Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion? (Dr Yassam)
Re: BSD & Linux (Tore Lund)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Fredrik Bonde)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Fredrik Bonde)
Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X) (Donn Miller)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Jack Lovell)
Re: Disproving the lies. (Arthur)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr Yassam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion?
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:11:02 GMT
> > The PS2 will have no more impact on the PC games market than the
> > original Playstation had over the last 5 years. And before anyone
> > screams out "ONLINE", the Saturn, PSX and N64 were all launched
> > BEFORE online gaming became big on the PC.
>
> Who would think the only use for a TV/Console is online gaming.
>
> Consoles are connected to the TV and there is web content for viewing
> with TV/set-top boxes sure does make 2000 very different from 1995.
> <snip>...
Again you're missing the point. In 1995 internet gaming was almost
non-existent on the PC, it exploded with the launch of iD's Quake in
1996. Also, most home PCs at the time were not fitted with modems as
'standard', this came later as the internet grew in popularity.
Browsing the internet was NOT the number one reason for buying a PC
back then, therefore it's nonsence to pretend that bringing web access
to set-top boxes will removed the reasons for owning a PC.
BTW, whats happening with all those NCs which you believed will replace
PCs, or do games console fit that category for you now?
> What was the impact of the 1994/1995 consoles on PC games ---
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/graphics/library/infogfx/gamemkt1.gif
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/graphics/library/infogfx/gamemkt0.gif
What's new here? All it indicates is EXACTLY what I've seen for the last
9 YEARS enjoying PC and console gaming, that is, a console games market
which is growing faster than the PC games market. Did you expect the
reverse?
> In 1996 the console and the PC revenue were ~1.6 billion in sales.
> Lumping all Macs and PC flavors into one big blob as you want to
> inflate the market - are 3rd!
Look again at the charts you've just provided above, where do they
mention the Mac? It is the PC games market ONLY, i.e. based on
Windows95/98 as the games platform. You've made this claim year after
year but not once have you ever provided a URL to show that this quoted
market includes the Mac.
Whenever the term 'PC' is used it refers to the machine based upon the
IBM-PC, NOT the Mac. Computing websites and publications know this (even
if you don't) and are ALWAYS careful to distinguish between the two,
therefore will refer to each seperately, or collectively as PC/Mac.
The chart you provided shows a PC games market of $2.0B, not a PC/Mac
games market of $2.0B!
> The 1999 DC is 3/4 the revenue of the whole messy PC market. So let us
> pop a cork to toast the 100 million dollar year growth in sales for PC
> games.
Yeh, and let's toast those wonderful OS/2 and NC markets.
> In 2001 MS is going to ship "Whistler", Windows 2000's next release,
> as a their consumer OS replacement for Windows ME. But of course the
> dynamics between the PC and console will not change after MS pulls the
> plug on their DOS/Win9x consumer OS because the past is always
> repeated.
Your point is?
> > The much hyped 'emotion engine' is nothing more than a VERY powerful
> > processor optimized for complex mathematical tasks, but some have
> > fallen for the hype and believe it's something more than that (Hi
> > Joseph!). Also, the PS2's graphics depends on standard polygon
> > rendering, but again, some people believe the hype and think it's
> > more than that (Hey, Joseph!).
>
> I'm glad you admitted the PSX II is more than just optimized for
> Polygons. It seems like you want imply I said the PSX II had an
> elf-inside.
Admitted what? I've said what I've ALWAYS said, that the 'emotion
engine' is just a CPU and the PS2's graphics is purely polygon based.
It's nothing special other than being very fast.
However according to you, and I quote;
"MS want's to chase polygons - how innovative. Sony decided to built the
'Emotion Engine' which I have read is more complex than a Pentium
processor."
And you said also;
"The PSX II goes far beyond even today's high end PC. It's an entirely
different technlogy, not purely a polgyon based graphics system."
Both times you argued when I said PS2's graphics are just polygons, NOT
some new kind of rendering technology. Guess Sony want's to chase
polygons as well - how innovative!
It was obvious in those threads that you understand very little about
Sony's PS2.
> > And where's all the 'EMOTION' based games promised by Sony last
> > year? They were not at the launch, and I know of none in
> > development. All we've seen so far are typical console games with
> > better graphics.
>
> I wasn't in Japan with you do see what was missing at the release date
> of this new device. The Sony promotion video in their large San
> Francisco Store "Meteron" claims to have been made with a PSX II and
> it shows characters that display emotion and the claim is it is done
> in real time. What did you learn in Japan at the roll out?
Yes we've all seen the videos Joseph, as yes in was done in real time,
but they were JUST animated models and faces! Sony's hype machine was
claiming that this is just typical of what can be expected from their
'emotion engine', bringing on a new era of games which convey emotions.
