remains on one machine.
what i dont want microsoft to do is make windows a use once and throw away os. where once you install it on a computer, you can run it only on that computer and no other computer (either by license or lockout).
-
That'd be a great idea, nuke, only if everyone was tech-savvy enough to dive into thier box and install the dongle onto the header. Sure, they could pay thier local computer repair shop to do it, but not every town has a computer repair shop. That'd be shorting a lot of people.
What you've mentioned, about throwaway os's, well it's already happened. According to M$'s OEM licensing, one key is only to be used on one machine only. Even if you have no other machines, and you upgrade the motherboard and/or processor for the system you're using, you're "supposed" to get another license. Of course, if you be sensible about your re-activations, meaning dont use up all three activations in a week, you'll never ever have to talk to a rep to activate your OS.
-
This isn't really true of OpenGL. See Id Software, they're doing fine.
Admittedly I don't know about specifics, but is there an open library alternative to every feature a game developer might want to put in? Like physics libraries, strange input devices and so on?
Eh? Since when is copy protection built into an OS?
I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it is not available. Publishers will cry foul when you can't plaster Safedisc or Starforce or whatever over the finished product since they don't run under Linux.
You're completely missing the point of a cross-platform library.
I don't think so. I'm assuming development time is not just coding time; programmers might have to learn the ins and outs of an open library instead of already having the knowledge to use the proprietary one, for example. Things like that surely add up.
-
Admittedly I don't know about specifics, but is there an open library alternative to every feature a game developer might want to put in? Like physics libraries, strange input devices and so on?
Cross platform (which is really what we mean by open)? Probably; definately there are cross-platform audio and physics libraries for the 'base' engine stuff, and common data formats. The only problem could be driver support, but that's an issue down to the market being dominated by one company and manufacturers failing to develop for smaller formats.
I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it is not available. Publishers will cry foul when you can't plaster Safedisc or Starforce or whatever over the finished product since they don't run under Linux.
I believe Safedisk is available for Linux already.
I don't think so. I'm assuming development time is not just coding time; programmers might have to learn the ins and outs of an open library instead of already having the knowledge to use the proprietary one, for example. Things like that surely add up.
But that's the same reasoning as would apply to, for example, switching from Havok to PhysX or maybe even between versions of proprietary libraries. All these things exist as abstraction layers to hardware, after all, the only real issue AFAIK is whether or not they also hook themselves into Os-specific functions, and arguably that is more a method of format-locking than a technical necessity. So it's more an arguement against changing libraries than the type of those libraries.
-
That'd be a great idea, nuke, only if everyone was tech-savvy enough to dive into thier box and install the dongle onto the header. Sure, they could pay thier local computer repair shop to do it, but not every town has a computer repair shop. That'd be shorting a lot of people.
What you've mentioned, about throwaway os's, well it's already happened. According to M$'s OEM licensing, one key is only to be used on one machine only. Even if you have no other machines, and you upgrade the motherboard and/or processor for the system you're using, you're "supposed" to get another license. Of course, if you be sensible about your re-activations, meaning dont use up all three activations in a week, you'll never ever have to talk to a rep to activate your OS.
im running an illegal copy riight now, only because i activated my legal copy on my old machine (now a linux box) just before building this one, and i wasnt sure if theyd let me activate it again, having already been activated on 2 other machines(though not at the same time). i dont mind buying an os so long as i can migrate it to other machines without wading knee deep in bull****.
on future versions of windows. installation of the dongle would be done by an oem on the assembally of a retail pc. microsoft sells more oem versions than any other versions of the os. i find it unlikely that the computer-unskilled would ever have to handle the dongle, as they tend to buy from oems anyway. perhaps over the shelf os could use a hybrid internal/external dongle, one side a standard usb port, and the other the header connector. of course microsoft is greedy and although this idea would greatly reduce piracy of windows, they would not accept it because they have the jack factor in their favor right now.
-
Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade? There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience. You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key. Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine. If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do. Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.
Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software. System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase. Newegg, for example, will throw in a free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement. Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet. The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever. Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well. IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like.
Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily. Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user) over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation. There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.
-
Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade? There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience. You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key. Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine. If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do. Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.
Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software. System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase. Newegg, for example, will throw in a free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement. Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet. The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever. Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well. IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like.
Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily. Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user) over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation. There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.
Are you plant job as well?
MS got the market, 'cause geeks/hackers (use whichever term you find sympathetic) failed to get off their collective asses and realize, the age of closed shop is forever over.
Both DOS and the later incarnations of Windows was lightyears away from the standards already present in Unix.
The one area, that you claim they had mastered is also their biggest plagarism - ripped staight from Machintosh. (Anyone else remember the first lawsuit between Apple and MS?)...btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.
MS gained monopoly through taking a chance with their inferior software in a new market while the experts were still asleep; then hanging onto their share with heavy handed tactics that prevented anyone else from entering the market.
Even before Direct-X, they pulled crap like enforcing their propietary formats that failed to live up to their own standards; as well as dirty tricks like secret handshake protocols built into their network code to prevent 3rd party applications from working in an MS network.
-
Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily. Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user) over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation. There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.
Umm. Are we talking about the same Microsoft that has been convicted of being an illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_related_to_Microsoft#Government_anti-trust_suits) monopoly (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/microsoft_10-21.html)?
