Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: cprnDirectX can't be ported to Linux per se, it's a bunch of Windows core calls. Its API can be re-implemented on Linux, that's what wine does and yeah, maybe wine folks would benefit but nobody else, really.

Hypothetically DirectX would be suitable as an open standard, replacing Vulkan, right? I mean from a purely technical stand point, they could open source it and turn it over to some standard's body or something. I ask because I am not well informed enough on the technical aspects.

Neither am I, but I infer from what cprn said that DirectX is fundamentally different from Vulkan in that Vulkan is a sort of set of specifications of how stuff is supposed to work, which is then implemented in different OSes and stuff, whereas DirectX is instead an implementation of thingies that tell Windows specifically what to do in language Windows specifically understands . . . an implementation which no doubt has some documentation which may superficially look like a specification, except they aren't, because the specific code comes first and the description of what it does comes second.
If I'm right about that, it means that DirectX is inappropriate for being a standard for much the same reasons the Word .docx format is inappropriate to be a standard. All non-Windows implementations would be second-class citizens because the Windows implementation would be the real thing, and anywhere the "specification" varied from the actual behaviour of the Windows implementation (which would be plenty of places), it's the Windows implementation that would be the reference. And since what it's hooked into is closed code (Windows) it may be hard even to know precisely what the implementation is actually doing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TiedemannCan you disable the ship icons?

. . . In case you want to play the game without being able to see ships?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DrMcCoy

Quoting: Purple Library Guyshouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient!

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/url] != FAT. Their patents are still effective for at least 10 years.

Quoting: DrMcCoy

Quoting: Purple Library Guyshouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient!

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/url] != FAT. Their patents are still effective for at least 10 years.

Oh well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So I looked at the techrights article. It spends a whole lot of words saying little, and it's hard to tease out exactly what it's saying is bad about this. Frankly I think it's quite bad writing. But ultimately it seems to come down to a few things:

1. The OIN itself is problematic because it gets everyone to treat software patents like they're OK. I can see that point, but that isn't Microsoft's fault and I'm not going to consider Microsoft unusually bad just because they're not coming out backing software patent abolition.
2. Microsoft is holding back certain key patents, noticeably FAT-related ones. I'm not quite sure that's actually true, we've talked about the FAT issue, he seems to be relying on the same source, and what it says is not that Microsoft is holding back those patents but rather that relevant FAT-related code is not in the Linux kernel proper and so not protected by what OIN technically does. This again is not Microsoft's fault. If they are holding back those key patents, that is an issue. But it doesn't make all the other patents they are including in OIN irrelevant.
3. Microsoft have been systematically funneling patents to sort of deniably-affiliated patent trolls and siccing those patent trolls on its opponents rather than getting its own hands dirty, thus allowing it to have its propaganda cake and eat its enemies too. Joining the OIN makes no difference whatsoever to use of this tactic. This is a very important point if true, and would indeed make MS joining the OIN a worthless and deeply cynical move. I have seen techrights articles making this claim before. I've never seen anyone else discussing it, whether to agree or debunk it, so I'm not sure if it's true or not.

Side note . . . shouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient! Have they been pulling those tricks like the pharma companies do where you tweak it a little and get a bunch of extra time?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: adwamslayer

Finally, a question! What have you been playing this week and what do you think about it?

I've finally been able to compose myself and play Anmesia: The Dark Descent. I think I got it on sale or in a humble bundle a fair while ago. Now i'm into it, i'm quite enjoying it due to the atmosphere and story. Just wish I played it sooner!

I might have played Amnesia . . . can't remember. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: amataihttp://techrights.org/2018/10/10/lotnetwork-msft-and-now-oin/ [External Link]
A more in depth answer about what it is not a good news as it may seems superficially.
Basically, Microsoft still does tons of patent trolling, he does not have given to OIN the patent used on patent trolling and the move can be seen as a way to legitimate software patent.

I'm never sure about techrights. Their basic position tends to agree with my prejudices, but the style is ranty and the articles always seem mostly to link to other techrights articles; generally it comes off too dodgy for me to trust even though it caters to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomThere are no impenetrable walls between Linux and the corporate world, other than amongst evangelists and - yes I dare say it - fanatics.

I must say I'm not particularly either pleased or impressed that you "dared say it"--in bold yet. Is saying "yes I dare say it" supposed to get you off the hook for insulting quite a few of the people here? Why would that be then? I don't think it would be appropriate for me to say "Yes I dare say it" and call you a corporate toady, do you? Of course you don't. So why you calling me an evangelist fanatic?

You make some interesting points but they can't be as strong as they seem if you have to mix in mockery of anyone who disagrees. It's particularly weird given that, in the post itself, you not only say that the position you're mocking is one you held yourself, but that it used to be completely justified, and the only thing that has changed your mind is close exposure to a steady stream of IT propaganda news which many of those with a different opinion might not have been exposed to in such a pervasive way. So the fact that other people don't have your information sources makes them, "yes you dare say it", fanatics. Sure, that makes a ton of sense.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mylkai dont think so, if i watch kids today. they dont care about PC/laptops anymore. they browse the web with their phone, they watch netflix with their phones, they listen to music with their phones, they play games on their phones

That isn't evidence of replacement. Kids yesterday didn't have the phones . . . but they didn't have desktop computers of their own, either. Mind you, my daughter does do a lot of that on her phone. Annnnd she edits video on her Macbook Pro. Just, not in public where you'd see her doing it.
At the university library where I work we have rows and rows of desktop computers; the kids fill them up all. the. time., and we lend out laptops, which are at the point of being more popular than books. The kids do not write their essays on phones.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: Purple Library GuyUrgh, tell me about it. At my library we got a new system for all our info, and it's in the bloody cloud. So where it used to be if we checked out a book the reaction was instant, because the database was in the buiding, now there's a couple seconds lag on every single action because we're in Vancouver and the server is in bloody Toronto. It's also browser based, and the people who wrote it cunningly set it up so that if you open a new tab to do two things at once with it, your actions on the two tabs write to both or something so it corrupts your data. So we can't do that. And it breaks if you use browser controls like the reload or back button, you have to use their little "back" control instead, which varies its position depending how the browser is laying out the page. Has all the disadvantages of a web app but few of the advantages. But, you know, web apps and the cloud are fashionable. Gah.

One agency I translate for uses a Web-based translation interface. It's great because I don't need to pay hundreds for a license to a proprietary program that only runs on Windows. It sucks because for three hours today I couldn't get any work done while the server constantly threw up 502s or logged me out of my session. And I can't ever have two files opened at once in different tabs or computers because oh boy that is way beyond the Cloud's capabilities apparently.

That is one thing I have to admit: The web-based thing runs on my Linux laptop, which is occasionally handy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tonR

Quoting: DrMcCoy

Quoting: ShmerlWhat I wonder about, is whether exFAT and ActiveSync implementations can be used in Linux distros without patent threats from MS now.

No: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/10/10/microsoft-oin-exfat.html [External Link]

Most importantly, the non-aggression pact only applies to the upstream versions of software, including Linux itself. [...] While we at Conservancy were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact.

Well, exFAT patent is how Microsoft cashing Android ($5 to $15 per device royalty) and among big obstacle for Linux mobile devices. Hell no they'll open it.

Mind you, I believe Samsung are among the outfits paying that tax, and they'd probably rather not. If I were them, I would upstream that code to Linux itself posthaste and beg the maintainers to take it in. As soon as it's in there in a part of Linux that Android uses, presumably Microsoft either has to pull back out of the OIN or lay off.

View this comment - View article - View full comments