The fact is, there was NOTHING shown within those character animations
which couldn't be done on a PC, the only difference is that the PC would
have been slower.
Now that the PS2 has been launch, gamers can now adjust themselves to
the fact that the PS2 is evolutionary, NOT revolutionary!
> > If such a game does appear it will have had nothing to do with the
> > 'emotion engine', and everything to do with the efforts of the game
> > developers themselves. Emotion is a human quality, it's not hardware
> > dependent,
>
> Expressing emotion on the face of a computer game character in real
> time is of course hardware dependent. Programmers write to what the
> hardware can support. I don't think anyone said the PSX II will feel
> emotions or program itself.
You can't get much more low tech than a piece of paper and a pencil, and
yet I can convey emotion with a simple drawing of a face! Books are also
low tech, but just think of the emotion contained within the pages of a
good story.
If you look back a year ago at Sony's presentation, you will find their
hype running wild. Sony's representatives focussed mostly on their
'emotion engine' and the keyword 'emotion', inferring that the PS2 will
be more than just a more powerful machine, but one which will make it
possible for characters which appear to to be living and breathing
beings. The PS2 will bring characters which appear to be intelligent,
able to think for themselves and feel/show emotion.
The PS2 is a wonderfully powerful console, but even I can tell the
difference between marketing BS and reality.
I can't find any URL's of Sony's original PS2 presentation right now,
but I'm sure they are available and I have numerous articals from last
year's magazines if necessary.
> > <snip> But to those who think it marks the end of PC gaming and the
> > beginning of a new era of computing, wake-up because IT DOESN'T.
> > Just enjoy it for what it is, a great console which will have some
> > great games.
>
> It is a big world out there. 64 new millionaires a day are made in
> the Silicon Valley (SF to SJ) because there is a new era in computing
> that is networked based. This isn't a fad and we're not talking about
> stand alone toys or online gaming. Liberate (TVNavigator) is a now
> 10+ billion dollar company. TVNavigator is a kind of software
> technology that runs on set-top boxes or computers like a PSX game
> console.
I fully agree that technology will become more accessable, more widely
available, more user friendly, faster, cheaper etc, and I welcome it.
However, I do not subscribe to this "replacement" mentality that you and
others seem to adopt whenever discussing the future.
Remember all the predictions in the late 70s and early 80s about the
paperless office? Remember how credit cards were suppose to replace the
need for bank notes and coins? Remember the NC which was going to remove
the need for powerful desktop PCs? Remember how CD's were going to
completely replace Vinyl records (it has in some ways, but Vinyl records
are still being released today!). Remember how Video was predicted to
end the era of the Cinema? Or even digital technology replacing Video
tape itself? How about digital cameras replacing film based cameras, or
even digital video replacing film? Also, because CDs can store huge
amounts of information, some predicted that books could become a thing
of the past. Today, with the internet, you see numerous predictions and
speculation about online shopping and online banking replacing
highstreet shops and banks. And with EVERY new console, predictions that
the PC's days are numbered come flooding in.
I'm sure you can add many examples of your own!
You see the point I'm making is that although technological advances
opens up many new possibilities, it doesn't automatically render old
technology, old designs or even old ideas as obsolete. Internet shopping
will not replace highstreet shopping IMO, it will just be another means
for which shopping can be done. Just as web access via your cell phone
or TV will not replace internet access via your games consoles or your
PC, but will simply be another means towards browsing the web.
I predict that in 5 years, the PC will still be going strong (not few
and far between as you claim).
> It is silly to imply anyone argued the PSX would program itself or
> magically add emotions to characters.
Try telling that to Sony then! :) (read their presentation)
> It is dishonest to imply I expected the emotion engine was more than a
> computational engine.
Perhaps you would like to re-read the posts within this thread!
Or even, now that the PS2 has been launched, perhaps you can explain
what makes you feel that the PS2 is so different from current PCs and
other consoles (besides the speed).
I never said you expected the emotion engine was more than a
computational engine, but you seem to have missed the point about what
it really was (see above). You also said the PS2 was "not purely a
polgyon based graphics system", which it is.
> > So love it or loath it folks, PC gaming is here to stay (at least
> > for the foreseeable future).
>
> There isn't anything sinister with someone advocating users keep their
> existing PCs and not invest in expensive new systems/hardware to keep
> up with future PC games. It isn't unusual to think PCs as consumer
> devices are waning with a host of easier to use alternatives and
> server based computing replacing the PC.
There isn't anything sinister or unusual for those who see things
differently either!
