Honest question: I do have an updated PS3 (yeah slashdot, judge me). I'm not interested on pirated games, but I may be interested on homebrew stuff (emulators and stuff like that). That leak will make that possible for me?
Oh, so you want prior art?
Last update was on December 2010 - so it's a fair to assume the first version was submitted even earlier. And that's just one example I could find quickly, of course. It wouldn't surprise me it there are many more other apps (for Android or iOS alike) that does the same thing and was made before.
And yeah, as rolfwind said, just because the idea was implemented only after 10 years after Microsoft entered the smartphone market, doesn't mean it's patentable. The technology needed for this idea wasn't ubiquotous on smartphones until some 4 or 5 years ago anyway, so you should rather start making the math at that point in time.
Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.clementine-player.org/
The nice thing is that it's multi-platform, and it actually looks and works nice on other OSs - it's particularly nice on OS X, for those like me that hate iTunes.
Well, for starters, LMDE is related to Debian Testing, not Squeeze (which is currently the Stable distribution). So you should get more updated packages on LMDE vs. Squeeze, yes, and contrary to Debian, LMDE's packages should be updated more frequently and often to the latest upstream software releases.
Basically, LMDE is Debian Testing with some specific Mint packages (that usually are intended to improve and simplify user experience and add the "Mint" branding over Debian) overlayed on it. You should read my reply above to wrook detailing how on the latest snapshot releases LMDE is not really using the Debian Testing repositories directly, but you can easily make it do so and there shouldn't be any problems by doing that - I haven't tried myself though, so YMMV; I'm quite happy as it is.
I tried using it at the end of last year and I didn't get *any* updates for the 3 or 4 months I was using it. Not even security updates.
That's because since the penultimate snapshot release of LMDE (which was at some time on the last quarter of last year) they've switched the repositories to use their own copy of a snapshot of Debian Testing, and every 5 months or so they release what they call "update packs", which is basically a more recent snapshot of Debian Testing with the packages therein more throughly tested for bugs and such. Before they started doing that, LMDE used the standard Debian Testing repositories.
The intention on having a "snapshot repository" is to try to get the best of both worlds of rolling releases distributions and version-based distributions (i.e. Ubuntu). It's certainly not perfect, but works well enough for me, I don't mind it. Anyway, the maintainers says it's fine to swap out those Mint "snapshot repositories" with the standard Debian Testing repositories on sources.conf - of course, you're more likely to stumble into problems from time to time, and hence should be prepared to work around them or muddle through with them, but it shouldn't be any more problematic than using plain Debian Testing.
Mint is nice, and it's the Linux flavor I'm using currently (although I use LMDE, not the standard Mint) after having left Ubuntu when they transitioned to Unity. The best thing about it is that the maintainer(s) actually listen to users regarding development directions, which was what drove them to develop Cinnamon and adopt MATE as an option - as opposed to Ubuntu / Canonical, that just forced down the users' throats their ideas and UI decisions, alienating a large part of their user base in the process.
Having said that, there's still one thing that keeps me from recommending it to new users or users migrating out of Ubuntu: lack of automated upgrade procedure to newer major versions - one thing that Ubuntu has and generally works nice there. On Mint, the official procedure is to backup you files/settings using the backup tool, install the newer version from scratch on top of the existing install, and then restore the backup after. That's just too cumbersome. Yes, it's possible to upgrade without reinstalling by manually editing the sources.list file and upgrading manually with apt-get, but it's considered unsafe and error prone by the maintainers and hence not recommended. I did it anyway on a past install, and sure enough I had hiccups - I still had a working install, but there were a lot of rough edges and inconsistencies on the upgraded install. Because of that I ended up installing LMDE so I didn't have to worry about major version upgrades anymore. It's not a fully smooth ride either, but it's far more manageable, and having previous experience with Debian, I'm totally at home with it. But it's obviously not something I'd recommend to casual / new users either.
This. As PJ points out on Groklaw, although the judge alledgedly does code, he still seems to be having a hard time deciding whether APIs can be copyrighted. I wonder if he "does coding" on Basic...
