This is a topic I've been mulling on for a while, trying to decide whether or not I really wanted to broach it. I decided to finally go ahead with this entry after listening to a couple of AM talk radio shows, both local and national, and hearing people identifying themselves as Christians, but Democrats, calling in.
Thing is, you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat at the same time. It is quite frankly an either / or position. The problem is clearly defining why this is so. Lets set some basic requirements for being a Christian. #1: There can be no other Gods. Jesus is the only God, and he is the only way to Salvation. #2: Christians are to hold a higher moral standard of Living, and are supposed to set the Standard on how to live. #3: There is a clear right and wrong, and it is a moral right and wrong that is determined by what the Christian Bible says.
Now, take these three requirements and apply them to the Democratic National Party, or just Democrats in general. One of the big cultural pushes being made by Democrats today is that of multiculturalism. Everybody's religion is fine, everybody has a different way to get to Heaven. All other religions are equal. This flies in the face of requirement #1. Christians cannot accept Jews, Mormons, Islamics, or any other religion as being equal. Christians can not, for one minute, think that anybody else can get into Heaven without having accepted Christ as their savior.
The issue is highlighted even further by the typical associates of the Democrats, the RIAA and MPAA. If you consider the music and movies, a lot of effort is put into place mocking Christian beliefs and behaviors. In popular movies the Christian is always the square who just doesn't get it, or is always the fool that gets killed first in a production of forced irony. Go ahead and count the number of movies produced by members of the Screen Actors Guild that portrayed Christians as reasonable and intelligent people. It won't actually take very long, and it is doubtful that you would use even one hand counting them all over the past 30 years.
So, being a Democrat means having to sign on as an ally to those who openly mock the Christian Faith. It also means having the party requirement of pushing beliefs and ideas that are directly counter to that of the Christian Faith.
Consider for requirement number #2, the standard of living. This again goes back to the music and movies industry. When Gone with the Wind was first released, it was given an R rating for it's singular use of one cuss word. Today, or rather a few years ago, Gone with the Wind was re-released into theaters and was giving a G rating. A typical PG film today is laced with obscenities and cuss words that most movie goers just take in as part of the experience. If you were to play a drinking game with such words on a current R rated movie, most movie goers would be drunk after a few minutes.
Lets bring that back around to the standard of living. Should Christians really be supporting, and allying themselves, with an industry that prides itself on pushing the envelope of verbal and visual filth?
The problem extends beyond Hollywood as well. Other liberal oriented institutions such as the ALCU and PAW go out of their way to protect and defend sickening behavior across the US. I've lost count of the number of stories about how liberal oriented institutions assisted in establishing gambling and Sexually Oriented Business's across various states, going against the wishes of communities where over 50% of the local population is dead set against such business's. Again, it really doesn't sound such Democrats are trying to set a higher standard of living.
When it comes to establishing socialistic programs such as HealthCare, again, Democrats are not known to set a higher standard. I've already been into that subject before with a post called Government is Not the Answer. Everytime a Government gets involved in a formally private, or also private industry, the Government lowers the standard.
In respect to requirement number #3, that of a clear right or wrong, Democrats fail even basic litmus tests. For example, Bill Clinton's indiscretions in the White House and against his wife. Everything was alright, just as long as he wasn't caught. Liberal Democrats are also known for saying things like anything goes. It is up to everybody to determine their own right and wrong. There are no Absolutes.
Well, speaking for myself, gravity seems pretty much absolute. The three laws of thermodynamics also seem pretty absolute. The point is, the Democratic party has systematically rejected the concept of a moral point of absolute wrong and absolute right. As a whole, the Democratic party rejects the Christian Bible as a standard of how to live, and as the final authority. Should a Christian really associate itself with a party that rejects the Christian's own standard?
I think my statement that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat stands then. Now, a Democrat can become a Christian, yes, but at that point, they will no longer be able to be a Democrat. Holding to the basics of being a Christian means rejecting the actions and motives of the Democratic party. The differences cannot be reconciled. One is always in violation of the other's primary beliefs.
***
Now, don't take this article to indicate that I don't like a good alien shooter, or a good monster movie. I'll root for Gojira to take down Tokyo just as quickly as anybody else. I'll also point out that Star Wars Ep4-6 proved you could have an intense action/romance Sci-Fi adventure without being vulgar. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings proved you could bring Epic Fantasy to life, without the typical Hollywood filth.
I'd also point this out: Rob Rock, Chris Impellitteri, C. S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien ... they are / were Christians. Chew on that the next time you go pick up a music cd or a fantasy book.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
80 times the power of a PS3? I don't think so.
Recently I caught a video from AMD talking about their upcoming Spider Platform. The Spider Platform consists of a Quadcore Phenom processor, the 790 chipset, and a Radeon HD3800 graphics card.
During the presentation one of the AMD representatives stated they were doing 80 times the power of a Playstation3.
I. Don't. Think. So.
Here's why. The AMD Phenom Processor is based on x86 technology, extended with x86-64. x86 generally isn't actually considered that great of a processor architecture. The IBM / Sony / Toshiba developed Cell processor is based on the PowerPC architecture. PowerPC is generally considered to be one of the better architectures on the market, with maybe the old Alpha architecture being considered better.
Now, bear in mind that there have been practical examples of PowerPC versus x86 in the market before. Exampling the Older Apple Mac G3 and G4 designs. At 500mhz they easily kept up with Intel and AMD designs over 1ghz. Consider the Gamecube, which many developers went on the record as saying it was easily more powerful than the 733mhz Celeron used in the Xbox, despite only having a 485mhz processing speed.
Now, keeping in mind that in terms if IPC, instruction per clock cycle, PowerPC is considered to be better than x86, consider this: The IBM Cell processor used in the PS3 not only has a PowerPC processor built in, it also has 7 SPE's (Synergistic Processing Elements). Anyways, the SPE is comprised of it's own memory controller and a 128bit RISC processor. One of the SPE's is reserved for the Linux based OS used in the PS3, leaving developers free with 6.
So, in a best case scenario, the Cell processor used in the Playstation3 can manage 6 different processing threads. Now keep in mind that the two most advanced engine on the Playstation3 today are Epic's Unreal Engine 3, and the NEON Engine developed by Codemasters and Sony. Right now, both engines are barely pressing 2 processing threads. They aren't even reliably getting beyond using a 3rd of the processing power available. Why? Well, because the engines have to work across multiple platforms where those 4 extra processing threads probably are not going to be available, say like an Single core AthlonXP.
This relatively low use of processing abilities at the start of a console's life isn't exactly unusual on the exotic hardware used in game consoles. Just go pick up a Super Nintendo, a Playstation 1, a Playstation 2, a Gamecube, or any other console but an original Xbox. You'll note a startling change in graphics quality as you look at launch titles and compare them to titles two or three years down the line. For example, go pick up Ratchet and Clank, Ratchet and Clank 3: Up Your Arsenal, Jak and Daxter, and Jak3. Now, play the original titles... then play the 3rd game. See a difference?
The odd one out in the console graphics improvement is of course the Xbox. Since it used a stock x86 processor and a not so stock Pixel Shader 1.4 graphics chip from Nvidia, there wasn't as much room for the system to grow as time went on. So what you had at the beginning of the consoles life... was pretty much what you had at the end of the consoles life.
So, what does this have to do with AMD's claim?
Well, lets think about it for a second. A quad-core Phenom processor is only going to be able to process 4 threads. An engine optimized for the x86-64 platform with 4 processing threads isn't going to run very well on the 6 thread Cell Processor, and vice versa. So, cross platform engines are never really going to be able to effectively push either system to it's maximum extreme. Engines that are designed from the ground up for each platform, however, will be able to actually use the platform, as witnessed in the Ratchet and Jak games.
At best then, in a dual socket enviroment, a Quad-Core Phenom processor system would be able to process 8 threads (4*2). Even with a high clock speed of 3ghz, a Quad-Core Phenom is going to have a hard time matching the raw performance of Cell.
From a strict processor viewpoint then, I think AMD is talking rubbish when it comes to outpowering the Playstation 3.
From a graphics viewpoint though, AMD might have a point. The Playstation 3's graphics are provided by an Nvidia chipset known as RSX. RSX was reportedly based on what was the 7800 series. Chances are, from the clock speed of the GPU at the Playstation3's launch, which was 550mhz, it is more likely the GPU shares more in common with the G71 7950 GT spin than the original G70 7800 spin. Thing is, either way, that is Shader Model 3 hardware.
AMD's new RadeonHD 3800 series though, is Shader Model 4 hardware, which means that all of the shaders are unified. In the RadeonHD 3800 the shaders can either do vertex shading, or pixel shading. Granted, the RadeonHD still can only do 16 textures per cycle versus the RSX's 24 textures per cycle, so the RSX will still probably be faster in texture based titles. However, with textures on the way out and shaders on the way in, the RadeonHD has much more to pass around.
It is possible then, that 4 RadeonHD 3800's coupled together, could approach 80 times the power of the Playstation3's RSX in terms of Shader Output.
***
The primary question is though... will that matter? The gut reaction is no. Most game developers have to target for a baseline of playability. Currently that baseline is the Intel Integrated Graphics, so most titles built against x86 computing are never going to press what 4 3800's coupled together can do.
That means that 80 times the power of a PS3 or no, it will be a while before such limits are even remotely pushed.
During the presentation one of the AMD representatives stated they were doing 80 times the power of a Playstation3.
I. Don't. Think. So.
Here's why. The AMD Phenom Processor is based on x86 technology, extended with x86-64. x86 generally isn't actually considered that great of a processor architecture. The IBM / Sony / Toshiba developed Cell processor is based on the PowerPC architecture. PowerPC is generally considered to be one of the better architectures on the market, with maybe the old Alpha architecture being considered better.
Now, bear in mind that there have been practical examples of PowerPC versus x86 in the market before. Exampling the Older Apple Mac G3 and G4 designs. At 500mhz they easily kept up with Intel and AMD designs over 1ghz. Consider the Gamecube, which many developers went on the record as saying it was easily more powerful than the 733mhz Celeron used in the Xbox, despite only having a 485mhz processing speed.
Now, keeping in mind that in terms if IPC, instruction per clock cycle, PowerPC is considered to be better than x86, consider this: The IBM Cell processor used in the PS3 not only has a PowerPC processor built in, it also has 7 SPE's (Synergistic Processing Elements). Anyways, the SPE is comprised of it's own memory controller and a 128bit RISC processor. One of the SPE's is reserved for the Linux based OS used in the PS3, leaving developers free with 6.
So, in a best case scenario, the Cell processor used in the Playstation3 can manage 6 different processing threads. Now keep in mind that the two most advanced engine on the Playstation3 today are Epic's Unreal Engine 3, and the NEON Engine developed by Codemasters and Sony. Right now, both engines are barely pressing 2 processing threads. They aren't even reliably getting beyond using a 3rd of the processing power available. Why? Well, because the engines have to work across multiple platforms where those 4 extra processing threads probably are not going to be available, say like an Single core AthlonXP.
This relatively low use of processing abilities at the start of a console's life isn't exactly unusual on the exotic hardware used in game consoles. Just go pick up a Super Nintendo, a Playstation 1, a Playstation 2, a Gamecube, or any other console but an original Xbox. You'll note a startling change in graphics quality as you look at launch titles and compare them to titles two or three years down the line. For example, go pick up Ratchet and Clank, Ratchet and Clank 3: Up Your Arsenal, Jak and Daxter, and Jak3. Now, play the original titles... then play the 3rd game. See a difference?