> MS reluctantly makes WebTV and now the X-BOX while Windows ME is the
> end of the line for that consumer OS. The next OS in 2001 for
> consumers is corporate Windows 2000 white washed for consumer users.
> Lots of luck with W2K.
Whilst you have your own motives for wanting this to be true (not
suprising given your background), Microsoft's X-BOX presentation will
give us the real answers towards the future of PC gaming. Will they
reveal a system which complements PC gaming, or will it be one which
shows a shift towards console gaming. Either way, Microsoft are the real
winners here...I'm sure you'll be pleased. :)
> (Game_console) = (WebTV)+(X-BOX)(+I.E)-(MS_license_fees)-(DLLs hell,
> Drivers, BSOD, and etc.)
(Good_PC) = (MS_OS)+(INTEL or AMD)-(OS/2)-(IBM)
Hehehe...only kidding.
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:18:55 +0100
dbt wrote:
>
> 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> >> - OpenBSD: all the rest: programming, developping, writing papers, listening
> >> to mp3, playing with pictures...A
> >
> >You're using a server operating system for light workstation duties. Theres
> >nothing WRONG with that, but there are better decisions to be made.
>
> Unix is a general purpose operating system. The fact that it's an
> excellent server OS doesn't preclude the fact that it's also an
> excellent workstation OS.
Maybe so, but I would still like to hear what 5x3 considers to be the
right OS for "light workstation duties".
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:50:26 +0000
From: Fredrik Bonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
but what about lesbians then?
/*confused*/
proculous wrote:
> Typical LinoNazi behavior. Shoot the messenger instead of discussing
> the topic.
>
> Looks like we have a left end nut here.
>
> Does Linux attract a lot of homosexuals? Wouldn't surprise me in the
> least. They both suck...
>
> For the latest in deviant homosexual behavior:
>
> http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>
> Find out what the closet queens in your town are up to.
>
> Looks like the dressing room at bloomies is a no go this week.
>
> What a sick minded bunch.
>
> In article <89plaf$1jm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
> > This is just Steve/keymaster the homophobic fundamentalist
> > again, in another of his 1000 disguises. One of his two
> > previous posts complains about "profanity". The headers
> > also confirm it.
> >
> > Steve (or whatever your name is), doesn't "Thou shalt not
> > bear false witness" apply to you?
> >
> > Why don't you buy a couple of gay porno magazines and have
> > a nice time with yourself. You know you want to. It's
> > natural, and fantasies are completely safe.
> >
> > You need to start merging all your different personalities
> > together, and the first step is to admit that they exist,
> > and let them get to know each other. You have to stop
> > spending all your time fighting with other people -- post-
> > ing this crap under so many different names to get attention.
> > Even if you're getting paid to do it, you'd better quit,
> > because it isn't good for you. Your propaganda has no
> > effect anyhow, now that your cover is blown and we know
> > it's coming from one person.
> >
> > If you feel like talking, e-mail me your phone number, and
> > I'll give you a call. I don't have any negative feelings
> > toward you. I'd really like to help.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > In article <89palo$36p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I notice that the Linux advocacy group seems to have much more
> traffic
> > >than any of the Windows advocacy groups. Simple reason is that
> Windows,
> > >along with the Mac sell themselves and don't need a band of
> loonytunes
> > >around to wave the flag. Now that Linux has become somewhat of the
> > >darling of the computer press the chips are out on the table for
> > >prospective users and supporters to try and decide for themselves if
> > >Linux is worth the fuss.
> > >
> > >My opinon is that Linux in and of itself fizzles and burns out on the
> > >launchpad before it even gets into orbit. Joe computer user weaned on
> > >Windows needs a hell of a lot more than a free operating system in
> > >order to even consider switching from Windows. Why should he switch?
> > >Graphics? Doubtful considering X-Windows blurry, distorted and hard
> on
> > >the eyes method of displying fonts.Don't tell me about rendering for
> > >Titanic I know the entire story. Linux was like the GroundsKeepers
> at a
> > >ballgame. Necessary, but nobody comes to see them.
> > >Free Web Access? Try again. Most of those free CD's that come in the
> > >mail don't work with Linux. AOL has a huge user base and to the best
> of
> > >my knowledge does not work with Linux. Multimedia? Sure, you can run
> an
> > >obsolete version of RealPlayer if you wish. DVD? maybe in the future.
> > >Scanners and printers that ordinary folks can afford (non postscript
> or
> > >in the case of scanners non scsi), that by the way work great under
> > >Windows, not to mention all the free software like Adobe for instance
> > >that comes with most of them. Easy one stop GUI mail/news programs?
> > >Network kits that install right out of the box so the clueless can
> > >install them and have a simple home network up in minutes? Try again.