-
I suppose my stance is, I use Windows because that's what most stuff runs on. Sure, I'd like a less bloated OS, but Windows is what I have.
Is that right or wrong? Couldn't say, if Apple had come out on top, would we be having this exact same discussion with every reference to MS replaced by Apple? Probably.
-
Also, LOL at SP2 slowing down games. There's absolutely no difference in benchmark scores, in-game benchmark scores on my machine from an XP Gold install (meaning absolutely zero updates, absolutely zero service packs) and a slipstreamed SP2 install, with full updates to April of this year. Absolutely zero difference.
Except that Swat 4 for example, after copying all that data to my hard drive, fails to "register the product" in SP2 and proceeds to delete the hundreds of megabytes it just copied. The readme tells me to uninstall SP2.
IMO SP2 is not worth downloading at all. You get the updates without it too, all you miss is the firewall (get zonealarm instead) and the security updates for ie (use firefox), although I'm sure you can download those separately as well.
Really, to fix that, all I think you have to do is update the Microsoft Installer package. I've heard of install routines not installing and blaming it on SP2, but it's bogus. A lot of Installer-related problems can be fixed by updating the MSI package from Microsoft.
I don't know if MSI is updated by windowsupdate.com, but if it is, I did have the latest version at that time. The Sierra knowledge base article told me to run windows update and deactivate the windows firewall. I did. It did not work.
SP2 is worth it if you want your TCP stack hardened. Many people who need to use network scanning tools and other tools used in penetration testing will find that the stack in SP2 is bothersome. If you just play games though, SP2 has no effect whatsoever when applied correctly. The best way to apply SP2 is to either use an install disc with SP2 on it, or slipstream the pack with your Gold CD. If you've applied patch after patch, and installed pieces of software, then applied SP2, all you're doing is kicking yourself in the ass.
So I should reformat if I want SP2?
Now, if you're using ethereal or some other scanner to test for holes in your network, SP2 is a little more difficult to work with, but it still WORKS if you have patience and know what you're doing. SP2 also helps protect your core system files from intrusion and/or modification. There's a patch that can be applied (but never really works) to get around the 10-connection limit for WindowsXP SP2, which modifies some of the TCP stack files. Upon modification, Windows will report back that the file had been modified, and will replace it with a known-good copy of the file. This is an added layer of protection that SP2 provides the average, non-tech savvy user. That, and people who haven't been educated in how the networking subsytem actually WORKS in XP. Having a firewall is not the best solution here. Having a firewall is just one more layer of protection, but having all of the underlying updates and protection installed is that much safer. All it takes is one program or one remote user, sneaking in through a service that just uses Generic Host Process to access a system and wreak all sorts of havoc.
I'm just speaking from a network technician's standpoint, I'd rather use the fixes from my software vendors than just plug the holes up with a firewall.
I wasn't saying you should not download fixes from microsoft. You should. I was saying I did not download SP2 because I think it is not worth it. AFAIK updates are available for SP1 users as well.
-
btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.
It was Xerox FYI. :)
Xerox PARC was the incubator of many elements of modern computing. Most were included in the first personal computer, the Alto, which included many aspects of now-standard personal computer usage model: the mouse, computer generated color graphics, the WYSIWYG text editor, InterPress (a resolution-independent graphical page description language and the precursor to PostScript), Ethernet, and fully formed object-oriented programming in the Smalltalk programming language and integrated development environment. The laser printer was developed at the same time, as an integral part of the overall environment.
-
Again, it's a good idea, but what about people needing to upgrade? There ARE people who refuse to buy a new computer, but will upgrade the OS out of fear, and inexperience. You have to cover ALL the bases here, and there's just too many problems that can arise from a hardware-based key. Besides, if people were going to do that, they'd just integrate the technology into the motherboard itself, OEM's would, because then that'd lock the copy of the OS to the machine. If you do that, you short the system builders, who can't have integrated hardware authentication, unless they sacrifice a USB header, which I know a lot of stupid, opinionated people would not want to do. Hardware authentication is a huge can of worms here, and although it's probably the best way to protect the software at the moment, there's just so much that has to be taken into consideration, before anything like this becomes a reality.
Plus, there's two different sales outlets for OEM software. System builders can purchase the software discs with a valid hardware purchase. Newegg, for example, will throw in a free 3 dollar power splitter cable to satisfy the hardware requirement. Many copies of software will be sold through that outlet. The other outlet is with a brand new PC from a manufacturer, Dell, HP, whoever. Integrating the hardware for the manufacturers would be easy to do, but for the people who just buy the software as part of a system builder pack, they'd have to start shipping the hardware key as well. IF they did that, they wouldn't be able to mass-produce the OEM copies because they'd have to start shipping stuff in bigger boxes providing crush protection and the like.
Putting it simply, it's not because of greed, primarily. Just because they have a monopoly (rightly so, as it's the best and easiest software for the non-technical computer user) over the home PC OS market, and that they are large in size does not automatically move them into the "evil greedy bad no good" corporation. There are reasons WHY they got so big, and the same thing goes for other large corporations as well.
Are you plant job as well?
MS got the market, 'cause geeks/hackers (use whichever term you find sympathetic) failed to get off their collective asses and realize, the age of closed shop is forever over.