The odd one out in the console graphics improvement is of course the Xbox. Since it used a stock x86 processor and a not so stock Pixel Shader 1.4 graphics chip from Nvidia, there wasn't as much room for the system to grow as time went on. So what you had at the beginning of the consoles life... was pretty much what you had at the end of the consoles life.
So, what does this have to do with AMD's claim?
Well, lets think about it for a second. A quad-core Phenom processor is only going to be able to process 4 threads. An engine optimized for the x86-64 platform with 4 processing threads isn't going to run very well on the 6 thread Cell Processor, and vice versa. So, cross platform engines are never really going to be able to effectively push either system to it's maximum extreme. Engines that are designed from the ground up for each platform, however, will be able to actually use the platform, as witnessed in the Ratchet and Jak games.
At best then, in a dual socket enviroment, a Quad-Core Phenom processor system would be able to process 8 threads (4*2). Even with a high clock speed of 3ghz, a Quad-Core Phenom is going to have a hard time matching the raw performance of Cell.
From a strict processor viewpoint then, I think AMD is talking rubbish when it comes to outpowering the Playstation 3.
From a graphics viewpoint though, AMD might have a point. The Playstation 3's graphics are provided by an Nvidia chipset known as RSX. RSX was reportedly based on what was the 7800 series. Chances are, from the clock speed of the GPU at the Playstation3's launch, which was 550mhz, it is more likely the GPU shares more in common with the G71 7950 GT spin than the original G70 7800 spin. Thing is, either way, that is Shader Model 3 hardware.
AMD's new RadeonHD 3800 series though, is Shader Model 4 hardware, which means that all of the shaders are unified. In the RadeonHD 3800 the shaders can either do vertex shading, or pixel shading. Granted, the RadeonHD still can only do 16 textures per cycle versus the RSX's 24 textures per cycle, so the RSX will still probably be faster in texture based titles. However, with textures on the way out and shaders on the way in, the RadeonHD has much more to pass around.
It is possible then, that 4 RadeonHD 3800's coupled together, could approach 80 times the power of the Playstation3's RSX in terms of Shader Output.
***
The primary question is though... will that matter? The gut reaction is no. Most game developers have to target for a baseline of playability. Currently that baseline is the Intel Integrated Graphics, so most titles built against x86 computing are never going to press what 4 3800's coupled together can do.
That means that 80 times the power of a PS3 or no, it will be a while before such limits are even remotely pushed.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Desktop OS- Vista vs. Linux
Couple of updates concerning the Microsoft Vista versus Linux Desktop install base. Reason why this is coming up, well, now, of all times is that I was finishing up a review for Tabula Rasa and knocking out a commentary on Cryptic selling the City of Heroes franchise to NCSoft. While checking up on Cryptic Studios website I noticed they had a movie and link up for the Marvell MMO that Cryptic was basically blackmailed into making a few years back. The system specifications for Marvell Universe Online indicated only Xbox 360 and Microsoft Vista as supported platforms.
So, as a parting shot to Cryptic I commented that they were not going to have that large of a viable player base. This goes back to an earlier one liner I laid out in this blog where I noted that many gamers where users of Desktop Linux. I didn't lay out much background behind that, but here's a bit of anecdotal evidence. Everytime I bring up the subject of Linux in the games I play online I get a relative ratio of 4 out of 5 other players stating they run Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, or some other Linux distribution on a "side" computer or on a Dual boot system. If I include those using Virtual Machines under Windows, I'd estimate probably 7 out of every 8 gamers I've "chatted" with has some middling experience with running a Linux box. Now keep in mind that I play games like City of Heroes, Tabula Rasa, F.E.A.R. Combat, Ratchet and Clank, UT, and a couple of others that.
Now, recently Microsoft released their financial statements and, as usual, I've been picking through them. Also in the news back on November 9th, Vnunet reported that Microsoft and Novell had agreed to extend their technology agreement. These two events are semi-related.
A couple months back several vendors initiated a Vista to Xp crossgrade. Basically, if a customer ordered a computer and it came with Vista installed, the customer could get an Xp license instead. According to some of the reports I've seen (and I'm not sure if they are actually publicly available, and I happen to like having remade some industry contacts again), vendors who have started the Vista to Xp crossgrades have over a 70% adoption rate. Now get this, Microsoft does not count the crossgrade... as a sale for Xp. Rather, they count it as a sale for Vista.
Now, combine that data with public statements from vendors that Xp is outselling Vista on an average of 3 to 1. Now go take a look at Microsoft's sales statements for Vista and for Xp, and you'll note a startling difference. Microsoft's finance numbers do not add up if one accepts the numbers Microsoft has floated for sales.
Care to guess how the numbers appear to be adding up? If you are thinking that Vista is selling worse than Windows ME, you'd probably be close to what appears to be reality.
Okay, now lets tie this all back in together. Novell claimed several months back in a video ad that Desktop Linux users accounted for upwards of 30,000,000 different people. That's 30 million. Recent statements made by some Novell representatives indicate that they expect there are upwards of 50,000,000 Desktop Linux users. Microsoft has never contested the number of Desktop Linux users, and if anything the deal Microsoft signed with Novell was tacit agreement that Microsoft believed those numbers to be accurate.
The number being floated is now higher, and Microsoft just signed an extension of that agreement with Novell, again tacitly agreeing that Novell is right about the estimated user count.
Now, considering this for a factor. The Xbox 360 has confirmed sales just over 13 million. The Nintendo Wii, the top selling Console, has also breached 13 million sales recently. Lets accept the original number floated by Novell, which is 30 million. The entire Xbox market is just over 1/3 of the Linux market. If you accept the new number of 50million users, the entire Xbox market is just over 1/5 of the Linux market.
Now, Microsoft reported back in July that 60 million copies of Vista had been sold. Now start subtracting the crossgrades to Xp that are not counted as sales, and the 3-1 to ratio of Xp to Vista sales. Now, I'm not confident in my mathematics, but right now the best I can come up with is a realistic install base of around 40 million.
Yes. Desktop Linux Marketshare... is larger than Vista.
Now, lets put this in terms for game developers. Games written for OpenGL can run across the dominant installed OS which is Xp, the number two installed OS which is Linux based, and then on down to other platforms.
Thing is, gamers are not buying Vista, and I'll reference Tabula Rasa again. During beta there were several players who admitted they were running Vista, and then also admitted that they really didn't like it... only their vendor was not doing the crossgrade to Xp for them. Again, just about 4 out of 5 of the Vista users... stated they were running a Linux in some form.
Gamers are fleeing from Vista and remaining with Xp, or moving to a Linux base. And quite frankly, if game developers do not come to terms with the shift in gaming, they will be left behind.
I just don't think Cryptic has a viable market if they only ship on Vista and Xbox 360. Keep in mind that two of the biggest names in console RPGs, Final Fantasy Online and Phantasy Star Universe recorded the Xbox 360 as their lowest subscription platform.
So, personally, I'm actually sort of glad that City of Heroes has left Cryptic, because I'm not convinced that Cryptic will be a viable game studio in just a matter of months.
So, as a parting shot to Cryptic I commented that they were not going to have that large of a viable player base. This goes back to an earlier one liner I laid out in this blog where I noted that many gamers where users of Desktop Linux. I didn't lay out much background behind that, but here's a bit of anecdotal evidence. Everytime I bring up the subject of Linux in the games I play online I get a relative ratio of 4 out of 5 other players stating they run Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, or some other Linux distribution on a "side" computer or on a Dual boot system. If I include those using Virtual Machines under Windows, I'd estimate probably 7 out of every 8 gamers I've "chatted" with has some middling experience with running a Linux box. Now keep in mind that I play games like City of Heroes, Tabula Rasa, F.E.A.R. Combat, Ratchet and Clank, UT, and a couple of others that.
Now, recently Microsoft released their financial statements and, as usual, I've been picking through them. Also in the news back on November 9th, Vnunet reported that Microsoft and Novell had agreed to extend their technology agreement. These two events are semi-related.
A couple months back several vendors initiated a Vista to Xp crossgrade. Basically, if a customer ordered a computer and it came with Vista installed, the customer could get an Xp license instead. According to some of the reports I've seen (and I'm not sure if they are actually publicly available, and I happen to like having remade some industry contacts again), vendors who have started the Vista to Xp crossgrades have over a 70% adoption rate. Now get this, Microsoft does not count the crossgrade... as a sale for Xp. Rather, they count it as a sale for Vista.
Now, combine that data with public statements from vendors that Xp is outselling Vista on an average of 3 to 1. Now go take a look at Microsoft's sales statements for Vista and for Xp, and you'll note a startling difference. Microsoft's finance numbers do not add up if one accepts the numbers Microsoft has floated for sales.
Care to guess how the numbers appear to be adding up? If you are thinking that Vista is selling worse than Windows ME, you'd probably be close to what appears to be reality.
Okay, now lets tie this all back in together. Novell claimed several months back in a video ad that Desktop Linux users accounted for upwards of 30,000,000 different people. That's 30 million. Recent statements made by some Novell representatives indicate that they expect there are upwards of 50,000,000 Desktop Linux users. Microsoft has never contested the number of Desktop Linux users, and if anything the deal Microsoft signed with Novell was tacit agreement that Microsoft believed those numbers to be accurate.
The number being floated is now higher, and Microsoft just signed an extension of that agreement with Novell, again tacitly agreeing that Novell is right about the estimated user count.
Now, considering this for a factor. The Xbox 360 has confirmed sales just over 13 million. The Nintendo Wii, the top selling Console, has also breached 13 million sales recently. Lets accept the original number floated by Novell, which is 30 million. The entire Xbox market is just over 1/3 of the Linux market. If you accept the new number of 50million users, the entire Xbox market is just over 1/5 of the Linux market.
Now, Microsoft reported back in July that 60 million copies of Vista had been sold. Now start subtracting the crossgrades to Xp that are not counted as sales, and the 3-1 to ratio of Xp to Vista sales. Now, I'm not confident in my mathematics, but right now the best I can come up with is a realistic install base of around 40 million.
Yes. Desktop Linux Marketshare... is larger than Vista.
Now, lets put this in terms for game developers. Games written for OpenGL can run across the dominant installed OS which is Xp, the number two installed OS which is Linux based, and then on down to other platforms.
Thing is, gamers are not buying Vista, and I'll reference Tabula Rasa again. During beta there were several players who admitted they were running Vista, and then also admitted that they really didn't like it... only their vendor was not doing the crossgrade to Xp for them. Again, just about 4 out of 5 of the Vista users... stated they were running a Linux in some form.
Gamers are fleeing from Vista and remaining with Xp, or moving to a Linux base. And quite frankly, if game developers do not come to terms with the shift in gaming, they will be left behind.
I just don't think Cryptic has a viable market if they only ship on Vista and Xbox 360. Keep in mind that two of the biggest names in console RPGs, Final Fantasy Online and Phantasy Star Universe recorded the Xbox 360 as their lowest subscription platform.
So, personally, I'm actually sort of glad that City of Heroes has left Cryptic, because I'm not convinced that Cryptic will be a viable game studio in just a matter of months.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Ads update
I've updated the ad filter to include several more sites running ads for buying Gold in Blizzard's popular MMO title. I've also visited Briankopp.com and looked the site over. As far as I can tell, it seems to be a legit site that does not appear to violate Blizzard's Terms of Service.
AMD and the F.L.K.
