The best part about Graffiti was that you didn't have to watch the screen while entering text. When I travelled across Europe by train, was able to look out the window and enjoy the scenery while I wrote my travel diary on my Pilot (actually a Handera TRGPro with a compact flash slot). I didn't have to move my hand like I would with a paper diary. I didn't have to key my eye on the screen for when I hit the wrong key or auto-correct decided to change what I meant to write. It was a very liberating experience.
What is your evidence that he had mental problems?
Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA, he was "mentally ill and was acting strangely only days before his arrest, according to a Muslim cleric who said he was counseling him at the request of the FBI.". The cleric went on to say that "the agents told him that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder, characterized by unusual mood swings that can affect functioning."
So he had mental problems according to the FBI and the person that was counselling him.
Nope, but a person believing that Microsoft is more trustworthy than global community,
That is their opinion. It doesn't mean that they are a Microsoft shill as you claimed.
The AC didn't say
person that keeps insisting that MS won't sue anyone over
There is simply no shady language in the license that is going to affect Mono. If they ever decide to change Mono from an implementation of the
And yet that is the main message of your post, that if you don't adhere to Microsoft's spec then they could sue. Well Mono is compliant with the licence, so they are not going to get sued.
Also, for this same time
So your response to me pointing out that Microsoft hasn't actually sued anyone for the last 13 years despite all the claims that they would is that Java is still bigger and that if you made something that was unlike Mono that you would get sued. How is that counter my claim that saying that using Mono will not get you sued?
Previous comment was regarding Microsoft and open-source in general - this is an answer in general. Commenter said he trusts Microsoft more than RedHat or opensource developers, I pointed out that trust is a personal issue, ability to verify - is more objective.
Irrelevant. You have the ability to verify code from an open source project.
What happened to the Slashdot I used to know? The old crowd is gone, replaced by young 'uns who spent their college years downloading 1000s of music files.
Thanks for calling me a young 'un. Nobody has done that to me in a very long time.
But I have to say that you sound like a leftover hippie from the 60s complaining that everyone who no longer believed in peace and free love had sold out, when in fact they had just grown up. Feel free to complain when Microsoft does something wrong. But after 13 years of predictions of a patent apocalypse, perhaps it is time to face the fact that they are not going to start suing the world for using Mono; especially when there has been cooperation between Mono and Microsoft during its development.
But maybe they still are.
And it all boils down to this. You have no proof in the slightest that they are doing anything wrong or that they intend to. But that doesn't stop the pitchforks coming out because of a feud that dates back decades. Have they done anticompetitive things in the past? Sure. Have they ever turned to litigation after making a public patent promise? No.
Having an open source implementation of
You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.
That's really another type of FUD; that anyone who says something that isn't completely anti-Microsoft must be being paid to say it.
It has been 10 years since Mono was released and 13 years since
Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source
So what? None of that means that Microsoft is going to start suing you for using the Mono CLR and Framework. If you don't like their terms then don't add your own patented code to a
If you really trust Microsot more than RedHat or opensource developers, than please, don't let anyone stand in your way, trust is a personal issue, some people trust ISIS, some - the supreme leader, but some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves, and Microsoft throwing their dying platform into opensource stream, hoping for a revival is very far from transparency and verifiability.
Wow, talk about FUD again. Bringing up ISIS is just a modern version of Godwin's law. And "some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves" is FUD because this is all about open source code released by Microsoft. Of course you can verify the code yourself. Or are you mixing up the completely unrelated non-OSS Windows code that you can't see. How is that relevant to this discussion?
I don't know what the other poster's original point was, but I'm not going to join Steam on the off-chance that it might have a DRM-free version of the game I want.
Nobody has asked you to. This whole thread came about because someone said:
In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.
Any PC that is powerful enough to decode 1080p video at 60fps is powerful enough to run a game on low settings.
Nobody is going to expect to be able to play at 60fps using this service. If high frame rate is that important to you then obviously have to upgrade your computer and play locally. If, however, you are happy to play games that you could not otherwise hope to play at half that rate (or even less) without having to buy a whole new computer then OnLive could provide a useful service.
The OnLive client required DirectX 9 level hardware, which is still the minimum requirement for most games, so whining about not meeting some shader spec for games is bullshit.
And yet by your own admission, DX9 is not the minimum requirement for all games. Therefore if you want to play a game for which you don't match the minimum requirement... Go on, guess what I'm going to say next! That's right, you could use a service like OnLive!