Both DOS and the later incarnations of Windows was lightyears away from the standards already present in Unix.
The one area, that you claim they had mastered is also their biggest plagarism - ripped staight from Machintosh. (Anyone else remember the first lawsuit between Apple and MS?)...btw Mac also copied it off someone else, but I'm not old enough to remember who.
MS gained monopoly through taking a chance with their inferior software in a new market while the experts were still asleep; then hanging onto their share with heavy handed tactics that prevented anyone else from entering the market.
Even before Direct-X, they pulled crap like enforcing their propietary formats that failed to live up to their own standards; as well as dirty tricks like secret handshake protocols built into their network code to prevent 3rd party applications from working in an MS network.
i must also add that early versions of mac os were superior to early versions of windows.
-
I'm no plant job, but I've taken college courses on Windows Server 2000, Novell Netware 6, RedHat Linux 9, and even dabbled around with the dreaded SCO linux. I have to say from my experiences in those classes that I've had better luck and a much easier time to get the things done that I needed to on the Windows platforms, over any of the others I've used. I'm speaking from pure personal experience. Netware is inflexible when it comes to networking. Once you give the settings upon install, even such little things like an IP address, which you can change on the fly in windows, cannot be changed unless you reinstall the server in NW6! I'm GLAD that Novell dumped thier crappy NOS for Linux, which will be much better in the networking department over what they had in the past. (Who uses Novell? I'm in a Utah university. Utah uses Novell. Go figure.) For a web server class I took, the final project involved making a rudimentary web server to display web pages, cgi and the like. Our team spent weeks on Linux and trying to get Apache to work on our Linux system, and I said, to hell with it, I'm dumping linux and attempting to get IIS to work. I had a webserver up and running in 6 hours, instead of weeks like we've already taken on Apache for Linux.
I find that most of the hatred towards Microsoft is misguided, partially due to people just liking to have someone to bash, and partly due to NOT HAVING A CLEAN INSTALL OF YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM. ABout 99% of the problems people come up with while using M$ (ooh! I used a term to bash M$! Does Deepblue use that? No.) crop up because they don't KNOW the in's and out's of thier OS, how it works, and what probably broke the software in the first place. All the people who are Anti-SP2 usually applied SP2 over the top of an already broken installation of windows, and other people don't use it because they simply cannot afford to wipe thier environment clean just for a service pack install. (If it ain't broke and it's going to take me days to get my system back up and running... and it's finals week next week, I think I'll wait, for example)
I am a network technician for a ski resort, and we exclusively use Microsoft products on our networks due to thier simplicity. It's far easier also to use products that are developed exclusively for M$ windows over a proprietary solution. For example, we use Quickbooks POS for our sales software, which installs, networks, and keeps inventory so much easier than running the old RPro system we had, which ran through DOS. That, and anyone who works at one of those selling terminals is already familiar with the way Microsoft products work. It's that much easier for people to use one simple unified interface and product.
Some people are microsoft people (Me), and other people are Linux people. Don't you DARE think I'm a plant just because I PREFER microsoft products over Linux products. Yes, Sir, I DO take offense.
EDIT:
Apple has it's own proprietary standards for networking too, that aren't compatible with other OS's unless they support them! Have you tried to get Appletalk to work with NT4? All the hoops you have to jump through JUST to get the machines to talk, and then you still have to hope and pray you'll get them to network properly. Yes, I DO know M$ has a tarnished history by making things incompatible, but I support thier software TODAY, as it is NOW, not as it is in the PAST. Everyone needs to get out of the past, saying that M$ said this, M$ did that, Well the key operative words here are SAID and DID, PAST TENSE. XP, Server2K3 are much better than thier older revisions, and adhere to standards used today. I'm GLAD that M$ went through the legal battles they did, otherwise you'd still be seeing those alleged "secret handshakes" and probably making IE the ONLY browser you could use on Windows. They're cleaning up thier act, but as I've said before, people like to bash others just for bashing's sake, and I feel a lot of M$ badmouthers just do it cause it makes them feel better about themselves. They have not had the chance to actually use it and compare it between other products. If you have had the chance, and you prefer a *nix solution, hey, more power to you. I will use whichever vendor I want to use that provides me with a solution to a problem, and a solution that I actually understand and know how to operate. Right now, thats M$ for me.
-
If you guys think security was beefed up in SP2, wait until you see vista.
It's WAY, WAY more secure by default. You aren't an admin by default anymore and you have to okay most tasks
that require admin privs, so you can see if something is trying to get in your system. The networking stack was rewritten. audio subsystem was rewritten. the display subsystem is now hardware accelerated and rewritten. The way drivers work is rewritten. Graphcis drivers no longer work in Kernel space for example.
It's really a much much better operating system, once the bugs have been worked out, I'm excited to use it. Of course, i'll be disabling half the services than run by default, but hey, at least I can do it.
-
If you guys think security was beefed up in SP2, wait until you see vista.
It's WAY, WAY more secure by default. You aren't an admin by default anymore and you have to okay most tasks
that require admin privs, so you can see if something is trying to get in your system. The networking stack was rewritten. audio subsystem was rewritten. the display subsystem is now hardware accelerated and rewritten. The way drivers work is rewritten. Graphcis drivers no longer work in Kernel space for example.