Ever hear of the Aegis Combat System? It was a radar combat system developed originally by RCA. One of the jokes you might have read in Tom Clancy novels is that the Aegis's main radar was so powerful that if it was run at maximum output it would cause Funny Looking Kids for anybody pregnant within 3 or 4 miles. I want to say it was in "The Bear and the Dragon."
So what does this have to do with AMD? Well, I just ran a post that AMD hadn't really done anything that warranted commenting on. Now, according to several links in my inbox, and to various popular news sites, AMD is under attack from a former employee who was pregnant while working in a clean room enviroment for AMD. The former employee's child was born with both brain defects and limb damage, which the employee believes was directly caused by chemicals used in the clean-room enviroment.
Thing is, I'm not so sure the employee has a good legal case to stand on. Now, I should state that I've never actually met or talked with somebody who served on a cruiser with the Aegis Combat System. That being said, I know several friends and associates who have worked in combat positions with military forces, and those who have worked with hazardous materials in both combat and civilian positions with both military and commercial entities. I live very, very, very close to the Savannah River Plant, which is a nuclear facility, so I have a bit of personal experience seeing the planning involved with handling such materials, and the planning involved on what should happen if things go horribly wrong.
So, I feel very safe in stating that paranoia is a very common trait among anybody who works with hazardous materials, either directly, or indirectly, whether or not those materials are chemical, biological, or nuclear. Even getting into Savannah River Plant as a civilian results in several notifications that the Plant houses radioactive materials, never minding that I have a better chance of getting a check from Intel for product promotion than a civilian does actually getting within a "danger zone" of any radioactive materials. Everybody I have ever talked with in the past who has been involved with hazardous materials has a long list of the warnings, the procedures, and the training on what to do and how to act around and with such materials.
So... I am finding it very hard to believe that anybody involved in a high security operation like a processor FAB could possibly be unaware of the hazardous consequences the materials in use could cause. Quite simply I find it hard to believe that AMD would possibly allow anybody near the hazardous materials used in the FAB without making sure that their collective legal rear end was covered.
So, for this mother with the handicapped child, I can't possibly see how she could have worked at AMD, in a FAB, without knowing the consequences. That she chose to continue working in the FAB after becoming aware she was Pregnant I think removes any fault from AMD corporate. Simply put, the mother was working with materials (chemicals) that were known to be harmful to pregnancies. Her manager or supervisor would have also been in a position to know the nature of the materials. As soon as the lady knew she was pregnant she should have told her manager / supervisor, and consulted with a doctor. That such an event did NOT happen is a fault of the mother.
The question then... is how badly Dailytech and Anandtech are going to swing the story to make it look like AMD is at fault. There also is a question of how many other funded sites are going to go out of their way to paint AMD as a "bad guy" who put an innocent life at risk. I'm not sure I want to answer that, or try to answer that.
So what does this have to do with AMD? Well, I just ran a post that AMD hadn't really done anything that warranted commenting on. Now, according to several links in my inbox, and to various popular news sites, AMD is under attack from a former employee who was pregnant while working in a clean room enviroment for AMD. The former employee's child was born with both brain defects and limb damage, which the employee believes was directly caused by chemicals used in the clean-room enviroment.
Thing is, I'm not so sure the employee has a good legal case to stand on. Now, I should state that I've never actually met or talked with somebody who served on a cruiser with the Aegis Combat System. That being said, I know several friends and associates who have worked in combat positions with military forces, and those who have worked with hazardous materials in both combat and civilian positions with both military and commercial entities. I live very, very, very close to the Savannah River Plant, which is a nuclear facility, so I have a bit of personal experience seeing the planning involved with handling such materials, and the planning involved on what should happen if things go horribly wrong.
So, I feel very safe in stating that paranoia is a very common trait among anybody who works with hazardous materials, either directly, or indirectly, whether or not those materials are chemical, biological, or nuclear. Even getting into Savannah River Plant as a civilian results in several notifications that the Plant houses radioactive materials, never minding that I have a better chance of getting a check from Intel for product promotion than a civilian does actually getting within a "danger zone" of any radioactive materials. Everybody I have ever talked with in the past who has been involved with hazardous materials has a long list of the warnings, the procedures, and the training on what to do and how to act around and with such materials.
So... I am finding it very hard to believe that anybody involved in a high security operation like a processor FAB could possibly be unaware of the hazardous consequences the materials in use could cause. Quite simply I find it hard to believe that AMD would possibly allow anybody near the hazardous materials used in the FAB without making sure that their collective legal rear end was covered.
So, for this mother with the handicapped child, I can't possibly see how she could have worked at AMD, in a FAB, without knowing the consequences. That she chose to continue working in the FAB after becoming aware she was Pregnant I think removes any fault from AMD corporate. Simply put, the mother was working with materials (chemicals) that were known to be harmful to pregnancies. Her manager or supervisor would have also been in a position to know the nature of the materials. As soon as the lady knew she was pregnant she should have told her manager / supervisor, and consulted with a doctor. That such an event did NOT happen is a fault of the mother.
The question then... is how badly Dailytech and Anandtech are going to swing the story to make it look like AMD is at fault. There also is a question of how many other funded sites are going to go out of their way to paint AMD as a "bad guy" who put an innocent life at risk. I'm not sure I want to answer that, or try to answer that.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
on AMD and Google.
Recently somebody asked me how I felt about AMD and Google. While I've gone after Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia, and other vendors before, I have been relatively quiet on the subjects of AMD and Google. The associate wondered if my silence on Google was driven by the fact that the blog is published on a Google site.
The short answer is that no, Google hosting Blogger doesn't have anything to do with a lack of posts about Google. It more is the fact that I really do not have anything to say about Google. Yes, in some aspects Google creeps the living daylights out of me. Their whole "Don't be Evil" mantra on a corporate level, their explosive rise to power, and their less than ethical dealings with China and other socialistic countries, all are factors that make me nervous.
In one case specifically somebody doing a search for myself came across a document I had uploaded containing my home address, phone number, and other information in my resume. I surprised that associate by being unconcerned about the information being available through such methods. Thing is I put my mailing address on the MepisGuides site. My resume with more contact information is located somewhere on Monster, although I haven't been there in a while. My phone number and other contact information is one file with the state of Georgia for Gamenikki.com. Anybody who wants to do a background check on me can obtain that information simply by calling the State department that handles business licenses.
So why didn't Google being able to turn the information bother me? Google is a search company and they are really, really, really good at searching. However, mastering the techniques to search for information means mastering the material that is being searched to begin with.
For example, if somebody wanted to effectively search mass emails? The best way to determine the most effective search methods are to build a test email system from the ground up. That way the engineers get practical experience on how a mail system works by putting one together at the same time getting the developing the most practical way of searching that email. Of course, once you've built the email system, why junk it? Thus you have Google Mail, or rather Gmail.
Google took the searching one step further with Gmail by using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) System developed for searching text in books to search images embedded in mail. Considering that many scammers use embedded .png or .jpeg files with the text they want to be seen while slipping the text past a purely text based scanner systems, Google came up with an effective way of identifying such spams.
Google Docs is another such entry. If Google is going to go through the trouble of building a document and spreadsheet system from the ground up in order to learn how to best search the saved files and how files are generated, why not put that coding to work in a practical sense?
Just a quick overview of all of Google's products reveal strong ties towards developing effective search techniques. Of course, once you have a whole bunch of coders in place who are experienced in building programs other than strictly search based applications, why not turn those coders to other tasks? Suddenly development of systems like Android don't really seem that odd coming from Google. In becoming a search powerhouse, Google has also become a software development powerhouse.
Google also gives a lot back to the communities, both Closed-Licensed and Open-Licensed. Google employs Linux Kernel Developers. Google funds the Summer of Code, a running project to pay students to develop Open-Licensed Software. Google's funding of Mozilla has enabled the Mozilla Foundation to go toe to toe with Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
As I see it, Google strikes a balance between being a standard multinational corporation, and being a good community member. Most of the times I wind up having no opinion, or no viable opinion on Google's direct actions. I do not feel that I am qualified, or capable, to discuss Google's behavior with Socialistic Countries. I really don't feel I have much of a place to comment on their corporate mantra, and their rise to power is logically explained by simply being good at their job.
AMD, for me, is much of the same thread as Google. AMD does a lot to get involved with Open-Licensed software and Open-Licensed Hardware. Because of AMD employees many server and consumer motherboards are not restricted to using a proprietary BIOS as users can boot with LinuxBIOS instead. AMD has opened up specifications and driver information for a lot of their own hardware. AMD involved Linux developers with the creation of x86-64, and for a long time Linux was the only option for those running x86-64. AMD has a long history with funding Open Source efforts, and is behind the paychecks for developers pushing out Open-Licensed drivers for Radeon graphics cards.
AMD also pushed out Hypertransport, a bus connection technology that Intel still has no answer for. Already in it's third Revision Hypertransport allows for cable connections of computer systems at processor latencies. AMD is also responsible for Torrenza, which I believe I have blogged about before. Using Torrenza IBM could put a Cell based processor on the same motherboard as an Athlon64 processor, giving the user the benefits of both processors without having to have two different chassis.
Now, I'm not saying that AMD is completely pure in their dealings. AMD also at one time was running Presidio, a technology that mirrored Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module, also known as Treacherous Platform Module) that would remove users control over hardware. However, the last time AMD talked about Presidio was back in 2004... and the last time the topic was brought up by AMD developers was back in 2006. So, right now, it seems that AMD is not on the same boat with Intel and TPM.
About the only legitimate complaint I can level against AMD is that AMD/ATi has joined up with those offering HDMI output on Graphics cards. HDMI in itself is not a bad idea since it offers high bandwith video transfer rates with high bandwith audio transfer rates. However, HDMI implies utilization of the Intel Developed HDCP format to remove content control from end users.
But, AMD is also involved with DisplayPort, a license-free and royalty-free standard from the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA). While AMD did develop DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP), the usage of DisplayPort does not require the usage of DPCP. With HDMI, the specification reads as though it requires the use of HDCP. HDMI is also a licensed format and is not freely available to implement.
From my point of view AMD made the best of a bad situation. AMD doesn't have the market strength to tell the RIAA and MPAA the equivalent of HELL NO when it comes to removing users control over content... But AMD has taken steps to insure that those who avoid Digitial Rights Management (DRM) are not punished for by being unable to use the latest video technologies.
So, that's why you don't see a lot of writings about Google or AMD in my posts. I just really don't have a lot to say, and when I am given something that should be commented on... generally its in an area where I would not feel right making comments.
The short answer is that no, Google hosting Blogger doesn't have anything to do with a lack of posts about Google. It more is the fact that I really do not have anything to say about Google. Yes, in some aspects Google creeps the living daylights out of me. Their whole "Don't be Evil" mantra on a corporate level, their explosive rise to power, and their less than ethical dealings with China and other socialistic countries, all are factors that make me nervous.
In one case specifically somebody doing a search for myself came across a document I had uploaded containing my home address, phone number, and other information in my resume. I surprised that associate by being unconcerned about the information being available through such methods. Thing is I put my mailing address on the MepisGuides site. My resume with more contact information is located somewhere on Monster, although I haven't been there in a while. My phone number and other contact information is one file with the state of Georgia for Gamenikki.com. Anybody who wants to do a background check on me can obtain that information simply by calling the State department that handles business licenses.
So why didn't Google being able to turn the information bother me? Google is a search company and they are really, really, really good at searching. However, mastering the techniques to search for information means mastering the material that is being searched to begin with.
