Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Someone has been visited by an MS rep (Score 1) 557

Except Office and Outlook are better than LibreOffice and Thunderbird.
I was a hardcore OpenOffice and Thunderbird person for more than 10 years. They do work but Office and Outlook work better. I still spend 90% of my time on my Linux machine at work but I also have a Windows machine just for Outlook, Office, and Skype for Business. I still have a lot of problems with Windows like my machine dropping the network connection, getting the installing 1 of 5 updates until I restart it, and every now and then an email I send sits for a day or two before it goes out. Those issues are probably EIT's problem and the crazy level of security we have to have.
LibreOffice is pretty good but Office is still better. BTW Photoshop is also better than Gimp and you will not find a 3D FOSS CAD system that is close to SolidWorks.
If I could get Office and Skype for business on my Linux box at work I could drop the windows computer. The Outlook web interface works really well and I use that with Chrome on my Linux machine all the time.

Comment Re: I predict (Score 1) 557

"There isn't a huge difference in terms of capabilities and usability between Office 16 and LibreOffice, "
No, you are wrong.
I had not use Office for about 10 years and just got a new version. It is really much better than LibreOffice in terms of performance. For grammar checking and spell check, it is not even close. As an OS Linux is fine, I use Linux every day for development at work but I also have a Windows box that I just use for Skype and Office.
Honestly, if I could get Office and Skype for business on my Linux machine I would not need the Windows machine. Before anyone suggests Whine, a VM, or some other solution let me add this. I work for a large company so they have to dot every i and cross every t. We can spin Linux VMs up and down all day long but when we touch Windows it must be done by EIT.

Comment Re:30? (Score 1) 78

It primarily comes down to: How many games does Nintendo themselves own the license and distribution rights to?

Certainly more than 30. I can see perhaps not 300, although would not at all be surprised if it was.
Those are basically "free" so far as Nintendo has to pay anyone for rights to.

Then looking at the selection of games included already on the thing, we can at least determine publishers that are willing to license out their games to Nintendo.
Yes these games will each have a per copy sold royalty Nintendo must pay, but on the same token this is Nintendo, and it should be clear to anyone the demand this thing has on the market.
At that point it's just a matter of arm wrestling between them to determine a price.

So sure, they can't put on it every game (there's only just over 10000 in existence, this isn't a storage capacity problem)
As you say, they can't even include all popular games.

But they certainly could have done better than they did for no extra cost to them, and much better than they did with said cost.

The former is the confusing "WTF nintendo?" question.
The latter is only a question of how much they would need to sell the unit for to pay for everything on it and still make a profit. And I've no doubt in my mind that they would still sell at least some.

I mean paint the thing zelda cart gold, only release 1000 numbered units, and sell it for a thousand dollars. They would still sell out just as fast as the current units on the market did, and that's a "worst case" situation (for the customers that is)

But they certainly have all the data needed to know what that would cost them, what they can sell it for on the market, and roughly how many would still easily sell.
All they had or have to do is build the things.

Comment Re:No, Aumented Reality is the next big thing. (Score 1) 114

AR is a massive privacy invasion waiting to happen.
VR isn't.

Oh yea, heaven forbid we gain AR and lose all of the privacy we currently have with the likes of Google and the NSA.

AR requires cameras in public places.
VR doesn't.

Nearly everywhere you go in public right now, you are on at least one camera if not ten. All of which are owned by other people than yourself.
One more camera of your own that isn't recording doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

AR pretends you can navigate in the real world while being distracted by a game.
VR doesn't.

That's about the only good point you've listed.

AR can be spoiled / interrupted by other people's pissing about in front of the idiot with the headset.
VR cannot.

Challenge accepted!

AR requires high-end computer vision, equipment and processing to operate properly.
VR doesn't.

Tell that to the VR headset makers that all want me to upgrade my video card or purchase a next gen console.

Comment Re:Question for the FBI (Score 1) 176

1. They do.
2. Many of these sites are for sharing kiddie porn. You know like Reddit, YouTube, and Blogs are for sharing things. The consumers are often the creators.
3. " It's rather like penalizing people who drink poisoned water rather than finding the poisoners." Really? These people are going to a tor dark web site called the playpen and you are trying to paint them as victims? How about this instead, "it is like penalizing people that pay people to sexually abuse children for there entertainment".... Yea I got no problem with this.