Well, I disagree. I think the motivations and some of the changes are quite nice, but they are badly misguided. Both Ubuntu and MS are making the mistake of trying to cram UI concepts not suitable to the environment they are going to be used:
- Metro UI: Awesome for tablets and touch interfaces in general - I'd go as far as saying it's the best UI concept on these cases, better even than iOS. But that concept just doesn't make any sense and it's counter-productive when you're interfacing with your device using a keyboard and mouse.
- Unity: Same thing, doesn't translate well to desktops, but it's worse because this UI doesn't really work well with touch interfaces either; it really was made for and works well only on a dying breed of devices: Netbooks.
- Gnome 3: I'll refrain from too much comment on this one because I haven't really used it yet, but from what I've seen, this is the one that's actually the saner of the other two in the sense that they are not trying to jam a square in a peg hole like the other two are doing - they are really trying to redefine traditional UI concepts on the desktop, and maybe other environments too. That's not to say that they're on the ball though: I think they've really gone way too radical there. What I'm really saying is that Gnome is the less bad of bunch.
... every one of those games would be a thematic variation on GTA. Like this. People don't want reality, they want to be entertained.
I don't like that my G+ profile shouts my real name everywhere too. So I was looking around in my profile, and guess what: There's a "Nickname" field in there - but the profile form explicitly says that it won't be shown in the profile. Why the hell are they doing that? Why have this field if it's not going to be used?
The dumb part is that Google could be fixing this problem in a much less disrupting way: Make the "Nickname" field actually useful, make it the default field shown for the public, or have the user setup if he wants the Nickname to be shown or his real name. Hell, if Google is so bent into real names, at least make the Nickname the field to be shown to the public, and the real name only to your friends / circles. What a waste.
Hm, that sounds dangerous. I have a triple-boot setup on my MacPro (OSX, Windows 7 and Linux). How will Lion handle that? Sounds like it could trash one (or both) of my other OSes in the process...
Being able to download the kernel, driver, and Android sources directly from Motorola, the maker of my Droid phone, is so prohibitive.
Good luck getting your recompiled kernel+driver+Android sources past the well-locked-down bootloader on any Motorola Android device newer than the original Droid.
Fair enough. However, this is not Android's (the OS) fault - the bootloader locking mechanism is hardware based, so only Motorola's to blame here. As always in these cases, all you can do is vote with your wallet: get a HTC or some other brand that doesn't lock you out of your property.
Please mod the parent up to the moon. I've been reading all the comments on the story, and it baffled me that no one caught this simple fact - GPS logs can be easily tampered with, or even forged. I don't know if the ruling on this case was made with this technical knowledge, but it's nevertheless a good thing a bad precedent wasn't set. Nevermind GPS accuracy, GPS logs just aren't a reliable source of evidence in the first place.
Yea, I think it's a bit elitist too. I mean, if they don't want a sequel, don't read it!
Case in point, a classic: The Time Machine, from H.G. Wells. A century later, a sequel was authorized and written by Stephen Baxter: The Time Ships. And I like it so much more than the first book, because it expands so much on the idea, concepts and caracter. Granted, there was a lot to expand from given the late 19th century science, and Stephen Baxter is also an excellent SF writer... So the question really is if Mr. Reichert is up to the task, since he's pretty much unkown. But so was Baxter, back when he wrote the The Time Ships. I guess we'll just have to wait and hope that Mr. Reichert does a good job.
Nice, but your Quake has statically linked libraries, which was (and still is) a simple solution for running binaries across wildly different distributions or linux environments without hassle.
Of course, not everyone does that. The common and default way to compile stuff is using dynamic linking (i.e. using the standard libraries you'd already have installed), and if your version of Quake (compiled 10 years ago) was dinamically linked, you'd be in for a big surprise.
And anyway, while it is a good strategy for backwards compatibility and cross-distribution portability, static linking is not fullproof and has its drawbacks - you could still run in to compatibility problems that are kernel-bound (usually, interfaces that have been changed or obsoleted), in which case static linking won't help you, and statically linked binaries are bloated (thus, taking a lot more memory). You really just got lucky with that version of Quake.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