For example, if somebody wanted to effectively search mass emails? The best way to determine the most effective search methods are to build a test email system from the ground up. That way the engineers get practical experience on how a mail system works by putting one together at the same time getting the developing the most practical way of searching that email. Of course, once you've built the email system, why junk it? Thus you have Google Mail, or rather Gmail.
Google took the searching one step further with Gmail by using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) System developed for searching text in books to search images embedded in mail. Considering that many scammers use embedded .png or .jpeg files with the text they want to be seen while slipping the text past a purely text based scanner systems, Google came up with an effective way of identifying such spams.
Google Docs is another such entry. If Google is going to go through the trouble of building a document and spreadsheet system from the ground up in order to learn how to best search the saved files and how files are generated, why not put that coding to work in a practical sense?
Just a quick overview of all of Google's products reveal strong ties towards developing effective search techniques. Of course, once you have a whole bunch of coders in place who are experienced in building programs other than strictly search based applications, why not turn those coders to other tasks? Suddenly development of systems like Android don't really seem that odd coming from Google. In becoming a search powerhouse, Google has also become a software development powerhouse.
Google also gives a lot back to the communities, both Closed-Licensed and Open-Licensed. Google employs Linux Kernel Developers. Google funds the Summer of Code, a running project to pay students to develop Open-Licensed Software. Google's funding of Mozilla has enabled the Mozilla Foundation to go toe to toe with Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
As I see it, Google strikes a balance between being a standard multinational corporation, and being a good community member. Most of the times I wind up having no opinion, or no viable opinion on Google's direct actions. I do not feel that I am qualified, or capable, to discuss Google's behavior with Socialistic Countries. I really don't feel I have much of a place to comment on their corporate mantra, and their rise to power is logically explained by simply being good at their job.
AMD, for me, is much of the same thread as Google. AMD does a lot to get involved with Open-Licensed software and Open-Licensed Hardware. Because of AMD employees many server and consumer motherboards are not restricted to using a proprietary BIOS as users can boot with LinuxBIOS instead. AMD has opened up specifications and driver information for a lot of their own hardware. AMD involved Linux developers with the creation of x86-64, and for a long time Linux was the only option for those running x86-64. AMD has a long history with funding Open Source efforts, and is behind the paychecks for developers pushing out Open-Licensed drivers for Radeon graphics cards.
AMD also pushed out Hypertransport, a bus connection technology that Intel still has no answer for. Already in it's third Revision Hypertransport allows for cable connections of computer systems at processor latencies. AMD is also responsible for Torrenza, which I believe I have blogged about before. Using Torrenza IBM could put a Cell based processor on the same motherboard as an Athlon64 processor, giving the user the benefits of both processors without having to have two different chassis.
Now, I'm not saying that AMD is completely pure in their dealings. AMD also at one time was running Presidio, a technology that mirrored Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module, also known as Treacherous Platform Module) that would remove users control over hardware. However, the last time AMD talked about Presidio was back in 2004... and the last time the topic was brought up by AMD developers was back in 2006. So, right now, it seems that AMD is not on the same boat with Intel and TPM.
About the only legitimate complaint I can level against AMD is that AMD/ATi has joined up with those offering HDMI output on Graphics cards. HDMI in itself is not a bad idea since it offers high bandwith video transfer rates with high bandwith audio transfer rates. However, HDMI implies utilization of the Intel Developed HDCP format to remove content control from end users.
But, AMD is also involved with DisplayPort, a license-free and royalty-free standard from the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA). While AMD did develop DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP), the usage of DisplayPort does not require the usage of DPCP. With HDMI, the specification reads as though it requires the use of HDCP. HDMI is also a licensed format and is not freely available to implement.
From my point of view AMD made the best of a bad situation. AMD doesn't have the market strength to tell the RIAA and MPAA the equivalent of HELL NO when it comes to removing users control over content... But AMD has taken steps to insure that those who avoid Digitial Rights Management (DRM) are not punished for by being unable to use the latest video technologies.
So, that's why you don't see a lot of writings about Google or AMD in my posts. I just really don't have a lot to say, and when I am given something that should be commented on... generally its in an area where I would not feel right making comments.
What bothers me about OHA's Android.
If you have not read or heard the news, Google released a statement to the press about the formation of the Open Handset Alliance and their new phone Operating System, Android. The statement covered several particulars of the upcoming Android and clarified that the software platform would be Open-Licensed, specifically the Apache V2 license.
Google's Press Release | Open Handset Alliance | Android Overview | Android FAQ
So... it looks good... it SOUNDS good... but there are a couple of items about the OS that bug me. For starters there is the list of companies involved, many of which have spotty records with Open-Licensed software. I see names like Intel, Nvidia, and Broadcom in the lineup. I also see some notable names not present.
AMD is one of them. AMD has a large hold in the mobile devices sector with it's Imageon lineup, as well other extensive embedded solutions. I would have figured that in an effort to promote an open-handset platform that AMD would have been one of the top technology and software vendors involved. Considering the move to open up the source code and specifications for it's graphic processors, AMD would have been the smart choice for any true involvement with creating an open phone platform capable of 3D acceleration on open-licensed software.
Another name that is missing from the list is MontaVista Linux. As the leading vendor of an open-licensed platform for high speed communication devices, (12-14% of the market) MontaVista's non-involvement is not a troubling no-show.
The last name that bugs me that I do not see involved is Nokia. Nokia of course has the Symbian OS, which is also jointly owned by Ericsson, Sony Ericsson, Panasonic, Siemens AG, and Samsung. While one might claim conflict of interest, Samsung is involved in the Open-Handset alliance. As the controller of the dominant share of the cellphone market (generally over 75%), that Symbian members are not more involved is a little disturbing.
Basically, I am questioning exactly how Open the Open Handset Alliance is. I hear a lot of nice sounding words about how the platform will work, but the real players of the industry... well, they just don't seem to be involved. As I see it, the Open Handset Alliance intends to go up against both MontaVista and Symbian which hold over 90% of the cell phone market.
I also see it as the losers of the telecommunications battles gathering up, grabbing a couple of decent software vendors and having another go at it. I'm not sold on that being a recipe for success.
Right off hand, if the Open Handset Alliance was truly interested in being open... we would see the platform being based on MontaVista and we would see involvement from AMD. We'd also see some involvement from the industry heavy weights to indicate that there is a genuine alliance between all parties involved.
There are some aspects that I am happy to see though. I for one am glad that Canonical is not involved. I must also state that I am very glad that Microsoft is not involved. I really hope that Android turns out to be a great product, and I think Google did the right thing by setting it up as an Open-Licensed platform. I'm also going to say that I don't mind the use of the Apache V2 license. I'm glad that the Open Handset Alliance chose to use an existing commercially proven license rather than creating yet another license.
I just don't think that they are going to eat very far into MontaVista and Nokia's sales.
Google's Press Release | Open Handset Alliance | Android Overview | Android FAQ
So... it looks good... it SOUNDS good... but there are a couple of items about the OS that bug me. For starters there is the list of companies involved, many of which have spotty records with Open-Licensed software. I see names like Intel, Nvidia, and Broadcom in the lineup. I also see some notable names not present.
AMD is one of them. AMD has a large hold in the mobile devices sector with it's Imageon lineup, as well other extensive embedded solutions. I would have figured that in an effort to promote an open-handset platform that AMD would have been one of the top technology and software vendors involved. Considering the move to open up the source code and specifications for it's graphic processors, AMD would have been the smart choice for any true involvement with creating an open phone platform capable of 3D acceleration on open-licensed software.
Another name that is missing from the list is MontaVista Linux. As the leading vendor of an open-licensed platform for high speed communication devices, (12-14% of the market) MontaVista's non-involvement is not a troubling no-show.
The last name that bugs me that I do not see involved is Nokia. Nokia of course has the Symbian OS, which is also jointly owned by Ericsson, Sony Ericsson, Panasonic, Siemens AG, and Samsung. While one might claim conflict of interest, Samsung is involved in the Open-Handset alliance. As the controller of the dominant share of the cellphone market (generally over 75%), that Symbian members are not more involved is a little disturbing.
Basically, I am questioning exactly how Open the Open Handset Alliance is. I hear a lot of nice sounding words about how the platform will work, but the real players of the industry... well, they just don't seem to be involved. As I see it, the Open Handset Alliance intends to go up against both MontaVista and Symbian which hold over 90% of the cell phone market.
I also see it as the losers of the telecommunications battles gathering up, grabbing a couple of decent software vendors and having another go at it. I'm not sold on that being a recipe for success.
Right off hand, if the Open Handset Alliance was truly interested in being open... we would see the platform being based on MontaVista and we would see involvement from AMD. We'd also see some involvement from the industry heavy weights to indicate that there is a genuine alliance between all parties involved.
There are some aspects that I am happy to see though. I for one am glad that Canonical is not involved. I must also state that I am very glad that Microsoft is not involved. I really hope that Android turns out to be a great product, and I think Google did the right thing by setting it up as an Open-Licensed platform. I'm also going to say that I don't mind the use of the Apache V2 license. I'm glad that the Open Handset Alliance chose to use an existing commercially proven license rather than creating yet another license.
I just don't think that they are going to eat very far into MontaVista and Nokia's sales.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Tabula Rasa - Success or Flop?
Someone recently asked me in-game whether or not I thought Tabula-Rasa was going to be a success... or a flop. My answer was... it depends, and it depends on a lot of different factors. Yes, the name Richard Garriot is a huge draw to the game as is. The fact that it is a shooter is also a huge draw. Yet... that isn't all there is to it.
The example I like to use is Sony Planetside. Back when Planetside came out we gave it a relatively high score, I think an 8 or above if memory serves. When Core Combat came out, since I was the one actively playing the game, I gave it a very low score, I think a 2 or something, in a badly written rant. One of the charges I laid against Planetside is that the developers forgot what made the game Planetside. I stated, on multiple occasions, that Planetside went after what was popular, but not what was Planetside. The long campaigns, tactical and strategic planning, and the heavy use of vehicles set Planetside apart from any First Person Shooter, much less any other Massive Multiplayer Online game.
As time went on, as I saw it, the developers focused on including features and items found in the hottest selling game of the day. For example, BFR's came into development as MechAssault was running away as a smash hit. The game play was changed to a more session based format where there was no long term goal or planning involved. The last time I logged into Planetside, which was last month, the core gameplay was barely different from Unreal Tournament 2004's Onslaught mode on a larger scale. The sense that Planetside was an ongoing RPG set in a planetary warfare enviroment... was gone.
It is my opinion that if Destination Games isn't careful, the same could happen with Tabula Rasa. Now, I am going to name the person. The name is Rosemont. Rosemont is not explicitly a troll, and it is my opinion naive is a much better term. Over the past several days of Tabula Rasa's launch I have seen many players in general chat attempt to cram their favorite features from World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI, Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima Online, and other such titles into the Tabula Rasa setting.
I have seen multiple comments, plots, and schemes laid out on how to integrate the missing killer feature into Tabula Rasa, and I have seen it constantly from both day and nighttime players. While Tabula Rasa does rely on several aspects of a traditional MMO gam, it in turn seeks to break several of the traditional aspects.
One of the key features of Tabula Rasa is the cloning system, which seeks to end the level grind players must go through in order to have different classifications of characters. Players only have to get their character to a certain level where they choose their classification, and before they choose they have the option to save a clone with all of the experience earned so far. Thus, upon activating the clone the player can take the other option and play the other class without having to start from lvl 1 again.