Comment Re:My Apologies (Score 2) 174

I still see no functional difference what so ever. Both options in your example are identical.

Publisher takes the servers offline?
Then no you can't download the software from them anymore.
If you have a copy of the downloaded software, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.
If you have a copy of the software on disc, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.

They look functionally the same to me so far.

In order to get either copy to work, you have to modify the software in a way deemed illegal to do.
But legality aside let's say we go down that path.

I can go to the pirate bay and download the patch to modify the software to run without activation.
That patch will apply to the software you have on disk.
That same patch will apply to the software from the download servers, which will be on the pirate bay included with the patch.

In both cases the software would then work. Again they look functionally the same to me so far.

The only real difference is if you refuse to download anything, including the modification to patch the software to work.
In THAT case, my downloaded software can be fixed with the downloaded patch and will work.
Your software on disk will still require that patch to work, which you refuse to download.

Downloaded version works, disk version does not.

In any realistic situation both versions of the same bits are identical.
Only in an idealistic world where you never download anything is your method of having the software on disk worse off in the end and leave you with non-functional software.

Comment Re:They respond to warrants?! (Score 1) 106

Apple has already publicly stated exactly this during the FBI lawsuit that clearly no one paid any attention to.

They stated they have and will continue to honor legally issued warrants for data on a specified customer.

What they will not do is hand over data for all customers at once without a warrant, and they would not remove their customers encryption leaving them vulnerable to attack by basically everyone.

Those last two are what the FBI demanded, and failed to sue Apple over.
In fact during the lawsuit Apple stated they already handed over the data they had on Syed after getting a warrant. It was the crippling of every customers phone by disabling everyone's encryption the FBI didn't (and couldn't) produce a warrant for which Apple refused to do.

You don't need a wikileak to show what Apple said in their own announcement to the public and what is in public court records.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

I actually thought Apple would have had the better success with a smart watch than most other vendors, as in if any technology company could get the jewelry status symbol angle right, it would be them.
And I suppose looked at relatively that could be argued is the case, as their watch sales are a bit higher than the others lacking that angle.

But the problems with the current crop of smart watches run much deeper than just Apple, and spans pretty much every vendor making general purpose smart watches.

The only real successes are the devices primarily targeted at primary purpose. Think along the lines of the FitBit.
But at least from the point of view of companies like Apple or Google, those target markets are way too small for their tastes, and even without that the expectations of such companies are significantly higher.

As far as the iPhone went, I could see the potential of such a device made well even as far back as the first gen.
My first iPhone however was still the second (or maybe third?) gen, with the 3gs model, and after the application model was in existence for a time. The concept of nothing but webapps just wasn't the right way to go before that point.

Even so there was a window of time when it was clear the iPhone was going in the right directions that Windows CE and Blackberry just wasn't willing to go yet desperately needed to somehow.

A handheld general purpose computer with a phone built in to it was a great concept to start with, but what was desperately needed was a user interface designed around the limitations such hardware inevitably had to have.
I may not have agreed with all their choices, such as an on-screen keyboard which have all traditionally sucked so bad as to be useless (which even now is only a partially overcome problem), and choices such as locking the system down so much as to no longer be fairly called a general purpose computer (which I still very much disagree with.)

A jailbroken iPhone 3 or 4 however was practically my dream come true for such a device.
But sadly when Apple chose to fight against all of the advantages brought about by jailbreaking instead of embarrassing the concept and providing a better way to give us the same features, the writing was already on the wall, and things have only gotten much worse ever since.
Between Apples lockdown of their platform and fighting back against the user doing with their property as they wish, and Googles UI being so ugly clunky and bad to work with, I've no idea what I will be doing for a phone in the future once my iPhone 4s dies completely. If anything :/

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

To be fair I wasn't (or didn't intend to imply) the problem lies with developers, but specifically with the problems brought upon by the vendors themselves.

I would certainly agree the entry fee and sometimes inconsistent approval rules are a problem though, and at least in Apple and Googles cases, brought upon fully by themselves.

Be it cost to publish apps, or the input data an app can have available to it, the devs can only work within the limits of the hardware and the stupidity of the app stores provided for them to use.

Only the vendors could change that, and they don't seem to be wanting to do all that much to fix such things.

Slashdot Top Deals

System restarting, wait...

Working...