It's really a much much better operating system, once the bugs have been worked out, I'm excited to use it. Of course, i'll be disabling half the services than run by default, but hey, at least I can do it.
Sounds like linux...
BTW Nix, you're not really doing anything for your case by ignoring everyone else's points. So you had a bad experience with a linux webserver and you're pretty much writing the whole OS off (check the number of private webservers that run on linux/apache sometime). Every single install of Apache I've done (including on an xbox) has gone flawlessley, it really is quick and easy to get it running and I can point you in the direction of a lot of people who can also say the same.
What does the difficulty of running Netware have to do with anything? Everybody knows to avoid it.
The reason I don't like Microsoft is that they don't play fair, they ignore the greater good to make a buck. I can't speak for those who don't like it based on bad experiences or the rabid fanbois who just love to hate Microsoft for the sake of it. Microsoft is the bully who doesn't want to share the toys with the other kids, if it simply stopped pushing its propietary formats (something it's currently paying for as more than a few governments are getting tired of having their old file formats become potentially unusable because Microsoft says so) and started pimping its product based on its merits (of which there are a good number) it would lose many of its critics. But that's not going to happen because that would mean they'd actually have to compete.
-
Not all Linuxes are equal. A single anecdote that doesn't mention the distro is misleading and uninformative.
In any case, can we keep this thread away from a Linux vs. Windows debate? That belongs in a separate thread. This thread is about Microsoft's unscrupulous business practices, not the quality of its software.
-
Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work... which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community. The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way. You will find this with any business, even the mom and pops. The reason Microsoft was hit so hard was because of its rapid growth in the consumer field. They played dirty tricks just like SCO, HP, IBM, etc, but they got all the media attention. But I would rather Microsoft be in consumer control today than Linux or Apple. If linux was the dominant market, we would barely be driving 300MHz CPUs, and software would take four hours to configure just to install. If Apple was in charge, we would be charged $6000 for a moderately performing PC, because we'd be paying so much for shine and smugness.
Yeah, we all have our preferences, but the reason Microsoft is still afloat is because their products work for the most people. A good balance between productivity and ease of use. Face it folks, Microsoft got it right. As much as you would zealously defend your alternate OS's (which may work for you), you have to acknowledge that MS got to the top not only by shooting opponents out of the sky, but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat. That works for me, and in the end, it's all about me.
-
Windows started out being successful that way, and got lots of money and power so that they can keep their monopoly now.
-
Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work... which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community. The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way. You will find this with any business, even the mom and pops. The reason Microsoft was hit so hard was because of its rapid growth in the consumer field. They played dirty tricks just like SCO, HP, IBM, etc, but they got all the media attention. But I would rather Microsoft be in consumer control today than Linux or Apple. If linux was the dominant market, we would barely be driving 300MHz CPUs
:wtf:
Why would we be driving 300Mhz CPUs?
and software would take four hours to configure just to install.
Compiling a program is naturally longer than simply installing it. But that's just in the case of open source programs. Closed source programs like realplayer have a binary installer and install just as fast as on windows. Unfortunately sometimes they are not completely compatible with your distro, for example I had some problems with Skype (it took 30 seconds to start) but I managed to find a better version for a different distro. Linux is not a unified platform like Windows, which has it's disadvantages and advantages as well.
If Apple was in charge, we would be charged $6000 for a moderately performing PC, because we'd be paying so much for shine and smugness.
Yeah, we all have our preferences, but the reason Microsoft is still afloat is because their products work for the most people. A good balance between productivity and ease of use. Face it folks, Microsoft got it right.
My problem with Microsoft is not that their software is bad and their programmers cannot write decent apps. It's their mentality. Windows always knows what's best for me, so it refused to install while Linux was on the first partition on my hard drive, because otherwise the Windows bootloader could not load Windows. The fact that I already had a boot loader that could load Windows was irrelevant, because the setup CD automatically replaced my boot loader WITHOUT ASKING ME upon loading. The command to do this manually from the recovery console is fixmbr. The documentation for this command recommends that you only run it if you are desperate, because it could destroy your partition table. :doubt:
Windows will also warn me whenever one of my partitions is nearly full. It doesn't matter that I only use that partition for storing rarely used backup data, and the amount of free space is irrelevant. Windows will pop up a bubble telling me that I should run some otherwise useful program designed to get rid of unneeded files such as temporary files and internet cache. Of course there was nothing there for windows to free up. But that didn't matter. The only way to get rid of that warning was to edit the registry. Now that is something I do not call user friendly. IIRC there was an option to disable this in W98.
And besides, modern Linux distros are just as user-friendly as Windows. The problem is that people are used to windows. If the close button is not in the top right corner, they'll run away screaming.
As much as you would zealously defend your alternate OS's (which may work for you), you have to acknowledge that MS got to the top not only by shooting opponents out of the sky, but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat. That works for me, and in the end, it's all about me.
Unfortunately their software is not better, but I have to use it. That does not work for me. And it's about me too.
-
Even saying that M$ is "rightfully" a monopoly or whatever isn't really valid, by definition. People wouldn't have as much trouble understanding how to do their stuff on other platforms if M$ wasn't THE OS. What decides as far as OS dominance goes is what works and what doesn't, and that's exactly what Operating System means: it lets other thing operate. Microsoft coercing everyone to make sure their stuff works on M$, and usually not well on anything else, is one of things people mean when they say "I dislike M$'s market ethics", which is anotherway of saying "M$ is the devil and I'm sure not gonna give my soul/PC to them unless they pry it out of my cold, dead, ribcage/keyboard".