Tabula Rasa also seeks to change the way players look at the game. One of the problems Richard Garriot noticed with Lineage II, and confirmed by Cryptic's City of Heroes and the NCSoft developed/published Guild Wars, is that players were spending more time looking at their power and abilities than paying attention to the world itself. The game developers were building these huge beautiful worlds that collectively nobody was paying attention to. So, by utilizing a 3rd person shooter format, Tabula Rasa allows players to view the world without having to lock attention to their power bar.
Right now, Richard Garriot and his development team have a very clear goal of how to make Tabula Rasa. They have a very clear vision of how the world will come together, and how everything will interact. I, personally, cannot wait for maps that can only be navigated by using Logos, and for missions to be given in LogosSpeak only.
My concern is that the development team will lose focus on what makes Tabula Rasa unique, and instead focus on answering the demands and suggestions made by players within the game.
Okay, fine, I personally like my idea of how to solve Clan housing. Clans can defeat a Bane Lord in a special Task Force, and then the clans get access to the Bane Lords Spaceship. Hook the spaceship up with a wormgate to tie into Foreas base or another location, and poof, clan housing solved. It is an in-game method of delivering a clan housing that doesn't break the feel of the game itself.
But, when players ask for things like Black armor paint, white armor paint, or more extensive crafting, such players don't realize that they are missing the scope of the game. The crafting in Tabula Rasa is specifically designed as a checklist feature. It is there, but the general recommendation is that players use a clone token and dedicate an avatar to crafting alone. The design is similar to Cryptic's Implementation in City of Heroes. Players do not need to use crafting. It is not a requirement to enjoy the game, to progress in levels, or to achieve certain rewards. For those who want to take their character and do a little bit of tweaking, crafting is there.
Then there is the Auction House. I, personally, am adamantly against an auction house. I think an Auction House is only going to generate problems for the developers and players. However, the setup is again, similar to City of Heroes. Players do not need to partake in using the Auction House, much less visiting the trade channel (which incidentally has almost no posts being made to it) in order to appreciate, enjoy, or simply play the game.
This is where Rosemont comes in. What Rosemont does not understand, and this is representative of several players, is that requests and suggestions that change the fundamental nature of how the game is played, or the style of the game, need to be shut down as soon as they are brought up. No, there is not going to be a discussion about adding black or white armor paint. Such paint was left out, on purpose, at least as far back as 2005 (remembering my way too much time being spent on the E3 2005 demo).
At some point, the idiocy has got to end. Somebody has to stand up and make it clear that players need to let their old games go. I've already watched as one game I liked tried to include everything that was popular... and I'm willing to more vocal about preventing that from happening again.
As I see it, if Tabula Rasa does not remain unique, if it does not remain different, players are going to see no reason to pay for it when they already have established characters in other games that do the same exact thing... all over again.
The example I like to use is Sony Planetside. Back when Planetside came out we gave it a relatively high score, I think an 8 or above if memory serves. When Core Combat came out, since I was the one actively playing the game, I gave it a very low score, I think a 2 or something, in a badly written rant. One of the charges I laid against Planetside is that the developers forgot what made the game Planetside. I stated, on multiple occasions, that Planetside went after what was popular, but not what was Planetside. The long campaigns, tactical and strategic planning, and the heavy use of vehicles set Planetside apart from any First Person Shooter, much less any other Massive Multiplayer Online game.
As time went on, as I saw it, the developers focused on including features and items found in the hottest selling game of the day. For example, BFR's came into development as MechAssault was running away as a smash hit. The game play was changed to a more session based format where there was no long term goal or planning involved. The last time I logged into Planetside, which was last month, the core gameplay was barely different from Unreal Tournament 2004's Onslaught mode on a larger scale. The sense that Planetside was an ongoing RPG set in a planetary warfare enviroment... was gone.
It is my opinion that if Destination Games isn't careful, the same could happen with Tabula Rasa. Now, I am going to name the person. The name is Rosemont. Rosemont is not explicitly a troll, and it is my opinion naive is a much better term. Over the past several days of Tabula Rasa's launch I have seen many players in general chat attempt to cram their favorite features from World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI, Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima Online, and other such titles into the Tabula Rasa setting.
I have seen multiple comments, plots, and schemes laid out on how to integrate the missing killer feature into Tabula Rasa, and I have seen it constantly from both day and nighttime players. While Tabula Rasa does rely on several aspects of a traditional MMO gam, it in turn seeks to break several of the traditional aspects.
One of the key features of Tabula Rasa is the cloning system, which seeks to end the level grind players must go through in order to have different classifications of characters. Players only have to get their character to a certain level where they choose their classification, and before they choose they have the option to save a clone with all of the experience earned so far. Thus, upon activating the clone the player can take the other option and play the other class without having to start from lvl 1 again.
Tabula Rasa also seeks to change the way players look at the game. One of the problems Richard Garriot noticed with Lineage II, and confirmed by Cryptic's City of Heroes and the NCSoft developed/published Guild Wars, is that players were spending more time looking at their power and abilities than paying attention to the world itself. The game developers were building these huge beautiful worlds that collectively nobody was paying attention to. So, by utilizing a 3rd person shooter format, Tabula Rasa allows players to view the world without having to lock attention to their power bar.
Right now, Richard Garriot and his development team have a very clear goal of how to make Tabula Rasa. They have a very clear vision of how the world will come together, and how everything will interact. I, personally, cannot wait for maps that can only be navigated by using Logos, and for missions to be given in LogosSpeak only.
My concern is that the development team will lose focus on what makes Tabula Rasa unique, and instead focus on answering the demands and suggestions made by players within the game.
Okay, fine, I personally like my idea of how to solve Clan housing. Clans can defeat a Bane Lord in a special Task Force, and then the clans get access to the Bane Lords Spaceship. Hook the spaceship up with a wormgate to tie into Foreas base or another location, and poof, clan housing solved. It is an in-game method of delivering a clan housing that doesn't break the feel of the game itself.
But, when players ask for things like Black armor paint, white armor paint, or more extensive crafting, such players don't realize that they are missing the scope of the game. The crafting in Tabula Rasa is specifically designed as a checklist feature. It is there, but the general recommendation is that players use a clone token and dedicate an avatar to crafting alone. The design is similar to Cryptic's Implementation in City of Heroes. Players do not need to use crafting. It is not a requirement to enjoy the game, to progress in levels, or to achieve certain rewards. For those who want to take their character and do a little bit of tweaking, crafting is there.
Then there is the Auction House. I, personally, am adamantly against an auction house. I think an Auction House is only going to generate problems for the developers and players. However, the setup is again, similar to City of Heroes. Players do not need to partake in using the Auction House, much less visiting the trade channel (which incidentally has almost no posts being made to it) in order to appreciate, enjoy, or simply play the game.
This is where Rosemont comes in. What Rosemont does not understand, and this is representative of several players, is that requests and suggestions that change the fundamental nature of how the game is played, or the style of the game, need to be shut down as soon as they are brought up. No, there is not going to be a discussion about adding black or white armor paint. Such paint was left out, on purpose, at least as far back as 2005 (remembering my way too much time being spent on the E3 2005 demo).
At some point, the idiocy has got to end. Somebody has to stand up and make it clear that players need to let their old games go. I've already watched as one game I liked tried to include everything that was popular... and I'm willing to more vocal about preventing that from happening again.
As I see it, if Tabula Rasa does not remain unique, if it does not remain different, players are going to see no reason to pay for it when they already have established characters in other games that do the same exact thing... all over again.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Ventaur Koss - or why piracy advocates bug me.
It isn't often that I use my blogs to out trolls, the last instance being Simon... somebody... griefing in CoH Issue 7/8 Hammidon. Ventaur Koss thus earns the distinction of being the second troll to be annoying enough to generate a posting. As before, an NCSoft game is involved, but this time it is Tabula Rasa.
What makes this more... out of the normal... is that the beta, pre-launch, and first few days of retail release have been filled with trolls much more obnoxious than Koss. I have a list of about 18 different people who only logged in at lvl 1, hung out in the training zone, and used the general chat to advertise and promote World of Warcraft. I have about 4 people who only log in, stand in one place, and shout that "this game sucks," and promote the wonders of HellGate London. I have others, like Lithos (third to be outed), that claim they were extensively involved in the beta, and then proceed to ask for high level equipment or how to perform certain commands that were never in the game to begin with. When confronted, some of these players respond with "what ever floats your boat" or other such comments unconcerned that somebody would dare call them out. I have others on my ignore list that simply did their best to get around the profanity filter. I've seen more ways to spell out slang names for parts of male and female anatomy in the space of 4 hours than I have after over 2 years in City of Heroes.
So, why does Ventaur Koss stand out? What makes him special? Because he was advocating piracy, and lamenting that certain piracy organizations had been shut down by "federal agents."
Now, I have a special hatred for pirates, most notably from the time of Sega World Weekly. Upon revelation that I had certain un-released titles and was able to comment extensively on them with other members of the press who ALSO had copies, one person refused to believe that I had said titles. The only way they would accept proof? If I sent the hard-copies to a known pirate organization.
Thing is, it is hard to argue with some people, like the members of The Pirate Bay. I hate the RIAA and MPAA as much as they do. In some cases, I really don't understand why TV studios are so concerned with bit-torrent copies of their content, especially if the TV Studio is an Over-The-Airwaves provider, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and whatever UPN is now (I don't care, don't email me). If I have a rabbit ears or digital tv antenna, I can pick up their shows without paying the studios one cent. What is the big deal if I obtain the episodes from an online connection?
That being said, I can also take steps to minimize my involvement with RIAA and MPAA, and content producers can also take steps to minimize their involvement with the RIAA and MPAA. For example, RadioHead and Nine-Inch-Nails have both left their labels. RadioHead's last album was released outside of the realm of the RIAA and MPAA, and Trent Reznor has announced that his next album will be released in a similar manner. Granted, I don't care for their music, and I'd probably raise a glass of champagne if Trent Reznor got smacked by a Greyhound Bus... but I do have to give props for breaking away from the real pirates of the music and movies industries.
With all that being said... why would Ventaur Koss's promotion of piracy bug me so much?
Well, because he was complaining about outright piracy of video games, and what I witnessed, a specific complaint against a group of people shut down by federal agents for remaking a console game.
My problem with this is that most game developers are fairly lenient about remakes or appearances of their characters in other titles. One specific example is Capcom which gave the Shin Megami Tensei developers permission to include their top selling, and top ranking, Devil May Cry lead character, Dante, in Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Keep in mind that Atlus's hottest titles barely sell more units than Capcom's biggest failures.
Look at this way. Most game developers and publishers don't want to spend time or money remaking games, or re-imaging games for that matter. If a small time team brings a project to the publisher or developer directly, say, like remaking Chrono Trigger, chances are they will be able to secure a license for cheap, or in some cases, no cost. Square Enix and Nintendo specifically launched the Q fund back on the Gamecube to promote and finance such small time developers. Talking with Nintendo's development handlers back just before the Wii launched netted comments indicating that there are a few venture capitalists lined up to back Wii development for such developers.
What bugged me most about Ventaur Koss is that he was promoting piracy of video games... in a retail video game. Now, I honestly don't know if Blizzard considers such behavior acceptable in their leading MMO... but I think it's reprehensible. Now, I'm not dumb enough to think that I can stop piracy outright, and I'm not dumb enough to think that people like Ventaur Koss will just go away.