I'm sure that would have been awesome to play games optimised for a keyboard and mouse on a touchscreen.
Here we go again. You think that just because it might not work for 100% of games' user interfaces then the service is useless. Once again, you don't have to aim for perfection, just something that is good enough. And my point was not how well it work would on those devices, just that it can work on those low-powered CPU/GPUs (and therefore will also work on low-powered PCs too).
And someone can afford a super expensive Smart TV but they can't afford a slightly more expensive PC? Please.
Perhaps they want to be able to play in their living room without having to move their PC. Considering how often console gamers bring up this scenario, it seems to be a popular idea that PC games might like to share too.
Yes, I can for any reasonably aged computer. Of course you knew that, but you're being childish and pedantic.
That all hinges on your definition of reasonably aged. There are games that will not run at all on my computer that are being released right now. My Core2Duo with 2GB RAM and HD5750 video card running on a 32bit version of Windows just won't cope with modern games. It can stream video quite nicely though.
Who says the second person needs a PC? Maybe they are trying to watch a YouTube video on a $50 tablet.
Then you do what any household does that has multiple people sharing one Internet connection and figure it out. If you can do that, or if this imaginary other user doesn't actually exist, then there is nothing wrong with a system like OnLive.
Fuck, you're an idiot and your entire "argument" is complete shit.
And you call me childish? Your entire argument is that if it doesn't work in 100% of households for 100% of games running at a perfect 60fps then the system is useless. You are damning this service just by having unrealistic expectations.
So if you don't expect a service like OnLive to fulfill all your gaming needs (so you still play games locally if your system can handle it), and you wait to play your games when other people aren't trying to watch Youtube, and you don't mind a drop in frame rate and latency, then this system works. All your swearing and name calling will not change this fact.
Most of those titles can be bought on gog.com anyhow.
I just checked the first batch of games up to the letter B. Only 7 out of 42 games are available on GOG. That is nowhere near the definition of the word most.
Be that as it may, that wasn't what the original discussion was about. The question was whether you can play any games without launching the Steam client, not whether you can buy DRM-free versions of games on other sites. Changing the argument after being proven wrong is called shifting the goalposts.
So Phoronix has only just noticed this? This was discussed on Slashdot five months ago.
If your graphics adapter is that ancient, it's likely not going to support or be powerful enough to decode the video streams being sent to you via services like OnLive or Gakai and therefore would not be good enough to support their respective clients
And yet that is the entire purpose of OnLive: to allow low-powered computers to play games that have higher requirements. So your assertion that the streaming would require the same level of GPU is obviously false. OnLive worked on mobile devices and smart TVs too - and none of those would have the power to run a modern game.
Excuses are always bullshit, kiddo.
I'll tell you what is bullshit. Coming up with reasons why the site would not work when you obviously hadn't tried it. Do you really think that you can infinitely turn down the graphic levels enough to work on any low-spec system? If that were the case then the minimum system requirements for any game would be a 386 with on-board video.
And why do you need to invent another person who wants to use the Internet line as an excuse to belittle the system? If someone else needs the internet connection and you don't have a really high-spec computer then chances are you also have to share the PC. In that case you wouldn't be able to play any game whether it was locally installed or not.
I'm not a big fan of Steam, and if I have a choice I will always prefer a completely DRM-free option, the the grandparent poster was correct. Here is the list of games that you can run without the client loaded. It only took me a second to find this list with Google. (Actually, that's a lie. I used Bing, but that sounds like something that I shouldn't admit here!)
You still need the client to install them, and if you use the Steam backup/restore facility then you also need the client to be logged in.
This is nothing more than a press release for some software. It's literally an ad for something made by Pixar published on Pixar's website.
Then what would you like to talk about that doesn't involve mentioning any products at all? If you go to a website that talks about "News for nerds, stuff that matters" then you are going to find that the stuff that matters to nerds will often be products that people sell (or in this case, give away). We can't all be MacGyver building our own supercomputers from coconut shells and earwax.
If a story doesn't interest you, or you think that it is just blatant consumerism, then feel free to go do something else like watch another inspirational episode of MacGyver from the MacGyver Complete Series box set, available at a cheap price and with free shipping at Amazon.
It's true that Microsoft have dropped some products quickly (and their support for APIs can be faddish), but they have also supported a lot of products for very long times. In fact, some of your examples seem a bit out of place with Flight Simulator lasting 24 years and Encarta lasting 16 years.
Customers get nothing? I think that you will find that customers also get a free upgrade to Windows 10. Everyone is rewarded!