OMG Nuke is running an illegal copy of Windows! Everyone jump on him and stab him repeatedly with M$-produced knives that cannot be used/updated by anyone not running Windows! Resistance is futile. You WILL download DirectX.
-
Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work... which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community. The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way.
Give us some evidence of this shady Linux business you refer to. Don't give SCO as evidence either, they are not a part of the "community" that you are referring to. SCO is a litigious company funded by Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_confirmed) that doesn't actually produce any software. They spend more money on lawyers than programmers.
It seems to me that Linux business is doing fine. Red hat's profit has been going up (http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&cid=663462) for the past few years. Red hat's also been expanding their business to cover more needs. For example, they recently bought out JBoss so they can offer better enterprise software services.
but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat.
Eh? Microsoft has never innovated software. All of their software is a clone of something else or they bought it (e.g. IE, DOS, Word). When Windows was still young there were technically superior alternative Operating Systems like OS/2 around. These were phased out not by Microsoft's technical superiority, but because Windows was bundled with most PCs.
By the way, you should stop the ad-hominem attacks. Calling me or others zealots doesn't justify your argument. So far you haven't given much evidence to any of your wild claims; some of them are blatantly and demonstrably false (e.g. that Linux programs require compilation during install). I think that most of the people arguing against Microsoft have been fairly rational and presented evidence for their claims. You should try the same.
-
If Linux was a viable alternative, I would use it.
However, it's not. I ended up needing 3-4 media players just to play music that I regularly listen to. Sadly, musepack, which is an open-source format, had such poor support under Linux that I repeatedly spent hours trying to configure it.
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. But you know what? I would rather use a copy of Windows that I already have, as opposed to dicking around in Linux for days just so that I can do half the things I could do under Windows. Having 2-3 different sound systems and an emulation layer for a fourth is not efficient programming.
THe idea of having a system custom-tailored for me is attractive, but so far the execution of that ideal has been lacking.
The worst thing is that I hear people talk about Linux being just as easy to use as Windows. It's not. Ease of use stops about the time that you realize that there are a dozen different distros, all of them with limited binary repositories, so that software must be compiled from source sooner or later...and God help you if you're using a different GCC or automake version, or are missing some obscure dependency.
I prefer to use my computer...not troubleshoot it.
-
Eh? Microsoft has never innovated software. All of their software is a clone of something else or they bought it (e.g. IE, DOS, Word).
Let's cut to the chase and point out that MS didn't write MS-DOS either.
-
Let's cut to the chase and point out that MS didn't write MS-DOS either.
That is correct. I believe that - if you check the history books - what we know today as 'MS-DOS' was it was in fact invented by Sir William McKenzie Dos back in 1773 while he was trying to create a cheap alternative to holy-water, and he wound up with a system used in millions of personal computers around the world. Indeed, his legend lives on.
-
MS-DOS was made from QDOS, which was a hacked-up port of CP/M.
IBM needed an OS for their new PCs, and they needed it fast. Very fast. They wanted CP/M and they approached Digital Research in the hopes of acquiring a licence, but Gary Kildall was out for the day and everyone was reluctant to sign the nondisclosure agreement.
IBM went to Microsoft next, who they assumed had a licence to sell CP/M. MS didn't, but they didn't reveal that. Nor did they have an OS ready for IBM's 16-bit microprocessors, but they did stumble across Tim Paterson at the Seattle Computer Company, who had written something called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), which was basically a clone of CP/M. Microsoft bought it for $50000.
If they hadn't found QDOS, there was no way they could've produced an OS in time. And if Gary had been in the office that day, we'd've been running CP/M on early IBM PCs.
Not that there'd be much difference in terms of the software. DOS got drive letters, backslash path separators and other nasty warts from CP/M.
-
Yep. It kind of shows the point that MS doesn't innovate though. Even the thing that really got them started wasn't
a) Programmed by them
or
b) Innovative in any way.
-
Do you realize that everything you said about Linux (possibly rightfully) applies to FS and especially FSO? For the average user, doing anything beyond playing the main campaign or so will involve a troubleshooting phase and an execution phase.
Yet HLP and SCP both still exist...with about 5000 members.
-
The worst thing is that I hear people talk about Linux being just as easy to use as Windows. It's not. Ease of use stops about the time that you realize that there are a dozen different distros, all of them with limited binary repositories, so that software must be compiled from source sooner or later...and God help you if you're using a different GCC or automake version, or are missing some obscure dependency.
Well, YMMV. Just for the record, I run Debian and can play any music I have with beep media player without doing any extra compilation. That includes APE and MPC.
It's not like Windows media player can play MPC and APE out of the box. The only reason I can easily play music on Windows is because I download foobar2000... which is third party software that you have to download separately. Not much different than beep-media-player on Debian (BMP is in the Debian repository, but I use Rareware's third-party repository for extra plugins).
-
Do you realize that everything you said about Linux (possibly rightfully) applies to FS and especially FSO? For the average user, doing anything beyond playing the main campaign or so will involve a troubleshooting phase and an execution phase.
Yet HLP and SCP both still exist...with about 5000 members.