What I do think is that they should be kicked, perma-banned, and made clear they are persona-non-grata. Here's hoping NCSoft has enough guts to terminate his account.
What makes this more... out of the normal... is that the beta, pre-launch, and first few days of retail release have been filled with trolls much more obnoxious than Koss. I have a list of about 18 different people who only logged in at lvl 1, hung out in the training zone, and used the general chat to advertise and promote World of Warcraft. I have about 4 people who only log in, stand in one place, and shout that "this game sucks," and promote the wonders of HellGate London. I have others, like Lithos (third to be outed), that claim they were extensively involved in the beta, and then proceed to ask for high level equipment or how to perform certain commands that were never in the game to begin with. When confronted, some of these players respond with "what ever floats your boat" or other such comments unconcerned that somebody would dare call them out. I have others on my ignore list that simply did their best to get around the profanity filter. I've seen more ways to spell out slang names for parts of male and female anatomy in the space of 4 hours than I have after over 2 years in City of Heroes.
So, why does Ventaur Koss stand out? What makes him special? Because he was advocating piracy, and lamenting that certain piracy organizations had been shut down by "federal agents."
Now, I have a special hatred for pirates, most notably from the time of Sega World Weekly. Upon revelation that I had certain un-released titles and was able to comment extensively on them with other members of the press who ALSO had copies, one person refused to believe that I had said titles. The only way they would accept proof? If I sent the hard-copies to a known pirate organization.
Thing is, it is hard to argue with some people, like the members of The Pirate Bay. I hate the RIAA and MPAA as much as they do. In some cases, I really don't understand why TV studios are so concerned with bit-torrent copies of their content, especially if the TV Studio is an Over-The-Airwaves provider, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and whatever UPN is now (I don't care, don't email me). If I have a rabbit ears or digital tv antenna, I can pick up their shows without paying the studios one cent. What is the big deal if I obtain the episodes from an online connection?
That being said, I can also take steps to minimize my involvement with RIAA and MPAA, and content producers can also take steps to minimize their involvement with the RIAA and MPAA. For example, RadioHead and Nine-Inch-Nails have both left their labels. RadioHead's last album was released outside of the realm of the RIAA and MPAA, and Trent Reznor has announced that his next album will be released in a similar manner. Granted, I don't care for their music, and I'd probably raise a glass of champagne if Trent Reznor got smacked by a Greyhound Bus... but I do have to give props for breaking away from the real pirates of the music and movies industries.
With all that being said... why would Ventaur Koss's promotion of piracy bug me so much?
Well, because he was complaining about outright piracy of video games, and what I witnessed, a specific complaint against a group of people shut down by federal agents for remaking a console game.
My problem with this is that most game developers are fairly lenient about remakes or appearances of their characters in other titles. One specific example is Capcom which gave the Shin Megami Tensei developers permission to include their top selling, and top ranking, Devil May Cry lead character, Dante, in Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Keep in mind that Atlus's hottest titles barely sell more units than Capcom's biggest failures.
Look at this way. Most game developers and publishers don't want to spend time or money remaking games, or re-imaging games for that matter. If a small time team brings a project to the publisher or developer directly, say, like remaking Chrono Trigger, chances are they will be able to secure a license for cheap, or in some cases, no cost. Square Enix and Nintendo specifically launched the Q fund back on the Gamecube to promote and finance such small time developers. Talking with Nintendo's development handlers back just before the Wii launched netted comments indicating that there are a few venture capitalists lined up to back Wii development for such developers.
What bugged me most about Ventaur Koss is that he was promoting piracy of video games... in a retail video game. Now, I honestly don't know if Blizzard considers such behavior acceptable in their leading MMO... but I think it's reprehensible. Now, I'm not dumb enough to think that I can stop piracy outright, and I'm not dumb enough to think that people like Ventaur Koss will just go away.
What I do think is that they should be kicked, perma-banned, and made clear they are persona-non-grata. Here's hoping NCSoft has enough guts to terminate his account.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Ad sense ads - blocking
The post after this one has generated ads for some of the sites I was directly fussing at. The ads are blocked as I see them come up and block their owners.
Friday, November 02, 2007
WoW as a Benchmark
I originally wrote the following with the intent to place it on Gamenikki. However, I don't think my arguments are all that well supported, or clarified. So, I'm tossing it up here for anybody who wants to read what is essentially a rambling rant against the state of World of Warcraft
***
This post has been cross-posted here : http://semmo.nitingupta.org/
http://semmo.nitingupta.org/index.php?pg=about
Not really what I would have chosen as a good example of my writing... but hey, go check them out.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft is one the most popular Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG) currently running. With a reported userbase of over 9 million accounts, World of Warcraft is the equivalent of a 900lb gorilla. Keeping that in mind, how would you respond if I stated that World of Warcraft was not the benchmark for an MMORPG?
Look at it this way, World of Warcraft is the is the safe option when it comes to gaming. Playing World of Warcraft is like having had a Playstation2, or having had a Xbox with Halo. In polite company, you don't come across as being too geeky or nerdy, and in more technical oriented company, you are not flat out rejected for being a non-participant of technical oriented activities. It is a nice happy medium.
A problem for World of Warcraft is that it is so large and it is a safe option. World of Warcraft is little more than a concentrated collection of cliches that make up Fantasy MMO's. It does nothing horribly bad, but by the same token, it doesn't actually do anything stunningly well. There are also cracks in the World of Warcraft armor. While World of Warcraft does have over 9million accounts, no mention is made about how many are duplicate accounts. Duplicate accounts are when a single person pays for two or more accounts in order to trade items or have two or more characters online at once. Little attention is given to the Gold Farmers, people who play the game for the sole purpose of selling in-game virtual gold for real world cash. World of Warcraft also gave rise to professional leveling services, or people whom a player pays to level their character for them. I've lost count of the number of Screen Actors Guild members that publically admit to hiring somebody to play their World of Warcraft account.
Little thought is also given to World of Warcraft's user base. Even hardcore gamers involved with World of Warcraft admit that the user population generally comes across as consisting of pre-teens. From my involvement, I would say that World of Warcraft is where all the script kiddies, AOL users, Prodigy users, and Myspace users hang out. From a community standpoint, its like an immature mob of crybabies.
The result is that when developers target World of Warcraft users as potential sales targets, I get the feeling that publishers and developers really don't understand what they are doing. A Sony Online Entertainment Representative is on record for having stated that the Starwars Galaxies New Game Enhancement was intentionally modified to attract World of Warcraft players. Having run into World of Warcraft players in City of Heroes/ City of Villains, I think I can say without pause that the World of Warcraft players were not interested in learning how to play CoH/CoV, but more interested in cramming CoH/CoV into their view of how World of Warcraft was played.
When Cryptic, the CoH/CoV developer, launched the Auction House identified as Went Worths (a play on Wool Worths) and Black Market, the result was a disaster. CoH/CoV players didn't want an Auction House, didn't need an Auction House, and wanted it removed post-haste, simply because it attracted undesirable players from... you guessed it, World of Warcraft. The introduction of an Auction House in CoH/CoV also introduced another facet of World of Warcraft. In-game spammers promoting services to buy in-game money with real cash, who, as you probably guessed, started their services on World of Warcraft.
Not all developers appear to be cluesess though. EvE Online is one such developer/publisher. Comments made by their developers show another side to the story. One of the reasons why World of Warcraft is so dominant is because it has basically perfected the Fantasy style of MMORPG's. Essentially, the Fantasy MMORPG market is saturated with titles like Lineage, Lineage II, Guild Wars, Ultima Online, Final Fantasy XI, World of Warcraft, Everquest, Everquest II, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Onlineand upcoming titles like Age of Conan and Warhammer Online. As is, I've heard some comments that some people only still play the Everquest games because they have so much history in the titles, both with Guilds and their characters. I know several people who still play FFXI simply because it is still cross platform on the Playstation2, and the upcoming PS3 client is also reported to still be cross platform.
The point is that aiming for, and pulling from, the mass market World of Warcraft player group, is probably a bad idea. Such players really are not gamers, and probably are not very reliable, similar to the same kind of players found in Dungeon Runners.
Rather, MMO's need to diversify, and seek different genre's. Eve Online stands as a leading example of approaching a different genre of an MMORPG, in addition to being one of the first mass market MMO titles to officially support a Linux, Windows, and Apple Unix Client. Okay, granted, Eve Online isn't exactly my cup of tea, but major props to them for that.
NCSoft stands as another example of a publisher trying to actively push the genre boundaries. While NCSoft does have two traditional Fantasy MMOs, as found in Lineage and Lineage II, it does have two non-traditional Fantasy MMOs, as found in Guild Wars and Dungeon Runners. NCSoft has also entered the Science Fiction genre with my personal favorite, City of Heroes / City of Villains, and is fielding another Sci-Fi title in Tabula Rasa. NCsoft also has a Mech-Combat title on the way in eXteel, another personal favorite, and is looking to turn another unconventional Fantasy title with the upcoming Cry Engine based Aion.
SOE also has gotten the idea that the genre boundaries need to be pushed, as it is fielding Pirates of the Burning Sea as well as an upcoming spy MMO. Despite the complete collapse of Planetside, and Star Wars Galaxies, SOE has apparently gotten the hint that World of Warcraft isn't a good target.
All of this still doesn't directly answer the statement that World of Warcraft is not the benchmark for an MMORPG. The overall point is fairly complex. The MMORPG market has too many entries. There are too many products offering the same or similar experience to another product. Accepting World of Warcraft as the benchmark for how a game should be set up and run only invites the trouble makers over from World of Warcraft and all the problems that are a result of said trouble makers. In addition, such a configuration limits the ability to give players a genuinely different experience from any other game.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather have a completely different experience... than have the same experience over and over again.
***
This post has been cross-posted here : http://semmo.nitingupta.org/
http://semmo.nitingupta.org/index.php?pg=about
Not really what I would have chosen as a good example of my writing... but hey, go check them out.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
looking for specific hardware
Last week I put the following up on the Guide Site. I think enough time has passed to run it here as well.
The contact information and emails are listed on the Guide Site (all the way inconveniently at the bottom I know). Here, I guess I feel a little bit more brazen about specifying what I'm looking for.
Specifically, on the Intel side, I'm looking for Integrated chipsets with the Intel x3000 class video adapter. I'd actually want one of the G35 chipsets with the Shader Model 4.0 x3500 IGPU, but since I was unable to find any for sale (anywhere aside from a toshiba laptop), that leaves things like the ECS G33T-M2 LGA 775 Intel G33, or the slightly more expensive Intel BOXDG33TLM LGA 775 Intel G33. With the G33 chipset and x3100 IGPU, they claim to offer Shader Model 4.0 support... but strangely enough... not OpenGL 2.0 support.
And while I'm being very cheeky in putting this up here... I don't have the guts to ask Intel directly for a G35 test motherboard... not with everything I've said against Intel just on these pages alone.
From the Nvidia side, what I'd like to get is something like the XFX PVT80GGHF4 GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit card. But, at nearly $300 price tag, I'm not holding my breath. The slightly more reasonable EVGA 512-P2-N773-AR GeForce 8600GTS 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 would also be good... only at $200, not holding my breath there either.
Truth be told, all I really need for driver testing is something like Leadtek's PX8600GT 256MB Standard GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3. It's only $100 and I don't feel quite as bad wishing for one.
So, why the change from downplaying both Intel and Nvidia products to requesting engineering samples, donations to cover purchasing the hardware, or asking for the hardware directly?