> > >Hardware support for today's hardware not some 5 year old soundboard?
> > >Mixed bag.
> > >Ease of use? Well Linux with a good gui like Gnome is certainly easy
> > >enough to used if it pre-loaded. The problem arises when the user
> wants
> > >to update.
> > >This lib, that lib all around the lib we go. It's like a fsking
> library
> > >merry-go-round only the names keep changing. Oh you didn't know that
> > >XYZ.lib is part of the ABC.lib package? Silly you for not reading,
> and
> > >reading,and reading and then reading some more. Then you find that
> > >ABC.lib has some requirements of it's own and back you go. All I want
> > >to do is instal a friggin program, and don't give me that RPM crap
> > >because 7 times out of 10 (and yes I did count) I never seem to have
> > >what is needed. This is a pure waste of time.
> > >
> > >Ok so binary files are the answer. Or are they? Do you have the right
> > >kernel version? Are you able to edit makefiles to change SMPCheck and
> > >other housekeeping checks just so the damm thing works? Seen vi
> lately?
> > >
> > >beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppp....What the fsk is that awful
> > >beeping? Do people actually use this garbage?
> > >
> > >Anyway, that's my rant. One only needs to try Linux to see how much
> it
> > >lacks for normal folks. Keep it in the geek realm where it can fester
> > >and provide joy and enlightenment.
> > >
> > >Linux is as doomed as the Titanic when it comes to normal folks.
> Leave
> > >it in some geeks server farm where it belongs, and rightfully so.
> > >
> > >PROCULOUS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only
> Linux.
> > >
> > >
> > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > >Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> --
> I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:54:15 +0000
From: Fredrik Bonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Yeah, true.. I always wondered about those homophobics... how can they
bother to bother?
IMHO Life's too short too worry about other peoples preferences...
Hey, installed Linux for the first time since slackware w/ kernel 1.xxx
something, back in 96! I'm back in *NIX world after a far too long trip
out in NT land!! Yippie!!
regards
Fredrik
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:18:53 GMT, proculous wrote:
>
> >For the latest in deviant homosexual behavior:
> >
> >http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>
> The funny thing about some homophobes is that they're obsessed with the
> fine details of homosexual acts, as well as gay pornography. This guys
> obsession with gay pornography would appear to suggest a repressed
> homosexual tendency.
>
> Personally, it never occurs to me to even think about homosexual acts
> or gay pornography -- I'm too busy thinking about girls.
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:57:14 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
William Adderholdt wrote:
> Not only that, but if you want to do commercial development, Qt is much
> more expensive than Motif.
Yup.
[snip]
> You can get a license for OSF/Motif from companies like Metrolink for
> only about $150. And the commercial Unices include Motif, so an
> application written for Motif is very portable.
Well, I've been using Lesstif for my Motif coding. You can use
Lesstif for Motif development. Although it isn't totally compatible
with Motif, it's still getting better.
> I wish Linux developers would quit looking down on Motif so much, and be
> more tolerant of other toolkits. For an example of a developer having
> to defend himself from toolkit bigots, here's a quote from the XEphem
> homepage (http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/xephem.html):
Yup. It's very un-UNIX-like, IMO, to be blasting peoples' choice in
toolkits. Remember, the reason we unix guys run unix in the first
place is to have a choice in what we run. It's all about the freedom,
man. Notice that the hippies in the late 60's went to the same
university that gave us a free unix variant (Berkeley).
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Lovell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:08:47 +0000
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps they went with Mach/BSD because the NeXT people know/knew it *far*
> > better than Linux
> that must be the reason why everone is using nextstations anywhere ...
> especialy as
> servers *grin*
Ouch... that's a bit below the belt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:15:38 -0800
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Matt Gaia wrote:
> : you have the same opinion of rexes crap as I do... what you wrote above is
> : what I've been trying to hammer into the linvocates heads and they just
> : don't get it. the price of the OS is insignificant except to single PC home
> : users (well, less than middle-class income ones at least). I mean, if you
> : can't afford a $300 OS - how can you possibly call youself a computer
> : professional?
> The question is not really can you afford it though. It's more like
> "Unless you're a brain-dead lemming on crack, why would you spend $300 on
> an OS when you can a different, better OS for free?"
But if your comparing Linux to Windows, it's not $40 vs $300.
It's $40 for *everything* vs $300 + Office + Development Tools
+ all of the other apps you'd have to buy. If you need a second
machine, then it's $40 vs 2X ($300 + ... + ... ), and for
every machine you add it's $40 vs ever-increasing costs.
And just about every year you face the same $40 vs whatever
choice - this isn't a one time expense.
Arthur
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