On the rather important contrary, the vast majority of campaigns I put in are very simple "drop folder in, activate -mod via launcher, play without problems". The install is vaguely, very vaguely more complicated then a true game, but much less complex then many mods, and extremely less complex then Linux.
-
You do realise that most desktop linux installs have a simple command line tool or gui that gets stuff? Compilation is generally reserved for non-mainstream programs; pre-compiled binaries for firefox, openoffice, KDE, Gnome... are all available. In most cases you look down a list, tick a box, press a button and it connects to a repository where the program is automatically downloaded, installed and configured along with all necessary dependant programs.
Consider the way you'd grab these programs in windows:
Go on internet and google for the website you think the program is on if you don't already know the URL.
Search for a version of the program that runs with the version of windows you're running and the service packs you've installed.
Check to see what other things need installed alongside (java, flash etc.), google them if necessary, download, install and configure them.
Install your program hoping you haven't missed anything.
Now obviously compilation in linux is different but most modern distros take 99% of the work out of that too by pre-fetching everything you need and automatically setting up the build environment but I hope that my first point illustrates that for the most part installing stuff in linux is rather straightforward.
-
What you folks fail is to uderstand sarcasm, sir. My post was exagerated, and some stuff was outright pulled out of my ass. Just like most other posts in this thread. I thought I might bring this to the table by displaying how you zealots (again, exageration) look to experienced veterans in the windows markets. But since you might actually believe this rubbish about what you say, it's all on my end and I'm off my rocker.
Consider the way you'd grab these programs in windows:
Go on internet and google for the website you think the program is on if you don't already know the URL.
Search for a version of the program that runs with the version of windows you're running and the service packs you've installed.
Check to see what other things need installed alongside (java, flash etc.), google them if necessary, download, install and configure them.
Install your program hoping you haven't missed anything.
Now obviously compilation in linux is different but most modern distros take 99% of the work out of that too by pre-fetching everything you need and automatically setting up the build environment but I hope that my first point illustrates that for the most part installing stuff in linux is rather straightforward.
AAAAHAHahaha :lol: :lol: :lol:! Wow... Just wow. Even with frikkin Ubuntu I have never had a straightforward method nearly as easy as you portrayed. Information gathering was NEVER omitted, compilation was more often than not required for the non-absolute mainstream programs. Third party binaries didnt work out of the box 1/3 of the time. I also had to keep switching between gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.3. I Windows I NEVER had to check for programs to run along side, as they were all mentioned before hand. And I hoped I wasnt missing anything because if I did, I would have a corrupt hard drive. Your post rates just above the PowerMac G5 tower advertizements (Compare the cluttery wires of a PC with extra cables, against an empty G5 case) in the bull**** meter. Congratulations :yes:.
-
Heh, you batter all linux distros based on your bad experiences with one?
I've used Debian, Gentoo, Fedora core 2, xebian, knoppix, FreeBSD and slackware. I've run into the odd problem to be sure but lets be realistic here; most people don't really care about anything other than:
Web browsing - Firefox comes as binaries, RPM's and can of course be compiled. I've ran binaries flawlessley under all the above distros. Compiled cleanly in BSD, Gentoo, FC2 and Debian (haven't bothered with the rest). KDE comes with Konqueror which works straight out of the box.
Office tools - Abiword and Openoffice both are available as binaries and I've also ran both without issues and compiled (openoffice is almost as bad as KDE for the compile duration).
IM - Kopete is built into KDE, GAIM has always compiled cleanly for me when I couldn't find a binary in a distro's repository.
Media - Mplayer, xmms and a myriad of other players are available as binaries given their popularity. The only issues I had with mplayer was a lack of codecs which were quickly sourced after a number of distro install guides pointed out the fact that they weren't available under the GPL and had to be downloaded seperately from the player.
CD/DVD burning, games, GIMP and many other programs do require compilation every time (AFAIK) but the likes of portage, ports and apt make that very straightforward.
Hell KDE if fully installed has so much built into it you'd be hard pressed to find something you need to install. (ignoring preference of another program a person is aware of).
Most desktop distros come with a CD (or DVD as the trend goes) full of pre-complies for a range of standard architectures.
I'm not sure why you've decided to take my experience as some kind of personal insult to anyone who's ever run into a problem, you simply can't say I'm lying or attempting to misguide anyone because my setup didn't go the same way as yours.
-
Heh, you batter all linux distros based on your bad experiences with one?
I suggest you read that again, more carefully. "Even with" is a plural, not a singular.
-
Granted, my point still stands though.
-
Perhaps.
On the other hand the very length of your post is, IMO, quite telling. You can't point to single program or circumstance; you feel the need, for whatever reason, to cite multiple ones in every instance. And multiple methods of lessening the workload.
-
Errr, I thought that would illustrate the opposite actually? i.e. I have used a number of distro's and a number of setups and thay've pretty much always worked as long as I wasn't mucking about with 'unsafe' compile options when I did have to compile.
Maybe I've missed your point?
Sorry about the green on light background BTW, it's only temporary until the old forum scheme is back (saves having to re-edit all my posts, a bit lazy I know. ;) ).