The main reason is, I am supposed to be an objective journalist. Sometimes though, BEING objective requires doing things that go against my own personal wishes. Nvidia fed me a big fat shut up sandwich when memory handling problems in the Geforce4 drivers were fixed in a recent legacy driver update. Nvidia's visible work in Linux drivers has drastically improved with multiple monthly releases addressing issues in a timely manner. Now, while I personally already have samples of every previous Nvidia hardware class, aside from the FX series, I don't have any 8x00 hardware. That leaves me in a poor position to be accurate in discussing the real life usage state of Nvidia's current hardware lineup.
By the same token, I rail against Intel just about every chance. I haven't tried to hide or disguise my opinions of Intel. However, while I have access to Core2 systems... I don't actually have any Core2 systems or modern Intel IGPU's on hand to test with or work with. That leaves me in a poor position there as well.
Thing is, if I'm not willing to turn around and review what I say, or accept the possibility that what I say could be wrong... I'm not much of a journalist.
***
somebody also asked in an email recently just how thorough my benckmark testing is. Well, in one of these let me show you moments, I tossed one of my older benchmark sessions online some time ago. It can be found here : http://fcs-inc.biz/saist/data-dump.html
This is also the first time that I am... well, directly requesting two particular hardware donations. While I have access to Core2 systems, because of my reccomendations to the buyers the Core2 systems do not use Intel chipsets. Combined with the slow death of the Sager Tablet that was used to create the Mepis 6.5 Intel dpkg run through, I am without an Intel chipset system of my own to work with.
So, I am actively seeking donations to cover purchasing an Intel chipset based motherboard, or a donation of a recent Intel Chipset motherboard.
By the same token, referring to a page on the blog, Nvidia has aggressively attacked their driver issues with Linux support. After selling the (in)famous Clevo D900T laptop, I went with a smaller sized, but cheaper Asus F3K laptop with a Radeon HD GPU. While this allows me to cover Radeon HD support as it enters Mepis... I am without a Geforce 8x00 series card to test with.
So, I am actively seeking donations to cover obtaining a Geforce 8x00 series card, or a Geforce 8x00 series card directly.
The contact information and emails are listed on the Guide Site (all the way inconveniently at the bottom I know). Here, I guess I feel a little bit more brazen about specifying what I'm looking for.
Specifically, on the Intel side, I'm looking for Integrated chipsets with the Intel x3000 class video adapter. I'd actually want one of the G35 chipsets with the Shader Model 4.0 x3500 IGPU, but since I was unable to find any for sale (anywhere aside from a toshiba laptop), that leaves things like the ECS G33T-M2 LGA 775 Intel G33, or the slightly more expensive Intel BOXDG33TLM LGA 775 Intel G33. With the G33 chipset and x3100 IGPU, they claim to offer Shader Model 4.0 support... but strangely enough... not OpenGL 2.0 support.
And while I'm being very cheeky in putting this up here... I don't have the guts to ask Intel directly for a G35 test motherboard... not with everything I've said against Intel just on these pages alone.
From the Nvidia side, what I'd like to get is something like the XFX PVT80GGHF4 GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit card. But, at nearly $300 price tag, I'm not holding my breath. The slightly more reasonable EVGA 512-P2-N773-AR GeForce 8600GTS 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 would also be good... only at $200, not holding my breath there either.
Truth be told, all I really need for driver testing is something like Leadtek's PX8600GT 256MB Standard GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3. It's only $100 and I don't feel quite as bad wishing for one.
So, why the change from downplaying both Intel and Nvidia products to requesting engineering samples, donations to cover purchasing the hardware, or asking for the hardware directly?
The main reason is, I am supposed to be an objective journalist. Sometimes though, BEING objective requires doing things that go against my own personal wishes. Nvidia fed me a big fat shut up sandwich when memory handling problems in the Geforce4 drivers were fixed in a recent legacy driver update. Nvidia's visible work in Linux drivers has drastically improved with multiple monthly releases addressing issues in a timely manner. Now, while I personally already have samples of every previous Nvidia hardware class, aside from the FX series, I don't have any 8x00 hardware. That leaves me in a poor position to be accurate in discussing the real life usage state of Nvidia's current hardware lineup.
By the same token, I rail against Intel just about every chance. I haven't tried to hide or disguise my opinions of Intel. However, while I have access to Core2 systems... I don't actually have any Core2 systems or modern Intel IGPU's on hand to test with or work with. That leaves me in a poor position there as well.
Thing is, if I'm not willing to turn around and review what I say, or accept the possibility that what I say could be wrong... I'm not much of a journalist.
***
somebody also asked in an email recently just how thorough my benckmark testing is. Well, in one of these let me show you moments, I tossed one of my older benchmark sessions online some time ago. It can be found here : http://fcs-inc.biz/saist/data-dump.html
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Boiling Water : Windows
One of the basic problems facing Linux conversions these days is the person who says something to the effect of "I've used Windows Xp for the past 4 years and I've never had any problem with it. I've never had any blue screens, I've never had any crashes or lock-ups, and I've never had anything go wrong. What are you Linux guys doing with Windows to say my system is unstable?" The truth is, from a average users point of view, NT5 was a really good release from Microsoft.
How then does one approach the users who honestly believe there is nothing wrong with using Microsoft Windows? How does one approach somebody who has never actually had a major problem with Microsoft Windows? How does one convince such a user that Microsoft Windows is a bad operating system to be using?
There isn't, as far as I see, a simple answer. One of the starting points is to ask what anti-virus and anti-spyware device the Windows users has. The leading point then is to point out that with all existing known Linux Distributions you do not need to run an anti-virus program or anti-spyware program. There are some available if you want to run them, but they are not requirements for day-to-day use.
Of course, there always will be somebody who states they DO NOT run an anti-virus or an anti-spyware program and that they STILL have never had any issues or problems with Microsoft Windows. Problem is, you can't really come out and call such people liars, even though empirical evidence is heavily stacked in the favor that anybody who states such is lying through their teeth.
So, the next step is to ask what other programs they use on their computer to connect to the internet. You'll find that many respond that they use FireFox, Opera, Thunderbird, or some other browser and email combination that does not include Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, and Microsoft Outlook express. Considering that those are the main entry points of issues into the Microsoft Windows operating systems, it is almost a simple matter to point out that the day to day programs in use happen to be the same ones available in Linux. It also helpful to point out that Open-Source applications are generally built to a higher security quality than Microsoft applications.
If users respond saying they do use Internet Explorer and an Outlook product, at that point? Yes, feel free to laugh and call them liars.
The question is though, how did it get to be this way? How did Microsoft come off of the reviled Windows 9X releases, go through a messy launch cycle with Xp, to several years later having users state they never had any issues with their Xp system?
The answer is found by using a Frog, some water, a pot, and a stove. Put some water in the pot and bring the pot to a boil. Drop the frog in, and the frog will more than likely immediately jump out. Okay, drain the pot and let it cool, then re-fill it with water. Put the frog in the pot, then turn the stove on. As the water comes to a boil the frog will likely not remove itself, and generally die in the boiling water.
Familiar with the experiment? Okay, now replace the pot of Water with Microsoft Windows, and the frog with the user.
Take a user who has never used Windows before, and they'll go crazy with how bad everything seems to operate. You'll also get a long list of things that seem broken or just plain nonsensical.
To a user that has only used Microsoft Windows? It is just like being the frog placed in the bucket of water before the water is heated up. Users get desensitized to the need for security software, and the need to leave automatic updates enabled. Users get familiar with the de-fragmentation process, as well as normalized maintenance of a Windows Computer. To many users, it isn't such a big deal that cleaning out the computer is a daily task, or that the first step when getting a new computer is to go get a better browser, a better email client, a better music player, and so on and so forth.
What makes the distance even greater is that the average user never has actually installed Windows XP. The average user sends the computer off to a specialist (me) in order to get any apparent problems addressed. So, the end user never winds up sitting on the phone for 2 or 3 hours to get their version of Windows Reactivated. Many OEM's actually ship their versions of Microsoft Windows without the activation software, so if the user has to repair the OS or recover, they never run into the problems retail buyers run into.
At some point users just decide they can deal with the little things, and that's why changing such users to Linux is such a challenge.
Linux is a pot of boiling water, period. From whatever system users have had before, most Linux Distributions are completely different. There is a learning curve of the new user interface, the new program locations, and the structure is completely different. After a while Linux begins to simmer down as users get used to the heat. After a while? Well, anybody can get comfortable in a sauna given enough time.
Conversion problems are further complicated by the average users perecption of the pro-Linux communities. Many average users see the rants about Microsoft's actions on various pro-Linux sites and genuinely wonder what the big deal is? Why is everyone so upset at Microsoft? What has Microsoft ever done to them?
Part of this wondering is derived from Microsoft's political friends. We've already been down that path before. Politically Microsoft is aligned with ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, and the Associated Press. These news outlets have no desire, nor any inclination, to accurately report the issues with Microsoft.
One of the basic facts of Microsoft is thus continually overlooked. Microsoft is a federally convicted criminal. Microsoft has been tried in a court of law and found guilty of breaking numerous trade laws, as well as criminal laws.
Microsoft's links to the RIAA, the MPAA, and other freedom removing organizations is also generally overlooked. A lot of users have read about the Palladium and Janus technologies. A lot of consumers were adamantly against any such restrictions being placed on their purchased hardware. However, with a few name changes, and some creative marketing, and very few consumers realized that Janus technologies formed the basis of the Zune sharing system. Even in many of the tech site reviews I saw, very few put two and two together and figured out that Zune was using the failed Janus technologies.
A lot of users don't realize that Microsoft has a hand in the quoted Trusted Computer Platform which explicitly removes the users control over the hardware and leaves the control in the hands of the vendor.
A lot of users don't realize that Microsoft has a hand in creating restriction technologies that allow vendors to retain control over audio and video content and remove the users control over the content.
A lot of users simply don't see two and two being put together, and don't understand that Microsoft is a convicted criminal that is still engaged in multiple criminal activities. Such users have been in the boiling water of Microsoft for so long, it makes no difference.
How to break that barrier? How to get such users to realize that what Microsoft is doing is wrong and needs to be avoided at all costs?
I don't have the answer. If I did, I'd probably also have the answer as to why several voters honestly think that Hillary Clinton's Socialist platform is a good thing, and don't realize that such a platform already tanked, BADLY, in the (former)USSR.
Yes. I did just equate Hillary Clinton to a post WWII start of the cold war era Soviet leader. And anybody else who reads her platform will come to the exact same realization. Now, shes' a buddy of Microsoft.
Do I really need to actually continue this line of thought?
How then does one approach the users who honestly believe there is nothing wrong with using Microsoft Windows? How does one approach somebody who has never actually had a major problem with Microsoft Windows? How does one convince such a user that Microsoft Windows is a bad operating system to be using?
There isn't, as far as I see, a simple answer. One of the starting points is to ask what anti-virus and anti-spyware device the Windows users has. The leading point then is to point out that with all existing known Linux Distributions you do not need to run an anti-virus program or anti-spyware program. There are some available if you want to run them, but they are not requirements for day-to-day use.
Of course, there always will be somebody who states they DO NOT run an anti-virus or an anti-spyware program and that they STILL have never had any issues or problems with Microsoft Windows. Problem is, you can't really come out and call such people liars, even though empirical evidence is heavily stacked in the favor that anybody who states such is lying through their teeth.