-
Maeg, you're missing my points entirely. I said even with Ubuntu. I have been around the linux block more than once. Ububtu is the first linux distro that I have had on my system for more than one month. I praise it highly to anyone who ever wants to try or switch to linux. The first word that came to mind when I installed it was 'refreshing'. This distro actually had functionality where others failed miserably in comparison, and had much better ease of use than the make-it-yourself distros. However, that doesnt mean that everything worked. Aye the fundamentals were just fine, but I had many hours of trouble when I tried to install such things that weren't in the multiverse, as wineX, VLC, and many others. It was such a put-off that I didnt start it up again for a whole 3 days... And shortly afterward, hardware failure (PSU went boom).
Anyhow, my main gripe is that for such a smart person, you say something so stupid and ignorant. Yeah Windows has limitations as to how far it can go. It has security holes. But guess what. It works far better in the 'it just works' department than linux. Does that make windows better than linux? That's subjective. But you are flat out wrong if you believe these things that you are insisting in your prior post. Linux, at this point, is nowhere near a replacement for windows users. It's just flat out wrong to say otherwise.
You want to control each and every aspect of your PC? Fine. But just because you don't like gravy, don't take away my mashed potatoes.
ADDENDUM: Yeah. Fix the forum styles. And I need to type faster, and stop leaving my PC so often while responding.
-
I'm not trying to push linux as better than windows, I'm simply trying to point out that it's not as earth shatteringly terrifying as people reckon it is. The post you rebuked was a description of how you go about installing stuff in linux and how it compares to installing stuff in windows, I'm not trying to claim linux is easier or better, just that it's not horribly complicated.
People have a tendency to see GUI as easy and CLI as hard as well which isn't always the case and tends to scare a few people off too.
Anyhow, this has gotten way off my original point which was not to criticise Microsoft's product but how they compete. They're the ones who are trying to remove the gravy from the mashed potatoes.
-
And as I've said before, if you disagree with Microsoft's business model, if you think they're a bad company and don't want to support thier "dirty tactics", you have the choice to switch over to Linux. From there, you will have to accept certain sacrifices in the software you've chosen to use. Driver support is limited, but it's because it's open sourced. Do you remember a company named Loki games? They ported games such as Deus Ex and others over to Linux, using OpenGL. Why aren't they still around today? Probably due to Linux not being a gaming OS, like Windows XP can be. The reason why your driver support is so limited? Probably because the whole OS and components are open sourced, meaning you're encouraged to help develop drivers and such.
If it wasn't for the big browser battle back in '98 or so, I'm sure your point would be much more reinforced, that M$ is taking away certain things here and there, forcing proprietary formats on people, well guess what? I bet you're not using IE to view this page right now, right? Neither am I. Used to be a Netscape guy till Netscape 6. Then I went Mozilla, now Firefox. The music you listen to, is probably not being processed through Windows Media player. I've been a winamp guy since 1997. And look at the games developed around 1998-1999. They gave you a choice to use either a DirectX renderer, or OpenGL renderer. (In this case, blame the game developers, because they have the ability to create the game with OGL or D3D, not Microsoft.) Hate M$ Office? Use OpenOffice. No problems there, fully compatible cross platform, cross format. So, tell me again where microsoft has forced you to use proprietary formats?
To me, it's just another reason to say Microsoft is evil. Nothing I ever say or do will convince you otherwise, ovbiously.
-
The fact that they had to pay Sun billions for trying to cripple Java should be more than enough to prove that they have previously tried to force you to use their own proprietary formats.
MS use a tactic called Embrace and Extend deliberately in order to bugger up open formats and convert them over into their own proprietary ones. Sure they can't force you to use it at gun point but they can prevent you from finding anything that isn't in their format simply by using their monopoly in the OS market to make damn sure that everyone else is using their format. This is actually illegal. Anti-trust laws should prevent a company leveraging a monopoly in this way but MS has gotten away with doing it time and time again.
-
Anti-trust laws should prevent a company leveraging a monopoly in this way but MS has gotten away with doing it time and time again.
Yeah, generally all laws tend to be negated after your net worth exceeds a Billion dollars or so... :rolleyes:
-
Even with frikkin Ubuntu I have never had a straightforward method nearly as easy as you portrayed. Information gathering was NEVER omitted, compilation was more often than not required for the non-absolute mainstream programs. Third party binaries didnt work out of the box 1/3 of the time. I also had to keep switching between gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.3.
:eek2:
*decides to stick with Gentoo for the forseeable future.*
While I have had numerous issues with different GCC versions with Debian and Slackware, Gentoo's Portage has never given me any trouble. The only time I've had to install anything myself was when I needed the most recent CVS builds of Crystal Space, Cal3D and ODE, and that was for development purposes. I would not expect any package management system to provide automatic installation of up-to-the-minute versions of Beta projects.
Also, I have thus far never needed any third party binaries for day-to-day stuff. Every utility and application I need is already in the Portage tree and can be installed as a binary or built properly from source with just a few keypresses.
-
And as I've said before, if you disagree with Microsoft's business model, if you think they're a bad company and don't want to support thier "dirty tactics", you have the choice to switch over to Linux. From there, you will have to accept certain sacrifices in the software you've chosen to use. Driver support is limited, but it's because it's open sourced. Do you remember a company named Loki games? They ported games such as Deus Ex and others over to Linux, using OpenGL. Why aren't they still around today? Probably due to Linux not being a gaming OS, like Windows XP can be. The reason why your driver support is so limited? Probably because the whole OS and components are open sourced, meaning you're encouraged to help develop drivers and such.
It's nothing to do with the fact that maybe there aren't that many people who know about these ports? Nothing to do with the lower number of linux users?
If it wasn't for the big browser battle back in '98 or so, I'm sure your point would be much more reinforced, that M$ is taking away certain things here and there, forcing proprietary formats on people, well guess what? I bet you're not using IE to view this page right now, right? Neither am I. Used to be a Netscape guy till Netscape 6. Then I went Mozilla, now Firefox. The music you listen to, is probably not being processed through Windows Media player. I've been a winamp guy since 1997. And look at the games developed around 1998-1999. They gave you a choice to use either a DirectX renderer, or OpenGL renderer. (In this case, blame the game developers, because they have the ability to create the game with OGL or D3D, not Microsoft.) Hate M$ Office? Use OpenOffice. No problems there, fully compatible cross platform, cross format. So, tell me again where microsoft has forced you to use proprietary formats?
You've not gotten bothered by WMA or WMV on your travels around the internet? How about Word and office documents? Most large educational institutions require you to have access to a machine that runs MS Office because for the most part Openoffice and it's counterparts are unable to properly deal with these formats that are constantly changed as competitors catch on. (Thankfully, as I mentioned before the US government has pulled them on that).
As for games; you can't see the cause and effect that has led to the market being the way it is today?
To me, it's just another reason to say Microsoft is evil. Nothing I ever say or do will convince you otherwise, ovbiously.
That's very theatrical you you but if you can honestly tell me that you think that Microsoft's popularity and richness came from positive, fair business practices I don't think there's any point in anyone attempting to point out the obviousness of how coloured a view that is.
-
Never once had I said that Microsoft uses honest and golden business tactics. Thier tactics have been shady, yes, but no company is totally one hundred percent golden. I just love how everyone jumps to conclusions on this board. I'm through here. It makes no difference to me what you think anyway, as Scuddie said, it's all about me, in the end. My personal experiences are worth more to me than some factual refrences in books or websites. And when I undertake a project, I don't just look at it and throw my hands up in the air when I have a problem, I research. I look on other forums, I read manuals, I do as much problem-solving that I can, and in the end, with my experiences (PLURAL, not just one singluar bad experience) with Linux have left me with more downtime and more pulled-out hair on my head.
WGA, or shady business tactics used in the past will not prevent me from using software that WORKS.
-
To me, it's just another reason to say Microsoft is evil. Nothing I ever say or do will convince you otherwise, ovbiously.
That's very theatrical you you but if you can honestly tell me that you think that Microsoft's popularity and richness came from positive, fair business practices I don't think there's any point in anyone attempting to point out the obviousness of how coloured a view that is.
:wtf:
How in the hell you drew the conclusion you did from that statement I honestly cannot fathom. Nix was obviously anti-MS the whole post, his tone not sarcastic. This is not a particularly new attitude from him either.
-
Everyone, please cool down a bit before this discussion gets out of hand. Thanks. :) It is beginning to look like a discussion about religions, the heat level's getting up there too. :D
-
:wtf:
How in the hell you drew the conclusion you did from that statement I honestly cannot fathom. Nix was obviously anti-MS the whole post, his tone not sarcastic. This is not a particularly new attitude from him either.
Lot of crossed wires here it seems.
Calling a software company 'evil' just seemed a bit OTT to me. *shrugs*
I've made it very clear in other posts that I'm not in the least bit opposed to Windows for what it is; an OS that tries to make things as simple as possible. I don't understand why Nix decided I needed to be convinced or enlightened unless he is taking the other stance. It is quite possible to like linux and think that MS's way of doing things isn't bad which is what I assumed Nix was trying to say.
-
I hope we get the black background back soon, you're posts are really hard to read Maeg :(
-
All HLPers except for Maeg: Hey...Is Maeg gone? I don't think anybody's seen him for a while...*whispers* *grins*
Setekh: Ok guys, it's time for a party! Pull out the Bosch Beer! Goob, if you say the word 'grammar' for the duration of the party you will be gagged and thrown to Carl. Tear down the Forum Guidelines threads! Bring out the Vasudan softcore-porn threads again. All resident Vasudans are welcome to use the hidden stash of Headz, but please do not...borrow...from living HLPers. Finally...All limits on number/size/length of poly count, textures, and table files are now cancelled!
Maeg: Ok, my font color is back now, sorry for the absence. Did I miss anything?
Setekh: :sigh: Back to your posts, people.
-
I'm always here.
-
Big Maeg is always watching you...
-
I hope we get the black background back soon, you're posts are really hard to read Maeg :(
Just highlight his post. Much easier to read.
-
Everyone, please cool down a bit before this discussion gets out of hand. Thanks. :) It is beginning to look like a discussion about religions, the heat level's getting up there too. :D
We're geeks this IS our religion!
-
This is quite interesting thread to read.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=162552
Multiarch alone is a bloody good reason to switch to Ubuntu once Edgy is out. I just hope all that new stuff really works out-of-the-box. Perhaps Edgy will be the first linux installation that stays on my computer for longer than 5 days.
-
I have pre-ordered this on CD at EB Games. I am so ashamed...lol
-
?