So, the next step is to ask what other programs they use on their computer to connect to the internet. You'll find that many respond that they use FireFox, Opera, Thunderbird, or some other browser and email combination that does not include Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, and Microsoft Outlook express. Considering that those are the main entry points of issues into the Microsoft Windows operating systems, it is almost a simple matter to point out that the day to day programs in use happen to be the same ones available in Linux. It also helpful to point out that Open-Source applications are generally built to a higher security quality than Microsoft applications.
If users respond saying they do use Internet Explorer and an Outlook product, at that point? Yes, feel free to laugh and call them liars.
The question is though, how did it get to be this way? How did Microsoft come off of the reviled Windows 9X releases, go through a messy launch cycle with Xp, to several years later having users state they never had any issues with their Xp system?
The answer is found by using a Frog, some water, a pot, and a stove. Put some water in the pot and bring the pot to a boil. Drop the frog in, and the frog will more than likely immediately jump out. Okay, drain the pot and let it cool, then re-fill it with water. Put the frog in the pot, then turn the stove on. As the water comes to a boil the frog will likely not remove itself, and generally die in the boiling water.
Familiar with the experiment? Okay, now replace the pot of Water with Microsoft Windows, and the frog with the user.
Take a user who has never used Windows before, and they'll go crazy with how bad everything seems to operate. You'll also get a long list of things that seem broken or just plain nonsensical.
To a user that has only used Microsoft Windows? It is just like being the frog placed in the bucket of water before the water is heated up. Users get desensitized to the need for security software, and the need to leave automatic updates enabled. Users get familiar with the de-fragmentation process, as well as normalized maintenance of a Windows Computer. To many users, it isn't such a big deal that cleaning out the computer is a daily task, or that the first step when getting a new computer is to go get a better browser, a better email client, a better music player, and so on and so forth.
What makes the distance even greater is that the average user never has actually installed Windows XP. The average user sends the computer off to a specialist (me) in order to get any apparent problems addressed. So, the end user never winds up sitting on the phone for 2 or 3 hours to get their version of Windows Reactivated. Many OEM's actually ship their versions of Microsoft Windows without the activation software, so if the user has to repair the OS or recover, they never run into the problems retail buyers run into.
At some point users just decide they can deal with the little things, and that's why changing such users to Linux is such a challenge.
Linux is a pot of boiling water, period. From whatever system users have had before, most Linux Distributions are completely different. There is a learning curve of the new user interface, the new program locations, and the structure is completely different. After a while Linux begins to simmer down as users get used to the heat. After a while? Well, anybody can get comfortable in a sauna given enough time.
Conversion problems are further complicated by the average users perecption of the pro-Linux communities. Many average users see the rants about Microsoft's actions on various pro-Linux sites and genuinely wonder what the big deal is? Why is everyone so upset at Microsoft? What has Microsoft ever done to them?
Part of this wondering is derived from Microsoft's political friends. We've already been down that path before. Politically Microsoft is aligned with ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, and the Associated Press. These news outlets have no desire, nor any inclination, to accurately report the issues with Microsoft.
One of the basic facts of Microsoft is thus continually overlooked. Microsoft is a federally convicted criminal. Microsoft has been tried in a court of law and found guilty of breaking numerous trade laws, as well as criminal laws.
Microsoft's links to the RIAA, the MPAA, and other freedom removing organizations is also generally overlooked. A lot of users have read about the Palladium and Janus technologies. A lot of consumers were adamantly against any such restrictions being placed on their purchased hardware. However, with a few name changes, and some creative marketing, and very few consumers realized that Janus technologies formed the basis of the Zune sharing system. Even in many of the tech site reviews I saw, very few put two and two together and figured out that Zune was using the failed Janus technologies.
A lot of users don't realize that Microsoft has a hand in the quoted Trusted Computer Platform which explicitly removes the users control over the hardware and leaves the control in the hands of the vendor.
A lot of users don't realize that Microsoft has a hand in creating restriction technologies that allow vendors to retain control over audio and video content and remove the users control over the content.
A lot of users simply don't see two and two being put together, and don't understand that Microsoft is a convicted criminal that is still engaged in multiple criminal activities. Such users have been in the boiling water of Microsoft for so long, it makes no difference.
How to break that barrier? How to get such users to realize that what Microsoft is doing is wrong and needs to be avoided at all costs?
I don't have the answer. If I did, I'd probably also have the answer as to why several voters honestly think that Hillary Clinton's Socialist platform is a good thing, and don't realize that such a platform already tanked, BADLY, in the (former)USSR.
Yes. I did just equate Hillary Clinton to a post WWII start of the cold war era Soviet leader. And anybody else who reads her platform will come to the exact same realization. Now, shes' a buddy of Microsoft.
Do I really need to actually continue this line of thought?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Why Windows Selling better than Linux does not bother me.
Recently there has been an article floating around touting that Windows is selling better than Linux. Now, there are a multitude of ways to discredit an article these days. Do as I did with Walt Mossberg and go after what he doesn't write about. Note that crucial facts or history are missed or distorted, and credibility of the writing is removed. Another way is to go after the funding of the article or report, such as the numerous reports funded by Microsoft with pre-determined results that Microsoft Windows is more secure, faster, or whatever, than a competing Operating System.
With Windows and Linux sales though... any story reporting sales between the two starts out on a false assumption. That assumption is that Linux and Windows are distributed through selling of a physical product or a license. The problem with the assumption is that many Linux distributions are explicitly licensed so they cannot be purchased on a hardware medium. The result is that most Linux's are distributed through free to access FTP servers, or simply copied and handed out to other users. In the cases where a consumer Linux has an attached serial number or purchased license, most users will avoid the product. This is something Mepis learned first hand during it's experience with TechAlign and Frontier Linux.
The fact is, the majority of Linux's growth as an operating system has come at the hands of grass roots activists. The majority of Linux's growth continues as a grass roots activity.
This is not to say that the work of IBM, Novell, RedHat, Dell, HP, Lenovo, AMD, and other hardware and software vendors is not having an impact on the growth of Linux. Due to the work of many Independent Hardware and Software vendors Linux is found everywhere from the consumer desktop to dedicated devices like Tivo and Playstation.
The problem is, comparing sales of Windows to Linux completely ignores the grassroots factor.
Now, some arguments state that the grassroots factor isn't very large, and that most of the work of Linux is found in the server market.
I can pretty much destroy that idea with one word. Debian.
Fact is Debian is one of the largest server operating systems in use with the latest version of Debian, Etch, easily qualifying as one of the top three Linux based operating systems in use today. Yet, nobody sells Debian. Where do all of the installs come from them if Debian can't be sold? Okay, that is a rhetorical question as users obviously download and install Debian themselves, but that is an activity accountants cannot account for.
Going beyond Debian(pure) there are the huge grassroots factors of Mepis Linux and Ubuntu Linux, both which fall under the Debian tree. Again, accountants cannot explain the success of either of these two versions of Linux in terms of sales, since there is no direct sales data to be obtained. Mepis and Ubuntu are freely available to download, freely available to copy, and freely available to give to other users.
Debian isn't the end of the story once one starts to include community based editions of commercial distributions such as Fedora and OpenSuse. Neither of those OS's are sold in any retail channels, and I'm fairly confident that the Fedora following alone is probably larger than Ubuntu and Mepis put together.
The end result is that any report which purports that Windows is selling better than Linux ignores a crucial factor of Linux distributions.
The tracking situation isn't likely to change within the near or far future as it is. Many Linux developers are heavily concerned with user freedoms, and simply don't want to be tracked, or be in a position to enable tracking. Many Linux users are also in a similar position to avoid tracking measures, again referencing the deluge of hate posts generated when TechAlign issued serial numbers with the Mepis based Frontier Linux.
Does this mean that all Linux tracking data is effectively flawed? In short, yes.
Does this also mean that any sales reports comparing Linux and Windows server sales are also effectively flawed? The gut reaction is again, yes. The reasoned out answer is probably not. Most Linux and Windows servers are classed to deliver a particular power per watt or throughput amount. Comparing functionally equivalent Linux and Windows servers from one independent hardware vendor is of use for tracking sales data. Attempting to track the server sales overall? Isn't possible because of Debian.
In many ways, tracking Linux sales versus Windows sales is a lot like a synthetic benchmark. If you narrow the field enough, then comparisons are valid. But, when you try to look at the entire field? The effect falls apart.
With Windows and Linux sales though... any story reporting sales between the two starts out on a false assumption. That assumption is that Linux and Windows are distributed through selling of a physical product or a license. The problem with the assumption is that many Linux distributions are explicitly licensed so they cannot be purchased on a hardware medium. The result is that most Linux's are distributed through free to access FTP servers, or simply copied and handed out to other users. In the cases where a consumer Linux has an attached serial number or purchased license, most users will avoid the product. This is something Mepis learned first hand during it's experience with TechAlign and Frontier Linux.
The fact is, the majority of Linux's growth as an operating system has come at the hands of grass roots activists. The majority of Linux's growth continues as a grass roots activity.
This is not to say that the work of IBM, Novell, RedHat, Dell, HP, Lenovo, AMD, and other hardware and software vendors is not having an impact on the growth of Linux. Due to the work of many Independent Hardware and Software vendors Linux is found everywhere from the consumer desktop to dedicated devices like Tivo and Playstation.
The problem is, comparing sales of Windows to Linux completely ignores the grassroots factor.
Now, some arguments state that the grassroots factor isn't very large, and that most of the work of Linux is found in the server market.
I can pretty much destroy that idea with one word. Debian.
Fact is Debian is one of the largest server operating systems in use with the latest version of Debian, Etch, easily qualifying as one of the top three Linux based operating systems in use today. Yet, nobody sells Debian. Where do all of the installs come from them if Debian can't be sold? Okay, that is a rhetorical question as users obviously download and install Debian themselves, but that is an activity accountants cannot account for.
Going beyond Debian(pure) there are the huge grassroots factors of Mepis Linux and Ubuntu Linux, both which fall under the Debian tree. Again, accountants cannot explain the success of either of these two versions of Linux in terms of sales, since there is no direct sales data to be obtained. Mepis and Ubuntu are freely available to download, freely available to copy, and freely available to give to other users.
Debian isn't the end of the story once one starts to include community based editions of commercial distributions such as Fedora and OpenSuse. Neither of those OS's are sold in any retail channels, and I'm fairly confident that the Fedora following alone is probably larger than Ubuntu and Mepis put together.
The end result is that any report which purports that Windows is selling better than Linux ignores a crucial factor of Linux distributions.
The tracking situation isn't likely to change within the near or far future as it is. Many Linux developers are heavily concerned with user freedoms, and simply don't want to be tracked, or be in a position to enable tracking. Many Linux users are also in a similar position to avoid tracking measures, again referencing the deluge of hate posts generated when TechAlign issued serial numbers with the Mepis based Frontier Linux.
Does this mean that all Linux tracking data is effectively flawed? In short, yes.
Does this also mean that any sales reports comparing Linux and Windows server sales are also effectively flawed? The gut reaction is again, yes. The reasoned out answer is probably not. Most Linux and Windows servers are classed to deliver a particular power per watt or throughput amount. Comparing functionally equivalent Linux and Windows servers from one independent hardware vendor is of use for tracking sales data. Attempting to track the server sales overall? Isn't possible because of Debian.
In many ways, tracking Linux sales versus Windows sales is a lot like a synthetic benchmark. If you narrow the field enough, then comparisons are valid. But, when you try to look at the entire field? The effect falls apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)